D.C. city council approves gay marriage
posted at 9:06 pm on December 15, 2009 by Allahpundit
An 11-2 vote, with Marion Barry one of the two no’s. Next stop: Congress.
Overturning the measure during 30-day congressional review period would require majority votes from both houses of Congress, plus the signature of President Barack Obama. That outcome is unlikely. A congressional challenge to the District’s vote is more likely through other avenues: First off, lawmakers could place a restriction on the city’s spending that would effectively nullify the law, but the earliest that would happen is approximately a year from now. Alternately, a gay-marriage rider could be added to any other congressional provision—much as restrictions on city gun laws were added to the bill that would have granted the District a vote in the House of Representatives.
More immediately threatening may be the prospect of judicial intervention. Lawyers financed by national conservative organizations have vowed to challenge the gay marriage measure on a variety of grounds, including whether the District’s home rule charter requires elections officials to allow a public vote on the issue and also whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act applied to local laws in the District of Columbia.
A referendum in D.C. would be fascinating given the city’s racial demographics and the CW that blacks are, by and large, against gay marriage. A poll taken earlier this year in three D.C. wards showed overwhelming support for it, but those wards skewed heavily white and liberal and ended up dividing sharply along racial lines — 92 percent of whites in favor versus just 41 percent of blacks. Why not put it to a citywide vote and settle the issue? Because, you see, that would be a human rights violation:
Citizen groups can seek a referendum on the bill, but the District’s convoluted procedure for such efforts requires the two-member D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics to approve a referendum and gives the Board the authority to reject it if they believe it conflicts with the D.C. Human Rights Act. Since the D.C. Court of Appeals has held that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not violate the Act, a referendum ought to be allowed. The Board and the D.C. Superior Court have shown little interest, however, in applying the law, and instead seem bent on preventing any popular input on the Council’s experiment in social engineering. That leaves Congress’s oversight authority, which, given current political alignments, is a thin reed to lean on.
In practice, Washingtonians end up in the same place as New Yorkers, i.e. without any recourse to a popular vote. Exit question: If, as many suspect, a majority of the population really is against gay marriage, how’d they end up with such a lopsided council vote?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
isn’t that interesting, given the following…
link
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:44 PM
see the previous post.
I’m waiting for a real live case from you. given what I posted in my previous post, it should be easy to find…
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Exactly. I really don’t think these folks view gays as real human beings, they’re just hedonistic, AIDS ridden pedophiles who are destroying everything from the black community to Christianity to the fabric of America itself.
If they ever met a normal committed gay couple(or enough of them, they’d probably dismiss one as a fluke), it’d blow their mind to see we’re not really any different than they are. Until that day though I don’t think it’s possible to have a rational debate with them.
SDnocoen on December 15, 2009 at 10:45 PM
To say a handful of priests who abused their position of trust are representative of all priests is just wrong!
(And I’m not even Catholic…yet.)
And there’s much evidence to suggest that the Left/Communists infiltrated the Catholic priesthood with homosexual priests(the so-called “Pink Mafia”) to bring this very problem about for the purpose of discrediting the Church and Christianity.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:46 PM
BTW here are the 2008 stats
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/index.html
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 10:46 PM
No you worthless troll, that was not what you were doing no matter how much you profess innocence and honesty. Your posts tell the real story.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 10:47 PM
you haven’t given any reasons why those types of relationships should be OK..you were fine with polygamy/polyandry…you said pedophilia is bad..but of course you can’t tell me why its wrong…other than its bad…why isn’t just another ‘lifestyle choice’?
what makes you think its wrong? you discount religious arguments, but you impose your own morality, with no basis, other than its what you think.
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:48 PM
http://www.laweekly.com/2007-01-04/news/long-beach-hate-crime/
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 10:48 PM
still waiting for a case…and an explanation of the those statistics, given the much higher rates of black on white crime…
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:49 PM
That pretty much sums it up!
I’ve known many, thanks for asking.
They’re very different from my husband and I and other normal heterosexual couples; it can’t be any other way.
Men and women are different.
Men were not “made” to be married to men or women with women, not biologically, emotionally, physically or spiritually.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Not that Wikipedia is perfect but: In the early 1980s, NAMBLA was reported to have had over 300 members…
Since 1995, public criticism and law enforcement infiltration have heavily impaired the organization. Its national headquarters now consists of little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco, and they rarely respond to inquiries. Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings, and that as of the late 1990s to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters.”
So, at its peak it had fewer members nationwide than there probably are straight people trading child porn on the internet in any given single U.S. state this very minute. Yes it’s a problem, no it’s not a massive nationwide organization using ay Pride ay to recruit none-year-olds.
Gay marriage doesn’t destroy marriage, black or white. On the other hand, encouraging men to hide their sexuality by getting into a marriages that they don’t want and can’t support, does.
Oh well, y’all have a good night. I need to rest up because with all my friends getting gay-married now, the parties are going to fabulous and I want to look my best.
Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 10:50 PM
1. Lies, **** lies, and statistics.
2. Two words: government agency.
Dark-Star on December 15, 2009 at 10:51 PM
your own article doesn’t help your case much…
why is that, given a much higher rate of black on white crime?
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:51 PM
I would fire my weapon only if I felt my life or the life of my loved one were in danger. But you knew that. Just couldn’t resist getting another shot in at gays. So I guess we’re “violent” now, in addition to being hedonistic AIDS ridden pedophiles.
SDnocoen on December 15, 2009 at 10:52 PM
I used to live in New Orleans. I defy you to be in that city over Labor Day (and the Southern Decadance Festival) and not come to the above conclusion. That too is the face of homosexuality and “hedonists” without any concern for society pretty much describe the vermin that show up for that weekend of debauchery. I had to fly out the week after the SDF one year. It didn’t bother me that I was probably the only straight person on the flight. It did bother me that the “couple” in front of me decided it was appropriate to engage in behavior that was lewd no matter the sexes involved.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 10:53 PM
no word on whether they were convicted or not….
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:53 PM
You cannot convince me that NAMBLA is insignificant.
Not. going. to. happen.
Sure it does: it destroys any meaning the term “marriage” ever had.
That’s why it’s so important that homosexuals get it: to destroy it.
Insisting that they “need it” is BS.
The real purpose is to destroy Marriage and the Family itself, the building blocks of our society and our nation.
Yet another straw man.
No one has suggested that any homosexual man or woman do this.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:55 PM
just like you had to get your little shot in about ‘phobes’ right?
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:56 PM
actually it does…check on Stanley Kurtz, and his reporting on the research on what has happened to marriage in the netherlands…
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:57 PM
You fired first.
Although SD’s in no danger from you, as the only thing you seem to be able to shoot off is your mouth.
Dark-Star on December 15, 2009 at 10:57 PM
All heterosexuals aren’t judged, and laws aren’t made that affect them, based on the dregs of humanity that emerge on Mardi Gras/spring break. I think gays should be given that courtesy as well.
SDnocoen on December 15, 2009 at 10:58 PM
The traditions should be kept by the various cultures within the US. Not every culture needs to respond when the law changes to permit divorce, decriminalize fornication, or give women equal standing within a marriage.
If some cultures want to void marriages of the childless, then that’s fine.
dedalus on December 15, 2009 at 10:58 PM
The Gaystapo got pretty violent with those Mormon Prop 8 supporters in California.
Being an armed heterosexual isn’t a bad idea these days.
We are more ready to defend Traditional Marriage than you are motivated to destroy it.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:01 PM
If you read my quote again, I said “‘phobes that mess with me or my bf”. Its fairly obvious that by “mess with” I meant “threaten physically”, not “made mean comments over the internet”
SDnocoen on December 15, 2009 at 11:02 PM
I did? why don’t you post your proof? where did I talk about shooting
‘phobes’gays?right4life on December 15, 2009 at 11:03 PM
oh please…’mess with’ could mean a whole lot of things. I ‘mess with’ my kids…wrestle around with them..Puhlease.
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Ironically, you’ve made your own argument against same sex marriage.
Just because Lawrence v. Texas was overturned is no reason for the homosexual community to push same sex marriage.
