Slog
News & ArtsFriday, August 31, 2012
Politics John Koster Spends Big Money on an Anti-Gay Campaign Manager
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:49 PM
Call me crazy, but if I was a consultant for the GOP, I'd have some advice for John Koster, the Republican running in Washington State's new 1st Congressional District: You shouldn't have Larry Stickney as your campaign manager.
Stickney ran Protect Marriage Washington, a statewide campaign to repeal domestic-partnership rights for gay couples in 2009, a campaign that was extremely dishonest, a campaign that operated in conjunction with an out-of-state tax-evader, and a campaign—with Stickney as the head man—who used every anti-gay trick in the book and claimed to espouse family values despite the fact that Stickney was thrice married and faced allegations from an ex-wife of domestic abuse.
Now Koster has paid Stickney $148,000 in wages and other receipts in the 2010 and 2012 campaigns, according to records from the Federal elections Commission, including $3,250 monthly salary as the campaign manager. Meanwhile, his family is in on the act. Among Greta, Matt, and Pollyanna Stickney, they've hauled another $36,000.
Why is Koster so cozy with an anti-gay bigot who flamed out in an election failure?
Koster didn't return my call today. But if it gives you any solace, Stickney has a track record of defeat. I can't calculate what, exactly, the voting trends were inside Washington State's new 1st Congressional District in when voters approved Referendum 71, despite Stickney's efforts to defeat it, because the new district didn't yet exist in 2009. But it stands to reason that many key voters approved gay rights. And they'll be inclined to vote against Koster, particularly if they know he's got Stickney in tow.
2
This is a pathetic story.
First, as the previous poster mentioned, this isn't "big money." Stickney's worked full-time for Koster's congressional campaigns for the bulk of a few years now. The claim of "big money" makes no sense here. And yes, other members of Stickney's family work on the campaign. So?
And Stickney actually has a track record of success. Maybe you should do some more research? A loss in a congressional race doesn't wipe away Stickney's wins.
As to your complaints about R-71: I get that you disagreed with the R-71 effort, but Stickney cannot control everyone who is gathering signatures. I had people tell me untrue things about petitions I disagreed with, like for the income tax initiative, but I didn't attack Bill Gates Sr. for it (though I did attack Gates for his *own* lies about the income tax initiative, relating to the nonsense about how it was constitutional ... no one actually reading the case can believe his claims, and he's a lawyer, so he should know better; but I digress).
So anyway, with you getting your facts and your framing wrong in various ways, this whole article is obviously just an attempt to smear Koster through the association fallacy. Everyone seems to be playing this game: attacking Koster for supposed ties to Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Akin and the Tea Party and Larry Stickney. YAWN.
Doesn't anyone have any criticisms about John Koster's ideas and abilities, instead of this fallacious nonsense? The far left seems to really hate Koster, but they can't seem to make reasoned, rational attacks against him. Instead they make things up ("big money", "track record of defeat", etc.) and continue incessantly with these association fallacies.
Why is that? Do you think your attacks actually are rational, or do you just hope your readers are dumb enough to think so?
More...
First, as the previous poster mentioned, this isn't "big money." Stickney's worked full-time for Koster's congressional campaigns for the bulk of a few years now. The claim of "big money" makes no sense here. And yes, other members of Stickney's family work on the campaign. So?
And Stickney actually has a track record of success. Maybe you should do some more research? A loss in a congressional race doesn't wipe away Stickney's wins.
As to your complaints about R-71: I get that you disagreed with the R-71 effort, but Stickney cannot control everyone who is gathering signatures. I had people tell me untrue things about petitions I disagreed with, like for the income tax initiative, but I didn't attack Bill Gates Sr. for it (though I did attack Gates for his *own* lies about the income tax initiative, relating to the nonsense about how it was constitutional ... no one actually reading the case can believe his claims, and he's a lawyer, so he should know better; but I digress).
So anyway, with you getting your facts and your framing wrong in various ways, this whole article is obviously just an attempt to smear Koster through the association fallacy. Everyone seems to be playing this game: attacking Koster for supposed ties to Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Akin and the Tea Party and Larry Stickney. YAWN.
Doesn't anyone have any criticisms about John Koster's ideas and abilities, instead of this fallacious nonsense? The far left seems to really hate Koster, but they can't seem to make reasoned, rational attacks against him. Instead they make things up ("big money", "track record of defeat", etc.) and continue incessantly with these association fallacies.
