Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal hate speech

2010-08-06T14:31:50Z

JSaxon: /* Too many poor examples? */ new section

== Examples ==
How is Limbaugh a person with disabilities? And how is hating Ann Coulter the same as hating women? I hate many men, but I don't hate men as a concept. Seems [[deceit|deceitful]] overgeneralization to me.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 18:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
#deaf
#drug addicted (per ADA); incidentally, Limbuagh did not become drug addicted by use of street drugs, the physicians over-perscribed medication; this is a serious question some people have about modern medical ethics.
#back surgery which led to the drug addiction
#persistent weight problem. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:00, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not defending the liberals attacks on Coulter, mind you, but it seems to me that it's not hate speech. I read over your homosexuality articles, and you seem to agree with me that people have an overbroad definition of what constitutes a hate crime, and hate speech. However, this article is guilty of the same overgeneralization! In your own words, speaking out against a gay man isn't hate speech; just so, speaking out against a woman isn't hate speech against women. Would you like me to correct this article accordingly?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:For the time being, for the most part we have examples of hate speech directed against individual persons, and not necessarily against broad groups. But it's still hate speech. And I will produce enough evidence to fit the broader defintition. Likewise, we will not let go unexamined the regular 'class hate' liberals & communists employ. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:00, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, most of what has been directed towards Coulter is indeed hate speech. They seek to apply false motives to her words, then repeat forever those falsification until people cannot tell what is false and what isn't, like the "Faggot" and "Jersey Girls" incidents. It is an organized leftist plan to marginalize and discredit her.

Definitions of Hate speech on the Web:

* type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.
www.historycentral.com/Civics/H.html

* Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:49, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

TK, I fixed your erroneous tabbing. But you miss the critical point: such speech must be ''because of'' race, ethnicity, etc., not just incidentally related to such traits. By your definition, saying "homosexuality is a sin" would be hate speech. That's a result that neither of us want.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't a Court of Law, Baruch. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:13, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Nor is it, apparently, a court of reason. I'm fighting a losing battle, so I'll go back to contributing. I'm here for the class, anyways, but maybe you guys should take some time to look over your reasoning.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 17:28, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*That won't be necessary. Godspeed, Baruch, Godspeed! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:49, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Hate Against Women ==

How can you justify this entry:

In August 2007, Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards viciously attacked social commentator Ann Coulter, calling the petite embodiment of women's aspirations for equality in the marketplace of ideas a "she-devil"

When Ann has been quoted as saying:

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
[[User:PastafarianBeliver|PastafarianBeliver]] 12:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)

== This is all the Liberal Hate Speech they could find? ==

When you consider the stuff that comes out of Conservative Mouths every day about every minority in existence (Including the ones listed on this site), it really makes you wonder why they even bothered making this page. {{unsigned|Sirreality}}

== Which party is racist/sexist? ==

I've been noticing how conservapedia has been accusing democrats of be racist/sexist more and more frequently, but the two candidates for the democratic nomination are a woman and a black man. While the candidates for the republican nomination were all old white men. Now hating anyone for something they cannot control is one of the most vile and base things you can do. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both had staffers who have said some things they should not have, but the point is that they are the candidates. I'm interested in other peoples opinions. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Colin Powell Removal ==

The quote has been up with a fact tag for over a week now. If a citation can't be provided by tomorrow morning, I am going to delete the quote. I think common practice should have the removal of examples or quotes when a fact tag is attached for at least 7 days. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:52, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Howard Dean==
I don't see how the Howard Dean entry is an example of hate-speech directed against African-Americans, though since my edit was reverted I assume some people do. From my POV, it seems to be aimed against the Republican Party, rather than African-Americans. Not least since the quote was from a speech he gave in front of the African-American caucus according to the supporting citation. Now I know Mr Dean has a history of self-destructing on the campaign trail, but even he isn't *quite* that stupid! I realise that any quote is open to a degree of interpretation, so if someone reads it as offensive hate-speech, I respect that, but I'd prefer if they explained their POV --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 12:13, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
:The implication that I saw from Dean's quote was that Republicans are racist, which by and of itself is a lie. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:19, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
::I totally agree with you on that point, and disagree with Dean's implication (since in my experience racism transcends political affilliations). However I still don't think that what he said counts as an example of hate-speech against African-Americans --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 12:22, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Dean also referred to the hotel staff as being African-American in his little joke. That's a stereotype of them as being subservient, always carrying someone else's baggage; they've been portrayed that way in many books and films over the past 150 years. When Dean says that Republicans could only fill up the room with "people of color" by using the hotel staff, he's playing in to that stereotype. If you kept the joke, yet replaced Dean with Karl Rove, then the hue and cry of racism would make the front pages of every paper in the country. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:39, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Firstly on the Karl Rove point, as I am not American I cannot fully relate to your analogy - but I think I see your point.