Church and civic laws regarding divorce have always remained “divorced” from each other. (LOL)
As for women having equal standing, this has been the case in Western Civilization for thousands of years, in some cases.
Only in primitive societies like Islamic theocracies are women considered inferior to their husbands.
Whether or not traditional marriages produce children or not is beside the point.
The fact remains that a man and a woman can produce children in a marriage.
2 people of the same sex can never produce children.
There is no compelling reason for them to be “married.”
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:06 PM
and given the gays rather violent reaction to any speech they find objectionable…didn’t they rip the cross out of the hands of some old lady in CA?
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 11:07 PM
The difference you are intentionally ignoring is that the Mardi Gras crowd does not present itself as advocates for a lifestyle. They do not show up on St. Charles Ave. with signs that say “We’re here, We’re low class, get over it.” Not so the SDF when the French Quarter is bedecked in rainbow flags and there is lewd behavior all over the place.
Put simply, don’t get snippy with me just because that the half-naked couple fornicating on Dauphine Street is very much an ambassador for homosexuality no matter how much the advocates on K Street would insist that all gay relationships are loving, long-term, committed unions are unfairly treated by society.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 11:07 PM
I don’t care about this topic, let the gays marry. Then they’ll see what it’s like for the rest of us with 50% divorce rates. Let’s talk about Iran!
LeBron on December 15, 2009 at 11:09 PM
link
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Allah, D.C. city council approves gay marriage and you believe that’s red meat for us conservatives? You expect us “knuckle dragging” conservatives to start foaming at the mouth and screaming “death to them evil D.C. city folks” don’t you?
The stuff you choose to toss as red meat for conservatives will make Keith Olbernman proud.
RMR on December 15, 2009 at 11:10 PM
this Stanley Kurtz article?
disillusioned on December 15, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Myself and everyone I know treats all homosexuals with plenty of courtesy!
These allegations that they’re “oppressed” and “discriminated against” are nothing but outrageous lies.
Which is why they’re frequently called “drama queens.”
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Well, I apologize for not being clear in my original post. Just to reiterate: I would only use my firearm on you, right4life, if I felt that my life or the life of my loved one was in danger. I’m sorry to have frightened you, or any old ladies who may also be reading.
Ok, good night everybody. God bless.
SDnocoen on December 15, 2009 at 11:13 PM
No, not that anti-Kurtz article on some Leftist Lib site I’ve never heard of.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:13 PM
no that looks like some wacko writing about kurtz..in other words, you’re lying…
try the real thing..
link
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 11:13 PM
But God will not bless your homosexual “marriage” no matter what your cowed Episcopal or Lutheran church says.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:14 PM
oh you didn’t frighten me…I know people like you are all talk. good night.
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Some really impressive comments up there but I think that I agree with Senator Goldwater and his views on gay equality. I honestly don’t get it. Why can’t Gays have civil unions or get married?
Sen. Goldwater had qualms with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 since he thought it might lead to set asides, special court classes, percentages in hiring (quotas). That didn’t happen.
What can gay unions lead to?
More work for divorce lawyers?
IlikedAUH2O on December 15, 2009 at 11:17 PM
If you have some proof of rampant or inflated “down-low” activity you should post it. Otherwise, you are by default dealing in stereotypes — unfounded ones regurgitated from the lips of Wendy Williams.
You’re being obtuse.
You either fail to or refuse to address the disconnect between supposed overflowing ranks of anti-gay black bigots and all the “down-low activity” among black gay men. It is impossible to reconcile these two realities in such a limited population, especially considering the monolithic nature of the black-Dem vote.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Ouch! I think my irony meter just blew a fuse!
Dark-Star on December 15, 2009 at 11:19 PM
I’m just happy Allah didn’t start a thread where the liberal trolls could gloat over Oral Roberts’ death. That really is more in the style of red meat on HA.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 11:20 PM
You won’t find “ability to create a child” used US law today with regard to marriage rights. Many straight couples are no more statistically likely to create children together than a gay couple is.