Why is that? Do you think your attacks actually are rational, or do you just hope your readers are dumb enough to think so?
3
I do want to make sure that I'm not being associated with @2. Koster and Stickney are both gaping assholes imo. And Stickney is getting paid more than just the monthly salary, so it isn't that meager. Just thought it was kind of a low salary for a top-tier targeted Congressional race's CM.
4
Yeah, he's got quite a trail of failures behind him, including:
1. He managed the 1999 anti-choice I-694 campaign which Washington voters roundly rejected.
2. He managed John Koster’s 2000 Congressional bid, which Koster lost to the pro-LGBT Democrat Rick Larsen (D-WA02) who still holds the congressional seat over 10 years later.
More at http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/20…
1. He managed the 1999 anti-choice I-694 campaign which Washington voters roundly rejected.
2. He managed John Koster’s 2000 Congressional bid, which Koster lost to the pro-LGBT Democrat Rick Larsen (D-WA02) who still holds the congressional seat over 10 years later.
More at http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/20…
5
@2) You're right, that Koster campaign in 2010 was also a real winner. As for the campaign's dishonesty, you cant honestly claim it was limited to a handful of signature gatherers. The campaign's leaders--the ones filing and printing the petitions--were the biggest traffickers of bullshit.
6
c'mon girlfriend: I don't know the exact time periods, but the total payments have been for probably about three years full time for the two campaigns, which would be less than $50K a year total. That is pretty meager, I think, but even if it is not, it certainly isn't "Big Money."
Dominic and Lurleen: yes, that's two losses, 2000 and 2010. A very, very close loss in 2010, and almost as close in 2000. A few more if you count I-694 and R-71. Again -- and I don't know why you pretend to ignore this -- what about all his wins? His wins have been by large margins.
And Dominic, please don't pretend to be stupid. I can honestly claim it was limited to a handful of signature gatherers because the only evidence I've seen, and the only you've provided, is limited to a handful of signature gatherers.
You now provide additional evidence. The first statement made is actually mostly accurate: the law says that a homosexual couple can register their partnership and get ALL the legal rights of marriage. That is entirely reasonably described as "effectively" same-sex marriage. Not dishonest, especially when you consider the fact that the word "effectively" directly implies it is not actual marriage.
Technically, though, the statement is slightly false, but not intentionally. It's mostly semantics people other than myself and pedants like me would care about, but to make it entirely accurate, it should read, "The legislature just passed a law that allows same-sex couples to enter into what is, effectively, marriage." That would be absolutely true, and even the law's authors billed it as precisely that: "everything but [the word] 'marriage.'" The difference here is that "same-sex marriage" is not "effectively legal" under the law as the petition read, but the unions created by the law are "effectively same-sex marriage."
To most people, again, that's a distinction without a difference, and I cannot see how the different wording, accurate or not, could possibly have swayed people one way or the other.
As to the second claim, this is arguable, though I wouldn't argue it. But I think it is obviously true that if we see legal challenges to how gay unions are discussed in school, the law will be a factor in a court's decision. It might be jumping the gun a little, but it is very easy to see how this law will lead to schools being allowed, and perhaps someday even forced, to teach that gay unions are normal (whatever "normal" means).
Personally, I don't care much what schools teach, as I've given up on them for reasons like this: we fight over nonsense and never get around to learning simple things like gerunds and parameciums.
More...
Dominic and Lurleen: yes, that's two losses, 2000 and 2010. A very, very close loss in 2010, and almost as close in 2000. A few more if you count I-694 and R-71. Again -- and I don't know why you pretend to ignore this -- what about all his wins? His wins have been by large margins.
And Dominic, please don't pretend to be stupid. I can honestly claim it was limited to a handful of signature gatherers because the only evidence I've seen, and the only you've provided, is limited to a handful of signature gatherers.
You now provide additional evidence. The first statement made is actually mostly accurate: the law says that a homosexual couple can register their partnership and get ALL the legal rights of marriage. That is entirely reasonably described as "effectively" same-sex marriage. Not dishonest, especially when you consider the fact that the word "effectively" directly implies it is not actual marriage.
