Minorities have become a majority in affluent Montgomery County for the first time, with Hispanics displacing blacks as the largest minority group, acording to a Washington Post analysis of census figures released Wednesday.
Barely 49 percent of the county's 972,000 residents are non-Hispanic whites, down from almost 60 percent in 2000 and 72 percent a decade before that. The number of Hispanics rose by about two-thirds, to 165,000. At 17 percent of the population, Hispanics are slightly more numerous than the county's non-Hispanic blacks.
The dramatic demographic shifts in Montgomery County, home to some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the nation, are part of an ongoing change throughout much of the region. White populations are diminishing in many of the suburbs closest to the District as they are replaced by Hispanics and, in some places, Asians.
In Prince George's County, for example, the Hispanic population more than doubled in size, slightly surpassing the white population, which dropped dramatically. Whites and Hispanics each make up about 15 percent of the county.
Maryland's Washington suburbs are now home to more than one in four of the state's residents, giving the area increasing political clout in Annapolis and at election time. While Montgomery and Prince George's counties together gained about about 160,000 residents, the Baltimore region was essentially static. The city of Baltimore lost about 30,000 residents, falling to 620,000 people. Tax records show the lion's share of the residents who left the city settled in Baltimore County, which gained about 50,000 residents over the decade.
The census also showed that, for the first time, a majority of the state's children under age 18 are minorities, an important harbinger of future growth as they come of age, according to William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution. The number of white children decreased by 17 percent.
February 09, 2011 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...
that's great news for conservatives since Hispanics tend to be conservatives, opposed to the gay agenda and pro-life
here's some more good news:
"Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) announced Wednesday that he will not seek reelection next year and will instead return to the private sector, boosting Republican George Allen's chances of reclaiming his former seat."
add that to the other Dem Senators who've already announced they're quitting and we should have both chambers of Congress when President Palin is sworn in
February 09, 2011 6:28 PM
Anonymous said...
With the news that Sen. Jim Webb (D) won't seek re-election, Republicans now have a clear path to taking back the Senate majority in 2012.
Right now, Democrats hold a 53-47 majority in the chamber. So Republicans would need to net a pick-up of three Senate seats when the Democrats lose the White House.
Well, here are four probably going red:
1). North Dakota, where Sen. Kent Conrad (D) is retiring. Republicans have a better than solid chance of picking up the seat.
2) Nebraska, where Sen. Ben Nelson (D) appears to be in trouble. Republicans have recruited a top candidate in state Attorney General Jon Bruning (R).
3) Montana, where Sen. Jon Tester (D) will face an uphill battle against Congressman Denny Rehberg (R).
4) Virginia, where Webb (D) is retiring, and Republicans have a top challenger in former Sen. George Allen (R)., who lost to Webb by a sliver in the strong Democratic year of 2006.
February 09, 2011 6:38 PM
someone reminds me of Jimmy Carter said...
hey, look who Gallup doesn't like in 2012:
"PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's approval rating for handling the federal budget deficit has gone from bad to worse in recent months. Currently, 27% of Americans approve of Obama on the deficit, down from 32% in November, while 68% disapprove.
The deficit, the economy, and taxes rank among his lowest ratings, alongside healthcare policy.
The survey was conducted Feb. 2-5.
Democrats' disapproval on the deficit is a key reason Obama does so badly on the issue. It is the only issue on which fewer than 6 in 10 Democrats approve of his performance. By contrast, about three-quarters of Democrats approve of Obama's handling of healthcare.
Independents are closer to Republicans than to Democrats on the two most polarizing issues -- healthcare and the economy. Independents come even closer to GOP views with respect to the federal budget and taxes, making these potential problem issues for Obama when it comes to garnering independents' support in the next election.
Bottom Line:
President Obama has failed to build public support in recent months for his handling of major U.S. economic matters, despite a generally well-received State of the Union address in which he proposed a federal spending freeze to help put the brakes on deficit spending. His approval rating on the economy is no better than it was last fall, and his approval rating on the federal budget deficit -- a top issue for Republicans in Congress since the midterm elections -- is even worse. His broadest support on the issues comes on his policies concerning the situation in Egypt, but even there, his approval ratings register just below 50%.
