|
gay marriage
|
| and one for the funny guys.... |
| posted by: publius |
15:30 7.9.10 |
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-bill-would-defend-marriage-from-sharks,2047/
|
|
| Score one for the good guys |
| posted by: camdolphin |
11:03 7.9.10 |
| http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/massachusetts.gay.marriage/index.html?hpt=T2 |
|
| this may not be the right thread for this... |
| posted by: publius |
13:40 6.30.10 |
but it's not necessarily the wrong thread either...
http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/
[thanks to airport girl for the link] |
|
| Bigot of the day |
| posted by: camdolphin |
14:53 3.13.10 |
State Representative Nancy Elliot of New Hampshire would like to repeal New Hampshire's law allowing same sex marriage because
"'We're talking about taking the penis of one man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement.' Rep. Elliott said. 'And you have to think, I'm not sure, would I allow that to be done to me?'"
For those of you keeping score at home, Rep. Elliot did not rule it out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html
Oh, and then she apologized for falsely claiming that fifth graders were being taught in school how to engage in anal sex.
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/02/nh-lawmaker-apologizes-for-false-gay-sex-in-classroom-claims.html
That's still taught on the playground. |
|
| best. gay. marriage. ad. ever. |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
19:18 12.27.09 |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ&feature=player_embedded#at=94 |
|
| Cost of being gay |
| posted by: camdolphin |
15:45 10.3.09 |
Here's an interesting (albeit slanted) view of the financial cost of being gay:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&em
The article partly overstates it by focusing on rich gays (income of $140k/year, as if all gays are college educated and financially well off) and including things, like the added cost for gays to have biological children that, to paraphrase "Life of Brian," we can't really blame the IRS [or the Romans] for a gay couple's lack of a womb/gonads necessary to procreate. [ed. note: Part of the purpose for this posting was to reference that scene in Life of Brian.]
All slant aside, it's impossible to ignore that there is a tax in place on gays. It's also noteworthy that fiscal republicans (as opposed to social conservatives - wait, what am I supposed to call the ones who want smaller government? Can't say Reagan republicans) have really led the charge for equal rights for gays. I believe the courts in Iowa and California (before the amendment) that opened the door for gays to marry were republican-dominated forums. As a whole, democrats have totally dropped the ball on this issue. |
|
| Olson for the cause |
| posted by: camdolphin |
14:05 8.19.09 |
So Ted Olson's leading the legal charge for gay marriage. Good for him. It seems that the whole individual rights v. governmental interference should be right up the alley of a large segment of the conservative base. Or at least, leave it to the individual states to determine who should be permitted to marry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/us/19olson.html?_r=1&em
This movement isn't going away. Olson's involvement will provide a lot of cover for a bunch of conservatives who see the issue as an eventual loser, a sop to the religious right, and something that will eventually cost the right with independents.
I think the issue will be raised squarely before Obama next summer, in time for midterm elections. But perhaps it won't just mobilize the religious right to turn out this time around.
Some links:
fivethirtyeight on public support for gay marriage growing when the issue is framed in the traditional anti-government libertarian view:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/how-to-get-63-of-americans-to-support.html
fivethirtyeight on polling data for gay marriage support by state, suggesting that as gays become more accepted in a particular state, there comes a tipping point when everyone hops on the bandwagon:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/gay-marriage-state-by-state-tipping.html |
|
| Obama for gays? |
| posted by: camdolphin |
12:01 3.13.09 |
It'd be nice for Obama to enact meaningful change for gay rights on the national level.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/us/politics/13benefits.html?hp
It would be easy to sidestep the dispute and not make any meaningful change, ala Clinton.
But why can't Obama back attempts to alter the benefits for federal employees to extend them to "domestic partners" or some such language? if you avoid the use of spouse, I think you get around the defense of marriage act.
Sure there are battles to pick, but why is it always gays' rights that have to take a backseat to more "important" issues. I recognize that none of the liberal forters (should I just say, "everyone but HB?") included gay rights as one of their top 3 wishes for the obama administration in that thread. I now kind of feel bad about that. I think I would trade the right to toke up without fear of prosecution for the right of gays to marry. I'd still go with decriminalization, b/c my wish for decriminalization is really because of what a complete mess our drug policy has made our justice system, and having millions of lives wasting away in prisons in a misguided attempt to address the problems is probably more of an injustice than denying equal rights to gays. But giving equal benefits to gay federal employees will require a lot less political capital than decriminalizing drug offense.
Oh, and shout out to Tammy Baldwin, one of my former representatives. |
|
| Dan Savage rising |
| posted by: isidorus |
15:11 11.30.08 |
maybe this has been happening for several years, but the Prop 8 kerfuffle has, in my mind, made Dan Savage -- the man who introduced us all to the real Santorum -- the most credible and clear-headed advocate for gay rights in the country. case in point is this anderson cooper episode with savage v. tony perkins. anyway, i knew he was a smart and funny guy but I wasn't expecting him to be all this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNptHE4buEc |
|
| i'm hoping.... |
| posted by: publius |
17:41 11.20.08 |
that prince was in fact misquoted on this one, and that he's not a (not so) closeted homophobe, though this quote definitely doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room...
"God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out," Prince told the New Yorker's Clare Hoffman. "He was, like, 'Enough.'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/nov/20/prince-gay-marriage-opinion
it all just seems bizarre.
the coolest bit of this article though?
