Leaders in the gay rights movement do us all a disservice — gay and straight alike — when they stir up passions over non-issues. Yesterday’s argument in California’s Supreme Court over standing in the Prop. 8 case is the latest example of whipping people into a needless frenzy that will ultimately feed cynicism.
The case was not about any gay rights issue. In the course of the proceedings over appealing the district court’s decision overturning Prop. 8, a fascinating and unique issue arose about whether the proponents of an initiative have standing in federal court to appeal it. This question came up because neither the Governor nor the state Attorney General chose to appeal, leaving the proponents as the only ones willing to carry the burden. However, under federal court rules, parties must have proper standing to bring the case to the court of appeal. The federal courts have very limited jurisdiction over cases, unlike state courts.
Normally, some part of a state’s government will defend a citizen-initiated law if necessary. But both the Governor and the Attorney General felt the court got it right, and declined. The proponents, therefore, stepped in. However, some cases have said initiative proponents don’t have standing in the federal courts. But no case dealt with the issue here, where there is no one to defend an initiative except the proponents.
There is a far more at stake in this case than just gay equality. In California, the courts have consistently ruled that the legislature — and the executive and the judiciary — have only derivative powers. Those powers do not come from God, but from the people, who are the ultimate source of all government. The Prop. 8 appeal brings that into the spotlight. If the government will not defend a law passed by the people using their superior legislative power, and the proponents of that law cannot, themselves, defend it, then, in fact, the government is superior to the people, and can veto their efforts.
It is, of course, convenient for those of us who believe strongly in equality, to have the appeal die for want of a champion. That is what made Ted Olson’s life so hard yesterday, as the justices hammered him about his theory. Olson is nothing less than a superstar, and watching him defend what is ultimately an indefensible position was a marvel. We cannot be grateful enough to have him on our side.
There are certainly some significant legal questions around the edges of what he was proposing, and it was a joy watching him try to tempt the judges with those. But Justice Carol Corrigan called him out for “nibbling” at these distractions. The real issue in this case is whether the government can nullify a vote of the people by denying them a voice in the federal courts. If this is a gay issue, it means that gay rights requires placing our complete and total trust in the government, now and forever. We’re fortunate in this case that our interests are aligned with those of California’s current politicians. I’m very skeptical about this as a permanent rule, though.
I have no doubt at all that Prop. 8 is a violation of the federal constitution, and that the district court’s ruling will finally be upheld. But the easy win will come at too great a cost. The corruption and overreach in California’s legislature in 1911 that led to the initiative is never far from my mind. Even when I agree with the political branches on the merits, as I do here, I think it is too dangerous to aggrandize the government at the expense of the people’s ultimate authority over government. While I think the majority vote was invalid under the federal constitution, I’d rather give that majority its voice in the courts now, and maintain for the future the ability to control the state government if that ever becomes necessary again.
And when “we” ultimately lose this case (I will not be surprised to see a 7-0 vote in favor of the proponents), I hope the anger is not directed at the courts. That is the risk of the fund-raising tactics that drive these non-issues — that the anger and fear our leaders are stirring up will be misdirected. The Prop. 8 case, itself, is our issue as lesbians and gay men. The standing case is our issue only to the extent we are citizens who have an interest in how much power we have granted to our government.
59 Comments for “Power (I’m Afraid) to the People”
posted by Rodney Hoffman on
Exactly right. I’m not even a lawyer, but as every newscast kept getting it wrong in their breathless leads, I kept complaining (mostly to myself) that yesterday’s highly publicized proceedings had NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage or LGBT rights.
posted by Houndentenor on
The majority of California’s problems stem from this ballot initiative process. I wonder how Mormons would feel if we put their rights up to a vote. Or any other group for that matter.
The issue here is that since no one other than same sex couples are affected by this ruling, they have no standing to contest the ruling that the governor and attorney general are willing to let stand. Do we want to set a precedent that any citizen can contest any court ruling even one in which that person has no legal interest in the outcome? If you think the courts are clogged now, imagine the nightmare of the lawsuits filed by every special interest group over everything.
And finally, I know I am hard on conservatives and Republicans so let me repeat…HOORAY for TED OLSON.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I wonder how Mormons would feel if we put their rights up to a vote. Or any other group for that matter.
Go ahead.
The reason California has the initiative process is because the state recognized what happened when corrupt state officials refused to enforce or defend the laws and set up a means by which both state officials and the Legislature could easily be overridden and brought to heel.
