Understanding Democracy?

May 24, 2006

Can anyone help me understand how democracy works anymore?

Four states voted to ban same sex marriage;

Nebraska 70%

California 60%

Louisiana 78%

Georgia 76%

Yet yesterday Georgia became the 4th state to see a single judge throwing out the votes of literally millions of people overruling the ban on same sex marriage.

I can not understand the logic behind this. Can someone please explain it to me?

On June 6 the U.S. Senate will vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Because of a power grab by activist judges like the one in Georgia, the MPA is the only way that the sacred institution of marriage will remain between one man and one woman.

May 24, 2006 | Filed Under Politics

Comments

39 Responses to “Understanding Democracy?”

J-Dub on May 25th, 2006 9:59 pm

Unfortunately, I disagree somewhat. Even though judicial activism may appear to be forcing the hands of the Senate, what ever happened to states rights? The Constitution specifically says that any power not granted to the federal government is left up to the states.

The two most explosive moral issues of our day, gay marriage and abortion are states rights issues. Unfortunately, there has been a power struggle between the federal judicial and legislative branches for decades that prevents these issues from being decided where they are constitutionally guaranteed…at the state level.

I wonder what our founding fathers would think about the size, power and scope of modern day federal government?
Lis on May 26th, 2006 4:41 am

I’m confused about your point. These four states voted to ban gay marriage as states, did it not? The judges did not reverse a federal law. It was a state law that was voted on by the people.

In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and also allows a state to ignore gay marriages performed outside its borders.

Here is a table that shows where states are with this whole issue as of 2004
http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_gay_marriage_2004.htm
J-Dub on May 27th, 2006 1:47 pm

My point is that Congress should stay out of it and leave it up to the states to decide. I agree with previous legislation that States do not have to recognize marriages performed in other states. However, the U.S. Senate does not need to define marriage as being between a man and woman as that is being done by the states.

I do agree that judicial activism is running amuck. I just don’t think the solution is giving the federal government more powers than it currently has.

I’m for a smaller federal government, more states rights. Unforunately, Americans continue to look at the federal government to solve their problems, ignoring the legislatures in their own backyards. Meanwhile, it has been proven time and time again that the federal government cannot really get anything accomplished.
Lis on May 28th, 2006 9:36 am
J-Dub on May 28th, 2006 6:24 pm

Interesting history lesson…

However, once these cases make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, I am confident the Court will rule that gay marriage is a states right issue. Therefore, activist judges will no longer be able to overturn state laws that currently define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

As far as California goes (or any other state that passes laws in support of gay marriage), that is their prerogative. And if the citizens of those states don’t agree with their representatives, they always have the option of voting them out of office.
dad l on May 29th, 2006 10:30 pm

just a thought i m sending your way-or two–
gay rights lobbiest have money -a little clout-with
this they can bye pass state courts and or states
governing bodies, move their issues on to a more-
very liberal congress/ federal/superium court for
ruling in there favor—- i do agree with you the
issue is a state right issue or issues–
Sleeper on June 7th, 2006 1:56 pm

Our democracy is based on rule of law. It is also based on the concept that the majority can’t bully the minority.

In the case your taking about the judge looked at the rule of law and found there was no Constitutional basis for the ban on gay marriage. It would be the same as if Illinois passed a law banning all firearms in the state. That would be overturned in a heartbeat because the 2nd amendment protects that right. It doesn’t matter what the majority of Americans want if it goes against the Constitution. And there is nothing in the Constitution about who can marry who. It could be amended of course, but don’t we have more important things to worry about?

Isn’t it funny how the Republicans are bringing this up again during an election year? You would think people would say “fool me once, shame on you…”, but it seems they think people can be fooled again, and their probably right.

I’m still waiting for a good reason why there shouldn’t be gay marriage. Explain how the union of two gay people will adversely you or even society for that matter. I’m not sure why it’s necessary to force one’s moral values upon others.
J-Dub on June 7th, 2006 7:57 pm

The Constitution does not say anything about gay marriage, neither in support of or against it. As a result, it defaults to the states to legislate if gay marriage should be legalized or not. Let me repeat that…The state legislatures have the power to define marriage. The courts, federal or state, do not have this power. Nor do the federal legislatures.

I agree that this is politics at it’s worst. The Republicans are in trouble this November so they go back to this trusty little issue to fire up the religious right. What I found most interesting are the senators that voted for the amendment in 2004 that voted against it this year. They have determined that ultimately, they do not want the federal government to encroach on their state’s individual rights to govern. Good for them.

The Republican party has been hijacked by social conservatives who have pushed the fiscal conservatives (those that want smaller federal government) aside.

