Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Brayton’s Bag of Links and Snark: Godwin, Guns and Gays

By Ed Brayton | 05.07.08 | 11:11 pm

We’re pro-family. No, not those families.

The Michigan Supreme Court this week ruled that Proposal 2, the 2004 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in this state, also prohibits public employers like cities and universities from offering health insurance or other benefits to the partners of gay employees, despite innumerable public statements from the group that wrote that referendum denying that it would do such a thing. This little bait and switch is brought to you by the “family values” crowd. What’s that? This will actually harm families headed by gay couples by removing benefits they rely on to protect their health and financial well-being?

No, no, you see, those don’t count; they’re not real families, they’re gay families. And the four adopted and one foster child of Tom Patrick and his partner Dennis, plaintiffs in the case, should have known better than to allow their biological parents to abuse them or die too young. Did they not foresee that this might lead to them being adopted by – gasp! – gay people? They really should have thought it through. I mean, sure, they”re doing it “for the children” but not for those children.

Continued -

You see, family values doesn’t mean valuing actual families, it means doing anything you can to make life as bad as possible for gay people. Because if the lives of gay people are not nasty, brutish and short, more children might decide to be gay. Because as we all know, people chose their sexual orientation by weighing the costs and benefits; thus, we have to make the costs higher and the benefits lower in order to sway those decisions in the right direction. Because The Gay is so powerful that unless we constantly bully, harass and oppress gay people, the temptation will simply prove too strong. It all stands to….reason? Maybe not. But it stands to revelation.

From the “not getting the concept” department

Scott Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, a Federal agency empowered to protect government whistle-blowers from retaliation, had his office raided this week by the FBI as part of an investigation into allegations that he retaliated against government whistle-blowers on his own staff. In related news, the pot and the kettle were married by an Elvis impersonator at the Hunka Hunka Burnin’ Love Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas.

Mr. Godwin, call your office

Blogging for Michigan has this post about John McCain’s visit to Michigan on Tuesday night for a private fundraiser. Alongside McCain were John Rakolta and Robert Liggett, the folks who financed the infamous ad comparing Gov. Jennifer Granholm to Adolf Hitler during the 2006 gubernatorial election (an ad that was roundly condemned even by Republicans).

And yes, Rakolta is married to Terry Rakolta, who became famous in the late 1980s for her campaign to get Married With Children taken off the air. The best that could be said about her then was said by the National Catholic Reporter:

To her credit, however, and unlike certain prestigous Catholic critics who bragged that they never saw “The Last Temptation of Christ” or read “The Satanic Verses” but whacked them anyway, Rakolta has at least watched “Married… with Children”.

Well yes, indeed she did. Apparently, though, she was trapped under something terribly heavy and was incapable of doing something as simple as turning the channel to a show more to her liking.

Supporting the troops requires more than a ribbon on your SUV

Gary Peters, who is running for the Democratic nomination to challenge Joe Knollenberg’s seat in Congress, has a post at Michigan Liberal about the scandal of veteran care once they return from the war. The horrible situation at Walter Reed is just the tip of the iceberg. Recently it came out that Iraq War vets are committing suicide at a rate as high as 18 per day; at that rate, more vets will have died of suicide after returning home than died in combat. Peters, a former Lt. Commander in the Navy, notes:

When the House voted on a bill to guarantee that soldiers would have at least as much time at home as they spend deployed overseas, Congressman Knollenberg voted no.

When the House took up a bill that included $3.3 billion to improve military medical care, $1.8 billion for veterans care, and that would have started withdrawing troops this summer, Congressman Knollenberg voted no. After that bill was vetoed by the President, Congressman Knollenberg voted to sustain the veto.

But that’s okay, because Knollenberg paid a buck fifty for a yellow ribbon magnet for his car. In a related story, Dennis Lennox was last seen huddled near a men’s room at CMU screaming “you’re a big poopyhead” at a picture of Gary Peters.

Comments

  • Michael Heath

    Kick in the gut I hope you’ll be posting about the MI Supreme Court decision in your blog.  What a kick in the gut, but not a surprise given the plain meaning of the wording in the amendment.

    My impression of this decision is as follows:
    1)  Why does MI allow simple majorities to amend our constitution?  This is contrary to the spirit of Madison’s design of the U.S. Constitution that made the federal constitution difficult to amend for this very reason. Madison’s fear that temporal majorities could be as bad as a monarchy in prohibiting liberties of individuals is on vivid display on this issue here in MI.

    2)  The memory of the Rove strategy for 2004, which was not to go after the middle, but instead attract social conservatives to the polls by using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to inflame the bigots on the right and providing them with an opportunity to institutionalize their hatred.  Bush could have ensured liberty and equal protection was protected during that campaign, instead he used it as a wedge for his own personal ambitions no matter how many families he’s harmed.

    3)  The memory of the leaders of this amendment stating that the amendment was not meant to deprive benefits to the families of gays when in fact the plain meaning of the amendment as they crafted it showed them for being the liars there were and continue to be.  They won big with this ruling yesterday and they know it, contrary to their statements during the 2004 campaign.

    4)  This ban can only harm the state.  The very types of people we need to attract to this state and our universities will either pause or not consider our state as a viable option if they are gay, and even some non-gays may also reconsider.  What sort of educated intellectual wants to live in a state that legalizes discrimination against certain families?

  • Michael Heath

    Kick in the gut I hope you'll be posting about the MI Supreme Court decision in your blog.  What a kick in the gut, but not a surprise given the plain meaning of the wording in the amendment.

    My impression of this decision is as follows:

    1)  Why does MI allow simple majorities to amend our constitution?  This is contrary to the spirit of Madison's design of the U.S. Constitution that made the federal constitution difficult to amend for this very reason. Madison's fear that temporal majorities could be as bad as a monarchy in prohibiting liberties of individuals is on vivid display on this issue here in MI.

    2)  The memory of the Rove strategy for 2004, which was not to go after the middle, but instead attract social conservatives to the polls by using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to inflame the bigots on the right and providing them with an opportunity to institutionalize their hatred.  Bush could have ensured liberty and equal protection was protected during that campaign, instead he used it as a wedge for his own personal ambitions no matter how many families he's harmed.

    3)  The memory of the leaders of this amendment stating that the amendment was not meant to deprive benefits to the families of gays when in fact the plain meaning of the amendment as they crafted it showed them for being the liars there were and continue to be.  They won big with this ruling yesterday and they know it, contrary to their statements during the 2004 campaign.

    4)  This ban can only harm the state.  The very types of people we need to attract to this state and our universities will either pause or not consider our state as a viable option if they are gay, and even some non-gays may also reconsider.  What sort of educated intellectual wants to live in a state that legalizes discrimination against certain families?

  • Ed Brayton

    I will… I'll have a thorough analysis of the ruling up, likely on Monday or Tuesday (more detailed than the brief one I posted to my blog). I agree with you about amending the state constitution, but your argument never occurred to me before. I'd really never given it a thought that the state constitution can be amended by a simple majority. Good point.

  • Ed Brayton

    I will… I’ll have a thorough analysis of the ruling up, likely on Monday or Tuesday (more detailed than the brief one I posted to my blog). I agree with you about amending the state constitution, but your argument never occurred to me before. I’d really never given it a thought that the state constitution can be amended by a simple majority. Good point.

Categories & Tags: |