Technically, though, the statement is slightly false, but not intentionally. It's mostly semantics people other than myself and pedants like me would care about, but to make it entirely accurate, it should read, "The legislature just passed a law that allows same-sex couples to enter into what is, effectively, marriage." That would be absolutely true, and even the law's authors billed it as precisely that: "everything but [the word] 'marriage.'" The difference here is that "same-sex marriage" is not "effectively legal" under the law as the petition read, but the unions created by the law are "effectively same-sex marriage."
To most people, again, that's a distinction without a difference, and I cannot see how the different wording, accurate or not, could possibly have swayed people one way or the other.
As to the second claim, this is arguable, though I wouldn't argue it. But I think it is obviously true that if we see legal challenges to how gay unions are discussed in school, the law will be a factor in a court's decision. It might be jumping the gun a little, but it is very easy to see how this law will lead to schools being allowed, and perhaps someday even forced, to teach that gay unions are normal (whatever "normal" means).
Personally, I don't care much what schools teach, as I've given up on them for reasons like this: we fight over nonsense and never get around to learning simple things like gerunds and parameciums.
7
Nobody that's normal around here cares. The point of this is what? The guy made money? How much do the people that run the stranger make shoveling all this pap anyhow? I want to see their tax returns like RIGHT NOW.
Just another article from a publication that would like to burn people at the stake for their religious affiliations or beliefs. There are better ways to win people over.
Hate runs both ways...if the Stranger got hate in its heart, let it out...
Just another article from a publication that would like to burn people at the stake for their religious affiliations or beliefs. There are better ways to win people over.
Hate runs both ways...if the Stranger got hate in its heart, let it out...
8
Pudge, what wins? Here's Larry Stickney's "About" page on Red County. There are no wins listed here. If he had any, don't you think he would have listed them? He lists his efforts but neglects to mention that every vote-related effort he directed, he lost.
http://redcounty.com/larry-stickney
About Larry Stickney
Larry Stickney, is the President of the Washington Values Alliance (www.valuesaction.org) A conservative political activist and strategist, Stickney came to the WAVA post after serving as the Executive Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington in 2007 – 08. Stickney (currently on sabbatlcal) is the host of the Values Action Radio Show, which is aired weekly on the Liberty Broadcasting System.
Larry recently served as campaign manager for John Koster's 2010 Congressional bid. Prior to his work with Koster, he served on staff for the Washington State House of Representatives for six legislative sessions. In 1999, he managed the Initiative 694 measure to ban partial-birth abortion.
In 2009, Stickney sponsored the Referendum 71 campaign and founded Protect Marriage Washington, which nearly turned the liberal political establishment on its ear, narrowly loosing with the Reject 71 effort. Stickney continues to defend the signatures of those who signed R-71 and has been all the way to the Supreme Court to do so.
Prior to his work with the FPIW and WAVA, Larry served for a decade as a Legislative Aide to Snohomish County Councilman and former State Representative John Koster.
In 2003, Larry drafted Snohomish County Council Resolution 03-026 (passed unanimously) in support of the City of Everett's Monument to the Ten Commandments.
Larry was an elected officer of the Kitsap County Republican Party and served on their executive board for many years in the 1990's. He also managed the winning State House campaign for Steve Hargrove in 1994 and was named the "'94 Republican Campaign Volunteer of the Year." Prior to his political efforts, Larry worked for sixteen years in the construction industry, including 8 years during the 1980's on remote sites in the state of Alaska.
Larry and Polly Stickney & children make their home in Arlington, Washington.
More...
http://redcounty.com/larry-stickney
About Larry Stickney
Larry Stickney, is the President of the Washington Values Alliance (www.valuesaction.org) A conservative political activist and strategist, Stickney came to the WAVA post after serving as the Executive Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington in 2007 – 08. Stickney (currently on sabbatlcal) is the host of the Values Action Radio Show, which is aired weekly on the Liberty Broadcasting System.
Larry recently served as campaign manager for John Koster's 2010 Congressional bid. Prior to his work with Koster, he served on staff for the Washington State House of Representatives for six legislative sessions. In 1999, he managed the Initiative 694 measure to ban partial-birth abortion.
In 2009, Stickney sponsored the Referendum 71 campaign and founded Protect Marriage Washington, which nearly turned the liberal political establishment on its ear, narrowly loosing with the Reject 71 effort. Stickney continues to defend the signatures of those who signed R-71 and has been all the way to the Supreme Court to do so.
Prior to his work with the FPIW and WAVA, Larry served for a decade as a Legislative Aide to Snohomish County Councilman and former State Representative John Koster.
