By the way, the quote in the post title appeared in the amicus brief filed by 172 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators. Here's the context, showing something of the case law that makes this a powerful argument (to anyone who accepts the precedents and is willing to consider the legislative history):
DOMA is... unlike most other Acts of Congress in another critical respect: A clearly stated purpose for its enactment was to express moral disapproval of a disfavored minority group. Many proponents repeatedly stated their intent to "honor a collective moral judgment" reflecting "moral disapproval of homosexuality" (House Report at 15-16). Chairman Hyde explained, for example, that "most people do not approve of homosexual conduct * * * and they express their disapprobation through the law." 142 Cong. Rec. H7501 (July 12, 1996). Lead Senate sponsor Don Nickles likewise stated that "we find ourselves at the point today that this legislation is needed" because of the "erosion of values." 142 Cong. Rec. S4870 (May 8, 1996).
Those views no doubt reflect "profound and deep convictions," reflecting the "ethical and moral principles" of those who hold them. [Citation to Lawrence v. Texas]. But this Court has made clear that such "considerations do not answer the question before us." Ibid. No matter how sincerely held, such beliefs are not a constitutionally valid basis for enacting "a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake" and "den[ying] them protection across the board." [Citation to Romer v. Evans].
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
So Justice Kagan says something, and that makes it so, eh?
It would help if Justice Kagan were not obviously lesbian. There, did I say that? And it would help if Obama were not so committed to promoting lesbians and homosexuals to high posts. Maybe they're the best people available! But I doubt that Janet Napolitano is the best available.
Is it that half, not 3%, of our population is GBLT? Why is this issue consuming the Obama administration's agenda?
The question is whether the legislative history makes it so.
She didn't misquote it.
Listen long enough to get to Justice Alito's remarks and you will detect the the government's true interest here...maximizing revenue. When he cites a neutral term instead of "marriage" he is pointing to, perhaps without intending to do so, a state of affairs where NO group will be accorded differential benefits.
I've said it before. This is a case of being careful what you/we wish for, because you/we may very well get it.
Pure "equality" under the laws where Federal interest is prevalent (such as tax laws) would be no distinct benefits for anyone and everyone treaded as a single individual. No bias there.
This is the pernicious underside of DOMA that few people know about. Its stated purpose was to enact a law to express the notion that "fags and dykes are evil and we don't like them". I never forgave Clinton for signing it, and it was a key moment in my realization that both political parties were generally rotten and neither was worthy of my membership.
And, of course, in Justice Kagan's world moral disapproval is inappropriate because it might indicate that there are actually moral standards.
So doesn't this demonstrate conclusively that principles of democracy and that the tyranny of the majority is an inherently poor form of government? The same people who wrote this law are all "evolving" now. What is different? Now public opinion shifts so the government has to choose a winner and loser and the losers are getting whiny.
The constitution described a representative republic and created a government constituted of elected representatives who were meant to act within a strict set of enumerated powers. The farther we move from this the more things get worse. The leviathan is about to swallow and destroy the institution of marriage. I want to thank the evangelical statists for allowing and encouraging this to happen. Before you used government power against those you disagreed with. Now it will be your turn unless you wake up.
Its stated purpose was to enact a law to express the notion that "fags and dykes are evil and we don't like them".
Oh, for sure, because disapproval of conduct on moral grounds is exactly the same as disliking the actors and reflects a willingness to speak about them in the most derogatory terms.
You can disapprove all you damn want, you cannot discriminate.
The question is whether the legislative history makes it so.
She didn't misquote it.
Where's the original text?
Why is this issue consuming the Obama administration's agenda?
One of the few bright spots in his administration.
Exactly.
I too thought this was one of the day's key moments. Like Scalia's run-down of Ted Olson yesterday on "when" same-sex marriage became a Constitutionally-protected right.
So Congress, in passing DOMA was expressing several things: a desire to define marriage for purposes of federal statutes, based on a moral view, and in light of the virtual unanimity (at the time, a strong majority now) of states not allowing same-sex marriage.
Clement was able to answer Kagan's question in the affirmative without any hesitation for the same reason that Scalia dissented in Lawrence, with Justice Kennedy saying at the same time that Lawrence was not a prelude to 'constitutionalizing' gay marriage.
