A conservative anti-gay Republican to take Ted Kennedy's seat?

  • OutdoorAdvent...

    Posts: 361

    Jan 18, 2010 12:40 AM GMT
    Hey Massachusetts RJ'ers,
    On Tuesday we vote to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat, to his death the GLBT community's best friend in the US senate, and on Tuesday it may be taken by a conservative anti-gay Republican. There's a lot that distinguishes the Democrat nominee, Martha Coakley, from the Republican, Scott Brown, particularly if you're a G L B or T citizen of the Commonwealth. Coakley supports same-sex marriage and has taken the federal government to court over the enforcement of DOMA in Massachusetts. She also supports an inclusive ENDA and the repeal of DADT. Brown supports DOMA, DADT, and opposes an inclusive ENDA. (Sorry for all the acronyms.)
    Like Mitt Romney when he ran for governor, Brown is attempting to position himself as a political moderate, although he is even further to the right than Romney. Beyond the consequences of what a 41st Republican senator would be for our community, Brown...
    o favors the death penalty;
    o questions whether global warming is man made or natural;
    o does not believe waterboarding is torture;
    o says he supports Roe v. Wade but has not said he would vote to protect a woman's right to abortion, and has been endorsed by "pro life" groups in the state.
    The race has become astonishingly close, with one credible poll showing Brown ahead (perhaps because Brown was Cosmopolitan Magazine's sexiest man of the year in 1982...? He's still a hottie).
    In their endorsement of Coakley, the Boston Globe makes the case for why she's a good choice to fill Kennedy's seat, and why Brown is not..
    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/13/globe_endorsement_martha_coakley_for_senate/
    Please take a minute to read it before Tuesday, and please take a few minutes to vote on Tuesday.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2010 1:03 AM GMT
    Massachusetts has been the most rigid one-party state this side of Zimbabwe. If the MA Democratic establishment is so ossified and tone-deaf that it can't find a better candidate than the grotesquely inept Coakley, then they desperately need the shaking-up that a defeat would give them.
    Foremost among the many reasons why Coakley should lose is her responsibility for the Amirault case. The Amiraults were a family who ran a day-care center and were convicted of child sex abuse based solely on "recovered-memory" testimony without physical evidence. "Recovered-memory" has long since been discredited as totally bogus. The MA legal community long since agreed that the Amiraults were wrongly convicted. As District Attorney for Middlesex County Coakley nevertheless did everything she could to keep the Amiraults locked up because she thought it would further her own political ambitions. One of the family, Gerald Amirault, spent 18 years in prison for a crim ethat everyone but Coakley now agrees he did not commit. To this day she maintains she acted rightly. In the criminal-justice community nationwide the Amirault case is notorious as an extreme example of vindictive prosecutorial misconduct.
    Reason number two why Coakley should lose is the attitude reflected in the phrase "Ted Kennedy's Seat." It's the U.S. Senate, not the House of Lords, and the voters get to decide whose seat it is.

  • OutdoorAdvent...

    Posts: 361

    Jan 18, 2010 1:21 AM GMT
    For a different detailing of Coakley's tenure as head of Middlesex County' s Child Abuse Unit see "Protecting children became a turning point for Coakley",
    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/08/protecting_children_became_a_turning_point_for_coakley/?page=3
    which ran in the January 8 edition of the Boston Globe.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 18, 2010 1:25 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    OutdoorAdventurist saidHey Massachusetts RJ'ers...
    On Tuesday we vote to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat, to his death the GLBT community's best friend in the US senate, and on Tuesday it may be taken by a conservative anti-gay Republican.

    Teddy may have been the "GLBT community's best friend" but he certainly didn't get much done in making any of the issues that "the gay movement" hold near and dear into law.

    But we shouldn't single out dear old Uncle Teddy... nobody else in his party has got anything done on these issues either.


    If nobody in his party has done anything on issues relating to gay rights, who do you suppose has helped passed gay marriage into law in some of the states, including Massachusetts? Granted, not enough is being done, but for what little has been accomplished thus far (and really, every step counts) — where do you suppose equality under the law is getting most of its support from?