The problem is that you would lose, Houndentenor. And what you don’t want to face is that gays and lesbians like yourself lose because people realize that all you’re trying to do is to write yourself special privileges and antireligious bigotry into the law.
This is why gays like you really aren’t fit for public office. You are so desperate to have gay-sex marriage that you’re endorsing corrupt public officials refusing to enforce or defend duly-passed laws. You ignore the law because it inconveniences you, and you make judgments, not based on individuals and character, but on minority status.
posted by Edu on
Good grief! Access to *civil* marriage’s rights and obligations are special privileges?
So long as we’re not talking about some kind of marriage like special kind of union, I think not.
But if you were talking about other kind of laws, my apologies.
And what is “gay-sex marriage”? Marriage as an institution and concept does already include the sexual dimension so is weird to have the sex part there… or are you making an statement for the asexual community by labeling non-ansexual marriages, hetero-sex marriage, gay-sex marriages, bi-sex marriages, etc.?
posted by Lymis on
It seems to me that while you are right that this is not about the merits of same-sex marriage or about Prop 8, that it is also about a serious flaw in the initiative process itself, and that isn’t necessarily the job of the courts to patch.
Giving unlimited rights to the proponents of an initiative pretty much bypasses all the checks and balances that are supposed to be a part of our system. Yes, the initiative process serves as a check to the elected legislature and governor, but where is the check on the initiative process?
And there was a previous initiative that included listing the proponents as having standing to defend it if necessary in court. This one didn’t. That seems like a pretty simple thing for them to have included. They already complained that Prop 8 didn’t work retroactively to sweep away all the marriages that took place while it was legal – again, something they could have included in the language of the initiative.
If this is all supposed to be about how the will of the people triumphs over all, then the people have a responsibility to get their act together and follow the rules.
The first of which, is, of course, not to pass unconstitutional initiatives in the first place.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Giving unlimited rights to the proponents of an initiative pretty much bypasses all the checks and balances that are supposed to be a part of our system. Yes, the initiative process serves as a check to the elected legislature and governor, but where is the check on the initiative process?
It’s called the signature requirement.
So let’s see. Gays here are desperately screaming and whining that, because Californians didn’t vote in all Republicans, they support gay-sex marriage.
But they of course ignore that Californians voted overwhelmingly to amend the state’s constitution to ban gay-sex marriage.
Again, typical. Gays and lesbians are incapable of acknowledging outcomes that go against what they want. They scream and whine and constantly throw tantrums that they should be able to do whatever they want. They’re such little spoiled brats that they will actually argue that people should have no right whatsoever to amend their own constitution.
posted by Edu on
Actually I agree with you, but don’t gay and lesbian have a right to do everything within their means to advance their interests? You seem so angry that it is so.
If they win in court, unintended consequences and all, they win. If they lose, they lose. Either way, they followed already established procedures in the courts.
posted by Lymis on
I don’t think anyone’s “ignoring” the fact that a majority of Californians voted to strip gay and lesbian citizens of equal rights under the law. That’s what the lawsuit is about – properly using the system for a redress of unconstitutional discrimination.
It isn’t whining and being spoiled to recognize that our system of government has rules, and that even the voters of California have to follow them.
I think it’s pretty clear that a reasoned look at the arguments by both sides show who is and who isn’t throwing a tantrum and screaming and whining that they get to do whatever they want – and it isn’t gay people.
posted by Wilberforce on
Didn’t the proponents already argue Prop 8? And wasn’t it already found unconstitutional. Are they to be given unlimited power to challenge every move of all three branches of government?
And to echo Houndentenor, Olson and the other guy who took our side are totally fabulous. I read some of their argument in the earlier court case. And they kicked a—. It’s a special pleasure seeing intelligence in the public square, because it’s normally so rare.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let’s see, didn’t gays already argue against sodomy laws?
And weren’t sodomy laws found to be constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick?
And weren’t gay-sex marriage bans found to be not even worthy of a Federal question in Baker v. Nelson?
And hasn’t DOMA been found to be constitutional?
Are gays to be given unlimited power to challenge every move of all three branches of government?
It’s always funny to watch gays like Wilberforce demonstrate how thoroughly they despise our country and its constitutions and how it gives rights to anyone other than themselves.
posted by Wilberforce on
It’s always funny to hear conservatives tell us what other people think. It must be nice to be able to read minds.
I despise our country?
