Unless you read the article in yesterday's New York Times, you probably haven't a clue to what this acronym is: Gross Domestic Happiness.
And it sounds like a good idea.
The tiny Buddhist nation of Bhutan, hidden away up in the Himalayas and with only 700,000 people, is probably the most innovative government in the world right now. Not only did it's king voluntarily resign last year from what had been an absolute monarchy, but he did it against the wishes of his subjects. It was he who promoted a new democratic Constitution and a shift to refocus national goals on the pursuit of happiness rather than the pursuit of profits.
They emphasize that happiness is to be defined by each individual, not a government-mandated form of happiness. The government's role is to create the conditions wherein each person finds his own happiness.
They have even confronted the need for a way to measure the program's success and have devised an elaborate formula to measure things like psychological well-being, community vitality, ecology, health, education, living standards, etc.
What might work for a homogenous nation with less than 1/6th the population of Atlanta, and with essentially one religion that promotes serenity, non-aggression, and enlightenment, might not be possible for the rest of the world.
But it will be an interesting experiment to watch and to learn from.
Or maybe to escape to.
Ralph
Friday, May 8, 2009
Now I'm confused
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is replacing Arlen Specter as the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As such, he will have some clout in how the confirmations of judicial nominees proceed.
It comes as a surprise that both Sessions and the ultra-conservative religious right group, Focus on the Family, have said that they would not oppose an openly gay nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Souter.
This is especially surprising, given that Focus on the Family is widely known for its anti-gay activism and for sponsoring weekend conferences around the country, featuring reparative therapists and aimed at helping gay people overcome their "homosexual lifestyle."
Don't get me wrong. It's a very sensible position, and I would be delighted if Obama chooses a gay justice (and there are reportedly two highly qualified, openly gay women being mentioned, one the former dean of Stanford Law School).
I'm just confused. It's so uncharacteristic of this crowd not to be anti-gay in every way. And I had to do a double-take when Sen. Sessions said he was opposed to a litmus test and that he would make his determination based on a nominee's personal ethcs and legal skills.
Well, yes, we've been saying that for years when the right had a litmus test regarding abortion.
So, have they suddenly "got religion?" Or have they been reading the polls on gay marriage? Or watching the news about Iowa and Vermont and Maine?
What gives?
Ralph
It comes as a surprise that both Sessions and the ultra-conservative religious right group, Focus on the Family, have said that they would not oppose an openly gay nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Souter.
This is especially surprising, given that Focus on the Family is widely known for its anti-gay activism and for sponsoring weekend conferences around the country, featuring reparative therapists and aimed at helping gay people overcome their "homosexual lifestyle."
Don't get me wrong. It's a very sensible position, and I would be delighted if Obama chooses a gay justice (and there are reportedly two highly qualified, openly gay women being mentioned, one the former dean of Stanford Law School).
I'm just confused. It's so uncharacteristic of this crowd not to be anti-gay in every way. And I had to do a double-take when Sen. Sessions said he was opposed to a litmus test and that he would make his determination based on a nominee's personal ethcs and legal skills.
Well, yes, we've been saying that for years when the right had a litmus test regarding abortion.
So, have they suddenly "got religion?" Or have they been reading the polls on gay marriage? Or watching the news about Iowa and Vermont and Maine?
What gives?
Ralph
Thursday, May 7, 2009
My evolution on gay marriage
Just a few years ago, I was not a strong proponent of gay marriage -- not that I opposed marriage equality for gays and lesbians; but I thought it was such a divisive issue that it was best to take a slower approach. I felt burned that it had been such a hot issue in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, with the Republican's exploiting it with constitutional amendments on the ballot to bring out their vote, that it may have been a deciding factor in electing and re-electing little george w. bush and the disaster that resulted.
My position -- equally futile, I thought -- was to take the government out of the business of "marriage." Let the government control the civil contracts that guarantee the rights and privileges of domestic unions and protection of children. This would be a "civil unions for all" idea, treating same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same. Then let "marriage" be a religious ceremony only, subject only to the rules of each particular church and having no extra rights or benefits outside the religious domain of that church.
Like Shariah laws for Muslims and the ghet divorce for Jews -- rules concerning marriage that prevail for those of that faith, as long as they don't interfere with the civil laws of that country. (This is a big problem, particularly in some European countries with large Islamic immigrant populations, who want Shariah to supercede civil law.)