    Would you like to take a guess?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2010 1:46 AM GMT
    hm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2010 1:57 AM GMT
    TexDef07 saidMassachusetts has been the most rigid one-party state this side of Zimbabwe. If the MA Democratic establishment is so ossified and tone-deaf that it can't find a better candidate than the grotesquely inept Coakley, then they desperately need the shaking-up that a defeat would give them.
    Foremost among the many reasons why Coakley should lose is her responsibility for the Amirault case. The Amiraults were a family who ran a day-care center and were convicted of child sex abuse based solely on "recovered-memory" testimony without physical evidence. "Recovered-memory" has long since been discredited as totally bogus. The MA legal community long since agreed that the Amiraults were wrongly convicted. As District Attorney for Middlesex County Coakley nevertheless did everything she could to keep the Amiraults locked up because she thought it would further her own political ambitions. One of the family, Gerald Amirault, spent 18 years in prison for a crim ethat everyone but Coakley now agrees he did not commit. To this day she maintains she acted rightly. In the criminal-justice community nationwide the Amirault case is notorious as an extreme example of vindictive prosecutorial misconduct.
    Reason number two why Coakley should lose is the attitude reflected in the phrase "Ted Kennedy's Seat." It's the U.S. Senate, not the House of Lords, and the voters get to decide whose seat it is.


    Our Headless Texan friend clearly knows nothing about our state or it's politics. Bay Staters are independent minded and Republicans rarely offer anything that speaks to our values which is why Democrats dominate.

    Fortunately for us, this case won't be decided by a freak-show like the Amirault case or Scott Brown's nudie Cosmo spread. Me? I'd have preferred Capuano, but I'll pull the lever for Coakely on Tuesday because I can't abide the idea of anti-gay, anti-choice, big bank apologist Brown representing me in DC,
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2010 2:00 AM GMT
    Joe52 said Our Headless Texan friend clearly knows nothing about our state or it's politics. ,

    I grew up in Marshfield and went to school in Boston.

    Fortunately for us, this case won't be decided by a freak-show like the Amirault case
    Why not? As a criminal lawyer, it's beyond my comprehension why Coakley hasn't been disbarred, much less anointed by the Democratic Party.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 18, 2010 2:08 AM GMT
    Southbeach,

    Even at the federal level It should be clear to you that recognition of rights for gays gets most of its support from democrats. As I said, there is much to get accomplished, but those pushing for equality, such as supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, are largely Democrats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2010 2:22 AM GMT
    I don't live in MA, but I can't imagine how anyone could support a person who belongs to a party that is involved in the effort to criminalize people like you and me, unless that person is taking active measures to change that mentality within his or her own party.

    Voting for a guy that thinks you're evil, shouldn't be married to your partner, to me is irrational at best. Voting for someone who would persecute your community is inconceivable. No matter what party that person belongs to.

    For the life of me, I can't understand some of you guys, and why you'd support a party who's platform emphatically includes an effort to deprive you of your rights. It's on par with Jews voting for Nazis. It makes no sense whatsoever.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 18, 2010 2:34 AM GMT
    jimbobthedevil saidI don't live in MA, but I can't imagine how anyone could support a person who belongs to a party that is involved in the effort to criminalize people like you and me, unless that person is taking active measures to change that mentality within his or her own party.

    Voting for a guy that thinks you're evil, shouldn't be married to your partner, to me is irrational at best. Voting for someone who would persecute your community is inconceivable. No matter what party that person belongs to.

    For the life of me, I can't understand some of you guys, and why you'd support a party who's platform emphatically includes an effort to deprive you of your rights. It's on par with Jews voting for Nazis. It makes no sense whatsoever.



    Wow! Some of you really do have a flair for melodrama. Are you serious? "On par with Jews voting for Natzis"??? Get a grip, man!
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 18, 2010 2:38 AM GMT
    Parkourpump,

    Please refer to Black's Law Dictionary to understand what double jeopardy is. Charging someone with committing a hate crime is not double jeopardy.

    I would suggest you watch Ashley Judd in Double Jeopardy, but I'm not an evil person.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2010 2:44 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]southbeach1500 said[/cite]
    Joe52 saidI'll pull the lever for Coakely on Tuesday because I can't abide the idea of anti-gay, anti-choice, big bank apologist Brown representing me in DC,


    You forgot:

    evil, bigot, lover of the rich and destroyer of our environment, to name just a few others...

