I have a question for anyone who follows Sadie Fields
by Bill Simon
Here’s the question:
Which causes you to get more incensed, hearing that the gay marriage ban in Georgia has been overturned OR reading/hearing about another IED planted by a terrorist blowing apart an American in Iraq?
Just wondering…
May 17th, 2006 at 11:01 am
I have a question for you Bill. Which incenses you more, the group Christian Coalition or the group CAIR?
May 17th, 2006 at 11:23 am
You are comparing apples to oranges and therefore the question is a false choice.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Ron,
What is CAIR?
May 17th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Coplang,
No, I’m not. The question is very simple. Either one causes more anger than the other OR, both cause an equal amount of concerns and consternation.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
I, of course, hope that the Georgia judges can justify their decisions when they rule on any law. The American in Iraq is not dealing with laws where IED’s are concerned. The Americans in Iraq have to ask their leadership to justify why they are there. One is voted on by the people, the other is ….not justified and upsets me much much more than whether people who want to keep a certain segment of society under their thumb get their way. Apples and oranges…like I said.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
WTF kinda argument is THAT, Coplang???
I ask again, do you get upset when you READ about some American dying in Iraq as much as you get upset about READING about a judicial decision being overturned?
Simple question. I don’t care about any other parameters from you.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:36 am
CAIR- Counsel on American and Islamic Relations. Google them and have your eyes opened
May 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Gay marriage of course! We must have a special session of the Georgia legislature to correct this travesty! We must save our society from gay marriage… we must.
Oh, and we must spend oh around $200,000+ of taxpayer money on that special session to help Republicans in November… that I assure you is the real issue!
May 18th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
This is one of those issues that pisses me off about my own Republican Party–Gay Marriage.
The Dems are poised (although I doubt they will) to potentially take the house and/or senate in November (U.S. Senate) to potentially win the throne in the GA Gubernatorial race, and to potentially decrease the republican majority in the state assembly…and what do Republicans get up in arms about???
GAY MARRIAGE!!!
Here’s a challenge to anyone who things that “gay marriage” actually matters: Look through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and all the Amendments, the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation (if you haven’t noticed, these are this countries founding documents) and find one word about “gay marriage”.
I dare you.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Hi, Bill. I’m certainly not a follower of Sadie Fields, but here’s my answer anyway. Neither gets me incensed, at least not in the way I think you meant, but the latter is certainly the only important matter of the two.
I couldn’t care less if gays want to marry. Let ’em. They might be smarter to just call ’em “civil unions”, though, instead of pissing people off by insisting on the word “marriage” and never getting either. But I think some on both sides really just want to argue about it endlessly anyway. Better for their political fund-raising drives that way. That would explain why our legislators would put an amendment on the ballot they had to know would get struck down. 😉
Iraq, OTOH, is a truly important issue whether one thinks we are doing the right or the wrong thing by being there. I wonder who you think I should be incensed at, though.
Best.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:03 am
Bob,
I disagree that both parties want to argue about this endlessly. Democrats wish this issue would go away (at least in GA). In fact I hear that the Cathy Cox campaign has been flooded with from gays requesting refunds of their contributions. Not so great for her fundraising…
May 19th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Bob,
The people I am “incensed” with with regards to Iraq are the folks setting the IED devices.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:15 am
RL, by “both sides”, I meant Sadie’s gang of homophobes and whichever gay rights political activist organizations are fighting her. It’s kind of like the abortion issue. If the far right or far left ever actually got their way, what would the activists do to fill their time and coffers?
The political parties are another matter. Democrats are caught in the middle – they need to make inroads on the right to regain majority status, but their “base” wants them to attack, regardless of who they offend.
But I still have to wonder what on Earth our legislators were thinking when they drafted the referendum. The basis for challenging it in court was telegraphed before they even voted on it. The only thing that makes any sense is that since it stood a good chance of getting overturned in court, they figured it would come back up to give them something to pander with before November.
Bill, that’s good to hear. I was sensing a mood swing around here so strong that I thought you might have joined the incensed-at-Bush crowd.
Regards.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Bob,
As obvious as your point is regarding the “good chance it will be overturned in court if we write it this way, and this will give us another punch at the polls”, there is NO way Crotts or Stephens or anyone other legislator in the House/Senate would have the capacity to “plan” that out.
