SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
March 11, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

March 11, 2011 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Super brief brief today as I can’t pull myself away from the coverage of Japan’s quake and tsunami:

  • From the left and now the right: Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association tells the City it can’t just start collecting the special library tax approved by voters for the County Library in 1997. City “exploring options” SIGNAL
  • 1-3 foot waves expected in LA County beaches as tsunami generated by deadly 8.9 magnitude Japanese quake makes its way across Pacific LA TIMES, HUFF PO PICTURES
  • More details on the $1.1 million widening of the McBean bridge near Pavilions that will raise traffic service to level “C” but, more importantly, link two critical Class 1 bike paths SIGNAL
  • LASD SWAT team and hero police dog apprehend 36 year old Val Verde man after hours-long standoff. The LASD tells me “it was necessary for the K-9 to bite the suspect to take him into custody.” Fine by me. Arturo Jimenez had been wanted by the fuzz since July of last year when he allegedly pointed a gun at a rival gang member SIGNAL, KHTS
  • KCET blog post argues that Newhall Ranch is economically obsolete, that the model of suburban development + long commutes + subprime mortgages just doesn’t work any more. That, plus the environmental impact of the 20,000+ home development, means the state or county should kill it KCET
  • Supervisor Antonovich’s March newsletter outlines threat of state budget but doesn’t say anything about library takeover WRB
  • Santa Clarita Valley Economic Development Corp hires a fellow 40 under 40 alum to manage “business retention and marketing.” Josh Mann’s credentials include securing “entitlements for clients, including Wal Mart and T-Mobile.” Also, did you know the SCVEDC moved to COC? SIGNAL
  • LAUSD cop and Valencia resident faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison if convicted of multiple charges relating to his hoax claim that he was shot while patrolling a school in Woodland HIlls KHTS
  • The California Association of Realtors wants banks and regulators to make short sales easier LA TIMES
  • Congressman McKeon has put his name the “Support of the Defense of Marriage Act.” SIGNAL
  • “Chicago” showing at Santa Clarita PAC this weekend SIGNAL
  • Letter writer says someone broke the windows of his Muslim neighbor’s home in Canyon Country. LTE
  • “Enterprise zones are nothing more than a giveaway of taxpayer money to wealthy corporations,” says letter writer. LTE

Comments (85)

  1. Jim FarleyMarch 11, 2011 at 10:05 am
    It’s good the library tax issue is on Howard Jarvis’ radar. Their eye’s on this along with those of us watching will help to keep the city open in how it implements (or doesn’t impliment) this tax.
  2. Alan FerdmanMarch 11, 2011 at 10:16 am
    In reference to the Signal article, Watchdog: city can’t collect I thought a person, or a city, seeks out legal guidance to determine available options, before taking action. Yet here in Santa Clarita, our City Attorney’s role appears to be as a “yes man” for anything City Management wants to do. Today in the Signal he is quoted as saying, in reference to the Special Library Tax, “We’re exploring our options”. But isn’t that what he was supposed to do before the city started down the “Yellow Brick Road”?
  3. Coastal SageMarch 11, 2011 at 4:46 pm
    Alan, professional courtesy prevents me from agreeing with your comment, if you catch my drift. The highly competent litigator at Burke Williams & Sorensen (who many wanted as Carl Newton’s successor) flew the coop, and SC got a pretty boy instead.
  4. BrianMarch 11, 2011 at 11:13 am
    Hey Buck! Get out of peoples personal lives! Where’s the JOBS! Get to work!
  5. NateMarch 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
    It isn’t even that. This is a matter of state rights.
  6. SeanMarch 11, 2011 at 1:23 pm
    So if its a States Rights issues you are ok with Prop 8 passing?? The people of California made their decision clear by voting it down.
  7. NateMarch 11, 2011 at 2:07 pm
    I am not ok with voting to take rights away from Americans. This wasn’t a vote of whether to allow or disallow gay marriage but a vote to take the right that they already had away from them. Showing that if you have enough money you can take away the rights from any American you want. You might be next, thank you Mormon “Church”. Not all votes are constitutional. If we voted to bring back the institution of slavery would that stand? No because it is unconstitutional. There are certain things the people don’t have a right to decide; we have a constitution to protect individual liberties from tyrannical majority. It is just a matter of time for Prop 8 is thrown out, because the PRO side is unable to come up with a constitutional reason to exclude these citizens from the marriage institution. Like it or Not. The equality for gays in marriage will be decided and won at the state level.
  8. HermanMarch 11, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Thanks Buck!
  9. NateMarch 11, 2011 at 5:51 pm
    Your hatred of American liberty is unappealing.
  10. HermanMarch 11, 2011 at 7:32 pm
    Au Contraire, Mon Frère, I am a huge fan and defender of American liberty, I’ve gone so far as to risk my life to defend the rights of my fellow Americans to spew their venomous attacks on, well, me.
  11. 4eyedsueMarch 12, 2011 at 8:59 am
    lib·er·ty   –noun 1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. 2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence. 3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. DOMA is completely contrary to American Liberty. Thanks for your service, Herman. My opinions are not meant as a personal attack on anyone.
  12. HermanMarch 12, 2011 at 9:58 am
    Thanks, but it was my privilege. I can see how DOMA is contrary to the definition of liberty. However, so do drug laws, prostitution laws, speed laws…laws against well, anything. The rule of law that DOMA establishes is equally applied to everyone, regardless of gender.
  13. NateMarch 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm
    I am against Drug laws too… someone wants to off themselves with heroin, who I am I stand in their way? Go out with a bang. NO DOMA is not equally applied. You are hiding the football.
  14. 4eyedsueMarch 11, 2011 at 4:27 pm
    Sean- 47.76% of the people of California made themselves clear by voting NO on prop8 It was a close one. A poll released in March, 2010 by The Public Policy Institute of California found that 50% of respondents support same-sex marriage while 45% oppose it. (47.76% v. 52.24 % in 2008). I say we go ahead and vote again- then we can save the courts all of the trouble and I won’t have to hear about “activist judges” going against the will of the people. 2012…here comes the bride (s)…
  15. NateMarch 11, 2011 at 5:49 pm
    America’s civil liberties are not up for vote.
  16. Gang FangMarch 11, 2011 at 2:31 pm
    Back the Buck up, McKeon. Hands off my brother’s rights.
  17. SCVKickstandMarch 11, 2011 at 6:45 pm
    The Defence of Marrige Act is a toothless piece of paper. Marrige is reguated by the states, as the US Constitution does not give that power to the federal goverment. (I sound like a Tea Party guy here). Nate: You mentioned both slavery and civil rights. These were issues that the STATE was allowed to regulate the rules until the FEDS ammended the constitution. Prop 8 did not take anyones civil rights away. They took away a right the state could give them. BTW same sex couples were allowed to register as domestic partners giving them all the state benifits of marrige other then the name. Prop 8 did not change any of that as far as I am aware. 4eyedsue: Very correct it was a close vote. I truly think the reason Prop 8 passed was becasue Obama was on the ballot. The African American community came out in great numbers to support him, and as a whole were very much opposed to same sex marrige. If a repeal of Prop 8 goes on the ballot, they may want to wait until 2016 when Pres. Obama is not on the ballot. This is a highly charged issue and there will never be a solution everyone is happy with because for some reason we are all hung up on what everyone is doing behind closed doors.
  18. 4eyedsueMarch 11, 2011 at 7:06 pm
    SCVKickstand- I don’t think you sound like a tea party guy at all. Oh, they sure holler about limited federal government- for heterosexual Christian men. Not so much for the rest of us. I’ve heard the same thing about the African American voters. That might have had something to so with it. The same March 2010 poll broke it down like this: African-American (38% for gay marriage), Chinese-American (41% for), Korean-American (25% for) and Vietnamese-American (32%). But I do believe that all of the coverage surrounding the prop8 lawsuit has helped to inform the public as to just what is at stake here- the legal benefits that have been voted away…and for what reason? Cause gay sex is icky? Because somebody’s interpretation of the Bible says so? Yeah, I’m bitter… And, Nate- You are right- America’s civil liberties are not up for vote. I’m being a hypocrite.