    Oh, and I've heard Brown wants to reintroduce slavery as well.[/quot

    Thanks for reminding me. He's also an arrogant jerk. I vote for the people who support me. My politics is based in self-respect.
  • stevarino7

    Posts: 149

    Jan 18, 2010 2:50 AM GMT
    The problem with the candidates for the Democratic Party for senate to replace Kennedy were that they were all a lot alike, with little differences. So, in the end, there was no big favorite, but rather a random selection where some one won to go against Brown, a Republican/Independent favorite.

    Though Brown has done a remarkable job at campaigning, especially marketing himself to the independents (the reason why he is doing so well a the moment), I do not fully understand how the Commonwealth (who loved Kennedy and who had an overwhelming popularity in MA) can seriously match Browns points about healthcare and GBLT issues as well as other social issues and think it can come any where close to what Kennedy believed and wanted.

    I really think if Brown wins Tuesday it will be a big slap in the face of the Kennedy's and the people who Kennedy supported. However, the Democrats did not do their jobs this time around in getting the support needed. Brown, as a Republican, really did a good job with his campaign and in a state that has swung Democratically for so long, I must give credit to the other party this time around.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jan 18, 2010 2:50 AM GMT
    In other words, if someone says "The Moon is made of cheese" you can't present a counter argument of "Jumping jacks are hazardous to your health", rather you say "Astronauts have brought back moon rocks that confirm that the moon is not made of cheese."

    People who oppose gay marriage are not rational about it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2010 2:53 AM GMT
    ParkourPump said
    Answer that and you'll understand why Hate Crime legislation is another form of double jeopardy, you are charged twice for the same crime.

    Actually hate crime legislation provides that if it's shown that the defendant was motivated to commit the crime by racial or religious enmity the punishment becomes more severe. It makes the crime more serious -- it doesn't punish twice for the same offense.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jan 18, 2010 2:54 AM GMT
    Again, do you honestly expect such legislation will ultimately protect you from attacks?

    I think people like it because it gives legal recognition of something that is done to people and a means to prosecute it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2010 2:57 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    jimbobthedevil saidI don't live in MA, but I can't imagine how anyone could support a person who belongs to a party that is involved in the effort to criminalize people like you and me, unless that person is taking active measures to change that mentality within his or her own party.

    Voting for a guy that thinks you're evil, shouldn't be married to your partner, to me is irrational at best. Voting for someone who would persecute your community is inconceivable. No matter what party that person belongs to.

    For the life of me, I can't understand some of you guys, and why you'd support a party who's platform emphatically includes an effort to deprive you of your rights. It's on par with Jews voting for Nazis. It makes no sense whatsoever.



    Wow! Some of you really do have a flair for melodrama. Are you serious? "On par with Jews voting for Natzis"??? Get a grip, man!


    That's not melodramatic. Who is pushing for a ban on same-sex marriage? Who fought against the inclusion of sexual orientation in the anti-hate crimes laws? Who is fighting to prevent same sex couples from adopting children or add each other on insurance plans? It's a hop, skip, and a jump from there to criminal behavior, and I would like to remind you that it wasn't too long ago that two men in Texas were arrested in their own apartment under anti-sodomy laws, which have yet to be repealed.

    These are the people that are calling you "child molester," the utter the word "recruitment," the phrase "sexual deviant," and make YOUR OPPRESSION the rallying cry of their base. If you can't see the bigger picture, you're blind.

    I haven't seen anything like progress in the Republican party, although I've voted for a handful of them over the years (Bush version 1, Sam Katz in Philly, Bloomberg in NYC). I've seen nothing more than a drift farther and farther to the right, where centrists are ostracized and ridiculed, and theocratic thought is fast becoming the norm.

    Perhaps you should pay closer attention to the smaller battles. After all, there are an awful lot of conservative christians in this country that think Uganda has the right idea.

    http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=55076
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/jetton_fought_to_ban_gay_sex_calling_it_deviate_se.php

    And my point is: you shouldn't invite your oppressor into your house. No matter what party he belongs to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2010 3:12 AM GMT
    ParkourPump said

    Exactly. Obama could end DADT by executive order as Truman did to end segregation in the military. Most of the Democrats in the Senate that voted for DOMA are dead or out of office, so repealing DOMA shouldn't be impossible right now. Granted, when Brown wins on Tuesday, it will become harder due to the filibuster threat. But they did have 4 years to repeal DOMA, and a little over a year controlling the Presidency too.

