Toe-Tapper Craig and Diaper Dandy Vitter Defend Marriage from Non-Threats

From PageOneQ via Pandagon: Sens. Larry Craig and David Vitter co-sponsor Marriage Protection Amendment

Two United States Senators implicated in extramarital sexual activity have named themselves as co-sponsors of S. J. RES. 43, dubbed the Marriage Protection Amendment. If ratified, the bill would amend the United States Constitution to state that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal, is co-sponsoring the amendment along with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

(...)

In July of 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned

And the relevant text of said proposed amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Now let's think about this: Apparently, marriage is under attack from the HOMOQUEERFAGZ, and only a closet-case toe-tapper and a diaper-fetishistic whoremonger, both married men, can defend it from evil, evil queers who mock marriage by being faithful to someone of the same gender while these two stalwart defenders of marriage troll for cock in restrooms and satisfy their fetishes with prostitutes.

Oh, and if you want to laugh a lot more, take a look at the list of co-sponsors for this travesty: Most of these names should come as no surprise.

I'd almost figure this was a joke if I didn't know it was true. How much of a moron do you have to be to blindly play right into our hands with this hypocritical bullshit?

House Votes to Hold Miers and Bolten in Contempt; House Repubs Throw Tantrum and Walk Out

From The Gavel: House Approves Contempt Resolutions for Miers and Bolten

Today, the House has just approved H.Res. 982 by a vote of 223-32-1, which provides for the adoption of H.Res. 979, recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, and Joshua Bolten, the White House Chief of Staff, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee. These subpoenas were issued as part of the Committee’s investigation into the firings of a number of United States Attorneys and matters concerning the politicization of the Justice Department. This resolution also provides for adoption of H.Res. 980 - Authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

But remember, according to the paranoid-lite crowd, Congress doesn't so anything and everyone's OMGZ TEH TRAYTUR because they're not stupid enough to waste time on impeachment votes that will never come to fruition.

And how did the House Republicans react to this? Why, with a good old-fashioned tantrum.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called the move "a partisan, futile act" that would not be enforced by the Justice Department.

In other words, Dumbass Dana is saying that the Justice Department doesn't enforce the law, just the will of its masters. Or, to put it bluntly, it's not about justice, it's about abuse.

And the chamber's Republican minority staged a walkout before the vote, demanding that Democratic leaders vote instead on a revision of federal surveillance laws.

"We will not stand here and watch this floor be abused for pure political grandstanding at the expense of our national security," Minority Leader John Boehner said to jeers from Democrats.

Aww, are the whiny-ass titty babies gonna cry 'cuz they aren't forcing the bill to make illegal activities legal for their Father Figure? Well, keep crying, you whiny little bastards, because it's not gonna get any better.

House passes H.R. 63

The House has passed H.R. 63, the non-binding resolution opposing escalation fo the Iraq War.

Get back to me when they pass something that matters.

Political news in brief, 6/9/2006

Ann C**ter's new book is out. And once again, the right-wing media machine is giving her time to spew her hatred of everything that's not just like her. She's getting decimated by lots of folks, even Bill O'Reilly, and she's just not stopping. I think it's time that someone finally arrest her for her frauds - the voting fraud she committed, and the fact that she's passed herself off as a woman for years.

Al-Zarqawi supposedly dead. Isn't this the third time we've killed him so far? And honestly, how is it we drop 500 lb. bombs on a man and he's totally intact. They gotta scrape our soldiers off the sides of their tanks with spatulas when they get blown up, and this guy's intact? Either something's fishy, or that was one well-built building and it was the collapse (or possibly suffocation) that actually killed him. Just a thought.

Senate votes down the repeal of the estate tax and the Homobigotry Bill. Hey, whaddya know, there's some folks out there with their heads on straight!

The House Republicans voted to destroy net neutrality. Surprise. Hope you like your favorite small sites to run like molasses. Tell your Senators to vote against the bill!

I think that should cover it.

Ohio: YOU DAMN QUEERS DON'T NEED PROTECTION! (And also, you don't if you're not married but not gay.)

