Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Jay Martin
    Sickness continued Two short, but very important points --- 1) The B16 squad (Benedict the 16th) Cardinal says gay adoption will harm children THE leader of
    Message 1 of 55 , Sep 5, 2005
      Sickness continued
      Two short, but very important points ---
      The B16 squad (Benedict the 16th)
      Cardinal says gay adoption will harm children
      THE leader of Scotland ’s Roman Catholics has described proposals to allow homosexual couples to adopt as a “distorted social experiment” which risks making children gay.  Cardinal Keith O’Brien said the recommendations of a Scottish executive expert group threatened to place children in an unstable environment that was “gravely immoral”.   He cited research which, he claims, shows children adopted by same-sex couples exhibit “behavioural change”, including “low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, increased mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, sexually transmitted infections and homosexual behaviour”.

      Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist

      My mother always told me that when a person dies, one should not say anything bad about him. My mother was wrong. History requires truth, not puffery or silence, especially about powerful governmental figures. And obituaries are a first draft of history.

      So here’s the truth about Chief Justice Rehnquist you won’t hear on Fox News or from politicians. Chief Justice William Rehnquist set back liberty, equality, and human rights perhaps more than any American judge of this generation. His rise to power speaks volumes about the current state of American values.
      Let’s begin at the beginning. Rehnquist bragged about being first in his class at Stanford Law School. Today Stanford is a great law school with a diverse student body, but in the late 1940s and early 1950s, it discriminated against Jews and other minorities, both in the admission of students and in the selection of faculty. Justice Stephen Breyer recalled an earlier period of Stanford’s history: “When my father was at Stanford, he could not join any of the social organizations because he was Jewish, and those organizations, at that time, did not accept Jews.” Rehnquist not only benefited in his class ranking from this discrimination; he was also part of that bigotry. When he was nominated to be an associate justice in 1971, I learned from several sources who had known him as a student that he had outraged Jewish classmates by goose-stepping and heil-Hitlering with brown-shirted friends in front of a dormitory that housed the school’s few Jewish students. He also was infamous for telling racist and anti-Semitic jokes.
      As a law clerk, Rehnquist wrote a memorandum for Justice Jackson while the court was considering several school desegregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. Rehnquist’s memo, entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” defended the separate-but-equal doctrine embodied in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist concluded the Plessy “was right and should be reaffirmed.” When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the dead Justice, stating – under oath – that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. But Justice Jackson voted in Brown, along with a unanimous Court, to strike down school segregation. According to historian Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to “smear[] the reputation of a great justice.” Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks. He did not acknowledge that he committed perjury in front of the Judiciary Committee to get his job.
      The young Rehnquist began his legal career as a Republican functionary by obstructing African-American and Hispanic voting at Phoenix polling locations (“Operation Eagle Eye”). As Richard Cohen of The Washington Post wrote, “[H]e helped challenge the voting qualifications of Arizona blacks and Hispanics. He was entitled to do so. But even if he did not personally harass potential voters, as witnesses allege, he clearly was a brass-knuckle partisan, someone who would deny the ballot to fellow citizens for trivial political reasons -- and who made his selection on the basis of race or ethnicity.” In a word, he started out his political career as a Republican thug.
      Rehnquist later bought a home in Vermont with a restrictive covenant that barred sale of the property to ''any member of the Hebrew race.”
      Rehnquist’s judicial philosophy was result-oriented, activist, and authoritarian. He sometimes moderated his views for prudential or pragmatic reasons, but his vote could almost always be predicted based on who the parties were, not what the legal issues happened to be. He generally opposed the rights of gays, women, blacks, aliens, and religious minorities. He was a friend of corporations, polluters, right wing Republicans, religious fundamentalists, homophobes, and other bigots.
      Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court for thirty-three years and as chief justice for nineteen. Yet no opinion comes to mind which will be remembered as brilliant, innovative, or memorable. He will be remembered not for the quality of his opinions but rather for the outcomes decided by his votes, especially Bush v. Gore, in which he accepted an Equal Protection claim that was totally inconsistent with his prior views on that clause. He will also be remembered as a Chief Justice who fought for the independence and authority of the judiciary. This is his only positive contribution to an otherwise regressive career.
      Within moments of Rehnquist’s death, Fox News called and asked for my comments, presumably aware that I was a longtime critic of the late Chief Justice. After making several of these points to Alan Colmes (who was supposed to be interviewing me), Sean Hannity intruded, and when he didn’t like my answers, he cut me off and terminated the interview. Only after I was off the air and could not respond did the attack against me begin, which is typical of Hannity’s bullying ambush style. He is afraid to attack when there’s someone there to respond. Since the interview, I’ve received dozens of e-mail hate messages, some of which are overtly anti-Semitic. One writer called me “a jew prick that takes it in the a** from ruth ginzburg [sic].” Another said I am “an ignorant socialist left-wing political hack …. You’re like a little Heinrich Himmler! (even the resemblance is uncanny!).” Yet another informed me that I “personally make us all lament the defeat of the Nazis!” A more restrained viewer found me to be “a disgrace to the Law, to Harvard, and to humanity.”
      All this, for refusing to put a deceptive gloss on a man who made his career undermining the rights and liberties of American citizens.
      My mother would want me to remain silent, but I think my father would have wanted me to tell the truth. My father was right.

      Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. His latest book is
      The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved (Wiley, 2005).

      The nation should be mourning for itself, not William Rehnquist.
      Nobody knows how to lie and bear false witness like a ....
      Sean Hannity, for example.
    • James Martin
      Alan Chambers -- ex-gay well paid mouthpiece of the christian right ...
      Message 55 of 55 , Feb 15, 2010
        Alan Chambers -- ex-gay well paid mouthpiece of the christian right

        Video: We're not at liberty to speak for all gays or Gods. Alan's at Liberty to do just that.

        Alan Chambers is clearly a smart and passionate man. He also comes across like a decent person who sees many flaws within the frequently overheated "pro-family" movement, and, to his credit (one that's reserved for few in the professional anti-LGBT world), Alan is somewhat willing to speak out against the missteps that he perceives. We'd never deny him of these respectable traits.

        Unfortunately, Alan has allowed anti-gay faith to persuade him to interrupt some of these natural gifts and instincts. He's also let's homo-hostile biblical interpretations convince him that he should deny what even he admits are his natural homo-focused desires (or, as he calls them, "struggles"). Which would actually be fine if this were a choice he had made for only himself. But what is not okay and will never be okay is the fact that he takes his own personal decision to closet his desires and uses them to tell society at large that "gays can change". Also not okay is the way he wants to deny gay people of their own respect and worth as living, loving beings by pitting them against heterosexual couples, the one and only type of coupling that he'll allow within the "body of Christ". And then there are of course the many times over the years that Alan has used these personal views to deny LGBT people in the political spectrum, lashing out against things like marriage equality or hate crimes protections. Or there's his ability to recognize some of the ills that have been directed toward LGBT people, yet failure to acknowledge the ones that his own organization, Exodus International, has fomented. Again: None of this is okay.

        Friday February 12 Alan appeared at Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia,
        where his wholly faith-motivated refusal to see gays as part of the world's normalcy once again placed an undeserved and unfortunate impasse on his would-be, could-be wise words. Listen in:
        My comments --->
        --- Click on the URL to see and hear his sweet absurd nonsense from Liberty University (southern baptist ties)
        There are five videos each about nine minutes.  They are so bad that maybe, just maybe some Liberty students will open their eyes.  But I doubt it.  They have been blinded by faith.  They refuse to listen to any other opinion.

        Friday, February 12, 2010

        Stephen Fry on the Catholic Church. It ain't pretty.

        Posted by John Aravosis (DC) at 2/12/2010 01:01:00 PM
        Wow. British actor, writer, comedian, director Stephen Fry, who is gay, was on some show recently debating someone from the Catholic Church. Dear God. It's 20 minutes of pure joy, in only the way a well-educated Brit could do it. I know Americans have a fetish for British accents, but Jesus Chris - we do not speak English, or think, or talk like these people. It's truly astounding. Or dare I say, brilliant. Watch it.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.