Having said all that, I still disagree with gay marriage. I just want Illinois to decide what’s best for Illinois and California to decide what’s best for California.
Sleeper on June 8th, 2006 9:30 am

It comes down to basic descrimination. How can you tell one group of law-abiding citizens they can’t do the same thing as another group? “Move to the back of the bus.”

As for Congress tackling this vital national issue , Lou Dobbs wrote a good piece:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html
Lis on June 9th, 2006 1:20 am

If the majority of Americans wants to do away with the right to bear arms couldn’t that be changed in the Constitution? I thought it was the flexibility of the Constitution that made it great.

Article Five of the United States Constitution
Article Five describes the process necessary to amend the Constitution. It establishes two methods of proposing amendments: by Congress or by a national convention requested by the states. Under the first method, Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Under the second method, two-thirds of the state legislatures may convene and “apply” to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments. Thus far, only the first method (proposal by Congress) has been used.

Once proposed—whether submitted by a national convention or by Congress—amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states to take effect. Article Five gives Congress the option of requiring ratification by state legislatures or by special conventions assembled in the states. The convention method of ratification has been used only once (to approve the 21st Amendment). Article Five currently places only one limitation on the amending power—that no amendment can deprive a state of its equal representation in the Senate without that state’s consent.

After reading Dobbs commentary I was frustrated all the more. What liberals fail to see is that conservatives see the family unit as the basis of all things good. When the very definition of “family” is attacked of course conservatories are going to create a ruckus. Iraq, taxes, health insurance, and every other topic I can think of are secondary to the family. Furthermore conservatories base most of their opinions on things based on how it effects the family unit.

A common argument is that gay’s don’t effect my family. That’s not true on many fronts. I’m not scared about homosexuality being out publicly and turning me and my sons into homosexuals. What I’m more worried about is how the 2% of the population are trying to redefine the family unit. Furthermore 40% of homosexual men have aids, unfortunately. The average cost for one person with aids is $40,000.00 annually. This is one (among many) reasons why health insurance is sky rocketing.

How about California trying to pass a law that mandates homosexual contribution to children… in grade school? Even though 66% of Californians voted to define marriage between a man and a woman.

How about the homosexual community doing hateful things like desecrating Jesus.

The fact of the matter is if gay people can do what ever they want in the privacy of their own homes. But the factual issue is that homosexuals do affect the rest of the 98% of the US population.
Sleeper on June 13th, 2006 4:20 pm

Attacked?!?! The definition of “family” is being attacked? Why didn’t someone tell me sooner? I’m going out to buy an assault rifle (which the Republican congress made sure we could buy again, against the wishes of every law enforcement organization http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb but that’s an argument for another time) so I can repel this attack. I’m also a big fan of the term “activist judges.” “Oh, no. He’s an activist judge! Activist is one of those “ist” words like communist or *gasp* atheist! We can’t have any of those “ist” people sitting on the bench.”

You come so close to actually explaining how homosexual marriage might effect society, but you came up short. Married or not, gay couples will have sex and spread AIDS if the sex is unprotected. I really don’t think gay couples hold on to their virginity until they’re married so that argument fails. And there are plenty of Christians who desecrate Jesus. I’d say the Catholic priest sex scandal is about a desecrating as it comes. Don’t try an pin that on just one group. As for California, I think those are two separate issues.

Isn’t divorce and “attack” on the definition of family? It used to be that divorce was an “abomination.” Few things destroy a family more than that. There should be a constitutional amendment against divorce!

What is the definition of a family? Dictionary.com says: 1a. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
1b. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
2 All the members of a household under one roof.
3 A group of persons sharing common ancestry.

Doesn’t say anything about a man and a woman, just one or two parents. Is a single mother and her children not a family? A single heterosexual male adopts a child, are they not a family? Only the bible talks about a man and a woman, and I’ve got news for you, not everyone in this country believes in the bible and to force them to believe would be against their right to self-determination.
Lis on June 14th, 2006 7:02 am

I’ll comment on the above post later if no one else beats me to it.

Here’s a couple more articles on the topic…

Regarding the hand gun example.

Regarding same sex marriage in Australia.
Sleeper on June 18th, 2006 7:34 am

“Iraq, taxes, health insurance, and every other topic I can think of are secondary to the family.”

This is what happens when you choose someone who makes those thing secondary.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/06/ten_commandment.html

I’m shocked that the things that DIRECTLY affect a family, IRAQ (costing us $5 billion a month), taxes, health insurance, education, are secondary to an issue that has little or no affect on a family. That is why health care, education, taxes and IRAQ are all screwed up, this administration and the Republican held House and Senate are too busy trying to legislate morality.
kaya on June 20th, 2006 1:38 pm

This is why I tell my religious friends not to buy what the GOP is selling. Here’s a Congressman who slid into the House by telling people he’s religious. And when asked to name the 10 commandments…he can’t even name 4 of them! We have a president who tortures people, holds people without due process, has the CIA go into other countries and snatch citizens, started a war based on lies…and yes, we know they lied! I never hear any republicans address this, why is that? I know it’s hard for people to admit they are wrong….but jeeze! I know most of us tell our kids to admit when they were wrong…why can’t we all practice what we preach? I would like to hear what the moderator has to say on this subject.

on another subject, my prediction for Thursday:
USA 2
Ghana 1
Gary G on June 20th, 2006 3:18 pm

As we all know, gay people are trying to take over the country. You might say, yeah, but their the minority - it would never happen. Well, guess what, Saddam was in the minority too! They want to make the Stars & Bars Pink, White, & Powder Blue! The best solution is to let the government install cameras in suspected gay people’s homes so we can know for sure who they are and expose them before they get too powerful. All these appeasers are dead wrong. The Bible clearly states that *sex is for procreation. Read it. You may learn something, liberals!

*Edited by Lis
Lis on June 21st, 2006 9:57 am

Gary welcome to Meaninglis.com. A few thoughts about your comment please do not invoke anything related to the Bible if you’re going to be so crass. Spying the public to confirm one’s sexuality is unrealistic. If one wants to be homosexual let them be in the privacy of their home. Hating people into the heterosexual lifestyle is not the answer.

Sleeper & Kaya I’ll comment on your thoughts when I have more time. Kaya thank you for commenting again.

Kaya said, “my prediction for Thursday: USA 2 Ghana 1″
WERD SISTER
bring it USA!!!
Gary G on June 21st, 2006 12:19 pm

Sorry about that, Lis. I was just trying to drive home the point. I’ll be more careful. The point is that these gays refuse to keep their stuff in their own homes. They think that they are like us and can be out in public kissing and hugging. They even have there own TV shows now! The big question is what is the government going to do about these people? Are there programs right now to show them their lifestyle is not normal and wrong? It seems like our society is telling them the opposite.
J-Dub on June 21st, 2006 12:34 pm

Gary G doesn’t speak for me and my Christian brothers, I can tell you that!

I have been busy moving lately so I haven’t posted in awhile. Now that I’m back, let me say a couple things.

1. I agree with sleeper that this is just another election year issue to rally the conservative base…nothing more. You can read my views on the amendment in previous posts.

2. Sleeper said in an earlier post that it comes down to basic discrimination. You very well may be right. However, we discriminate against various people all the time for the better good of society, don’t we? We discriminate against smokers, drug users, alcoholics, nudists, etc. “I’m sure you are saying but most of of your examples are all health related issues. What does this have to do with homosexuality?” Well as Lis has stated earlier, the homosexual lifestyle is extremely hazardous to one’s health. Much like public indecency, some may even argue that homosexuality is even hazardous to society as a whole. Therefore, it’s our prerogative as citizens to make laws dictating what is and is not socially acceptable behavior. As a conservative, I simply want this power to be kept on a local level while our national representative solve national issues such as the trade imbalance, budget deficit, national debt, and defense.

3. Activist judges. Sleeper does not particularly like this term. IHowever, think this is an extremely relavent term to describe what is going on in America right now. If the Constitution says nothing about marriage (be it homosexual or heterosexual), what gives the court the right to overrule a law passed by states representatives and supported by the majority of people? These activist judges argue that there are implied rights in the constitution. Strict constructionist judges, on the other hand, take a literal interpretation of the constitution. Strict constructionism leaves more room to the state and national legislatures to dictate law as should be the case in a representative democracy.

4. Kaya, what are you talking about? Bush lied?! This is the same hysterical nonsense the far left Dems have been pushing for the last couple years. Notice that I say far left Dems because no sane person in the democratic party actually believes the administration lied. There was plenty of evidence to support Saddam still had WMD. Every other country thought Saddam had WMD prior to the war. The US was not alone in this intelligence. Listen, if you want to bash Bush for faulty intelligence or poor war planning, go right ahead. But to say Bush lied is just more of the hysterical propoganda being pushed by the far left. The far left has nothing more to offer than a hatred of George Bush. Get an agenda!
Gary G on June 21st, 2006 1:04 pm

This is in reply to J-Dub. I don’t know what I said that offended you. I think we are not that far apart in our thinking.

You said, “Therefore, it’s our prerogative as citizens to make laws dictating what is and is not socially acceptable behavior. As a conservative, I simply want this power to be kept on a local level while our national representative solve national issues such as the trade imbalance, budget deficit, national debt, and defense.”

Exactly how I feel! I guess I didn’t mention the part about local enforcement, but close enough. We both know that homosexuality is not socially acceptable behavior. So we need to make laws that say so. As you said, it is hazardous to society. Just like speeding can be hazardous to others. When you speed, you get a ticket!
kaya on June 21st, 2006 2:02 pm

First off, I know it’s very easy for people to label someone “far left” and be done with it. But it’s important to have some type of dialog. Here is what I was referring to when I said our President and his administration lied. These are just a handful of them.

