Previous presidents, whether you agreed with them or not, all operated within the normal range of American political discourse. Maybe some tested that range, but they still had the ability to be civil and comforting when the country needed it. You know what needs to be “great again”? The American President. ... See MoreSee Less
Biden is the clear choice when it comes to compassionate and decent leadership. In a battle of heart, mind, and character Joe Biden wins by a landslide. We n...
Five years ago when Donald Trump road that escalator and announced his candidacy, everyone including most people who are now Trump-for-lifers, believed it was a stunt, and he was clearly unqualifie...
Signed into law in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of restricting federal marriage benefits to heterosexual marriages only. But what exactly does DOMA defend? I mean, the very name of this act implies a profound protection of the institution of marriage, so it must make great strides to defend the institution.
During today’s oral arguments on California’s gay marriage ban (Prop 8), Justice Scalia asked Ted Olson, the lawyer challenging Prop 8, “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791 [Bill of Rights ratification]? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?” Olsen answered Scalia’s question with his own question responding with, “When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages?”
Marriage, as recognized by the state, requires a license and is a legal contract between two people. It should be of no consequence if this legal contract is between a man and a woman or two men, or two women. Because it is administered by the state, that state must abide by the U.S. constitution. Or in other words, a marriage license and the legal contract that goes along with it must not discriminate.
In a continuation of rapid social change, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds 58 percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage. That is up sharply from only 9 years ago (2004) when only 32 percent thought gays and lesbians should be able to legally marry.
Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman has reversed his longstanding position against same-sex marriage. Portman said his stance evolved two years ago when his own son came out as gay to he and his wife. “It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective,” said Portman ” “[O]f a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have — to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years.”
As if we needed further evidence that the mainstream Republican Party is out-of-touch with the majority of America, a number of prominent Republicans have signed a legal brief in support of same-sex marriage, denouncing the official party platform. The brief will be used in a case heading to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing against California’s Proposition 8, a ballot-initiative that made same-sex marriage illegal in the state.
It amazes me how Republicans have framed both the election results and their bargaining power during the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. They act as if they won big on election night and that they hold all the cards on the negotiating table.
To say there is a sizable liberal bias in the media is to show how far the conservative movement has dragged this country to the right in the past 30 years. I’m talking politically, not socially. The country is on a progressive liberal march as always when it comes to social issues. The issues conservatives rail against today will be the issues they defend tomorrow. If there is truth to the charge of liberal bias in the media it is because, as Stephen Colbert quipped, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” In other words, it is liberals who have led the charge when it comes to advancing human progress on social issues, so it stands to reason the mainstream media would also have a similar slant if the media stands for the truth and what’s right. Alternatively you could go with Colbert’s “truthiness” and only accept “facts” you wish to be true (from the gut) instead of facts that are true.