Day two of the LGBT Equality - DOMA before SCOTUS

Today, the federal Defense of Marriage was challenged before the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor. The issue being challenged is section three of DOMA, which defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Opponents of DOMA argue that the law violates same0sex couples' Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law, however defenders of the law say it ensures the sovereignty of the states.

In the lead up to today's case, both the Obama Administration and the Attorney General announced they would no defend DOMA, so the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, known as BLAG, has taken up the defense. BLAG is made up of House Speaker John Boehner and several other Representatives, and they claim that the Defense of Marriage Act benefits our nation by saving money. And they argue that federal benefits given to opposite-sex couples encourage “reasonable procreation.”

There are three issues before the court in the case: whether DOMA violates the constitutional rights of same-sex couples, whether the President and the Attorney General refusing the law deprives the court of jurisdiction, and whether BLAG has the legal right to bring the appeal. DOMA denies same-sex couples multiple benefits they would otherwise receive under federal law, such as the right to file joint taxes, spousal healthcare from federal employers, and Social Security survival benefits.

In addition to being morally wrong, there's no question that DOMA treats LGBT families like second class citizens. It's time for everyone in our nation to have the right to marry the person who they love. Let's hope the Supreme Court overturns DOMA, and helps to make that possible.

Comments

Kend's picture
Kend 7 years 6 days ago
#1

Here in Canada we don't care who you marry as long as they watch hockey.

millions of people out of work, a infrastucture falling apart, 1 out of 5 people on food stamps and this is what your government is working on. Seriously

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 7 years 6 days ago
#2

Well, Kend, I sure agree with you on that one. There are way more important things to worry about than what they are trying to cram into our auricular and ocular orifices (or a few others I shan't name) now. It must be a wag the dog moment. Get the people to concentrating on relatively inane side issues and ignore the really important ones...like starvation, pollution, affordable shelter and health care. Less than 2% of the population in the US is gay. And the only reason I can see why gays want to have a legally sanctioned marriage is for benefits that are typically awarded to people who are capable of producing offspring...children. And, until they start creating life in a test tube, heterosexual unions are necessary for the propagation of the species...homosexual ones are not.

There are a lot of lazy leaches who don't want to "get a job" and prefer to sponge off of a spouse for the rest of their lives (and that goes for both heterosexuals and homosexuals who can both be "gold-diggers"). But only heterosexuals have the capability of creating children. And when you create children, you help to propagate the species. But, oftentimes some people are way too "creative" and end up creating more of a problem than is good for a healthy population. While it could be argued that the "non-breeders" are not adding to any overpopulation problems...they certainly can never create life. So, "breeders" are essential and "non-breeders" are not. It is merely a 'sexual preference'.

Sexual proclivities should not be the crow-bar to open the public coffers of a system already over-burdened by the needs of a 'normal' system...especially when it is being sacked by the misdeeds of the criminal ruling elite. Instead of wasting so much time on trying to gain aberrant 'rights' for such a tiny 'aberrant' section of the population...we need to concentrate of the suffering of the majority of 'normal' people.

Gee, I wonder if I could, one day, seek and win access to the public coffers for my dependent 'hand'. It's been so close to me...in fact, inseparable. Now if I can only legally marry my hand and claim it as a dependent. Or, maybe I should just tell my hand to 'get a job'. Some people may even, one day, marry their favorite bestial household pet...like a sheep named Dolly, perhaps.

Kend's picture
Kend 7 years 5 days ago
#3

WOW Palin. Or, you should just let anyone who wants to get married and focus on creating more jobs. They don't get more right then me and I am all for gay marriage, way should they only be happy. But seriously what difference does it make to be if BOB and BOB or Jane and Jane get hitched. I thought we are all created equal. Equal rights for all.

thomas j adams's picture
thomas j adams 7 years 5 days ago
#4

There is no we the people except for gays or blacks or hispanics or woman or tall or short the constitution say WE THE PEOPLE plain and simple I think they should just follow the constitrution everyone says is the law of the land.

Bmichaelcarpenter 7 years 5 days ago
#5

Though you seem to want to sound like an expert on homosexuality, ( that's an issue to explore later) you don't have the simplist facts right. Homosexuals can and do reproduce (unfortunately.). I've heard so much analysis, dissection, speculation and criticism of homosexuality I grow numb. I would like to hear a lengthy analysis of bigotry, dissected and exposed to sunlight. Enough with blaming the victim. Bigots praddle a lot because law Presently backs them up. Being openly gay takes more courage than talking bigotry because the government does not protect them.

B. Michael Carpenter

leighmf's picture
leighmf 7 years 5 days ago
#6

What is "reasonable pro-creation?" We are already overpopulated. Couples should be given an incentive not to procreate more than once, unless outer-space colonization is given more serious consideration soon.

mklprc 7 years 5 days ago
#7

I love the fact that Boehner and his accumulation of bigots have chosen the acronym BLAG. Clueless idiots don't know that it's British slang for miscreants, crooks, delinquents, etc. Bunch of blaggers they are, for sure.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 7 years 5 days ago
#8

I really don't care if people are attracted to the same sex...or even to sheep. I say whatever makes them happy.... But I get awfully tired of hearing about it and feel like these people are trying to force their awkward proclivities down our throats (no pun intended). We straight people are the overwhelming majority. LBGT is less than 2% of the population.

Whatever people do in their own bedrooms or homes is fine but when they gush it all out in public, and expect to burden the already overburdened economic system with their derived problems, then it is most uncomfortable for the majority of us who are straight. When they try to force the government to recognize their 'aberrations' as 'normal' by giving them equal status and access to the same benefits as heterosexual marriages, further eroding the ability of that system to pay for their benefits to traditionally sanctioned institutions, then we have a really big problem.

It's so convenient to call someone else a bigot until you assess your own bigotry against others. Who are you 'bigoted' against? And if you are, I suppose you feel sanctified or justified in being so. You think gays are not 'bigoted' against straight people? So let's not use that term loosely. Just because you may be gay does not mean that you, yourself, are not 'bigoted' in some way against others.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 7 years 5 days ago
#9

And Fag is a British slang term for cigarette. Gives a whole new meaning to 'sucking on a fag".

dowdotica's picture
dowdotica 7 years 5 days ago
#10

i am a bigot! i am bigoted against, whites,yellows, reds, blacks, browns, trailer trash, street trash, white trash,christian trash, congressional trash, gays, gay trash! i am a bigot but selectively only towards the ignorant of the ilk!!! i can't believe that in 2013 we are even having this conversation and with such stupid thinking none the less. i've read the news and as rodney said all those years ago? "can't we all just get along?" leave the queers alone. when i wore a young cats cloths as straight youth ladies man (picture justin beiber looking sort of dude) i was a victim of one of those church scandals, you know. so when the word got out i was then coined, fag, queer, homo, faggot and such. ruined parts of my life from 6th-11th grade. could not turn a corner in my hillbilly town without some homophobe trying to start some shit with me. mom said turn the other cheek. one day i couldn't do it anymore. it was kill myself or kill, so then i learned to fight back. So i did and i liked it. long story short? spent a lot of time kicked out of school but i made my point and saved face. down the road at a county fair i was acosted by some old perv so my brother and i bashed him and ran, thats when "I" became a homophobe. anything remotely queer looking or sounding? watch out! i was a hard core homophobe from the 80s and thats all it was, bigoted ignorance and probably my own paranoias but hey i guess we can't expect every one to evolve now can we? at 50? i've meant plenty of "queer" folk and it surprises me that in this day and age people just seem a lot dumber the i was as a youth. time to evolve folks or get left behind as us the immoral majority "will" win. hilarious!!!

historywriter's picture
historywriter 7 years 5 days ago
#11

The only issue that anyone should be concerned with is a legal one? Should same-sex couples have the same rights as straight ones? There are many advantages to being married, including taxes, estate planning, medical benefits for spouses, and several others.

This is not a religious issue. In this country we have (mostly) a division between state and religion. My personal opinion is not the issue. Nor is the issue of "morality," or what the bible says, or what you think God says. The issue is simple: equal rights for all.

2950-10K's picture
2950-10K 7 years 5 days ago
#12

Boehner's being a jerk about same- sex couples because he knows how most of them vote............ "progressive." All of the LGBT folks I know are a joy to be around, we always agree politically for starters.

HalFonts's picture
HalFonts 7 years 5 days ago
#13

I can't think of a distraction that amuses me less. Two radio stations in DC today again broadcast the same twit repeating the same drivelous news-report from the Supreme Court over and over and over, hour after hour -- as if there were something urgently new in the "debate." Certainly DOMA violates equal protection; but "marriage" is a word, a frigging word damnit, call it a god-damned rose-garden. But fuddie-me, I forgot; "marriage" is "a government sanctified union in the baby-blue eyes of one of our founding father or mother's gods."