1. Bush was pushing for a war, while the whole time he was telling the American people that “war was a last resort”. That my friend is a lie

2. The CIA and the State Department were telling the White House that Hussein didn’t have any WMD’s. And that there were no ties with Al Qaeda. But for years after 9/11, Cheney, Condi, Rummy and a host of others went on the news stations saying the exact opposite. They also cleaned house and got rid of anyone who didn’t go along with their foreign policy in the CIA.

3. 90%+ of the intelligence being used to make the case for war, which we know was based on “curveball”, who had no access to high level contacts in Iraq, which by the way, the Administration knew, came from the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. Rummy’s Pentagon. We know that it all was BS.

4. We know that right after 9/11….Bush and Cheney were looking for anything to tie the attacks to Iraq. And we also know that the think tank, Project for the New American Century, which included the following members: Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz wanted to go after Iraq before 9/11. Go check out their research papers from the late 90’s.

5. We know that out of all of the countries that participated in the initial invasion….we were the only ones to give our troops chemical weapons suits…b/c every other country knew that Hussein didn’t have any. Even the English didn’t give their soldiers WMD suits….

6. We know that the CIA never told the White House we’d be greeted as liberators. But there was Dick Cheney…saying that same thing on the news networks.

7. We need to come together and figure out a solution to these majorily messed up problems. This current administration has really screwed over the world and the American people in countless ways. Oil has skyrocketed since the invasion. We are now torturing people all over the world. We are holding people, even American citizens without due process. The Administration is illegally wiretapping all Americans. And it doesn’t really matter if you think it’s a good idea or not…the FISA laws clearly state that they can’t do that. Change the laws if they’re not working, don’t go around them. No one should be above the law. We’ve seen countless times in history where leaders have done this to accomplish personal goals. There are others if you want me to elaborate….I’d be happy to do so.

8. Everyone needs to go watch the newest edition to the PBS show “Frontline”. It’s called “The Dark Side”. here’s the URL to check it out:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
I hope the moderator takes the time to watch this and doesn’t resort to name calling. If you really want to change things, and by looking at the current poll numbers….a clear majority of Americans do! Everyone from the right to the left thinks our president is doing a poor job. We must stop the name calling b/c it doesn’t get us anywhere; we get thrown into a vicious cycle where nothing gets accomplished. If for some odd reason that’s what this blog is about, then I’m sure I can find some other place to talk about what’s important to our future and are children’s’ futures.
kaya
Gary G on June 21st, 2006 2:21 pm

Kaya - You just believe what all these former CIA guys are saying. They are just upset they got fired. I’ll address your points one by one.
1. Saddam was the one pushing for war, not us. Who had the rape rooms again?
2. Everyone knows that the WMD’s are either buried or in Syria and Iran. That is proveable. Stephen Hayes talks about it.
3. “Curveball” was fully vetted. We can’t be held responsible for someone elses lies.
4. Why wouldn’t they tie it to Iraq? If you think Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9-11, you’re nuts!
5. That’s because they don’t have as good a military as we do. We give our troops what they need to get the job done.
6. Maybe you missed them tearing down Saddam’s statue.
7. If you didn’t do anything wrong, you don’t have to worry. I’d rather they listen to my phone calls than get blown up by terrorists. Makes you wonder why liberals are so afraid of someone listening to their calls!

Hopefully this helps so you can understand where your going wrong.
smokey on June 21st, 2006 2:27 pm

Would everyone agree that marriage is needed to help Stabilize relationships? What i mean is, it’s healthy for 2 people who’ve been dating to eventually marry, to prove to each other they are serious about the relationship and that they aren’t going to cheat and sleep around. And as everyone knows, when you suspect the person you are dating, it causes all sorts of stress, that effects your whole life, from work to other relationships. that being the case, do you think we can get rid of all gay people? can we round them up, and put them somewhere? If we can agree they aren’t going anywhere, if they are here to stay, wouldn’t we want them to stabilize their relationships.

the point that Liz and J-dub made was that it’s an unhealthy lifestyle. I assume what they mean by this is the multiple partners they assume every gay person has, and at the same time, having unprotected sex. (what’s funny about all of this, is being a young straight male in our culture means you show off about all the girls you’ve been with, and even lie about it, to exaggerate. any guy knows this to be true).

If your problem with gays is that they are basically in unstable relationships, and having sex with multiple partners, and you admit they aren’t going anywhere, you think that the best interest of our culture would be to let them marry, to help strengthen and help stablize their relationships and their community.

Unless you are just using the stability debate to cover up your real reasons, which i can only imagine is just hate for a group of people you either don’t understand or find disgusting, because of your background, which i assume is a religious one.

Or to take this a step further, if 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce, are any of those due to gay people? Why do we allow people who get divorced a free pass? Why is it okay for 2 straight people to get married in the eyes of god, promise god that they will never leave each other, then lie, then continue to get accepted by their other religious peers? They lied directly to God. They spit in his/her face, and said, i don’t care what you think, i’m leaving this person.

It used to be that women didn’t work, that their place in our society was in the kitchen, in the home. During WW II, they were called to fill the void of all the men who went off to fight. When the war ended, and these guys came home, they wanted their jobs back. and they wanted the women to go back to “their place” in society. they said that women working outside the home was going to ruin families. So Liz, my question to you is, if you think that family is above all else, healthcare, iraq war, the war on terror, the economy, then shouldn’t women go back to the home, and raise the kids, and cook and clean?

Or better yet, from 1664 until 1967,miscegenation laws were in effect all over this country, which are laws against blacks and whites marrying. it wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. the reasons for these miscegenation laws that were given at the time:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God’s will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow “unnatural.”

sound familiar?

here’s what the Supreme Court of Virgina in 1878 said to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman:

The purity of public morals,” the court declared, “the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

Is that right? is that what you believe, Liz and J-dub?

Just as the prospect of gay marriage now sets off alarms among heterosexuals fearful of losing their favored status, interracial marriage long accentuated white fears of minority advancement.

Something to keep in mind, our nation’s rich history tells us that it is not so easy to brush aside the rightful dreams of our people. First comes love. Next will come marriage.

it’s coming whether you like it or not. Instead of searching for reasons that are grounded in opression, i think you should listen to someone like Jesus, and search for reasons to love and untimately….. understanding.

Thanks for letting me post on your site.
J-Dub on June 21st, 2006 3:01 pm

Smokey,

The idea that I want to oppress homosexuals is just plan false. Read my post from on the April 7 topic titled “Culture War“. Here it is in case you have a difficult time finding it. To put it into context, we were discussing a law that would have schools teach about homosexuals of historic significance in history class. I recommend reading Lis’ from April 7 to fully understand.

“Here is my view on this and it may differ from most conservative Christians who freak out at the very thought of homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe it is our fundamental duty to love homosexuals (not that kind of love, sickos!) as we love an alcoholic or drug addict. Christians should not fear homosexuals but rather embrace these individuals. However, make no mistake about it, homosexuality is a sin, and we do not need to embrace the act. Jesus embraced the sinners but did not embrace the sin. My concern is that too many Christians turn their backs on the sinners, pointing out the plank in their brother’s eyes before removing the speck in their own eyes first.

Now to the topic at hand. If someone’s sexual preference must be discussed to understand some historical significance, by all means it should be discussed. In 50 years, our history books will discuss the homosexual movement taking place right now. Right or wrong as the movement may be, it will still be discussed in history books much like the civil rights movement is discussed. In the context of the gay movement, someone’s sexual preferance obviously would be appropriate. In the context of Langston Hughes, it may be appropriate to mention he was a gay black man to understand where his poetry came from.

However, on the flip side, who cares if the woman who wrote “America The Beautiful” is gay. What in the world does her sexual preference have to do with history? I have heard rumors about past Presidents that may or may not have been gay. In the context of a high school history class, a President’s sexual preference has no relevance.

Therefore, to summarize my opinion, let us be fair and judge the context in which a historical figure’s sexual preference is inserted into the fabric of historical teaching. If it is being done to better understand circumstances surrounding events and policies, it has relevance and should be included. If sexual orientation is being inserted to make gay teens feel better about themselves, then it serves no purpose and should be eliminated.” J-Dub posted April 7.

Of course as a Christian, I think homosexuality is wrong. But I do not want to outlaw this. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is their prerogative. I do not want to round up all the homosexuals and lock them up. I simply would like to keep marriage between a man and a woman. It is a healthier lifestyle. Period. You cannot argue that. Emotionially, it’s healthier for the children. It’s healthier for the participants because because the homosexual lifestyle is just more dangerous. You cannot argue the facts. Gay men tend to be more promiscuous and are more susceptible to STD’s than heterosexuals. You are assuming marriage will stabilize homosexual relationships but that will not happen. Has it happened for heterosexual relationships? No.

But having said all this, I will just keep repeating myself that I do not want the federal government to make laws banning gay marriage. Leave it up to the states. The defense of marriage act gives the states the right to reject a marriage from another state. That’s as far as the federal government needs to take it in my opinion. I want the Fed out of our lives….
J-Dub on June 21st, 2006 3:43 pm

Kaya,

Regarding the other topics of the Iraq war…

1. So if Saddam would’ve stepped down would we still have gone to war with Iraq? Bush told Saddam he could spare the war if he stepped down. Of course the tyrant would not have stepped down but he had the option. Bush was planning for war. Of course he was. There are always contingency war plans drawn up in the Pentagon. Clinton had war plans drawn up for Iraq as well. They will be prepared.

2. False. Some people did tell the administration there were no nuclear weapons but the vast majority concluded Saddam did have some biological weapons. George Tenet told Bush the intelligence was solid. Tenet was in charge of the CIA during the Clinton administration and was not appointed by Bush.

The Al-Qaida link was weak, I agree. But I never got the impression that the administration said there was a definitive link between Saddam and Al-Qaida. The administration said there were some meetings that had taken place but I never heard the administration take it further than that. I never really heard the Al-Qaida link as a major justification for war. It was always WMD. The Cheney, Al-Qaida/Iraq meeting comments were always mentioned as about the 10th reason to invade.

3. Curveball was the CIA informant, not the Pentagon. Curveball claimed Saddam had mobile biological labs. This information was used in Powell’s speech to the UN and proved to be false. Not much to say here except that we had bad intelligence but it wasn’t from Rummy. It was from Tenet’s CIA.

4. I don’t think they really did tie Saddam to 9/11 but maybe I’m in the minority. Like I said above, I never saw any indication from the administration that Saddam took part in 9/11. All I heard was that there was a meeting between a Saddam aid and Bin-Laden aid. How that gets turned into having a hand in 9/11 is beyond me.

5. That’s speculative….

6. We were greeted as liberators immediately following the Saddam’s fall from power. Remember all that video of people tearing down Saddam’s statue and rallying in the streets of Baghdad. The problem was we didn’t have enough troops to secure the country and as things went sour, we slowly began to lose Iraqi goodwill.

7. The government is not wiretapping illegally as far as we know. Data mining is not the same as wiretapping. There are dissenting views as the legality of this practice. It is not a clear cut violation of the law according to many experts.

Kaya, your hatred for Bush and the Republican party in general is just overwhelming. I do not agree with a lot things Bush or the Republican Congress has done. I have been a critic of Bush’s handling of the war, the Republican Gay Marriage amendment, and the Republican House Border Security proposal to name a few. I have gone as far as to say, “The Republican Party has been hijacked by social conservatives who have pushed the fiscal conservatives aside.” But to disagree is one thing and to have intense animosity is something completely different. This was the Democrats problem in ‘04. They didn’t run on anything except their hatred of George Bush and that cost them the election. Hatred does not take the place of an agenda.
Gary G on June 22nd, 2006 7:53 am

J-Dub, hey you stole my answer! (just kidding!) The fact is you are never going to prove to a liberal that they’re dead wrong. They just keep repeating what they hear from Howard Dean and Stuart Smally (Al Franken). What I don’t get is you say you’ve been critical of the handling of the war. What part? We took Bagdad in no time. We got Saddam and his boys fairly quickly and we set up a new government in record time. I think they did a great job and its just the media (liberal) that keeps saying how bad we’re doing. Don’t fall into there trap!
J-Dub on June 22nd, 2006 12:42 pm

I’m not falling into any trap.

I think we went into Iraq with too few troops. Powell Doctrine states that we should go into battle with overwhelming forces. We went in a little light and couldn’t control the chaos once we ran Saddam’s cronies out.

We also completely dismantled the Iraq army which left only the coalition soldiers to secure the country. That was probably a mistake.

The process of debathification was also another mistake as many people who were run out of government and jobs because they were a card carrying member of the party. But most of these members only joined the party in order to get a job. They didn’t necessarily subscribe to Saddam’s crazy brand of government. DeBathification likely strengthened the insurgency significantly.
Gary G on June 22nd, 2006 2:05 pm

I think the reason we went in with the troops we did is because Rumsfeld wanted a more mobile force that could react quickly. I don’t see how we could have expected the chaos as you call it once his cronies were gone since our sources in Iraq said they’d greet us as liberators. Plus, as far as overwhelming force we did have “shock and awe”. I don’t know about you, but I’d call that overwhelming. As far as debathifying, I think its better to start from scratch. It would have been too easy for people to say, “Oh no, I didn’t agree with Saddam” just to keep their jobs and then turn around and sabotage our mission later on.
FedupinFrankfort on June 22nd, 2006 3:01 pm

I agree with Gary G. Start from scratch. We should pay Iraqi ex-patriots who have been “Americanized” (the ones that escaped Saddam and now believe in democracy, Coca-Cola, and the almighty dollar) to move back to Iraq to talk some sense to these insurgents. Let them know that freedom + democracy + disposible income = good times. If the other countries in the Middle East see Iraqis having fun, enjoying life, and buying American products, they won’t hate us for our freedom.
Lis on July 6th, 2006 1:58 pm

Well looks like J-Dub was right about the state of New York at least. New York’s highest court ruling same-sex unions are not allowed under state law and any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature.

In Georgia 76% of the voters voted to ban gay married. A single judge over turned the decision by literally discarding millions of votes. Well today Georgia Supreme Court reinstating a voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

Top courts rule against gay marriage
By MARK JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

ALBANY, N.Y. - The top courts in two states dealt setbacks to the gay marriage movement Thursday, with New York’s highest court ruling same-sex unions are not allowed under state law and the Georgia Supreme Court reinstating a voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

In New York, the Court of Appeals said in a 4-2 decision that the state’s marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith said.

“We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives,” Smith wrote.

In Georgia, the state Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling, deciding unanimously that the ban did not violate the state’s single-subject rule for ballot measures. The ban had been approved by 76 percent of voters in 2004.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights. Forty-five states have barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments.

The New York decision said lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and that the law does not deny homosexual couples any “fundamental right” since same-sex marriages are not “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.”

“It’s a sad day for New York families,” said plaintiff Kathy Burke of Schenectady, who is raising an 11-year-old son with her partner, Tonja Alvis. “My family deserves the same protections as my next door neighbors.”

The state had prevailed in lower appeals courts.

“I am satisfied that today’s decision by the state’s highest court to uphold our position that marriage is between a man and a woman is the right one,” Republican Gov. George Pataki said in a statement.

The lawsuit over the Georgia ban focused on the wording of the ballot measure that voters approved.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs had argued that the ballot language addressed more than one issue and that it was misleading because it asked voters to decide on both same-sex marriage and civil unions, separate issues about which many people had different opinions.

State officials held that Georgians knew what they were voting on when they overwhelmingly approved the ballot measure.

Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue, who had promised to call a the Legislature into session to handle the issue next month if the court had not ruled, thanked the justices for the quick ruling, calling it “the best outcome of all.”

“This avoids a special session and we’re delighted that that’s the case,” Perdue said. “We need to be very respectful of the people’s voice and listen to that — that’s what they did.”

Jack Senterfitt, lawyer for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which challenged the constitutional amendment, said he was disappointed but that no further legal challenge was planned.

In New York, 44 couples acted as plaintiffs in a series of lawsuits filed two years ago after the Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage sparked gay marriage controversies across the country.

With little hope of getting a gay marriage bill signed into law in Albany, advocates marshaled forces for a court fight. Among the plaintiffs were the brother of comedian Rosie O’Donnell and his longtime partner.

Plaintiff Regina Cicchetti said she was “devastated” by the ruling. But the Port Jervis resident said she and her partner of 36 years, Susan Zimmer, would fight on, probably by lobbying the Legislature for a change in the law.

“We haven’t given up,” she said. “We’re in this for the long haul. If we can’t get it done for us, we’ll get it done for the people behind us.”

In a dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye said the court failed to uphold its responsibility to correct inequalities when it decided to simply leave the issue to lawmakers.

“It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation,” she wrote. “The court’s duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.”

High courts in Washington state and New Jersey are also deliberating cases in which same-sex couples argue they have the right to marry, and a handful of other states have cases moving through lower courts.
Gary G on July 6th, 2006 2:54 pm

What bugs me is when liberals say things like “aren’t there more important things to be worried about?” My answer: no. It is one of the most important issues today. The last thing we as a nation can afford to do is create some “gay paradise”. Next thing you know gay people will flock here from around the world. Do we really want our kids subjected to a bunch of men being openly gay in public? I didn’t think so!
J-Dub on July 7th, 2006 9:31 am

Gary G, isn’t that a bit homophobic? I don’t particularly care how people act. Homosexuals have the same freedoms heterosexuals do with regards to public expression.

As a Christian, you need to be careful how you come across to people who may have a lifestyle you disagree with. Did Jesus tell the sinners, “You guys are disgusting and I don’t want to be around you.” No, Jesus embraced the tax collectors, prostitutes, and other sinners. He did not embrace the sin but he did embrace the sinners. Comments like yours lack the compassion Jesus requires us to have in our Christian walk. Please note that I am not judging your compassion for others, I just think you need to be careful how you come across to non-believers so you do not alienate them. We are called to be a mouthpiece for Christ. Please do not take this criticism negatively…If it sounds harsh, I did not intend for it to be.

On the topic at hand, Lis, of course I am right. This is a states right issue and the states will ultimately determine what constitutes a legal marriage. I’m sure some of these cases will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and with the strict constructionist judges recently appointed, the states right to define marriage will be upheld. I was never worried.
powerbroker on July 7th, 2006 1:27 pm

J-Dub,

I’ve read all the posts and I know where that nutbag Gary G stands, but you seem to be flip-floping all over the place. Are you for gay marriage or against it?

Just Wondering?
Gary G on July 7th, 2006 1:53 pm

To Powerbroker: You have shown the kind of person you are. I will not stoop to your level.

To J-Dub: I’m also curious where you stand. Are you for it or against it? I’m not really interested in the whole states rights issue. I want to know if you personally want gay people to be able to get married or even have an equivalent like civil unions. I think if certain states allowed it and some didn’t, it would be a nightmare. Plus, I think more people might decide to be gay if they knew they would just blend into society. And, don’t forget Jesus wasn’t always compassionate. Remember the money changers at the temple?
powerbroker on July 7th, 2006 1:57 pm

Hey Gary G?

What kind of person am I?

It sounds like you are trying to insult me but I can’t tell.
J-Dub on July 8th, 2006 6:49 pm

Regarding gay marriage….I am not flip flopping…Read all my posts above. I am against gay marriage. I don’t want the federal government to decide that, however. To summarize, if I had a vote in an Illinois referendum for or against gay marriage, I would vote against it. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not understand the point of civil unions either and therefore would not vote for civil unions.

Gary, just to clarify, I wasn’t questioning your compassion for others. I just know we (as Christians) need to try to be delicate how we approach certain topics. I think the fire and brimstone approach works only when the loving, compassionate approach is tied in with it. Jesus overturned the tables in the temple because he was angry that these so called “Godly” men made a mockery of their faith and basically whored themselves out for cash. But notice that he acted this way around these so called men of faith. When he dealt with non-religious types, he was much more gentile and compassionate. So, what I am basically saying is you have to be careful who you are talking to (i.e. the believers or non-believers) and handle each person differently. On a blog like this, both believers and non-believers see what is posted…

This is just my opinion. I am not trying to be a jerk or anything. I hope you understand….
Sleeper on July 12th, 2006 3:51 pm

“Jesus overturned the tables in the temple because he was angry that these so called “Godly” men made a mockery of their faith and basically whored themselves out for cash.”

There wouldn’t be a table left standing in the White House or on Capital Hill.
Gary G on July 13th, 2006 8:27 am

To J-Dub: It’s OK. Sometimes I get passionate about things like this. I suppose compassion has its place, but I think we, as people who have taken Jesus into our hearts, have a duty to tell gay people they are living the wrong way. I think we can both agree that through the power of christ we know what’s best for gay people - a rejection of sinful homosexual urges. I refuse to bow down to any sort of political correctness in this area. This is a battle for the soul of America and maybe even the world. I say “Onward Christian Soldiers!”
Lis on July 13th, 2006 9:56 am

I completely agree with you Gary. I think it very important how we get our message across. I do not want the culture I live to be dominated by 2% of the people.

However, Christians (including myself) sometimes come down too hard on the homosexual community. We’re still commanded to live by what Jesus called the most important rules for life. Love the Lord with all your might and love your neighbor as yourself. (Sadly I suck at both) Through prayer and a broken spirit I try to learn to be more loving each day. That’s what’s commanded of me.

Now to spin this thought a little more. If you look at homosexuality as a sin and still want to take a firm stand then it’s only fair to take equally strong stands on other areas of sin our own lives. That means any lying, abusive language, improper treatment of women, pornography, etc in our own life needs to be met by the same standards which we judge others.

I can’t think of anything more damaging to the kingdom of God then a Christian who says one thing and does another. And for the record I apologize to anyone who thinks I may have fallen into this category at one time or another.
J-Dub on July 13th, 2006 10:30 am

“I can’t think of anything more damaging to the kingdom of God then a Christian who says one thing and does another. And for the record I apologize to anyone who thinks I may have fallen into this category at one time or another.”

Well unfortunately, every Christian falls into this camp. We have a sinful nature and therefore give into temptation constantly. Some non-Christians tend to call this hypocracy and use this as an excuse to shut out Christianity. I humbly disagree however, and I really think the “hypocracy” argument is an easy way to avoid submitting one’s life to something greater. Let’s be honest, following Christ is a constant struggle. It’s hard work because we never match up to His Greatness and Righteousness. But while it is a difficult journey, it is also rewarding.

Back to hypocracy: I would suggest it is hypocritical to change one’s beliefs to suit one’s lifestyle (i.e. for someone to say it’s okay to do drugs because they like it). It is not hypocritical for a Christian to struggle with sin because the Bible says we are all born into sin. Doesn’t an alcoholic struggle with not drinking? Is an alcoholic a hypocrite because he gives in and drinks on occasion, all the while professing that it is wrong to drink? Of course not. It’s a struggle for him. Therefore, all of us, especially Christians, struggle with doing the right thing on a daily basis. I try to distinguish the difference for non-believers. I think most Christians understand the difference but it is lost to most non-believers.