Politics and religion.

[blue]

May I put in my 2¢ worth here? I don't like the EFCA because it seems to want to do away with secret ballots.

Personally, I favor 'right to work' laws. So does my husband who, although retired, is still a member of the UAW.

Alaska may be a Forced Unionism State but I am very much anti union. However union members should have the right to privacy and that includes secret ballots.

[Grace]

Schadenfreude

One of my favorite words

[blue]

One of my favorite words

Its almost a personal moto for some.

[Puckstop31]

We are all entitled to an an opinion about Kate and Jon, Michael Jackson, and Sarah Palin -- and Barak Obama - especially as they have all made the decision to be public figures.

Again..... I never said that you were not entitled to an opinion, of course you are.


Its just interesting how so many go on and on and on about her.

[Grace]

Its just interesting how so many go on and on and on about her.

Give it a rest, Puck. Have you checked out the MJ topic recently - it's at 19 pages and counting. Most likely SP will cease as flavor-of-the-day when she ceases to put herself all over the front pages.

[Grace]

Massachusetts has decided to file suit against the U.S. Government.

From the Boston Globe -

Mass. is 1st to fight US marriage law

By Nandini Jayakrishna and Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Correspondent | Globe Staff | July 9, 2009

Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, yesterday became the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, contending that Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to states.

The suit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley says the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violates the US Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to define the marital status of residents. The suit also says the law forces the state to discriminate against same-sex married couples - on certain health benefits and burial rights - or risk losing federal funding.

“Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people,’’ said the complaint filed in US District Court in Boston.

More than 16,000 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts since gay marriage became legal in the state in 2004, the suit said, “and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state.’’

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, which defends the government in litigation, issued a two-sentence statement yesterday saying President Obama “supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. We will review this case.’’

Massachusetts risks losing millions in dollars for MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid program for the poor, and for veterans’ cemeteries overseen by the state Department of Veterans Services, unless it obeys the Defense of Marriage Act. The federal government has told the state that it cannot provide federal funding for MassHealth benefits given to same-sex spouses. It also informed the state it will lose Veterans Affairs funding if it buries the same-sex spouse of a veteran in a cemetery, as the state does for heterosexual spouses of veterans.

Yesterday’s lawsuit fueled speculation that Coakley is courting liberal Democrats in preparation for a bid for a more prominent office. Coakley has been mentioned as a possible successor to Senator Edward M. Kennedy if he is unable to finish his term because of brain cancer, and to Governor Deval Patrick if he changes his mind and decides not to seek reelection.

Coakley’s stand “appeals to liberals generally, and it appeals to the gay community specifically,’’ said Dennis Hale, a political science professor at Boston College.

But Coakley brushed aside a question about her political future at a news conference.

“As of today, unlike many of my colleagues, I’m still running for reelection for attorney general,’’ she said. Her term expires January 2011. The suit is the second in four months challenging the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court in Boston.

On March 3, six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands died brought a claim that said the federal law barred them from getting more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. The benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees and tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns.

Legal specialists described that complaint, which was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, as one of the first serious challenges to the law. Like the earlier suit, Coakley’s complaint quickly drew fire from opponents of same-sex marriage.

Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, called on the Justice Department “to fulfill its constitutional duties and continue its defense of DOMA against such frivolous lawsuits.’’

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the tide of public opinion was strongly in favor of the federal law and predicted Coakley’s suit will fail.

“We believe the suit will have no credibility in the federal courts,’’ he said. “The federal courts have already ruled that the DOMA is constitutional.’’

But Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor and authority on same-sex marriage laws, disagreed with Mineau’s assessment, saying that the federal judiciary has yet to deal squarely with the constitutionality of the law.

The lawsuit filed in March might fare better than Coakley’s, he said, because it persuasively argued that the law is nothing but discriminatory - a “bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.’’ He said the state’s claim, which relies more on a federalism argument, may be weaker because the government often attaches strings when funneling money to states.

Still, Coakley’s suit could help sway a court that might be inclined to strike down the law, he said, in that “the challenge comes not just from gay rights advocates, but also from a state.’’

Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire allow or will soon permit same-sex marriages. The unions are scheduled to become legal in Maine, as well, in September, but that could be put on hold if opponents gather enough signatures to force a statewide vote.

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and President Clinton signed it, when it appeared increasingly likely that a state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, either by legislation or a court interpretation of state or federal law.

Proponents of the statute feared that if one state legalized gay marriage, other states would be required to do so under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Seven years later, in November 2003, Massachusetts’ high court issued its landmark ruling, making the state the first in the country to recognize same-sex marriages, in May 2004.

Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said Coakley had shrewdly used a traditionally conservative argument - states’ rights - to challenge the federal law.

