Maher vs. Schafley

[bballny]

If you watched Bill Maher last week, Phkyiss Schafley was very good. Sher asked Bill the rhetorical question that gays should go to the legislature if they want marriage changed. Maher had no comeback.. The proper comeback is "If that is true and you believe that the activist judges are pushing an agenda then when African Americans were fighting Jim Crow laws was she supporting that they needeed to go to the legislature to change those laws or did she support segragation.

[Cassandra]

1. Sorry, I was too busy staring at that wig she had on.

As stiff as sculptured plaster.

[still_one]

2. the point is well taken

Consider this:

at least six million Jews were killed by the nazis, and according to "german" law at the time it was perfectly legal

Jesus was crucified by, and according to roman law at the time it was perfectly legal

The Spanish Inquisition according to spanish law at the time was perfectly legal

World history is filled with tremendous injustices that were perfectly legal, including civil rights as you mentioned

Because something is law does NOT make it right

[Justitia]

3. Didn't she specify "state legislatures"? Correct me if I'm wrong.,.

I saw it, and I think she said "state" legislatures.

If so, this would conflict with how the federal gov't addresses marriage under the Full Faith & Credit clause of the constitution (this clause is what allows a marriage to be recognized in every state, not just the one it took place in).

If gay marriage is recognized in MA, for instance, the Full Faith & Credit clause says it must be recognized in ALL states. Of course the repubs will throw up DOMA as a defense, this will be debated in the courts, and DOMA should be legitimately thrown out as unconstitutional against the FF&C clause.

With rabid RWers in charge of the courts (cue Mr. Roberts) however, I wonder if it will be totally arbitrary and "anything goes".

[question everything]

4. Yes, I posted last Friday that Maher did not do well

on this "debate." He failed miserably when he tried to bring the point that her son, indeed, that sons of many RWers are gays, and he felt miserable when he equated abortion to the death penalty.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4403790

[Justitia]

6. He tries to not totally piss off RWers, lest they not make any appearances

I sympathize with that, if you simply attack them (i.e., the gay kids question - although a valid topic for later discussion), they will quit appearing on your show.

They have to keep coming because how can we otherwise hear directly from them, challenge them, deconstruct their arguments on our own turf (vs Fox News)?

BUT AND HOWEVER,

Bill needs to be more prepared to deftly handle them and anticipate their ridiculous arguments ahead of time. He is usually pretty good at doing this "on his feet" (as is Jon Stewart), but this was a notable exception.

I wonder if he was simply afraid of insulting an old woman?
She is a clever viper, 'ol Phyllis....

[stopbush]

7. Maher shoots from the hip way too often. If he were half as

informed as Jon Stewart, he'd do OK, but he repeats the "outraged" bromides with the best of them and lets it go at that.

[Justitia]

8. I agree. I sometimes physically wince over what he says, or repeats.

Other times I love how he takes them apart w/such aplomb and humor.

But yes, when he repeats RW talking points, or tries too hard to be congenial to absolute nutjobs (Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter), it drives me up the wall. I just have to have faith in his audience, I guess.

[question everything]

12. But he did. When he tried to comment about how the conservatives

she and Cheney - had gay children, she replied: I thought that we were talking about the Constitutions. And she was correct, and he shut up quickly.

And I agree with the original poster that he could have come back but, obviously, as others say, he does not prepare. Probably usually makes sense. You start with a few sentences and then let the guests take it from there... except when the guest does not go in the direction that you want. I think that Jon Stewart, who does not prepare, either, handles such deviation better.

[jane_pippin]

13. I watched the rerun last night...

and to me it seemed that he wanted to ask about the sons/daughters thing in a "how can you deny your own children's rights" kind of way but Phyllis took the mere fact that he brought up her child's orientation as an insult, (which I doubt is the way he meant it), and that ended that line of questioning.

I thought Bill did a decent enough job. Chris Rock on the other hand...Well I just thought he'd have more to say.

That, of course, is my interpretation/opinion of the interview. I'll have to catch it again and see if I change my mind or not.

[LSK]

5. im wondering who exactly is bypassing legislatures

And who is going to judges??? I dont see that happening. Can anyone cite an example of members of the gay community going to judges instead of going through legislation???

[erpowers]

9. Great Way to Shut her Up

I think I have a great way to shut her up. Just say you will not debate her and then point out that she on numerous occasions has said that women should not have jobs, but they should stay home and take care of their children. If that is really her opinion then she herself should not have a job and should never have had a job therefore, no one on the left has any obligation to debate her in that regardless, her opinion will always be nonsense since she herself says she should not be allowed to make her opinion.

[SonofMass]

10. I would rather find something pleasant to do. I don't think I could

stand to listen to those two women argue for long.

[gratuitous]

11. Gays and their supporters did go to the legislature in Oregon

We passed Senate Bill 1000, but thanks to the manipulations of the House speaker, an odious bit of vermin named Karen Minnis, the bill never came up for a hearing in the House.

However, if Mrs. Schlafly would like to come to Salem during the next legislative session and throw her support behind the next bill in the Oregon legislature, we would certainly welcome her efforts.

Unless, of course, she's just a flaming hypocrite who loves to load heavier and heavier burdens on the oppressed and doesn't lift a finger to help them. Jesus, as I recall, had some pretty harsh words for folks like that . . .