Tag Archives: constitution

For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

As the anchor of MSNBC’s noon news hour, Contessa Brewer could not openly advocate for supporters of gay marriage – but she definitely seemed to give generous credence to their views on Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, she made snide comments about opponents of same-sex marriage, providing an opposition to their arguments but not seriously questioning proponents of same-sex marriage. Brewer obviously has strong views on this particular issue, and as a news anchor seems to have trouble keeping her personal opinions out of her news desk duties. In the little time allotted during each show to the same-sex marriage debate, Brewer hosted three pro same-sex marriage guests and none from the opposition. On Thursday, her guest was a retired female Presbyterian minister who is facing a church trial for conducting multiple gay marriages, having already been acquitted in 2008 before the Presbyterian Church (USA) Supreme Judicial Council. On Friday, Brewer hosted the two plaintiffs of the recent Proposition 8 court case, Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami – a homosexual couple hoping to marry soon. Brewer also marginalized the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents with snide remarks and loaded questions. “Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family,” she remarked on her Thursday news hour. “So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America?” When one of her viewers who opposes gary marriage wrote in that having two same-sex parents would “mess up the child development for life,” Brewer cynically quipped “I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.” On Friday, Brewer seemed to be pushing for a quick end to the stay on same-sex marriages in California, apparently using one of the Left’s favorite arguments in equating the current legal battles with the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s. “You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials,” she summarized. “So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied?” she asked, quoting the mantra of the civil rights movement. A transcript of both segments, which aired on August 12 and 13, is as follows: MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/12/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC anchor: A Presbyterian minister in [California] is facing charges from her own church. The authorities believe she violated the church rules by presiding over the weddings of gay couples. Her trial begins later this month in Napa, California, and Rev. Jane Spahr joins me now. Reverend, it’s good to talk to you today. Rev. JANE SPAHR: Thank you, Contessa. Great to be here. BREWER: You have been through this before in 2008, when you were acquitted, I understand, from marrying a lesbian couple. So what’s this renewed fight about in the Presbyterian church? SPAHR: Well the renewed fight is really about all these marriages that I did with so many of my friends who – they’re legal. They were from those dates from June 17th to November 4th in which the state has said “Yes, all these are legal.” So it’s been an amazing time to be able to marry so many of my wonderful friends. BREWER: What’s the official stance of the Presbyterian Church on same-sex marriage? SPAHR: Well there really isn’t a stance yet, there hasn’t been a ruling on that, so what it is, I think for me, is, as pastors, we should be able to marry the people who come to us, and that is, for me, I take over a year to meet with couples, to work with them, to talk with them about their love, and it’s been an amazing time to be able to do that. So what I say to people, “It doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is. It matters to me that you have a healthy, just, loving, mutual relationship. So that’s why I meet with couples. So I say “It doesn’t matter to me.” What matters to me is that the church could be there to help people have the healthiest, most loving relationships. BREWER: Given your stand on this, and given that you have been a long-time advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, do you think that you’re a good fit with the Presbyterian Church? SPAHR: Well I think every church has the opportunity to become open and welcoming, to really follow the founder of our Church, which said, “You all come, and be, and be who you are, and love who you are.” When people love who they are, then they can be free to serve in such a healthy and wonderful way. So I think it’s time for the churches to say “Welcome home.” BREWER: But given how many people base their opposition to gay rights on religious or moral principles, what would you say to them, and what would you expect to happen in this trial? Again, it’s a church trial, coming up later this month. SPAHR: Well again, people will be able to hear the stories of some 11 couples, be able to hear about their love, and to be able to know that we too are people of faith. We too are faithful people. We too care. My friends, Sarah and Sherry, the first couple that was ever named, I’ve been with them through all the things they’re bearing, their fathers, being with them to see their daughters raised, so it’s for people to see us as they really are. (…) 12:05 BREWER: Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family. So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America? (…) 12:52 BREWER: And Terrance thinks differently. He says “I believe if a child is raised around two fathers or two mothers that will mess up the child development for life.” I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.   MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/13/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER: In the meantime, good Friday the 13th. I’m Contessa Brewer, covering the big news, coast to coast. And on the West Coast, a massive tug-of-war is erupting over the gay marriage fight in California. Opponents want a federal appeals court to act now, before a hold on those weddings expires. …there will be mass confusion about whether the couples are indeed legally married. The judge’s decision to hold off ’till next week not going over well with some. (Video Clip) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’ve been here for two hours this morning, and we’ve watched so many straight people walk in and get married in front of us. It’s so “in your face,” that once again, “no you can’t.” (End Video Clip) (…) 12:01 BREWER: You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials. So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied? (…) 12:02 BREWER: Joining me now, Paul Katami, Jeff Zurrillo. They are the plaintiffs in the case to overturn Proposition 8. Gentlemen, good to see you. Let me ask you that question. Do you think justice delayed is justice denied? JEFF ZARRILLO: Martin Luther King said it very well, in his letters to Birmingham, justice delayed is justice denied, and that’s exactly what’s happening here.   BREWER: Do you have – do you think optimistic feelings about what happens now with the appeals court? Paul, weigh in. PAUL KATAMI: We’re absolutely optimistic. We know that we put on a fair and balanced court case. We won on the merits of that case, so now the law is on our side. We know that history is on our side, so it’s just a matter of getting to that finish line and we’re very confident we’ll get there. BREWER: You know, it’s interesting that the opponents who have filed the suit, guys, say that the judge’s decision that said voters made this Proposition 8 based on anti-gay morality, they said the judge’s statement was cruel because the people of California have actually enacted into law some of the nation’s most sweeping, most progressive protections of gays and lesbians. Do you feel protected in California? ZARRILLO: It’s really not about feeling protected as much as it is about separate, yet unequal, and that’s what we are, we are a separate yet unequal category. We are second-class citizens in the state of California. And what we really are looking for is just our equal rights, just like every other American is afforded at birth, according to our Constitution. KATAMI: I think it’s important to remember also that we’re not trying to create a new law or import a law into our Constitution. This was a law that was found in our Constitution, and so we are just trying to reiterate that that law belongs to us fundamentally, so it’s important to remember that our Constitution actually has this law in it. And we’re just wanting it to be applied to us. BREWER: Alright, gentlemen. Jeff, Paul, thank you both. I appreciate your time.

See original here:
For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

Reinforcements Ordered in the War on Brains [video]

Rachel Maddow talks about her former show, The War on Brains — she mentions that even though the program no longer exists, America’s war on brains continues. Perhaps the most ridiculous example is the woman who claims that “the separation of church and state” is not mentioned in the US Constitution — a fact that can be easily confirmed by anyone who can read by checking the original document. added by: GrrlScientist

‘Amnesty’ memo reflects ‘dictatorial’ attitude

The alarm continues to be a raised over a private internal memo from the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service that indicates President Obama has an amnesty plan in the works for many illegal immigrants. The memo was drafted by four officials at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to the director of the department, Alejandro N. Mayorkas. Jan LaRue, senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), believes the memo serves as evidence the Obama Administration intends to go around Congress in its attempt to acquire amnesty for illegal immigrants. “They'll be granting visas and work permits and green cards to people who have illegally entered this country,” she maintains. “They'll do it by a thousand here and a few million there, but they are clearly evidencing an attempt to do it.” In a column published earlier this month on Townhall.com, LaRue suggests that the proposed “registration program for individuals who are unlawfully present in the U.S.” includes registering those individuals as Democrats. While LaRue cautions that the memo does not prove the Obama White House will implement amnesty, she does believe it reveals clues to what many have thought to be true. “The memo indicates that they believe there are several ways that they can accomplish comprehensive immigration reform 'without legislation,'” the attorney explains. “And that's clearly a violation of the separation of power that is established in the United States Constitution.” Indeed, LaRue notes in her column, Article I of the Constitution calls it “legislating without a license.” She comments that “followers of the Constitution can see it as amnesty by a closed and dictatorial executive branch that treats the Constitution as an obsolete opinion.” After the memo was disclosed, the Immigration Service issued no comment concerning the leaked memo. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1118670 added by: ReverandG

Worst Governor Ever: Sarah Palin Tries, Fails to Win Over Constituent

If you thought Levi Johnston’s run for mayor would be the funniest story regarding Alaska politics all day on THG, we wouldn’t blame you. But think again! A woman from Homer, Alaska recently made a 30-foot sign to welcome her state’s former chief executive, Sarah Palin, to her hometown. Its simple message:

After MSNBC Mocks Angle for Expecting Fox Info Plugs, Ed Schultz Boasts How He’ll Boost Dems

Last Wednesday, Chris Matthews wildly attacked Fox for acting like “stooges” for Republican candidates like Sharron Angle to come on and promote their candidacies. It turns out that on the very same day on his national radio show, Ed Schultz was talking up how excited he was for “stooge” work for the Democrats on MSNBC:   I’m excited about the fact that now that I’ve been at MSNBC for over a year now, year and a half, this is the first election cycle that I get to go through with a TV show. I’ll show those son of a guns over at Fox how to promote candidates. I’ll do a great job doing that! [Michigan gubernatorial candidate] Virg Bernero will be on the tube tonight, a winner yesterday. Next up will be next Wednesday after the Tuesday primary in Colorado where Andrew Romanoff is going to defeat Mr. Bennet, the appointed senator, who was late to the table on helping Americans on health care reform. But Schultz attacked Angle in his “Psycho Talk” segment on his MSNBC show for expecting Fox to do what he was boasting he’d do for the Democrats: Wow. Now, you know it‘s bad when Fox News is calling the newest Tea Party queen naive. Hey, Sharron, I‘ll tell you how your wish can come true. Move to China. Their media censorship means that the press would only ask questions that you want to answer. Or better yet, maybe you can check out Iran. If journalists there don‘t report the news the way you want, well, they can get arrested. You‘d like that, wouldn‘t you? Here in America though, we have this thing called freedom of the press. It‘s kind of in the Constitution. You can ask your Tea Party buddies for a copy. They will have one for you. Republican leaders better hope Sharron Angle goes right back into hiding, because a wannabe public servant saying that she wants to control the press is “Psycho Talk.”

See the rest here:
After MSNBC Mocks Angle for Expecting Fox Info Plugs, Ed Schultz Boasts How He’ll Boost Dems

CBS ‘Early Show’ Ignores Accusations of Bias Against Judge Behind Prop 8 Ruling

While Thursday reports on both ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today featured Proposition 8 supporters questioning the impartiality of California Federal Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to strike down the state’s referendum defending traditional marriage, CBS’s Early Show failed to provide any such arguments. On Good Morning America, correspondent Terry Moran explained: “Opponents of same-sex marriage vowed to fight on and blasted the judge for, they said, letting personal interests trump his legal duty.” A clip was played of one Proposition 8 supporter: “The judge has imposed his own agenda upon the voters and the children and the parents of California.” On Today, legal correspondent Pete Williams noted: “But opponents of gay marriage, who supported Proposition 8, denounced the ruling and began preparing to fight back.” Supporter Randy Thomasson explained: “The judge has shut the Constitution, imposed his own agenda. He’s made a lot of people happy in the gay community in San Francisco, but he is the most dangerous type of judge in America.”   The Early Show report by correspondent Priya David-Clemens only featured a couple brief sound bites of gay marriage opponents in “outright disbelief” of the ruling, but no specific criticisms of the judge being biased. In contrast, three sound bites in favor of the ruling were featured. Of the three network morning shows, only Good Morning America noted that Judge Walker was himself openly gay. Introducing the segment, co-host George Stephanopoulos mentioned: “The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, a Republican first nominated for the bench by Ronald Reagan, he is also openly gay.” Both the Early Show and Today skipped over that detail.      Following David-Clemens’s Early Show report, co-host Harry Smith discussed Judge Walker’s decision with legal correspondent Jan Crawford, who proclaimed: …this is a devastating opinion for opponents of same-sex marriage. 136 pages, he has 80 findings of fact that basically amount not only to a defense of same-sex marriage but to a defense of gay people. He says same-sex couples are identical to straight couples and that religious beliefs that homosexually is a sin harms gays and lesbians. On point after point after point he knocks down all of the arguments that were put forth by opponents of same-sex marriage and says gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marriage under the constitution, just like straight people do. Smith then wondered if Walker’s ruling amounted to settled law: “…there are plenty of people still opposed who want to mount lawsuits against it. What kind of a chance do they have with – is this enough to set a precedent?” Crawford responded: “If this ruling stands and is affirmed by higher courts, it could affect the laws in 45 states, forcing them to redefine how they look at marriage…this is really the first federal court test and it could definitely, as it goes forward, set a precedent that will affect every person across the country.” Raising the possibility of the case going to the U.S. Supreme Court, Smith asked: “[if] the Supreme Court stays on the same side, based on the legal issues that you just outlined, will same-sex marriage become the law of the land?” Only then did Crawford acknowledge the temporary nature of the ruling: “Now, if the court agrees with that, absolutely. But that is a huge gamble that – the people who brought this case are making a huge gamble the Supreme Court is ready to do that. You know, it’s pretty closely divided, Harry, as you well know, up there.”

