Friday Night Smackdown
NBC Dateline aired a report tonight about two star-crossed lovers one year after their nuptials. The couple, Mary Kay Fualaau and her husband Vili are better known by the roles they had when they first met. Sixth grade teacher and 13 year old student. Titled, "A Love like No Other" the report poses the following question: Can a love that just about everyone agrees was wrong at the start age into something acceptable, even beautiful?
Just me thinking aloud here but WTF??? We're painting this child abuse case as a Romeo and Juliet now? I'll bet the ACLU handling NAMBLA's case is doing the dance of joy. With NBC doing the heavy lifting of convincing the American public that sometimes it just might be okay to have sex with a child, why bother with the judiciary, it'll be perfectly acceptable within the next five years.
In a final bit of editorializing, the Primtime narrator says, "To some, theirs will forever be a tainted, even deviant relationship. But Mary and Vili see themselves in very different terms—a triumph of love against the odds."
Aaaaawwwwwwwwwwwww.
*****************************************
And then there's Reuters with a little revisionism playing to the election cycle cynics with an article about Bush pushing for the ban on gay marriage. A quote: Bush has never made a secret of his views on the issue but has rarely talked about it in public until now.
The article implies that Bush's support for the Marriage Protection Amendment could "rally his wavering conservative base in an election year."
How about a little media spin with your supper, folks? The truth of the matter is that in February of 2004 the President called for the ban. The transcript of his comments can be found on CNN.com For your reading pleasure, I've included an excerpt:
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.
Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.
Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.
We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.
In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.
Thank you very much.
Reuters goes on to insinuate that the President's falling poll numbers have prompted his sudden outspokenness on the issue. Well, we've already proven that the President was already quite outspoken on this issue as far back as 2and a half years ago. At that time his ratings were hovering between 48 and 49%. Curious, eh? To be so plainspoken on an issue when his base was solidly behind him. Actually, Mr. Matt Spetalnick, desk jockey over at Reuters, in America, Congress writes the laws. And unless I'm misreading it, Article V gives only The Congress the power to call a convention to propose Amendments to the Constitution. So no matter what he President says about what should or shouldn't be in the Constitution, the responsibility for such legislative acts falls squarely within the purview of the Senate and the House.
No liberal media bias? Yeah right.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
unfortunately it's about all the MSM is good for
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/02 @ 07:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dayna— 2006/06/02 @ 08:12 PM — (Reply)
even if you watch Fox dayna
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/02 @ 10:56 PM — (Reply)
Not to stray too far from your post, but you're right- to my knowledge, the President has never strayed in his position. And you're also right, the President has no authority to amend the Constitution (or to declare war, or to 'sign' laws into effect by saying that he's going to effectively ignore the law he's signing; but that's where I would start to stray from the topic)
Just a minor correction, though- Article V gives Congress the power to propose amendments, but also gives the States the power to call for a convention to amend. The right wing would do well to affect this, I think. 34 states is just the red states, plus 3.
It might be time to gather a new convention and rework some of the basic assumptions in our legal system. Roe v. Wade? Defense of Marriage? Equal rights? Affirmative action? Let's get a convention going, and agree on what we can agree. I think it would be a lot better to stop blaming judges, who have a mess of precedent and confusing rulings to try and work under, and just revisit what some of those basic understandings in this nation are.
Oops... I strayed.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/02 @ 08:06 PM — (Reply)
Ah, yes, the living, breathing Constitution. Why don't we just torch it and start over? Better idea. How about just burning all the judicial precedent and judging each case on its merits?
Let's face it. Every time the right budges one inch (and there have been many inches we should've budged) someone exploits the laws we made to legalize other completely antisocial or inhuman behaviors.
Example: The Supreme Court says, okay women can choose to abort and we end up with partial birth abortion.
Do you really think there is a compromise to be made or do you merely suggest it because you know how very far our culture and laws have strayed from the the generally accepted morality of the first convention?
Obviously, I am not suggesting that historically social conservatism was always right - think racial equality, child-labor laws, etc... but I do believe we've had a really rough 45 years or so WRT the direction of the nation's soul.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/02 @ 08:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dayna— 2006/06/02 @ 08:14 PM — (Reply)
Our society has no delineations between acceptable and unacceptable behavior anymore. There are always mitigating circumstances that call for situational ethics.
I'm not suggesting that we revisit the Salem Witch Trials but let's get real!
The "Live Vote" on the MSNBC website asks if this is a story about "true love" ot "true crime". The majority after 169 responses thinks that this is a love story. Why don't we poll other 13 year olds around the country who've had sex with people 21 years older and see what they think?
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/02 @ 08:58 PM — (Reply)
Just how do you think they will explain their relationship and how they met to their two children?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/02 @ 10:58 PM — (Reply)
Can you imagine?
I'm so glad I met my husband teaching Sunday School.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/03 @ 07:57 AM — (Reply)