They are not that crafty in their planning.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
CC frustrates the hell out of me as a Republican. We’ll spend half this campaign season bitching about gay marriage, when we could do something proactive like, I don’t know, eliminating the state income tax?
If these idiots would start working on problems that affect more than just a few people or interest groups, like TAXES… But no, we continue to have to subjugate the party to social conservatives who could care less if we’re taxed into the poor house, so long as abortion is illegal and gay marriage is illegal and so on and so forth.
Grr. If only the Libertarians were for real, I’d jump this party in a heartbeat…
May 19th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
If gay marriage is the only thing that the GOP thinks will help it win elections, then the party is in pretty bad shape.
How much effect do you guys here think that Bush will hurt the GOP? Do you think it will filter all the way down to the local races?
Some of my friends that are still Republicans are already stating they will stay home in Nov. They are just absolutely demoralized and the “gay marriage” thingy just isn’t doing it for them anymore. They don’t like Sonny. They say that he is trying to “out Democrat the Democrats”-whatever that means.
BTW, the people staying home do not care whether Ralph or Cagle wins the lg nomination.
Do you think there will be backlash against fundamentalism?
May 19th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
One can only hope, Caroline.
May 19th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
A backlash (GOP losses) against fundamentalism is the only hope to return the GOP to its roots. If they keep winning were in trouble…
May 19th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Caroline, gay marriage isn’t the ONLY thing some think wins elections. Our junior senator and our first term rep in the sixth think pandering to the anti-immigrant lobby – that unholy alliance of organized labor and right wing xenophobes – will win elections, too. Anything to distance themselves from Bush, eh?
May 19th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Bob,
Yes, I forgot about the immigration stuff with the recent “hysteria” over “gay marriage.”
Bill Simon and RL,
Thank you for responding.
May 21st, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I went to visit my republican family in Memphis this weekend. I told them that Rick Santorum of Pennslyvania drives me nuts with his theory that if we “allow” gays to marry, next it will be dogs (or something to that effect). Anyway, he told me he was born in a graveyard. The first section was for Christians. The second section was for Catholics (I proceded to pound my head on the table). The third was for Jews and the fourth was for …you guessed it..Dogs. Implying I guess that some people think higher of their dogs than a spouse. Oh well. Love the thread. Thanks.
May 21st, 2006 at 7:07 pm
For the record, I think higher of my dog than a lot of people I’ve come across in politics.
For a good laugh, I highly recommend anyone with a good sense of humor (and, who doesn’t cringe if they hear the F-word being spoken with repetition) that you get a copy of comedian Lewis Black’s new double-album, the Carnegie Hall Performance. He RIPS Rick Santorum apart.
May 21st, 2006 at 7:55 pm
I have been meaning to order that! Thanks for the url. I still dont know how to answer your original question but am enjoying the stream. Cant wait to hear the Rick Sanatarium rant!
June 1st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Bill, Sadie is a dear friend of mine. I believe she has our families and our nation’s best interest at heart. It has been demonstrated that in those countries where homosexual marriage has been implemented that the institution of marriage has been destroyed as an institution. Over 50% of the citizens in those countries do not bother to get married anymore they simply cohabitate and have their children out of wedlock. Monogamous marriage as an institution between one man and one woman has been the bedrock of cultures and trust in societies for thousands of years. Taking marriage lightly and especially allowing the institution to fade into oblivion is destructive to our nation’s moral fabric. John Adams reminded us that: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The sanctity of marriage according to same “Creator†whose values and principles our nation was founded upon is central to the future of our nation.
France was the first nation not founded on religious principle. They used man’s enlightenment. They couldn’t kill the Christians quick enough; they had to invent the guillotine. They have had 7 governments while we have had one; Italy has had over 50, so much for man’s law. Please cite one nation founded on man’s enlightenment that has survived. Traditional marriage and Judeo-Christian values are important.
