The Jack Bauer/Muslim Imam Poll is now closed as of 5-29-09 at 1:53 AM. Thank you for voting. Here are the final results:
14 (32%)
Yes
14 (32%)
No
4 (9%)
I'm not sure.
1 (2%)
The script was not clear.
3 (6%)
I'm tired of liberal politically correct propaganda in the mainstream media.
11 (25%)
Jack Bauer did not convert. He merely had a pleasant conversation with the Muslim Imam.
8 (18%)
Jack Bauer's brain has been contaminated with unusual chemicals, and he is no longer capable of making a rational decision.
4 (9%)
Jack Bauer is a secular humanist atheist, and has no real interest in any religion.
1 (2%)
I want the old Jack Bauer back!
13 (30%)
I will vote tomorrow after I've had a chance to calm down.
4 (9%)
Votes so far: 43 Poll closed
Conservative Wordsmith Susan Baldwin
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
POLL: Jack Bauer/Muslim Imam Deathbed Conversion Poll Closing Soon--Vote Now!
My Did Jack Bauer Convert To Islam During His Deathbed Confession To The Muslim Imam? Poll is closing soon. Now is your chance to vote about this ongoing issue with Jack Bauer and the Muslim Imam Deathbed scene as seen in the last few minutes of Season 7 on Fox TV's 24. There is no registration or email address requirement when you vote.
Bookmark this site, as the results will be published in a new blog post.
Bookmark this site, as the results will be published in a new blog post.
California Supreme Court Finally Gets It Right (Almost) About Same-Sex Marriage and Prop 8: Gay Marriage No Longer Legal
The California Supreme Court finally got it almost right on Tuesday, May 26. Same-sex (aka gay) marriage is now illegal in the State of California.
Why shouldn't it be? California voters voted twice on this issue and made it clear that they didn't want same-sex marriage to be legal in California, but the liberal court system did not want to believe this truth. So it is good news that the California Supreme Court finally gets it.
The other side of the issue, though, is that the 18,000 same-sex couples who were already married prior to November 0f 2008, when the California Supreme Court was ignoring the wishes of California voters, will remain married! This seems odd, because how can same-sex marriage be legal for some gay couples, and illegal for the rest?
The California Supreme Court should have declared all same-sex marriages performed in November of 2008 to be illegal also, since the very legality of a California Supreme Court judge declaring that he has more authority than California voters is unethical, and maybe even illegal in itself.
An interesting sidebar to all of this is that prior to the Proposition 8 election, an ad was aired repeatedly by gay activists on Los Angeles television stations, declaring that gay couples have no rights in California, and that denying gay couples these rights was equal to denying rights to Jews in Nazi Germany's holocaust during WWII.
The fact of the matter is that even during the airing of those ads, full rights to same-sex couples were already in force, guaranteed by law in the state of California. The conservative rebuttal to Proposition 8 even mentioned the exact numbering of the law in my Official Voters' Guide.
So this was a downright lie on the part of gay activists, intent on deceiving the public at large. Fortunately, though, this deceptive tactic didn't work, because California voters still voted against gay marriage.
In this morning's Los Angeles Times (May 27) article, the truth has finally come out about this advertising deception:
"'Proposition 8 merely 'carves out a narrow and limited exception' to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.'"
"The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into 'committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships' that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law."
"'Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right,' George wrote."
"UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."
In spite of the above quotes regarding the legal rights of same-sex couples in California, an Associate Justice disagrees:
"In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty 'to eliminate the remaining important differences.'"
What are those "important differences?" The Los Angeles Times article doesn't mention them.
The above quotations are from the Los Angeles Times article, California high court upholds Prop. 8. By Maura Dolan May 27, 2009 - Click this link to read the entire article.
My Related Posts
http://www.conservativewordsmith.com/2008/11/californians-tell-world-they-dont-want.html
http://www.conservativewordsmith.com/2009/06/mayor-villaraigosa-vows-to-put-prop-8.html
http://www.conservativewordsmith.com/2009/05/freddie-mercury-his-heart-belonged-to.html
Why shouldn't it be? California voters voted twice on this issue and made it clear that they didn't want same-sex marriage to be legal in California, but the liberal court system did not want to believe this truth. So it is good news that the California Supreme Court finally gets it.
The other side of the issue, though, is that the 18,000 same-sex couples who were already married prior to November 0f 2008, when the California Supreme Court was ignoring the wishes of California voters, will remain married! This seems odd, because how can same-sex marriage be legal for some gay couples, and illegal for the rest?
The California Supreme Court should have declared all same-sex marriages performed in November of 2008 to be illegal also, since the very legality of a California Supreme Court judge declaring that he has more authority than California voters is unethical, and maybe even illegal in itself.
An interesting sidebar to all of this is that prior to the Proposition 8 election, an ad was aired repeatedly by gay activists on Los Angeles television stations, declaring that gay couples have no rights in California, and that denying gay couples these rights was equal to denying rights to Jews in Nazi Germany's holocaust during WWII.
The fact of the matter is that even during the airing of those ads, full rights to same-sex couples were already in force, guaranteed by law in the state of California. The conservative rebuttal to Proposition 8 even mentioned the exact numbering of the law in my Official Voters' Guide.
So this was a downright lie on the part of gay activists, intent on deceiving the public at large. Fortunately, though, this deceptive tactic didn't work, because California voters still voted against gay marriage.
In this morning's Los Angeles Times (May 27) article, the truth has finally come out about this advertising deception:
"'Proposition 8 merely 'carves out a narrow and limited exception' to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.'"
"The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into 'committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships' that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law."
"'Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right,' George wrote."
"UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."
In spite of the above quotes regarding the legal rights of same-sex couples in California, an Associate Justice disagrees:
"In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty 'to eliminate the remaining important differences.'"
What are those "important differences?" The Los Angeles Times article doesn't mention them.
The above quotations are from the Los Angeles Times article, California high court upholds Prop. 8. By Maura Dolan May 27, 2009 - Click this link to read the entire article.
My Related Posts
http://www.conservativewordsmith.com/2008/11/californians-tell-world-they-dont-want.html
http://www.conservativewordsmith.com/2009/06/mayor-villaraigosa-vows-to-put-prop-8.html
http://www.conservativewordsmith.com/2009/05/freddie-mercury-his-heart-belonged-to.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments