Powered by TypePad

« Warming Up | Main | Bigger Subsidies Paid By Someone Else »

March 13, 2009



they must be joking, right? agitating Republicans? They agitated me at hello. Well, January 21st anyway.


HEH---Perhaps if Bush had noted that the wiretaps were to prevent jihadis from winning, taking over, and forever denying gays their right to life.


No, that would have been too subtle for them, they would still demand why. It's
good to know there are no other big issues
to deal with. Bob Pear, is the prefect parody of himself, but he doesn't know it yet.


I guess it's time to vote "present" again.

Fresh Air

What "discrimination"? Are there not enough fairies in the NFL? Seriously, why does this topic keep coming up?


Obama on Spot

I never gave much credence to the anti-gay-marriage idea that it was a slippery slope to bestiality, but if the Times can put this kind of information in a headline....


Bgates, reading the NYT is probably where the chimp lady got the idea....


Why, oh why, can't civil unions be a matter of civil society, and marriages be a part of religious society? This whole mess is completely artificial.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

LOL, bgates.


Run, Spot, Run.


bgates. Is. A. Very. Very. Bad. Sick. Person.



Oh, c'mon.

You guys have thought he's screwing the pooch for months.


That's a pooch with toned forelegs, I'll have you know.




Fortunately for us, the rights they want do not exist in objective reality. What they want is the right to re-define marriage.


Kozinski (now chief judge, conservative/libertarian) wrote one of the opinons. He used a very creative reading of the statute to get his result.

The other judge is your typical 9th circuit liberal who frequently is reversed by the Supremes. He just said DOMA is unconstitutional as written.

This brings to mind the stand-off between Catholic Services (think nursing homes, soup kitchens, health care, &tc) and the City of San Francisco. Ultimately, the local archbishop* decided that, while no Catholic organization would give health benefits to same-sex spouses of employees as such, each employee, male or female, could give benefits to one person who lived in the same household. Perhaps over-inclusive, but that's the soft side of the Church.

Kozinski*** took an essentially similar approach. The relevant law says that benefits can be given to family, and state-defined same-sex spouses are not spouses for federal law. He opined that the law didn't set an outside limit on "families", just a minimum benefit that must be provided. So, since the court was not prohibited from providing the benefit, he rationalized that since families by most definitions include more than spouses, married same-sex partners could be treated as some other member of the family.

Look for Obama to take a similar path.

*Now Cardinal Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith**

**Formerly known as the Inquisition. Wonder why they changed the name.

***Yes, he is one of the few textualists on the court. Judicial activism is wrong unless it is for the right cause. And the Surpremes do say that judges should avoid constitutional issues if the case can be resolved in some other way.

Kim--You are better than that.

Or at least more creative.


Well, I believe in the Beast with Two Backs. I also think homosexuality is luxurious and exuberant. The human race would have died out were not the sex drive so powerful as to lead to excess.

But you are right about one thing; I've steadfastly refused to think deeply about the matter.


I usually respect judge Kosinki, specially when he was under attack by that psycho Cyrus Sanai, but that decision makes no sense. If there was a civil union law on the books, maybe, but the benefits are supposed to accrue to the 'spouse', right, if there is no gay marriage relationship, how can that happen.


Will someone look at Kaus's last post and click thru the urls. I can't figure out what Ezra Klein and Wonkette are saying about Tim Russert.


It looks like they're just messing around, maybe trying to stir up some speculation. Maybe Ezra forgot his twitter page was visible when he was being a dick and Wonkette took a screenshot.

Or EK found out Russert was not straight about something.


Yeah, that's what it looks like--but it was from over a year ago, why does it show up now at Kaus'?


Maybe he was googling and came across it.

Charlie (Colorado)

I also think homosexuality is luxurious and exuberant.

Well, probably not, since homosexuality shows up in pretty much all cultures notwithstanding different levels of "economic" success.

hit and run

::waving:: at Walter


That's the exuberant part, Charlie. The luxuriousness is that it doesn't contribute directly to the propagation of the group, and is suppressed culturally when the group is stressed for survival.


why does it show up now at Kaus'?

Because Matt Yglesias, the blogger who lil' Ezra always picks first for kickball at recess, just took a shot at Kaus on Twitter. In the course of linking the tweet by the twit, and reminding the world of why "The Search for Matt Yglesias' Manhood" is the most prominent tag on Kausfiles, Mickey decided to throw in a reminder of how classy the rest of the Juicebox Mafia can be in unguarded moments.


bgates, you're so awesome at the mean girl stuff.


Kaus, poor fella', is way too honest. This is no country for an honest liberal.


KIm, I never would have looked at it the way you express it, but I can see why you chose those words. It is, I suspect, more complicated than that... but still nothing that is the business of another's religion.

The comments to this entry are closed.