I was trained by my WWII vet father to love all things American, and by a pack ofUC grads to look carefully at America to try to improve things, and by other UC grads to celebrate our strengths and criticize our weaknesses. If you call that hatred, you might want to buy a dictionary.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
The opponents of Prop. 8 stepped in it, by using the Constitution as an instrument of discrimination.
I would have thought, already in violation of it, as well as subverting it’s protections for a minority from a tyranny by a majority.
In their zeal to countermand ANY legal gains of gay people, they themselves are now demanding that their ‘right’ to vote be respected, however much exponential damage is being done to several OTHER amendments of the Constitution, as well as the rights of a PERPETUAL minority like gay people.
And since the Judge Walker hearing, and there WAS a state attorney rep who defended Prop. 8, Prop. 8 itself was found not only to be animus based law, but it doesn’t serve the purpose of defending marriage or protecting it’s intents and purposes whatsoever.
Now 8 supporters have put the courts in another position, which is making this issue so stupendously convoluted, nothing is really getting done but tying up the court for years on end.
How much is it COSTING?
CA is a broke state, who has the money to keep wrangling in court like this for the court’s time?
Now the issue is still circling back to the issue of tyranny by a majority.
So that this isn’t really about the 8 supporter’s rights being DENIED or controverted.
They didn’t have them in the first place!
Yes, petty indeed. And since divorce, domestic violence, poverty and the economic downturn is wrecking marriages and families left and right, Prop. 8 isn’t worth defending either.
The Gov. and AG know that.
It’s time, whoever 8’s defenders are, knew it too.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In their zeal to countermand ANY legal gains of gay people, they themselves are now demanding that their ‘right’ to vote be respected
Oh really? You don’t think people have the right to vote?
I think that says it all. Wouldn’t you agree that Ted Olsen and other gay-sex marriage supporters do not believe in the right to vote and think that government should arbitrarily ignore any and all voters and votes?
posted by BobN on
The real issue in this case is whether the government can nullify a vote of the people by denying them a voice in the federal courts.
And the answer, which is absent from this analysis and from all the but-what-about-democracy?!??! handwringing that’s going on, is that the people already have the right to seek remedy in higher courts as long as they can show harm.
The Prop 8 folks can’t manage to do that and want standing anyway.
The system is “broken” or “threatened”. They just can’t meet the barest requirement for recognition, so they have to seek automatic recognition by virtue of having proposed the (unconstitutional) amendment.
Imagine this precedent — if one is set — and its consequences. The most outrageously unconstitutional ballot initiative — imagine an anti-Muslim amendment in the aftermath of another 9/11 attack — would, with sufficient financial backing, have to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. The rulings of any other court, the sworn duty of representatives of other branches to uphold the federal constitution, would mean nothing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Imagine this precedent — if one is set — and its consequences. The most outrageously unconstitutional ballot initiative — imagine an anti-Muslim amendment in the aftermath of another 9/11 attack — would, with sufficient financial backing, have to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court.
Yup. That’s the way our system was designed to work. Look in the Constitution.
The rulings of any other court, the sworn duty of representatives of other branches to uphold the federal constitution, would mean nothing.
But the separation of powers, the right to litigate, and the right to appeal that you are demanding be abrogated are all explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.
What you are demanding, BobN, is that the President be able to summarily ignore and refuse to enforce any law that s/he deems unconstitutional — and that, based on that,
there is no right to litigate.
Now let’s see you apply it: let’s say our Republican President in 2013 says that the law repealing DADT is unconstitutional and refuses to enforce it or allow it to take effect. Thus, by your own screaming and whining logic, there is no right to litigate that decision.
Again, gays like yourself, BobN, are not fit for public office OR marriage — because you have zero capability to think through the consequences of what you are demanding.
posted by BobN on
Oh, fuck off.
Unless you’re proposing to me (shudder and vomit), you’re really in no position to judge whether I am fit for marriage.
posted by BobN on
The system isn’t…
posted by Me on
Federal appellate court is not a happy hunting ground for sore losers looking for a second chance. The proponents of Prop 8 had their day in trial court; they lost. They don’t have standing to appeal just because they want another shot. Further, if the will of the people decides, then the issue was decided in the general election: the Republican candidates for governor and attorney general said that they would defend Prop 8 while the Democrat candidates said that they would not. The Democrats won. The people of California have already spoken: don’t defend Prop 8.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nope. The people of California already voted on Proposition 8 itself and passed it.