"Moral approbation" is one of many perfectly adequate reasons to enact legislation as viewed by the rational basis test. "Moral approbation" is arguably why we have outlawed polygamy for the life of this republic. "Moral approbation" is arguably why we have outlawed or limited gambling and prostitution. "Moral approbation" is arguably why we have banned liquor sales on Sunday mornings. "Moral approbation" is why we have had some forms of speech regulation.
I'd ask Justice Kagan: When did moral approbation become an illegitimate basis for legislation?
I wonder what her opinion on obama and democrats' collective moral judgment on gun ownership and their intent at passing legislation to express moral disapproval? I guessing kagan thinks some moralizing is okay.
"we have outlawed polygamy for the life of this republic"
You cannot seriously believe this. It has been coming since the Loving case.
Inga said...
You can disapprove all you damn want, you cannot discriminate.
3/27/13, 5:37 PM
And when it was politically expedient both Clinton's and Obama were by your own observation despicable bigots. But out of your own personal needs you supported them. Now that it is personally expedient you use it as a weapon against those you dislike to call them bigots despite supporting bigots yourself.
This is a perfect example or the amoral state of progressivism and the ideological cowardice of people who vote for statists. The only directive is fulfilling personal wants taking from others and forcing them to do what you want with government power.
Mark O.
The reason I believe that we have heretofore outlawed polygamy is because... heretofore, we have outlawed polygamy. Everywhere, in every circumstance. To the extent that polygamy is practiced, it is practiced illegally.
Now, if you are suggesting that legal bans on polygamy can't survive the logic of the opinion of the court in Lawrence, and if you are suggesting that an opinion striking down DOMA on the merits in Windsor may lead to a constitutional right to polygamy, I'd say that strict logic would almost compel that result, but that liberal women federal judges will never extend their precious constitutional liberty interests to polygamy.
Here's the text on "moral disapproval of homosexuality," courtesy of the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/amicus_one-pager_for_212_members_of_congress.pdf
Moral disapproval has proven to be a poor basis for legislation. It's been used as a basis for anti-sodom laws; to make marijuana use illegal; to enact so-called "hate crimes" legislation; and (as we can see) to enact laws targeted at entire groups of people whom the majority disapproved of at the time, such as laws against interracial marriage.
Striking down DOMA doesn't create a right to polygamy. As long as the supremes resist the urge to legislate it merely removes the federal government from a realm it never should have been involved in.
Palladian ...the purpose of DOMA was and will continue to be preservation of federal revenues...e.g., limitation of tax benefits and other benefits under federal law.
The "stated purpose" was merely to beard the real purpose. If DOMA is over turned, next reversal will be any benefits for married, be they hetero or homo.
Bet on it...uncle "Fed" works only one way...his way. You don't like distinctions and call it discrimination (which it is, even if justified)then uncle "Fed" will fix that by removing all distinctions and everyone will be treated equally as individuals.
A lot of Americans morally disapprove of Republicans. Perhaps we can pass some shitty legislation expressing that commonly-held belief!
garage mahal said...
Why is this issue consuming the Obama administration's agenda?
One of the few bright spots in his administration.
3/27/13, 5:38 PM
Such delicious honesty.
Dont worry. This is a distraction that will lose traction as 2014 approaches and the American people are treated to the absolute wretchedness of the "Affordable Care Act."
Palladian said...
A lot of Americans morally disapprove of Republicans. Perhaps we can pass some shitty legislation expressing that commonly-held belief!
3/27/13, 5:53 PM
Republicans in government are morally deficient to some extent as a general rule. But they have nothing on the other party.
We should all be focused on reducing the power this entire group of reprobates has.
Chuck sez: " "Moral approbation" is arguably why we have outlawed or limited gambling and prostitution. Moral approbation is arguably why we have banned liquor sales on Sunday mornings. Moral approbation is why we have had some forms of speech regulation."
And those are your best examples?
Blue Laws that keep non-Christians from doing business on Sunday because Christianity disapproves?
Laws against gambling because Christianity disapproves?