See the rest here:
CBS ‘Early Show’ Ignores Accusations of Bias Against Judge Behind Prop 8 Ruling

‘I Feel Like I Don’t Live In America:’ The Best Worst Prop 8 Reactions

Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that Proposition 8 — the voter initiative that amended the California Constitution to define marriage as heterosexual — is unconstitutional. The usual pro-Prop 8, anti-gay marriage suspects began hollering almost immediately. Here, the best of the best (or worst, depending on how you look at it): The Founding Fathers Would Be Shocked From the chairman of National Organization for Marriage, or NOM: Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. Shocked, probably. But $10 says the Founding Fathers would also be shocked by women wearing pants, a black man becoming president and cable news. But The Judge Is Gay From the president of the American Family Association: It's also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That's why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial. His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He'd have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that. This Will Be Dangerous When We Have A Lesbian On The Supreme Court From former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: Today's notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society. In other words, “cough cough Kagan's totally gay cough.” What Next? Is Jesus Unconstitutional? From Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): Today's wrongful court decision is another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage. added by: TimALoftis

Prop 8 Overturned; Celebrities Tweet Reactions to Monumental Decision

Earlier today, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker announced his verdict regarding Prop 8, the controversial ballot proposition that was passed in November 2008 and banned gay marriage in California. Judge Walked deemed the amendment a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment and overturned it. THG’s reaction to this news? Hooray! There’s no practical argument against the harmless institution of gay marriage, and every reason to treat homosexuals the same as heterosexuals. As for the reaction in Hollywood, an outspoken community when it came to this issues? Here are a handful of responses: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger : “This decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves.” Ellen DeGeneres : “Equality won!” Portia de Rossi : “I am ecstatic that proposition 8 has been overturned in the state of California. This is an incredibly exciting and historical day and a big step towards equal rights for all.” Lance Bass : “Congrats on the overturning of Prop 8!!!!” Pink : “It’s a good day!” Adam Lambert : it’s time to “throw glitter on this barn! Ricky Martin : “YEAHHHHH!!!!! PROP8UNCONSTITUTIONAL MOVING FORWARD!!!!!!!!” Kelly Osbourne : “so happy over the news on prop8 its about time!” Kim Kardashian : “Prop 8 was struck down! This news is amazing!!!! Its about time! Congrats to everyone!” Shanna Moakler : “Tonight we celebrate! EQUALITY and LOVE for all! This is so much bigger then [sic] marriage, it’s about wisdom, compassion and knowing we CAN be heard, action DOES make a difference!” Samantha Ronson : “Song Of The Day: Let’s Get Married- Jagged Edge.” Olivia Munn : “Prop 8 Overturned!!! Equal rights for everyone! Nice to be out of the 1950s…” Seth Myers : “Prop 8 was always my least favorite Prop. Favorite Prop: Joe.”

Read the original here:
Prop 8 Overturned; Celebrities Tweet Reactions to Monumental Decision

Brett Erlich on a "staycation."

Chanelle found Brett wandering the halls of Current LA in his vacation clothes, looking & smelling a lot like an extra from LOST. Here's what Chanelle sent me along with the photo: This dude was caught hiding out in our offices, getting orange Baked Cheetos fingers, not wearing shoes, and smelling like pi

Prop 8 overturned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-gay-mar_n_671018.html In a major victory for gay rights activists, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that a voter initiative banning same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution's equal protection and due process rights clauses. After a five-month wait, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker offered a 136-page decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, firmly rejecting Proposition 8, which was passed by voters in November 2008. Other links: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1&am… http://advocate.com/Politics/Prop__8/Breaking_Prop_8_Overturned/ http://www.hrc.org/prop8decision/index.htm?utm_source=HRCorg&utm_term=Homepa… ~~ Finally. 🙂 added by: hektic