Biden also praised Tim Kaine as the “great governor of New Jersey.”

One problem: Tim Kaine’s not governor of New Jersey.

Jon Corzine (right) is governor of New Jersey (Remember, he didn’t wear his seatbelt in the state patrol car for the big high-speed crash).

Tim Kaine is governor of another state, called Virginia.

He’s also chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Biden is from Delaware.

He used a Teleprompter.

Blame Secretary Teleprompter. And, if that wasn’t bad enough

Standing ovations as he pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell…Additionally, Biden promised to put a ban on workplace discrimination….

In case Gaffemaster J missed it, his boss is against gay marriage, is keeping DADT, and, there are already laws regarding workplace discrimination. Where has he been these past years?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On June 9 a rally that saw thousands of participants in support of traditional marriage assembled at Albany, New York, the state capitol. One month earlier, a similar rally was held in Midtown Manhattan that also saw thousands in attendance. And in neither case was there much by the way of media coverage.

A Google search of the words marriage rally in New York June 9 turns up many hits on the story. But almost all of them are from blogs as opposed to traditional media sources, though the Village Voice covered the May rally in Manhattan.

A blog named Beetle Blogger has a nice series of photos showing the big crowd that the June 9 event brought out.

Here is one of them:

The events were sponsored by New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which itself has found round criticism in lefty blogs. But, isn’t this just the point? The rallies that saw thousands attend, and the discussion of all the issues, pro and con, that are connected with the rallies are being hashed out in blogs, but not in the Old Media. With all this discussion going on, wouldn’t it seem that the media might give it a line or two?

So, why has the media practically ignored the size of these rallies and all the discussion over those attending, those in support, and those opposed? It is an interesting question, no?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Many state lawmakers said the School Violence Prevention Act, which aims to put a stop to bullying at school, is something they can all get on board with.

“When I was elected, one of the last things that I thought I would be doing is telling school boards that you have to implement policies to protect all the kids from bullies,” Sen. Julia Boseman said. “If it’s race, sex, whatever, it’s not acceptable.”

They’re kids. This happens. You cannot change that. Kids can be mean. But, you could get their parents involved, instead of blowing their opinions off, and wanting them to not interfere. Even back in the days when schools could paddle a child for misbehavior, bullying happened. But, all this does is codify being mean, and in a way to protect the current interest group of the Left that needs to be pandered to, gays and transgendered. It can also be used for another purpose

“It’s not about protecting children. It’s about accepting the term sexual orientation and gender identity and how they define human sexual behavior. That’s the whole point of it,” Rep. Nelson Dollar said.

State republicans came forward Tuesday to say they have concerns about the use of the term “sexual orientation” in the bill. They pointed to a court case in Iowa where the use of the term in one bill opened the door to the possibility of same-sex marriages.

“[Iowa’s] constitution, which is the same as ours, its defense of marriage, which is the same as ours, and used the fact that the legislature had put sexual orientation in the statute as a reason to declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act,” Rep. Paul Stam said.

And North Carolina does not have anything similar to the way Californians vote directly on issues, such as with Proposition 8. Furthermore, our elected officials here in North Carolina, particularly the Democrat ones, tend not to listen to the People once elected. So, well meaning, but typically idiotic legislation, or a way to stealthily create a situation where gay marriage becomes legal?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

“What’s Left of the Constitution?” is a periodic news digest featuring Alliance Defense Fund legal analysis of proposals, policies, and trends advanced by the federal government. On a regular basis, this digest specifically highlights policies and actions that move America away from the principles of the U.S. Constitution and closer to the demands of the political Left, especially ones that threaten religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and the family.

For the second time in less than a year, the California Supreme Court will decide whether to reject the votes of millions of Californians regarding marriage. Proposition 8 implemented an amendment to the California Constitution that states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It passed by a margin of approximately 5 percent in November 2008.

The impact of the court’s decision will not be limited to marriage. Soon we will know whether the democratic process matters and what the impact will be on those who disagree with advocates of homosexual behavior.

Marriage remains a hot-button issue, and advocates of the homosexual agenda continue to argue that the public should have no say in the matter. These activists have adopted a two-pronged assault to enact their desires: first, to harass and vilify those who disagree; and second, to find judges who are sympathetic and will overrule the people.

When presidential candidate Barack Obama visited the Saddleback Civil Forum in California in August 2008, he gave his views on marriage:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”

Yet, the new administration’s actual policies and planned actions for marriage are stated much differently. The new administration…

· Supports “full civil unions and federal rights for [homosexual] couples”

· Opposes a “constitutional ban on same-sex marriage”

· Promises to repeal the federal “Defense of Marriage Act”

One look at the “Civil Rights Agenda” page of the White House website makes it clear that the rhetoric during the Saddleback Forum does not match the reality of the new administration’s priorities. They are advocating policies—and creating a legal and political landscape—that will lead to the judicial redefinition of marriage.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Married gays in Mass. sue US for federal benefits… Developing…

Well, it looks like the aggressive march of the emboldened radical Left fringe continues.

Look, in 30 out of 30 states where Americans had a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, Americans passed the amendments by an average passage rate of nearly 68%.

Forty-five states have laws and/or amendments protecting marriage.

In 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA into law after it passed the House 342-67 and the Senate 85-14.

Contrary to popular perception, the advocates of obliterating marriage have lost time and again in courts across the country, winning precious few “victories.”

America, for good reason, is not ready to surrender marriage to the radical homosexual movement. Don’t believe the argument that you will hear that the challenge is “all about the benefits.” It’s not. It’s about forcing Americans to subsidize same-sex relationships by having a federal court declare it is unconstitutional to “deny” federal benefits to same-sex couples. That will mean that the federal government will have to recognize “marriages” between individuals of the same-sex. It will then lead to challenges to states’ marriage laws with the intent to concoct a “Roe v. Wade for marriage” — where extremists who hold views contrary to the sound public policy decisions of the overwhelming majority of citizens of the several states (and the United States Congress) will dictate to everyone else, against our will and for no reason other than appeasing destructive social forces, what our marriage laws will be.

Again, this is NOT about “benefits.” That’s merely close air support for the coming full-frontal assault. The benefits argument is where they think they can exploit public sentiment right now with tearful stories of people “like you and me” who are being “denied rights.” Good strategy, being that media will gladly carry that water. But let’s not be taken in. It is about a wealthy, pampered and totalitarian-oriented movement slaking its thirst for complete control over foundational public policy issues that have no business being decided by a very few imperial judges.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In the 2005 case Roper v. Simmons, Ogden alarmingly argued that the USA must abide by a death penalty treaty that we never signed, because otherwise we would be flouting international norms. The idea that the demented laws and treaties favored by decadent Euroweenies ought to hold weight in American courts is taken quite seriously on the lefts’ outer fringe, as a means of circumnavigating the will of voters.

Like most moonbats, Ogden is a big fan of abortion. Here’s what he has to say about the psychological effects killing her own child has on any woman who hasn’t totally cauterized her conscience:

[I]t is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects.

In addition to advancing mental health (according to Ogden), abortion is highly convenient in a society so degenerate that children are exposed to bums fumbling in their stained and malodorous trousers as they gawk at online pornography — a state of affairs Ogden has defended by fighting the use of Internet filters in public libraries. He has lawyered for Playboy, Penthouse, the largest distributor of hard-core porno movies, and even the ACLU.

Ogden definitely gets Chairman Zero’s Big Government approach. He has sued the government to force taxpayers to finance a Braille version of Playboy. It’s unclear whether this included scratch-and-sniff technology.

An all-purpose warrior on behalf of moonbat decadence, Ogden has also fought to homosexualize the military and “has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.”

They might want to change the name to the Department of Social Justice.

On a tip from nancz. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Well, that didn’t take long.

To many, it may seem premature to confront head-on the agenda of the new president, in the initial days dedicated to celebrating his political success and the peaceful transition of power in our republic.

But, sad to say, in the marriage of President Obama’s political destiny to that of these United States, it’s Mr. Obama who chose to cut short the honeymoon.

No sooner had he finished speaking of his fellow Americans in his inaugural address as a people who “have chosen hope over fear [and] unity of purpose over conflict and discord” than his staff posted, on the White House Web site, a virtual declaration of war against those who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in homosexual behavior.

It is the swiftness of the onslaught, not the scope of the agenda, which surprises. Repeatedly, during the campaign, Mr. Obama affirmed in speeches and on his Web site his wholehearted support for the homosexual legal and political agenda. Now, that agenda has moved en masse to the front and center of the new president’s parade of “change.”

As posted, the agenda includes:

· Expanding the definition of, and ramping up the penalties for, “hate” crimes.

On its face, that may sound reasonable…except that punishing “hate” requires the creation of second-class victims. Every violent crime is rooted in hate, and every victim deserves equal justice. “Hate crimes” laws create a two-tiered justice system where some victims are “more equal” than others. What elevates these victims above others? The mere broadcast of a preference for certain sexual acts.

Violence is an action; hate is an emotion. “Hate” crimes laws erase that distinction. How do you defend yourself against charges that you “hate” someone? Who gets to decide what “hate” is? How long before simply reading a passage from the Bible is a “hate crime”? Indeed, the passage of “hate crimes” laws inevitably leads to persecution for ideas that favored “victims” abhor. Yes, even in America.

· Expanding “anti-discrimination” employment laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Bottom line: this is about forcing religious groups (including churches) and private organizations (like the Boy Scouts and businesses) to hire those who whose open announcement of sexual behavior runs counter to the beliefs of the organizations. And when those organizations point to those beliefs…well, see “Hate Crimes” above.

· Opposing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage,” while promoting the legalization of these and other same-sex relationships – granting them the same federal legal rights and privileges as other married couples.

The president is calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the enactment of extensive legislation elevating same-sex relationships to the level of marriage. In the name of “equality,” these new laws would eradicate thousands of years of moral, social, and legal precedent, open a wide door for the legalization of polygamy and other counterfeits of matrimony, and effectively destroy all meaning of marriage – the expressed wish of many of those promoting same-sex unions.

· Securing full adoption rights for same-sex couples.

This effectively rewrites all natural definitions of family, since it denies the fundamental need of every child for the parental influence of both a mother and a father. By eliminating the legal requirement for either one, the courts will basically eliminate the need for both. Parenting will become legally irrelevant, and birth parents will increasingly find their traditional legal protections trumped by the “emotional” prerogatives of legal strangers.

Read it all…..

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Question: “Where does the belief come from that Obama secretly supports gay marriage? Just a guess? Based on what? I’d be more likely to believe that he doesn’t care in the slightest about gay marriage or any other gay issue. I bet such things barely register as blips on his mental radar, and that when they do register, it’s only insofar as he has to handle such issues delicately in politics due to conflicting constituencies.” — Freeman Hunt (I just ran across this question over at Althouse and swiped it, which is totally cheating, but what they hey)

Answer: First off, make no mistake about it: Barack Obama supports gay marriage. Sure, he CLAIMS that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he opposes a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage, opposes state constitutional amendments that protect marriage, opposes DOMA, and even opposes “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In other words, he takes all the same positions as the most rabid fans of gay marriage, but says that he’s for traditional marriage because that’s what he had to do to win the election.

Getting back to the larger point, that’s standard operating procedure for liberals. When they hold a position that’s unpopular with the American people, they shamelessly lie about it. Then, if they’ve got the votes to push their unpopular position through, they’ll shift on a dime and unapologetically support exactly the same position that they claimed to oppose.

They do that for three reasons.

#1) If liberals told the truth about what they believe, they would never win the presidency and they would be absolutely unelectable in the Senate outside of the ultra-left wing states.

#2) Their supporters just assume, correctly about 95% of the time, that they’re lying any time they deviate from the liberal agenda. Take Barack Obama, for example. If the netroots honestly believed he was telling the truth about his support of marriage being only between a man and a woman, they simply wouldn’t have supported him. Forcing gay marriage on the American public is every bit as much of an important part of the liberal activist agenda these days as support of the 2nd Amendment is on the right.

#3) Because the mainstream media is liberal, they react positively when liberals abandon their centrist campaign positions and move to the left. In other words, you’re not going to get pummeled for lying on the campaign trail by the Washington Post or New York Times if you’re a Democrat that moves to the left.

Cross posted at Right Wing News.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

More:

Michelle Malkin: The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob

Before election day, national media hand-wringers forged a wildly popular narrative: The Right was, in the words of New York Times’ columnist Paul Krugman, gripped by “insane rage.” Outbreaks of incivility (some real, but mostly imagined) were proof positive of the extremist takeover of the Republican Party. The cluck-cluckers and tut-tutters shook in fear.

But when the GOP took a beating on Nov. 4, no mass protests ensued. No nationwide boycotts erupted. Conservatives took their lumps and began the peaceful post-defeat process of self-flagellation, self-analysis, and self-autopsy. In fact, there’s only one angry mob gripped by “insane rage” in the wake of campaign 2008: The mob of left-wing, same-sex marriage activists incensed at their defeat in California. Voters there approved a traditional marriage initiative, Proposition 8, by 52-48.

Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 have responded with threats, fists, and blacklists.

Glen Lavy in the San Diego UT: Reaction shows pretense of tolerance is over

As voters heard the arguments, support for redefining marriage eroded. The appeal of those trying to redefine marriage was based on a kind of “live and let live” superficiality. “How,” they asked, “will our getting married harm you?” The answer would come swiftly and dramatically.

Many voters did not see the inevitable conflict between the activist attempt to redefine marriage and religious liberty and conscience, but stories and examples emerged. Firefighters in San Diego were forced to participate in a sexually charged “Gay Pride” parade against their wishes. A first grade class was taken to view their teacher’s wedding to another woman, which the teacher called a “teachable moment.”

Stories arriving from other parts of the country reinforced the issue. When a Christian ministry in New Jersey did not permit two women to conduct a same-sex civil union ceremony on its property, because that was contrary to its beliefs, the women filed a complaint under the state anti-discrimination laws, and the ministry faced a loss of its property tax exemption.

Even as opponents denied any threats to religious liberty or parental rights, two families from Massachusetts, which judicially redefined “marriage,” came to California to prove the denials false. Their children, in first grade and kindergarten, were read, with no parental notification, books like King and King, the story of two men who get married. Worse yet, the parents were told there was no opt out because schools were tasked with teaching the meaning of marriage.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Barack Obama won the presidency this month by winning a handful of key states that Bush won in 2000 and 2004 and John McCain needed but did not get. There were several key demographics in each of those states that Obama won over to his side that I will address later. Many voters in these states were Christians who mistakenly believed Obama, a self-proclaimed Christian, would certainly not move as far left as their fellow believers were warning them. As a Christian, I must have grace for the poor judgment my fellow Christians displayed in their choice of president (no I-told-you-so’s), but in order for us to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, it is important to point out these errors.

This “non-I-told-you-so” occurrence I’m referring to is the ambushing by liberal Democrats to unseat Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) from his position on the Energy and Commerce Committee and replaced him with Rep. Harry Waxman (D-Calif.). Waxman’s overthrow is disturbing to many Democrats, who see the move as spurning the seniority system and an indication that Obama and Pelosi is veering their party sharply left.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats steered the House toward more aggressively tackling global warming and other environmental problems Thursday, toppling veteran Michigan Rep. John Dingell, a staunch supporter of Detroit automakers, from an important energy panel in favor of California liberal Rep. Henry Waxman.

The switch could help President-elect Barack Obama on Capitol Hill with one of his favored issues: trying to curb global warming by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But Waxman’s combative stance on climate change and other issues also could alienate Republicans and moderate Democrats, making it harder to get the bipartisan support Obama will need.

Of course the AP release limits the scope of this leftward coup to environmental repercussions and the automotive business. And this is precisely why it was important for Christians who supported Obama to heed the warnings and not vote for him. Obama’s march leftward is a smoke and mirror show and most Obama supporters cannot tell you the other, more important reason, this appointment is important.

The Energy and Commerce panel is one of the most important House committees, with sweeping jurisdiction over energy, the environment, consumer protection, telecommunications and health care programs such as sex education and taxpayer funding of abortions. You may remember that Waxman was the one who used your taxpayer dollars to launch unsubstantiated attacks on the validity of abstinence education and pregnancy care centers.

According to FRC Action, the leadership will not pursue the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) next year. Democrats have decided the issue carries too much political risk. They plan to postpone the legislation until they can chip away at smaller pockets of the values movement.

With Waxman’s appointment and today’s story that President-elect Obama is delaying the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, it seems the leadership plans to attack life and family by quietly dismantling things that won’t make front-page news like increasing taxpayer funding of abortions, ending conscience protections, and inhibiting free speech. Until they’ve paved the way with these incremental changes, liberals are putting off big ticket items like same-sex “marriage,” FOCA, and gays in the military.

Don’t continue to be fooled, brethren. If you helped vote in a president who stands opposed to these biblical principles because you liked his tune on other issues, here is your proof that he IS a leftist as we said he was. And this won’t be an isolated incident.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post