February 09, 2011 6:47 PM
Mr Liberal said...
wow
Barack Obama is turning out to be a really lousy President
who knew?
February 09, 2011 6:50 PM
Anonymous said...
"I think the key to this is for straight people to recognize the simple fact that gay people are people."
I don't think I've ever met a straight person who doesn't think gay people are people.
Where do you find them, Jim?
"They aren't an organization with a conspiratorial plan to take over the world, they are just folks."
I think we've discussed this before. Those who push the gay agenda aren't mostly gays.
It's actually a bunch of liberals, always looking for way to create societal decay.
"They fall in love just like everybody else, sometimes they want to marry and start a family and have a home and fight over the remote just like the rest of us."
Well, if they want a law that allows them to fight over the remote, I won't argue with them.
"Of course there is nothing "unequivocal" about any of the research findings on the subject."
of course not. It's a subjective area, impervious to empirical analysis.
"The idea that government should decide who you can marry is so obviously opposed to conservative principles that they must just cringe when they have to support this kind of thing."
Well, that's one of the many things wrong with this bill. It represents government deciding that same gender deviants can marry each other.
It's actually none of government business deciding who can and can't marry.
That's up to the parade of clergy.
"Some conservatives hold positions that support the status quo, keep the currently dominant group in power, and promote norms and beliefs that are held by, basically, white middle-class Christian men."
listen
do you want to know a secret?
do you promise not to tell?
closer
let me whisper in your ear:
African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans all oppose gay "marriage" in greater numbers than the pasty faced ones
as a matter of fact, if whites were the only ones who could vote, gay "marriage" would have happened long ago
"Other conservatives derive their particular policy opinions from a set of principles including a trust in individual liberties and a reduced role for government in citizens' private lives."
hey look
he's talking about me!!
"You can't have both at the same time"
I agree. We have to steadfastly oppose having the government rule who can marry. Leave it to the church.
"but the modern so-called conservative movement has comprised an uncomfortable alliance between those who hold the two types of beliefs."
oh dear
ya think so?
"Kefalas also disclosed that he is gay and long struggled to accept his identify."
hey, K
there's more to a person's identity than his deviant desires
take a philosophy course fer crying out loud!!
""Under present law, I'm considered less of a citizen than many of you," he told the committee."
oh yeah, well how about bigamists?
are they less of a "citizen"?
"Man, that's gotta be tough, being a gay Republican."
being insane is probably rough regardless of your political beliefs
"You can never tell with these things, of course,"
C'est la vie says the old folks
"there is some precedent for politicians to back down from controversial issues"
oh yeah, that happens sometimes, doesn't it?
"The most we can do here is to keep alive, to bring out rational points pro and dis and con their the discussion cuss merits, try to keep The Nutty Ones from hijacking cool heads the debate, and let in Annapolis on vote the legislation comes when the time. We've elected think leaders who we will well represent us their hands well, now it's in."
I guess that makes sense
February 09, 2011 7:46 PM
Barack wasn't experienced either said...
Bristol Palin, 20, is already plotting her future career in-- you guessed it-- politics! In an interview with E! News, Bristol admits that she'll "probably" run for office.
Sources say Bristol's foray into politics is going to happen a lot sooner than most people think. "Bristol has a new sense of confidence since she did 'Dancing with the Stars,'" the source said. "She has seen her mother (Sarah Palin's) success and believes Washington should have more regular people like her in office making decisions for the country, rather than the elite that currently run DC."
The abstinence speaker and soon-to-be author "doesn't have a strong political resume" but the source claims "that's what will make her a great congresswoman or even President!" Who knows? Maybe Bristol will be vying for the White House in 2012 instead of Mama Grizzly!
When asked just what would drive this young mother to enter the cutthroat would of politics, Bristol's answer was similar to one her own mom has given in the past. "If I saw something that needed to be changed, then I would step up to the plate and do something about it," she said.
February 09, 2011 8:42 PM
Aunt Bea said...
Maryland – The Senate Judicial Proceedings committee heard 7 hours of testimony last night on whether or not to legalize gay marriage, including from NOM’s Maggie Gallagher. Now one Senator, who was previously a foe, has said her testimony convinced him to support marriage equality.
