Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, January 9, 2010
Homo / News / Hetero / Religion Irish Mrs. Robinson Bangs Teenager, May Bring Down Government
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:50 PM
A listener in Great Britain—"a straight married Scottish white man in his 40s who wouldn't miss an episode of your podcast"—wrote me last Wednesday to let me know about a brewing scandal in Northern Ireland. "I love when you rip some religious hypocrite a new one at the start of the 'Savage Lovecast,' and just in case you missed it I'm rushing to pass on details of a really lovely instance this side of the Atlantic."
- The Robinsons in More Maniacally Happy Days
“There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing children.”
Gay sex—consensual gay sex between adults of legal age—is worse than child rape (the only thing worse!), according to Mrs. Robinson. And gay people are all anti-family, ill, perverse PREDATORS, says Mrs. Robinson, and we're a great big threat to the super sacred institution of marriage. And Mrs. Robinson knows something about the sacred institution of marriage: the sixty-something lady has been married for more than forty years... which makes her marriage more than twice as old as the teenage boy she got caught fucking.
The scandal is rocking Ireland and reviving the "Mrs. Robinson" meme. (Mrs. Robinsons are back—cougars are so 2004.) The good news for Iris? Her God has forgiven her, she says, so that's all squared away. The bad news? Her affair may bring down her husband's government and destroy the Irish peace process.
The sex scandal that has transfixed Northern Ireland in recent days has a cinematic echo: a 60-year-old Mrs. Robinson who was caught in an affair with a man who was 19 at the time, and is now at the center of a scandal that threatens to bring down the power-sharing government that has steered the province out of 30 years of sectarian bloodshed.... The revelations come at a critical time, when the mostly Protestant unionists and mostly Catholic republicans are in increasingly bitter discussions about how to put in place one of the last and most difficult pieces of the United States-brokered power-sharing agreement: the transfer of police and justice powers in the province from British officials to the unity government.
- About a Boy
1
The part that got me, is that she has known her lover since he was a 9 year old boy. That fact combined with her quotes condemning gays like pedophiles struck me as gross.
BTW, Sullivan is where I read about her knowing him as a boy. Sorry, no link.
BTW, Sullivan is where I read about her knowing him as a boy. Sorry, no link.
2
I have to ask is the age of 19 really a teenager? I don't know the laws in Ireland, but 19 seems the age of a consenting adult to me. Just my $0.02.
5
End of the Peace Process?
That's kind of sad.
But a small price to pay for the Gays to get to gloat, right Dan?
That's kind of sad.
But a small price to pay for the Gays to get to gloat, right Dan?
6
The Obama Administration needs to speak to Mrs. Robinson.
They could explain that homosexuality is 'like' incest, pedophilia and bestiality; not "worse"...
They could explain that homosexuality is 'like' incest, pedophilia and bestiality; not "worse"...
7
Ugh.
If the gov collapses, it'll still only be about 50% her fault. Members of both side are always on the look-out for any excuse to jack it all in and start killing each other again.
If the gov collapses, it'll still only be about 50% her fault. Members of both side are always on the look-out for any excuse to jack it all in and start killing each other again.
9
@6
Didn't Dan Savage endorse Obama?
Doesn't Obama's Administration think Dan is no better than an incestuous animal fucking child molester?
Is Robinson really any bigger an Ass than Dan Savage?
Didn't Dan Savage endorse Obama?
Doesn't Obama's Administration think Dan is no better than an incestuous animal fucking child molester?
Is Robinson really any bigger an Ass than Dan Savage?
11
Gays and their straight allies don't want to gloat. I'm sure that 99% would rather that the whole issue already be resolved. The point of this post is another one of the whole myriad of examples of the hypocrisy of homophobic right-wingers. The sooner people stop voting for this sort of unstable Jesus freak, the sooner they'll stop having these sorts of problems. I don't think Dan's saying it's a good thing that this happened. Rather, the point is that these morons do not, in fact, have the moral high ground over queers. Go tickle a porcupine, Alleged.
I just love how these people always think that God has forgiven them. To announce that you've pleaded with God for your forgiveness shows contrition and a turn towards righteousness. To announce that God has forgiven you makes it sound like you've got a direct line to The Big Guy. Kind of arrogant, definitely blasphemous to insist that you know how God's going to handle your behavior.
I just love how these people always think that God has forgiven them. To announce that you've pleaded with God for your forgiveness shows contrition and a turn towards righteousness. To announce that God has forgiven you makes it sound like you've got a direct line to The Big Guy. Kind of arrogant, definitely blasphemous to insist that you know how God's going to handle your behavior.
12
3
when the mayor of portland stuck his tongue down the throat of a seventeen year old that kid wasn't a 'teenager', according to Dan...
when the mayor of portland stuck his tongue down the throat of a seventeen year old that kid wasn't a 'teenager', according to Dan...
17
Alleged, stop putting words in the President's mouth. Not everyone who's been remiss in actually THINKING about the issue of gay rights thinks that gays are evil; that's just you and your comrades on the right. Obama has expressed his support for certain rights for gay couples, he just needs to push it one step further. Obama is not, much to the chagrin of the bigots, taking the side of the Jesus freaks. He's just not taking any real action, aside from the Shepard bill.
You say that gays only like world peace if it furthers their acceptance into society. Explain why you think gay people would act and think this way, because I can't think of a single fucking reason why gays would want war to continue. Maybe you're just smarter than me, despite your irregular use of capitalization and "creative spelling". Enlighten me, O Great Asswipe of the Right!
You say that gays only like world peace if it furthers their acceptance into society. Explain why you think gay people would act and think this way, because I can't think of a single fucking reason why gays would want war to continue. Maybe you're just smarter than me, despite your irregular use of capitalization and "creative spelling". Enlighten me, O Great Asswipe of the Right!
18
@17
from AMERICAblog:
Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/12/2009 09:44:00 AM
UPDATE: Show Obama you mean business, donate to AMERICAblog.
UPDATE: Former top aide to President Clinton says DOJ had a choice, they did not have to file a brief in favor of DOMA.
UPDATE: Gay groups rip Obama.
UPDATE: Are gay politicians going to continue hosting gay pride fundraiser for Joe Biden?
UPDATE: Obama spokesman caught lying to Politico.
Joe and I have been trying since last night to get a copy of the government's brief just filed in this case. This is not the GLAD case that we've written about previously, it's another in California.
We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).
He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.
And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit.
Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.....
The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").
Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:
The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.
More...
from AMERICAblog:
Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/12/2009 09:44:00 AM
UPDATE: Show Obama you mean business, donate to AMERICAblog.
UPDATE: Former top aide to President Clinton says DOJ had a choice, they did not have to file a brief in favor of DOMA.
UPDATE: Gay groups rip Obama.
UPDATE: Are gay politicians going to continue hosting gay pride fundraiser for Joe Biden?
UPDATE: Obama spokesman caught lying to Politico.
Joe and I have been trying since last night to get a copy of the government's brief just filed in this case. This is not the GLAD case that we've written about previously, it's another in California.
We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).
He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.
And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit.
Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.....
The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").
Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:
The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.
20
@17
from AMERICAblog:
Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.....
The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").
Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:
The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.
More...
@17
from AMERICAblog:
Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.....
The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").
Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:
The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.
21
@17
from AMERICAblog:
Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:
The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.
from AMERICAblog:
Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:
The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.
22
@17
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says DOMA is good because it saves the feds money:
"The constitutional propriety of Congress's decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress's articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 ("There is nothing irrational about Congress's stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal."); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) ("[P]rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress' line drawing in this instance."). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says DOMA is good because it saves the feds money:
"The constitutional propriety of Congress's decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress's articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 ("There is nothing irrational about Congress's stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal."); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) ("[P]rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress' line drawing in this instance."). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."
23
@17
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says DOMA is constitutional (thus screwing us on any future lawsuits):
The constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA is further confirmed by the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which expressly empowers Congress to prescribe "the Effect" to be accorded to the laws of a sister State. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, cl. 2. Although the broad contours of this provision have not been conclusively established, the power exercised by Congress in enacting DOMA clearly conforms to any conceivable construction of the effects provision....