"As a practising Jehovah's Witness, he not only proselytises door-to-door – 'Sometimes people act surprised, but mostly they're really cool about it,'"
i mean, how cool would it be to open the door some early saturday morning (which always seems to be high season for holy roller freaks) and find prince standing there? although i don't picture him standing so much as twirling and doing other funky things with his bad self. |
|
| It's on in California, Florida, and Arizona |
| posted by: camdolphin |
13:17 10.27.08 |
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/27right.html
Money quote:
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”
“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”
I think most of the country would be very happy to just give gays civil unions and be done with the issue. If the religious right continues to make absurd arguments like this, it might cause some folks in the middle to reconsider exactly why gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage. |
|
| that last link... |
| posted by: publius |
18:16 9.23.08 |
should be this:
http://www.tentfort.com/show_thread_posts.asp?thread_id=197 |
|
| ted haggard redux |
| posted by: publius |
18:10 9.23.08 |
i've been home sick the last two days so i've been perusing the on-demand offerings of netflix. it's pretty slim pickings indeed. today i watched this:
http://www.netflix.com/WiSearch?v1=Constantine%27s+Sword
it is not a good documentary. at all. in any way. but since you can get it on demand on netflix....
the over-the-top smarminess of a pre-fall ted haggard is worth the price of admission. every time he was on screen with that smug (literally) holier than thou smile, i kept mentally picturing him with a dick in his lying, sleazy mouth and rejoicing at his downfall. rarely has karmic payback been so perfect.
aside from that, the whole kerfuffle with hard-core, systemic evangelical proselytizing at the air force academy was pretty frightening...completely new to me, yet not as shocking as it should be after 8 years of "one of them" in the white house.
no shock then to go back through the tentfort archives and track down veiled references (or references by omission) by the criminal in chief at the air force academy...
http://www.tentfort.com/show_thread_posts.asp?#915
|
|
| david paterson is the real dea |
| posted by: publius |
21:52 5.30.08 |
after reading the first article below i'm willing to give david paterson the benefit of the doubt on his motivation for directing ny agencies to accept gay marriages from other states. i'm willing to allow for the possibility that, as much as this may have been vetted by the political establishment, he did it because he has "steel in his spine" and he actually believes in the principle.
i'm also damned glad that he got to be governor. odds are that without spitzer's implosion he never would have had a chance, but he happened to be in the right place at the right time. give me a choice between spitzer and paterson, and from what i've seen, i take paterson going away.
i know there are plenty of logical arguments that can be made about how he's overstepped his bounds, how "the defense of marriage" act makes sense, how his decision may be stricken down by the courts...but you know what? fuck that logic. there was plenty of "logic" behind the fact that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus and drink from separate water fountains as well. this is right, this is just, and if you can't see and feel that...well, as a wiser man that me had it, "goodbye is too good a word, so i just say, fare thee well..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/nyregion/30paterson.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/opinion/30fri1.html
|
|
| i'm not so sure this isn't now |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
12:01 5.29.08 |
while support of gay marriage is about the same or a little more in the last 4 years, support for gay civil unions is up it seems:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=235
but it's more complicated than that. you now have a republican candidate in joun mccain who is AGAINST a federal marriage amendment and FOR civil unions.
you think either of those stances is going to play well with this base?
you think it's going to be easy for mccain to juggle the middle and his base on an issue like this?
just look at this poor guy on ellen...you can tell he (to his credit) doesn't give a damn if all of the gays in the world got married. watch him...looking down, mumbling, speaking softly. he doesn't believe a word he's saying....granted, it's bound to be uncomfortable to say what he is says, but it's more than that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/ellen-challenges-john-mcc_n_103016.html
i also think that gay marriage -- like flag burning or pledge of allegiance, etc. -- is one of those republican issues that offers ever-lessening returns. that is, each time it's trotted out it seems a little more trivial or silly than it did the time before. and it reminds independents of the social conservative wing of the republican party, a group that the vast majority of independents dislikes an awful lot. |
|
| with the election ever-present |
| posted by: publius |
08:46 5.29.08 |
i can't help but feel republican influence on this one, much as i'd like to think that david paterson pushed it through because he's a straight-up (hah!) guy. and if they didn't have a hand in setting this up as a straw man, this decision and the recent court ruling in california mean that we'll be hearing about the "looming evil of gay marriage" and the "protection of marriage amendment" all the way through to the general election...
in any case, whatever the politics and even if it does continue to perpetuate the most ridiculous wedge issue ever (seriously, if you buy into this gay marriage song and dance as a real issue, i feel completely comfortable calling you a moron), fair play to david paterson for seeing (hah!) his way clear to issue this directive.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/05/29/nygay.marriage/index.html |
|
| gays in the military? |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
22:00 6.11.07 |
you bet:
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html
not quite, but almost, as good as the "nude bomb" -- which was the subject of a "get smart" movie that i say when i was very young:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nude_Bomb
apparently, i'm not alone in making the connection as the "gay bomb" is referenced in this rather short wiki.
heh. |
|
| the gay prostitute speaks... |
| posted by: publius |
01:04 6.4.07 |
best quote? a bit tough to decide, but i'll go with:
"If I could do my life over again, I would probably go into marine biology. I’m a big dolphin person."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/magazine/03wwln-Q4-t.html
|
|
| "Completely"?. . . Really? |
| posted by: prankmonkey |
17:19 2.6.07 |
I don't care what anyone's sexual proclivities are across the gradient of orientation, but "completely" heterosexual? Wouldn't that sort of definitive necessarily exclude smoking meth while getting jack-hammered by a male prostitute?
As I've said before, Haggard does not deserve ridicule because he is less than "completely" heterosexual. He deserves it because he is a complete hypocrite.
a la "Grand Wizard" Cheney's remark that questions about his opinion of his gay daughter becoming a parent are "inappropriate." Wrong! If you live by the limitation-of-civil-liberties sword, you must die by it as well. He reminds me of the ancient SNL skit about Lord and Lady Douchebag ("Yes, it seems there's been a Douchebag in Parliament for as long as I can remember."). |
|
| whew! |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
11:33 2.6.07 |
at least *that's* taken care of:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Haggard-Sex-Allegations.html?ex=1171429200&en=6376a39e8a2c9825&ei=5070&emc=eta1
|
|
| Madamme Speaker, may I have th |
| posted by: rahoohl_dewk |
09:34 11.10.06 |
The Speaker recognizes the Right Honorable Rahool_Dewk:
Madamme Speaker, It is incumbent on Americans to ensure a clear public record is made of core matters affecting our democratic government. Yesterday, I was remiss to advise the Tentfort community, and hence, the World, that Santorum is a frothy mixture of jism and fecal matter that is a (by)product of anal sex. I failed to mention that by definition, the frothy mixture also contains lube.