Women haven’t had equal rights in marriage for thousands of years. In the United States, their rights were significantly restricted in the 18th and 19 centuries.
dedalus on December 15, 2009 at 11:20 PM
I’m not black myself, so cut me some slack.
I only relate the reality of the situation that I hear from black Christian ministers who deal with their communities and their problems.
Homosexual sex on the “down low” is a big one.
AAs have proven that they’ll vote Democrat no matter what the issues are.
Duh.
Especially in D.C. where the majority of the district is black and most of them are either federal workers or on welfare.
They would have a lot to gain if same sex partnerships were transformed into legal “marriages.”
This is not obtuse if you have half a brain.
Do you?
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:23 PM
They’re called “drama queens” because people like you subscribe to stereotype to support your selective piety.
If gays are not discriminated against, then neither are Blacks, Whites, Christians, Muslims, etc.
You are definitely not a gay-baiting bigot.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 11:23 PM
people like you accuse people like me of all sorts of things…but not the other way around…some pigs are more equal than others…
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 11:26 PM
It’s implied and assumed.
We’re not talking about statistics with regard to normal couples.
The probability of a homosexual couple having a child is ZERO.
You said “equal standing in a marriage,” not equal (civil) rights.
Way to move the goal posts, champ!
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:26 PM
.
Christian ministers with no agenda, right? Maybe the DL dynamic is surfacing in black congregations because of the evangelical witch hunts still taking place at many churches against gays.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Childless = godless
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 11:28 PM
???
And this means what?
Actually, they aren’t discriminated against.
That’s right.
I’m neither gay-baiting nor a bigot.
The homosexuals are doing all the baiting on this thread and on every same sex marriage thread.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Childless=2 penises can’t produce a child
Childless=2 wombs can’t produce a child
The Godless part goes without saying.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:30 PM
There are no “evangelical witch hunts taking place at many churches against gays.”
God and the Bible condemn this behavior as evil and sinful.
Thus is has ever been since the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Darn those pesky citizens speaking out against an abridged interpretation of their civil-rights.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Is that all the Bible condemns? Why no equal ire directed at adultery? Fornication? Lying? Any of the seven deadly sins? You pick and choose what the targets of your derision are based on you avoiding self-judgment.
How many Christians get divorced or have sex before marriage? Why is this irrelevant? Or why does it seem that you only have angry-eyes toward gays?
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Same sex marriage isn’t a civil right nor is this issue about civil rights.
Homosexual activists just have found it catchy and convenient to say so.
Homosexuals enjoy the same civil rights the rest of us do, no more, no less.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Including hetero couples who can’t or don’t wish to have kids?
Dark-Star on December 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM
No.
Of course, these are all condemned in the Bible.
No. You and the other homosexual activists do: you choose which sins you want to legitimize with civil sanctions.
It is your wish to make same sex marriage OK and have succeeded in getting 2 major denominations–Lutheran & Episcopal–to proclaim that it’s no longer a sin.
I guess they just skip those parts of the Bible.
Religious sanctions aside (and I don’t appreciate you attacking me and others on this thread because of our Christian Faith), there are many arguments to be made against homosexual behavior, including public health and public morality and decency.
Homosexual sex is a perversion of normal, sexual behavior.
Every one is accountable to God alone and by themselves.
It doesn’t matter how many Christians get divorced or have premarital sex when it comes to changing public policy.
Those Christians aren’t asking me to “bless” their sinful, perverted couplings with my tax-payer dollars.
Homosexuals are–the big issue here and now is whether or not federal workers and welfare and entitlement recipients can share their lavish benefits, paid for with my tax dollars, with their homosexual “spouses.”
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:44 PM
This is beside the point.
Many who can’t or don’t have children see it as God’s will.
Most men and women who marry each other set out to have children and a family.
Another straw man.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Actually, another honest question.
I was trying to see how big a brush Race Card was painting with.
Dark-Star on December 15, 2009 at 11:48 PM
You claim to know what “most men and women” think or what their intentions are. I am ill-equipped to combat such supreme idiocy. Ciao now brown cow.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 11:50 PM
I feel like I’ve just been “fisted” by Barney Frank!
bannedbyhuffpo on December 15, 2009 at 11:52 PM
EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
bannedbyhuffpo on December 15, 2009 at 11:53 PM
This from a mindless breeder who spouts bulls**t out both ends of his digestive system.