Laws against certain sex acts--even in the privacy of one's own home--because Christianity disapproves?
These examples sound like potential violations of the Establishment Clause.
Except for laws against prostitution, which can be justified in other ways besides moral disapproval.
Another type of legislation motivated by moral disapproval is "hate crimes" legislation. And I don't like that type of legislation either.
Speech codes on campus are also motivated by moral disapproval. You guessed it! I don't like those either.
I listened for a while, but I had trouble keeping track of the score.
I'll go back to nailing Jello to the wall.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: bigots or moral cowards?
You can disapprove all you damn want, you cannot discriminate.
Thanks Igna. It's always nice to hear the rendering of a professional opinion.
You are, as usual, mistaken.
Inga said...
You can disapprove all you damn want, you cannot discriminate.
Nonsense. Bless your heart. Beyond the issue of "can" versus "may" or "should" ... especially in the federal sense. Althouse was careful in her use of "may not" instead of "can not" in an earlier post. It caused no end of consternation as most didn't notice it.
The issue for gay & lesbian marriage rights (vis a vis DOMA) is to share positively in the discriminatory benefits, and nothing to do with equality. In other words, gays/lesbian couples do not want to be treated as individuals. Therein lies the discrimination.
And the government CAN DO anything it damn wants to do, unless caught and challenged in court, and then only if willing to enforce court rulings. See: Current NLRB ruling versus enforcement.
As you were, carry on...
"The question is whether the legislative history makes it so. "
No, the question is whether Kagan and the liberals of the Court can get away with adding a new prong to equal protection clause analysis that will consider legislators' individual subjective motives before passing judgment on the law. Apparently you think so. At least Kagan is in a position to willfully distort precedent. What's your excuse?
Clement is totally, one hundred percent, dead-on, bulls-eye correct about the precedent on this one.
Anything and everything that some members of Congress said when passing a law is a complete and utter non sequitur under both equal protection clause analysis and under O'Brien (for the First Amendment).
The rational basis test doesn't consider what Congress's objective intentions were. It considers whether there is any potential rational basis upon which Congress could have acted, even if it didn't actually act on that basis.
Likewise, even assuming the Court gave this intermediate scrutiny, the question is again not what Congress' actual subjective motive was. The question is then whether the law is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
And for anyone who wonders why that would be the case, just think about all the little gems that devious congresscritters could stuff into the record while no one is looking.
madAsHell said...
I'll go back to nailing Jello to the wall.
Damn! That has to be a collective *Thread Winner* for this whole series of posts. :-))
sinz52 wrote: "Moral approbation is arguably why we have banned liquor sales on Sunday mornings."
And those are your best examples?
Blue Laws that keep non-Christians from doing business on Sunday because Christianity disapproves?
"Approbation" means approval, not disapproval.
No, dear, they did it to pander to the voters.
The Short Shortstop needs to go to a real law school.
Inga said...
You can disapprove all you damn want, you cannot discriminate.
Of course you can, you just can't violate anybody's constitutional rights.
and, if the gay caballeros get their way, Disapproval's a dead duck.
garage mahal said...
Why is this issue consuming the Obama administration's agenda?
One of the few bright spots in his administration.
Right up there with Benghazi, the economy, and that 3 letter word - JOBS.
West Town said...
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: bigots or moral cowards?
Yes.
sinz52 quoting Chuck misusing "approbation."
So, Palladian, at the time was DOMA was passed, the memory of the devastation of the AIDS epidemic was pretty fresh in everyboyd's mind.
You don't think gay men deserve opprobrium for this conduct that unleashed a devastating epidemic that killed millions of people?
"A lot of Americans morally disapprove of Republicans. Perhaps we can pass some shitty legislation expressing that commonly-held belief!"
LOL.
The absurdity of "shitty legislation" passed for the purpose of expressing disapproval.
"A lot of Americans morally disapprove of Republicans. Perhaps we can pass some shitty legislation expressing that commonly-held belief!"
------------------
"LOL.
The absurdity of "shitty legislation" passed for the purpose of expressing disapproval."
3/27/13, 6:37 PM
Yes, exactly.