Thank you and God bless this Government and the United States of America.
|
|
| Love the Savage |
| posted by: prankmonkey |
13:28 11.9.06 |
| I check out his column regularly for the same combination of perverse titilation and rational sound judgement that Publius mentioned. Good article, too. But like many things suposedly aimed at "fringe" elements of society (although I'm not sure 10% and growing is really all that fringe), I think the same actually applies to the mainstream as well. Is the callboy code of silence really any different than the code of silence a straight man would hope for when going to a lady of the evening (to use a genteel and outdated euphamism)? We really are all the same, but the politics of fear, and the overwhelming corruption of religion - yes, that's right, I said it, and I'll go further if pressed - necessitate that we not feel that way. I'm coming to the belief that hypocrisy really is the only true sin. |
|
| for those who don't know |
| posted by: rahoohl_dewk |
12:19 11.9.06 |
Dan Savage's column is "Savage Love".
We can credit Savage Love and its readership for coining the now popularized term "Santorum": the frothy mixture of jism and fecal matter that is a (by)product of anal sex.
|
|
| i was on a plane and read the |
| posted by: horsebeater |
10:35 11.9.06 |
| "what is this doing in the ny times" and had the same reaction as publius. good stuff. |
|
| so i'm reading the op-ed page |
| posted by: publius |
22:48 11.8.06 |
like a good liberal east coast elitist, and there's a piece about the whole ted haggard affair. not overly surprising, but largely due to the back and forth and tentfort i figured i'd check it out. fairly good stuff...until you get to the line, "what's new in the haggard scandal - perhaps we should call it a flameout - is the refusal of mike jones, a former male prostitute, to home the call-boy's code of silence, the omertà of gay hookerdom."
now, that's a great sentence, and i was laughing hysterically to myself on the q train when i read it. it was only then that i bothered to check who had written the piece...and oh, was i ever pleased to see dan savage's byline.
if you're something like me, you read dan savage on the back page of your local independent weekly with a mix of glee, fascination, disgust, fright and hilaughabilitiness. frankly i didn't think he had it in him to break out of that mold and do something better, weightier, and more interesting. but i was completely wrong.
in every possible way, and far better than any other opinion piece i've seen, dan savage nails the ted haggard affair. and he does it in (appropriately muted, but only just) inimitable dan savage style...
and that's all i have to say about that.
take it away dan...
_____________________________
The Code of the Callboy
By DAN SAVAGE
Published: November 8, 2006
Seattle
I ONCE had a friend who did sex work, which is a nice way of saying that he was a prostitute.
He was based in Los Angeles and one of his clients was a movie star. Not just any movie star, but a top male movie star. A sex symbol. This guy used to fly my friend first class to far-flung locales, usually to unwind after a big location shoot.
Sorry, but I can’t tell you who this movie star is. It’s not that I’m afraid of being sued or that I disapprove of outing. Nope, the reason I can’t tell you the name of this movie star is, well, I don’t know it. No matter how many times I asked, no matter how much I pried, my friend simply wouldn’t tell me the guy’s name. My friend wouldn’t even tell me where he was meeting his famous client, lest the places where his films were being shot offered a telling clue.
My friend took the callboy’s code of silence seriously.
Besides the sheer scale of the hypocrisy, the Ted Haggard scandal doesn’t tell us much we don’t already know about closeted gay or bisexual men; closet cases will take enormous risks to get their needs met and will often do great harm to themselves and to those they profess to love. What’s new in the Haggard scandal — perhaps we should call it a flameout — is the refusal of Mike Jones, a former male prostitute, to honor the callboy’s code of silence, the omertà of gay hookerdom.
On the Web site where Mr. Haggard is said to have found Mr. Jones, the callboys describe themselves as discreet. That’s their solemn promise not to blab to the wife, if you’re married; to the tabloids (or prying friends), if you’re a movie star; to your congregation, if you’re one of the most powerful evangelical ministers in the country. The fear that callboys can no longer be trusted will make the lives of men like Ted Haggard that much more lonely and difficult.
Back in the bad old days — the mythical 1950s, the era social conservatives pine for — most gay men were closeted, which made it relatively easy for them to arrange discreet trysts. You could rely on the discretion of your sex partners because they were relying on yours. It was the era of mutually assured destruction, both in terms of nuclear warfare and gay sex. Your partner couldn’t reveal your secret without revealing his own.
Needless to say, a sex life infused with cold-war-style tensions didn’t lead to many healthy or lasting relationships.
Today gay and bisexual men live openly, making the modern closet a much less crowded place. While once all the best gay men were closeted, now the only adults you find in the closet are the fearful, the pathetic and the hypocritical. The men you meet in today’s closet are the ones with a great deal to lose if their secrets are exposed. They’re gay men with lucrative careers that would collapse if they came out; gay men whose obscenely wealthy families would disown them if they lived openly; or gay men leading large congregations that would dismiss them if they knew the truth about their pastor.
A less crowded closet doesn’t just mean slimmer pickings for men like Ted Haggard, but unreliable ones as well. While once you could be certain that the closeted gay man you were sleeping with would still be closeted 10 or 20 years in the future, now you never know. The closeted gay man you entrust with your secret today may be out next year. As he has nothing left to hide, your secret is no longer safe. Better hope you parted on good terms.
Which is why so many powerful closet cases turn to callboys. It’s not just the callboy’s promise of discretion, but the sense that the old dynamics — mutually assured destruction — remain in force. A callboy can’t expose your secret without exposing his own. There’s still a stigma attached to selling sex.
So why did Mike Jones speak out?
Because today it is arguably more shameful and damaging to be a hypocritical closet case than it is to be a sex worker. Even those delighted by Mr. Haggard’s disgrace — disclosure: I count myself among their number — ache for his five children, all suffering now for the sins of their father. And let me be clear: their father’s sin is not his sexual orientation, but his deceit and hypocrisy. His sin is the closet.
When Representative Mark Foley flamed out, Pat Robertson said: “Well, this man’s gay. He does what gay people do.” That lie might have worked when most gay Americans were closeted, but it doesn’t work anymore. Seventy percent of Americans today know a gay person; for straight Americans, hitting on teenagers, hiring prostitutes and snorting meth are not things their gay relatives, friends and co-workers typically do. (Or not at appreciably higher rates than their straight friends.) An openly gay man is accountable to himself, his family, his partner and his community. He is free to form healthy relationships, which is why he is far less likely to be I.M.’ing teenagers or hiring hookers than some desperate closet case.
Ultimately it was Ted Haggard’s hypocrisy — railing against homosexuals and campaigning against gay marriage while apparently indulging in sex romps with a gay escort — that prompted Mr. Jones to shove him out of the closet. The homophobia promoted by Mr. Haggard and other agents of intolerance, if I may use John McCain’s phrase (he’s not using it anymore), undermined the callboy code of silence that Mr. Haggard himself relied on. Most callboys are gay, after all, and most are out of the closet these days.
And while most callboys will continue to respect a code of silence where the average closet case is concerned, the Ted Haggards of the world have been placed on notice: You can’t have your callboy and disparage him too.
Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly, and the author of “The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage and My Family.”
|
|
| He didn't inhale. . . semen or |
| posted by: prankmonkey |
16:40 11.3.06 |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html
He went to a male prostitute - but just for a massage.
He bought meth - but he threw it away. |
|
| look to see what happens to pa |
| posted by: ludwig |
08:26 11.3.06 |
There is big, big money in the evangelical churches. These evangelicals seek and utilize two things: political power and vast financial resources. This makes these guys brutal about going after each others congregations. You may remember what happened to Jim Baker when he and Tammie Fae went down. He called in Jerry Falwell to avoid a hostile takeover of his ministry. I think Falwell then proceeded to dick him over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTL
|
|
| oh, this is rich |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
19:16 11.2.06 |
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4588998?source=email
two things to glean from this article:
1) pastor ted -- and from what i understand this guy may well be the "executive vice president" of american evangelicals -- looks like he's a real wild man. is this my business? absolutely not. is this the business of the gay community for whom he has some pretty uncharitable, and very public views? i'd say so. i really do hate to see it come to this (the man surely has demons enough of his own), but if rush limbaugh can take on michael j. fox -- which i think he can -- this is fair play, too.
2) more importantly: whenver they (whoever they are) get into trouble, they always call in the jewish lawyer. |
|
| Yeah, but here's the ballsy am |
| posted by: mrbuckles |
16:48 6.5.06 |
Draft an amendment making adultery a federal offense. Sure, it's over the top and likely to make about half our federal legislators crap their pants, but at least the argument that you're outlawing a behavior that threatens marriage is plausible.
Besides, the floor discussions where members of congress who favor banning gay marriage -- while also diddling on the side -- try and explain how two guys registering for a china pattern are more of a threat to marriage than some guy boning his secretary would be priceless. And given the wink-and-a-nod these folks give to people who want to quote the bible in support of a gay marriage ban, it'd be even more fun. At least adultery is one of the big 10. |
|
| sleeping with the babysitter.. |
| posted by: publius |
23:39 6.1.06 |
| mmmmm....sleeping with the babysitter.... |
|
| An old friend... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
23:33 6.1.06 |
This is -- and the way things are going, will always be -- my favorite thread on tentfort.
A wonerful mixture of news, politics, morality, and general worldview.
Anyhow, an election is coming up. Which means one thing: time for gay marriage again!
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/01/D8HVQLM00.html
I'll spare you all the old, "this is so fucking odious, repugnant, abhorrent, and generally about as far from appropriate when it comes to the constituion as it gets" routine.
but it is. i mean this is the political equivalent of cruising belmont avenue for teenage runaways. it is the moral equivalent of kicking a sleeping bum to prove how tough you are. it is the legal equivalent of sleeping with the baby-sitter.
most importantly, though, it is a sign of just how fucking bankrupt the republican party really is. it is the desperate act of a party which has lost the center, and isn't even sure it's base is going to show in five months time.
let's recap, for those in the back:
iraq? stay the course.
taxes? can't cut any more.
global warming? never heard of it.
minimum wage? hey, we raised it in 97!
energy dependence? just open alaska!
osama? he doesn't matter (unless he does).
corruption? innocent till proven guilty.
schiavo? who?
social security? oh yeah, forget that one.
flag burning? check...but it just doesn't get the traction it did.
terror warnings? amazingly, none since the summer of 04.
cronyism? i'm the decider.
intelligent design? even republican judges are balking.
immigration? uh...next.
don't get me started on the dems. but the republicans have essentially had their hands on all three levers of government for the last six years and this, a constitutional amendment stripping the rights of a class of citizens to get married (for fuck's sake) for all time -- an amendment that obviously won't even come close to clearing the senate -- is the best they can do.
|
|
| PA Constitutional Amendment |
| posted by: ludwig |
12:48 1.17.06 |
A news report indicates that state legislators will introduce a gay marriage amendment to the PA Constitution, even though PA already has a Defense of Marriage Act.
What would be the motivation? Cold politcal strategy.
The Republican Party is looking to draft a page form the OH playbook in 2004. It's well doucmented that the evangleicals came out in droves to vote for a gay marriage amendment and, as a result, pushed Bush over the top. The measure has ti pass in two consectuive years. If it fails in 06 (by design or happenstance) put passes in 07 and 08 then it will be on the ballot in Pa in 08. My bet is it passes for the second time then and the Republicans try to use it to take the state in the general election. |
|
| More interesting to me, howeve |
| posted by: horsebeater |
21:36 8.30.04 |
And by taking the position that it is always the morality of any given situation that should govern your actions, you come to interesting places in other aspects of life. LOYALTY IS GONE. If you're at a bar and your friend is a jerk to someone and the someone hits him, then under the Rosenblatt principle, because your friend was "morally wrong" and that's all you should consider, you should kick your friend. after all, "it is all a question of morality."
To me, if it is only that your friend just said something kinda stupid, you help him. If your friend sucker punches someone, now maybe that's different.
And that's kind of my point. Sometimes you obey the rule of law even when it's dumb. (i.e. you stick with your friend even when he's wrong; you stick with the law, even when it's kinda stupid, because that the deal you cut with the entire country). Sometimes it's so bad that you have to say "fuck it" and let your friend get his ass kicked. Or it's so bad (your friend is beating up a little kid) that you have to kick your friend's ass yourself.
But my main point is that judging whether your friend is right or wrong and whether your friend has done something that means that you should desert him are two separate questions, just like the question I'm positing on the rule of law (which is essentially a form of "friendship" amongst all of the people of the country where they compromise and agree on a system to govern them).
Knowing simpli as I do, I would have to think that any system that requires him to disdain loyalty can't be very satisfactory to him.
|
|
| i'm trying to avoid the conclu |
| posted by: horsebeater |
21:35 8.30.04 |
... 7th question servces as the safety valve "liberal back door" that lets you avoid the bad consequences if the 6 Stop Sign questions don't go the way you want them to? There is some merit to it, but the other questions seem philosophically neutral, whereas that one seems much more subjective.
Generally, it seems odd to me that if someone passed a law in the year 1700 for reason X, then what someone does in 1950 is ok, but if someone passed a law in the year 1700 for reason Y, then what someone does in 1950 is immoral. I have a hard time believing that. So I have a hard time believing that the 7th question is very worthwhile.
And I think the statement that "the purpose of criminal laws is not to ensure the guilty are punished" is pretty out there. I'd be glad to take an informal poll during lunch tomorrow on "what is the purpose of the criminal laws." I think that the criminal laws are designed to provide many protections to the accused, but you can't ignore that when state legislatures pass criminal laws, they are often doing it to make sure that certain persons will be locked up and punished for their activities. I guess I don't see # 7 weighing in your favor in any event on that question (and I don't really see it as similar to the others).
**********
|
|
| On the cop |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
19:47 8.30.04 |
First, (blush) the whole 6+1 came to me during one of my late-night-working-on-summary-judgment-brain-firing-on-11 moments. How I came up with it is utterly beyond me - no other authorities were cited or referenced.
Second, it is all a question of morality, as all things great and small should be. morality is ultimately what makes us us, and without it all you have is somebody on a loudspeaker exhorting you to "stay within the lines, the lines are your friend" - makes for an orderly society, but not necessarily a just one.
Third, the first 6 are for the every day issues (we'll call them "stop sign issues"), while the 7th looks to original intent.
There will always be a rub here (see the grain silo analogy), the best example being the affirmative action debate. those who disagree with it point to one part of the 14th A (race never considered), while those who support it point to the other part of the 14th A (everyone is equal). Those who are opposed say color-blind means exactly that, those who are for say (to quote Douglas, J. (?)), sometimes you have to consider race to get to the point where you don't have to consider it anymore. Those who are opposed say considering race perverts the 14th A, while those who are for say considering race will bring us to the more full realization of it. I could keep doing this for hours, drawing bigger/smaller cocentric circles, each "right" and "wrong." I fully support Brown v. Board of Ed., while Bork makes a great argument why it may well be the largest abuse ever inflicted on the constitution. there is no end to this issue.
Fourth - the cops. Giving every inference to the cops (child molester, guilty, going to go free, going to molest again) i'd say the first six questions still go against them. If you could limit it to the the extact scenario, fine. But what about a bank robber or murderer or somebody exactly the same you you "are pretty sure" is guilty? Then there is a big problem and the further you go down the list, the worst it looks. And even if you satisfy me on the first 6, I will say that the 7th question squarely denies the cops' right to beat suspects: the purpose of criminal laws is not to ensure the guilty are punished, but to impede the state's authority to punish - guilty or not - unless it is 100% clean (see Miranda, provision of counsel, right to a speedy trial, probable cause, jury trial, beyond a reasonable doubt, innocent till proven guilty - none of these are designed to ensure the guilty are punished, and actually all serve the opposite: to knowingly allow some guilty to go free. |
|
| the problem is, the only answe |
| posted by: horsebeater |
15:42 8.30.04 |
... civil disobedience is ok when the persons doing the civil disobedience are (a) on the morally correct side on the substance of things; and (b) the harm being done to them is substantial.
But as I noted above, this standard seems entirely subjective and unsatisfying. The abortion hater uses this reasoning and ends up being an abortion clinic bomber. The cop says that "I had to do it or the guy was going to walk" and cites that as the "substantial" harm.
I would love to have reasoning that the cop himself could use that would explain to him why he shouldn't beat the shit out of the prisoner. |
|
| morality v. rule of law |
| posted by: horsebeater |
15:37 8.30.04 |
I have to say that I'm not so sure that Simpli and I are talking about the same thing, and this is why.
First, I love Simpli's 6 questions (I think the 7 is not really the 7th on the list, but it's really a separate kind of question), as a morality test for going about day to day decisions. Did that come from somewhere? I feel like there's a philosopher hidden in there somewhere.
But nonetheless, I'm trying to say that there are 2 different tests, really:
(1) A test you use to determine whether something is moral or not; and
(2) A test you use when determining whether to obey the law or follow your conscience, when the two are different.
Simpli answers (1) very nicely. What I can't tell is if Simpli is saying that his 6 question test is also the answer to (2). Should you *always* choose the action that you believe to be moral after you've gone through the 6 questions, regardless of what the law is? (If Simpli answers yes, this is certainly the anarchist in him... there is no law... only private morality).
Let's bring this back into Simpli's wheelhouse: I am certain that there are cops out there who have captured a crime suspect that they believe to be a despicable human being and who have ended up beating the suspect as a result. And I am certain that if you asked those cops the 6 questions, that they might end up concluding that the beating was a moral activity.
I find it hard to come up with a test that would result in me finding that a cop ignoring the law in order to beat a suspect is wrong but that a mayor ignoring the law in order to perform gay marriage is ok:
(a) In both situations you have someone who believes that the law was written with too broad of a brush and that it doesn't take into account the intricacies of the situation.