Dark-Star on December 15, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Legal rights are what would give a woman equal standing in a marriage. When women were subject to coverture, they had neither equal standing nor equal rights.
dedalus on December 15, 2009 at 11:56 PM
You actually seem to depend on the Government for everything, don’t you?!
The only thing that “gives” a woman equal standing in a marriage is her husband…and what the lady agrees to put up with.
It *is* a partnership.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 11:59 PM
This is a poor out.
Weren’t you proceeding from the same type of claims?
“Supreme idiocy?” If the shoe fits, wear it.
You weren’t winning the argument.
Jenfidel on December 16, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Go easy on him. Race Card’s deck is rather short, and mostly filled with jokers.
Dark-Star on December 16, 2009 at 12:02 AM
LOL!
No kidding.
Jenfidel on December 16, 2009 at 12:05 AM
When the government doesn’t recognize her right to own property, make decisions regarding her children or protect her if she is raped by her husband, then it is an uneven relationship and the lady may have to put up with more than she’d want to.
dedalus on December 16, 2009 at 12:05 AM
And you expect people to take what you have to say on this topic seriously?
Nonfactor on December 16, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Why not?
I’m not the one who tried mixing the public with the private.
Jenfidel on December 16, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Why not? That’s how it used to be. A married woman had what her husband gave her, and precious little else. Especially in the arena of legal rights.
Dark-Star on December 16, 2009 at 12:19 AM
The government does recognize these rights these days.
(Not sure about the “rape” scenario, though.)
“Coverture” hasn’t been the law of the land for a long time.
But in Judeo-Christian terms and in private family life, women have enjoyed equal standing with their husbands for hundreds of years.
None of this has anything to do with same sex “marriage,” however.
Jenfidel on December 16, 2009 at 12:20 AM
It is more relevant to the assertion that women have had equal standing in Judeo-Christian societies for thousands of years. Christianity insists on treating women with respect, but it is only during the 20th century that women became equal in the eyes of the legal systems of countries that were majority Christian.
dedalus on December 16, 2009 at 12:25 AM
I don’t really care about the legal systems of countries.
I only care about the legal system of my country.
And our country was founded on religious freedom and secularism and equality with regards to the law.
The determining factor wasn’t so much that we were “majority Christian” but that our country took most of its legal structure from English Common Law and coverture laws were very much a part of that.
English Common Law stressed things like primogeniture and male succession.
Christianity teaches “In Christ there is neither male or female, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile.”
Don’t blame it on Christianity.
Blame King Henry II of England who instituted the coverture laws!
That being said, there are non-religious arguments to be made against same sex marriage without resorting to blaming it on “Christians.”
Jenfidel on December 16, 2009 at 12:33 AM
I agree with you that there are those arguments to be made, and that it is not appropriate generally to blame Christians.
dedalus on December 16, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Who knows? maybe 11 of them are card carrying members of NAMBLA.
royzer on December 16, 2009 at 12:39 AM
No, there are many more gay child molesters…men molesting boys is the highest % of molestation, by definition, male on male is homosexual.
The % of heterosexual molesting and the % of homosexual is not even close…consider only 4% of the population is gay, and then only 2% of those are men…now you extrapolate the figures of how many homosexuals are engaged in this horrendous action.
Not even a good try…even by liberal standards…
right2bright on December 16, 2009 at 8:22 AM
D.C. is a perfect example of what kind of damage is done when democrats totally monopolize a city or even a state government. Forget the can of worms that will be opened by allowing people to marry anyone/thing they want – we all have all kinds of rights but not necessarily something that should be forced on the rest of society or made into law. But hey, what does it matter what the majority of the people want as long as the rich, powerful, liberal factions push their agendas on us all. All you have to do is look at the corruption, mismanagement, the knuckle head mayor, lousy city services provided, etc. and yet democrats keep getting elected and control this city (hello, New Orleans). Boggles the mind!
mozalf on December 16, 2009 at 8:44 AM
Exit question: If, as many suspect, a majority of the population really is against gay marriage, how’d they end up with such a lopsided council vote?
It’s D.C. They idolize a crack pipe-smoking, prostitute-chasing ex-mayor. What do you expect?
kingsjester on December 16, 2009 at 8:49 AM
Men appear to be doing most of the molesting. Perhaps the problem breaks more clearly along gender, rather than sexual-orientation, lines. Should we penalize all men? In fact we do, privately. Most parents wouldn’t hire an adult male to watch their children, but frequently hire adult females. However, we don’t codify this into employment law since men who want to teach young children shouldn’t be penalized because they belong to the gender that is statistically far more likely to molest children.
dedalus on December 16, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Of course, neither of you live here so you have no idea what you’re talking about. DC has seen dramatic improvements in the last decade in city services, schools, crime and so on. City life is not for everyone, but DC is a vibrant, energetic and interesting place to live. Our government is relatively competent, out budget is balanced and school test scores are up.
As for you, KJ, you should know that the crack-smoking, hooker chasing (actually, he didn’t chase hookers) ex-mayor is one of two city councilmembers who voted against gay marriage.
Bleeds Blue on December 16, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Bleeds Blue on December 16, 2009 at 8:57 AM
courtesy WashingtonCityPaper.com 7/8/09
This man should not be a city council member. My point was about political corruption in D.C. If your fellow District voters put him in, what does that say about the possibility of other corrupt council members? By the way, what is paying money for sex called?
kingsjester on December 16, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Yes we should penalize all men who molest, of course. Why wouldn’t you? What kind of post is this? Are you defending molesters, or pedophiles?
When a male sexual molests another male, that is homosexual…and when a male molests a female it is heterosexual…and why am I responding to a nut case like you who takes umbrage at penalizing molesters?
right2bright on December 16, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Barry is and will always be a special case. But he represents one ward in a large city, one in which he is uniquely idolized by a particular impoverished and downtrodden slice of humanity for very real — albeit, long-ago — accomplishments and what is apparently a monstrous charisma. Most DC residents don’t care for it, I find it an embarrassment, but he’s always going to get a bye in Ward 8.
The last two mayors, on the other hand, have been squeaky clean, and outside of Barry, there hasn’t been anything particularly interesting about the city council in years.
As for your other question, I guess it depends on what your definition of prostitute is. I was thinking in terms of street hookers and call girls, actually.
Bleeds Blue on December 16, 2009 at 9:28 AM
A D.C. school…those schools are the most heavily funded schools int he U.S., had scores so low that they had to improve, they really had no where else to go but up.
So they practice taking tests to “improve” the schools…no major school district run by liberals have shown any real improvement over the past 3 decades (well after driving the quality down so low, they think bringing it up a point or two is an improvement)…all, for the past 40 years, have been run by liberals and have driven the test scores so low, that they think any improvement should be celebrated.
The liberals have placed teachers above children…fighting every overture to improve schools. They have destroyed a generation of learning, and that generation most hit has been the inner city. But hey, they maintained the vote and stayed in power…at the detriment of the inner city children that are now unemployable…
A real proud moment in history for democrat led school districts from Chicago, NY, LA, DC, every, and I mean every major inner city school district should be ashamed…
right2bright on December 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM
You are misreading my point. I’m fine with capital punishment for child molesters. As a country we don’t construct generalizations based on a criminal’s race, gender, religion, etc. and then discriminate based on that criteria. Some gay people commit crimes. The ones who don’t shouldn’t have their rights allocated based on that factor.
dedalus on December 16, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Is this a real question? I thought the answer was obvious.
I was debating a liberal once on the subject of the black vote and that eventually black people that have conservative beliefs will begin to vote those beliefs and begin to shift the political landscape. He came very close to saying “Those ni@@as will never stop voting for us.” The city council is all Democrat and they are the only game in town they have utter contempt for the will of the people and fear them not. That is why the vote is lopsided. And you now what? They are right. Black people in DC wouldn’t dare vote for a Republican. My relatives act like they are embarrassed for voting Republican. The city council will face no repercussions for their vote and they know it…
Theworldisnotenough on December 16, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Answer, that should be obvious to Defenders of the Republic: We are governed by a republic, not a democracy. As the Founders intended, this gives us a measure of protection from mob rule, protecting the rights of minorities.
