Posted on 02/04/2005 6:49:42 PM PST by NativeTexun
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
"Applause for Gov. Pataki!"
Justice Ling-Cohan initially ran for State Supreme Court as a Democrat, but the Republican party didn't field a challenger, and put her on their ballot line as well (i.e. they endorsed her.)
Let's face it. The NY GOP is in shambles, and Pataki is head of the party. They can't even seem to field a credible challenger to Hillary in 2006. Having a Republican judicial nominee from 2002 legalize gay marriage is just the icing on the cake.
It only takes a simple majority in each chamber to send a NY state amendment to the voters but that would require 30 of 104 assembly democrats (with all 46 republicans) to vote in favor. I don't know enough about NY state politics to guess what the likelihood of passage might be.
In any case, if the state legislature and electorate wants to halt such rulings, they can certainly do so.
How the you know what does this violate the state constitution?
Ah, a subject about which I am somewhat familiar. NY State Supreme Court Justices serve 14 year elected terms. She was first elected to the Supreme Court bench in 2002 I believe. This means we can't touch her at the voting booth until 2016. She serves in the 2nd Judicial District of new york, and since she had all those cross & minor party endorsements, She was either very popular in that particular political subdivision known as the 2nd district, or there was a deal made to not run anyone against her(she ran unopposed)
Huh?
I would not be so quick to say that. More than enough states would pass the approval for the FMA.
The senators who are holding back are doing so on the wait for the fall of the 1996 DOMA. They are working on a wishy washy pre 9/11 mindset.
As long as this issue keeps comming up, then the democrats will loose and the rinos will be corraled.
Can't wait to hear how our dear AG, Eliot Spitzer, feels about this. And he will be asked. He's kept his trap shut so far, trying not to p.o. anyone. What a profile in courage.
The FMA fell 51 votes short in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 2/3 majority requires 288 votes in favor and the actual vote was 227-186.
The states have convoluted and varying ratification guidelines but it's a pretty safe bet that the liberals can stop it in 13 legislatures.
PS. What the heck does gay marriage have to do with 9/11?
Black-robed tyrants at work.
You want to marry 100 women? That'll be easy. First, you can have the 3 I've been married to. That'll be a start and then just find enough guys willing to volunteer their exes. It'll be easy and you'll have your 100 in no time. But NO REFUNDS, NO EXCHANGES, OK?
It's been quite a week in the chamber!! The Press Office has been put to the test, deflecting Dicker's attacks on Libby and now .... this.
nothing but the attitude. I am using it as a marking point.
Under clintonesque political rules, the symbolism over substance would allow politicians to posture while doing nothing. In the new political reality, if politicians don't act in the face of this attack on marriage the voters will remove them or not vote for them.
A version of "stand and deliver".
A number of the state amendments or DOMA statutes have been passed by initiative where legislatures would not have voted them into law. You cannot ratify a U.S. constitutional amendment by ballot initiative.
The new Mass. legislature is considered more pro-gay than the outgoing one, and seems likely to vote down the marriage amendment.
FYI http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001067.php
a web site dedicated to liberal tactics.
This is what the leftist and pro-homos are saying:
Tactic: Never Concede an Inch to the Opposition
By Tom Ball
12/13/04
In an age where Democratic concession to Republican demands has become standard practice, it is critical that we review and put into practice the godfather of all political tactics -- one at which Republicans are adept.
It purveys power, decisiveness, and confidence -- and it is one that progressives must add to our arsenal if we ever hope to retake our rightful position as the accurate and dominant political representative of traditional "American Values".
Technique: Never Concede an Inch to the Opposition. Unless the opponent's assertion or conclusion is beneficial to your own argument, do not concede one inch. Their point is either innocuous, in agreement with you, or simply wrong. Never say things like, "Well, there's a lot of truth to that..." or "You've got a point there." Remember that your stance on the issue is the correct stance. Learn it, Live it. Love it. No matter what. Never give in and stick to the script. Remember that you are debating, not negotiating, in which case concessions might be appropriate.
The left has traditionally perceived such a stance as 'stubborn' or 'pig-headed'. The fact of the matter is, however, that such unyielding force is something that would be a welcome addition to promoters of the progressive view of politics. More often than not, people are willing to overlook the air of 'stubbornness' in favor of the aura of 'strength' that such a tactic creates.
This will be a tough tactic to implement for some progressives -- you know -- the ones that are most easily labled 'milquetoast', 'mamby-pamby', and/or 'wafflers' who are derided by the right as standing for nothing and living without values or principles.
Perceptioin is everything. Tough tactics are a means to an end. They show that you have a spine and they are something sorely lacking at all levels of the progressive political movement.
One Liners: "That is completely wrong."
Setup: Most people, when engaged in lively debate, have some sense of compassion for their opponent and will generally tell them when they agree with something their opponent has said. If you really want to crush your opponent, you won’t do that. (And we DO want to crush our opponents)
Reasoning: "Give them an inch and they take a mile" the old adage goes. That could not be more true. In fact, a more accurate saying might be, "Give them an inch and you give them a mile." You give them and their message credibility and a growing strength each time you agree with their points regardless of how minor or irrelevant you might perceive those points to be. Relentlessly refraining from concession makes you look strong, confident and correct, exactly the type of person someone would like to associate with. Rest assured that the benefits of such a strategy far outweigh the potential for some listeners to perceive you as being stubborn.
Example one liners and Tips:
* "That is completely misleading."
* "Wrong."
* "You are completely misguided."
* "Let me help you with reality"
* Don't just disagree, completely disagree or vehemently disagree.
Should you ever concede anything?
Sometimes concession is in the best interest of your goals.
First remember that we are talking about debate, not negotiation. You NEVER negotiate your values or principles.
There are some debating techniques that are more art than science where you concede on unimportant matters, or appear to be conceding on issues of fact. This technique allows you to press forward without looking 'unreasonable'. Nevertheless, when fighting the rabid right, such mindful concessions, no matter how well chosen and placed, would simply seve as an opening for the winger attack machine to set itself in full motion. Don't do it.
In the Event of Agreement
Even when you do agree with your opponent, re-frame the assertion in terms of your values and principles and DO NOT USE THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR OPPOSITION. In other words, do not use the terms, catch phrases, or context used by your opponent.
For example, If they say something like "We need to defend America at any cost", then we must paraphrase in a way that promotes our progressive values.
Something like.... "We need to defend America at any cost -- by forming global alliances, properly funding first responders, targeting the true threats to national security, promoting non-proliferation, and fighting the root cause of these threats rather than encourage and provoke them with insightless, haphazard, ad hoc policy." -- or something like that.
Never offer them the comfort of phrases like 'I agree', or 'I concur', etc. Start your statement simply paraphrasing the point with which you agree in your own words, using your own frame. Do not give validity to anything they say regarding their opposing, and thus 'wrong', position.
Never agree with your opponent for the purpose of appearing 'popular' or 'agreeable'. All that will accomplish is making your opponent more credible... and thus more 'popular' or 'agreeable', not you.
Summary: Stick to your guns and give them NOTHING.
No but you do need the 2/3 state votes to pass the amendment.
That is where the state legislators face the danger of voter retribution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.