(b) In both situations you have someone who believes that they know better than society (A Few Good Men, anyone?: "You want me on that line; need me on that line")
|
|
| "famine theft" |
| posted by: publius |
21:42 8.18.04 |
in venezuela they are considering decriminalizing theft in certain circumstances:
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1026900.htm
the concept has some merit. when you have massive differentials in wealth/resource distribution, when you have situations where some folks are being paid $100M per year and other people can't afford to feed their children, you've arrived at the bleeding edge where the myth that a free market lifts all boats breaks down. how can you reconcile inconscionable personal greed with widespread economic based suffering? i'm not certain, but prattling on about the american dream and bootstraps just doesn't cut it. there has to be a way of balancing the an individual "crime" with the greater good.
it seems to me this thread has morphed a bit from "what do we do about gay marriage?" to the larger and more important "how do we make the best effort we can to build the most just society we can?" i suppose that if, as simplicissimus says, we could make even a touch of progress towards on the larger question, tentfort would have to be pretty high on the list of possible laureates with the folks in sweden.
is this all a bit pie in the sky? sure. but when the system is broken isn't it wrong to not spend time and effort thinking and working to change it? i think it is.
|
|
| Seven Questions |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
20:58 8.18.04 |
the search for a bright line reminds me of the one about the man who went crazy trying to take a piss in the the corner of the grain silo he was working in....but.....
would it be wrong for me, with $42 in my pocket, to go to the 7-11 on milwaukee and wood and steal a pack of ramen noodles? Yes. It would be absolutely wrong for me to do that.
would it be wrong for me to do the same if i was broke and starving? Yes. But most certainly less so.
would it be wrong if i was homeless, broke and my child was literally dying of hunger? I'm not so sure. However, ie all agree that it would be wrong for me under these circumstances to break into your house and steal $10,000 worth of stuff.
what separates these answers? i propose that almost all such questions can be answered by asking the following six:
1. What level of harm will your "act" have on the individuals who will be negatively affected?
2. What level of good will your "act" accomplish for others?
3. What are the circumstances that lead to you having to take this "act"?
4. What level of harm will result if your "act" is repeated by countless people throughout our society?
5. What level of good will result if your "act" is repeated by countless people throughout our society?
6. What level of good will your "act" accomplish for yourself?
six simple questions -- and importantly, you will note, the question of harm is weighted "higher" than the amount of good - with the amount of personal good obtained the last on the list, and the reasons for you having to disobey the law in the first place are also taken into prety serious account. that is because trying at all costs to "not harm others" is in my opinon the prime directive of any society.
the stealing ramen example is an easy one: we would probably all agree that, as a society, we could "allow" people who had starving children who were disabled and could not work and had no government assistance or friends or neighbors to steal a 27 cent package of noodles. On the other side of the fence, we would agree that wynona rider is deserving of scorn.
stop signs, paying taxes, keeping your barking dog inside past 10 pm, tipping your waitstaff (see Resevoir Dogs), in short, the glue that keeps us running, the grease that skids our rails ---- the six questions all come out decidedly on the side of the law, as they should. and the same result would occur for 99% of the things we do on a daily basis....
however....
abortion and gay marriage and not showing up for the draft (for example, there are others)- they are much tougher issues and to ignore that is to be just plain silly. the six questions explain why the rape/incest exception is popular with the vast majority of folks, as well as the "civil union" idea - which as far as i can tell is virtually unopposed by a huge portion of this country.
late term abortion? much, much stickier.
gay marriage? less so, but there are plenty of people who truly and honestly believe this will be the literal ruin of our society. i disagree (because, as we've all argued, the actual "harm" by having gay people you don't know and will never meet being married out there somewhere does not count for as much, but i digress....)
however, it is no small issue.
And for these bigger ticket items, i present a 7th question (consider it "the kicker"):
7. What was the reason the law preventing your "act" was enacted in the first place?
This is entirely subjective (See my previous post), but it can inform your ultimate position quite a bit. And it is why i view gay marriage as an "easier" call than some, if not most, forms of abortion (i've changed a lot on this issue since the first week of law school - ed.)
perhaps tent fort can craft a set of guiding principles?
i know it is hoaky, but if this group can't set some standards i have very, very little faith anyone else can.....
yeah, that's a challenge....
|
|
| and back to simpli... |
| posted by: horsebeater |
19:06 8.18.04 |
... does this always apply?
On the most basic level, if you think parking tickets should be $5 and it's simply unfair that they are $50, should you only pay the $5 when you get one. Is that the moral thing to do? Are you a sellout if you don't?
And if you concede that some things you just "give" on in order to let society as a whole function more smoothly (otherwise known as compromise... a/k/a democracy), then you are conceding that at least *sometimes* obeying the law just because it is the law is the right thing to do.
So then it's a line-drawing exercise. When does "quest for justice" trump "rule of law"??? I'm not denying that there's a line. I don't think anyone is denying that there is a line. All I want is a coherent standard. A usable, fair test that more complex than "obey rule of law until it REALLY pisses you off" because this is the test used by Serbians and this is the test whose application often turns out poorly (and is overly subjective for my tastes). |
|
| i should've anticipated simpli |
| posted by: horsebeater |
18:57 8.18.04 |
... a pox upon me for not thinking of it.
*******
But on another topic, I'm baffled by the entire "you private life is your private life" nonsense. I'll promise not to cry hypocrisy (thx publius) about Clinton if you give that shit up.
If we found out that Jesse Helms called black people a certain six letter word on a regular basis with his friends or found out that Jimmy Carter called his daughter "shithead" on a regular basis or that Newt Gingrich served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital, doesn't this have some bearing on the quality of the person? And whether they're fit for office? And by the same token, isn't cheating on your wife (with whomever) a shitty thing to do and evidence that you kinda suck? Why do we have to pretend that if you're a dickhead on the weekends that it doesn't matter?