I still think that is the way I would set up a society. But changing traditions of a society is harder than setting up of an ideal one in the abstact. It turns out that legalizing same-sex marriage may be easier than my idea of removing "marriage" from government control. Which makes sense to me now. It also challenges one of the main arguments of conservatives, that it will destroy "the sanctity" of marriage. It actually requires less change to extend the eligibility rules for "the institution of marriage" than to "abolish" it as an institution.
I underestimated how quickly public support could change, so that what seemed impossible just 5 years ago now seems quite possible -- and the preferable outcome. That's why we need people who are bolder and less tolerant of the status quo than I am to lead social change. I have now jumped on the bandwagon organized by my bolder gay rights activist comrades.
And I am especially happy for the six couples who are personal friends of mine who have gotten married as a result of these changes.
Ralph
My position -- equally futile, I thought -- was to take the government out of the business of "marriage." Let the government control the civil contracts that guarantee the rights and privileges of domestic unions and protection of children. This would be a "civil unions for all" idea, treating same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same. Then let "marriage" be a religious ceremony only, subject only to the rules of each particular church and having no extra rights or benefits outside the religious domain of that church.
Like Shariah laws for Muslims and the ghet divorce for Jews -- rules concerning marriage that prevail for those of that faith, as long as they don't interfere with the civil laws of that country. (This is a big problem, particularly in some European countries with large Islamic immigrant populations, who want Shariah to supercede civil law.)
I still think that is the way I would set up a society. But changing traditions of a society is harder than setting up of an ideal one in the abstact. It turns out that legalizing same-sex marriage may be easier than my idea of removing "marriage" from government control. Which makes sense to me now. It also challenges one of the main arguments of conservatives, that it will destroy "the sanctity" of marriage. It actually requires less change to extend the eligibility rules for "the institution of marriage" than to "abolish" it as an institution.
I underestimated how quickly public support could change, so that what seemed impossible just 5 years ago now seems quite possible -- and the preferable outcome. That's why we need people who are bolder and less tolerant of the status quo than I am to lead social change. I have now jumped on the bandwagon organized by my bolder gay rights activist comrades.
And I am especially happy for the six couples who are personal friends of mine who have gotten married as a result of these changes.
Ralph
And Maine makes 5
Now there are two states in which same-sex couples can marry as the result of legislature action alone, without prior order of the courts. The legislatures in Vermont and Maine, and the fact that the Iowa court's decision was unanimous, have taken the steam out of the conservatives' rant about "activist judges."
So here are the states with marriage for all and how they got there:
2003. Massachusetts: by court order; a subsequent attempt to overturn the court order with a constitutional amendment was defeated.
2005: California (off and on): approved by legislature, vetoed by governor. In 2008 the courts overturned the ban and marriages were performed until the November vote, where it was again banned by Prop8. The CA Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of Prop8 will be announced any time now. Advocates are already moving for another referendum vote, in case Prop8 is upheld by the court.
2008: Connecticut courts legalized it by a 4-3 decision, and in 2009 the legislature adjusted laws to conform and they were signed by the governor.
April 3, 2009: Iowa State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that ban was unconstitutional.
April 7, 2009: Vermont became the first state to legalize gay marriage without prior court mandate, as it had also been the first state to legalize same sex unions in 1999, when Howard Dean signed the bill as governor. This time the current governor vetoed the marriage bill, and the legislature overrode the veto.
May 6, 2009: In late April the Maine legislature convened to reconsider its 1997 law against gay marriage. Both houses passed it and it was signed by the governor on May 6th. The makes Maine the second state to do it without court mandate. And the governor, who had previously opposed it, said he had changed his mind and wrote an eloquent explanation of why he did. (see comment below).
Other states on the horizon:
The New Hampshire House and Senate have both passed legislation. The governor, who has stated his opposition previously, is under intense pressure from both sides. Some people think he will not veto it but will let it become law without his signature. He has 10 days to decide.
The New York governor has himself introduced a bill in the legislature to legalize same-sex marriage, and a poll shows that voters support it by a slim margin.
New Jersey courts have ordered the legislature to grant equal rights to same-sex couples, and the Civil Union Review Commission has recommended that the legislature go further and legalize marriage. The governor has said he will sign such a bill.
