Former Bush aide attempts to use hatred against gays as a weapon against possible Obama nominee

[usregimechange]

The White House ripped CBS News on Thursday for publishing an online column by a blogger who made assertions about the sexual orientation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court.

Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that President Obama would "please" much of his base by picking the "first openly gay justice." An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.

CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."

The network deleted the posting Thursday night after Domenech said he was merely repeating a rumor. The flare-up underscores how quickly the battle over a Supreme Court nominee -- or even a potential nominee -- can turn searingly personal. Most major news organizations have policies against "outing" gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505658.html?hpid=topnews


:puke:

[blue sky at night]

1. former bu$h "crime family" aide....

and "republican" Senate Staffer...how do you spell SCUMBAG???!!! that's How I SPELL IT!

[RKP5637]

2. Desperate, they're dragging out the gay thing again... They need adults in the R party...

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[usregimechange]

4. They are just getting started

[BunkerHill24]

3. Ruthugs hate America, and they hate equal civil right too..n/t

[Volaris]

5. Ok this raises a question that ive been thinking about for a while..

Once again, I preface my question with the caveat that I am a Progressive Republican. I most assuredly do not hate America, and I very much believe in equal civil rights. Here is my question, and I put it to the DU community because I require liberal/progressive feedback on an idea that I had the other day. I am a collapsed Catholic. My parents never got offered reduced-price school lunches because I had been baptized, I was never given a discounted rate on a tuition loan because I had been Confirmed, and I would never expect to get a tax break if I ever become born-again. Why is it that the spiritual Sacrament of Marriage conveys any legal/secular standing whatsoever in in America today? Why can't marriage be stripped of all legal privilege, and those legal privileges be transferred to a National Writ of Civil Union that is administered by the local Notaries of the Several States? If that were done, it seems that America's Churches could discriminate/not marry anyone they damn-well pleased, because that discrimination would carry no legal consequences, as It were purely a spiritual matter, at that point? If the problem of Gay marriage is that churches don't want to marry gays, and that decision is tantamount to unconstitutional discrimination, why not just write law so that marriage no longer carries with it the threat/potential of constitutional discrimination if not fairly and universally applied? (Criticism is expected, if not necessarily welcome)=)

[Volaris]

6. More to the topic at hand,

I found a link to Supreme Court recorded Oral Arguments, and listened to Kagen argue the Citizens United case on behalf of the FEC. I think she would make a kick-ass Justice, if for no other reason than it seems she is happy to tangle with the Conservative Justices currently sitting on the bench, and might be able to drag some of them back to reality, at least occasionally.

[RKP5637]

7. Frankly, I've said somewhat similar. "Why can't marriage be stripped of all legal privilege, and

those legal privileges be transferred to a National Writ of Civil Union that is administered by the local Notaries of the Several States?" It's the issue IMO of forcing churches to comply with gay marriage recognition that creates some of the friction.

To me, the "National Writ of Civil Union" would be uniform across all states. I am not a religious person at all, but I can see why certain churches would feel outraged to have to comply with a decree that they must marry gays. I would like the see "the" religion separated from marriage, replaced by the "National Writ of Civil Union," and then respective churches could, if they wished, perform marriages layered on the "National Writ of Civil Union." There are many churches that would be more than happy to recognize gay marriage, and some that would not, but it would get the issue of forced compliance in terms of religion out of the picture.

This is my view, and I'm what I guess one would call a Progressive Democrat and a Realist.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

8. This makes a lot of sense to me, too.

Let's really separate church and state. A civil marriage is as valid as a church wedding. If a couple wants the church's blessing, they can do that in addition to the civil ceremony.

[BunkerHill24]

11. You make a good point, but don't forget we live in a nation where

many still believe marriage is such that woman is still a housewife....cooks and cleans and awaits her husband to come back from work. Archie Bunker is still with us!

On edit: Marriage is no longer between a man & wife, simply...rather its between two adolescence loving human being. Period!

[EFerrari]

9. She's not openly gay.

[alp227]

10. Well at least the Killian documents had more credibility...

Unfortunately CBS gets reduced to giving fools like Domenench credibility since the Bush apologists in 2004 complained that Dan Rather's 60 Minutes piece was a political weapon to get John Kerry to win.