From the Daytona Daily News: Domestic Violence Law Excludes Some

Domestic violence law excludes some
Appeals court rules law does not apply to people living together

County prosecutors cannot charge some unmarried people under Ohio's domestic violence law because it conflicts with the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, this area's state appeals court ruled Friday.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals is the first of the state's 12 appellate courts to rule that the domestic violence law runs afoul of the Defense of Marriage amendment, passed by voters in 2004, and does not apply to "a person living as a spouse."

In short, the logic is "dem queer homos ain't married, so we can't charge 'em like dey is, or dey'd think dey was".

And I always wondered why my Ohio friends told me that the state was Hell on earth.

Until the high court decides, unmarried defendants, who would have faced felony domestic violence charges, will be charged with misdemeanor assault charges in Greene County, Schmidt said.

It's amazing how people will make huge stinks over getting laws meant to protect people from domestic abuse passed... and then people will turn right around and ignore that specific protection because the people involved are not exactly the kind of people they want protected.

The amendment says the state cannot "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the ... effect of marriage."

But the appellate court said the state's domestic violence law, which includes protection for "a person living as a spouse," conflicts with the amendment.

"The state or any subdivision shall not recognize these unions," said Greene County Common Pleas Judge Stephen Wolaver, the trial judge who dismissed the charges against Ward.

So it's more important that you keep DEM EBIL QUEER GAY HOMOS from being anything close to married than to protect people?

Good attitude. Fucker.

Montgomery County assistant public defender Michael R. Pentecost predicted Saturday that the appeal's court decision also will limit the ability of unmarried people to get domestic violence protection orders. State lawmakers may have to amend the law, he said.

"The people who backed this amendment were not thinking about these types of unintended consequences," Pentecost said. "They got so overzealous."

You know what the worst part is? I think he might be wrong. Maybe some of them DID think about this.

"The Defense of Marriage amendment is ... a part of the fundamental, organic law of Ohio," Fain wrote.

Yes, a law meant to discriminate against a group of people is just nautral, isn't it?

Well, at least he used the word fundamental. That's about the most accurate word for it, though in a different sense...

"We make no observations concerning the wisdom of the electorate in having adopted the amendment."

He suggested that if the domestic violence law applied "to all persons sharing residential quarters, that would present no constitutional problem."

That's the anti-gay folks' solution: "Well, just fix that law, them it protects them and DEM EBIL GAY HOMOS can't get married!" It's about more than just that, but they don't care - anything to guard their special rights from the rest of the world.

SCOTUS: Fourth Amendment rights still important

Fron the Indianapolis Star: Court limits cops' right to search

I'm not going to even quote the article's main parts, as they're pretty much cut-and-dried reporting standard for SCOTUS decisions.

But the following is annoyingly bad:

LOCAL REACTION TO THE RULING

• Women's shelter: Ann DeLaney, executive director of the Julian Center, a shelter in Indianapolis for battered women, said the decision will hurt prosecutors trying domestic violence cases. She said that because women are sometimes intimidated about testifying against their abusers, investigators try to gather as much evidence as possible to prove the allegations so a woman's testimony isn't needed.

"If an officer walks in the house, he can see it in disarray. He can see that the phones are pulled out of the wall," DeLaney said. "That's all important evidence to a case. This is a setback."

...well, here comes the right's spin tactic on this: "The unelected liberal black-robed activist judges of the Supreme Court hate women and want them to be abused." I'm not really surprised that this kind of red herring shows up in the article - it IS from the Indy Star, which is far-right garbage.

Maybe this woman could think for a few seconds before spewing this kind of reactionary garbage. If she thought, she'd realize that - get this, sports fans - the cops can get warrants pretty easily based on evidence. Judges, from what I've observed these past 22 years, have no love for domestic abusers. Besides, it's garbage anyhow. Justice Souter got it (and, naturally, Bush's butt-boy Roberts didn't):

Roberts said the decision "apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects." Although Roberts has disagreed with other rulings since joining the court in September, it was the first time he wrote his own dissent.

Souter called Roberts' concerns about domestic violence a "red herring."

"This case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims," Souter wrote. "The question whether the police might lawfully enter over objection in order to provide any protection that might be reasonable is easily answered yes."

Bravo.