Also, following that logic, if our Republican President in 2013 campaigned on repealing DADT, the fact that the people voted him or her into office proves, by gay “logic”, that the people support repealing DADT.
It would be way better to see how the people voted on the issue itself when presented to them. But gays and lesbians are so desperate that they ignore that result and make fools of themselves in the process.
posted by Lymis on
Not clear on this idea of fundamental rights, are you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Go ahead and state, Lymis, that it is a fundamental right to marry anything to which you are sexually attracted and that the government has no right to limit marriage in any respect.
And then when you start hedging on that, you must explain how your relationship is negatively affected by any which you want to be banned.
Also, before you attempt to quote Loving, please note that the same justices decided Baker mere years later without a single reference to gay-sex marriage being a “fundamental right”.
posted by Mark F. on
“The majority of California’s problems stem from this ballot initiative process.”
Yes, the all wise California State Legislature is clearly superior on all issues over the judgment of the people.
Religious freedom is already well established. The purpose of this litigation is to establish marriage rights for same-sex couples.
By denying standing, this court would create a bad precedent of the government being able to de facto nullify any ballot initiative. I think that is bad, you obviously disagree.
posted by Houndentenor on
I stand by my comment. A good part of the budget mess that plagues California is from decades of ballot initiatives.
And no, we don’t put people’s rights up to a vote. If we did segregation would have gone on for decades longer in most of the south. Do the courts always know better? No. But it is the job of the courts to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes we do.
Since you insist marriage is a “right”, Houndentenor, we’ve put the “right” of polygamists, pedophiles, bestialists, incest practitioners, and others up to a vote several times.
And also, Houndentenor, the basic problem here is revealed by Regan DuCasse’s comment above; you don’t believe that people have the right to vote in the first place. THAT’s really the problem.
posted by Lymis on
Not so much.
This wouldn’t be a precedent of the government being able to de facto nullify any ballot initiative.
Only ballot initiatives that passed, that harmed specific people enough that those people had standing to sue for redress, that were declared unconstitutional by a federal court, and which the elected government chose not to appeal.
You know, that’s not all that bad a precedent.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Only ballot initiatives that passed, that harmed specific people enough that those people had standing to sue for redress
And of course, who determines if someone is harmed “enough”?
Why, the government, of course.
And who determines if you have “standing”?
Why, the government, of course.
And who chooses whether or not it’s going to allow the issue to be brought to the courts?
Why, the government, of course.
So since Lymis has put the government in charge of determining all of these things, the government can neatly emasculate and nullify ANY ballot initiative that it doesn’t like. The courts will never see it because Lymis has decreed that the government can overrule voters at any point it likes.
Congratulations, Lymis. You’ve just recreated Venezuela. But come to think of it, that was probably your point, wasn’t it?
posted by BobN on
By denying standing, this court would create a bad precedent of the government being able to de facto nullify any ballot initiative.
1) the court would have to find the initiative unconstitutional.
2) the executive would have to agree with that assessment in order to decide not to appeal the court’s decision
3) whatever party was still pushing for the initiative would simply have to show harm and they would have standing.
Is that scenario, which as been in place for decades, so terrifying to you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s easy, BobN.
The constitution of California outlines a process by which it can be amended by voter initiative.
Proposition 8 met all of the criteria required and thus amended the California Constitution.
The governor and Attorney General are sworn to uphold and defend the state constitution in every respect; they do not have the ability to pick and choose that which they are not going to defend or follow.
The state constitution makes it clear that unequal enforcement and defense of the state constitution is harmful to the public at large.
Thus, the citizens and voters of the state of California are harmed by the governor and attorney general’s failure to uphold and defend the state constitution.
If you were able to think past your sexual orientation, BobN, you would realize that it is awful precedent for you to endorse selective enforcement and defense of the law.
But again, you aren’t, and hence you are arguing that elected officials should be able to ignore and selectively enforce and defend the laws as they see fit.
posted by BobN on
As I have pointed out elsewhere, those officials are also bound by the U.S. constitution.
I notice your response fails to refute my point that the system provides for legitimate cases to get justice.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, BobN, it doesn’t, since your “system” allows the government, not the courts, to decide what is “legitimate” — and you allow officials to arbitrarily determine what is and isn’t constitutional and thus refuse to enforce or uphold whatever THEY consider to be.
Of course, this is no surprise. Obamabots like yourself want a dictator, not a republic.
posted by gilbert on
Yes, the people of California had exercised their superior position above the government when they voted the Republicans out of office. They could have voted for a Republican governor had they wanted, or a governor from any party who promised to defend Prop 8. But they didn’t. They chose instead to vote for candidates that stood opposed to Prop 8. Doesn’t this count for something? The reason why a government official (like AG) has standing in the Federal Appellate Court is because they were elected by the people, or appointed by someone elected by the people. In this case, I cannot see where the “voice of the people” is being denied — after all, they had their day in court and Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. Had the last election gone their way, no doubt a Governor Whitman and her AG would have vigorously defended Prop 8 before the Federal Appellate Court, and on up the SCOTUS if needed.
And if that had occurred, I’m sure this blog would still find some reason to castigate those among us who are fighting for LGBT equality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nope. The people of California already voted on Proposition 8 itself and passed it.
Also, following that logic, if our Republican President in 2013 campaigned on repealing DADT, the fact that the people voted him or her into office proves, by gay “logic”, that the people support repealing DADT.
It would be way better to see how the people voted on the issue itself when presented to them. But gays and lesbians are so desperate that they ignore that result and make fools of themselves in the process.
posted by gilbert on
*sniff* *sniff* Do I smell a troll? *gag* Yes! Yes, I do!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Then take a shower. Maybe then the odor will go away.
posted by Rob on
Those powers do not come from God, but from the people, who are the ultimate source of all government.
Only indirectly and for good reasons. Those powers directly comes from the state constitution which protect individual rights. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
posted by Qwnwxzel on
Could I have a statement, please? atk models
:[[[
posted by Craig Howell on
To Mr. Link et al: I harken back to a slogan popularized by the ultraconservative John Birch Society back in the 60s: “This Is A Republic, Not A Democracy; Let’s Keep It That Way.” About the only thing they ever got correct.
posted by Mark F. on
It seems to me that those who want to deny standing to the Prop 8 proponants simply want to make it easier for themselves to win their case. However, if these people are given standing, Judge Walker’s decision may still very well be upheld on appeal.
It seems to me that this case , or a similar one, will have to resolved by SCOTUS eventually – regardless of what happens with the standing issue at the present time. Ultimate victory will not be attained by denying standing.
posted by Mark F. on
Imagine this alternate history: a citizen sponsored ballot initiative giving gays equal marriage rights passed in 2008, but it was found unconstitutional by a Federal Court. Governor Meg Whitman and her GOP AG (elected in 2010) refuse to defend the law in court and proponants of the law are refused standing. I imagine you’d all be fine with that, right?
posted by BobN on
First of all, your example makes no sense. Prop 8 took away existing rights.
But even with this flaw, the solution is that the proponents would simply have to demonstrate harm — the inability to marry — to get standing. Your example actually makes your argument weaker.
Try another hypothetical, one more in line with what Prop 8 actually did.
posted by Wilberforce on
Thanks. It’s fun to see logical flaws so quickly and neatly disproven.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Will you state that marriage to whatever you are sexually attracted is an absolute right, BobN?
If so, would you also state that laws banning anyone from marrying anything to which they are sexually attracted are automatically a deprivation of rights, and therefore are unconstitutional?
Would you also demonstrate to us, BobN, how your relationships are harmed by allowing incestuous, bestial, pedophile, and other such relationships to marry?
Remember, BobN, the standard is that YOU must be harmed, otherwise you have no standing.
posted by BobN on
What the heck are you talking about? This is bizarre even for you.
Anyone being harmed would have standing. It has nothing to do with me being harmed.
As for finding someone whose relationship(s) might be harmed by bans on incestuous, bestial, or pedophilic marriages, I suggest you check around at the next GOP meeting you go to. I’m sure you’ll find a candidate among them.
posted by Wilberforce on
He’s using the slippery slope, off-the-scale tactic, a favorite of the brainless right. He’s comparing gay marraige to beastiality, which no one is asking for. It’s also a vile insult to us and deserves a response that my charm school training will not allow.
The far right have a ton of these kinds of rhetorical tricks. It’s best not to reply to them, although without thinking, I broke my own rule above. Mea culpa.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s not the same. Those denied the right to marry under the ruling WOULD have an interest in the outcome and would therefore have the ability to appeal. Please try again.
BTW, gay people have to accept crap similar to your scenario all the time. We don’t like it but we often have to live with it.
posted by Jorge on
Thank God the leftist blogger is back. Maybe things will get a little more civil around here.
Anyway this was *very* interesting. My thought:
Normally, some part of a state’s government will defend a citizen-initiated law if necessary. But both the Governor and the Attorney General felt the court got it right, and declined. The proponents, therefore, stepped in. However, some cases have said initiative proponents don’t have standing in the federal courts. But no case dealt with the issue here, where there is no one to defend an initiative except the proponents.
If Prop 8 were upheld, a gay couple would have standing because they are directly affected by the law.
Saying that proponents do not have standing to appeal because they are not affected by the law sounds far too similar to the argument that gay marriages do not hurt straight marriages. Why is that a problem? It strikes me as rightly a socio-political argument, a judgment call, than something that deserves the strength of a legal statement. There are two sides. If gays can be considered a losing and thus legally interested party, somebody on the other side has to be considered in the same way. A law was passed by popular referendum in a majority vote. Somebody has lost, somebody has standing to continue this case.
Now, if it’s not the “proponents” who have standing, then obviously it’s gonna have to be the voters who voted in favor of this law.
posted by Jorge on
[Uh, sir, it’s the state that lost. It is the state’s interest that has been challenged. That’s the “somebody” in question.]
Errrrrrsh!
(By the way, am not familiar with this story at all. Just going based on the stuff in front of me.)
posted by dalea on
I can remember back when IGF was a vibrant place, with hundreds of posters, when any member could begin a topic, when those on the libertarian/moderate side of the gay world were beginning to organize local groups. I did got together with some other interested people with hopes of starting a local group. Then the management decided to shut it all down to protect a friend whose misdeeds were in the news. At that point what was the beginning of a nationwide effort of gays not on ‘the left’ collapsed due to the decisions of the management here. And they wonder why ‘the left’ is so influential among gays. Few things have done more to vindicate ‘the left’ than this long ago decision.
And now I see a comment section whose principal ornament is ND30. Is the management trying to sabotage what shreds of credibility they have left? Why would any gay person post here when they know they will immediately be subjected to ND30’s hysterical billingsgate?
The management really needs to address this situation.
posted by BobN on
I can remember back when IGF was a vibrant place, with hundreds of posters
Seriously? The mind boggles.
posted by dalea on
Yes, when there was a user originated blog feature, there were hundreds of posters. And a movement was beginning that united moderate and libertarian gays. Because we had a central meeting place where we could find each other. Then the management saw how successful they were in doing what they claimed to want and immediately shut the whole process down.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Which is, of course, dalea, why you called for publicly puking and urinating on people with whom you disagree.
I think you demonstrate why the gay left has no credibility. Your attempt to trash others goes up in smoke when your own statements are made obvious.
posted by Jorge on
Why would any gay person post here when they know they will immediately be subjected to ND30′s hysterical billingsgate?
Great buildup. Underwhelming punchline.
But okay.
posted by dalea on
Sorry you are underwhelmed. But my experience is that the management of this site is dedicated to defeating its own priorities. What would have been a better punchline?
posted by Houndentenor on
ND30 makes me proud to be a liberal.
Sorry, but every time I have the displeasure of talking to a gay conservative I’m reminded of how much they hate gay people. I’m not talking about the moderates or the libertarians but the homocons. I wish I could think of a single exception but I can’t.
posted by Wilberforce on
I was raised by a moderate businessman. I came here hoping to find the old, educated, business republicans that were driven out of the party by Pat Roberston and Co.
Instead, I see crack pot talking points from the featured writers, some far right nutjob posters, and the usual mainstream liberals. It would be nice to find moderate republicans, but it’s starting to look like they’re extinct.
posted by dalea on
Yeah, it looks like they are long gone. I can look back and recall how proud I was of Sen Percy, who was much more liberal than Barack Obama. Same for Nixon, which is a weird thing to say. My family background is in an ethnic group (Scandinavian) with deep ties to the Republican Party. We all vote Democratic now. Very sad. Agree about the crack pot talking points.
posted by james on
i see we have a nice heterosexual mr north dallas forty trolling around on gay websites im sure its all in the name of the lord or something to that effect as he taps his toes at the local airport/rest stop that these hetero types are so famous for visiting. lets see what kind of BS he can throw back about his superior lifestyle.
posted by Houndentenor on
I believe Mr. 40 is in fact a practicing homosexual. He has been posting on his own blog and others for quite a few years now.
posted by Lymis on
On the face of it, it would appear he needs more practice.