Senator James Brochin (D) was one of the few Democrat Senators who was opposed to gay marriage. But after listening to testimony from Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization For Marriage (NOM), he’s said that her “demonization” of gay families has convinced him that he should side with marriage equality.
“The demonization of gay families really bothered me,” Brochin said. “Are these families going to continue to be treated by the law as second class citizens?”
Well done Maggie!
February 10, 2011 8:53 AM
Anonymous said...
sounds like a politician kissing up to an advocacy group
when and how did anyone "demonize" gay "families"?
since whatever was said was so bad that it can be described as "demonization", please provide an example
we all need to see what a lunatic calls "demonization"
it would helpful to discerning future lunatic rantings here on Teach the Fantasy (TTF)
February 11, 2011 12:14 PM
Aunt Bea said...
You do realize it was Senator Brochin who said Maggie had "demonized" gay families and that your question should be directed to him. Maybe the same fantasy that brings you to Vigilance every day makes you think that the people mentioned on this blog come here too.
< eye roll >
The google can help out where misplaced questions can't. Here's one of Maggie's quotes to the Maryland Statehouse:
“As so many pro-gay marriage voices testified at this very hearing, gay marriage is grounded in the belief that this view of marriage is like objections to interracial marriage — something that should be discarded in law, culture and society."
links to Maggie Gallagher's 2-8-11 testimony against same sex marriage in Maryland.
Select Judicial Proceedings Committee and in the pull down window select Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2011.
Once she was done testifying here in MD, Gallagher left to tell the same tale to legislators in Rhode Island where "Newly elected Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) expressed his support for marriage equality during his inauguration speech Jan. 4 and legislators introduced marriage equality bills in both the state House and Senate on Jan. 6. Democrats, largely in favor of same-sex marriage, hold large majorities in both chambers, and House Speaker Gordon Fox (D), who is openly gay, is a cosponsor of the bill. "
I want to express my thoughts on SB 116, Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. As most of you know, I have long supported equal rights for same sex couples. A few years ago, I voted in favor of allowing same sex couples the right to make medical decisions for each other.
This year, I decided to work on legislation that allowed civil unions for all couples - opposite sex and same sex couples. My goal was three-fold:
1. I wanted to ensure that same sex couples had the same rights and responsibilities as married couples in Maryland;
2. I wanted to remove the government's intervention in what most Marylanders consider a religious institution (marriage); and
3. I wanted to develop a consensus on an issue that has been very divisive for many years.
In early January, I announced my proposal for civil unions for all couples. Somewhat surprisingly, I received much more criticism from people who wanted same sex marriage than those who oppose such marriages. I actually received quite a lot of messages and emails from Republicans supporting my decision.
A recent poll performed by Gonzales Research confirmed strong support for civil unions. The poll found that 62% of Maryland voters support civil unions. Of that amount, 73% of Democrats, 60% of Independents and 41.5% of Republicans support civil unions. This figure was higher than the support for same-sex marriage in Maryland.
According to the poll, 51% of Maryland voters support same-sex marriage. Of that amount, 65% of Democrats, 52.4% of Independents and 24% of Republicans support same-sex marriage.
Unfortunately, despite the support by a strong majority of Maryland voters, I did not receive any support from my Republican and Democrat senate colleagues. In fact, the Republican senate caucus yesterday voted to take a "caucus position" against same-sex marriage. My Republican colleagues have also made it very clear to me that they would not be supportive of my civil union legislation. I also did not receive any support from Republicans or Democrats in the House of Delegates.
February 11, 2011 4:52 PM
Aunt Bea said...
Based upon the lack of support I have received for my civil union bill, it was evident that my legislation would not receive a favorable report from the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. With the deadline for submitting legislation approaching quickly and with the Committee hearing scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 8th, I made the decision to forego my efforts to have civil unions for all couples in Maryland.
As I noted above, my primary goal has always been to ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples currently have in Maryland. I see this issue as a civil rights issue. I was raised by a gentleman who joined with others in fighting racial discrimination in the 1950s and 1960s. Watching him fight for civil rights instilled in me the belief that everyone, regardless of race, sex, national origin or sexual orientation, is entitled to equal rights.