Pure "equality" under the laws where Federal interest is prevalent (such as tax laws) would be no distinct benefits for anyone and everyone treaded as a single individual. No bias there.
To name a few:
No dependent child tax credits
No college tuition credits
No earned income tax credits
No Unified Estate Tax credits
No passing on assets to spouses without taxes. Either everyone gets a free pass or no one.
No social security survivor benefits
No social security benefits for multiple spouses. (did you know that existed? a man can have multiple living ex spouses all collecting his benefits when he dies)
No marriage penalty in the income tax code. Make everyone pay the most you can.
No allowance for tax free benefits for children ....not everyone has children. Tax everyone on the actual cost of their employer provided insurance. THAT'LL wake people up.
yeah this equality thing is really going to burn some butts.
"The absurdity of "shitty legislation" passed for the purpose of expressing disapproval."
This was already done with Obamacare.
Inga said...
The absurdity of "shitty legislation" passed for the purpose of expressing disapproval."
Yes, exactly.
No, O She Devil of the SS, that's politics.
Teddy Kennedy used deholidayizing Veterans' Day in favor of Martin Luther King Day (the only Federal holiday to pander to a specific ethnic group) to demonize the Republicans.
A lot of Americans morally disapprove of Republicans. Perhaps we can pass some shitty legislation expressing that commonly-held belief!
No need. Every two years we have elections and the populaces' opinion is expressed clearly.
Oh my, you didn't "win" in your district or State? Welcome to the local minority, now step to the back of the bus.
Every four years we reaffirm our love for Democrats, even ones named Bush.
This is too funny really.
The vote on DOMA:
Senate: 85-14
House: 342-67
One hell of a lot of Democrats voted for DOMA!
Representatives Voting "No"
Only one Republican Representative, Gunderson, voted no; so did the Independent, Sanders.
The remainder were Democrats: Abercrombie, Ackerman, Becerra, Beilenson, Berman, Brown (CA), Brown (OH), Collins (MI), Conyers, Coyne, DeFazio, Dellums, Dixon, Engel, Eshoo, Farr, Fattah, Foglietta, Frank (MA), Gejdenson, Gutierrez, Harman, Hastings (FL), Hinchey, Jackson (IL), Kennedy (MA), Kennedy (RI), Lantos, Lewis (GA), Lofgren, Maloney, Markey, Martinez, Matsui, McDermott, McKinney, Meek, Millender-McDonald, Miller (CA), Mink, Moran, Nadler, Olver, Pallone, Payne (NJ), Pelosi, Rangel, Rivers, Roybal-Allard, Sabo, Schroeder, Scott, Serrano, Skaggs, Slaughter, Stark, Stokes, Studds, Torres, Towns, Velazquez, Waters, Waxman, Williams, Woolsey.
Two Democratic Representatives abstained: Jackson-Lee (TX) and Owens.
Representatives not present (22):
Democrats: Brewster, Clay, Fields (LA), Ford, Gibbons, Hall (OH), Johnston, LaFalce, Lincoln, Meehan, Thompson, Thornton, Watt (NC).
Republicans: Dickey, Dunn, Ensign, Flanagan, Greenwood, Longley, McDade, Roberts, Young (FL).
Senators Voting "No"
No Republican Senators voted no. All were Democrats: Akaka (D-HI), Boxer (D-CA), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerrey (D-NE), Kerry (D-MA), Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Moynihan (D-NY), Pell (D-RI), Robb (D-VA), Simon (D-IL), Wyden (D-OR).
Senate Vote By State:
Alabama: Heflin (D-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Bumpers (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Not Voting
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Brown (R-CO), Yea Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Roth (R-DE), Yea
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Yea Mack (R-FL), Yea
Georgia: Coverdell (R-GA), Yea Nunn (D-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Kempthorne (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Nay Simon (D-IL), Nay
Indiana: Coats (R-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Frahm (R-KS), Yea Kassebaum (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Ford (D-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Yea Johnston (D-LA), Yea
Maine: Cohen (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Abraham (R-MI), Yea Levin (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Grams (R-MN), Yea Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Ashcroft (R-MO), Yea Bond (R-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Exon (D-NE), Yea Kerrey (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Bryan (D-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Smith (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Bradley (D-NJ), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: D'Amato (R-NY), Yea Moynihan (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Faircloth (R-NC), Yea Helms (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Glenn (D-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Hatfield (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Yea Pell (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Yea Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Yea Pressler (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Frist (R-TN), Yea Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Gramm (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (R-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Virginia: Robb (D-VA), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Gorton (R-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Simpson (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea
DOMA Votes above.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/DOMA_2.htm
So, Palladian, at the time was DOMA was passed, the memory of the devastation of the AIDS epidemic was pretty fresh in everyboyd's mind.