Lives are also extremely important, and I am also grieved at the loss of life and limb of our solders in Iraq. Given that our military is making sacrifices for others lives and liberties, and to help improve their quality of life, and at the same time keep the fight against terrorism in their back yard rather than ours, in order to protect our quality of life – perhaps you may be more qualified than I to choose which is more important. I am sure you have an answer or you would not have posed the question, and I am also sure I could never change your mind.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:24 pm
SANCTIONED CORRUPTION IMPOSED UPON THE RULE OF LAW FOR POLITICAL GAIN!
Your parallel is certainly eye catching it would seem. But the real question is, forget Sadie Fields and her corporate affiliations, what were the incumbents thinking? Judge Constance Russell was absolutely RIGHT. And I for one am personally greatful for any judge upholding the rule of law.
What Judge Russell did, was rule on the issue before her, which evidently demonstrates incumbents blew this political effort via poorly written legislation, (That’s despite the excessive representation by the legal community in the legislature!). You see, there cannot be a MULTI PART REFERENDUM ISSUE, that allows a YES or NO response. Each issue must afford the voter an opportunity to respond independently to each separate issue presented. So Judge Russell was actually protecting you whether you are hetersexual, homosexual, or asexual!
But if you listen to incumbents (specifically, Senator John Wiles of the Judiciary Committee), the issue is an ‘activist judge’ appointed by a ‘Democrat’, who was never elected. Wiles pointed to legislation he submitted, that moved judges elections to November in lieu of special elections.
Don’t forget, ANY judge elected prior to Perdue, WAS appointed by a Democrat…duh!!! And only lawyers can qualify to be judges, which greatly deters lawyers from opposing incumbent judges. So nothing Wiles (like Perdue) stated about this topic or ruling was on point. In fact, the public disclosure could NOT be farther from the facts!
Again Judge Russell was RIGHT; the referendum was unlawful! But as to Wiles partisan slant regarding her appointment in 1996, it was ‘Zig Zag’ Zell, a Democrat recently turned RepubliCon by President Bush now employed by Perdue’s sponsor McKenna Long Aldrige following his conversion, from whom her initial appointment was obtained. However, Judge Russell has been repeatedly ELECTED (3 times, I believe). Without regard to the judge, Wiles and Perdue demanded a special session to correct or ALTER her ruling, solely to mask their ineptitude.
But without regard to the misinformation and emotional hype associated with the issue, Georgia (GA) Law only affords 1 man and 1 woman to marry or more to the point, derive benefit thereof. For those familiar with the Constitution or GA Law, you know the entire effort is NO more than an emotional rouse, just as war has been positioned.
Specifically noted in Article IV Section I, commonly referred to as the “Full Faith and Credit” Clause, following the 1996 change to the law, only Congress can decide how the “Full Faith and Credit” Clause may be applied to the codified protection of marriage defined in GA Law as 1 man 1 woman. Thus, the judiciary could not use “case precedence” to alter the application of law, because the law does not allow the judiciary the jurisdiction or authority ONLY Congress.
So what’s the REAL issue? Enforcing the law VS a case precedence used to condone WILLFUL CRIMES. But as a result of this little charade, you now know, the Governor and our incumbents cannot produce sound legislation, will not tell you the truth concerning any “legal” matter, but instead can manipulate the GA Attorney General (AG) on demand. Don’t forget, the AG is the highest legal source in the state. That should make you worry!
But don’t forget, the AG represents incumbents NOT citizens. I’ll never forget, when Judge Bodiford and the GA AG stated as fact, a judge enjoys judicial immunity, and therefore is exempt from obeying the law or being held accountable.
THERE’S THE REAL STORY! WAKE UP GEORGIANS to TRUTH, and fight those, who seek to deny your liberty! For more information, visit http://www.ElectRice.org and/or http://www.RiceGang.com!!
Taffy Rice
Taffy Rice for House District 36
Andy Rice for Senate District 37
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:50 am
As a retired U.S. Marine Lieutenant Colonel, I will not address my feelings on Iraq in this stream. However, I would like to address the Constitutional Amendment issue.
As a happily married (for 23 years) man, with 3 wonderful children, I am not in favor of providing the sanctity of marriage to gays. I do believe marriage is one man and one woman. The current law in Georgia (enacted in 1996) requires as much. This Constitutional Amendment (or political football) is not required to protect marriage.