  19. Coastal SageMarch 11, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    There’s been little discussion on the news or internet about the massive number of what appear to have been fore-shocks leading up to the Honshu earthquake, beginning 3/9/11 and ending 3/11/11 (their time). There was even a 7.2 two days before the 8.9: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_40_eqs.php What this Honshu earthquake reminds me is that despite advances if earthquake data monitoring, few if any university officials, public officials or the press have the cojones to issue a warning to Californians that something ominous is occurring. The “scientists” are so obsessed with predicting to a near scientific certainty they can’t see what their own data is telling them. As geologists (as opposed to engineers and insurance defense lawyers) say: Nature is mysterious, not mathematically perfect. When I worked in an office on the 40th floor of a high rise, I used to keep this web page as the “home page” on my computer, so that I could figure out where earthquakes I felt were coming from. See: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqscanv/ If I had seen, for Southern California, what showed up on USGS web page for the Honshu area, I would have been out of there !
  20. Mr PerezMarch 11, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    Prayers go out to the people in Japan…
  21. Petz-aka Saugus SteveMarch 11, 2011 at 7:27 pm
    Looks like The Signal found Roger Gitlin to give a first hand account of the tsunami from Crescent City.
  22. ThomasMarch 11, 2011 at 9:37 pm
    $1.1 million to widen the McBean bridge. Almost $1 million to put planters and stamp the asphalt on Auto Mall Drive (or whatever it is called). $300,000 to move the center curb over 2 feet at Bouquet and Newhall Ranch (project only took 2 weeks). Is there something wrong with the numbers here on the last 2? $1 mil seems like a lot to stamp the asphalt and put planters in and $300k to move the curb over a couple of feet. At those prices, the bridge widening should be about $3 mil to $4 mil, right? Did the city get ripped off on the latter 2? Or is it just poor planning and the only bids they got?
  23. lindasMarch 11, 2011 at 10:40 pm
    The article says that the city awarded a contract for design that cost $1.1 million. Nothing about construction yet.
  24. ThomasMarch 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm
    No, it does not say that. It says the engineering company was awarded the 1.1 million project. Granted, the supports are already in place, they only have to pour the roadway. The point is that why is that only 1.1 million and the auto center thing is a million. Lot less construction on the latter, but a heck of a lot of money.
  25. LindaSMarch 13, 2011 at 5:18 pm
    Please read the article again. Its only for design. Look at the title of the article: “Council OKs design contract for widening” Looking at the Council Agenda here: http://apps.santa-clarita.com/agendas/CouncilItemPrint.aspx?ID=5437 The recommended action is to: “City Council award the environmental consulting services and design contract to Dokken Engineering for the McBean Parkway Bridge Widening Over the Santa Clara River, Project S1037, in the amount of $954,465, plus a contingency in the amount of $143,170, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,097,635.” They are not a construction company. They are an engineering firm. Your first hunch is right and will probably cost $3 to $4 million to actually construct.
  26. Bill ReynoldsMarch 12, 2011 at 12:14 am
    Dear Buck McKeon, when you have liberals complaining about your actions then you automatically know that you are on the right track for America. Bravo!
  27. Petz-aka Saugus SteveMarch 12, 2011 at 6:02 am
    If Buck votes for the budget continuing resolution that funds Obamacare-he is history on my book. Listen to Petz next Monday on Joe Messina’s Real Side Radio Show at 2 pm as he discusses current trends in the residential real estate market AM 1220 or if at work point your browser to http://www.hometownstation.com The Guru picked the wrong time to say we cannot afford to be the world’s policeman as the Ronald Reagan sails for Japan. We are the police and fireman….whether he likes it or not. Can’t respond to every crime but we always take the 911 call…….even if they let Obama sleep late. And shame on Obama for saying that it would be easier to be the premier of China, Hillary had him pegged exactly.