::::Whilst I see your point about black subservience, I think it is a somewhat tenuous link, and not hardly qualifying as 'hate-speech' (though perhaps a hypocritical inherent racism on Dean's part). And judging by the fact that Dean was not lynched by the audience, it would seem that they did not make the connection you suggest. Perhaps this would be better as an example of Liberal Hypocrisy than hate speech --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 12:48, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I think you're both right, Jooni & Karajou. Specifically, it's liberal hypocrisy about speaking. Liberals claim to be upholding a standard when they criticize others, yet they violote the very same standard they profess to uphold.

Perhaps it would help to assemble half a dozen or more examples, and place them in a table. Liberal examples on the left (no pun intended ;-) and conservative on the right. We can compare the reaction or backlash to the remarks, based on their actual content. But I'm guessing the reaction will be skewed by the [[political spectrum|side]] the speaker is on much more than what they actually said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:05, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

=="Others"==
The subhead "Against white males" was reverted and "Others" restored. Can it be substanitated with a citation to a law that white males are a "legally protected class" as the article's intro defines it? Likewise, the catchall "others" belongs at the bottom of the list as an afterthought being that it doesn't really even meet the qualifications as strictly here defined. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:13, 18 February 2010 (EST)
:It was established, I believe, in ''Regents of the University of California v. Bakke'', that reverse-discrimination of that sort is against the law, so in that way white men are a "legally protected class." I am unsure if a racially motivated crime against a white person can be prosecuted as a hate crime. [[User:CarlSfromMN|CarlS from MN]] ([[User talk:CarlSfromMN|Talk]]) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (EST)
::Good question. Even with a judicial ruling, the Bakke decision was not enforced by the Clinton administration. But the question is on enforcement of legislation, not enforcement of law written by judicial activists. As to the courts, Bakke appears to be headed toward reversal anyway with the appointment of Sotomayor [[Sonia_Sotomayor#Race-based_decision]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:30, 18 February 2010 (EST)

== Too many poor examples? ==

After reading this article, it seems like there are a lot of really disgusting remarks liberals have made that counts as hate speech. There are also many examples of liberal quotes that just aren't very nice. I think the article would be better off if we prune some of the not-so-bad ones, so that readers can immediately see the truly uncivilized manner in which libs conduct themselves. That Sharpton and Hillary Clinton quotes, for example, are horrifying and should be given greater prominence. [[User:JSaxon|JSaxon]] 10:31, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Moral Majority

2010-08-04T02:36:23Z

JSaxon: fixed section header

The '''Moral Majority''' was the coalition organized in 1979 by Rev. [[Jerry Falwell]]. Its mailing lists reached 100,000 clergy representing over 7 million conservative, religious Americans. The Moral Majority, part of the [[Religious Right]], organized a series of voting drives and political demonstrations to advance their conservative point of view and enhance the moral and religious attitudes of the nation. The Moral Majority is best known for their work in supporting [[Ronald Reagan]]'s election in 1980, and registering millions of voters to act on his behalf.

Preachers emphasized that the devil was at work in America and good Christians had to organize to stop him. [[Abortion]], a new issue in politics, was a major theme.

The Moral Majority played little role during the Reagan years; Falwell stepped down as its leader in 1987 and it was disbanded in 1989.
==Voters==
In the 1984 election, 9.4% of the voters itentified with the Moral Majority. They were disproportionately female, Evangelical, and highly religious, and felt negatively toward abortion, gays and lesbians, and the women's liberation movement.<ref>Clyde Wilcox et al. "The Second Coming of the New Christian Right: Patterns of Popular Support in 1984 and 1996," ''Social Science Quarterly'' 1999 80(1): 181-192</ref>

==Further reading==
* Shupe, Anson and William A Stacey. ''Born again politics and the moral majority: what social surveys really show'' (1982)
* Wilcox, Clyde; Sharon Linzey; and Ted G. Jelen. "Reluctant Warriors: Premillennialism and Politics in the Moral Majority," ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,'' Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 1991), pp. 245-258 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386971 in JSTOR]
* Wilcox, Clyde. "Evangelicals and the Moral Majority," ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,'' Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec., 1989), pp. 400-414 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386573 in JSTOR]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Conservative Organizations]]
[[category:Religion and Politics]]

Defense of Marriage Act

2010-08-03T05:26:00Z

JSaxon: oops, missed a /ref

'''The Defense of Marriage Act''' (DOMA), 28 U.S.C. 1738c, was passed by a [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[Congress]] and signed into law by [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] President [[Bill Clinton]].<ref>The law passed by overwhelming supermajorities: 342-67 in the House, and 85-14 in the Senate.</ref> It defends traditional marriage by enabling each state to refuse to recognize another state's grant of same-sex marriages and clarifies that the U.S. federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages at all, even if recognized by one of the states.

This law has two powerful effects:

#No state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state under the [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]] of the Constitution.
#The federal government must not recognize any same-sex marriages.

At the time, it was thought that the first effect was most important, and it appears first in the law. Over ten years later, the second effect has emerged as most important, and in early 2009 a lawsuit was filed in [[Massachusetts]] to force the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed there.