The political grandstanding in 2004, regarding the Amendment, was clearly just to get people to the polls, as part of the Incumbent Protection Plan. Article IV, Section I of the U. S. Constitution, is the highly touted, but frequently misunderstood, “Full faith and credit” section. My wife, in the last post, clearly understands it. However, I spoke to numerous candidates, incumbents, and citizens during the 2004 election cycle, but I found none who actually could understand the simple paragraph.
The full text of the section is “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
The section clearly does not give a federal judge the authority to force Georgia to honor the Massachusetts’ law allowing gay marriage. Congress is given the authority to decide how the full faith and credit shall be given.
The real issue here is not gay marriage. Clearly, the law Bill Stephens claims to have authored, violates the mandate that only one issue may be presented on a ballot for a yes/no answer. Bill, Sonny, John Wiles, and all the other incumbents “outraged” by the decision of Judge Russell, are educated enough to count the two issues on the Amendment referendum in 2004. They should face the fact that they messed up, even with all their vast experience in controlling government.
The issue that is really the scariest is the team of Sonny and Thurbert threatening the Supreme Court to do their bidding. Sonny basically said if the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the ruling, and uphold the referendum, he will cause the taxpayers to spend $100,000 or more on a special session; so, they can try to rewrite the law so it will comply with the law on referendum issues.
Sonny, the Legislature, and Thurbert Baker tell regular folks they have to follow judges’ bad rulings, even if they are illegal rulings (see http://www.RiceGang.com). They say they can’t make judges follow the law, due to separation of powers. However, let a judge invalidate one of their poorly written and unnecessary laws, and they will threaten the judiciary and then write a law to overcome the ruling. And they will force all of us to bankroll their little party.
It’s not about gay marriage, it’s about control of the courts. Judge Russell actually made the right decision, based on the narrow issue before her. That issue was not gay marriage, but whether or not the referendum presented more than one issue. However, if John Wiles, Sonny Perdue, and Bill Stephens think Judge Russell is an activist judge, who is legislating from the bench, then they have a OBLIGATION to impeach her. There must be a reason they haven’t tried. Could it be because it’s part of the game they are playing with the public? These gentlemen really just want to enrage enough hard core voters to keep them in office. Their goal really seems to be to decieve the public for their own benefit.
These same elected officials, when presented with the issue of crimes committed by judges in Cobb County, refused to enforce the law. Instead, they chose the excuse of separation of powers. However, look how loud they shout when the separation of powers issue hits them where it hurts, at the polls.
Andy Rice
Andy Rice for Senate 37
Taffy Rice for House 36
http://www.ElectRice.org
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Richard,
Almost 50% of marriages end up in divorce anyway. Should these folks have gotten married to begin with???
The point is, Richard, that you can’t legislate morality. By assuming that you can force the judgement of God through human laws, you are taking on the divine perogative. In other words, playing the role of God.
I don’t know what proof you have to back up your assertions about the founding of this nation, but if you look in the declaration of independence, you’ll see three unaliable rights “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.
The Government’s job is to protect individual rights, not to legislate doctrine from any faith. If you guys are really concerned about the institution of marriage, then perhaps you should make your morally superior teachings stronger. In the end, you’ll find that it’s dogmatic bullshit that destroys the sanctity of marriage.
But I don’t think that’s your real agenda. I think the real agenda of the CC is to turn the constitution into the bible. The CC is against religious freedom and individual rights. Plain and simple.
June 3rd, 2006 at 2:43 am
Dear Jasce,
You have been sipping on the public education Kool-Aid again.
In answer to your first question – perhaps not, at least they should have taken their marriage vows more seriously. Divorces were not nearly as high until no-fault divorce laws were passed making divorce too easy in the heat of the moment and at the expense of the children.
Point #2 – Practically every law passed imposes someone’s idea of right or wrong.
Let’s start with our original definition of morality from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=morality
MORAL’ITY, n. The doctrine or system of moral duties, or the duties of men in their social character; ethics.
The system of morality to be gathered from the writings of ancient sages, falls very short of that delivered in the gospel.
1. The practice of the moral duties; virtue. We often admire the politeness of men whose morality we question.
2. The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the divine law, or to the principles of rectitude. This conformity implies that the act must be performed by a free agent, and from a motive of obedience to the divine will. This is the strict theological and scriptural sense of morality. But we often apply the word to actions which accord with justice and human laws, without reference to the motives form which they proceed.