Under this view, Congress obviously acted within its plenary effects power in enacting Section 2 of DOMA. If the Constitution itself does not declare "the effect" of the law of "one state in another state," McElmoyle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) at 325, but instead leaves that "power in congress," Mills, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) at 485, then Congress clearly had the authority in DOMA to declare that no State is "required to give effect" to the same-sex marriage laws of other States. 28 U.S.C. § 1738C.
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says DOMA is constitutional (thus screwing us on any future lawsuits):
The constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA is further confirmed by the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which expressly empowers Congress to prescribe "the Effect" to be accorded to the laws of a sister State. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, cl. 2. Although the broad contours of this provision have not been conclusively established, the power exercised by Congress in enacting DOMA clearly conforms to any conceivable construction of the effects provision....
Under this view, Congress obviously acted within its plenary effects power in enacting Section 2 of DOMA. If the Constitution itself does not declare "the effect" of the law of "one state in another state," McElmoyle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) at 325, but instead leaves that "power in congress," Mills, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) at 485, then Congress clearly had the authority in DOMA to declare that no State is "required to give effect" to the same-sex marriage laws of other States. 28 U.S.C. § 1738C.
24
@17
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says "DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles."
This is important because it means that Obama wasn't content to simply argue, based on technicalities, that this case should be thrown out.
He went out of his way to argue that DOMA is actually constitutional, and then went into detail destroying every single constitutional argument we have for opposing DOMA in court.
This will screw us on every lawsuit we file on every gay issue, in every public policy debate we have in the states on any gay issue.
DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles Plaintiffs further allege that DOMA violates their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, including its equal protection component. DOMA, however, merely preserves for each State the authority to follow its own law and policy with respect to same-sex marriage for purposes of State law. And it maintains the status quo of federal policy, preserving a longstanding federal policy of promoting traditional marriages, by clarifying that the terms "marriage" and "spouse," for purposes of federal law, refer to marriage between a man and a woman, and do not encompass relationships of any other kind within their ambit. Thus, because DOMA does not make a suspect classification or implicate a right that has been recognized as fundamental, it is necessarily subject to rational-basis scrutiny, see National Ass'n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000), which it satisfies.
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says "DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles."
This is important because it means that Obama wasn't content to simply argue, based on technicalities, that this case should be thrown out.
He went out of his way to argue that DOMA is actually constitutional, and then went into detail destroying every single constitutional argument we have for opposing DOMA in court.
This will screw us on every lawsuit we file on every gay issue, in every public policy debate we have in the states on any gay issue.
DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles Plaintiffs further allege that DOMA violates their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, including its equal protection component. DOMA, however, merely preserves for each State the authority to follow its own law and policy with respect to same-sex marriage for purposes of State law. And it maintains the status quo of federal policy, preserving a longstanding federal policy of promoting traditional marriages, by clarifying that the terms "marriage" and "spouse," for purposes of federal law, refer to marriage between a man and a woman, and do not encompass relationships of any other kind within their ambit. Thus, because DOMA does not make a suspect classification or implicate a right that has been recognized as fundamental, it is necessarily subject to rational-basis scrutiny, see National Ass'n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000), which it satisfies.
25
@17
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states:
Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states:
Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.
26
@17
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says Gays don't deserve same scrutiny in court that other minorities get-
Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above — and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California — DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental — in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says Gays don't deserve same scrutiny in court that other minorities get-
Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above — and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California — DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental — in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.
27
@20: Nice job at the citation of authorities. You're hired. (Of course, as senior partner I still reserve the right to treat you like shit.)
28
@17
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says We wouldn't want the gays taking all of our money-
DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review.
from AMERICAblog:
Obama says We wouldn't want the gays taking all of our money-
DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review.
30
This qualifies as spam. Kill these posts, please. Off-topic, too.
Mrs. Robinson has really stepped in it. I have a special interest in seeing peace in Northern Ireland, a place I'm very fond of. I can't believe, I WON'T believe that this is going to cause violence to flare up again.
Mrs. Robinson has really stepped in it. I have a special interest in seeing peace in Northern Ireland, a place I'm very fond of. I can't believe, I WON'T believe that this is going to cause violence to flare up again.
31
I just read that Mrs. Robinson attempted to commit suicide after they found out about her affair. Isn't suicide also a sin?
33
Oh, the intrigue! Suicide? Wouldn't she want to live so that she could get God to forgive her and so that the people who said mean things about her even though she was forgiven would make a martyr out of her? Silly Jesus freaks.
And yes, the debate has (d)evolved to the point of spamming.
And yes, the debate has (d)evolved to the point of spamming.
34
@30
This is entirely On topic.
Dan mocks this woman,
who is not elected to anything,
for holding positions exactly the same as Obama,
who Dan endorsed, holds.
This is entirely On topic.
Dan mocks this woman,
who is not elected to anything,
for holding positions exactly the same as Obama,
who Dan endorsed, holds.
35
What history, exactly, am I forgetting? Enlighten me, asswipe.
Quoting the offensive brief is very different from proving (or even suggesting) that Obama hates gays. If you read the Huffington Post writeup about the brief, you'll see that there is no evidence of any sort suggesting that Obama knew the language of the brief or even of its existence. Many of those who worked on the brief are holdovers from Dubya's term, who cannot legally be fired.
The ones who should be taking the heat here are those who wrote the brief and those, if any, who approved it.
Link to the editorial here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogar…
STFU, Alleged you tiny-minded schmuckhead.
Quoting the offensive brief is very different from proving (or even suggesting) that Obama hates gays. If you read the Huffington Post writeup about the brief, you'll see that there is no evidence of any sort suggesting that Obama knew the language of the brief or even of its existence. Many of those who worked on the brief are holdovers from Dubya's term, who cannot legally be fired.
The ones who should be taking the heat here are those who wrote the brief and those, if any, who approved it.
Link to the editorial here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogar…
STFU, Alleged you tiny-minded schmuckhead.
40
The comments on this blog are way too highbrow. We're all the way up to number 40 and nobody has mentioned how they'd buy her a first class ticket to poundtown. I'd like to say that I would.
41
Um, cougar is very much 2009, and not yet out of style since we're not even two weeks into 2010. I know, Dan, you and the Stranger staff want to be at the forefront of trendsetting (or rather, declaring trends you don't like dead, like cupcake shops), but you don't swing that much influence yet.
42
*ahem*
Despite the thread being hijacked by a troll, and a member pandering to it, I would like to return the discussion to the topic at hand. I read all the links supplied, and found this passage (from the NYT article) incredibly telling--
"...Northern Ireland remains a world apart from Britain and the Irish Republic, with their more laissez-faire social and sexual attitudes. With the recent decades of violence across the province entrenching many people in their faiths, Catholics and Protestants alike have hewed to the sterner moral codes of an earlier age. Politicians flouting those codes have done so at their peril."
This situation is repeatedly endlessly throughout the world today & in history. The only argument would be which comes first, the violence or adhering to strict moral codes (of an earlier age)? The moral codes that these people live by is not only redundant, but near-totally useless in today's age. It gives them nothing but the illusion of superiority, which thus gives them justification to inflict violence on any who disagree w/ them. Whether Shi'ite, Sunni, Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, or the morals come from political extremism, etc, the pattern is repeated.
I don't know which comes first, but they go hand in hand. Violence & moral judgment. There's an old saw "There's two kinds of people in this world: Those who divide the world into two types of people and those who don't." The problem humans are facing today are between these two: those who divide humans into "Us vs. Them," and those who want to Live & Let Live. Unfortunately, most of the time, the Dividers win just by existing.
How can the Live & Let Live Whoo's down in Whoo-ville try to live in harmony w/ those who demand disharmony? Again, I don't know. I'm not a troll pushing an ideology on others. All I know is that I'm pretty fed up w/ the "Us v Them" crowd, because all they do is gum up the works of a functioning society.
More...
Despite the thread being hijacked by a troll, and a member pandering to it, I would like to return the discussion to the topic at hand. I read all the links supplied, and found this passage (from the NYT article) incredibly telling--
"...Northern Ireland remains a world apart from Britain and the Irish Republic, with their more laissez-faire social and sexual attitudes. With the recent decades of violence across the province entrenching many people in their faiths, Catholics and Protestants alike have hewed to the sterner moral codes of an earlier age. Politicians flouting those codes have done so at their peril."