== State Marriage Laws ==

30 out of 50 states have constitutional provisions defining and limiting marriage as between a man and a woman.<ref>http://www.domawatch.com/stateissues/index.html</ref> Traditional marriage has been affirmed in all 31 states in which it was put to a popular vote.<ref name=guardian>[[The Guardian]], [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627 "Maine voters reject gay-marriage law"]</ref> The states lacking protection of marriage in their constitutions are the 13 northeastern states and territory (D.C.) beginning with [[West Virginia]] (but not including Virginia), plus North Carolina on the East Coast; in the Midwest the states of Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, and in the West the states of Colorado, New Mexico and Washington. As of August 3, 2010, 7 states had judicially declared or legislatively enacted same-sex marriage laws: Massachusetts, California, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire. [[Proposition 8]] modified California's constitution in 2008 to protect the sanctity of marriage, and [[Maine]] [[Question 1]] stopped the homosexual agenda again in 2009.<ref name=guardian> /> Only 5 states currently recognize homosexual marriage.</ref>

Of the roughly 14 states that lack a constitutional traditional marriage provision, seven have "state DOMAs," which is state legislation defining marriage in the traditional way. States or territories that lack constitutional protection for marriage or a state DOMA include New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, D.C., Colorado and New Mexico.

== Text and Codification of Law ==

The text of this law, which was passed in 1996 and signed into law by President [[Bill Clinton]], is simple:

:An Act To define and protect the institution of marriage.

::Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

::SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

:::This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.

::SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

:::(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

::::`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

:::::`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

:::(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

::::`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.

::SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

:::(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

::::`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

:::::`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

:::(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

::::`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

This law was then codified in two different sections of Titles 1 and 28 of the [[United States Code]]:

:1 U.S.C. § 7. Definition of "marriage" and "spouse"

::In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

:28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

::No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
==Further reading==
* Strasser, Mark. "Ex Post Facto Laws, Bills of Attainder, and the Definition of Punishment: On DOMA, the Hawaii Amendment, and Federal Constitutional Constraints," 48 Syracuse L. Rev. 227 (1998) [http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/syrlr48&div=11&id=&page= outline]
== References ==

<references/>
[[category:Marriage]]
[[Category:Law]]

Defense of Marriage Act

2010-08-03T05:19:05Z

JSaxon: /* State Marriage Laws */ updatied affirmations of traditional marriages in Mine and California.

'''The Defense of Marriage Act''' (DOMA), 28 U.S.C. 1738c, was passed by a [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[Congress]] and signed into law by [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] President [[Bill Clinton]].<ref>The law passed by overwhelming supermajorities: 342-67 in the House, and 85-14 in the Senate.</ref> It defends traditional marriage by enabling each state to refuse to recognize another state's grant of same-sex marriages and clarifies that the U.S. federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages at all, even if recognized by one of the states.

This law has two powerful effects:

#No state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state under the [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]] of the Constitution.
#The federal government must not recognize any same-sex marriages.

At the time, it was thought that the first effect was most important, and it appears first in the law. Over ten years later, the second effect has emerged as most important, and in early 2009 a lawsuit was filed in [[Massachusetts]] to force the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed there.

== State Marriage Laws ==

30 out of 50 states have constitutional provisions defining and limiting marriage as between a man and a woman.<ref>http://www.domawatch.com/stateissues/index.html</ref> Traditional marriage has been affirmed in all 31 states in which it was put to a popular vote.<ref name=guardian>[[The Guardian]], [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627 "Maine voters reject gay-marriage law"]</ref> The states lacking protection of marriage in their constitutions are the 13 northeastern states and territory (D.C.) beginning with [[West Virginia]] (but not including Virginia), plus North Carolina on the East Coast; in the Midwest the states of Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, and in the West the states of Colorado, New Mexico and Washington. As of August 3, 2010, 7 states had judicially declared or legislatively enacted same-sex marriage laws: Massachusetts, California, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire. [[Proposition 8]] modified California's constitution in 2008 to protect the sanctity of marriage, and [[Maine]] [[Question 1]] stopped the homosexual agenda again in 2009.<ref name=guardian> /> Only 5 states currently recognize homosexual marriage.

Of the roughly 14 states that lack a constitutional traditional marriage provision, seven have "state DOMAs," which is state legislation defining marriage in the traditional way. States or territories that lack constitutional protection for marriage or a state DOMA include New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, D.C., Colorado and New Mexico.

== Text and Codification of Law ==

The text of this law, which was passed in 1996 and signed into law by President [[Bill Clinton]], is simple:

:An Act To define and protect the institution of marriage.

::Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

::SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

:::This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.

::SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

:::(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

::::`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

:::::`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

:::(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

::::`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.

::SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

:::(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

::::`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

:::::`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

:::(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

::::`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

This law was then codified in two different sections of Titles 1 and 28 of the [[United States Code]]:

:1 U.S.C. § 7. Definition of "marriage" and "spouse"

::In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

:28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

::No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
==Further reading==
* Strasser, Mark. "Ex Post Facto Laws, Bills of Attainder, and the Definition of Punishment: On DOMA, the Hawaii Amendment, and Federal Constitutional Constraints," 48 Syracuse L. Rev. 227 (1998) [http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/syrlr48&div=11&id=&page= outline]
== References ==

<references/>
[[category:Marriage]]
[[Category:Law]]