Posted on 09/04/2004 3:25:40 PM PDT by outlawcam
Mike Signorile, who says in his bio he co founded a now-defunct New York City magazine for lesbian and homosexuals, is known for what we might call harassing politicians about sex. He prowled the halls of the 1996 Republican Convention in San Diego, which I attended, pouncing on unsuspecting delegates about sex. It appears that at the Republican Convention in New York, he finally pounced on someone who pounced back when he went after Alan Keyes, Illinois Republican candidate for the US Senate.
Signorile's first sentence was: "I am speaking with Alan Keyes — and you've come to the Republican convention to support President Bush, I presume?"
Alan Keyes responded: "Certainly. I think that President Bush needs to be reelected for the sake of this country's security. He has provided the kind of leadership that we're going to have to have if we're going to confront and defeat the challenge of terrorism that has already claimed so many American lives."
Signorile's second sentence was: "What did you think of Vice President Cheney last week coming out and saying he doesn't agree with the President on the Federal Marriage Amendment? Seems to be a break with the party. Do you think he is sending a mixed signal?"
Alan Keyes, amiably replied: "I don't know. I think he is entitled to his personal convictions, but I think that the party's position is the correct one. We have to stand in defense of the traditional marriage institution in order to preserve its basis in procreation and make sure that we retain an understanding of family life that is rooted in the tradition of procreation, of childbearing and childrearing. That is the essence of family life."
And then Signorile attacked with: "Now, Vice President Cheney, of course, has a daughter. She is gay. He used the word gay. He says he has a gay daughter. He seems very proud of his gay daughter. It seems like real family values and certainly seems like preserving the American family. Is his family un-American?"
That wasn't a very smart move on Signorile's part. The next part of the interview went as follows:
Mike Signorile: "Well, one can wish that Bob and Liddy Dole would have a child, but that's just impossible. Pigs can't fly.
Alan Keyes: No, I'm sorry, that is incidental. In point of fact, Bob and Liddy Dole can have children. They incidentally face problems that prevent them from doing so. In principle . . ."
Mike Signorile: "Don't homosexuals incidentally face problems too?"
Alan Keyes: "No, you don't understand the difference between incident and essence. Homosexuals are essentially incapable of procreation. They cannot mate. They are not made to do so. Therefore the idea of marriage for two such individuals is an absurdity."
Mike Signorile: "But one or the other in the couple can procreate. The men can donate their sperm, the women can have babies."
Alan Keyes: "The definition and understanding of marriage is 'the two become one flesh.' In the child, the two transcend their persons and unite together to become a new individual. That can only be done through procreation and conception. It cannot be done by homosexuals."
Mike Signorile: "But what about a heterosexual couple who cannot bear children and then adopt? They are not becoming as one flesh, they are taking someone else's flesh."
Alan Keyes: "And they are adopting the paradigm of family life. But the essence of that family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it is possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism. This is unacceptable."
Mike Signorile: "So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist, is that it?"
Alan Keyes: "Of course she is. That goes by definition. Of course she is."
Mike Signorile: "I don't think Dick Cheney would like to hear that about his daughter."
Alan Keyes: "He may or may not like to hear the truth, but it can be spoken."
[UNIDENTIFIED VOICE]: "Do you really believe that, that Mary Cheney . . ."
Alan Keyes: "By definition, a homosexual engages in the exchange of mutual pleasure. I actually object to the notion that we call it sexual relations because it's nothing of the kind.
[UNIDENTIFIED VOICE]: "What is it?"
Alan Keyes: "It is the mutual pursuit of pleasure through the stimulation of the organs intended for procreation, but it has nothing to do with sexuality because they are of the same sex. And with respect to them, the sexual difference does not exist. They are therefore not having sexual relations."
Mike Signorile: "Mr. Keyes, how can you support President Bush then, because if something were to happen to him, the President would be Dick Cheney, who has a daughter who you say is a hedonist, and a selfish hedonist, and the President would be supporting that at that point?"
Alan Keyes: "It seems to me that we are supporting a ticket that is committed to the kinds of things that are necessary to defend this country, and we are all united in that support, in spite of what might be differences on issues here and there."
Contrary to the way this has been reported by most news sources, it wasn't Alan Keyes who called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist." It wasn't Alan Keyes who brought up the Cheney family and it wasn't Keyes who was trying to create a scene. It was Signorile who brought up the Cheney family and Signorile, the homosexual, who, trying to rattle the unflappable Alan Keyes, said: "So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist."
A hedonist is a person whose highest goal in life is pleasure. Not all the selfish hedonists in our culture are homosexuals or lesbians, according the Keyes clear definition. That definition would also fit heterosexuals who selfishly avoid procreation or whose selfishness leads to divorce.
Keyes' sex education lesson to a confused homosexual ought to be required reading in every sex education class in the country. It might begin scaling back the flood of misery, disease, and early death that await those who chose to get involved in homosexual and lesbian life styles.
BTTT
This is the only quote you have provided from Dr. Keyes. He is not calling anyone evil. He is using the word evil to describe a characteristic of some action or POV. IOWs a policy. It is an incomplete quote, out of context, so that is my best guess of its meaning given the sentence structure. It is patently ridiculous to say that he is calling Pres. Bush an evil person in any fair reading of that partial sentence.
Maybe you should go back to the inflammatory rhetoric and call me a fanatic again. It made more sense than you are making now.
This is the only quote you have provided from Dr. Keyes. He is not calling anyone evil. He is using the word evil to describe a characteristic of some action or POV.
You convieniently left out the quote I posted from the article which put this section of Keye's speech in context.
He was clearly refering to Clinton vs Bush on Stem Cell research, not some sort of impersonal "evil" force that just somehow possessed these leaders.
Even if you were right(which you're not as I will illustrate in my next post), according to your interpretation Keyes is just saying EVIL dominates our leadership, who is President Bush. The difference between this and calling Bush evil is microscopic.
You are parsing words and splitting hairs to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Here is more of the quote which makes it quite clear Bush was calling BOTH Clinton and Bush "evil" in that speech;
Keyes; "a person would come to me and say, "Well, you've got to acknowledge that we've got to get rid of Bill Clinton, that's the worse evil possible," and I tried to explain to them, no, the evil that you know, the evil that you recognize, the evil that inspires you to fight against it, that's not the worse evil you can face. "
What is the evil described in this sentence? It is Bill Clinton. There is NO OTHER subject in this statement.
In the next sentence when he compares the evil of Bill Clinton to the "evil that creeps behind your lines" it's clear he is talking about George Bush.
Keyes; "The worst evil you can face is the insidious evil that creeps behind your lines, that demoralizes your leadership, that confuses your commitment and your understanding and that, in the end, defeats you, not because your enemy overwhelms you but because in your confusion, your doubt, and your lack of commitment to those things, you overwhelm yourself."
Your claim that Keyes is just referring to some abstract concept of "evil" that doesn't in anyway refer to Clinton or Bush as evil, when he is clearly attributing it, and the acts he calls "evil" to them and their leadership is just plain silly.
Correction. Replace "Bush" typo with Keyes.
Here is more of the quote ...
Your claim that Keyes is just referring to some abstract concept of "evil" that doesn't in anyway refer to Clinton or Bush as evil, when he is clearly attributing it, and the acts he calls "evil" to them and their leadership is just plain silly.
I guess you can twist things any way you want to by first supplying incomplete information, soliciting a response and then doling out another little drab of info. that alters the equation. There's still not much of a context there and the first quote is still incomplete.
First you use inflammatory rhetoric and name calling to denigrate me and Dr. Keyes in the same post that you condemn Keyes for doing that. Now you're playing word games on the information that you are parsing out in manipulative little dribbles. In attempting to show Dr. Keyes to be unworthy of high office you have succeeded in proving yourself unworthy of debating in internet chat.
Your claim that Keyes is just referring to some abstract concept of "evil" that doesn't in anyway refer to Clinton or Bush as evil, ...
By the way, that statement is a complete distortion of what I said. I did not say Keyes was referring to "some abstract concept of "evil"" I said he was referring to policy not person. The evil is quite literal and I in no way consider it abstract. Secondly, I didn't say it "doesn't in any way" refer to Clinton or Bush. I quite clearly recognize that it refers directly to their actions and policies. I said it doesn't refer to them personally as in name calling. What little more you have posted still doesn't support that spurious claim.
Ok, so I'm a hypocrite. Big deal. Get over it.
tpaine wrote:
And don't forget to hype about the executives who refuse to defy the courts & legislatures. -- Could it be that checks & balances are working, and that Amendments are not needed?
Actually, I don't think the checks are working. Amendments are a wishful thinking cure-all in my opinion. Perhaps I'm mistaken; however, I don't think a marriage amendment is viable. Moreover, it plays to the judges on their terms. They will simply rework the wording and the "meaning" of the wording to their own whims. The real problem is that for too long the state and federal exec's and legislators have been too scared to stand up to the gavel-beaters. As Hamilton says in 78: only if the executive is complicit, can the judges substitute Will for Judgement, both of which have occured in a long train of abuses over the last half century.
Nope, it is contradictory to say that 'We the people' can violate the basic principles behind our Constitution by Amendment. -- The concept that we cannot pass laws repugnant to our own rights to life, liberty or property has been long established, outlaw.
I agree. The problem, my dear paine, is that your interpretation of the 14th amendment is in part under question. In many posts you rely on your interpretation of what that means. I hate to tell you this but many disagree with your understanding of that amendment. I am much stricter (restricting myself to meaning of the words of Constitution and taking them in their strict sense only) in understanding that amendment. It is my position that unless you restrict yourself to the explicit immunities listed in the Bill of Rights, you open up the door to judicial fiat and usurpation as outlaw claims has happened, and with whom I agree. The courts have expanded the powers of the feds as much as the other branches, and in the case of abortion they have expanded it as much as any amendment might. Likewise in the case of the meaning of "marriage." And contrary to your opinion, the point is not about taxes, insurance, etc., the point is about the meaning of words themselves and whether judges have the authority to rewrite not only the constitution, but the dictionary.
Just as amendment is not the best answer to this judicial usurpation, neither is simply establishing a fair tax (which is a great idea nevertheless). The problem is with the judges and their interpretative license. The courts must be reigned in. The courts must not be allowed to reign Supreme, for they substitute Will and Whim for Judgement. I think I am squarely in Hamilton's corner on this one, paine. We musn't make more laws for judges to interpret but curb judicial taste for defining words like marriage and not defining or placing in our Constitution words like emanation, penumbra, zone and privacy.
No it is not, but it is the only method that has a chance of passing right now. Sad, I agree.
Just to anticipate your response. I know of two current justices on the Supreme Court that would object to the "rational continuum" interpretation of the 14th. You need to articulate your understanding of the 14th, not just rely on one Justice's interpretation. It is precisely the Justice's "interpretation" that is under question. At least do us the favor of linking to another debate on this issue.
The point: they can't have babies with each other. I think that's the point. Ergo, they can't have marriage.
Jorge, before you bring this up again, please note the date. Since the election cycle began, Keyes has supported the president 100%. This was delivered, perhaps partly motivated by resentment, after his loss (and Bush's win). Let's get things in perspective. As tactless as he may seem to many, he has more tact than to attack a fellow Republican during an election.
Please see my note above. This is old news. Keyes is clearly behind Bush now and throughout this year's presidential election.
See article III section 2:>
. . . In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Congress, by simple majority, can restrict the appelate jurisdiction of the federal courts. It seems the simplest move to slap some sense into the Courts. It has also been building momentum for at least 10 years as far as I'm aware, and is also something for which Keyes advocates (more strongly than an Amendment).
-- The Amendment is not needed, as I countered with my checks & balances comment, just above.
A 'marriage amendment', in attempting to short circuit our judicial system, is repugnant to our Constitutional principles.. --- It is contradictory to say that 'We the people' can violate the basic principles behind our Constitution by Amendment.
-- The concept that we cannot pass laws repugnant to our own rights to life, liberty or property has been long established.
I agree. The problem, my dear paine, is that your interpretation of the 14th amendment is in part under question.
The 14th is as clear in its language as the 2nd, imo. The principle behind both amendments are protecting our individual freedoms. Those who 'interpret' them otherwise are letting their single issue agendas trump logic.
In many posts you rely on your interpretation of what that means. I hate to tell you this but many disagree with your understanding of that amendment.
They would also hate to have to tell you ~why~ they oppose life liberty & property rights, no doubt.
I am much stricter (restricting myself to meaning of the words of Constitution and taking them in their strict sense only) in understanding that amendment. It is my position that unless you restrict yourself to the explicit immunities listed in the Bill of Rights, you open up the door to judicial fiat and usurpation as outlaw claims has happened, and with whom I agree.
You both ~claim~ these ~marriage~ 'usurpations' have happened, but I see no proofs. I see no individual rights violated.
The courts have expanded the powers of the feds as much as the other branches, and in the case of abortion they have expanded it as much as any amendment might. Likewise in the case of the meaning of "marriage."
The meaning of marriage is not a Constitutional issue worthy of an Amendment. -- The meaning of murder/abortion is a matter of common law that should be decided by juries.. Not fiat prohibitions.
And contrary to your opinion, the point is not about taxes, insurance, etc., the point is about the meaning of words themselves and whether judges have the authority to rewrite not only the constitution, but the dictionary.
Judges have never had such "authority" in our system.
Just as amendment is not the best answer to this judicial usurpation, neither is simply establishing a fair tax (which is a great idea nevertheless).
The problem is with the judges and their interpretative license. The courts must be reigned in. The courts must not be allowed to reign Supreme, for they substitute Will and Whim for Judgement. I think I am squarely in Hamilton's corner on this one, paine. We musn't make more laws for judges to interpret but curb judicial taste for defining words like marriage and not defining or placing in our Constitution words like emanation, penumbra, zone and privacy.
To deny that we have an inalienable right to a private life, liberty, and private property is mind-boggling in my estimation. Why on earth do you reject one of your most precious freedoms?
To be blunt, liberty is a non-right without first life. Why do you reject the right to life? Or I should ask, less rhetorically, why do you think it the judges role to say when life begins and when the right to life begins?
I agree it is not for the feds. That does not mean that it is not for the states to defend the right to life.
Judges have removed the abortion/murder question from juries, from political debate, from discourse. What we have are two fundamental rights in apparent clash. Unless we take Hobbes preLeviathan view of fundamental right: the right to everything even another's body.
The meaning of marriage is not a Constitutional issue worthy of an Amendment.
I have answered you already concerning the marriage amendment: it is not prudent, but marriage should not be left in the hands of the courts either. They increasingly show no competance in fundamental matters, nor in what is there proper role, Judgement based on law.
Judges have never had such "authority" in our system.
My point exactly. And yet they act as if they have it. Wherefore they must be restrained, as Hamilton urges.
You both ~claim~ these ~marriage~ 'usurpations' have happened, but I see no proofs. I see no individual rights violated.
What of the right of the unborn to life? Is this not properly safeguarded by the laws of the states. Or are we simply to let go the discussion of when that right begins and bow down in deferment to the judge. If the unborn have no such right, then that should be decided by the legislature (legislative deference). If they have such a right, then if anything the courts should defend it according to your argument.
The right to life is more fundamental and prior to the right to liberty. For without it, liberty is impossible, wherefore in the canon of inalienable rights listed in the Declaration and the 14th amenmendent it holds primacy of place.
thanks for the link
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.