A bill has been introduced in Rhode Island. It does not have the votes to pass now, and the governor is opposed; so they will probably wait until after the 2010 elections to push it.
The Disctrict of Columbia city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, which many think is a step toward legalizing marriage in D.C. By its arcane governance as the nation's capitol, it is subject to approval by Congress, where it may run into trouble.
The state of Washington is also on the move. Its courts have ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional; the legislature created domestic partnerships and on April 15, 2009 voted to extend those to include all rights afforded to traditional marriages. The governor has said she will sign the bill, which gives the same rights but stops short of calling it marriage.
Of course there will be backlash to this momentum, and much money will be raised. Ugly TV ads and smear campaigns full of lies and scare tactics already are flooding the air. See the video ad "There's a Storm Gathering," sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage. The head of NOM is Maggie Gallagher, whose conservative opinion column on marriage and family used to appear in the AJC. Maggie filled it with platitudes about marriage and laced it with junk science, purportedly 'proving' why gays should not be parents. AJC finally dropped her column.
The video is so ludicrous that it invites parody, which the Colbert Report has promptly done, with hilarious results. Outside the narrowing enclaves of negativity, however, the scare tactics don't seem to have the clout they once did.
Meanwhile, support for gay marriage is growing steadily, reflected in rapidly changing polls. Many people think that, if the California referendum were held today, Prop8 would be defeated -- as it will likely be in 2010 unless the court overturns it in a decision that is due by June 3rd.
Thus, adding to the momentum of Iowa, Vermont, and Maine since April 3, we could have two more states soon: New Hampshire within 10 days and California on June 3rd or sooner. My bet: yes in NH, no in CA. The CA court seemed to signal in the hearings that it sees the question as "the right of voters to change their constitution" vs. "the right of gays to equal protection." So it may take the 2010 referendum to get there in CA.
Don't get me wrong: Maggie's video ad is correct in one sense. There is a storm gathering, but they are the storm.
And we'll be looking at rainbows when it's over.
Ralph
So here are the states with marriage for all and how they got there:
2003. Massachusetts: by court order; a subsequent attempt to overturn the court order with a constitutional amendment was defeated.
2005: California (off and on): approved by legislature, vetoed by governor. In 2008 the courts overturned the ban and marriages were performed until the November vote, where it was again banned by Prop8. The CA Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of Prop8 will be announced any time now. Advocates are already moving for another referendum vote, in case Prop8 is upheld by the court.
2008: Connecticut courts legalized it by a 4-3 decision, and in 2009 the legislature adjusted laws to conform and they were signed by the governor.
April 3, 2009: Iowa State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that ban was unconstitutional.
April 7, 2009: Vermont became the first state to legalize gay marriage without prior court mandate, as it had also been the first state to legalize same sex unions in 1999, when Howard Dean signed the bill as governor. This time the current governor vetoed the marriage bill, and the legislature overrode the veto.
May 6, 2009: In late April the Maine legislature convened to reconsider its 1997 law against gay marriage. Both houses passed it and it was signed by the governor on May 6th. The makes Maine the second state to do it without court mandate. And the governor, who had previously opposed it, said he had changed his mind and wrote an eloquent explanation of why he did. (see comment below).
Other states on the horizon:
The New Hampshire House and Senate have both passed legislation. The governor, who has stated his opposition previously, is under intense pressure from both sides. Some people think he will not veto it but will let it become law without his signature. He has 10 days to decide.
The New York governor has himself introduced a bill in the legislature to legalize same-sex marriage, and a poll shows that voters support it by a slim margin.
New Jersey courts have ordered the legislature to grant equal rights to same-sex couples, and the Civil Union Review Commission has recommended that the legislature go further and legalize marriage. The governor has said he will sign such a bill.
A bill has been introduced in Rhode Island. It does not have the votes to pass now, and the governor is opposed; so they will probably wait until after the 2010 elections to push it.
The Disctrict of Columbia city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, which many think is a step toward legalizing marriage in D.C. By its arcane governance as the nation's capitol, it is subject to approval by Congress, where it may run into trouble.
The state of Washington is also on the move. Its courts have ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional; the legislature created domestic partnerships and on April 15, 2009 voted to extend those to include all rights afforded to traditional marriages. The governor has said she will sign the bill, which gives the same rights but stops short of calling it marriage.
Of course there will be backlash to this momentum, and much money will be raised. Ugly TV ads and smear campaigns full of lies and scare tactics already are flooding the air. See the video ad "There's a Storm Gathering," sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage. The head of NOM is Maggie Gallagher, whose conservative opinion column on marriage and family used to appear in the AJC. Maggie filled it with platitudes about marriage and laced it with junk science, purportedly 'proving' why gays should not be parents. AJC finally dropped her column.
The video is so ludicrous that it invites parody, which the Colbert Report has promptly done, with hilarious results. Outside the narrowing enclaves of negativity, however, the scare tactics don't seem to have the clout they once did.
Meanwhile, support for gay marriage is growing steadily, reflected in rapidly changing polls. Many people think that, if the California referendum were held today, Prop8 would be defeated -- as it will likely be in 2010 unless the court overturns it in a decision that is due by June 3rd.
Thus, adding to the momentum of Iowa, Vermont, and Maine since April 3, we could have two more states soon: New Hampshire within 10 days and California on June 3rd or sooner. My bet: yes in NH, no in CA. The CA court seemed to signal in the hearings that it sees the question as "the right of voters to change their constitution" vs. "the right of gays to equal protection." So it may take the 2010 referendum to get there in CA.
Don't get me wrong: Maggie's video ad is correct in one sense. There is a storm gathering, but they are the storm.
And we'll be looking at rainbows when it's over.
Ralph
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Specter's flip may flop
We got excited by Arlen Specter's rebranding himself as a Democrat because it had the ring of the magic number 60. It may help a little on a few close bills, but I'm not sure it's a game-changer.
First, from watching him for several years, Specter has a habit of turning into a weasel. More than once, when he was Chair of Judiciary he would put out a statement that sounded like he was going to do something principled (meaning against the bush administration); then he would have a White House meeting and reverse himself.
Now, amid the hoopla of welcoming him, he has already voted against Obama's budget and signaled his opposition to the bill on union membership and the expected health care strategy. And then he made the gaffe of saying the Minnesota courts should decide in favor of Coleman -- which even many conservative Republicans concede is a lost cause. Later he said he "misspoke." Others have tried to dismiss it as a joke.
Don't trust him. I think James Carville has it right. Either he really joins up with the Democrats and supports their big initiatives, or he can expect a strong opponent in next years' Democratic primary. He's not going to just waltz in in a cakewalk if he only changed his label and has not really becoming a Democrat.
Otherwise, let PA elect a true Democrat. Polls suggest that the most likely candidate would trounce the expected Republican candidate.
Ralph
First, from watching him for several years, Specter has a habit of turning into a weasel. More than once, when he was Chair of Judiciary he would put out a statement that sounded like he was going to do something principled (meaning against the bush administration); then he would have a White House meeting and reverse himself.
Now, amid the hoopla of welcoming him, he has already voted against Obama's budget and signaled his opposition to the bill on union membership and the expected health care strategy. And then he made the gaffe of saying the Minnesota courts should decide in favor of Coleman -- which even many conservative Republicans concede is a lost cause. Later he said he "misspoke." Others have tried to dismiss it as a joke.
Don't trust him. I think James Carville has it right. Either he really joins up with the Democrats and supports their big initiatives, or he can expect a strong opponent in next years' Democratic primary. He's not going to just waltz in in a cakewalk if he only changed his label and has not really becoming a Democrat.
Otherwise, let PA elect a true Democrat. Polls suggest that the most likely candidate would trounce the expected Republican candidate.
Ralph
DoJ investigation of Bybee/Yoo/Bradbury
The report from the Department of Justice's own ethics investigation of its lawyers responsible for the legal "cover" opinion about torture is about to be released. Rumors leaking out suggest it is not a whitewash, the main indicator being that former bush administration officials are lobbying to try to get them to "soften" the report.
The Washington Post says the report: "recommends disciplinary action by state bar associations against two former department attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel who might have committed misconduct in preparing and signing the so-called torture memos. State bar associations have the power to suspend a lawyer's license to practice or impose other penalties."
My guess is that would be Bybee and Yoo. It would probably mean Bybee having to resign his position as federal judge. Yoo is a professor at UCBerkeley Law School; tenure might let him keep his job but it certainly will damage his reputation.
