Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics



Voting against

Brown, Murkowski and newly minted Democrat Senator from West Virginia Joe Manchin .

It is not going to happen this legislative session which means it is going to happen legislatively.

Now this is where I do make a strong suggestion to President Obama. Drop the appeal in the 9th Circuit and just be done with it.

Apologies for the brevity. But what else is there to say except FUCK!


  1. Strummerson

    if gay marriage threatens my heterosexual marriage and gay service people being able to tell the truth about themselves threaten American security and if these two are linked in the public imagination then…

    …how will a cloture vote affect the probabilities of my wife divorcing me and my house being invaded by enemy combatants?

    If it will increase the likelihood of either by less than 3%, I’m fine with it.  Of course, then we will need to make similar calculations about whether it should pass or not.  

    I don’t want to be divorced or invaded.  Though if the latter happens, it’s better I be divorced, because I’d probably be a real mess under occupation and I’d rather not have my wife see it.

  2. I really hope we can put this ridiculousness to bed. Between this and DOMA, I’ve been ashamed of a lot of folks over the years.

    Enough with this crap. Gays and lesbians have served for as long as we’ve had men and women in the military.  Heck, in the Navy, it was standard for long runs. It has only served as a convenient whip to keep folks quiet, not to keep their privates off privates. All puns intended.

    Get rid of DADT, and DOMA, and get Prop 8 nullified and we can move the hell on.  Unless someone is touching my Jimmy, I don’t care what they do in the privacy of their own homes or tents…

    Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal  

    01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.  

    02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.  

    03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.  

    04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.  

    05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.  

    06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.  

    07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.  

    08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.  

    09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.  

    10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


    What’s sad?  The folks defending Prop 8 apparently think that list is a damned blue print for their defense…

  3. fogiv

    One of the selected sites (road cut, obvious deposition, apparent anthropogenic soils) is NRHP eligible as is.  We can evaluate that one from here (as well as any other sites of the same class with similar features).  Generally, the idea would be to use the Class I inventory, a rudimentary sensitivity study (landform, water, infrared, and the survey results for parcel #1) to extrapolate expected resources over the remaining areas, do targeted survey based on those results, and divvy up resources into estimated eligibility classes (e.g. eligible, potentially eligible, not eligible). We’d evaluate any historic stuff with recording and the Class I info (per usual).  If we plan to argue that the burn(s) are ‘no adverse effect’ to sites regardless of class, there’s no reason to test.  For the dubious ‘potentially eligible’ sites, our premise is that the burn won’t affect the unknown elements that might render them eligible, namely subsurface features.  Since some resources classes won’t be formally evaluated prior to burn, we stipulate that we’ll do full post-burn survey to map, document, and if necessary test the ones that need evaluation, and tie the whole thing to Section 110 efforts.

  4. HappyinVT

    In a statement to reporters tonight, Manchin suggested that as long as a vote on repealing DADT comes this year, he’ll be more than willing to shut it down.

    “I do not support its repeal at this time,” he said in the statement. “I would like to make clear that my concern is not with the idea of repealing DADT, but rather an issue of timing.”

    Manchin said the Senate testimony from military branch chiefs last week — most of whom said they were opposed to repealing the ban, but that they could implement it if asked to do so — was part of his decision not to back repeal for the time being.


    But he apparently has not problem with the President using an executive order.


Comments are closed.