Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/28/2011 07:28 PM Report

I'm watching a six parter on Abe and Mary Lincoln and when you put the gay marriage map up it brought up thoughts of the civil war.

Remember gentlemen, Karl "The Architect" Rove changed this country forever using "God, Guns and ESPECIALLY Gays."

LesleyP  06/28/2011 01:20 PM Report

As with the interview with Mark Halperin in the same broadcast, an unbelievable level of incompetence was on exhibition during this segment. It was repeatedly, and in several ways, stated that all of the candidates for the Republican nomination support an amendment to the Constitution concerning marriage. This is simply not true. It is not open to interpretation. Both Ron Paul and Herman Cain are unequivocally opposed to any such ammendment.

Surely given all the "professional" "journalists" present in the interview at least one of them would have watched the New Hampshire debate, read some position papers, or at the very least tried a Google search. This level of incompetence is even harder to believe given that this was the subject of the discussion.

"GOP candidates split on federal marriage amendment"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070956-503544.html

The only conclusion that a thinking person can come to is that they, and Mr. Rose, had intentionally decided to ignore this fact in order to misinform the viewers. It is either that or a level of journalistic incompetence that would not even be tolerated in a high-school journalism class.

I certainly do not accept that these journalists are the intellectuals that they apparently take them selves to be, but neither do I accept that they are so incompetent.

Unfortunately, in this context, incompetence would be ethically preferable to what is apparently the truth.

REMant  06/28/2011 11:54 AM Report

Mr Nagourney appears to be "gay" himself, but I think even Toobin is far too optimistic. For one thing I don't see the Sup Ct ever taking this up or ruling in its favor as presently constituted. Too, it is my understanding the NY law passed mainly because it was easier to do that than change the provisions of hundreds of laws concerning discrimination in favor of families, not because anyone thought marriage should be defined in that way. Getting govt out of the the marriage business would be a far better course than this IMHO and I think that will eventually happen, particularly, for instance after you remove all those tax expenditure provisions in the code by passing a flat tax. This process would seem to be merely a continuation of the religious disestablishment that began shortly after the Revolution. The declining belief in the utility of the family and the concomitant change in the idea of love, trends that favor viewing relationships as merely contractual similar to what became of religion in the early 19th c, are, I believe, the impetus behind this movement as well. I don't believe the fact that women favor such marriage more than men is accidental either. It also could certainly be argued that marriage laws violate the 1st Amendment. This issue, in any case, is part of a more general trend that those attempting to reverse the general American malaise will have to address. Personally, I really can't see two middle-aged white guys being allowed to adopt two little black girls as I saw on TV the other day. It may be the president is not as "liberal" as some would like to believe. I can believe, however, that gays, women, racial minorities, urbanites and govt workers, will shortly make up the bulk his party, if they don't already.