Doth he protesteth too much?

by ziggy Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:23 pm

Early Wednesday morning, State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Calif.) was pulled over and arrested for drunk driving. Sources report that Ashburn -- a fierce opponent of gay rights -- was driving drunk after leaving a gay nightclub; when the officer stopped the state-issued vehicle, there was an unidentified man in the passenger seat of the car.

Ashburn has issued an apology for the incident.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/roy-ashburn-arrested-anti_n_485419.html?ref=fb

by Cato Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:49 pm

And you know for a fact that all of this is true?

by ziggy Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:58 pm

Do any of us know "for a fact" that anything we read is true?

by ziggy Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:03 pm

Here is another source:

Sources tell CBS13 that a state senator from Southern California was arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, early Wednesday morning.

http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html

by ziggy Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:12 pm

And:

The owner of a Sacramento gay nightclub that Senator Roy Ashburn was at before his arrest early Wednesday morning on suspicion of DUI is calling for Ashburn's resignation.

The CHP arrested Ashburn at 2:00 a.m. Wednesday. Sources tell CBS13 that Ashburn, known for his anti-gay stance, had just left FACES -- a gay nightclub -- before being arrested.

Today, FACES owner Terry Sidie said he thinks it's time Ashburn resigned.

"I think it probably would behoove him to step aside," said Sidie.

Others in the gay community are not yet calling for Ashburn to step down, but are commenting.

"As a public figure he has definitely crossed over into some territory that goes against what his public voting record shows," said Bill Otton, Interim Director of the Sacramento Gay & Lesbian Center.

Equality California also issued a statement. "It is extremely hypocritical for Senator Ashburn, by patronizing a gay club, to be enjoying the fundamental rights and freedoms of association that others have fought so hard for but that he himself has repeatedly voted against," said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors.

Ashburn served six years as a state Assemblyman before being elected to the State Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws.

http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.personal.leave.2.1540143.html

On the other hand, maybe the Califirnia Highway Patrol and some gay bar patrons or owners conspired to frame this guy- who may well be a self-proclaimed "family values" fellow who would never step foot in a gay bar.

by Cato Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:49 am

ziggy wrote:Do any of us know "for a fact" that anything we read is true?

I know some things I read are true, but thats a whole other story.

As far as your politician story goes, whether I believe him or the Huffington post, I don't believe either. The Huffington post is a joke and 99.95% of the politicians be they republican or democrat are nothing but malignant narcissistists. I am certain this clown is no better. On the other hand Arianna Huffington like most politicans has an agenda and the truth is about the last thing that is going to stand in the way of her agenda.

by **Stephanie** Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:05 pm

I feel compelled to point out that in a week that saw Rangel forced to "temporarily" step down as Chair, Patterson confronted with scandal after scandal, Massa forced to resign and the obviously reliable National Enquirer report Edwards is about to be indicted, the only scandal brought up on this forum is the one involving a Republican.

Just how far right leaning are we?

I hope those who complain about how conservative this little group is will remember this in the future.

by Cato Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:32 am

Stephanie wrote:I feel compelled to point out that in a week that saw Rangel forced to "temporarily" step down as Chair, Patterson confronted with scandal after scandal, Massa forced to resign and the obviously reliable National Enquirer report Edwards is about to be indicted, the only scandal brought up on this forum is the one involving a Republican.

Just how far right leaning are we?

I hope those who complain about how conservative this little group is will remember this in the future.

First, I'm an old time conservative and very proud of it. I believe in a very limited government on all levels, local, state, and federal. I believe one should be able to keep the fruit of his/her labor, especially since it is they that earned it. I believe that people should be able to do as they please with what they own and if a dispute arises then we have courts to settle those disputes. That being said, this group isn't conservative. A couple of conservative posters do post here, but generally most are either moderate or lean some to the left.

As far as scandle goes, most of the morons filling the halls of Charleston or Washington or even on the local level have skeletons in their closet. It makes little difference if they are republican or democrat anymore. Yea, Ziggy brought up the republican hypocrit, I guess only because he thought it might get under someone's skin. When I saw his source I couldn't resist in challenging him about the truth and he produced some other sourses. As I said to him and I say to you, what we see in his post is the state of both the agenda pushing media, in this case the Huffington Post, and the caliber of individaul that is elected to office.

by ziggy Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:52 pm

As far as scandle goes, most of the morons filling the halls of Charleston or Washington or even on the local level have skeletons in their closet. It makes little difference if they are republican or democrat anymore. Yea, Ziggy brought up the republican hypocrit, I guess only because he thought it might get under someone's skin.