  28. IHeartSCVMarch 12, 2011 at 6:34 am
    RE: Real Side Does Petz use the third person on radio, or is that just on SCVTalk? RE: Obama/China/Real Estate Is it easier to be president of China or a realtor in today’s market?
  29. Petz-aka Saugus SteveMarch 12, 2011 at 6:49 am
    Listen in and you might be surprised at the answer from Petz Sold. The premier of China is trying to drive real estate values down. Santa Clarita is a great buy.
  30. Petz-aka Saugus SteveMarch 12, 2011 at 6:03 pm
    Using an aircraft carrier for a humanitarian mission is a misuse of resource. The USS Ronald Reagan should be anchored off the coast of Tripoli where Mommar can read the name.
  31. Your Web GuruMarch 12, 2011 at 8:17 am
    OOOO I must’ve gotten your goat if you’re referring to me in a whole separate blog thread. I feel so popular! Thanks, Petz! Humanitarian aid and world policy enforcement are two entirely separate issues, and you know that, my friend! You’re comparing apples with a ham sandwich.
  32. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotMarch 12, 2011 at 1:43 pm
    Guru, In ’94, the US failed to provide humanitarian aid to Rwanda because Clinton know that this aid would necessarily have a military component to it. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered. Humanitarian aid along with a meaningful military presence to provide teeth to the so-called “world” policy enforcement sometimes go hand in glove.
  33. Mr PerezMarch 13, 2011 at 10:30 am
    Exactly WTF! There is a distinctive difference between the military humanitarian missions which I have been on and the NGO ones. Both are great and serve different a similar purposes but just from a different perspective.
  34. NateMarch 13, 2011 at 7:35 pm
    Maybe you can refresh my memory on what the Bush Administration did what about the Darfur Genocide again? This could be the most backward ass comment you have ever made. Do you like the UN?Seriously blaming a president you don’t like for problems in other countries is just stupid.
  35. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotMarch 13, 2011 at 8:29 pm
    Your comment about the Bush Admin’s failure to act in Darfur is well taken in fact I wished that I had thought of it in my response to Guru, thanks for further expanding my point. My intent was not to criticize a particular President but to address Guru’s point of humanitarian aid and enforcement issues. Please clarify to me what point was “backwards ass” and point out where I am factually incorrect. An observation I’ve made regarding your many comments directed towards people who do not share your view. Instead of respecting their opinion and civilly engaging that person, you are quick to frequently call that person a pejorative name usually referring to their lack of intelligence. To be sure, you are not the only one on this blog who routinely do that, but you directed it to me so I’m making this point to you.
  36. Mr PerezMarch 13, 2011 at 9:00 pm
    The items that kept President Clinton out of Rwanda and President Bush out of Darfur were that there no economic or political gain. It is a sad reality but one that is real. The UN isn’t bad but they don’t have teeth and push real change all of the time.
  37. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotMarch 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm
    Agree. With all the competing interests of all the countries that have veto power who make up the security council, it is rare that a “united” front exists when dealing with a threatening nation.
  38. Gang FangMarch 12, 2011 at 8:22 am
    And when Billy is giving you kudos that track is re-routed to Fantasy Land. But you’ve been there before, right Buckface?
  39. 4eyedsueMarch 12, 2011 at 9:02 am
    Bill Reynolds- is that how you mark your ballot? Based upon how much you can upset the liberals? brilliant
  40. Bill ReynoldsMarch 12, 2011 at 9:30 am
    I did not say that, 4eyedsue. With all due respect, please try to refrain from making such inaccurate assumptions. Speaking of Fantasy Land, did you hear President B. Hussein’s hilarious press conference yesterday? None of the lame stream media reports asked one question about the Obama/Union shellacking taht took place this week in Wisconsin. Too funny!
