Paul Rayon gave a lie to all he said in just the second paragraph of his speech, which of course he delivered without a Teleprompter because, as we all know, Obama could not do without one. Here is the Big Lie, borrowed from David Barton and all those embarked on a systematic brainwashing of Americans into believing, as that fat little turd Gomer Shuckabee once put it, "it's time to interpret the U. S. Constitution according to Christian principles." (America is the only country in the world with a cable news outfit willing to hire a former hick state evangelical governor -- just after Clinton, I might add -- to do a political talk show. The FCC should pull their license or take back any tax breaks or other perks at such blatant mixing of government and the Christian fucking religion.) Put on your night eye-masks so you won't have to see this:
"Each of these great moral ideas is essential to democratic government -- to the rule of law, to life in a humane and decent society. They are the moral creed of our country, as powerful in our time, as on the day of America's founding. They are self-evident and unchanging, and sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government."
Does anyone see something wrong with this? No, no, not the awkward syntax, which loses you about where "They are self-evident..." begins. The equation of Judeo-Christian morality with God and our "rights." The use of "nature and God" as code words for fundamentalist teachings including creationism, the idea that all things were createdd at once in six days about six or seven thousand years ago. You might want to discuss as well the total contradiction of an Ayn Rand freak discussing anything called "God." Like the aptly named Rand Paul, the individualist, objectivist atheist of the 40s has become enslaved to myth, irrationality, superstition, and very fuzzy thinking (if you can call it that: there is a move on to ban "critical thinking" from our schools, and guess which political party has or had it in their platform?).
There is also full faith and credit, and yet most states without same sex unions, much less marriages, already announced they will not recognize such things, and there is an opinion in Texas, I think, saying that since same sex unions are illegal in Texas, so is same sex divorce. I think it's all selective, like Obama's ordering Holder to lay off prosecutions of medical marijuana shops, a position I understand they have reversed.
Sir, you nailed it! The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. Article 4, Section 1 states, Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that deals with marriage. And, under Article III, Federal Courts are actually courts of limited jurisdiction. State Courts are courts of general jurisdiction, e.g. adoption, guardianship, probate, and marriage. If a state court, like Hawaii or Massachusetts, says two people are married, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, South Carolina and Texas don't have choice but to recognize that marriage should the couple move there.
Therein lies the rub. The extremists who scream at the top of their lungs wanting to wrap themselves in the Constitution, are the very ones who would just as soon wipe their ass with it.
Of course, mounting an appeal from state court to a court of appeals in the federal system, so that appeal to the Supremes can be done, using the full faith and credit, will be expensive, time consuming, &c., and with Scalia, Salito, and Clarence Scalia Jr. running the show (I think Roberts would join them in this, and the Catholic Kennedy too) chances are they will do just what they did with Bush v. Gore: tell states rights to go fly a kite.
Sublime! Thanks. I could not listen to the GOP convention speeches because this is my president.
I am proud of him. I believe in him and I want him to stay put for four more years.
I'm with you 100%, James. I lucked out, too, being that my wife and I are in Kauai this week, we're six hours behind the East Coast, so the timing was all off any any chance to hear those ridiculous bloviators people speak.
I WILL be listening next week, and will especially be interested in what Elizabeth Warren has to say. She one SMART LADY!
Didn't know Warren was speaking or, for that matter, who would be other than Obama and the Veep. Warren comes off as a smarty pants, which turns off some. Of course, she would be head of the deceptive trade practices and consumer protection agency if the Repubs hadn't blocked her nomination.
Regarding Elizabeth Warren, I just did a quick Google search and she is speaking at the convention. Here's a HuffPost blurb about it.
Agreed to a point. He is my president. And, yes, there are certain things he has accomplished for which I am proud. Other things, well........not so much. Allowing the Bush tax credits to the rich to continue even though, at the time, he had the House of Representatives. On balance though, this November I have a choice. Continue with a rational, decent, intelligent and thoughtful leader who has salvaged the image and respect of my country overseas, on the one hand. Or go for (as Garrison Keillor said), ... a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk.
Gee, is there really a choice?
You answer your own question.
Me too James, and I didn't listen to the speeches, but the Clint Eastwood stunt was on the National News.~ Melinda