- comment
James Young - body
- Did they mention that Tim Kaine lied to them about his support for the amendment?
- comment Vivian J. Paige
- body
- Balanced? That's pretty funny. They repeated the AG's talking points. How in the world can you call that balanced?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- AG's talking points? Does the AG cite the Catholic Catechism?
What specifically did you find so disagreeable, Vivian?
- comment Charles
- body
- There's no "nonpartisan" opinions any more. Everybody is so certain of the importance of their side winning, that they see everything as slanted.
I can't watch the news or read the paper without feeling like I'm being manipulated. I can't trust people I've trusted before to tell me what they really think.
Nobody can act civil, because if you give an inch, the other side will accuse you of something worse.
It dawned on me today. If Allen had not, three years ago, asked Gibson to correct a story about his grandfather, the story last week would have been that Allen lied about his grandfather having Jewish roots in order to falsely burnish his image.
His mother would have still had to have come forward to defend Allen against attacks.
I wasn't happy with the direct attack on Webb's anti-women comments, but now I think at least it was his own words he had to defend.
If the Attorney General was an honorable man, and served the state to his best ability as a lawyer for the State, his statement would not just be "talking points", but would be a reasoned legal opinion with some standing.
Why would it be at all "unbalanced" for a defense of the amendment to use the same valid arguments?
It's like complaining that two people both added 2+2 and ended up with 4.
I got an e-mail today with a list of complaints from the left about the Marriage amendment -- same old stuff, harm existing contracts, etc, etc,.
But then I looked closer, and it was actually the same people, but talking about the 2004 LAW that we passed, NOT the amendment.
That's the law they now point to as being sufficient so we don't need an amendment; but the point isn't they changed their mind, it's that they were so very wrong about that law and it's "devestating consequences", but now they are back with the same arguments about an amendment which is in fact a mirror of that law, with a twist to make it less discriminatory in language.
- comment Charles
- body
- Nicely done. Wouldn't expect much less from the church.
- comment Claire Gastanaga
- body
- Vivian's point is well-taken. The 12 points covered in the Q and A's add nothing new to the debate except the Bishops' interpretation of Catholic doctrine as applied to marriage and civil law, which is the only topic covered on which they are entitled to great deference as authorities whether one agrees with them or not.
Regarding the interpretation of secular law offered by the Bishops they are neither authorities nor unbiased. If they were unbiased, the Bishops would have printed both sides of the legal arguments presented on the amendment instead of a one sided brief that simply regurgitates the arguments of virginia4marriage. This makes it particularly ironic that the pastoral letter urges Catholics to analyze campaign rhetoric "honestly and critically."
The Catholic Conference which published the pastoral letter and the accompanying qs and as has registered as a referendum committee ... i.e., as a committee intending to spend more than $10,000 advocating for or against the amendment.
The Bishops are just another political voice in the ongoing debate over this effort to write discrimination into Virginia's constitution. Their missive should be read as any other campaign literature with common sense and an independent mind.
- comment Jay Squires
- body
- Shaun: What arguments? Points 9, 10 simply state a position and then state that the position is wrong, without any support for that proposition.
Point 11, dealing with health care benefits is more detailed. Still, the Bishops cite only the 2005 law which allows commercially-insured employers to offer health care plans which provide benefits to, among others, “domestic partners” of their employees.
The citation of this statute to undercut the argument that these benefits are heartened by the amendment begs the question. First, conservative religious groups, including the Family Foundation, strongly opposed the passage of this law. Second, I have asked repeatedly in other fora that amendment supporters pledge that they will not use the amendment to attempt to have the health-care benefits law declared unconstitutional. I’ve received no such commitment.
Finally, the Bishops go on to offer a theological statement concerning guaranteeing adequate health care for all people. While I won’t quibble about church dogma, I’m also not prepared to count on a recognition of my “intrinsic human dignity” as the means by which I can secure access to health insurance.
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- Ginterparked: re "I have asked repeatedly in other fora that amendment supporters pledge that they will not use the amendment to attempt to have the health-care benefits law declared unconstitutional. I’ve received no such commitment."
I won't take you to court. I promise.
What health-care benefits law in the Virginia Code do you refer?
8 Comments:
What specifically did you find so disagreeable, Vivian?
I can't watch the news or read the paper without feeling like I'm being manipulated. I can't trust people I've trusted before to tell me what they really think.
Nobody can act civil, because if you give an inch, the other side will accuse you of something worse.
It dawned on me today. If Allen had not, three years ago, asked Gibson to correct a story about his grandfather, the story last week would have been that Allen lied about his grandfather having Jewish roots in order to falsely burnish his image.
His mother would have still had to have come forward to defend Allen against attacks.
I wasn't happy with the direct attack on Webb's anti-women comments, but now I think at least it was his own words he had to defend.
If the Attorney General was an honorable man, and served the state to his best ability as a lawyer for the State, his statement would not just be "talking points", but would be a reasoned legal opinion with some standing.
Why would it be at all "unbalanced" for a defense of the amendment to use the same valid arguments?
It's like complaining that two people both added 2+2 and ended up with 4.
I got an e-mail today with a list of complaints from the left about the Marriage amendment -- same old stuff, harm existing contracts, etc, etc,.
But then I looked closer, and it was actually the same people, but talking about the 2004 LAW that we passed, NOT the amendment.
That's the law they now point to as being sufficient so we don't need an amendment; but the point isn't they changed their mind, it's that they were so very wrong about that law and it's "devestating consequences", but now they are back with the same arguments about an amendment which is in fact a mirror of that law, with a twist to make it less discriminatory in language.
Regarding the interpretation of secular law offered by the Bishops they are neither authorities nor unbiased. If they were unbiased, the Bishops would have printed both sides of the legal arguments presented on the amendment instead of a one sided brief that simply regurgitates the arguments of virginia4marriage. This makes it particularly ironic that the pastoral letter urges Catholics to analyze campaign rhetoric "honestly and critically."
The Catholic Conference which published the pastoral letter and the accompanying qs and as has registered as a referendum committee ... i.e., as a committee intending to spend more than $10,000 advocating for or against the amendment.
The Bishops are just another political voice in the ongoing debate over this effort to write discrimination into Virginia's constitution. Their missive should be read as any other campaign literature with common sense and an independent mind.
Point 11, dealing with health care benefits is more detailed. Still, the Bishops cite only the 2005 law which allows commercially-insured employers to offer health care plans which provide benefits to, among others, “domestic partners” of their employees.
The citation of this statute to undercut the argument that these benefits are heartened by the amendment begs the question. First, conservative religious groups, including the Family Foundation, strongly opposed the passage of this law. Second, I have asked repeatedly in other fora that amendment supporters pledge that they will not use the amendment to attempt to have the health-care benefits law declared unconstitutional. I’ve received no such commitment.
Finally, the Bishops go on to offer a theological statement concerning guaranteeing adequate health care for all people. While I won’t quibble about church dogma, I’m also not prepared to count on a recognition of my “intrinsic human dignity” as the means by which I can secure access to health insurance.
I won't take you to court. I promise.
What health-care benefits law in the Virginia Code do you refer?
Post a Comment
Home