  41. 4eyedsueMarch 12, 2011 at 10:03 am
    Wasn’t assuming. I was asking. Perhaps you’d like to explain the comment in depth? “when you have liberals complaining about your actions then you AUTOMATICALLY know that you are on the right track for America” ?
  42. Bill ReynoldsMarch 12, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    4eyedsue, you ended your questions with the word, brilliant… hence you really were not asking anything. Here’s two examples of where I’m coming from: during City Council’s last public hearing several left wing Democrats requested that our City become a “City for Peace” and they urged our council members to request President Obama and our legislature to shut down America’s military industrial complex. Furthermore, left wing Democrats in Wisconsin are throwing a hissy fit because the Republican leadership (who were voted into power last November 2nd) shut down corrupt gov’t union activity. Anything else you would like to know?
  43. Gang FangMarch 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm
    Yeah, where do you buy your LSD?
  44. SCVKickstandMarch 12, 2011 at 6:11 pm
    HAHAH – great
  45. Mr PerezMarch 13, 2011 at 8:56 pm
    What does the SCV have to do with the military industrial complex? I can understand Palmcaster since there is alot up there that meets that definition.
  46. NateMarch 12, 2011 at 5:48 pm
    Bill would rather see America burn then “Liberals” be right… show he loves his pride more then his Country. This is true of many people.
  47. Bill ReynoldsMarch 12, 2011 at 11:05 pm
    Lil Natie No Show, dream on… I served my country did you? I don’t think so…
  48. Gang FangMarch 12, 2011 at 11:20 pm
    So you served. Many have. Many have lost their lives. My cousin did. You did not. Does this make my cousin better and more American because he died serving his country? Someone like you wouldn’t last an hour in today’s military environment. No gold star for you, Billy.
  49. NateMarch 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm
    I would love for Billy Boy Blue to meet my liberal uncle with real Vietnam war decorations and have him say he doesn’t love his country… I think Billy Boy would piss himself in the presence of a true war hero.\ I was raised by conservative religious parents who talked me out of the military to go in the ministry as a better way to “Serve” the country. Unfortunately I was way to honest for religion.
  50. 4eyedsueMarch 12, 2011 at 10:23 am
    Herman, Comparing a federal law denying same-sex couples over 1,000 legal benefits as heterosexual couples to ” drug laws, prostitution laws, speed laws…laws against well, anything” is silly. In the three examples you’ve given, arguments can be made that those laws protect us from danger. Our freedom to be safe on the road trumps someone’s liberty drive too fast. Same-sex couples legally marrying hurts no one. And your statement: “The rule of law that DOMA establishes is equally applied to everyone, regardless of gender”. whaaa? DOMA is not equal. Heterosexuals can marry the individual they love. Homosexuals cannot.
  51. HermanMarch 12, 2011 at 3:42 pm
    How about laws against polygamy? What danger is the public being protected from with that? Heterosexuals cannot marry the individual they love. Try marrying your brother. There’s a law against it (maybe not in Arkansas) What’s up with that? If just loving someone is the threshold of whether they should be allowed to get married, then what’s wrong with a guy that loves his sister from marrying her? You may not like DOMA, but it applies equally to everybody.
  52. Bill ReynoldsMarch 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm
    Yeah, and Gung Fungus loves his dog…
  53. Gang FangMarch 12, 2011 at 6:01 pm
    Dear Billy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbLRf0j80wU Love, Gung Gang Green Fungus
  54. Bill ReynoldsMarch 12, 2011 at 11:03 pm
    Stupid…
  55. Gang FangMarch 12, 2011 at 11:25 pm
    Awwwww…….Billy no likey? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gdEmuFiwXI Just for you.
  56. 4eyedsueMarch 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    Repealing DOMA is not the same as opening a free for all for anyone to marry anything. Who can marry needs to be subject to restriction if there is a rational basis (under the Equal Protection clause) and a compelling governmental interest (under the Due Process clause). Not just based on “tradition”. While laws against incest are traditional, we don’t just rely on that fact alone to justify them. Instead, we justify bans on incest because of the risks of exploitation, abuse and genetic defect. We have a rational basis for restricting incestuous relationships. Another argument against incestuous marriage (because not all marriages result in children or even sex) involves privileges, rights and benefits legally accorded to married couples and those given to relatives. There may well be a governmental interest in not allowing the privileges of marriage to combine with the privileges of a parent-child or brother-sister relationship. Taxes, property, inheritance…? The rational basis for states to ban polygamous marriages is the historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion of young girls, and a financial burden placed on the state. Also, the laws and benefits of marriage are designed for two individuals. Relationships between more that two individuals would have to be dealt with differently for tax, property, custody, etc purposes. As far as the state is concerned there don’t need to be gender roles in a marriage, but there are aspects of marriage that only make sense as the relationship of two individuals. Finally, Herman, how would your family be harmed if two women you don’t even know get married? A traditional nuclear family in Massachusetts is no different after same-sex marriage was made legal in the state. But legalizing incestuous marriage would introduce new and uncomfortable possibilities into existing families, by making siblings, and even parents and children, evaluate each other not only as family members but also as potential mates and spouses. Legalizing polygamy would also introduce new possibilities into existing families, by allowing already married men the possibility of adding more wives.
  57. HermanMarch 12, 2011 at 7:55 pm
    Just about every argument you present against polygamy and brother/sister marriage (tradition, exploitation, abuse, imbalance of power, coercion of young girls (or boys), financial burden placed on the state) could all be arguments against gay marriage.
  58. 4eyedsueMarch 12, 2011 at 10:45 pm
    Herman- You will have to give me some specifics- because I don’t see it. As I state, “tradition” is not a rational for denying an entire group of people the legal benefits of marriage. You also list “exploitation, abuse, imbalance of power, coercion of young girls (or boys), financial burden placed on the state” as arguments against same-sex marriage. Please explain. I have yet to hear (in years of this debate) a rational reason to deny same-sex couples the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. But don’t feel too bad, Herman, the defense in the prop8 case can’t come up with anything either…
  59. HermanMarch 13, 2011 at 6:30 am
    You get the same specifics you give. I literally cut and pasted your broad defense of laws against polygamy and sibling marriage, but you want me to get specific? You first. Also, you didn’t state that “tradition” is not a rational for denying an entire group of people the legal benefits of marriage. What you said is: “While laws against incest are traditional, we don’t just rely on that fact alone to justify them”.
  60. IHeartSCVMarch 13, 2011 at 8:41 am
    I’d be fine with the government staying out of the marriage business, but 4eyedsue, you’re not doing yourself any favors when you claim you’re making rational arguments to preclude incest and polygamy that aren’t actually “rational” (i.e., if applied in a rational way, your arguments wouldn’t lead to your desired outcome). EX: Genetics defects aren’t a risk for same-sex related couples as they can’t procreate–does this mean that two sisters getting married is OK? An imbalance of power or potential for abuse isn’t just endemic to polygamous relationships–there’s that possibility in all human relationships. If your goal was to prevent that, you’d need screening before all marriages, and there are certainly polygamists who’d pass the test of no abuse. All I’m saying is that everyone has their own boundaries of what they think marriage should be, and people shouldn’t pretend there’s a clear rational ring that can be drawn around the types they prefer.
