Posted on 08/21/2014 6:09:57 PM PDT by BurningOak
Nashville mayor Karl Dean went one step further in his support for same-sex marriage Thursday. He has officially joined the group Mayors for the Freedom to Marry — the first mayor in Tennessee to do so.
Dean signed a marriage equality statement that says allowing same-sex couples to marry is good for everyone. In a press release, Dean said he wants Nashville to respect “individual dignity.”
“Embracing and celebrating our growing diversity makes our city stronger,” he wrote. “Nashville needs to continue in that direction, and it’s my hope that joining this effort will help us do that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nashvillepublicradio.org ...
Makes sense.
Is TN part of the “Deep” South?
Anyway, this a major urban center (almost of them lean liberal and rat) and he’s a stalinist democrat. There is absolutely no reason this should surprise you.
When it’s at the point we have a mainstream Republican Senator (Portman) who is pimping it, it’s not even news that a rat mayor is pimping it, whatever part of the country his city is in.
As defined by the old Confederacy, I’d say we’re a border state. We were quickly conquered by Union forces and Nashville became the most heavily fortified city in America to deter a Southern capture (though it was tried late in the war).
I’m more surprised that Dean would “come out” on this, especially if he is expected to run for Governor when the seat comes open in 2018. Putting himself on the far-left of the social spectrum won’t play well in this state.
By 2018 someone who’s against queers might not be able to win a democrat primary.
Because the Dems keep interfering with our primaries, they’ve not been able to get their own preferences in some statewide primaries. They nominated a quirky gadfly for Governor (who is a lot less nutty than the average Dem). He may even be more Conservative than our RINO Governor.
Nice hat, McKamey supposed to win, right? Hilarious (or it would be if rat voters weren’t polluting the GOP primaries).
Peppermint Patty should have run, she’d have gotten the lesbian vote!
Considering voting for him or are you going for the Constitution party?
I’m going to vote for John Jay Hooker again (who might’ve been able to get the Dem nomination, but he ran Independent as the Dems don’t really care for him). He continually runs on the Constitutional issue of judges being elected by the people, which Haslam & the GOP leadership has yet to change.
What’s the low down on this dispute with how the judges are chosen? I’m not familiar with it.
Basically, our TN State Constitution stipulates plainly that high court judges/justices must face contested elections. This continued until the early 1970s. When the GOP captured the Governorship, both Senate seats (and briefly, control of the House of Representatives from 1969-71), legislative Democrats were terrified the GOP would similarly capture the judiciary (which had been solidly Democrat since Reconstruction).
If I recall correctly, there was a ballot initiative put up for the voters (early ‘70s) that would change said method of contested elections. The voters said “NO” and kept it as is. The legislative Democrats ignored it and passed a plan called “Missouri Modified.” This entirely removed the people’s input on elected judges, blatantly unconstitutional.
The process would now be as such: candidates would submit their names before a group of elite trial lawyers (nearly all Democrat and increasingly leftist). Trial lawyers would whittle down the names to a handful (again, almost entirely Dem/leftist) and the Governor would choose said appointee. If the Governor refused, the trial lawyers would be empowered to select and seat said judge/justice (although I’m not sure it ever happened — in one instance under Bredesen, who was unhappy with the choices, he demanded a new group of names be submitted to him).
Mind you, as not to appear utterly partisan, some Republicans (of the establishment vintage, non-Conservative) were put up and a few landed on the bench. The sole input of the voters is a simple “retain/reject” vote every 6 or 8 years (I forgot the term). Most importantly in keeping a Democrat majority on the bench is that the Supreme Court then elects the Attorney General (the only such way that officer is elected in any state, a highly byzantine manner, and Democrat since Reconstruction). Both will continue to say it is “Constitutional” to have these methods of selection, but the Constitution says otherwise.
John Jay Hooker has spent many years now making it his life mission to restore the Constitutional requirements of election of judges. I expected the GOP legislature to push through the repeal of Missouri Modified, but they have dragged their feet and decided to try another push to have the Governor appoint them (via Constitutional Amendment), which will be on the November ballot. In the meantime, the Lieutenant Governor tried to campaign (without the help of the Governor and GOP establishment) to have 3 of the justices rejected earlier this month in the retention elections. Unfortunately, all were retained. With that, the sitting Dem Attorney General will be able to have himself elected to another 8 year term.
Wow, that is a gross constitutional violation, even worse than NY courts allowing Patterson to appoint a Lieutenant Governor and Roberts upholding Obamacare.
And the AG is chosen by the Supreme Court? That’s pretty lame. If it’s not elected statewide (which it should be), it should be appointed by the Governor.
It’s also a serious conflict of interest with the Attorney General arguing before the very Justices who elect him.
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.