Consequently, with the civil union legislation no longer being a viable option, I was put in the position of deciding whether to support same-sex marriage or voting to continue the prohibition against same-sex marriage. As a strong proponent of personal and economic liberty/freedom, I simply could not, in good conscience, vote against SB 116.
I know that some may contend that since the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, Maryland should continue to prohibit same sex marriage. First, let me state that I am a strong follower of Jesus Christ. I worked in youth ministries for many years. However, while my faith may teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, our government is not a theocracy. As the state senator from District 9, I represent everyone in my district, regardless of their faith. Therefore, while my spiritual life is extremely important to me, it cannot be the sole basis for my decisions as a state senator.
I know that some will be upset with my decision to support SB 116 and I respect the fact that people have differing opinions on this issue. I carefully considered my decision. I sought counsel from many people, including my family, clergy, advocates for both sides, fellow legislators and many others. These discussions were very helpful to me and I appreciate the time that those individuals took to talk with me. Ultimately, it was my strong feelings about civil rights that led me to decide to support SB 116.
February 11, 2011 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...
still haven't seen any evidence anyone is "demonizing" gay families
must be another lie by anti-family forces
February 11, 2011 6:09 PM
The Post reported last night: Supporters of same-sex marriage came to Annapolis on Tuesday armed with personal stories, emotional pleas for equal treatment and arguments about how allowing gay couples to marry could help Maryland's economy.
Opponents countered with biblical verses, research suggesting that children are better off with both a mother and a father, and warnings that "redefining marriage" could undermine other social institutions.
In all, about 140 witnesses signed up to testify on the highest-profile social issue facing the Maryland General Assembly this year. The committee hearing spanned more than seven hours. Same-sex marriage has good chance of approval, Maryland Senate leader says A hundred forty people signed up to testify. I don't know what the usual legislative hearing attracts, but that sounds like a lot -- let's hear it for participatory democracy!
Skipping down a little ... In the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee room, some of the most powerful testimony Tuesday was offered by an openly gay lawmaker, Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr., who called it "a badge of dishonor" to have to introduce people to his "partner."
"We had a church wedding 10 years ago this year, and in the eyes of our religion, our families, our friends and in my heart, he is my spouse," Madaleno (D-Montgomery) said. "But under Maryland's civil law, he is a legal stranger to me." I think the key to this is for straight people to recognize the simple fact that gay people are people. They aren't an organization with a conspiratorial plan to take over the world, they are just folks. They fall in love just like everybody else, sometimes they want to marry and start a family and have a home and fight over the remote just like the rest of us. Although some religious leaders testified in favor of the bill, opponents were bolstered by a parade of clergy members urging lawmakers to maintain Maryland's law, which limits marriage to a man and a woman.
"Your concern should not be pandering to the political move of the day but truthfully working to foster conditions which unequivocally have been proven to be the best environment for children and families," said Derek McCoy, a Beltsville pastor who is president of the Maryland Family Alliance. "Children do better economically, socially and educationally when raised by a mom and a dad." Of course there is nothing "unequivocal" about any of the research findings on the subject.
Also, I note that there is no great movement from the Christian right urging lawmakers to prohibit divorce. The same-sex marriage bill is expected to draw very little Republican support in the Maryland legislature - where Democrats hold lopsided majorities in both chambers. But to show some bipartisan support, several Republicans testified in favor of the measure early in Tuesday's proceedings.
Among them was Chrysovalantis P. Kefalas, who served as deputy legal counsel to former Maryland governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). Kefalas said Ehrlich has continued to oppose same-sex marriage. But Kefalas said he considers the legislation to be consistent with Republican principles of freedom and limited government. The idea that government should decide who you can marry is so obviously opposed to conservative principles that they must just cringe when they have to support this kind of thing. Some conservatives hold positions that support the status quo, keep the currently dominant group in power, and promote norms and beliefs that are held by, basically, white middle-class Christian men. Other conservatives derive their particular policy opinions from a set of principles including a trust in individual liberties and a reduced role for government in citizens' private lives. You can't have both at the same time, but the modern so-called conservative movement has comprised an uncomfortable alliance between those who hold the two types of beliefs. Kefalas also disclosed that he is gay and long struggled to accept his identify.