You don't think gay men deserve opprobrium for this conduct that unleashed a devastating epidemic that killed millions of people?
Why don't you go back to sucking Steve Sailer's dick and leave the rest of us alone for awhile, old man?
I and other straight men have been made the scapegoats for the behavior of those gay men who set off the AIDS epidemic, Palladian.
I have a bitch here, not you.
Reading Inga's list of the DOMA vote in 1996, the thing that's most distressing is that many of those people, whether they voted "yea" or "nay", are still in office! THAT is one of our main problems in America.
I and other straight men have been made the scapegoats for the behavior of those gay men who set off the AIDS epidemic, Palladian.
Aww! Poor baby! Why don't you whine about it for a few dozen comments, like you usually do?
And, yes, I am an old man, Palladian.
Which means that I remember what you don't.
Yes, Palladian, I know that nobody's going to feel sorry for me.
It's a source of strength.
"I and other straight men have been made the scapegoats for the behavior of those gay men who set off the AIDS epidemic, Palladian."
That's why I suggested simply sacrificing goats!
Bahhhhhhddddd, bahhhhhadddd of you Althouse.
I don't want to hear about SSM now.
I am interested in who the pro football player who is "planning" on cumming out though. If he was chocolate that would be even more interesting.
Where are the "poles" on who this fag football player is going to be. I want to do some research and seee if there are any shirtless photos out there. Who knows? What do they know? Is he top/bottom or versatile? Are their sex videos?
edutcher said ...
Teddy Kennedy used deholidayizing Veterans' Day in favor of Martin Luther King Day (the only Federal holiday to pander to a specific ethnic group) to demonize the Republicans.
Huh? I must be misunderstanding something?
Veterans Day (11 November) is still a Federal holiday...and never was anything else.
The first bill for MLK Jr day was submitted jointly, in 1979, by Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) and Senator Edward Brooke (R-MA). A subsequent rendition was signed in to law by President Reagan in 1983, after veto proof majorities in both house and senate.
Palladian said...
Reading Inga's list of the DOMA vote in 1996, the thing that's most distressing is that many of those people, whether they voted "yea" or "nay", are still in office! THAT is one of our main problems in America.
Why do you think they did it?
Vote the way you think the low "information" voters in your district want you to vote.
Edutcher says: Teddy Kennedy used deholidayizing Veterans' Day in favor of Martin Luther King Day (the only Federal holiday to pander to a specific ethnic group) to demonize the Republicans.
Actually, none of that is true, as one can see by a simple look at the Wikipedia page for MLK Day, which is a separate federal holiday from Veterans Day. But research is hard.
I know sports, stats and all that shit...because I am really butch.
If I could the NFL player to cum out it would have to be Tim Tebow because it would fuck with people's minds.
And here's an interesting factoid from that Wikipedia page: Senators Jesse Helms and John Porter East (both North Carolina Republicans) led opposition to the bill and questioned whether King was important enough to receive such an honor. Helms criticized King's opposition to the Vietnam War and accused him of espousing "action-oriented Marxism". Helms led a filibuster against the bill and on October 3, 1983, submitted a 300-page document to the Senate alleging that King had associations with communists. New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared the document a "packet of filth", threw it on the Senate floor and stomped on it.
Once again, Pat Moynihan > Jesse Helms. But that's old news.
Somefeller deusch thinks Palin and West is the winning ticket in 2016 so you can kind of see is completely and totally delusional.
You want to hear how gay Mass is?
We just had a senate candidate debate and all three pubes love fag marriage.
