Friday, October 27, 2006

Take That, Rewind Brownback

Sammy B's got the voice that make my head go smack.

The Senator from Kansas is blocking a federal appellate court judge nominaton because the nominee attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian friend. She didn't officiate, it had no legal standing, she participated in no legal or judicial capacity, and she's made this very clear to the Senator. In her words, "The ceremony, which was entirely private, took place in Massachusetts, where I had no authority to act in any official capacity and where, in any event, the ceremony had no legal effect" (she is a Michigan judge). One of the women involved had lived next-door to her family for decades. Yet the erst-while bold advocate for "up-or-down votes" continues to hold the nomination up.

Kevin Drum says that Brownback is trying to strip James Inhofe of the "worst Senator" title. A while back, I specifically put the Oklahoma delegation ahead of the Kansas set for worst Senate delegation. I also wrote an article urging Democrats to Be Like Sam on the topic of human rights.

That being said, this story reminds us that he is and remains a nut.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

This social religious right stuff just gets on my nerves.
People are allowed to have friends and what those friends do behind closed doors is thier choice.
I'm sick of the homophobic and sex obession of the religious right as well.
Brownback and his fringies need to go back to thier churches and get out of politics and quit trying to push thier idea of morality.

michael said...

Hypocrisy gets on my nerves too. Everyone from the NY Times to Liberal Chicks, a blog, was in orbit about the NSA wiretaps and the threats to privacy. I listened repsectfully, had some caveats. Then, there is the buiness about not bashing homosexuals. I listened repsectfully but had some caveats. Then the election season comes and any Republican who has had a 'homosexual thought' is revealed and they and the party are castigated for it. And I think, 'Now I know how much you care about privacy rights and dignity for homosexuals.'

David Schraub said...

Because that was obviously an orchastrated effort by the Democratic party and applauded by all liberals. It wasn't like it was one rogue blogger who has no ties to the party and insignificant support inside liberalism as a whole.

Because if it was, it would really be dumb to extrapolate a few independent bloggers to represent the whole party, and compare those few peoples' indiscretions with an entire party's policy positions on gay rights and wiretapping.

Really, really dumb.

Anonymous said...

I can understand that Michael. Unfortunately, emotions are running high nowadays, & zeal is getting the best of people.

However, homosexuals are equals, bottom line. They are Americans, & they deserve equal rights. I'm not necessarily saying they should be able to marry; a lot of people feel very strongly that marriage is a sacred institution & I doubt that sentiment will ever leave. However, I believe almost every homosexual in America would be happy w/ a civil union & equal rights. It's sad that law-abiding Americans should be treated as inferior citizens due to something which could very well be genetic (science is still out on this. I personally believe most gays are born gay, but I respect other's skepticism).
I'm a law student going through Trusts & Estates right now, & some of the cases I've read re: a gay's disposition of his property (through a will, mind you) & the total disregard of the decedent's wishes re: his propery by the Court...suffice it to say, it's just not right. I'd be happy to e-mail examples, just contact me

michael said...

Anonymous, homosexuals are equal citizens; but Democrat homosexuals are decidedly more equal. It isn't right if there is a problem in 'estates and trusts.' To demand gay marriage as a solution is like the Muslims to protest the inference that they aren't logical as a religion of peace by killing a poor nun. To paraphrase an old slogan, a war is being given, and I'd rather not show up.