On a personal level, if you found out one of your friends was serially cheating on his wife, do you have to say "that's between him and his wife and I am not allowed to let this impact my opinion of the guy?" What about the asshole at the office who brags about his attempts at cheating on his wife. Given a choice between working with him and with someone else, can't I decide that I don't like to work with him? We judge people based on a million things a day. Why can't we think poorly of you for being a cock to your wife? I'm baffled. |
|
| Kropotkin's take... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
17:54 8.18.04 |
It was neither Panurge, nor Publius, that turned my brain to mush. No, it was Kropotkin. 100% pure, uncut Kropotkin. Specifically the following quote, fist discovered in the early days of 2000.....
Kropotkin's "Appeal to the Young" (1880):
"Which side will you take? For the law and against justice, or for justice and against the law?
If you reason instead of repeating what is taught you; if you analyze the law and strip off those cloudy fictions with which it has been draped in order to conceal its real origin, which is the right of the stronger, and its substance, which has ever been the consecration of all the tyrannies handed down to mankind through its long and bloody history; when you have comprehended this, your contempt for the law will be profound indeed. You will understand that to remain the servant of the written law is to place yourself every day in opposition to the law of conscience, and to make a bargain on the wrong side; and, since this struggle cannot go on forever, you will either silence your conscience and become a scoundrel, or you will break with tradition, and you will work with us for the utter destruction of all this injustice, economic, social and political.
But then you will be a Socialist, you will be a Revolutionist."
and no, i'm neither a socialist nor a revolutionist (however, i still wish i could have got the opportunity once in my life to run around masked on a tear-gas soaked steet...alas), but i do like this quote - and view - an awful lot.
and, yes, hb, i know, i know it doesn't answer your question. but, every once in awhile it is nice to dream...
|
|
| Rule of Law, Baby |
| posted by: horsebeater |
17:32 8.18.04 |
I have to confess being surprised that Rabaleus's first thought was "was Gavin's decision a good tactical political decision" when the thing that was bright red and blinking in my mind was why we're willing to casually disregard the rule of law as a governing societal principle.
I'm having a hard time divining any principle behind when civil disobedience is ok other than "when the government is doing something I don't like, then civil disobeidence is ok." Maybe there's an additional test, which is "it has to be important." When severe pro-lifers apply this standard, however, this is how we end up with abortion clinic bombings.
I mean, rule of law, baby. Even if you don't like the law, you should comply with the law. And while the primacy of this is often less important here, when it comes to places like Iraq or other new democracies, it's self-evidently important because of the need to convince people to go along with the majority vote instead of just starting to shoot holes in their Sunni (or Shia) neighbors.
I can't say with a straight face that rule of law trumps everything. Clearly blacks in the 1950s morally weren't obligated to continue to abide by the rule of law. They didn't have to continue to work within the system. And I'm sure that the fort is tempted to make the easy analogy of being gay = being black for all things civil rights-related. But as a legal situation, it was very different. The 13th and 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution were on the books to expressly protect blacks. There was a law on the books that was being ignored. Arguably the southern states were the ones civilly disobeying; the blacks had little choice but to do the same. The analogy is far different for gay marriage.
I recognize that, in the scheme of things, it isn't like a gay group bombed the Cali legislature or turned into the Gay Panthers. It's not like this was an ultra-extreme activity here.
But I have to confess I'd prefer it if people said "gee, maybe we should obey the law, whatever it is" to start with, and would have to give a damn good reason why their particular beliefs merit ignoring the rule of law (i.e. ignoring democracy) in a particular situation.
|
|
| "Those gays are gonna marry if |
| posted by: rabelais |
11:20 8.17.04 |
Insane that the presidential election could be significantly influenced by U.S. voters' desire to not see the gay folks marry. (See the article below for one reference. Apologies for not just including the link.) However, given that it is an election year and that is the situation, I wonder whether Mr. SF Mayor should have considered how his actions might be used by those on the other side of the aisle before going ahead with his decision to allow gay marriages. This question of where the guiding lines lie between "principle" and "ego" and "larger repercussions" (both good and bad relative to the decision maker's stated goal) is also posed most forcefully by Ralph Nader's continued candidacy. So, whatta ya do if you're Gavin or Ralph? If you don't act now, you may never again have the chance to record your principles in the books, and if you do, you may in fact help bring about that which you are most opposed to? In the case of Ralph, I argue he should drop-out because the consequences of his not dropping out are severe and can be directly attributed to his immediate decision. A likely net-negative if you will. In Gavin's case, I think, ultimately, he did the right thing since there are so many other factors that will play out over the long-term that it is a likely net-positive decision.
--
August 14, 2004
Gay Marriage Becomes a Swing Issue With Pull
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage called this week's California Supreme Court decision nullifying San Francisco's marriage licenses a minor prelude to bigger battles at the ballot box. Both social conservatives and gay rights groups say their debate is becoming increasingly intertwined with the presidential election.
Social conservatives have argued for months that voters, not judges, should ultimately settle the issue of legal recognition for gay couples. They have organized to put constitutional amendments blocking same-sex marriages on the ballots in a dozen states this fall, including the pivotal swing states of Oregon, Michigan and Ohio.
And after the strong turnout in support of a similar measure in Missouri on Aug. 3, some conservative strategists said that the referendums could help President Bush by motivating traditionalists to vote. "It could well be what swings the election," said Grover Norquist, a strategist close to the Bush campaign.
Phil Burress, a veteran organizer who is working to amend the Ohio Constitution, said a California ruling in favor of same-sex marriage might actually have helped his efforts even more. "What really would have fired us up is if it had been a decision that would have been more judicial tyranny," Mr. Burress said. "When we win one, it doesn't fire us up. It surprises us that the judges got it right. We high-fived for a couple of minutes around the office and then we went back to work."
But in a shift from their previous strategy, some gay rights groups fighting the amendments banning same-sex marriage said yesterday that they, too, would use advertisements aimed at making the debate an issue in the presidential election.