"Under present law, I'm considered less of a citizen than many of you," he told the committee. Man, that's gotta be tough, being a gay Republican. Sen. Allan H. Kittleman (Howard), the only GOP senator to have announced support for the bill, also testified, appearing on the first panel with Madaleno and Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Montgomery), the bill's lead sponsor.
Last week, Kittleman changed his mind and decided to support the marriage bill. I suppose its newsworthy to note the dynamics within the Republican Party as the ones who stand up for principles are knocked out of power by the status quo politicians, but really, it doesn't matter what they say and do, Republicans in the Maryland legislature are so far outnumbered that they hardly have any influence except where they can block stuff in committee.
I'm waiting to get to the part where Ruth Jacobs talks about anal sex. Don't tell me it's not in here! Tuesday's hearing grew combative at several points, particularly during testimony by Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization that seeks to defend "religious freedom."
Nimocks argued that government should keep marriage between a man and a woman as an incentive to foster "responsible procreation."
"Men and women still comprise the two great halves of humanity," Nimocks said. "It matters that a child has a mom and a dad."
At several points in the hearing, proponents argued otherwise. Referring to Madaleno and his children, Garagiola said, "That is a very happy family."
In response to questioning by senators, Nimocks acknowledged that children of some same-sex couples could be better off than children of some heterosexual couples. But he said research has shown that in most cases, the best situation for a child is "a low-conflict marraige" between a man and a woman. I would appreciate if someone would paste a link to such research into the comments to this post. I have read some findings supporting the idea that children do better by some measures in households with more than one parent, but none that found an effect for opposite-sex parent dyads. Mary Ellen Russell, executive director of the Maryland Catholic Conference, made a similar argument in written testimony.
"Erasing from law the uniqueness of the relationship between men and women and the distinction of that relationship from any other relationship would deny to future generations a recognition of our natural origin that lies at the very core of who we are as human beings," Russell said.
Earlier in the hearing, Ryan Spiegel, a member of the Gaithersburg City Council, offered a different perspective, arguing that Maryland hotels and cake makers would be among the beneficiaries of legalizing same-sex marraige [sic]. He called the legislation "the right thing to do from an economic standpoint." You can never tell with these things, of course, there is some precedent for politicians to back down from controversial issues and this one could fizzle just like it always has before, but the talk this year does seem more optimistic. In fact it is quite likely that the state of Maryland will take the progressive step of extending marriage law to same sex couples. The most we can do here is to keep the discussion alive, to bring out rational points pro and con and discuss their merits, try to keep The Nutty Ones from hijacking the debate, and let cool heads in Annapolis vote on the legislation when the time comes. We've elected leaders who we think will represent us well, now it's in their hands.
"Testimony Yesterday on Marriage Equality"
13 Comments -
Minorities have become a majority in affluent Montgomery County for the first time, with Hispanics displacing blacks as the largest minority group, acording to a Washington Post analysis of census figures released Wednesday.
Barely 49 percent of the county's 972,000 residents are non-Hispanic whites, down from almost 60 percent in 2000 and 72 percent a decade before that. The number of Hispanics rose by about two-thirds, to 165,000. At 17 percent of the population, Hispanics are slightly more numerous than the county's non-Hispanic blacks.
The dramatic demographic shifts in Montgomery County, home to some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the nation, are part of an ongoing change throughout much of the region. White populations are diminishing in many of the suburbs closest to the District as they are replaced by Hispanics and, in some places, Asians.
In Prince George's County, for example, the Hispanic population more than doubled in size, slightly surpassing the white population, which dropped dramatically. Whites and Hispanics each make up about 15 percent of the county.
Maryland's Washington suburbs are now home to more than one in four of the state's residents, giving the area increasing political clout in Annapolis and at election time. While Montgomery and Prince George's counties together gained about about 160,000 residents, the Baltimore region was essentially static. The city of Baltimore lost about 30,000 residents, falling to 620,000 people. Tax records show the lion's share of the residents who left the city settled in Baltimore County, which gained about 50,000 residents over the decade.