    Excuses, excuses, and more excuses is all I ever hear from gay Democrats as to why their party hasn't done more for the gay community.



    Neither party is interested in anything more than perpetuating their party. The players are interested in keeping their jobs and earning as much money as they can along the way. They won't vote DOMA down because they don't want to lose the religious vote and lose their jobs. Obama won't lift DADT for the same reason.

    This country has wandered so far from where it should be, largely because of apathy, and the general willingness to be swayed by emotional rather than logical arguments. I personally can't stand democrats or republicans, and feel like when it's time to vote, you have only the choice of between the lesser of two evils.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jan 18, 2010 3:15 AM GMT
    I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.

    There are a lot of problems with that statement.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 18, 2010 3:18 AM GMT
    ParkourPump said
    creature saidParkourpump,

    Please refer to Black's Law Dictionary to understand what Double Jeopardy is. Charging someone with committing a hate crime is not double jeopardy.


    Again, can you be charged with the bias without the associated crime? If someone says "Man I hate those damn ____, I wish they'd all just die off!" can they be charged with a crime?

    Now if they say the above and then go out and kill a member of such group, can they be charged with a Hate Crime in addition to the murder?

    Why can the be charged in the latter case but not the former?

    Answer that and you'll understand why Hate Crime legislation is another form of double jeopardy, you are charged twice for the same crime.

    Now on the other point, do you reasonably expect that such legislation will actually cause bigots to no longer be bigoted? Will they magically stop hating the people they hate because of such laws? Will such laws prevent a bigot from attacking a member of the group they hate?

    Or is it more reasonable to believe that such laws will actually exacerbate the hatred they feel for the groups they hate because now their freedom to hate (we DO have such a freedom as we have the freedoms of speech, religion, etc) has been circumscribed?

    Bigots will always be with us. Your safest course of action is NOT to rely on the government to protect you (as I said, they have no such obligation) but rather to learn to protect yourself.

    Again, do you honestly expect such legislation will ultimately protect you from attacks?


    Saying "Man I hate those damn ____, I wish they'd all just die off" is protected speech in the United States. I assume you're aware of what constitutes freedom of speech, correct? In that case, you'll understand that speech that is used to incite violence is not protected speech. It is a crime. This is kind of how hate crime works. You are legally protected to hate someone, under any basis. But, when your hate becomes an accessory to a crime, acting as a starting point much like a speech that is made to incite violence, then it is no longer innocent enough.

    It's really no different than how the court views the act of murder. You have voluntary and involuntary manslaughter (when Laura Bush killed a fellow classmate (recently watch Family Guy on dvd)). Pre-meditated murder carries more weight than one that was committed at the spur of the moment.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jan 18, 2010 3:19 AM GMT
    And that's why you'll never win the debate because you refuse to understand the counter argument to present an alternative argument.

    I do understand it but it doesn't matter when people are trying to protect their feelings of angst against homosexuality. Even if they know they are wrong they won't face up to it.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jan 18, 2010 3:23 AM GMT
    ParkourPump said
    So there was no deterrent effect intended, it was more a reactive effect, so AFTER you get beat up/killed because you can't protect yourself then the effects kick in. Nice, I prefer self defense because I value my life a little higher than the state does.


    I didn't say there was no deterrent effect intended.. Of course that creates a feeling of deterrence but no law is going to deter people from breaking them if they really want to obviously.

    You can still defend yourself either way.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 18, 2010 3:27 AM GMT
    Also, please refrain from calling it double jeopardy, or saying that it is like it. I hope you are aware that more than one charge is often brought up for criminal acts.


  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jan 18, 2010 3:28 AM GMT
    ParkourPump saidLike? Would you rather the typical Republican party line of voting for a federal amendment codifying such bigotry?


    Like:
    1. The fact that he thinks it's ok to vote on something like that to begin with.
    2. The passive aggressive nature of the statement.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jan 18, 2010 3:34 AM GMT
    The law served no purpose protecting those individuals from the attacks

    Neither did the assault and batter laws apparently.

    There are also different kinds of assaults for example. Hate crimes just add recognition to what was not recognized before.