Somefeller, I don't pay attention to the barking of demented poodles anymore, I've heard him so often now, I tune it out.
@Titus and Inga: Oh, I know. But it is somewhat amusing to point out Edutcher's inanities from time to time. Though admittedly it is sort of an exercise in shooting fish in a barrel or other forms of mild sadism as entertainment.
Aridog said...
Teddy Kennedy used deholidayizing Veterans' Day in favor of Martin Luther King Day (the only Federal holiday to pander to a specific ethnic group) to demonize the Republicans.
Huh? I must be misunderstanding something?
Veterans Day (11 November) is still a Federal holiday...and never was anything else.
Wrong.
It was and is observed by states individually.
The big argument at the time was there could only be so many Monday holidays and, to have MLK, something had to go.
From the VA site.
"The Uniform Holiday Bill (Public Law 90-363 (82 Stat. 250)) was signed on June 28, 1968, and was intended to ensure three-day weekends for Federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day. It was thought that these extended weekends would encourage travel, recreational and cultural activities and stimulate greater industrial and commercial production. Many states did not agree with this decision and continued to celebrate the holidays on their original dates.
The first Veterans Day under the new law was observed with much confusion on October 25, 1971. It was quite apparent that the commemoration of this day was a matter of historic and patriotic significance to a great number of our citizens, and so on September 20th, 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed Public Law 94-97 (89 Stat. 479), which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978. This action supported the desires of the overwhelming majority of state legislatures, all major veterans service organizations and the American people.
Veterans Day continues to be observed on November 11, regardless of what day of the week on which it falls. The restoration of the observance of Veterans Day to November 11 not only preserves the historical significance of the date, but helps focus attention on the important purpose of Veterans Day: A celebration to honor America's veterans for their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good."
somefeller said...
Actually, none of that is true, as one can see by a simple look at the Wikipedia page for MLK Day, which is a separate federal holiday from Veterans Day. But research is hard.
Nope, but, of course, some phony folksy will rely on Wiki to make himself feel good.
Inga said...
Somefeller, I don't pay attention to the barking of demented poodles anymore, I've heard him so often now, I tune it out.
Of course, she does.
That's why she always remarks on it.
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
edutcher ...
1.) If I am wrong, about Veteran's Day being a federal holiday for all federal employees, who are paid for 8 hours every 11 November, you better hurry up and notify OPM to straighten out this misappropriation of tax dollars.
2.) Don't let my decade or two as a "Fed" executive deflect from you belief that it is observed state by state only ... because some states, or companies, or unions, do not observe Veteran's Day does not mean it isn't a federal holiday. It is...period. Your extensive citation of the Va site says nothing otherwise.
3.) Only you could conflate 1968 and 1975 alternative dates for Veterans Day with MLK Jr Day originated in 1979 and signed in to law in 1983.
But you stick to your guns tiger, being wrong isn't a felony.
edutcher said ... [to "somefeller"]
Nope, but, of course, some phony folksy will rely on Wiki to make himself feel good.
How about you tell us line by line where Wikipedia is wrong about MLK Jr Day and federal holidays.
I swear, I don't know how you do it? Or why? Seriously. The chances that "Somefeller" and I agreeing on anything is about zero and none...but YOU manage to make it happen. Amazing.
God Bless.
edutcher said ... [reference MLK Jr Day]
...(the only Federal holiday to pander to a specific ethnic group)...
Right ... and Columbus Day and Washington's Birthday [President's Day is not an officially recognized federal term] don't celebrate white folks. George was a WASP, of course. Maybe Columbus day was pandering to Ginney's, WOP's and Dagos, eh. Oy, I should demand my Mick fore-bearers be recognized.
NO, you fucking idiot, MLK Jr Day {celebrating MLK Jr's birthday] celebrates a man, his movement, and his history, period.
When my divorce wound up being finalized on MLK Day, it became a big holiday around my house.
You can disapprove all you damn want, you cannot discriminate.
Oh shut up already. you are perfectly ok with discrminating against people who think marriage should be polygamy. and I assume are ok with discriminating against bigamists and incestual couples.
