Tomcat, gay marriage measures are defeated in every state when offered as a referendum to the general public. Only courts and state legislatures have intervened where it has been made legal.
Newsweek declares him "The First Gay President." Since "First Black President" already went to Bill Clinton (by Toni Morrison), this is a tag that will stick to Obama.
If ages-old traditional marriage between one man and one woman is a slap in the face to homosexual couples who love each other, then limiting marriage to monogamous hetero- and homosexual couples is a bigoted denial of rights to polyamorous threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes, child couples, incestuous pairings, man/boy relationships, necrophiliac and bestial groupings, ad infinitum.
Marriage was invented because heterosexual couples can do what no other combination can--produce children, which is its ultimate (though not compulsory) consummation. It is therefore an institution of the family unit for the protection of children. Yes, heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage, but that is no reason to deliver a crushing blow by totally redefining it, even in the bigoted sense that homosexuals want.
The First Amendment protects free speech even when it is hateful. The Supreme Court as recently as last March upheld the right of Fred Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church to shout and carry signs saying "God hates fags" and worse at military funerals. But the Court also finds no problem with the 43 states that regulate free speech: specifically, that funeral demonstrators must stay at least 1000 feet away. Would the absolutists concede that there are indeed some circumstances where free speech should be regulated?
The OWS free speech debate doesn't even approach that. Local authorities are clearing out encampments of the Occupiers not because of what they are saying, but because of public safety issues, i.e., health concerns and blocking of public access.
YTown Parent: To think that "peacefully" ("peaceably" is the precise wording of Amendment I) is the only limitation on the right to assemble shows an ignorance of the Constitution and disregard for its intent. Take Walter's suggestion and pitch a tent on Market Street "peacefully" and see what happens. Your fellow citizens who drive would then be deprived of their use of that public property. What about parades, you say? Government attempts to accommodate all legitimate uses of public property through PERMITS. Free speech and peaceable assembly are supreme concepts, but as a practical matter they can and must be REGULATED. Local governments do this all the time, Constitutionally, regardless of Webad's fantasy of the National Lawyers' Guild being able to litigate against it.
The Occupiers have a right to protest, speak, camp out, whatever, on public property. So does everyone else, and the Occupiers are now depriving them of THEIR rights. That's what permits are for, people. We have free speech, but to accommodate everybody it must be regulated.
What? Your $100,000 college degree didn't include that knowledge?
What an instructive thread this has become. The author boldly states "Unfortunately, this has come at a time when businessmen have made a mess of the economy." With absolutely no support or attribution for the charge, teachers (and students) of English composition will recognize this as an expression of naked bigotry; those who paid attention to news coverage of the Madison Statehouse demonstrations will recognize it as public sector union propaganda. Students of economics (apparently not taught at this educator's institution) know that "businessmen" as private entrepreneurs contribute substantially to the economy and CREATE wealth--a foreign concept to many teachers and their unions.
Nuke plants in PA were not built near existing fault lines, and were designed to withstand far greater seismic activity than has historically occurred in the area. While technology has improved substantially to suggest replacement of old-style reactors, safety concerns should reflect what we have learned from Fukushima Daiichi. That said, nuclear power still has a far greater safety record than any other generation method. Remember that when the next coal mine disaster occurs.
This already smells. With all due respect, even though this is a faith-based approach, the goal is stated as getting "sane gun laws...by harnessing the economic power of concerned citizens" without definitions or any mention of specifics. When the chosen profile of of criminal is cited as one who gets guns legally, what other objective can there be but to further deprive law abiding citizens of their right to bear arms?
Mr. Fineman should be made aware of the unpublicized statistic of millions of crimes being prevented by the legal use of privately owned weapons, most often without firing a shot. Criminals will not obey gun laws when they are committing more serious offenses. Unfortunately, those who obtain guns legally sometimes misuse them. Such is the price of freedom, but good citizens should retain the right to defend themselves.
It's laughable. Does "The United Front 4 Educational Justice" realize that a numeral is not a preposition? Or is that the syntax of Ebonics? "Justice" indeed.
Former Valley pair applauds Obama’s gay marriage stance
Tomcat, gay marriage measures are defeated in every state when offered as a referendum to the general public. Only courts and state legislatures have intervened where it has been made legal.
May 15, 2012 at 9:24 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Home Depot’s policy on theft puzzles Boardman police
HellaBB nailed it. All the more reason for tort reform.
May 13, 2012 at 5:39 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Former Valley pair applauds Obama’s gay marriage stance
Newsweek declares him "The First Gay President." Since "First Black President" already went to Bill Clinton (by Toni Morrison), this is a tag that will stick to Obama.