In 2003, Larry drafted Snohomish County Council Resolution 03-026 (passed unanimously) in support of the City of Everett's Monument to the Ten Commandments.
Larry was an elected officer of the Kitsap County Republican Party and served on their executive board for many years in the 1990's. He also managed the winning State House campaign for Steve Hargrove in 1994 and was named the "'94 Republican Campaign Volunteer of the Year." Prior to his political efforts, Larry worked for sixteen years in the construction industry, including 8 years during the 1980's on remote sites in the state of Alaska.
Larry and Polly Stickney & children make their home in Arlington, Washington.
10
Lurleen: well, that's kinda my point ... you don't know. Dominic doesn't know. They are there, they are known and easy to find, and y'all pretend to know what you're talking about ... but you don't.
I'm just enjoying it too much to bother telling you. :-)
I'm just enjoying it too much to bother telling you. :-)
11
Whew I have Pudge covering my back on this one. I had Hitler, Stalin AND Pol Pot organize my "re-education" camps because they do it so well, they have a track record of success you know. I in NO WAY find their "other" associations to my liking and distance myself from them. But man they sure do build those camps nicely and I want then on my team for that.
13
Sargon: so you're saying Larry Sitckney is evil and no one should associate with him. Please, keep saying that ... you'll only help convince moderates that they want nothing to do with *your* side.
Lurleen: shrug. I knew about his wins previously, as everyone who knows much about Stickney at all does, but I looked in an obvious place to find them just to make sure they were easily found by anyone. They were. I found them in a few minutes in a way anyone could.
Lurleen: shrug. I knew about his wins previously, as everyone who knows much about Stickney at all does, but I looked in an obvious place to find them just to make sure they were easily found by anyone. They were. I found them in a few minutes in a way anyone could.
16
The polls on same-sex marriage are all over the place. People opposing do so for many different reasons. They are not all bigots. It may surprise some but many gay/lesbians find reason to oppose same-sex marriage laws.
This article does a great job distracting folks from the real issues congress will address: the fed debt and jobs. One need not make reaches to know that these are John Koster's concerns.
This article does a great job distracting folks from the real issues congress will address: the fed debt and jobs. One need not make reaches to know that these are John Koster's concerns.
17
The polls on same-sex marriage are all over the place. People opposing do so for many different reasons. They are not all bigots. It may surprise some but many gay/lesbians find reason to oppose same-sex marriage laws.
This article does a great job distracting folks from the real issues congress will address: the fed debt and jobs. One need not make reaches to know that these are Koster's concerns.
This article does a great job distracting folks from the real issues congress will address: the fed debt and jobs. One need not make reaches to know that these are Koster's concerns.
18
Larry Stickney's salary of $3,250 per mo. is well below the typical Congressional Campaign Manager's salary which is $5,000 per month. DelBene is bank rolling a posh campaign. I don't know what she is paying her Campaign Manager Kelly Evans. She does have some election law disclosure issues.
20
What a truly silly argument. The issue in this election is do we want government interference in our lives, determining what we drive, what energy we can use, what doctors we can see, where we can buy insurance, where we can get student loans and the interest rate we pay? Or, do we want government to get out of the way & let us live our lives as we see fit? Do we want businesses to be free from over-regulation and taxation so they can hire people and we can get back to work? Do we want America to return to the days of leadership and optimism or do we want to continue the blame America first arguments that lead to loss of jobs and despair?
I don't think the choices have ever been more clear. DelBene doesn't even understand that after January, you will pay a tax to the government when you sell your house--yeah, in this housing market, let's tax home sales. The first federal income tax is on home sales! Why? What is the tax for? To pay for someone else's insurance of course. So, a 45 year old woman who's had a hysterectomy can be covered for maternity care & someone who would never see a holistic doctor will be covered for herbal medicine he/she will never use & most importantly so young people can pay for insurance for the indigent. So, housing values will go down even more to increase the cost and inefficiency of our insurance system. Koster would vote for a plan to put people in charge of their insurance and bring costs and burdens down by letting people choose the coverage they carry.
The gay marriage issue is a state issue and Stickney's involvement does not change who Koster is and what he stands for. Koster is a decent, hard-working, honest and trust-worthy civil servant who will fight to reduce government's interference in my life. Now, that's something I can vote for.
More...
I don't think the choices have ever been more clear. DelBene doesn't even understand that after January, you will pay a tax to the government when you sell your house--yeah, in this housing market, let's tax home sales. The first federal income tax is on home sales! Why? What is the tax for? To pay for someone else's insurance of course. So, a 45 year old woman who's had a hysterectomy can be covered for maternity care & someone who would never see a holistic doctor will be covered for herbal medicine he/she will never use & most importantly so young people can pay for insurance for the indigent. So, housing values will go down even more to increase the cost and inefficiency of our insurance system. Koster would vote for a plan to put people in charge of their insurance and bring costs and burdens down by letting people choose the coverage they carry.
The gay marriage issue is a state issue and Stickney's involvement does not change who Koster is and what he stands for. Koster is a decent, hard-working, honest and trust-worthy civil servant who will fight to reduce government's interference in my life. Now, that's something I can vote for.
21
@20 wrote "Koster ...will fight to reduce government's interference in my life."
Except when he fights to force government to *directly interfere* in the most personal parts of our lives. From his website: http://www.kosterforcongress.com/issues.…
"Abortion
My 100% pro-life voting record is a testament to the commitment I have to the culture of life. Our Declaration of Independence states that our unalienable rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Therefore, it is the express job of government to protect all innocent human life.
"Marriage and Family
I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. To undermine the family is to undermine the very cornerstone of our society.
Koster disagrees with you, Imagine, that these are just state issues. So does the Republican Party up to and including Mitt Romney, who has vowed to pass an anti-gay national marriage amendment and wants to reverse Roe v. Wade so that women aren't guaranteed a right to choose and states can pass draconian anti-choice laws. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values
Nobody should be fooled into thinking that John Koster or any other federal GOP candidate, if elected, would focus solely on economic issues. A Rep. Koster would continue his decades-long effort of trying to strip Americans of the liberty of making intensely personal decisions.
Except when he fights to force government to *directly interfere* in the most personal parts of our lives. From his website: http://www.kosterforcongress.com/issues.…
"Abortion
My 100% pro-life voting record is a testament to the commitment I have to the culture of life. Our Declaration of Independence states that our unalienable rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Therefore, it is the express job of government to protect all innocent human life.
"Marriage and Family
I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. To undermine the family is to undermine the very cornerstone of our society.
Koster disagrees with you, Imagine, that these are just state issues. So does the Republican Party up to and including Mitt Romney, who has vowed to pass an anti-gay national marriage amendment and wants to reverse Roe v. Wade so that women aren't guaranteed a right to choose and states can pass draconian anti-choice laws. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values
Nobody should be fooled into thinking that John Koster or any other federal GOP candidate, if elected, would focus solely on economic issues. A Rep. Koster would continue his decades-long effort of trying to strip Americans of the liberty of making intensely personal decisions.
22
Lurleen, on abortion, you must be smart enough to understand that if you think the distinct human life in the womb has the right to life -- which most people in this country believe -- then from his perspective he is not "interfering" with someone's life, any more than Abe Lincoln "interfered" with the lives of slaveowners by freeing their slaves.
Yes, I am comparing abortion to slavery. Except abortion is worse, because most slaves weren't killed.
You are free to disagree, of course, but if you cannot recognize the *fact* that for pro-life advocates that this is about putting the right to life of the victim ahead of the right to liberty of the mother, then you are either dishonest, or incapable of engaging in rational discussion on the topic. To frame this solely about the mother's rights is an obvious and indefensible lie.
On marriage, that's a bit different obviously, but the fact is that we have a social institution of marriage, and we have conflation between that and the civil institution of marriage: to most people, there is no distinction between the two separate institutions. And government has no right to define our social institutions. (This is why I am for "decoupling" the two institutions, and getting government out of marriage.)
But you can't claim the high ground on this, Lurleen, because you are literally asking for MORE government involvement in more romantic relationships. You are asking for specific and explicit blessing from the government for what is a personal and private affair. So please don't pretend you are for small government here. Both sides -- those asking for civil marriage to be kept to man + woman, and those asking it to be extended to homosexual unions -- are for big government getting involved in our private lives.
And worse, your side isn't even for actual marriage equality. Y'all pretend to think this is about 14th Amendment and equal protection, but that's a lie, because "true marriage equality" -- a lie told by many gay marriage advocates -- can only be had if every couple of consenting adults, who are not already married, are allowed to marry. But the gat marriage law changes still disallow marriage between siblings (including gay siblings).