But C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League, said the suit reflected the “rather callous hypocrisy of a state government which refused to allow the people of Massachusetts to vote on the definition of marriage now complaining that the federal government is intruding upon its rights of self-government.’’

Material from the Associated Press was used in this report. Martin Finucane of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

For blue - link

[blue]

Massachusetts has decided to file suit against the U.S. Government.

From the Boston Globe -



For blue - link

Good for them, but IMO they arent taking it far enough when it comes to the Fed .Gov's involvement in marriages.

[Grace]

Good for them, but IMO they arent taking it far enough when it comes to the Fed .Gov's involvement in marriages.

What more should/could they do? I guess I figure this is a start - better this than nothing.

EDIT:

I wish some of the other states that already favor gay marriage would join in this action.

[blue]

What more should/could they do? I guess I figure this is a start - better this than nothing.

I feel there should be no federal laws pertaining to marriage. No benefits, no penalties, and no definitions.

EDIT:

I wish some of the other states that already favor gay marriage would join in this action.

Back in 1996 I dont remember if I was for or against Alaska's gay marriage ban, but thas not realy here or there is it?

[Grace]

Anyone remember the TV show Dirty, Sexy Money?

It's playing out right now, live, in Nevada and the U.S. Senate.

Sen. John Ensign's parents shelled out big bucks to pay off their son's mistress, the latest twist in an unfolding scandal that has upended the political career of the one-time rising GOP star.

The scandal has also touched Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), another prominent conservative, who revealed that he had confronted Ensign about the affair and urged him to end it, but says he will refuse to divulge any conversations with Ensign — even under inquiry from ethics investigators.

On Thursday, Ensign's attorney said that the senator's parents gave Doug Hampton, Cynthia Hampton and their two children gifts worth $96,000 in the form of a check. The attorney, Paul Coggins, said that each gift was limited to $12,000 and "complied with tax rules governing gifts."

The disclosure of the April 2008 payment seemed intended to head off growing questions about whether Ensign violated federal law by failing to report what Doug Hampton called a severance package worth more than $25,000 to his wife Cynthia, who left Ensign's campaign staff on April 30, 2008.

Ensign was not required to report the giving of such gifts, and on Thursday, his attorney went to lengths to point out that the payments were made and "accepted" as gifts from personal accounts rather than as a severance package for their dismissal from his staff. It's unclear whether the Hamptons view the payments as a gift or as severance, and an attorney for the couple wasn't reachable for comment.

The revelations of the payoff came as the scandal - quiet for several weeks - blossomed anew as Doug Hampton, the husband of Ensign's mistress Cynthia, told a Nevada television show this week that Ensign left his family in shambles by relentlessly pursuing his wife, even after writing a February 2008 letter purporting to break off the affair. The nine-month affair ended in August 2008 - some three months after the time both Hamptons left Ensign's staff.

Entire article HERE

[Puckstop31]

Thomas Paine was a wise man... I give you the first paragraph of Common Sense. Feb. 1776

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in the defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

Given Grace's above example... And we all know many more can be found and talked about, from BOTH the D and R side.... Isn't it time to put the petty division of parties behind us? All they accomplish is to keep us fighting each other.

[Grace]

Given Grace's above example...

Which one - I posted on two different topics?

I'd rather discuss the first one - the second has become so very common these days

[Edwina's Secretary]

Again I say...I am neither D nor R...I am either V for voter or A for American.

I do not care what party affiliation someone professes...I care about the actions...the words of the person.

So...who keeps bringing up ....D...or R???

Yup...to quote another long gone guy...Physician...heal thyself!

[blue]

So...who keeps bringing up ....D...or R???

It must have been your turn today.


















“The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don’t have it.”--George Bernard Shaw

[Puckstop31]

Again I say...I am neither D nor R...I am either V for voter or A for American.

I do not care what party affiliation someone professes...I care about the actions...the words of the person.

So...who keeps bringing up ....D...or R???

Yup...to quote another long gone guy...Physician...heal thyself!

First, thank you for reading my posts again. Second, I wasn't talking about you... There are a couple of other here who play that card.


So, lets discuss policy then? Any opinions on the "Global Warming" bill currently making its way through Congress? Your lady, Barbara Boxer, said some pretty amazing things about it recently. Apparently, she reads different science than the rest of us.


Finally, FWIW.... I don't want a fight. Believe it or not, I think you really do love our country. We just differ, vastly, on what we think is best for it. All I want is a chat about it. I like it on sites where the main focus is not such stuff, because you usually are just talking to "regular" people. The honesty level is usually higher. So lets not talk down to each other and lay off the barely hidden venom. I am just as guilty as anybody. OK?