Joe Scarborough, MSNBC clown

[Zero Mass]

Has anybody seen the show Scarborough Country on MSNBC?
I really dislike the host, an arrogant member of the GOP. The only news he "reports" on is about how there is a Liberal bias in the media and how everything President Bush does is right.

I may be a bleeding heart Liberal, but I don't think that there is any room on television for such a publicly bias television show.
As an example, last night (July 31st) he discussed the possibility of same-sex marriages and if one state has the right to push its laws on the topic upon other states.

I personally believe that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally wed as I have seen some very supportive and constructive family units with two moms or two dads and I believe they should have Federal support in order to help them raise their families.
Under the full faith and credit laws in the constitution, if a couple is legally married in New Hampshire, then by law their marriage has to be accepted in all other 49 states. I don't know if Scarborough was aware of this fact or not, he made it out that if a law is passed in one state, then it must be passed in all other states, which is very much not the case.
Joe's coverage of this issue was not only biased, it was incorrect and, in my opinion, deconstructive because it presented his personal beliefs over the facts. He damaged the public in not reporting the truth and thus helped spread ignorance.

What are your opinions on media bias and homosexual marriage?

ZERO MASS

 

[Tiassa]

Haven't seen the show

I haven't seen the show, but I do recall his appearances on Bill Maher. I never trust anybody who goes that far to look "cool" while trying to convince the "cool" people (I'm measuring by his perception) to change their minds.

What's weird is that I watched Scarborough sing for Dole at the 1996 convention. The song wasn't horrible, and was better than the Greg Stallone fare that marked patriotism and pop music in my youth. (Ever sit through the closing credits of Rambo?) But I've been unable since then, for lack of reference to the man of the 1980s, discern if this is the same Joe (Joey) Scarborough who would otherwise be best known for singing the theme song to The Greatest American Hero, one of the best bad television series in history.

I don't think so, though. He would have been twenty at about the time, but he has a law degree ... then again, it was a one-hit wonder so he would have had the time to keep going to school, but I just don't think so. (Who here will admit to having an image of TGAH's Joey Scarborough?)

But it would lend some credibility to his absolutely hideous pop appeal.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Zero Mass]

Speaking of Bill Maher, has anybody seen his new show on HBo, "Real Time" or his recent comedy special on the same channel.
That guy is not only very funny, he has a lot of really good views.

ZERO MASS

 

[Jerrek]

As a bisexual person, I am opposed to same-sex marriages. I would have hated to have two fathers or two mothers and do not believe it is right to put a child through that mental anguish and torture.

Under the full faith and credit laws in the constitution, if a couple is legally married in New Hampshire, then by law their marriage has to be accepted in all other 49 states.
That is true, however, if you go about changing the rules that govern the agreement, it becomes questionable.

 

[Zero Mass]

Jerrek, why do you think that it would be "torture" or induce "mental anguish" to have two mothers or two fathers?
Is it because a majority of the society in which you live considers same sex marriage to be somewhat taboo? And why is it taboo, because it is not yet law.
If we lived fifty years in the future, lets say at this time that same sex unions are legal in a majority of states, don't you think it would be less torturous to endure two fathers or mothers if the societal pressure was lessened?
The ability to grant homosexual unions the same privileges and rights as heterosexual marriages lies in the states own legislative body. Marriage is a religious procedure, if a church wants to grant the ability to join two individuals, then fine, but the state is the authority that ultimately legalizes that union by allowing equal rights.
I am a big supporter of Presidential candidate Howard Dean because he understands these concepts that I have laid out. Of course he hasn't come out with a position on homosexual relationships (like one question he side-stepped around last night on Larry King live) but do you expect any presidential candidate to come out with such a radical platform before a major election? Dean does believe in a very American concept though, equality for all people, which is another reason I support him.

ZERO MASS

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Zero Mass
Under the full faith and credit laws in the constitution, if a couple is legally married in New Hampshire, then by law their marriage has to be accepted in all other 49 states. I don't know if Scarborough was aware of this fact or not, he made it out that if a law is passed in one state, then it must be passed in all other states, which is very much not the case.

Actually at this point in time the full faith and credit clause does not apply to same sex marriages. You're right that there is no way to pass a law that does this, without that law being in direct violation of the constitution, but apparently today's breed of super conservative doesn't give a crap about that. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (A bill pushed through by the religious right, and signed by Bubba Clinton in a shameless attempt to try to gain a few right winger votes right at re-election time) states that one state does not need to recognize a marriage license issued to a homosexual couple in another state.

Sure, this would probably be overturned if it came to the Supreme Court, but as it stands it hasn't, so I guess you could say that it still stands.

Also, Jerrek, you self hating bastard, you may question someone’s parenting skills, but that’s never seemed to stop heterosexual couples from marrying and raising families. The only reason that growing up with two dads or two moms may be even the slightest bit uncomfortable is because of conservative jackasses like you. Maybe we should just ban hard line conservatives instead, I think that’d solve more problems than it would make.

 

[Zero Mass]

I don't know how that law you're talking about effects gay and lesbian unions, but it is not the right of the federal government to prohibit states from giving out rights and freedoms, it is actually the other way around. The federal government is supposed to play safety by primarily ensuring the rights of the minority are not blocked by that of the majority.

If a state wants to give a homosexual couple the same rights granted to a heterosexual couple, then it is that states right to do so, like in Vermont. Like I wrote earlier, Marriage is a religious bond, and only a religious organization has the right to say who can be married. The rights and freedoms associated in a states constitution that accompany marriage are only given by the state, therefore it is the states right to give whoever it wants those rights.

ZERO MASS

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Zero Mass
I don't know how that law you're talking about effects gay and lesbian unions, but it is not the right of the federal government to prohibit states from giving out rights and freedoms, it is actually the other way around.

The Defense of Marriage Act sets forth an official definition for marriage (that being a union between one man and one woman) and gives States the right to ignore any homosexual marriage licenses issued by another state. In essence this act prohibits homosexual marriage on a federal level

Originally posted by Zero Mass
The federal government is supposed to play safety by primarily ensuring the rights of the minority are not blocked by that of the majority.

Heh, yeah I just wish that that was the case when it comes to homosexual rights. Things are getting closer to that ideal that you describe, but things certainly haven't always been working that way. Opponents of homosexual's rights like to claim that it's the state's right and duty to dictate morality and micromanage people's lives.

 

[Tiassa]

Jerrek

On a whim I called a friend, who issued the following statement:

As a bisexual, I support same-sex marriages. I would have greatly appreciated the presence of a second parent that gave a f@ck during my youth. My mother did her best, but you can't do that job alone.

And because it makes a very good point, this from another friend of mine, several years ago:

What does it matter if a kid has 'two moms'? Is it any better or worse for my father to 'expose' me to sex when I was 8?

Or I could look at my heterosexual cohabiting reality and ask if I'm just worrying unnecessarily about the fact that the mother of my child is insane? I mean, at least it's not two guys or two girls, right? Hetero is healthy and normal, right?

I'll have a healthier understanding of Ghandi and also of Buddhists by the time this is over, but there is nothing normal or healthy about the psychology of my partner, and consequently about the way we associate. For instance, I have two choices: incendiary hostility or open acquiescence. While it's well enough to encourage calm and rational consideration of problems (e.g. not fight), it is not exactly healthy to set such a behavioral model as her mother's disrespect for all things real or imagined tends to construct (you get what you want by being an utter bitch).

As long as you're not fucking your children or fucking in front of them, I think sexuality itself makes less difference than other, more relevant behaviors. For instance, both my parents lied about a number of vital things which greatly affected my perception of the world.

If they'd been gay, that wouldn't change the fact that they lied in an effort to shape my development more favorably to their aesthetics.

:m:,
Tiassa