News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-08-06/news-roundup-hour-1
President Barack Obama gestures during a briefing about the ongoing response to the BP oil spill, at the Gulfport Coast Guard Station in Gulfport, Miss., in June 2010
Official White House photo by Pete Souza via Flickr
California's ban on gay marriage is struck down. BP's runaway well may finally be sealed. And the House is called back into session to vote on a state aid bill. A panel of journalists joins guest host Susan Page for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
E.J. Dionne
senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, Washington Post columnist, and author of "Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right" and of "Stand Up Fight Back."
Margaret Talev
White House correspondent, McClatchy Newspapers.
Stephen Dinan
Congressional bureau chief, The Washington Times.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panelists respond to a caller who disagreed with a California judge's decision to overturn the ban on gay marriage in that state, and mull the future of the legal debate over the issue across the nation:
The panelists talk about the history behind the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and explore recent efforts by some Republican lawmakers to repeal citizenship rights for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Regarding the striking down of California's proposition 8, I understand that the legal teams on both sides of the argument were prepared to appeal to a higher court, even before judge Walker had rendered his decision. My questions is, can any party in the suit appeal a decision simply because they don't like the outcome of the case? Is there a standard for what can and cannot be appealed? In order to appeal a federal judge's ruling, does the disgruntled party have to prove that there were faults in the trial procedures, technicalities, or something that was patently unfair in the case, or are they free to appeal simply on the basis of disagreeing with the outcome?
If marriage is a religous concept why does the government recognize it at all? If it has to, it can't discriminate against anyone who wants to get married.
On Cal Prop 8, one of your guests mentioned that Tea Partiers are upset about judges overturning the will of the majority. American society needs to be re-educated about the nature of American democracy and the fact the role of the judiciary is to prevent what John Stuart Mills called the tyranny of the majority. Government by popular referenda is not democracy. It might be appropriate for tax limits and bottle deposit questions, but it ain't appropriate for constitutional rights.
Good Morning!
Could someone please explain to me what the GOP has done for small business? Taxes cuts?
My wife and I run two small businesses (Less than 5 people each) and the notion of a tax break of a few hundred dollars does nothing to encourage us to hire a new employee. Give us an order to fill and we will be more likely to hire another employee!
Thank you!
Phillip
Re the gay marriage decision:
Isn't one of the principles of the constitution protecting a minority from the majority? Isn't that what the Judge's decision does?
Regarding the jobless rate, I was wondering if anybody is paying attention to how many of those jobs will not be coming back and how many of those still collecting unemployment are simply avoiding the innevitable. I have two friends and a neighbor who have made the leap to other fields. One went from an architectural design firm to physical therapy. He completed his training through our city hospital and is now employed. The other two lost corporate positions and are getting ready at this point to open an organic salad bar and bakery downtown. Here is another interesting point my husband has seen with his company, when layoffs occur it is the middle people who go, the firm has been left top heavy and those worker bee's who are left, are working around the clock to complete projects. He has seen no hiring and in the last 3 weeks they have lost 2 more people by way of resignation. Is this unusual? I myself am thinking it is not.
Re: Gay marriage in a democratic society debate:
Speaking from the home of Thomas Jefferson, I alway remind people of Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, where he give a brief tutorial on our form of government, stating that
minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
and he makes specific reference to the hundreds of years of religious wars in 'the old world - Europe'.
So, Is Jefferson relevant, or not?
Edward Strickler, Albemarle County VA
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html
"... this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; ..."
On the issue of democracy in the court overturning Proposition 8 - this is done by legislative action, as well. In Missouri several years ago there was a state-wide vote, supported by law enforcement, that banned concealed carry of weapons. Nevertheless, a few years later the state legislature, based on the assumption that the plebiscite was tilted by the two urban areas of the state, ruled that concealed carry would be allowed. Democracy, indeed, is often mediated.
On the last episode of "Boston Legal", there were compelling arguments made in support of same-sex marriage. It had everything to do with legal control of assets and the tax consequences of estate planning.
It's interesting to note the contrast between ethics charges under Republican and Democratic Congresses. When Republicans were in control, they circled the wagons to protect Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, et. al. They changed the rules, dumped Ethics Committee members who voted the "wrong" way, etc. But the Democrats are operating in the sunshine and letting the process take its course. Nancy Pelosi has done a good job keeping her promise to make this an ethical Congress.
On taxes: When has there ever been a tax cut for the rich that wasn't followed by a recession? Look at the most prosperous times since 1930. The tax rates on the rich were always higher--90% on the top bracket under Eisenhower, and Reagan's prosperity didn't come till after he had signed the biggest tax increase in history--yet the Republicans seem to be able to learn nothing from history.
Has the government considered an alternate solution for the committed union of same-sex couples without defining it as marriage. The concept of marriage is pre-political and cannot be created by law (although the government would do well to support marriage as it is the most likely means to form law-abiding citizens).
It is misleading for government to define marriage (the union of man and woman...the only union capable of creating new life) as something that it isn't (a homosexual union). In this there is a marked difference, therefore, government should recognize the difference in how it recognizes and defines these unions.
A more precise and intelligent solution would be for government to define same sex unions in a way that is just as respectful, and with the same legal rights as heterosexual unions, but to allow for that undeniable difference.
The vote for Proposition 8 was very close, and 20% of the population didn't even vote. I don't think we know the will of the people, and really I don't think the people have made up their minds.
Really Susan Page? The ADL defends the civil rights of Jews "and others"?
Haven't heard anything from them on Gay Rights. Specifically Gay marriage and military service, both prominent in the news for years.
As a matter of fact we've heard nothing on Gay Rights from any heterosexually identified "civil rights" organizations like ADL, the NAACP, The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, etc. Not even a statement of support.
Well...how is it these and other "civil rights" organizations define "human" anyway?
Given the Judge's ruling that...
"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
...their silence is particularly remarkable.
"Never again", huh?
Why do you need to be able to qualify same sex marriage as different than hetero marriage? Doesn't that imply that one type is better than another?
Most people argue that 'marriage' holds religious significance, but I don't believe the term 'marriage' is a religious term. My cousin married her husband in a county court. She and her husband are atheists. There was nothing religious about it. But I still say they are married.
@ Elizabeth C.
You seem to miss the point of this ruling entirely. Why must the government define marriage at all? Why the specious argument government "define same sex unions" only?
An "alternate solution" for The Gays only? Why not do away with ALL marriage altogether and consider an alternate solution for ALL couples, not just The Gays? That would mean removing special rights and status the heterosexuals and heterosexual marriage. I mean...speaking of equality...
Explain how "the concept of marriage is pre-political". Do you have special knowledge of human behavior and social organization from the pre-historical period?
If I understand you correctly The Gays "undeniable difference" from heterosexuals is reproduction. OK, four things:
1. The Gays have kids all the time.
2. Shall government also deny conventional "marriage" to heterosexuals who do not or cannot procreate and instead force them into an "alternate solution"? Or is it only The Gays who get the "alternate solution"?
3. Shall government "define" mulitple categories for unions? One category for The Gays, a second category for heterosexuals, and a third category for those who cannot procreate?
4. Heterosexual marriage is the "only union capable of creating new life"? Humans, either homosexual or heterosexual, don't need to be married to procreate and they don't need the government to explain that.
Explain how and why it is even necessary for government (or anyone) to "define" Gay marriages, and the marriages of heterosexuals who do not procreate, as "different" in the first place. Seems to me ALL of them are just marriages.
Why is this so important to you at all?
Consider the Judge's ruling:
"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
"Plaintiffs do NOT seek recognition of a NEW right. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they ARE: marriages."
Here is a thought: consider a girl born after the entire U.S. has ruled to allow gay marriage. This girl will grow up in a world being taught and likely believing that there is no inherent different between marrying a man and marrying a woman.
To me it would seem that this girl is being cheated of what many consider to be an important truth that gender is important, that a marriage between man and woman is not the same thing as a gay union. This child may deprived of the freedom you and I had to make our choices knowing that society recognized (until recently) marriage as between man and woman. Does that make sense?
I am in favor of preserving traditional marriage as between man and woman, not so much because I am worried about my rights but because I am deeply interested that the rising generation be able to make choices based on truth.
@ cbc
Your logic is flawed. Letting a child know Gay people exist and get married will not make a child Gay. When a child learns there is no "inherent [difference] between marrying a man and marrying a woman" it has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on that child's sexual orientation.
And what about children who are born homosexual? Does learning marriage is only for one man and one woman turn them heterosexual or deter them from falling in love with a member of the same sex? No. Do those children have ANY "freedom" whatsoever to grow up and get married? No.
Your comment implies there is only one "normal" sexual orientation, that all else is intently and dangerously deviant. This idea heterosexuality is genetic and therefore "natural" but homosexuality is magically aberrant is an embarrassing fantasy. Sexual orientation is NOT culturally acquired. It is naturally occurring in all humans, whether Gay or straight. How did you know you were heterosexual? How do you think a Gay person realizes they're homosexual?
You simply state but do not explain how "marriage between [a] man and woman is not the same thing as a gay union". I'd like to hear how exactly love for heterosexuals is different (read: superior). I'd like to know how and why only heterosexuals are worthy of marriage.
"This child may deprived of the freedom you and I had to make our choices..."" First of all stop pretending "you and I" (i.e. everyone on earth) is heterosexual. Stop pretending children do not grow up and realize they're Gay.
Your desire to preserve "freedom" and "choice" only for heterosexuals while denying it to everyone else is remarkable.
I keep reading how business has cuts jobs they wanted to cut for years. Are we really sure that those jobs will come back? Was this a way to "right size" for many businesses? If that is true then how do we grow jobs when business has learned to do more with less people.
I am also a mormon and I disagree with your caller. I live in salt lake city. Allowing gay marriage in no way affects my marriage of seven years to my wife. How could it? In my mind it is a civil rights issue. I don't think it is fair for your caller to try and represent all mormons that way. I disagree with his stance on the issue completely.
re: gay marriage
I believe, at a minimum, our goal should be to try to give people any freedom that doesn't cause deleterious effects to others. From that standpoint, it is the burden of detractors of gay marriages to demonstrate such effects.
Mark Graff on August 6, 2010 @ 11:37 am wrote: “The ADL defends the civil rights of Jews ‘and others’? Haven't heard anything from them on Gay Rights.”
Well, sir, I guess it’s because you haven’t been listening. Here’s what a quick Yahoo search produced:
ADL supports Scottsdale, Arizona, ordinance barring “discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people” - http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1205netransgender1205.html
ADL welcomes Congressional reintroduction of Federal Hate Crimes Bill (which, of course, included protection for gays and lesbians) - http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HatCr_51/5010_51.htm
ADL hails Congressional progress toward repeal of ban on gays in the military - http://www.adl.org/PresRele/DiRaB_41/5771_41.htm
You were saying . . . .?
yes it is Domestic Partnership--this who issue was exploited by Karle Rove and Pres. Bush and resulted in DOMA. We do not RULE by majority in America--when it comes to rights. These same arguments were used when interracial marriage was prohibited, in fact, slaves were not allowed to marry. Marriage is a civil contract between two people. While churches may have sacrements and ceremonies, they marry because they are allowed by the government to marry. Churches do not decide who can and cannot marry or if they can end that marraige. It is not a "moral " issue even though some people "believe" that it is. We so not have a state church in America and the government has no reason to force the moral beliefs on one group on another. Read the decision by Judge Walker and you will be educated about what this is really about--equal protection under the law! A group of churches got their members to rally and fun (especially the Mormon or LDS as they prefer now days--I guess to negate their history of Polygamy which they doctrinally still believe is the pattern of Celestial Marriage) and took rights granted to citizens of California AWAY! DOMA will eventually be rulled unconstitutional as well. I have fought as a retired Army Officer for 37 to uphold and defend the Constitution. I am glad that it protects minorities from the tyrannical acts of majorities! Wow were they ever smart back there, but they knew what would happen first hand what happens when a Government is ruled by a Church. Democracy is NOT just symply majority rule. It is about life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and protecting the rights of all--especially the rights of the few from the many! Thank you the framers of the Constitution! Quite frankly for the potential to create good I would put it up there with any other "scriptures."
Elizabeth C. on August 6, 2010 @ 11:09 am wrote: “It is misleading for government to define marriage (the union of man and woman...the only union capable of creating new life) as something that it isn't (a homosexual union).”
PART ONE
It is misleading, madam, for you to ignore the fact that procreation, and the ability to procreate isn’t a requirement for marriage. Sterile people can marry, women past menopause can marry, people can marry (and stay married) even though they have no desire to produce children, and never do. (And, of course, gay couples can ‘create new life’ the same way many straight couples do - through artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood.) Your argument is contrary to fact.
As for “the concept of marriage” not being created by law - nonsense! That concept has changed considerably over centuries, and each time the change was effected through the law. Indeed, what is Prop. 8 but an attempt to use the law to limit “the concept of marriage”. By your “logic” Prop. 8 should not exist.
TO BE CONTINUED
@ Etaoin Shrdlu
Not imressed. I don't see them participating at any public events or appearing at maybe one press conference to publicly offer support. You know the kind of stuff that would be reported widely in the mainstream media and maybe give people something to think about? A press release on a website is like that tree in the forest: if there is no one to hear it does it make a sound?
And what about the NAACP, The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, etc.?
No one owns the civil rights movement. If all these groups understood that one struggle is every struggle, that working together (to the degree it is possible) is the key, then the achievement of equal rights would not be so egregiously protracted and difficult for so many.
To Elizabeth C. (writing on August 6, 2010 @ 11:09 am) wrote:
PART TWO
On the other hand, I agree that there are more ways to extend the legal rights that come with marriage (which is really what’s at stake) than just by extending marriage to gay couples. While that is the preferred solution, it certainly isn’t the only one. As a retired attorney, one trained to beware of putting “form over substance”, I don’t care whether you call it marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or “tiddlywinks”. What matters is that the legal rights which come with marriage be the same, the name doesn’t matter.
Finally, let me add that while I support gay marriage, that doesn’t mean I agree with the judge’s ruling. Without going into legalese, I don’t agree that the Constitution requires gay marriage. (Although I do think the aspect of Prop. 8 which prevents the California legislature from creating gay marriage may be unconstitutional. See the Supreme Court case of Roemer v. Evans to understand why.)
@ Etaoin Shrdlu
The Constitution does not "require" marriage for anyone...homosexual or heterosexual.
Mark Graff on August 6, 2010 @ 1:25 pm wrote: “Not imressed. I don't see them at any public events or appearing at any press conferences to publicly offer support.”
Again, sir, you’re not looking very hard. For example, here’s the first paragraph of the first article I referenced earlier: “The gay-rights group Equality Arizona, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Civil Liberties Union rallied their troops Tuesday morning, hours before the City Council was to decide the first of a three-part civil-rights package.” - http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1205netransgender1205.html
“Rallied their troops”, gee that sounds like the ADL (along with the others) were present at the City Council meeting that passed the ordinance. Or, doesn’t that count as a “public event”?
You were saying . . . .?
P.S. - As to those other groups, do your own web search. I’m confident you’ll discover you’re wrong there too. Either you’re too lazy to learn to the truth, or you just don’t care about it.
Mark Graff wrote on August 6, 2010 @ 1:31 pm: “The Constitution does not "require" marriage for anyone...homosexual or heterosexual.”
And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
We have plenty of legal rights that are not required by the Constitution: the doctor/patient and attorney/client privileges for example. Marriage rights are entirely a creation of statutory law. The legal question in this case was whether the Constitution requires that those rights be extended to gay couples. I don’t believe it does, though I do believe such rights should be extended.
@ Etaoin Shrdlu
I have been in Gay Rights activism and AIDS activism for 20 years. I have not ever known of explicit support from ADL or those other groups. I commend ADL for showing up 2.5 years ago at one press conference in Scottsdale, AZ. We could have used them in New York.
Practically every day in this country a Lesbian or Gay man is attacked and often murdered. Given the grotesque bigotry involved I DO EXPECT MORE.