This situation is repeatedly endlessly throughout the world today & in history. The only argument would be which comes first, the violence or adhering to strict moral codes (of an earlier age)? The moral codes that these people live by is not only redundant, but near-totally useless in today's age. It gives them nothing but the illusion of superiority, which thus gives them justification to inflict violence on any who disagree w/ them. Whether Shi'ite, Sunni, Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, or the morals come from political extremism, etc, the pattern is repeated.
I don't know which comes first, but they go hand in hand. Violence & moral judgment. There's an old saw "There's two kinds of people in this world: Those who divide the world into two types of people and those who don't." The problem humans are facing today are between these two: those who divide humans into "Us vs. Them," and those who want to Live & Let Live. Unfortunately, most of the time, the Dividers win just by existing.
How can the Live & Let Live Whoo's down in Whoo-ville try to live in harmony w/ those who demand disharmony? Again, I don't know. I'm not a troll pushing an ideology on others. All I know is that I'm pretty fed up w/ the "Us v Them" crowd, because all they do is gum up the works of a functioning society.
43
I agree, Some Old Nobodaddy. I know it's a Christian proverb, but "judge not lest ye be judged" is a rule that we should all try to live by. My apologies for feeding the troll.
44
You know, these threads are sooooo much easier to read with the Unregistered Comments switched off.
47
@37,
Those lyrics are SO CLOSE to such a perfect snap!!! (left out the "when you've got to choose" line, which would be such icing on the cake)
I'm sorry, I must applaud, even if it may be a troll, it's too good.
Those lyrics are SO CLOSE to such a perfect snap!!! (left out the "when you've got to choose" line, which would be such icing on the cake)
I'm sorry, I must applaud, even if it may be a troll, it's too good.
48
What struck me is this phrase in one of the articles:
"She has even denounced Hillary Clinton for accepting her husband's infidelities, saying: “No woman would put up with what she tolerated from her husband when he was President.
“She was thinking only of her future political career. It's all about power and not principle.”"
"She has even denounced Hillary Clinton for accepting her husband's infidelities, saying: “No woman would put up with what she tolerated from her husband when he was President.
“She was thinking only of her future political career. It's all about power and not principle.”"
49
Obama didn't write the Justice Department's brief. It was written by a low-level attorney who was employed there throughout the Bush Administration. If every scrap of paper that emanates from the federal government counts as "Obama says" then he is responsible for wildly opposite views coming out of different federal agencies, which makes no sense at all. News reports indicated that when Obama demanded to see a copy of the brief and read it, he was outraged and ordered the Justice Department to fix the problem. In a later reply brief filed in the same case, they retracted the objectionable statements.
52
@30
It wasn't mentioned in the post, but Mrs. Robinson *is* an elected official. She's a Member of Parliament, Member of the Northern Assembly, and a party spokesperson.
It wasn't mentioned in the post, but Mrs. Robinson *is* an elected official. She's a Member of Parliament, Member of the Northern Assembly, and a party spokesperson.
54
Alleged, you're the leotarded one here and the fact that you are reduced to making fun of people's nicks shows how little you actually have to say. I've read the evidence and checked the facts. The fact that when the President heard about it he retracted the offensive stuff completely blows a hole in your argument that Mr. Obama is a homophobe.
With that hole in your argument added to the rest, your argument looks like it might have been dropped on a land mine. What was it, Alleged? A Claymore? A Bouncing Betty? A Dingbat?
With that hole in your argument added to the rest, your argument looks like it might have been dropped on a land mine. What was it, Alleged? A Claymore? A Bouncing Betty? A Dingbat?
55
Actually Mrs Robinson said that the only things worse than child rape were homosexuality *and* sodomy. Splitting the two like that, it seems like she's referring to the sodomy definition that's not just homosexuality, but any non-vaginal, non-marital sex. In which, she doesn't seem to think child rape's that bad. Because according to her ranking:
Marital vaginal sex
Child rape
Marital oral, Marital anal, Non-marital oral, Non-marital anal, Homosexuality, Bestiality
So that blowjob you had last night? It would have been better to have raped a child. At least according to Mrs. Robinson.