  61. 4eyedsueMarch 13, 2011 at 10:24 am
    Herman, dude, what I said first off was, “Who can marry needs to be subject to restriction if there is a rational basis (under the Equal Protection clause) and a compelling governmental interest (under the Due Process clause). Not just based on “tradition”. I tried to be specific w/out hogging the entire thread. But here’s more: Yes, any marriage is susceptible to an imbalance of power. However there is legal precedent for denying incestuous marriages based upon exploitation and imbalance of power. It’s flattering that you think I just pull my justifications out of nowhere. Four years ago, Ohio’s Supreme Court upheld the incest conviction an Ohio man for what the court called “consensual sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter. “A sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit.” This destructive effect, the court says, occurs even if the sex is adult and consensual, since “parents do not cease being parents … when their minor child reaches the age of majority.” As I previously stated, incestuous relations cause an overlap of family relationships and social roles and an upheaval of familial roles. It confuses relationships. Constitutionally, these arguments provide a rational basis for laws against incest. But it does not provide a rational basis for laws against same-sex marriage. When a man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. If you forbid marriage between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other. Homosexuality is an orientation. Incest isn’t. If you’re hot for your sister, and the law says you can’t marry her, you have millions of other options. Get out of your house- you’ll find somebody to love without demolishing your family. So, please give me a rational reason why same-sex couples should not enjoy the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. And IHeartSCV- Yes, everyone has their own “boundaries of what they think marriage should be.” But there does need to be “a clear rational ring that can be drawn around” the types that we are going to call legal. We all have our opinions and feelings. But the courts will need to decide what is Constitutional.
  62. HermanMarch 13, 2011 at 10:50 am
    So you and the Ohio Supreme Court are perfectly content to deny two consenting adults, even if they are not blood relatives from not only getting married, but even from having consentual sex. Wow, what a prude. So when you want to deny someone’s liberty it’s rational, but not recognizing gay marriages is bigotry…OK, got it.
  63. 4eyedsueMarch 13, 2011 at 11:00 am
    I didn’t say how I felt about it one way or another. That seems to be where we are not understanding each other, Herman. I’m talking about the law and the Constitution.
  64. IHeartSCVMarch 13, 2011 at 11:05 am
    Ugh, Sue, that’s what I’m saying–I don’t think you understand what “rational” is. You are not making rational arguments, you’re jumping to and fro whatever you think will work and not looking at the logical implications.
  65. 4eyedsueMarch 13, 2011 at 11:12 am
    Just trying to address what was brought up, IHeart. Rather than critiquing from the sidelines- please show me a rational argument for or against. I keep waiting for something from Herman…but I guess that ain’t gonna happen.
  66. HermanMarch 13, 2011 at 3:14 pm
    Then why don’t you tell us? Do you oppose polygamy and dads marrying daughters? Do you support the OSC decision? It appears that you support same sex marriage, but I could be wrong. Why don’t you clear all that up for us and then we can start over?
  67. 4eyedsueMarch 13, 2011 at 4:30 pm
    Herman- My reasoning for bringing up the Ohio case is that the plaintiff tried your slippery slope argument to clear himself. In 2003 the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s law against sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas). The plaintiff in Ohio tried to use the Lawrence ruling in his defense and was shot down. The court ruled that the anti-sodomy laws “bore no RATIONAL relationship to a legitimate state interest”. While they felt that state interests in preventing incest, even among adults or step-relations, were legit. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire and D.C. all have legalized same-sex marriage. These laws haven’t changed the way anybody else lives their life. I think I’m done here, Herman. You have not helped me understand the support of DOMA at all. And I don’t think that you are open to anything I have to share.
  68. NateMarch 12, 2011 at 5:50 pm
    Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. Try again. We are talking about TWO, UNRELATED, ADULT HUMANS.
  69. HermanMarch 12, 2011 at 9:02 pm
    “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Nothing in there about them being related or not. Try again.
  70. 4eyedsueMarch 12, 2011 at 10:48 pm
    so…Herman…we have a federal law preventing same-sex couples form getting married…yet no federal law preventing daddy’s and daughters from getting married? hmmm…maybe another reason DOMA needs to be scrapped! try again… ?
  71. HermanMarch 13, 2011 at 6:42 am
    I don’t know if there is any federal law against parents marrying kids, but there are state laws. Since we were talking about DOMA speciifically, I posted the heart of that law in response to Nate’s comment. So yeah, try again.