The census also showed that, for the first time, a majority of the state's children under age 18 are minorities, an important harbinger of future growth as they come of age, according to William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution. The number of white children decreased by 17 percent.
February 09, 2011 5:57 PM
that's great news for conservatives since Hispanics tend to be conservatives, opposed to the gay agenda and pro-life
here's some more good news:
"Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) announced Wednesday that he will not seek reelection next year and will instead return to the private sector, boosting Republican George Allen's chances of reclaiming his former seat."
add that to the other Dem Senators who've already announced they're quitting and we should have both chambers of Congress when President Palin is sworn in
February 09, 2011 6:28 PM
With the news that Sen. Jim Webb (D) won't seek re-election, Republicans now have a clear path to taking back the Senate majority in 2012.
Right now, Democrats hold a 53-47 majority in the chamber. So Republicans would need to net a pick-up of three Senate seats when the Democrats lose the White House.
Well, here are four probably going red:
1). North Dakota, where Sen. Kent Conrad (D) is retiring. Republicans have a better than solid chance of picking up the seat.
2) Nebraska, where Sen. Ben Nelson (D) appears to be in trouble. Republicans have recruited a top candidate in state Attorney General Jon Bruning (R).
3) Montana, where Sen. Jon Tester (D) will face an uphill battle against Congressman Denny Rehberg (R).
4) Virginia, where Webb (D) is retiring, and Republicans have a top challenger in former Sen. George Allen (R)., who lost to Webb by a sliver in the strong Democratic year of 2006.
February 09, 2011 6:38 PM
hey, look who Gallup doesn't like in 2012:
"PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's approval rating for handling the federal budget deficit has gone from bad to worse in recent months. Currently, 27% of Americans approve of Obama on the deficit, down from 32% in November, while 68% disapprove.
The deficit, the economy, and taxes rank among his lowest ratings, alongside healthcare policy.
The survey was conducted Feb. 2-5.
Democrats' disapproval on the deficit is a key reason Obama does so badly on the issue. It is the only issue on which fewer than 6 in 10 Democrats approve of his performance. By contrast, about three-quarters of Democrats approve of Obama's handling of healthcare.
Independents are closer to Republicans than to Democrats on the two most polarizing issues -- healthcare and the economy. Independents come even closer to GOP views with respect to the federal budget and taxes, making these potential problem issues for Obama when it comes to garnering independents' support in the next election.
Bottom Line:
President Obama has failed to build public support in recent months for his handling of major U.S. economic matters, despite a generally well-received State of the Union address in which he proposed a federal spending freeze to help put the brakes on deficit spending. His approval rating on the economy is no better than it was last fall, and his approval rating on the federal budget deficit -- a top issue for Republicans in Congress since the midterm elections -- is even worse. His broadest support on the issues comes on his policies concerning the situation in Egypt, but even there, his approval ratings register just below 50%.
February 09, 2011 6:47 PM
wow
Barack Obama is turning out to be a really lousy President
who knew?
February 09, 2011 6:50 PM
"I think the key to this is for straight people to recognize the simple fact that gay people are people."
I don't think I've ever met a straight person who doesn't think gay people are people.
Where do you find them, Jim?
"They aren't an organization with a conspiratorial plan to take over the world, they are just folks."
I think we've discussed this before. Those who push the gay agenda aren't mostly gays.
It's actually a bunch of liberals, always looking for way to create societal decay.
"They fall in love just like everybody else, sometimes they want to marry and start a family and have a home and fight over the remote just like the rest of us."
Well, if they want a law that allows them to fight over the remote, I won't argue with them.
"Of course there is nothing "unequivocal" about any of the research findings on the subject."
of course not. It's a subjective area, impervious to empirical analysis.
"The idea that government should decide who you can marry is so obviously opposed to conservative principles that they must just cringe when they have to support this kind of thing."
Well, that's one of the many things wrong with this bill. It represents government deciding that same gender deviants can marry each other.
It's actually none of government business deciding who can and can't marry.
That's up to the parade of clergy.