No, but rather to show that those who obsess almost endlessly about the lack of certain kinds of "morality" of others- i.e. about homosexuality- are often found to be harboring some deep-seated, conflicting personal issues of their own.

When I saw his source I couldn't resist in challenging him about the truth and he produced some other sourses. As I said to him and I say to you, what we see in his post is the state of both the agenda pushing media, in this case the Huffington Post, and the caliber of individaul that is elected to office.

Why do you focus so much more on the "agenda" of the messengers in the media than on the "agenda" of public hypocrits like California's Senator Ashburn?

by **SheikBen** Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:08 pm

Well Zig I'd ask you to remember that being against gay marriage is not the same as wishing them ill. I hope that my gay neighbors are well fed, employed, happy, what not. And I'm not so much anti-gay marriage as I am anti-all marriage on the legal level. Let the Methodists and UCC types marry gays, and let my church refuse on Biblical grounds.

This guy in California, like Larry Craig in Idaho, was no doubt conflicted, but that has nothing to do with the validity of legally sanctioning same-sex marriage. If legal marriage is so important, then I must ask if there isn't some serious discrimination presently occurring against the single.

by ziggy Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:31 am

SheikBen wrote:Well Zig I'd ask you to remember that being against gay marriage is not the same as wishing them ill. I hope that my gay neighbors are well fed, employed, happy, what not. And I'm not so much anti-gay marriage as I am anti-all marriage on the legal level. Let the Methodists and UCC types marry gays, and let my church refuse on Biblical grounds.

But, like it or not, the government IS in the marriage business. So why should it discriminate by gender as to whom it bestows the legal benefits of marriage?

This guy in California, like Larry Craig in Idaho, was no doubt conflicted, but that has nothing to do with the validity of legally sanctioning same-sex marriage. If legal marriage is so important, then I must ask if there isn't some serious discrimination presently occurring against the single.

How so?

by Aaron Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:24 pm

On this one, I'm firmly entrenched in Ziggy's camp on this one. The government is in the marriage business and by denying equal access to the institution for two men or two women that two people of opposite gender enjoy; the United States Government is in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. This is a disgrace to our country and should be rectified immediately.

by Cato Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:02 pm

ziggy wrote:
No, but rather to show that those who obsess almost endlessly about the lack of certain kinds of "morality" of others- i.e. about homosexuality- are often found to be harboring some deep-seated, conflicting personal issues of their own.

Ziggy, like Terry, I've come to the conclusion you just plain obviously are incapable of comprehending the english language. Either that or you are just plain ignorant. This time I'll write slow and large so even you might understand.

I don't give a damn what a person does. If two men or two women want to marry and the state recognizes their marriage, fine. However, I will not rent or sell a home to a homosexual couple, nor will I rent or sell to an adulteous couple or an unmarried couple. If you, Terry, or the man in the moon for that matter wants to, you are free to do so. I'm not going to stop you and unlike you or Terry or a number of others, I'm not going to run to the politicians to force my will on you.

Now I know you haven't a clue about liberty, but that is what liberty is, allowing a person to have the quiet enjoyment of what they have worked for and earned. [/size]

[quote="ziggy']
Why do you focus so much more on the "agenda" of the messengers in the media than on the "agenda" of public hypocrits like California's Senator Ashburn?

Because I find botht he media and the politicans they either serve or seek to destory, lying hypocrits.

by ziggy Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:51 pm

[quote="Cato"]

ziggy wrote:
No, but rather to show that those who obsess almost endlessly about the lack of certain kinds of "morality" of others- i.e. about homosexuality- are often found to be harboring some deep-seated, conflicting personal issues of their own.

Ziggy, like Terry, I've come to the conclusion you just plain obviously are incapable of comprehending the english language. Either that or you are just plain ignorant. This time I'll write slow and large so even you might understand.

I don't give a damn what a person does. If two men or two women want to marry and the state recognizes their marriage, fine. However, I will not rent or sell a home to a homosexual couple, nor will I rent or sell to an adulteous couple or an unmarried couple. If you, Terry, or the man in the moon for that matter wants to, you are free to do so. I'm not going to stop you and unlike you or Terry or a number of others, I'm not going to run to the politicians to force my will on you.
[quote]

What does that have to do with a politician who publicly lambasts homosexual rights getting drunk in a gay bar and then trying to drive somewhere with a man he picked up there in a state car?

by Aaron Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:10 pm

He's a packer...

by **SheikBen** Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:12 am

Ziggy,

So the government should intrude itself into MORE people's private lives, not fewer? Smile

by ziggy Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:10 pm

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

So the government should intrude itself into MORE people's private lives, not fewer?