I think this is probably the right solution. One could make the case for criminal charges, but they were under great pressure from above to produce these documents. Granted, as lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel, it was their job to push back and say "you can't do that, Sir." But it's unlikely a trial jury would find them guilty of having done it with criminal intent.
I think the more appropriate penalty is to focus on their poor judgment and bad lawyering that should result in disciplinary action by their professional bodies.
This would be a serious enough consequence that it would be noted in history as precedent and warn future OLC lawyers to stand firm about what the law allows a president to do.
Now I'm really wanting there to be some consequences in all this for cheney, rumsfeld, bush -- and just throw in rove too because he deserves it.
Ralph
The Washington Post says the report: "recommends disciplinary action by state bar associations against two former department attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel who might have committed misconduct in preparing and signing the so-called torture memos. State bar associations have the power to suspend a lawyer's license to practice or impose other penalties."
My guess is that would be Bybee and Yoo. It would probably mean Bybee having to resign his position as federal judge. Yoo is a professor at UCBerkeley Law School; tenure might let him keep his job but it certainly will damage his reputation.
I think this is probably the right solution. One could make the case for criminal charges, but they were under great pressure from above to produce these documents. Granted, as lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel, it was their job to push back and say "you can't do that, Sir." But it's unlikely a trial jury would find them guilty of having done it with criminal intent.
I think the more appropriate penalty is to focus on their poor judgment and bad lawyering that should result in disciplinary action by their professional bodies.
This would be a serious enough consequence that it would be noted in history as precedent and warn future OLC lawyers to stand firm about what the law allows a president to do.
Now I'm really wanting there to be some consequences in all this for cheney, rumsfeld, bush -- and just throw in rove too because he deserves it.
Ralph
Monday, May 4, 2009
Gonzo still doesn't get it
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales backed up his criticism of Obama's release of the torture memos. He has previously insisted that learning the details of the interrogation techniques would help the enemy know how to resist them.
That argument seems a bit of a non sequitor, given that President Obama -- who did win the election and is now in charge -- has forbidden the use of torture and specifically the interrogation techniques covered in the memos.
Gonzo's mind-boggling answer: But they might be needed again in the future.
All it would take, I suppose, is for Dick Cheney to return to power, have control of a compliant Attorney General, and somehow miraculously return the American people to the secrecy of 'not-knowing' what we now know they were up to.
Gonzo seems to be implying that they were justified in torturing, that it looks different now because the threat of another 9/11 has waned, but that in similar circumstances anyone else would do the same.
Well, no. They wouldn't. As we're now learning, even some people in the bush administration, and in the FBI, and top military leaders were opposed at the time and would not have done it even then.
Ralph
That argument seems a bit of a non sequitor, given that President Obama -- who did win the election and is now in charge -- has forbidden the use of torture and specifically the interrogation techniques covered in the memos.
Gonzo's mind-boggling answer: But they might be needed again in the future.
All it would take, I suppose, is for Dick Cheney to return to power, have control of a compliant Attorney General, and somehow miraculously return the American people to the secrecy of 'not-knowing' what we now know they were up to.
Gonzo seems to be implying that they were justified in torturing, that it looks different now because the threat of another 9/11 has waned, but that in similar circumstances anyone else would do the same.
Well, no. They wouldn't. As we're now learning, even some people in the bush administration, and in the FBI, and top military leaders were opposed at the time and would not have done it even then.
Ralph
Short takes
1. An Iraqi government spokesman has said that the June 30 deadline for all U.S. combat troops to withdraw from towns and cities will not be extended, despite the recent upswing in violence. That date was a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Iraq and includes full withdrawal by the end of 2011. In less than 20 months, we will be out of this long unnecessary war.
Of course, we won't be through paying for it in our lifetime, thanks to a thoughtful president who didn't want to give up his cherished tax cuts for the superrich.
2. Arlen Specter is a hero of sorts right now, having done the politically expedient thing but also put the Republicans on notice that their brand isn't selling well in the country. But Specter has a way of disappointing. I remember several times as chair of Judiciary, he would hint that he was going to do one thing, and then backtrack after pressure was put on him.
Now he's being quoted as saying he said he was now a Democrat but he didn't say he was going to be a "loyal" Democrat. He's already announced that he's not changing his opposition to a couple of important Democratic issues.
3. Speaking of Republicans, they're already planning their opposition strategy to Obama's first Supreme Court nomination, without waiting to see who he picks. Now there's a real political philosophy. Don't even wait for the nomination to see who it is, just plan to try to derail it. And then they bleat about not getting their way on controversial legislation. "Just say No" is not a negotiating strategy.
4. Jim Baker, Bush family 'fixer' who more than once was called upon to get dubya out of trouble (including the Florida recount) now speaks some truth. He says, when asked about a national service obligation: "But one thing that makes it harder to go to war is to have a draft, because when you have a draft, then everybody's got a stake in it, and the costs of war are brought home much more vividly and vigorously to the American people."
If only we'd still had the draft, we either wouldn't have gone into Iraq or we'd have gotten out long ago.
5. Jack Kemp has died. And for once I'm going to praise a Republican. He described himself as "a bleeding heart conservative." I'd say he was the original (and perhaps the only true) "compassionate conservative." Although staunchly conservative on fiscal matters and on abortion and school prayer, he appealed to liberals with his outreach toward minorities and the poor. As Chairman of HUD during Bush I's administration, he worked to overcome urban blight and homelessness and was an early advocate for compassionate immigration reform.
Of course, we won't be through paying for it in our lifetime, thanks to a thoughtful president who didn't want to give up his cherished tax cuts for the superrich.
2. Arlen Specter is a hero of sorts right now, having done the politically expedient thing but also put the Republicans on notice that their brand isn't selling well in the country. But Specter has a way of disappointing. I remember several times as chair of Judiciary, he would hint that he was going to do one thing, and then backtrack after pressure was put on him.
Now he's being quoted as saying he said he was now a Democrat but he didn't say he was going to be a "loyal" Democrat. He's already announced that he's not changing his opposition to a couple of important Democratic issues.
3. Speaking of Republicans, they're already planning their opposition strategy to Obama's first Supreme Court nomination, without waiting to see who he picks. Now there's a real political philosophy. Don't even wait for the nomination to see who it is, just plan to try to derail it. And then they bleat about not getting their way on controversial legislation. "Just say No" is not a negotiating strategy.
4. Jim Baker, Bush family 'fixer' who more than once was called upon to get dubya out of trouble (including the Florida recount) now speaks some truth. He says, when asked about a national service obligation: "But one thing that makes it harder to go to war is to have a draft, because when you have a draft, then everybody's got a stake in it, and the costs of war are brought home much more vividly and vigorously to the American people."
If only we'd still had the draft, we either wouldn't have gone into Iraq or we'd have gotten out long ago.
5. Jack Kemp has died. And for once I'm going to praise a Republican. He described himself as "a bleeding heart conservative." I'd say he was the original (and perhaps the only true) "compassionate conservative." Although staunchly conservative on fiscal matters and on abortion and school prayer, he appealed to liberals with his outreach toward minorities and the poor. As Chairman of HUD during Bush I's administration, he worked to overcome urban blight and homelessness and was an early advocate for compassionate immigration reform.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Rudy renigs
I recently wrote ridiculing Rudy Giuliani for saying he opposes gay marriage, especially after he reportedly told his friends, a long-term gay couple, that he would perform their ceremony if it ever became legal. These were the friends who took him in and allowed him to share their luxury New York apartment when he was fighting with his wife and had to move out of the governor's mansion.
That was then. Now Mr. Giuliani is talking about running for governor.
This past weekend this gay couple had a formal wedding in Connecticut, where it is legal for them to marry.
Two days before the event, Mr. Giuliani's secretary called to say he would be unable to attend.
Yeah, I suppose photos of Rudy at a gay wedding wouldn't look so good in his opponent's campaign ads -- especially if he dressed up in his favorite frock and heels and blond wig.
Hypocrit !! Political opportunist !!!
Ralph
That was then. Now Mr. Giuliani is talking about running for governor.
This past weekend this gay couple had a formal wedding in Connecticut, where it is legal for them to marry.
Two days before the event, Mr. Giuliani's secretary called to say he would be unable to attend.
Yeah, I suppose photos of Rudy at a gay wedding wouldn't look so good in his opponent's campaign ads -- especially if he dressed up in his favorite frock and heels and blond wig.
Hypocrit !! Political opportunist !!!
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