"Some conservatives hold positions that support the status quo, keep the currently dominant group in power, and promote norms and beliefs that are held by, basically, white middle-class Christian men."
listen
do you want to know a secret?
do you promise not to tell?
closer
let me whisper in your ear:
African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans all oppose gay "marriage" in greater numbers than the pasty faced ones
as a matter of fact, if whites were the only ones who could vote, gay "marriage" would have happened long ago
"Other conservatives derive their particular policy opinions from a set of principles including a trust in individual liberties and a reduced role for government in citizens' private lives."
hey look
he's talking about me!!
"You can't have both at the same time"
I agree. We have to steadfastly oppose having the government rule who can marry. Leave it to the church.
"but the modern so-called conservative movement has comprised an uncomfortable alliance between those who hold the two types of beliefs."
oh dear
ya think so?
"Kefalas also disclosed that he is gay and long struggled to accept his identify."
hey, K
there's more to a person's identity than his deviant desires
take a philosophy course fer crying out loud!!
""Under present law, I'm considered less of a citizen than many of you," he told the committee."
oh yeah, well how about bigamists?
are they less of a "citizen"?
"Man, that's gotta be tough, being a gay Republican."
being insane is probably rough regardless of your political beliefs
"You can never tell with these things, of course,"
C'est la vie says the old folks
"there is some precedent for politicians to back down from controversial issues"
oh yeah, that happens sometimes, doesn't it?
"The most we can do here is to keep alive, to bring out rational points pro and dis and con their the discussion cuss merits, try to keep The Nutty Ones from hijacking cool heads the debate, and let in Annapolis on vote the legislation comes when the time. We've elected think leaders who we will well represent us their hands well, now it's in."
I guess that makes sense
February 09, 2011 7:46 PM
Bristol Palin, 20, is already plotting her future career in-- you guessed it-- politics! In an interview with E! News, Bristol admits that she'll "probably" run for office.
Sources say Bristol's foray into politics is going to happen a lot sooner than most people think. "Bristol has a new sense of confidence since she did 'Dancing with the Stars,'" the source said. "She has seen her mother (Sarah Palin's) success and believes Washington should have more regular people like her in office making decisions for the country, rather than the elite that currently run DC."
The abstinence speaker and soon-to-be author "doesn't have a strong political resume" but the source claims "that's what will make her a great congresswoman or even President!" Who knows? Maybe Bristol will be vying for the White House in 2012 instead of Mama Grizzly!
When asked just what would drive this young mother to enter the cutthroat would of politics, Bristol's answer was similar to one her own mom has given in the past. "If I saw something that needed to be changed, then I would step up to the plate and do something about it," she said.
February 09, 2011 8:42 PM
Maryland – The Senate Judicial Proceedings committee heard 7 hours of testimony last night on whether or not to legalize gay marriage, including from NOM’s Maggie Gallagher. Now one Senator, who was previously a foe, has said her testimony convinced him to support marriage equality.
Senator James Brochin (D) was one of the few Democrat Senators who was opposed to gay marriage. But after listening to testimony from Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization For Marriage (NOM), he’s said that her “demonization” of gay families has convinced him that he should side with marriage equality.
“The demonization of gay families really bothered me,” Brochin said. “Are these families going to continue to be treated by the law as second class citizens?”
Well done Maggie!
February 10, 2011 8:53 AM
sounds like a politician kissing up to an advocacy group
when and how did anyone "demonize" gay "families"?
since whatever was said was so bad that it can be described as "demonization", please provide an example
we all need to see what a lunatic calls "demonization"
it would helpful to discerning future lunatic rantings here on Teach the Fantasy (TTF)
February 11, 2011 12:14 PM
You do realize it was Senator Brochin who said Maggie had "demonized" gay families and that your question should be directed to him. Maybe the same fantasy that brings you to Vigilance every day makes you think that the people mentioned on this blog come here too.
< eye roll >
The google can help out where misplaced questions can't. Here's one of Maggie's quotes to the Maryland Statehouse:
“As so many pro-gay marriage voices testified at this very hearing, gay marriage is grounded in the belief that this view of marriage is like objections to interracial marriage — something that should be discarded in law, culture and society."
And this link:
http://mlis.state.md.us/mgaweb/senatecmtaudio.aspx
links to Maggie Gallagher's 2-8-11 testimony against same sex marriage in Maryland.
