left wing double talk on indiana marriage amendment
indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070324/
LOCAL190110/703240467
Justin McKinney was sniffing gasoline out of a milk carton when the woman he lived with in the small town of Richwood, Ohio, came home.
For some reason, McKinney got angry, chased her down an alley and kneed her in the stomach. Police had to use a Taser to subdue him. Prosecutors charged McKinney with domestic violence.
His attorney never argued that he didn't hit the woman, and McKinney was convicted last year in the February 2006 attack. But last month, an Ohio appeals court reversed the conviction because McKinney and the woman were not married.
To blame: Ohio's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which is similar to the measure that Indiana's General Assembly has been debating this year.
Two of Ohio's 12 appeals courts have ruled that the amendment prevents unmarried couples from receiving the benefits of marriage, including protection under the state's domestic violence laws.
These are the opening paragraphs of the article that I linked to above. The subject of the article is the proposed marriage amendment that is currently being debated in Indiana. There's a lot that we could talk about concerning the whole issue of gay marriage, but I wanted to use this article to go in a different direction. This article is an absolute textbook example of the dishonesty of the left, and they should be ashamed. Of course, we are talking about liberals, to whom shame is a foreign, unfamiliar concept, so my expectations are probably too high.
The writer of this "news" article is obviously trying to get the reader to believe that the proposed amendment will leave single women cohabitating with a man completely unprotected against violent attacks from that man. If the amendment is passed, says the "journalist," it will be impossible to prosecute a man for hitting a woman he is not married to. Of course, this is complete fiction. Is there no end to the liberal lies told by lying liberals?
If a man and a woman are not married, but are living together, and the man hits her, he is guilty of assault. The prosecutor should then prosecute on that basis. Are we to believe that nobody ever gets convicted of hitting another human just because said humans are not married? Good grief! Liberal dishonesty rears its ugly head!
Look back at the paragraphs I quoted above. Look at the sentence that begins, "To blame...". That is an inaccurate statement. The truth is that the inept prosecutor was to blame because he charged an assailant who was not married to his victim with a crime that was written to apply to married couples.
We have arrived at a teachable moment, sports fans. True to form, the modern godless, socialist liberal cannot use facts, logic or reason to defend their cockamamie position. Why? Because their position is indefensible. So, they fall back to Plan B, which is to throw as many lies at us as they possibly can in order to cloud the issue. How positively typical!
LOCAL190110/703240467
Justin McKinney was sniffing gasoline out of a milk carton when the woman he lived with in the small town of Richwood, Ohio, came home.
For some reason, McKinney got angry, chased her down an alley and kneed her in the stomach. Police had to use a Taser to subdue him. Prosecutors charged McKinney with domestic violence.
His attorney never argued that he didn't hit the woman, and McKinney was convicted last year in the February 2006 attack. But last month, an Ohio appeals court reversed the conviction because McKinney and the woman were not married.
To blame: Ohio's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which is similar to the measure that Indiana's General Assembly has been debating this year.
Two of Ohio's 12 appeals courts have ruled that the amendment prevents unmarried couples from receiving the benefits of marriage, including protection under the state's domestic violence laws.
These are the opening paragraphs of the article that I linked to above. The subject of the article is the proposed marriage amendment that is currently being debated in Indiana. There's a lot that we could talk about concerning the whole issue of gay marriage, but I wanted to use this article to go in a different direction. This article is an absolute textbook example of the dishonesty of the left, and they should be ashamed. Of course, we are talking about liberals, to whom shame is a foreign, unfamiliar concept, so my expectations are probably too high.
The writer of this "news" article is obviously trying to get the reader to believe that the proposed amendment will leave single women cohabitating with a man completely unprotected against violent attacks from that man. If the amendment is passed, says the "journalist," it will be impossible to prosecute a man for hitting a woman he is not married to. Of course, this is complete fiction. Is there no end to the liberal lies told by lying liberals?
If a man and a woman are not married, but are living together, and the man hits her, he is guilty of assault. The prosecutor should then prosecute on that basis. Are we to believe that nobody ever gets convicted of hitting another human just because said humans are not married? Good grief! Liberal dishonesty rears its ugly head!
Look back at the paragraphs I quoted above. Look at the sentence that begins, "To blame...". That is an inaccurate statement. The truth is that the inept prosecutor was to blame because he charged an assailant who was not married to his victim with a crime that was written to apply to married couples.
We have arrived at a teachable moment, sports fans. True to form, the modern godless, socialist liberal cannot use facts, logic or reason to defend their cockamamie position. Why? Because their position is indefensible. So, they fall back to Plan B, which is to throw as many lies at us as they possibly can in order to cloud the issue. How positively typical!
posted by hondo at 2:41 PM
2 Comments:
The article is accurate. If you want to allege the "dishonesty of the left," then you need to dispute the acutal facts.
What the section you quote does not specify is that prior to the Ohio amendment, McKinney could have been prosecuted under Ohio's domestic violence statute.
Typically, these admendments have two provisions. 1) Marriage is between a man and a woman. 2) No benefits of marriage can be conferred on unmarried couples.
The second clause is always a vague statement and supporters make vague assurances about it, but let's be clear. The people who write these amedments don't want to say "we want to deny all benefits to same-sex couples" (because that statement polls badly). But, they do want to deny all benefits to same-sex couples.
Since they can't say that, they're left with vague provisions that can be applied to all sorts of things. Even Mr.McKinney.
The problem here is not the dishonesty of the left, but the dishonesty of the right.
We have seen a consistent pattern of admendment proposed with the stated claim that all they will do is prevent same-sex marriage. Once passed, their backers use them to prevent any sort of benefits to same-sex couples. The only explanation: they lied to voters.
If the Ohio amendment has had an averse affect beyond the plans of its supporters, perhaps it should serve as a warning.
John D, I agree with you. We need to look at the actual facts. Here they are:
FACT: Prior to the Ohio amendment, McKinney could have been prosecuted under Ohio's domestic violence statute. After the amendment, Mckinney should have been prosecuted under the assault statutes that apply to non-married people. What's so hard to understand about that?
FACT: You are correct when you say that these amendments typically have 2 provisions. The reason why is that the backers of said amendments are looking ahead to the strategies of liberal activist judges, and are trying to prevent "marriage lite," or civil unions, from taking the place of traditional marriage.
FACT: No Christian conservative backer of these amendments, as far as I know, has ever been the least bit vague in stating what the goal of the amendment is. The goal is to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to prevent civil unions from taking the place of marriage. We make no bones about that.
FACT: Each and every one of your comments (with the exception of the part about these amendments having two parts) was a work of fiction. Thank you for the teachable moment. I'm looking forward to the time when you start posting to your new blog. I hope you stick with the facts.
Post a Comment
<< Home