We ponder straight breeders, spawning more workers, consumers and cannon-fodder for "our" expanding global empire; LGBTETC attorneys make their "oral" (porn-network-news loves that term) arguments for parity -- while Single-moms get no marital deductions or respect, and 65-year-old women and men get permits to copulate and procreate and presumably deduct fertility treatments from their social-security tax-returns?

What do I think? Even Kafka makes more sense than this made-for-TV governmental soap-opera. Could it be inadvertent comic-relief? So, what else you got behind the curtain, Chef Roberts?

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 7 years 5 days ago
#14

Palindromedary wrote ~ "Less than 2% of the population in the US is gay. And the only reason I can see why gays want to have a legally sanctioned marriage is for benefits that are typically awarded to people who are capable of producing offspring...children. And, until they start creating life in a test tube, heterosexual unions are necessary for the propagation of the species...homosexual ones are not."

First of all Palindromedary and Kend, I agree with one thing you said, we are paying too much attention to a lesser priority issue than the more urgent ones going on with the budget and military aggression. That's it. The rest of your arguments are ridiculous.

Secondly of all Palindromedary, I challenge your statistic that 2% of the population is gay. My figures that I learned in college in a course call "The Sociology of Human Sexual Behavior" puts that statistic between 30 - 50%. Please cite your sources.

Thirdly, you way over value the heterosexual ability to propagate the species. Becoming pregnant and having a baby are not only free but so easy to do it is often considered recreation. Raising that child is where the whole real challenge is that contributes to "propagating the species." This is one of the major issues of this case. Many same sex couples are adopting children that are unwanted by their heterosexual generic parents. They are taking on a huge financial and personal burden; and, in essence giving orphans a chance for a "normal" childhood and a solid future. Gay couples also contribute to society in the work place and as tax payers. They are entitled to all the rights any other citizen enjoys. Anything less is discrimination. And before you say their behavior forces "awkward proclivities" down our throat, realize that from their perspective the same could be said of heterosexuals.

Palindromedary further writes ~ "Instead of wasting so much time on trying to gain aberrant 'rights' for such a tiny 'aberrant' section of the population...we need to concentrate of the suffering of the majority of 'normal' people."

This--as a pure heterosexual male--I find extremely offensive and demeaning. Palindromedary, who are you and anyone else here to judge anyone other than yourself. By what authority do you demean the private activities of others with the word 'aberrant' and proclaim yourself 'normal.' Don't you see that when you fall for that type of labeling you follow a script that is written by every hate monger who ever preached hate. Please, lighten up! This is the problem. Gay people are first and foremost PEOPLE. They deserve to be treated as such and given the same rights, opportunities, and respect as any other group.

As far as "propagating the species" is concerned, gay family's are usually more secure, less stressful, and more financially solvent than heterosexual ones. This group should be given a medal for volunteering to raise children in a loving home that would otherwise be unloved in an orphanage or worse. For this reason alone they should be entitled to all the benefits any heterosexual couple receive for serving society by raising it's unwanted children. Really Palindromedary you should know better. Conception and giving birth are so overrated in this society--especially when half the time such an event is considered an accident.

Please don't use the word 'normal'. There really is no such thing. If by it you mean heterosexual than I find it insulting. I never want to consider myself 'normal' in any way. Please speak for yourself!

Wendalore's picture
Wendalore 7 years 5 days ago
#15

Oh, I just love the name "BLAG!!"

Wendalore's picture
Wendalore 7 years 5 days ago
#16

I want to just state one thing that I keep thinking and have never said.

First of all, I am 100% in favor of gays getting married.

That said, I think there's more to be said about it than is being said. We need to have some philosophical discussions and agreements. Marriage has long been considered a certain thing. It's always been between a man and a woman. So is it surprising that people get uncomfortable about changing the definition of marriage? Thom says "People should be able to marry whom they love." Even that statement needs expanding, doesn't it? Suppose I love my dog? Oh, but he means "a HUMAN" whom they love!" Then that needs to be specified. No, really!! Well, what about the number of humans a person loves?" Oh, only one human? Then THAT needs to be specified. What if I want to marry one human I don't love? Isn't that my right? So THAT needs to be specified. Please don't throw tomatoes, I really am on your side, and I'm not being stupid!!