So don't pretend you're for government getting out of our private lives on the marriage issue. As long as you want government sanction for who is and isn't married, which is what "gay marriage" laws are all about, you are not.
More...
Yes, I am comparing abortion to slavery. Except abortion is worse, because most slaves weren't killed.
You are free to disagree, of course, but if you cannot recognize the *fact* that for pro-life advocates that this is about putting the right to life of the victim ahead of the right to liberty of the mother, then you are either dishonest, or incapable of engaging in rational discussion on the topic. To frame this solely about the mother's rights is an obvious and indefensible lie.
On marriage, that's a bit different obviously, but the fact is that we have a social institution of marriage, and we have conflation between that and the civil institution of marriage: to most people, there is no distinction between the two separate institutions. And government has no right to define our social institutions. (This is why I am for "decoupling" the two institutions, and getting government out of marriage.)
But you can't claim the high ground on this, Lurleen, because you are literally asking for MORE government involvement in more romantic relationships. You are asking for specific and explicit blessing from the government for what is a personal and private affair. So please don't pretend you are for small government here. Both sides -- those asking for civil marriage to be kept to man + woman, and those asking it to be extended to homosexual unions -- are for big government getting involved in our private lives.
And worse, your side isn't even for actual marriage equality. Y'all pretend to think this is about 14th Amendment and equal protection, but that's a lie, because "true marriage equality" -- a lie told by many gay marriage advocates -- can only be had if every couple of consenting adults, who are not already married, are allowed to marry. But the gat marriage law changes still disallow marriage between siblings (including gay siblings).
So don't pretend you're for government getting out of our private lives on the marriage issue. As long as you want government sanction for who is and isn't married, which is what "gay marriage" laws are all about, you are not.
23
The intent of the article is clear. No "Big Money" is being spent and no homophobic campaign is being waged. The intent here is to "use" the gay/lesbian community in order to elect a Democrat -DelBene.
What is actually in the interest of gays and lesbians are the same things that are in the interest of heterosexuals: jobs, real healthcare reform, and federal budget sanity. Unable to show how DelBene can address these issues the article resorts to a bogus scare of a Big Money Hate Agenda.
Our current state of affairs strains all relationships. Koster is the clear choice in the 1st congressional district for both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
What is actually in the interest of gays and lesbians are the same things that are in the interest of heterosexuals: jobs, real healthcare reform, and federal budget sanity. Unable to show how DelBene can address these issues the article resorts to a bogus scare of a Big Money Hate Agenda.
Our current state of affairs strains all relationships. Koster is the clear choice in the 1st congressional district for both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
24
pudge @22
Since you state that it is all about the rights of the "victim" in the abortion question do you then advocate putting a newborn in prison for manslaughter when the pregnancy or birth kills the mother? The absolute ban on abortion that you are advocating WILL cause the deaths of women that could be saved by an abortion as soon as it is determined that the pregnancy will cause her death. So who goes to prison for the mother's death? On the part of the fetus (if she dies during the pregnancy) or the infant (if it is childbirth that kills her) it has to be considered merely manslaughter as the newborn or fetus cannot choose to not kill mom. It is still manslaughter tho. But you and others who advocate NO EXCEPTIONS can only be considered guilty of premeditated murder. You know it will cause deaths and you still continue to want it to happen. I'll cop to some sociopathic tendencies but how can you and others like you sleep at night? That is taking depraved indifference to a new low.
And drop the slavery comparison. Honest Abe didn't free a single slave. Not one. Ever. He knew his proclamation was simply a feel good one when he wrote it up. Not only that but he didn't actually have the authority to issue it as a real order. Not to mention that all a state had to do to NOT be part of the area affected was to renounce the confederacy and return to the Union. Oh yes and that little detail about how it only applied to those states in rebellion made it a little hard to enforce since at the time Abe didn't have a way to enforce it even if it could have been legally done. The congressional followup to the proclamation which outlawed slavery was at least legal even if it had to wait till the end of the civil war to be enforced. Remember that slavery was still legal in those states that did not join the confederacy until congress outlawed it.
Also nice of you to redefine what marriage equality should mean. Since the gay marriage advocates have it tagged as meaning the same rights to marry as heterosexuals I don't see where you get that it should say all consenting adults should be able to marry even if it includes siblings. I don't get why sibling marriage should be allowed to make it "true marriage equality" but that could be because I understand the science of genetics and realize that incestuous marriages are bad thing. Since heterosexuals aren't allowed incestuous marriage then not allowing gay siblings to wed keeps the field equal. Even 4000 years ago they figured out that siblings being married and having children was a bad thing and they didn't even know what genetics was. They just knew the results of allowing it.