I am not sure what you are asking, Mike.

I support laws against murder, because people should not be allowed to kill one another. I support laws against assaults and batteries because people should not be allowed to threaten and beat one another.

I support laws against racial, religious, gender and sexual orientation discrimination by those who provide public accomodations to the general public because I believe that people should not be allowed to discriminate on those grounds in providing public accomodations.

If the government is going to be in the business of licensing motor vehicle drivers, for example, it should not discriminate based on the sexual orientation of the wannabe driver licensees. If the government is in the business of licensing people for the purpose of the legal benefits of marriage, it should not discriminate based on the sexual orientation of the wannabe marital licensees.

So again, I am not sure what you are asking me about.

by Aaron Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:46 pm

It's not whether the government should intrude Mike, if they're going to recognize a contract such as marriage then they can not limit who they allow to enter into said contract. At least that's what the equal protection clause says so if you don't want more government, there HAS to be less as the status quo just ain't constitutional.

by **SheikBen** Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:03 am

The problem is government's intrusion into the married life of the individual. All same sex marriage does is expand that intrusion into the private lives of more individuals.

I cannot legally "opt out" of government recognition of my marriage or else I would do so.

by **SheikBen** Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:04 am

And make no mistake, I do not condone same sex sexual activity, I just think it is not a matter for civil law, just as most lying ought not be, or coveting, or anything else.

I do not want any rights that gays cannot have, but I do not want "marital" rights period, in the eyes of the law. Marriage is a sacred institution and the government has no business managing it, and if it must, then it has no business defining it.

by **SheikBen** Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:06 am

Aaron wrote:It's not whether the government should intrude Mike, if they're going to recognize a contract such as marriage then they can not limit who they allow to enter into said contract. At least that's what the equal protection clause says so if you don't want more government, there HAS to be less as the status quo just ain't constitutional.

But gays CAN engage in marriage as presently defined, they choose not to.

by Aaron Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:01 am

SheikBen wrote:
Aaron wrote:It's not whether the government should intrude Mike, if they're going to recognize a contract such as marriage then they can not limit who they allow to enter into said contract. At least that's what the equal protection clause says so if you don't want more government, there HAS to be less as the status quo just ain't constitutional.

But gays CAN engage in marriage as presently defined, they choose not to.

Not in West Virginia or about 45 other states as far as I know. They don't have the same "rights" a man and woman have. In fact, under DOMA-which is clearly unconstitutional-strictly forbids it. '

So how can the engage in marriage as presently defined?

by Aaron Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:05 am

SheikBen wrote:The problem is government's intrusion into the married life of the individual. All same sex marriage does is expand that intrusion into the private lives of more individuals.

I cannot legally "opt out" of government recognition of my marriage or else I would do so.

But you can't, you know you can't and as such, if you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you should be outraged that the government is discriminating against one class by denying them rights while giving you the exact same rights based on gender. It's clearly discriminatory and in violation of the equal protection clause.

Unless of course you see them as The Bill of Suggestions and not The Bill of Rights.

by Cato Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:12 pm

Aaron wrote:
SheikBen wrote:The problem is government's intrusion into the married life of the individual. All same sex marriage does is expand that intrusion into the private lives of more individuals.

I cannot legally "opt out" of government recognition of my marriage or else I would do so.

But you can't, you know you can't and as such, if you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you should be outraged that the government is discriminating against one class by denying them rights while giving you the exact same rights based on gender. It's clearly discriminatory and in violation of the equal protection clause.

Unless of course you see them as The Bill of Suggestions and not The Bill of Rights.

Playing the devils avocate here, if what you say is true then shouldn't the state allow and recognize the marriage of a 12 year old to a 21 year old. If we are going to apply the equal protection clause then they should be allowed to marry and do so without the consent of anyone, including the parents of the younger party. Additonally what about cousins there is a law banning 1st cousins from marrying, wouldn't that also be unconstitutional under the equal protection clause?

by ziggy Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:38 pm

SheikBen wrote:The problem is government's intrusion into the married life of the individual. All same sex marriage does is expand that intrusion into the private lives of more individuals.

I cannot legally "opt out" of government recognition of my marriage or else I would do so.

Sure you can- just shack up with your beloved- and without benefit of a government recognized marriage.

by Sponsored content

Doth he protesteth too much?

Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?

Re: Doth he protesteth too much?