If ages-old traditional marriage between one man and one woman is a slap in the face to homosexual couples who love each other, then limiting marriage to monogamous hetero- and homosexual couples is a bigoted denial of rights to polyamorous threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes, child couples, incestuous pairings, man/boy relationships, necrophiliac and bestial groupings, ad infinitum.
Marriage was invented because heterosexual couples can do what no other combination can--produce children, which is its ultimate (though not compulsory) consummation. It is therefore an institution of the family unit for the protection of children. Yes, heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage, but that is no reason to deliver a crushing blow by totally redefining it, even in the bigoted sense that homosexuals want.
May 13, 2012 at 5:12 p.m. permalink suggest removal
There is a right to hold a sign; pitching a tent isn’t the same
The First Amendment protects free speech even when it is hateful. The Supreme Court as recently as last March upheld the right of Fred Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church to shout and carry signs saying "God hates fags" and worse at military funerals. But the Court also finds no problem with the 43 states that regulate free speech: specifically, that funeral demonstrators must stay at least 1000 feet away. Would the absolutists concede that there are indeed some circumstances where free speech should be regulated?
The OWS free speech debate doesn't even approach that. Local authorities are clearing out encampments of the Occupiers not because of what they are saying, but because of public safety issues, i.e., health concerns and blocking of public access.
November 27, 2011 at 7:46 a.m. permalink suggest removal
There is a right to hold a sign; pitching a tent isn’t the same
YTown Parent: To think that "peacefully" ("peaceably" is the precise wording of Amendment I) is the only limitation on the right to assemble shows an ignorance of the Constitution and disregard for its intent. Take Walter's suggestion and pitch a tent on Market Street "peacefully" and see what happens. Your fellow citizens who drive would then be deprived of their use of that public property. What about parades, you say? Government attempts to accommodate all legitimate uses of public property through PERMITS. Free speech and peaceable assembly are supreme concepts, but as a practical matter they can and must be REGULATED. Local governments do this all the time, Constitutionally, regardless of Webad's fantasy of the National Lawyers' Guild being able to litigate against it.
November 26, 2011 at 7:20 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Occupy group defies YPD
The Occupiers have a right to protest, speak, camp out, whatever, on public property. So does everyone else, and the Occupiers are now depriving them of THEIR rights. That's what permits are for, people. We have free speech, but to accommodate everybody it must be regulated.
What? Your $100,000 college degree didn't include that knowledge?
November 14, 2011 at 10:39 p.m. permalink suggest removal
In defense of teachers
What an instructive thread this has become. The author boldly states "Unfortunately, this has come at a time when businessmen have made a mess of the economy." With absolutely no support or attribution for the charge, teachers (and students) of English composition will recognize this as an expression of naked bigotry; those who paid attention to news coverage of the Madison Statehouse demonstrations will recognize it as public sector union propaganda. Students of economics (apparently not taught at this educator's institution) know that "businessmen" as private entrepreneurs contribute substantially to the economy and CREATE wealth--a foreign concept to many teachers and their unions.
May 25, 2011 at 8:24 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Nuclear POWER PLANTS — ARE WE IN DANGER?
Nuke plants in PA were not built near existing fault lines, and were designed to withstand far greater seismic activity than has historically occurred in the area. While technology has improved substantially to suggest replacement of old-style reactors, safety concerns should reflect what we have learned from Fukushima Daiichi. That said, nuclear power still has a far greater safety record than any other generation method. Remember that when the next coal mine disaster occurs.
March 20, 2011 at 9:27 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Talk to offer economic way to cut gun crime
This already smells. With all due respect, even though this is a faith-based approach, the goal is stated as getting "sane gun laws...by harnessing the economic power of concerned citizens" without definitions or any mention of specifics. When the chosen profile of of criminal is cited as one who gets guns legally, what other objective can there be but to further deprive law abiding citizens of their right to bear arms?
Mr. Fineman should be made aware of the unpublicized statistic of millions of crimes being prevented by the legal use of privately owned weapons, most often without firing a shot. Criminals will not obey gun laws when they are committing more serious offenses. Unfortunately, those who obtain guns legally sometimes misuse them. Such is the price of freedom, but good citizens should retain the right to defend themselves.
January 24, 2011 at 5:28 a.m. permalink suggest removal
School’s name triggers group’s ire
It's laughable. Does "The United Front 4 Educational Justice" realize that a numeral is not a preposition? Or is that the syntax of Ebonics? "Justice" indeed.
June 13, 2010 at 12:57 p.m. permalink suggest removal