Our system of common law was primarily based upon Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law for almost 150 years after our nation was born. His commentaries were often cited and used as the basis of judicial rulings even at the Supreme Court of the United States. He said man’s law must be subject to the laws of his Creator.
Madison said in Federalist 51:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels
were to govern men, neither external
nor internal controls on government
would be necessary.
“In framing a government that is
to be administered by men over men,
the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, force it to control itself.”
Our founders did not play God; they simply applied God’s word:
Thou shalt not murder, steal, bear false witness; covet thy neighbor’s property, wife (would prevent a lot of divorces), etc. They didn’t get into doctrine, or ancient customs, just basic law and principles.
You have selective memory. The Declaration of independence cites much more than you cited. The second paragraph begins:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Our Bill of Rights does not give us rights; it protects our Godgiven rights that preceded our founding. Don’t forget the first short paragraph of our Declaration:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them …â€
The Declaration ends with a covenant:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The founders had no army, no money, and precious little equipment to field an army capable of going up against the best-equipped, best trained, and most capable army in the world. They knew they were signing their own death warrant by going against the crown. The only thing they had was the “…protection of divine Providence…†and their prayers were answered by many documented miracles, many found in the diaries of both armies.
Washington said:
“The Hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this [the war for independence], that he must be worse than an infidel, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligation.”
Benjamin Franklin, the least religious of the founders, saved the Constitutional Convention when he reminded the others that the prayers that they had in “this same room†were answered, and did they no longer “believe they need the assistance of this most powerful friend,†and then going on to cite several passages of scripture.
No Jasce, it is not my morally superior teachings, I do my best to follow the teachings found in the Holy Scriptures: love your neighbor as yourself, do unto others as you would have them do unto you – in general do no harm.
I would be interested to know more about the, “dogmatic bullshit that destroys the sanctity of marriage.†which you referr to. I am not familiar with that teaching.
My agenda is not from the Christian Coalition. My agenda is a result of a 15 year study of our founding history, which includes a 6 year study of our Constitution and founding documents, along with over 37 gigs of information I have scanned into my computer for reference,
I am very aware of the Christian Coalitions agenda and it is NOT to turn the Constitution into the Bible, and it is definitely NOT against religious freedom and individual eights.
June 3rd, 2006 at 3:28 am
Richard, based on all of your research it seems to me that you must think more about gay sex then most gay people do… all of that research to justify the CC.
It is quite amusing…
I am not a biblical scholar but aren’t there references in the bible concerning…
Not mixing of fibers in clothing
Men should not shave
We should not eat shellfish
And then there’s…
Condoning of slavery
Women should of course be subservient to men
I trust you follow all of these biblical references as well… the bible is the literal word of God.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:06 am
Richard,
You have a selective memory as well…Let me repost part of your last post:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
–All men, huh? Does that not mean Gay men as well?
I’m not arguing with you about the formation of America being a miracle. And let me make one thing clear: I am a Christian. I think being gay is a sin. But a sin, Richard, is something between Man and God. It’s GOD’s job to legislate morality. It’s man’s job to legislate crime. The CC agenda wants to create a victimless crime by preventing gays from being married.
Last time I checked, Richard, Christians still outnumbered gays across the nation. If the so-called “gay agenda” is on the rise, then it is a DIRECT result of the millions of Christians failures to get off their dead asses and witness to the masses. Face it Richard. I spent most of my life in a Baptist Church. One of the most hypocritical places I’ve ever been. I know of, possibly, 4 or 5 people that took the message to heart and actually got out there to witness to non-believers. But now, since your witnessing has failed, you have resorted to theocratic legislation (or as I call it, turning the constitution into the bible).
Here’s the difference between me and you and the CC. I am not afraid to take responsibility for my failures. You and the CC are. You always have to have someone to blame…this time it happens to be gays, last time it was the liberal media, or the jews, or whatever. You can’t accept the fact that you have done very little to strengthen the faith of your followers, so you take on the role of Adam, when he said “The woman that YOU gave me” handed me the apple (he tried to blame God).
Sorry, Richard. The truth is painful.
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:15 am
Amen brother!