Now I’m sure that the end of marriage apartheid in D.C. will transform it from the present wonderfulness into a hellhole. How sad to see this horror visited on humanity and Gaia.
HelenW on December 16, 2009 at 1:16 PM
D.C. shouldn’t have the authority to govern marriages, period. A D.C. resident should be citizen of a State, who can therefore marry according to the laws of a State and vote in State elections for Congressional officeholders.
cackcon on December 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM
As I’ve said before, there is alot more support in the Constitution for gay marriage than there ever was (or is) for abortion (equal protection anyone?). It’s just a matter of time before a supreme court rules in this way. Just resign yourselves to it and teach your children well.
But as a civil rights issue, I can’t argue against gay marriage. Women may be able to “fake” being lesbians, but men are physically incapable of pulling off (so to speak) such a fraud. A very specific physical reaction has to take place for successful coitus, and I’m simply incapable of this with a man. I just don’t find men attractive, and without chemical help I simply can’t commit the acts required (and I won’t waste perfectly good chemical help on something I find so revolting).
Sorry for the directness, but someone had to say it.
runawayyyy on December 16, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Sorry if I left an incomplete picture….what I meant to say was that gay men are, in fact, born that way. That’s what makes it a civil rights issue, just as if they were born black and were denied rights based on that fact alone. They have no “choice”, in contrast to almost any woman who “chooses” to have an abortion. I’ve known too many gay men for anyone to be able to convince me otherwise.
runawayyyy on December 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Just as an effort to bring religion into this very secular conversation, since obviously people have such sound secular reasons to oppose gay marriage, I would just like to point out that my denomination of Judaism endorsed in gay marriage in 1996:
http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=gl&year=1996
thuja on December 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I have no problem with gays and lesbians as long as they don`t force their unnatural ways on me. I have a couple of gay friends and we get along fine. But then again, they don`t start messing around in front of me like they do in San Francisco (horror! arrests, please, even you guys dressed up like cops can make a citizen`s arrest).
As far as that goes, guess what would happen to a straight guy who takes a leak on a tree in public in San Francisco in plain view of police? Arrest? I think so. Not that I will test the issue.
Now, the problem issue here is that most gays are illiberal.
I don`t like illiberals, therefore I don`t like most gays.
Not homophobic or whatever that silly term means. Just don`t like illiberals.
In fact, if gays will think just for a moment, the last thing they should be is illiberals becoming socialists.
Socialists end up telling YOU what you can and can`t do. And a lot of other bad things that effect your LIBERTY. And don`t gays want their liberty, too? They had better wake up and realize that they are being duped.
Socialists do not tend to allow much in the way of deviation from norms.
That is inevitable (under socialism).
As for liberty, I like what Lynyrd Skynyrd had to say:
“Don`t you ask me no questions, and I won`t tell you no lies!”
And:
“Gimme back my bullet . . . .”
That kind of stuff.
Sherman1864 on December 16, 2009 at 7:25 PM
So the science is settled?
Sorry, but science used to support a moral position is suspect. It leads too easily to a false science designed to support the conclusions you want.
Just like global warming. And just like global warming, those who are not convinced are accused of hating science.
Science has not proven that gays are born that way. And frankly, the idea that people are incapable of learning new sexual desires and practices flies in the face of common sense.
It’s far more likely that we could all learn to be homosexual, if we tried. The catch is that most of us have no desire to try.
The premise of calling people who are not “properly” tolerant of homosexuality “homophobes” is that they only “hate” homosexuality because they fear it, and they fear it because they are afraid of their own homosexual tendencies. But the same people who throw around the word “homophobe” will then claim that all homosexuals are born that way, and that homosexuality is never a learned behavior.
Unfortunately, many claim to be born that way, or have convinced themselves that they were born that way, because they instinctively feel guilty, and being born that way means it’s not their fault.
There Goes The Neighborhood on December 17, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2