More...
Since you state that it is all about the rights of the "victim" in the abortion question do you then advocate putting a newborn in prison for manslaughter when the pregnancy or birth kills the mother? The absolute ban on abortion that you are advocating WILL cause the deaths of women that could be saved by an abortion as soon as it is determined that the pregnancy will cause her death. So who goes to prison for the mother's death? On the part of the fetus (if she dies during the pregnancy) or the infant (if it is childbirth that kills her) it has to be considered merely manslaughter as the newborn or fetus cannot choose to not kill mom. It is still manslaughter tho. But you and others who advocate NO EXCEPTIONS can only be considered guilty of premeditated murder. You know it will cause deaths and you still continue to want it to happen. I'll cop to some sociopathic tendencies but how can you and others like you sleep at night? That is taking depraved indifference to a new low.
And drop the slavery comparison. Honest Abe didn't free a single slave. Not one. Ever. He knew his proclamation was simply a feel good one when he wrote it up. Not only that but he didn't actually have the authority to issue it as a real order. Not to mention that all a state had to do to NOT be part of the area affected was to renounce the confederacy and return to the Union. Oh yes and that little detail about how it only applied to those states in rebellion made it a little hard to enforce since at the time Abe didn't have a way to enforce it even if it could have been legally done. The congressional followup to the proclamation which outlawed slavery was at least legal even if it had to wait till the end of the civil war to be enforced. Remember that slavery was still legal in those states that did not join the confederacy until congress outlawed it.
Also nice of you to redefine what marriage equality should mean. Since the gay marriage advocates have it tagged as meaning the same rights to marry as heterosexuals I don't see where you get that it should say all consenting adults should be able to marry even if it includes siblings. I don't get why sibling marriage should be allowed to make it "true marriage equality" but that could be because I understand the science of genetics and realize that incestuous marriages are bad thing. Since heterosexuals aren't allowed incestuous marriage then not allowing gay siblings to wed keeps the field equal. Even 4000 years ago they figured out that siblings being married and having children was a bad thing and they didn't even know what genetics was. They just knew the results of allowing it.
25
Romial: "do you then advocate putting a newborn in prison for manslaughter when the pregnancy or birth kills the mother?"
No, of course not. That makes zero sense. We require "mens rea" to convict people in general, and a newborn is incapable of this.
"The absolute ban on abortion that you are advocating WILL cause the deaths of women that could be saved by an abortion as soon as it is determined that the pregnancy will cause her death."
That also makes no sense: I do not advocate an absolute ban on abortion. Everyone I know -- and I know a lot of pro-life people -- says there should obviously be an exception for the life of the mother.
"It is still manslaughter tho."
Again, just to make this clear, you don't understand criminal law. A mind incapable of intent of a crime cannot be convicted of a crime (unless it is a strict liability crime, which is not the case with manslaughter).
"But you and others who advocate NO EXCEPTIONS can only be considered guilty of premeditated murder."
I know no one who advocates that. Literally. You're committing the straw man fallacy.
"And drop the slavery comparison."
No.
"Remember that slavery was still legal in those states that did not join the confederacy until congress outlawed it."
None of that is related to my comparison between abortion and slavery.
"Also nice of you to redefine what marriage equality should mean."
I didn't.
"Since the gay marriage advocates have it tagged as meaning the same rights to marry as heterosexuals ..."
Yes, they are the ones lying here. If they were arguing to open up marriage to any two consenting adults, they could claim to be for marriage equality. They are not for marriage equality. They are for expanding marriage for gays, while leaving marriage discrimination for siblings and others who want to marry, but currently cannot.
"I don't see where you get that it should say all consenting adults should be able to marry even if it includes siblings."
I get it from the arguments of the gay marriage advocates themselves. They are the ones claiming equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment. That necessarily includes ALL people, not just their favored group, yet they are advocating for expanding marriage only to their favored group.
"I don't get why sibling marriage should be allowed to make it 'true marriage equality'"
I think it is self-evident.
"... but that could be because I understand the science of genetics and realize that incestuous marriages are bad thing."
Nonsense. First, as I noted, GAY sibling marriage is still illegal under gay marriage, and genetics has nothing to do with that, obviously. So if you're arguing "science," you need to allow gay sibling marriage, even if you exclude heterosexual sibling marriage.
Second, one of the main arguments made by gay marriage advocates is that marriage is not about procreation: how then you can turn around and say siblings cannot marry because of procreation? How hypocritical! Plus, it's not like the fact that they cannot legally marry would stop them from having children, anymore than it's stopped gay couples from having children.
So please, this isn't about science at all.
"Since heterosexuals aren't allowed incestuous marriage then not allowing gay siblings to wed keeps the field equal."
... even though you have NO REASON to disallow them from marrying? You'll deny them the right to marry just because it's "equal"?
And it's still not equal for the couple wanting to marry, obviously. Your argument is reminiscent of the state's argument in Lawrence v. Texas, where Texas argued the anti-sodomy law was not discriminatory because it applied to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
"Even 4000 years ago they figured out that siblings being married and having children was a bad thing and they didn't even know what genetics was. They just knew the results of allowing it."
Shrug. You've given no good reason to disallow sibling marriage; your own pro-gay-marriage arguments undermine everything you've said.
More...
No, of course not. That makes zero sense. We require "mens rea" to convict people in general, and a newborn is incapable of this.
"The absolute ban on abortion that you are advocating WILL cause the deaths of women that could be saved by an abortion as soon as it is determined that the pregnancy will cause her death."
That also makes no sense: I do not advocate an absolute ban on abortion. Everyone I know -- and I know a lot of pro-life people -- says there should obviously be an exception for the life of the mother.
"It is still manslaughter tho."
Again, just to make this clear, you don't understand criminal law. A mind incapable of intent of a crime cannot be convicted of a crime (unless it is a strict liability crime, which is not the case with manslaughter).
"But you and others who advocate NO EXCEPTIONS can only be considered guilty of premeditated murder."
I know no one who advocates that. Literally. You're committing the straw man fallacy.
"And drop the slavery comparison."
No.
"Remember that slavery was still legal in those states that did not join the confederacy until congress outlawed it."
None of that is related to my comparison between abortion and slavery.
"Also nice of you to redefine what marriage equality should mean."
I didn't.
"Since the gay marriage advocates have it tagged as meaning the same rights to marry as heterosexuals ..."
Yes, they are the ones lying here. If they were arguing to open up marriage to any two consenting adults, they could claim to be for marriage equality. They are not for marriage equality. They are for expanding marriage for gays, while leaving marriage discrimination for siblings and others who want to marry, but currently cannot.
"I don't see where you get that it should say all consenting adults should be able to marry even if it includes siblings."
I get it from the arguments of the gay marriage advocates themselves. They are the ones claiming equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment. That necessarily includes ALL people, not just their favored group, yet they are advocating for expanding marriage only to their favored group.
"I don't get why sibling marriage should be allowed to make it 'true marriage equality'"
I think it is self-evident.
"... but that could be because I understand the science of genetics and realize that incestuous marriages are bad thing."
Nonsense. First, as I noted, GAY sibling marriage is still illegal under gay marriage, and genetics has nothing to do with that, obviously. So if you're arguing "science," you need to allow gay sibling marriage, even if you exclude heterosexual sibling marriage.
Second, one of the main arguments made by gay marriage advocates is that marriage is not about procreation: how then you can turn around and say siblings cannot marry because of procreation? How hypocritical! Plus, it's not like the fact that they cannot legally marry would stop them from having children, anymore than it's stopped gay couples from having children.
So please, this isn't about science at all.
"Since heterosexuals aren't allowed incestuous marriage then not allowing gay siblings to wed keeps the field equal."
... even though you have NO REASON to disallow them from marrying? You'll deny them the right to marry just because it's "equal"?
And it's still not equal for the couple wanting to marry, obviously. Your argument is reminiscent of the state's argument in Lawrence v. Texas, where Texas argued the anti-sodomy law was not discriminatory because it applied to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
"Even 4000 years ago they figured out that siblings being married and having children was a bad thing and they didn't even know what genetics was. They just knew the results of allowing it."
Shrug. You've given no good reason to disallow sibling marriage; your own pro-gay-marriage arguments undermine everything you've said.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
In Which Peter Steinbrueck Peforms in Blackvoice by Goldy
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
-
The Monday Morning News 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 (25) RSS