Select Judicial Proceedings Committee and in the pull down window select Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2011.
Once she was done testifying here in MD, Gallagher left to tell the same tale to legislators in Rhode Island where "Newly elected Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) expressed his support for marriage equality during his inauguration speech Jan. 4 and legislators introduced marriage equality bills in both the state House and Senate on Jan. 6. Democrats, largely in favor of same-sex marriage, hold large majorities in both chambers, and House Speaker Gordon Fox (D), who is openly gay, is a cosponsor of the bill. "
February 11, 2011 4:47 PM
STATEMENT BY SENATOR ALLAN H. KITTLEMAN ON SENATE BILL 116
I want to express my thoughts on SB 116, Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. As most of you know, I have long supported equal rights for same sex couples. A few years ago, I voted in favor of allowing same sex couples the right to make medical decisions for each other.
This year, I decided to work on legislation that allowed civil unions for all couples - opposite sex and same sex couples. My goal was three-fold:
1. I wanted to ensure that same sex couples had the same rights and responsibilities as married couples in Maryland;
2. I wanted to remove the government's intervention in what most Marylanders consider a religious institution (marriage); and
3. I wanted to develop a consensus on an issue that has been very divisive for many years.
In early January, I announced my proposal for civil unions for all couples. Somewhat surprisingly, I received much more criticism from people who wanted same sex marriage than those who oppose such marriages. I actually received quite a lot of messages and emails from Republicans supporting my decision.
A recent poll performed by Gonzales Research confirmed strong support for civil unions. The poll found that 62% of Maryland voters support civil unions. Of that amount, 73% of Democrats, 60% of Independents and 41.5% of Republicans support civil unions. This figure was higher than the support for same-sex marriage in Maryland.
According to the poll, 51% of Maryland voters support same-sex marriage. Of that amount, 65% of Democrats, 52.4% of Independents and 24% of Republicans support same-sex marriage.
Unfortunately, despite the support by a strong majority of Maryland voters, I did not receive any support from my Republican and Democrat senate colleagues. In fact, the Republican senate caucus yesterday voted to take a "caucus position" against same-sex marriage. My Republican colleagues have also made it very clear to me that they would not be supportive of my civil union legislation. I also did not receive any support from Republicans or Democrats in the House of Delegates.
February 11, 2011 4:52 PM
Based upon the lack of support I have received for my civil union bill, it was evident that my legislation would not receive a favorable report from the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. With the deadline for submitting legislation approaching quickly and with the Committee hearing scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 8th, I made the decision to forego my efforts to have civil unions for all couples in Maryland.
As I noted above, my primary goal has always been to ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples currently have in Maryland. I see this issue as a civil rights issue. I was raised by a gentleman who joined with others in fighting racial discrimination in the 1950s and 1960s. Watching him fight for civil rights instilled in me the belief that everyone, regardless of race, sex, national origin or sexual orientation, is entitled to equal rights.
Consequently, with the civil union legislation no longer being a viable option, I was put in the position of deciding whether to support same-sex marriage or voting to continue the prohibition against same-sex marriage. As a strong proponent of personal and economic liberty/freedom, I simply could not, in good conscience, vote against SB 116.
I know that some may contend that since the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, Maryland should continue to prohibit same sex marriage. First, let me state that I am a strong follower of Jesus Christ. I worked in youth ministries for many years. However, while my faith may teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, our government is not a theocracy. As the state senator from District 9, I represent everyone in my district, regardless of their faith. Therefore, while my spiritual life is extremely important to me, it cannot be the sole basis for my decisions as a state senator.
I know that some will be upset with my decision to support SB 116 and I respect the fact that people have differing opinions on this issue. I carefully considered my decision. I sought counsel from many people, including my family, clergy, advocates for both sides, fellow legislators and many others. These discussions were very helpful to me and I appreciate the time that those individuals took to talk with me. Ultimately, it was my strong feelings about civil rights that led me to decide to support SB 116.
February 11, 2011 4:52 PM
still haven't seen any evidence anyone is "demonizing" gay families
must be another lie by anti-family forces
February 11, 2011 6:09 PM