Cheryl Jacques, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the main groups fighting for gay marriage, said the group plans to argue in advertising campaigns in Ohio and other swing states that the Bush campaign and its allies are orchestrating the marriage amendment efforts in order to distract voters from other issues.
"There is a single puppet master behind these efforts, and that is George W. Bush and his allies," Ms. Jacques said in an interview. "They will try to make this an issue, and are going to remind people what they already know, that most people don't wake up in the morning thinking about gay and lesbian marriage or any gay issue. They wake up in the morning thinking about jobs and health care and the war in Iraq."
To suggest that Mr. Bush's campaign is behind the state initiatives, advocates of same-sex marriage have pointed to a letter that Ken Blackwell, a Republican who is secretary of state of Ohio, wrote to his supporters saying that the Bush campaign had asked him to support the state's amendment. Representatives of Mr. Blackwell and Mr. Bush did not dispute the letter.
But Mr. Burress said Republican leaders in Ohio had initially resisted his efforts to put the amendment on the ballot.
Some conservatives contended that accusing Mr. Bush of fighting same-sex marriage would help him and hurt Mr. Kerry, the Democratic candidate. In the Missouri election, gay rights groups spent $450,000 and their opponents only $19,000. The turnout was twice as high as in a typical state primary and the amendment to ban gay marriage passed with 71 percent support.
"I would think the Kerry campaign would want to talk to the Human Rights Campaign," said Gary Bauer, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and founder of the organization American Values. "If I am for marriage between a man and a women, then I should vote for George Bush. I think that is the last message Senator John Kerry wants to be connected with in the minds of voters."
Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said: "The president has made his position clear, that he believes the institution of marriage should be preserved. This issue was forced on the country by a group of activist judges, and states across the country have measures on the ballot for the fall election which will preserve the institution of marriage, and voters will let their voices be heard."
Some Democrats argued that the ballot measures might not damage Mr. Kerry. Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, said Mr. Kerry also opposed same-sex marriage, although he opposed amending the federal Constitution to ban same-sex unions. "John Kerry believes a marriage is between a man and a woman but doesn't think that the Constitution should be used as a way to divide the country," Mr. Singer said.
Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who has worked for the Human Rights Campaign, argued that the Bush campaign's support for the amendments could backfire. "Voters will say this is not the priority right now," she said. "The issue here is Iraq and the economy, not gay marriage. They are using this to distract and deflect from their failures on Iraq and the economy. Which are you more worried about?"
Of the three swing states where same-sex marriage amendments are likely to appear on the ballot, Ms. Lake argued, Ohio was the only one where it might make a difference. She argued that the amendment was not very popular in Oregon and that Mr. Kerry could carry Michigan by turning out voters among traditionally Democratic groups like union members and African-Americans.
"Ohio is a different story," Ms. Lake said. "It is very close and it could have an impact there."
Both sides of the marriage battle say they plan to step up their efforts as the election nears. Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said opponents of same-sex marriage were relying on like-minded churches to turn out their members, just as they did in Missouri. On Sept. 19, he and other well-known conservative Christians will hold their third national telecast to churches around the country this year to discuss the issue.
They will speak from the First Baptist Church of Springdale, Ark. The organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State has argued that the church violated the requirements of its tax-exempt status by engaging in politics.
Gay groups, meanwhile, are continuing to press their case in courts. Last week, a court in Washington State ruled in favor of a same-sex couple's right to marry, setting the stage for an appeals battle there. Other cases are pending in state courts in New Jersey and Oregon, and a Constitutional challenge is under way in federal court in Florida.
Another case is pending in California, too. The court's ruling this week addressed only the procedural matter of whether the mayor of San Francisco could issue marriage licenses. Another case working its way through the court system will settle the underlying issue of same-sex marriage rights under the state Constitution, but that case could take years to resolve.
Still, Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a socially conservative legal group that has filed briefs in many of the cases, argued that court victories for same-sex marriage were unlikely to settle much. Even in Massachusetts, he said, opponents were still trying to change the state Constitution. "The final decision is going to be made by the voters," he said.
|
|
| i stand corrected on the gover |
| posted by: publius |
00:35 8.13.04 |
the first article didn't mention the aide. my bad.
and it seems to me the slaveholder abortion absurdity would fit well in the obama thread, no? take it away isidorus... |
|
| you're wrong about the governo |
| posted by: isidorus |
23:00 8.12.04 |
if he was having an extramarital gay affair with a stranger, then it shouldn't be grounds for him to step down. But it was with an advisor, one whose promotion within the adminstration raised questions, because he was seemingly underqualified for the job. So the issue in new jersey wasn't exclusively about homosexuality/private lives, it was about mcsweeny's ability to govern, and therefore it was the business of everybody in new jersey, and he did the right thing to resign. it wouldn't be any different if the affair had been a straight one.
now let's talk about the alan keyes slaveholder mentality abortion argument. but maybe that's in another thread.... |
|
| a pre-tentfort thread reborn.. |
| posted by: publius |
18:54 8.12.04 |
the gay marriage discussion over email was perhaps the main driver in getting tentfort setup (that and horsebeater telling simplicissimus to evict me if i didn't get tentfort built), so i figured it deserves a place as a thread here.
today the california supreme court, in a move which isn't very surprising, annulled all of the gay marriages from a few months ago, saying that the mayor of sf overstepped his authority in allowing them. which he did. and more power to him. as i said at the time, in very rare instances, when laws are simply wrong, some form of disobedience to force change is called for. this is one of those cases. the war will be long on this one, but despite the court's ruling i think you have to give this battle to mayor of sf and the gay community in general.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040812/ts_nm/rights_gays_marriage_dc
and in another, unrelated piece of news (though homosexuality and marriage are both involved, so i guess it's almost on topic), the governor of new jersey will be stepping down after admitting to having had extramarital homosexual affairs. my opinion on this (i can see horsebeater sighing from here) is that this is nobody's business but his, his wife's and his "friends" down at the pendulum. but i don't run the world as of yet, so we'll all just have to wait for more enlightened times.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20040812/pl_nm/people_governor_dc |
|
|
|
