Friday, August 27, 2010

Loretta is outnumbered!

Outnumbered and looking frustrated, Ms. Sanchez fired back at the Republican attacks on stimulus spending and tax increases. She said Democrats, through the stimulus bill, cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans and extended jobless benefits. In response to claims by her colleagues that Congress and the administration were hurting business, she said that corporate profits in recent months have risen. "They have money, and they haven't hired," she said.

All in all, the discussion signaled the battle lines being drawn as the fall campaign gets under way.
Van Tran needs our help to oust Loretta in November.

Obama's Administration will not Prosecute the Cole Bomber

Seventeen Sailors were killed in the USS Cole Bombing attack and Clinton did nothing. Now Obama's administration will not prosecute the person behind the bombing. We are a paper tiger. Thanks Obama. American's died and you are not doing anything about it. Wimpy.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Monday, August 23, 2010

Baker v. Nelson

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (1971)

CASE: Male companions applied for and were denied a marriage license on the grounds that they were of the same sex.

FACTS: Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell made an application for a marriage license with the respondent, who is the clerk of Hennepin County District Court. They were denied a license on the grounds that they were not man and woman, but man and man. The trial court ruled that the respondent was not required to issue a marriage license and specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. The couple appealed.


1. The absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a legislative intent to authorize such marriages.
2. The law is unconstitutional because it (a) denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and (b) petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

STATE ARGUES: Probably that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting homosexual marriages, that the state has the power to regulate marriage.

COURT SAYS: Affirms the lower court ruling, denying the men a marriage license.

HOLDING: State did not deprive a gay couple of liberty or property without due process or of equal protection when it prohibited them from obtaining a marriage license on the basis of their sex.


* The legislature did not intend to permit same-sex marriages by not specifically outlawing them, as evidenced by the use of heterosexual words like "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" in the laws it passed governing the instutition.
* The point of marriage is procreation, a fact that is as old as Genesis.
* There is no irrational discrimination against homosexuals because of their classification in the statute, even though the state does not require heterosexual married couples to have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate ("abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment).

Friday, August 20, 2010

Ed Meese's piece in Wa Po

Regardless of whether one agrees with the result, structurally sound opinions always confront binding legal precedent. Walker's is a clear exception because the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on whether a state's refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was unanimously thrown out on the merits, for lack of a substantial federal question. The Supreme Court's action establishes a binding precedent in favor of Proposition 8. But Judge Walker's ruling doesn't mention Baker, much less attempt to distinguish it or accept its findings.

Judge Walker did not look at previous Supreme Court rulings. Precedent matters. I hope Justice Kennedy will look to Baker v. Nelson and let a previous ruling stand.

Washington Post article here.

Genisis 2 and Marriage Definition

I was reading the letters to the editor about one letter writer using the "rib" out of Adam to create Eve to define the union of man and woman. Another letter writer was offended at the mention of the bible passage. I think that person is missing the point. God saw that his creation of Man needed a companion. This union provided a way of God's creation to procreate and continue on. We all are fortunate that God wanted to populate the world. A Union of Man and Woman. Think about that. Without the act of procreation we all would not be on this earth. Why be offended? Go figure.
The ‘sanctity’ of marriage?

After reading several letters about the Proposition 8 debate [“Prop. 8 ruling a victory for Constitution,” Aug. 15], I am compelled to offer clarification. One reader stated that the basis for marriage was established when God took a rib from Adam to create Eve. As a thinking person I am as offended by this logic as I would be if our laws were based on the teachings of Dr. Seuss.

Commonly repeated phrases include, “the sanctity of marriage” and “marriage is for procreation.” You can legally go to Las Vegas on a three-day bender and get married to a complete stranger by an Elvis impersonator at 3 a.m. Sanctity? What about the countless marriages entered into for financial gain, like citizenship, tax benefits or health insurance? Should we overlook the fact that nearly half of all marriages in the United States end in divorce?

Where’s the sanctity of married couples who do procreate, repeatedly and without planning, resulting in unwanted, abused children who wind up in the custody of social services, placed in foster homes or wind up incarcerated? I am tired of marriage being referred to as “sacred” when clearly it is not.

Paul Darden

Huntington Beach

Dear Paul (of little faith) yes some marriages are shams and have ended in divorce. But I am thankful I could get a divorce from someone who was doing bad things to me and behind my back. (Cheating on me). And he thought he was doing nothing wrong! But then I entered my current Marriage with Eyes Open and It has been wonderful and produced two wonderful children. We learn from our mistakes and divorce has to happen in order to save oneself from abuse of the spouse. I believe in the The ‘sanctity’ of marriage. Even with it's so called faults that Paul has mentioned.

Some enter marriage with good intentions but the other has broken the bond. What can we do? Some have children and abuse the offspring. The State has to come in and raise the children. It happens. Sometimes the parents have good intentions and the child has mental and behavioral problems. The State is there to help them out. Paul, should we outlaw marriage all together. Should the State take over raising the offspring? Should both Gays and Straits have just Civil Unions? What should it be Paul? You define it.

Prop. 8 defined Marriage as "marriage is between one man and one woman". The Attorney General Jerry Brown put it on the Ballot with the "Gay Marriage Ban" label. A misunderstood fact in the whole mess.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Obama picks 'The View' over appearing at Boy Scouts' 100th anniversary celebration | Washington Examiner

Obama picks 'The View' over appearing at Boy Scouts' 100th anniversary celebration | Washington Examiner

Bob Dries, chairman of national news and media at the Boy Scouts of America Jamboree – a gathering that happens every four years and attracts thousands of scouts from around the world – told that the organization was told on Monday that the president had scheduling conflicts and would not be speaking in-person at the week-long event.

The BSA had scheduled its Wednesday arena program to include remarks by the president at 11 a.m. in front of the more than 45,000 scouts who will be in attendance.