  72. 4eyedsueMarch 13, 2011 at 10:36 am
    oh Herman. geez. Would you please write to John Boehner and have him correct that right away. State laws against incest may not be enough to protect us. There are state laws legalizing same-sex marriages and you see how effective they are thanks to DOMA. Over 1,000 rights and benefits denied.
  73. NateMarch 13, 2011 at 7:43 pm
    Herman only supports liberties he likes…
  74. Your Web GuruMarch 12, 2011 at 11:01 am
    DOMA, DADT and the most recent passage of bills limiting or deleting the funds that give women the right to choose displays the hypocrisy of the party that promises “Smaller government” while fighting for federal mandates that reach deep into legislative morality…all which have nothing to do with job creation. So, you run on a jobs, then do nothing but make grandstands on morality to appease your right-wing base? Sounds like the old “bait and switch” to me. As for those rich white news pundits slamming the unions, I wonder how well your careers would go without your SAG/AFTRA membership?
  75. "Herman"s Union RepMarch 12, 2011 at 9:34 pm
    … or better yet, how good of a deal Herman would otherwise be getting?
  76. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotMarch 12, 2011 at 9:50 pm
    Guru, When you speak of the hypocrisy of smaller govt advocates (like myself) as it relates to fighting for federal mandates which limit the funds for abortion, make no mistake Guru, these are TAX PAYER FUNDS that are at issue. These bills in no way are designed to prevent private funding of abortion clinics from occurring. Personally, I and many like minded people do not want one penny I pay in taxes to go toward killing an unborn baby. If you wish to refer to that as a “bait and switch” political platform, so be it. You make a good point regarding the SAG / AFTRA members but just remember, as in any profession, union reps want their fair share of the pie, however big of small. The cut of the pie that public union members were taking have become unsustainable. I have a close friend who is in AFTRA and his salary has been significantly cut as the pie has shrunk as well. That’s the reality. Unions have done great things in the past and they have done things that they certainly should get slammed for, even if it’s by rich “white” people.
  77. NateMarch 13, 2011 at 7:48 pm
    Tax funds are not used for abortions. Abortions are a small sliver of the services offered at Planned Parenthood and many facilities don’t even offer them. You should do some actually research before taking a position.
  78. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotMarch 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm
    Nate, Were you aware that tax payer funding goes to Planned Parenthood? The “small sliver” of abortion services that PP offers amounts to over 275,000 abortions preformed annually in some of their over 800 clinics. This represents under 5% of there services offered.
  79. NateMarch 14, 2011 at 8:56 am
    And not a dime of Government money goes to abortion funding.
  80. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotMarch 14, 2011 at 1:46 pm
    Nate, here are a couple of simple questions along with the correct answer. Q: Does Planned Parenthood receive tax payer (Govt) funds? A: Yes, over $300 million dollars a year. Q: Does Planned Parenthood offer abortion services? A: Yes, they preform just under 300,000 abortions per year. So Nate, regardless of how many times you wish to repeat “not a dime of Government money goes to abortion funding”, you are just as wrong as the first time you said it. Perhaps you sir should do some research before taking a position.
  81. HermanMarch 14, 2011 at 7:02 pm
    You can’t be that naive.
  82. HermanMarch 14, 2011 at 8:38 pm
    You can’t be that naive Nate.
  83. cashMarch 13, 2011 at 8:59 am
    Is it just me or have others noticed that Leon Worden has discovered a clever way to advertise SCV for profit businesses on his none profit SCVTV? We all knew it was only a matter of time before this would happen. Time for the taxpayers to stop funding SCVTV.
  84. IHeartSCVMarch 13, 2011 at 9:15 am
    What are the rules for that, cash? Non-profits have for-profit sponsors all the time and show their logos at events, etc… How’s what SCVTV doing–soliciting sponsors–any different?
  85. cashMarch 13, 2011 at 9:12 am
    And let me not forget that Leon has also found a way to make a political statement regarding enterprise zones using his none profit SCVTV! I doubt Leon did this all on his own; the city and the local business community probably planted the seed. The GOBN is up and running.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support