What IS marriage, anyway? If it isn't what it used to be, what is it now? That's all I'm saying. Where's the definition of what marriage IS? I don't actually hear anyone talking about it. And I'm not referring to BLAG, either. I'm NOT suggesting we just go back to the old definition. I think gays and Lesbians SHOULD be able to get married. (but what if they don't WANT to get married? And what do we think now about any couple that lives together without marriage? And brings up children without being married.) Hear all the issues inherent in this whole thing? I just want more humanistic, philosophical and even spiritual discussion of what that thing is. Once we agree on what it IS, then maybe all this argument will go away.

"In your dreams," I hear them saying… Anyone know what I'm talking about?

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 7 years 5 days ago
#17

Wendalore ~ I hear what you're saying. Quite frankly your unbiased, honest and objective opinion is quite enlightening and refreshing. I wish more people could look at the situation innocently and practically like you just did and leave their own bigotry and personal sexual insecurities out of the discourse. The world would be a better place. Bravo Wendalore! Bravo!!

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 7 years 5 days ago
#18

Palindromedary ~ Perhaps I should elaborate about my personal scholastic studies of homosexuality in American society. The course I took included vast coverage of sociological group studies, statistics and polls, clinical case studies, published papers and journals by psychologists on case studies of people with sexual behavior issues over decades of practice, as well as studies of sexual behavior in prison populations, and in the animal kingdom.

The overall findings suggested that the true graph of sexual tendencies in modern American society actually represent more of a bell curve. At each end of the curve are exclusive heterosexual and homosexual groups. Each group represents the extreme extent of sexual tendencies and are exclusively heterosexual at one end and exclusively homosexual at the other end. Each ends represent approximately the same proportion of the curve at between 5 - 10% each. This leaves 80 - 90% of the curve--the true majority of people--which falls under the category of bisexual at varying levels of preference. As you can see, by extrapolating a generous margin of error, my estimate of 30-50% of the population as gay is a quite conservative estimate indeed!

That's right my dear friend. The true vast majority of people are bisexual with the greatest distribution under the curve made up of people who can equally go either way with 50-50 tendencies. The moral of this study and what it implies is simple--a lot of people go through a lot of trouble to lie to themselves and everyone else about their sexuality.

So if you are 100% heterosexual, have never had the slightest desire to touch another man, and have never in your life experienced or been curious about having a gay experience--congratulations! You are in the minority!

NORMAL is a misleading label; and, a very dirty word!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_when_your_bisexual

MMmmNACHOS's picture
MMmmNACHOS 7 years 5 days ago
#19

Kend refering to your comments yesterday regarding Fracking...Soooooo typical of a Right Wing Capitalist, So predictable...the Robber Barron. As I have said before; To a NeoCon-Capitalist...Life is cheap, and profit trumps everything.
Fortunatly more and more people are tunning in and starting to realize that in order to sustain life we must stop rapeing the earth. No, I am not so egotistical to believe for a second that Man can Save the Earth...But he can strive to sustain certain necessities that he needs for survival; Clean Air, Clean Water, Clean Food.

Now Kend I am all for a robust economy, and a strong work force, but in no way do I support or encourage the same ideas, philosophies, and behaviours that quickly proved themselves to not be tried and true, and in turn have retarded us as a nation, and driven us to destroy one another over trinkets and who has the biggest pecker (which by the way is the Blue Whale). This "by any means necessary"..."the ends justify the means" ideology has got to stop. Life isn't about one's portfolio, or owning more...More importantly, Mother Nature tells us everything...We are not the geniuses...We are merely technicians. We must listen to Mother Earth and stop repeating our mistakes. If we don't stop now and change our way of thinking we are dooming our children, or grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Our neglagence today will adversly affect the next three generations. Currently the U.S. is just one generation behind where is should be when it comes to "Green Energy". Had we been more on the ball starting in the late '70s and through out the '80s we would be competative with Germany, China, Japan, and India when it comes to Green Energy.
I won't argue with you regarding how the Obama adminastration has dropped the ball when it comes to writting and enacting an economically strong Green Energy Policy...Obama's pockets are lined with BIG Nuclear. However it is tawdry of you to imply Green Energy is a waste of time and money.
Truth is Green Energy is very much a way towards restoring our economy while being envioromentally sound consumers.
Why just here in sunny Florida more and more commercial, residential and industrial communities are going green, unfortunatly Gov. Dick Scott refused to sign a bill that would have trippled the money alotted towards incentive bennefits (rebates)for installing green energy technology...Same goes for accepting Federal funding for building and maintainning a passanger rail system connecting 5 of the busiest metropolitain cities in Florida...But that is how Rick Scott lives up to "getting Florida back to work".

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 7 years 5 days ago
#20

Heh, heh, heh...are we all having fun yet? Is it not "normal' for some people to take University courses solely for the purpose of discovering who one really is. Does it not highlight one's interests and expose their self-discovery? People who are sexually confused often seek such courses. What say you professor? Maybe you are, at least, a little bi yourself. And if anyone needs to show the source of their claims it is someone who claims that as many as half of us are at least bi-sexual. That's just way too difficult to swallow (no pun intended).

"SAME-SEX COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS
BY STATE
Approximately 594,000 same-sex couple
households lived in the United States
in 2010, not statistically different from
the 581,000 households reported in the
2009 ACS.

Nationally, about 1 percent
of all couple households were same-sex
couples. The percentage of same-sex
couple households for the 50 states and
the District of Columbia ranged from
0.29 percent for Wyoming and 4.01
percent for the District of Columbia."

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf

Outback 7 years 5 days ago
#21

You know, normally I would have read every comment here before posting, but I havent. Sorry if any of this is redundant, but here's my honest take on the issue of gay rights, DOMA, whatever: I don't give a damn! No, let me put that in stronger terms. I don't give a flying f**k what people do in their own bedrooms! Screw it! I don't even want to know! OK? Yes, give them every legal benefit that's coming to heterosexual couples (and god forbid single folk be taken into account along the way), but here's the thing that really irks me: This is absolute slight of hand. By this I mean It's insignificant bullshit! There are so many other vitally important issues that our legislators should be addressing. But here we are, wringing our hands over this crap. Jesus Christ, Thom, can't you come up with a more pressing issue in this insane world than who's doing what to whom, sexually, and whether it's "sanctioned"?

MMmmNACHOS's picture
MMmmNACHOS 7 years 5 days ago
#22

Howdee Hi OUTBACK, I posted something off topic...Feel free to chime in.

MMmmNACHOS's picture
MMmmNACHOS 7 years 5 days ago
#23

THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND, THIS LAND IS MY LAND...NOT THE CORPORATIONS!!!

To get back to the Enviromental issue of Fracking.
The little town of Dryden N.Y. is winning the battle against Big Oil and Gas.
The residents of Dryden - population 14,500, mostly farmers - voted in favor of zoning ordanence changes that would prohibit use of land within the town for oil and gas development; including fracking. The unanimous town vote followed a patician drive and a series of public hearings, and in Fed 2012 a NY Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dryden to pass its new zoning ordanence.
Since then an appeal by a Norwegian Gas and Oil Company has been filed to try and over turn the ruling.

You can show your support for the people of Dryden by going to Earth Justice and signing the petition.
Since the appeal more than 50 towns in upstate NY along with thousands of people from around the country have joined Dryden in the fight to reserve the right to refuse Big Oil and Gas land for exploration and development within their town.

Winning battles like this one shows us what happens when people unite their voices and stand their ground. A big reminder on who is suppose to run this Country...A government Of, For, and By The People...NOT CORPORATIONS!

SORRY KEND :(

Elioflight's picture
Elioflight 7 years 5 days ago
#24

This is what I plan to say to my fundamentalist christian family member when the subject comes up at Easter dinner and she asks if I believe in God, which she will since my daughter and this other self-righteous family member have been arguing about it online: "Of course I believe in God, the one in whose image we are ALL made and who said 'what you do to the least of mine you do also to me.'"

PLSzymeczek's picture
PLSzymeczek 7 years 5 days ago
#25

Maybe that's what Santorum was talking about! ”I don’t want to make BLAG people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.”

Timothy Gilmore's picture
Timothy Gilmore 7 years 4 days ago
#26

Palindromedary has obviously "hooked his gonads up to his thalamus and disconnected his cerebrum..."(Robert Heinlein)

The Samurai have a tradition of homosexuality and before Americans occupied Japan there were pleasure houses with male hosts. Gay Greco-Roman philosophers, such as Socrates and Plato heavily influence American philosophy. Alexander the Great was gay. Greek military forces were gay or gay tolerant as were many Roman detachments. Several Roman emperors and generals were openly gay.

To list only a few internationally known homosexuals, there are the Chinese emperors Ai Ti and Pu Yi; the UK has Queen Anne and William Shakespeare; from the US, Presidents James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, J. Edgar Hoover and Francis Cardinal Spellman. There was also a suspiciously ‘warm’ relationship between George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. Catholics include the Popes Benedict IX, John XII, Julius III, Leo X and Paul II. From Prussia we have Frederic the Great; from Germany, Ludwig II and Richard Wagner; Italy - Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Florence Nightingale; Russia - Tchaikovsky and Czar Alexander I; Ireland - Sir Arthur Sullivan and Oscar Wilde; Japan – Kukai and Musashi Miyamoto; Israel – King David. (Queers In History) Every occupation, religion, culture and family has men and women who are gay and psychosexually need to express physical love for people of the same sex.

Homosexuals come from heterosexual parents. If you're human, you have homosexual relatives in your families. As there are documented 'gay' members in many other species, one may assume it's in our DNA, as it is in theirs. It's a fact of life, but that is exactly what the homophobic, bigoted Republicanazis are focused on, denying facts. Everyone has a right to be wrong in their opinion, but no has the right to be wrong in their facts. Denial of facts, obstruction of legislation and justice, uselessly wasting taxpayers' money doing so, and deceit are the tools used by the GOPers to create chaos in America, and fear of gays, immmigrants, minorities, women and ignoring veterans are fomented to distract people's attention from other, equally important legislation concerning job creation, poverty alleviation and eradication, disaster recovery and prevention, infratructure repair and replacement, encouraging educational opportunities, participating in international cooperation and expanding Civil Rights and governmental transparency here.

daarleeny 7 years 4 days ago
#27

Yesterday, the justices were worried about the standing on the merits of if gays should marry and that perhaps the government shoud not interfere. Before Utak became a state, they had to agree not to have polygamy. So the federal government has already been in involved in marriage rules. Why would this case be any different? Do they not know our own history???

polycarp2 7 years 3 days ago
#28

Perhaps if people could chose who they form an emotional bond with that we sometimes refer to as "love", this discussion wouldn't even be taking place. People love deeply whom they love.

The secrets revealed on death beds reveal more than most people can imagine.

"God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." 1John 4:16. You may take that literally, It's a core teaching for all of Christendom. Christians should probably stop slapping God in the face.

IN the New Testament, the basis of Christianity, Paul is used to condemn homosexuality. The writings of Paul were addressed to specific problems within specific churches...in Romans, prostitution by both sexes. A carry-over of non-Christian religious practices.

Paul became an Apostle after the crucifiction. He was never directly taught by Jesus. John was.

There is a saying, "First Paul overcame Peter, then he overcame Christ." Contradictions to the teachings of Jesus are rampant in his writings. That's where the hatreds and bigotries of Christians come from.

"God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." 1John 4:16. You may take that literally, It's a core teaching for all of Christendom. Christians should probably stop slapping God in the face.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

If Only 100,000 Americans Die Trump Thinks He "Did a Great Job"

Thom plus logo On January 20, the United States and South Korea both diagnosed their first patient with the coronavirus. South Korea immediately begin testing their population and started a nationwide program of social distancing.

Latest Headlines

Who rejected United States-North Korea peace talks?

There were conflicting reports on Sunday regarding a recent proposal for United States-North Korea peace talks which was allegedly made before North Korea"s recent nuclear test

U.K. Pound Falls As Markets Get Brexit Jitters

Bloomberg said on Monday the pound had sustained its biggest fall against the dollar in 11 months

Clinton: I'll defend Israel but push for 'two-state solution

Hillary Clinton believes both Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz "missed the mark" with their approach to the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict
From Cracking the Code:
"In Cracking the Code, Thom Hartmann, America’s most popular, informed, and articulate progressive talk show host and political analyst, tells us what makes humans vulnerable to unscrupulous propagandists and what we can do about it. It is essential reading for all Americans who are fed up with right-wing extremists manipulating our minds and politics to promote agendas contrary to our core values and interests."
David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community and When Corporations Rule the World and board chair of YES! magazine
From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
Paul Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"In an age rife with media-inspired confusion and political cowardice, we yearn for a decent, caring, deeply human soul whose grasp of the problems confronting us provides a light by which we can make our way through the quagmire of lies, distortions, pandering, and hollow self-puffery that strips the American Dream of its promise. How lucky we are, then, to have access to the wit, wisdom, and willingness of Thom Hartmann, who shares with us here that very light, grown out of his own life experience."
Mike Farrell, actor, political activist, and author of Just Call Me Mike and Of Mule and Man