Marital vaginal sex
Child rape
Marital oral, Marital anal, Non-marital oral, Non-marital anal, Homosexuality, Bestiality
So that blowjob you had last night? It would have been better to have raped a child. At least according to Mrs. Robinson.
58
I suspect the reason she says that homosexuality is worse than child rape is because she is, herself, a pedophile.
This teenager that she's having sex with was 9 years old when they met? How long has the "affair" been going on?
This teenager that she's having sex with was 9 years old when they met? How long has the "affair" been going on?
59
I am not totally up on the state of affairs in N.Ireland these days, but I remember there was a politically-motivated assassination a couple of years back, and it scared the crap out of everyone. People assumed it would spark a tit-for-tat murder which would quickly escalate to a return to wholesale violence. But it didn't, it didn't at all, and yay for N.Ireland. I can't believe that some politician's wife proving herself a douchebag would accomplish what this assassination did not. But again, not up on the current situation, so maybe it's more tense now than it was then (2007 or so). I think everyone there badly wants to avoid a return to the troubles.
61
@59, she's not just a politician's wife, she's a politician herself.
And the problem isn't just the affair, it's the dodgey financial dealings that might have gone with it, and whether or not her husband knew about them, which he probably did.
And the problem isn't just the affair, it's the dodgey financial dealings that might have gone with it, and whether or not her husband knew about them, which he probably did.
62
Ah, Sunday on Slog.
Appears Kirk McCambley likes his sundered canned ham well aged.
Thank God Brit Hume was spot on about that whole Christian "forgiveness and redemption" thing because God's cool with Mrs. Robinson's adulterous chicken hawkery.
Appears Kirk McCambley likes his sundered canned ham well aged.
Thank God Brit Hume was spot on about that whole Christian "forgiveness and redemption" thing because God's cool with Mrs. Robinson's adulterous chicken hawkery.
63
55
Barack Obama,
the one Savage endorsed;
how does He rank those activities?
(be sure to include Incest- Obama did...)
Barack Obama,
the one Savage endorsed;
how does He rank those activities?
(be sure to include Incest- Obama did...)
64
It wasn't the news of her affair that's threatening to bring the NI government down (though it made a mockery of the DUP's family-values schtick), it was the story of the money she didn't report, and that her husband didn't report.
As usual, Vincenzo has his eye on the real story:
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/wholes…
As usual, Vincenzo has his eye on the real story:
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/wholes…
68
Dan, extra points for including a link to a Guardian article that pretty much ends with the phrase "gaping hole".
69
According to JoeMyCod poor poor Tila Tequilla is disappointed and devastated that Slog isn't posting about her heartbreaking situation and instead is obsessing over this washed up old skanks two year old fling...
.
.
70
@44, thank you, thank you a thousand times. I wasn't aware I could turn off the unregistered comments. Now, if people would just stop responding to and engaging these fucks I'd be even happier!
And oh yeah, when are people (left,right,gay,straight whatever) going to realize that if you speak out against something/someone & go around judging other people & calling them abominations & rapists, you better make goddamn fucking sure your personal shit is clean?? Do people,especially in the public eye, in 2010 really think they can keep their skeletons in the closet?
And oh yeah, when are people (left,right,gay,straight whatever) going to realize that if you speak out against something/someone & go around judging other people & calling them abominations & rapists, you better make goddamn fucking sure your personal shit is clean?? Do people,especially in the public eye, in 2010 really think they can keep their skeletons in the closet?
71
Did you guys know that you can purchase round trip airfare to Ireland for less than $400!
I found out about that from a friend. Yeah, a friend. (>_>)
Fuck it, well-aged pussy *and* financial compensation!? You'd be an idiot not to take a chance!
I found out about that from a friend. Yeah, a friend. (>_>)
Fuck it, well-aged pussy *and* financial compensation!? You'd be an idiot not to take a chance!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Revelation 1:9 by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (72) RSS