Can you PLEASE stop with the argument that somehow ONLY when it comes to gay marriage is there discrimination involved, but all the other times people can't marry the person they love and you are for such discrimination that its' somehow not discrimination.
Now lets take the concept of marriage as a trio. can you discriminate against trios? Well, we're doing it. and you support it, despite the love there. not to mention the children.
Gay marriage is not marriage. UP till now marriage required a man and a woman. If it didn't meet that criterion you couldn't get married. Why is such a restriction any different than saying three people can't marry? If marriage means a man and a woman then of course gays will not be able to marry since they are not a man and woman. Should marriage include men and men pairings as well as men and women pairings. That's really for people to decide, isn't it. But to suggest that somehow society CAN'T order marriage the way it has is absurd.
Society can restrict a man and woman from marrying. If they can restrict that then why would there be an issue restricting a marriage that definitionally is not a marriage.
Palladian wrote:
Reading Inga's list of the DOMA vote in 1996, the thing that's most distressing is that many of those people, whether they voted "yea" or "nay", are still in office!
Even more hypocritical, Inga and many of the dems calling repubs bigots for not supporting gay marriage, voted for the gay that gave us DOMA.
That was Clintons baby. And he served out two terms. Did libs not realize he passed DOMA? Clearly then, defending gay marriage was not all that big a priority for dems.
Even Barack Obama didn't come out for gay marriage until the eve of his second presidential election.
And yet somehow its repubs alone that are bigots.
I think that there is a big difference between moral disapproval and moral approval, and I think that a lot of those backing DOMA are in the middle category - refusing to grant moral approval to homosexuality. That is different from morally disapproving it.
The problem for some is that the reason for a lot of these marital benefits is that they were designed for a child rearing unit, where you had two mostly biological parents sharing income and raising of children. Ostensibly, DOMA was to prevent these benefits from being applied to those who obvivously could not be in such a relationship, because they obviously could not be in such a relationship.
And, then there is the problem that there most likely is public good from a two sex child rearing(including polyandry) that is not found single sex child rearing, that is that single sex parenting results in statistically significantly worse outcomes for both sexes of children, and, in particular the boys. Which gets to the question then, of why governments should be forced to not just legitimize, but more importantly, to subsidize, behavior that results in a societal harm. (And, let me point out, forcing governments to do so is quite different from them electing to do so).
To state this baldly, why should the government be forced to subsidize behavior repeatedly shown to have serious negative societal consequences? The biggest societal problem involved here is not homosexuality, per se, but rather, single sex parented children. Statistically, gay males apparently do slightly worse than a male and a female together raising a kid, but two lesbians do far worse, apparently, even a bit worse than a single female. And, the negative outcomes of fatherless families (which lesbian parents are, by definition) are well known - for the males, insufficient civilizing, resulting in late adolescent and young adult males running in violent juvenile gangs, terrorizing their communities.
Palladian said...
A lot of Americans morally disapprove of Republicans
Oh get over yourself already.
You're supposed to be some ninja Internet tough guy, remember?
Stop whining.
Shouting Thomas said...
The vote on DOMA:
Senate: 85-14
House: 342-67
Remember when Obama and his supporters took to the airwaves to insist that measures that pass Congress, such as ObamaCare, can't be struck down because the representives were all representin' the people and stuff?
Bruce Hayden said...
I think that there is a big difference between moral disapproval and moral approval, and I think that a lot of those backing DOMA are in the middle category - refusing to grant moral approval to homosexuality. That is different from morally disapproving it.
Interesting proposition there. I'd guess that puts me in the middle...IF not giving a damn about the moral aspect of homosexual, or heterosexual, behavior counts. I truly do not care...I am no more interested in the sexual proclivities of heteros or homos than I am of that of praying mantis....except perhaps I'd prefer that the one partner not kill the other when finished with sex. Dang, that's worse than a guy who just has to go have a cigarette, eh?
I think it was Shouting Thomas who dismissed "perversions" as something we all do to one degree or another. He's right...and put me down for not needing to know the details of any of them that don't involve me.
Here's a test: How many males out there can say they don't kiss their sexual partner after receiving a blow job from said partner?
Okay, you can lie if you need to ... bwahahahaha.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा