Morning News Report; Aug. 17, 2010


In news that is certainly going to delay Jon Dawson’s upcoming vacation to San Francisco, a federal appeals court has delayed homosexuals’ the right to wed, which was going to start tomorrow.

Of course, gays can still get married in Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

My take: In all seriousness — and this is something I’ve said in this forum before — I have no problem whatsoever with the gays getting married. Good for them — let them be as miserable as married straight folks.


In some pretty scary news from, health officials are encouraging folks who ate at a Burger King in Siler City on Aug. 2 or 3 to go get a Hepatitis A vaccination after an employee at the restaurant tested positive with the virus.

My take: As mentioned above, pretty scary — and if you were in Siler City and ate at that BK on that Monday and Tuesday, go get your vaccination.

On a sidenote … I think if we knew everything that is done in prep areas at fast food restaurants, we’d probably NEVER eat at another one. I worked at McDonald’s in the mid-1980s and I know some of the stupid stuff we did. And of course you know kids are MUCH more stupid than we were then … right?


Overall No. 1 pick Bryce Harper signed a five-year, $9.9 million contract with the Washington Nationals last night.

My take: That’s going to be a hell of a team in a few years, especially if the Nats aren’t afraid to spend some money.

The iPod shuffle

High Plains Drifter — Beastie Boys

It’s My Life — Talk Talk

Waterfalls — TLC

Love Don’t Cost A Thing — Jennifer Lopez

Under Pressure — David Bowie & Queen

23 Responses to Morning News Report; Aug. 17, 2010

  1. jdawson says:

    I don’t think any grown man with Jennifer Lopez and TLC in his iPod should be questioning my vacation plans; SO I LIKE CABLE CARS, SUE ME!

    My iPod shuffle:

    Syd Barrett
    James Brown
    Rufus Thomas
    Foo Fighters

  2. PeteyPablo says:

    Hanks…the thing is…they are trying to say the constitution gives them the right to marry. However, there is no right to marry that is granted by the constitution. As far as Rights go…gay people and straight people are granted the same rights under the constitution. They are trying to re-write the US constitution and that my friend…is wrong.

  3. Flagan says:

    The decision in California is bigger than simply whether on not gays can marry. Whether or not you are for gay marriage, you should be worried when one person can override a decision arrived at by a majority of the people in a legally recognized vote.
    It is government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” When one person, whether it be a judge or a man with an army behind him, disregards the rule of law to impose their own agenda we are no longer living in a free country.

    How bad this scenario could play out is only limited by your imagination. Do you really want judges personal beliefs outweighing the will of the people?

  4. Bryan Hanks says:

    Flagan brings up an excellent point — while I have no problem with gay marriage in and of itself, I do have a problem with a judge overturning a popular vote (especially in this day and age, when folks are better educated). This smacks of Kinston’s nonpartisan issue, where the voters — of which nearly 2/3 are African-American — are told they don’t know what they are voting for, so an outsider needs to tell us what to do since we’re obviously not smart enough to do it ourselves.

    So Flagan, good call, sir.

  5. John Q. Awesome says:

    Slavery was once a popular vote.

    Jim Crow was once a popular vote.

    Women’s suffrage was a constitutional amendment correcting an obviously flawed popular vote.

    Jefferson said: “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.”

    The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection for ALL citizens.

    The founders didn’t have to list every right citizens possess in order for a citizen to possess that right.

    So, no, Flagan, you do not have a good argument.

  6. John Q. Awesome says:

    My song shuffle was odd today:

    Garth Brooks – The Dance
    Red Hot Chili Peppers – Higher Ground
    Little Eva – The Loco Motion (What the heck??)
    The Beatles – Eleanor Rigby
    Def Leppard – Pour Some Sugar On Me

  7. heelatious says:

    So you are in favor of judges with agendas being able to override the will of the majority of the people eh John Q. One person, over the will of the majority of our citizens.

    Then I’m guessing you are just plain giddy about the Obamanation publicly supporting the mosque going up at ground zero, despite the overwhelmingy majority of the people being against it.

    Our country just continues to evolve into an anything goes society.

  8. Bryan Hanks says:

    JQA: That was my point in writing “in this day and age, when folks are better educated.” No, I’m naive enough to think racism, sexism, homophobia or xenophobia are dead, but I think if the will of the people — in this enlightened day and age — is trampled by a judge or so-called “expert,” that judge or so-called “expert” are wrong … 90 percent of the time.

  9. guitarwrecker says:

    I guess I’m not understanding the problem. Why exactly do gay people need/want marriage?

  10. Lee says:

    I guess I’m not understanding the problem. Why exactly do others care if gays are getting married?

  11. Flagan says:

    JQA I am sure you love Elena Kagan who believes the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot eat.

    Here are some questions for you JQA:

    1) When can a judge override the law put in place by the people?
    2) Do you believe all judges are smarter than the people they serve or just this judge?
    3) Why vote if the results don’t matter?

    Let’s review your argument shall we. You quote Jefferson, cite the 14th amendment, and refer to the founders. In 1961, all 50 states had laws on the books against sodomy. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Jefferson and the founding fathers around before 1961? Wasn’t the 14th amendment passed before then? So I can only assume that you are arguing that the founders and the authors of the 14th amendment were for gay marriage but were against gay sex. So leave them out of your preposterous argument.

    Now let’s move from the absurd part of your argument to the specious part; slavery, Jim Crow, women’s suffrage. According to you a judge with an agenda can overrule an amendment to a constitution. So the next activist judge may decide to reinstitute slavery, or Jim Crow or women’s suffrage. We know that no judge in today’s environment would do that but nobody during Jefferson’s time thought that a judge would rule that gays can marry either so who knows what the next judge’s personal agenda will be.

    Like I said, this comes down to democracy vs. tyranny. Once again you come down on the side of tyranny.

  12. Flagan says:

    gw, gays want the rights that go along with marriage like family only visits in the hospital, etc.

  13. guitarwrecker says:

    Flagan, can’t such rights be covered by powers of attorney, living wills,etc ?

  14. Flagan says:

    It would seem so, but I’m not sure.

  15. Lee says:

    If I’m not mistaken, there’s still laws against sodomy in Texas. I’m not sure if that covers bonking your girlfriend in the bumhole too, but if police find you doing it in Texas (including finding you doing it while carrying out a search warrant), you can be charged for it.

    Also, sodomy laws were passed in the 19th Century long after the founding fathers were gone, so I’m not sure where you’re taking that argument Flagan. Considering their very libertarian views, they may have frowned upon it, but would have likely said that if it’s in your own home and it’s consensual, then who gives a sh!t?

  16. Flagan says:

    Not true Lee. All thirteen colonies had sodomy laws and conviction in all thirteen colonies resulted in the death penalty.

  17. John Q. Awesome says:

    Seriously man, your arguments are literally all over the place.

    To hit a few high points before I walk away from this discussion scratching my head:

    1) I wouldn’t exactly say I’m “giddy” a mosque is being built in NYC (nor am I sure what that has to do with a discussion on gay marriage in California?). Since I’m not Muslim, I don’t really have a vested interest in the building. However, I *am* giddy that the First Amendment is still important to some people and absolutely, unequivocally support their right to build anywhere they darned well please.

    2) I don’t know who’s at fault, but at some point people seem to have forgotten that the judicial branch is an equal branch of government and serves a very real purpose: to interpret difficult decisions and uphold the rights of citizens. When a “popular vote” clearly infringes on the rights of some citizens, then it is time for a judge to rule accordingly. I loathe the term “activist judge” because it is completely meaningless. If a judge rules alongside your train of thought, he’s upholding common sense. If he doesn’t, well, he’s activist and a fool. Please. Give me a break.

    I’m not sure where you’re going with the sodomy nonsense, but they’re ridiculous laws as well. ‘Nuff said.

    I seriously cannot believe I saw someone in here muse about why homosexuals would want to get married in the first place. Because it’s a right that every other American enjoys? You can’t give some citizens rights and withhold them from others. Not only is it morally reprehensible, it’s also unconstitutional.

    Nowhere did I say a judge could overrule an Amendment to the constitution? Don’t put words in my mouth and then argue against something I didn’t say. It’s not appreciated. Neither is your ridiculous “democracy versus tyranny” rhetoric. (BTW, we are a republic interested in preserving “liberty and justice for ALL.”)

    Read up:

    Understand the importance of protecting the rights of all citizens. (Even those silly homosexuals who inexplicably want to get married and the scary Muslims who belong to that Islam cult.)

    And because I like to quote literature, I’ll end with this:

    “THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

    THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

    THEN THEY CAME for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

  18. guitarwrecker says:

    John Q- it wasn’t a muse. It was a serious question.
    Do they want marriage simply to be recognized by the gov.?
    Do they want marriage to be recognized by the church?

  19. John Q. Awesome says:

    I’m not sure why they do, but I definitely think it ought to be recognized.

    I honestly think the only thing that could make everyone happy is if we take “marriage” out of the realm of law altogether. Replace the legal standing with civil union or whatever you want to call it between any two consenting adults and free up churches to marry anyone they wish (and likewise refuse anyone they wish).

    See, I think a church does have a right to refuse to marry someone on religious grounds, but I don’t think the government does. Right now, that’s a conflict that needs to be resolved.

  20. Flagan says:

    So you are happy that your lib buddies stand up for the 1st amendment in the case of this mosque. How noble of you. Too bad when the Greek Orthodox wanted to build there the 1st amendment wasn’t so important. Zoning laws stopped them because their building was too tall even though the mosque will be taller. And this imam that you are so willing to stand up for. He’s a proud supporter of Hamas and Sharia Law. Yep, there’s liberalism for you, proudly supporting the rights of those who suppress women and support terrorists.

    Your activist judge makes you happy because he interprets a difficult decision. What decision is that JQA? He hasn’t interpretted anything. Only libs say that judges can overrule the laws so don’t rationalize by saying everyone does it.

    You insinuate Jefferson and the founding fathers as well as the 14th amendment would have stood for gay marriage and you can’t see how sodomy laws with death penalties during their time relates to your insinuation. I’m not surprised.

    Your answer to gw is that banning gay marriage is morally reprehensible. I guess that decides it then. We don’t need laws. JQA will decide for everyone what is and isn’t moral.

    You said that the judge can make this decision, not me. So I’m not putting words in your mouth. I’m not surprised that you didn’t know that the judge overruled an amendment to the California constitution.

    You keep harping on the rights of ALL people. I guess ALL doesn’t include the 52% who morally opposed gay marriage in California. Since their morals are different than yours they have no rights, right JQA?

    Add this to your cute little quote:

    THEN THEY CAME for all my lib heroes this November because they were tired of the tyranny they had been living under for the last two years
    and by that time there was just me and the 40% of lib drones left to defend the elite who take vacations every month and avoid like the plague the very taxes that they raise.

  21. Lee says:

    Flagan, those sodomy laws, were restricted to only men, beginning in 1791. So you could put it in a woman’s ass, but not a man’s ass. Before that, both were punishable by death, but were holdovers from English rule.

    And there’s no inherent right to gay marriage in the Constitution. There’s no inherent right to straight marriage in the Constitution either, so where all these people keep coming from with “THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!,” I have no idea.

    “You keep harping on the rights of ALL people. I guess ALL doesn’t include the 52% who morally opposed gay marriage in California. Since their morals are different than yours they have no rights, right JQA?”

    Whoa, “morally?” Since when should people’s moral beliefs be put in opposition to someone just because they want to marry someone of the same sex? Just because you believe that two people shouldn’t get married of the same sex, doesn’t mean that they hold some superior moral ground, let alone enforcing those beliefs on others.

    What if two hermaphrodites decided to get married? Would there be a sh!tfit about it as well? “MY GAWD. THEY HAVE A DICK AND A COOCH AND THEY’RE GETTIN’ MARRIED? AMURICA’S GONNA BE DESTROYED!”

  22. heelatious says:

    The point on homosexuals (let’s call them what they are) getting married is, whenever this issue has been put on the ballot, it has been defeated, even in some of the most liberal states in the union, such as Oregon, and the People’s Republic of California. You think there’s a reason for that? The majority of people in this country are NOT in favor of homosexuals marrying.

    On that note, over 70% of Americans are opposed to this mosque, which anybody that is over the age of 4, and not a bleeding heart, “let’s all be tolerant and sympathetic to the Muslim extremists” liberal can see is thumbing their collective noses at us. Thank God for them, that they have the ultimate Muslim sympathizer in the White House, to back their play. The entire effort to build this thing, is being spearheaded by an extremist, whose long-standing hatred of America, and our values, is well documented.

    Since we are, according to the America-hating left, supposed to let everything go under the guise of “free speech”, then why if someone on the right voices opposition to a particular issue, they are shouted down by the left?

    Just to show you how out of touch your side is with the average American, the poster child for birth control, and one of you guys hero Nancy Pelosi wants an investigation into the group that has organized opposition to the building of the mosque at Ground Zero. Yes kids, screw the nut job, America-hating Islamic extremist that is trying to build this thing, let’s investigate the group that is opposed to it going up. Surely these people aren’t “tolerant” enough, and just need to be educated about this, and then surely they will pick up a shovel, and help dig the foundation.

  23. Flagan says:

    Lee, cussing and saying things for the sake of shock value doesn’t impress anyone.

    I’m not interested in the history of sodomy laws, especially not from someone that thinks that 1791 is in the 19th century. It is completely off topic anyway.

    Nobody has claimed that the Constitution only recognizes straight marriage. However, it is apparent by the fact that sodomy was punishable by death in all 13 colonies where the founding fathers stood on the issue.

    I also did not say that the 52% held the moral high ground.

    You know what? Nevermind. Life’s too short.

Leave a Reply