(Click image for larger view of headline)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1b26f/1b26fab4b62de81fbbdd4c67f36fa7718659ed0a" alt=""
Reports and observations from a Southern California Faithful Conservative Catholic™ Asian-American attorney's perspective. Whew!
The verbal harassment follows a steady stream of racist comments left on this blog and many others across the gay virtual community. At least a dozen racist comments have been removed from this blog since Tuesday, such as, "Thank you Black people for denying gay people the same rights that you deserve and have", "Black people make me feel like a piece of shyt when it should have been a night of celebration for all," and the succinct, "F--K you niggers."
In terms of speaking to former presidents, I have spoken to all of them, uh, that are, uh, living ... obviously, uh, President Clinton, uh ... [laughter] ... hey, I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan, uh, thing about doin’ any seances...What an ass.
“Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers,” wrote “World O Jeff” on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.
The amendments in all three states essentially limit marriage to one man and one woman. In California, the measure states the only marriages “valid and recognized” in the state are those between one man and one woman.
Thirty states now have adopted marriage amendments. However, in California, the vitriol appeared especially high since the state Supreme Court in May created same-sex marriage for homosexuals. Proposition 8 overruled the court decision, readopting the marriage definition California voters adopted in 2000.
On a blog website, “Tread” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.”
Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, “While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve.”
A contributor identifying himself as “Joe” said, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”
Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.
Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.
They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.