Words of Wisdom from Civil Rights Leader Kevin Smith

I'm trying (4.00 / 2)

to spread the word on this nationally too.

And so should you!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 20:02:38 PM CDT

"NH Liberals Favorite Things" (4.00 / 1)

Go easy on him, Dean.  If this audio link is any indication, Mr. Smith will add tremendous intellectual energy to the Commission.  (He can lie, distort, and rhyme -- all at the same time!)

http://www.granitegrok.com/Aud...

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 20:16:39 PM CDT

What post is this audio atached to? (0.00 / 0)

A song is worth a 1000 words, but it doesn't say Kevin Smith anywhere in it.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 20:36:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I figured it out - no worries n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 20:57:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is not my opinion... (0.00 / 0)

...but just an observation based on legal opinions i'm reviewing for an upcoming story:

courts note over and over again that marriage is designed to advance procreation.

even in the instance of opening marriage to interracial couples the supreme court made a point to observe that the state had no interest in preventing the fundamental right to conceive children, as opposed to, say, the fundamental right of free association or racial equality.

if you view these comments through that "lens" you can see where his thinking might have come from...and to me it's worrying, as it suggests that obama administration will continue to ahdere to that line of thought.

--we are making enemies faster than we can kill them

---

by: fake consultant @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 23:02:25 PM CDT

Civil rights refer to those associated with a citizen's (4.00 / 2)

participation in governing (voting, holding office, serving on juries, formulating laws, etc.)  The right to associate and to reproduce are human rights.  Reference to human rights in the Bill of Rights is an obfuscation, taking our attention away from the fact that the Constitution is all about limiting, restricting and setting obligations for our agents of government--one of the primary ones being to meet those obligations without discrimination.
Conservatives would prefer to believe that the Constitution prescribes and proscribes the behavior of every person and assigns rewards and punishments as a secular, real-time and more effective alternative to religious injunctions.  From their perspective, persons whose behavior is consistent with the standards set by (mainly Christian) religion need not be concerned with or follow the secular standards of the state because their behavior is bound to be exemplary.  That's why the religious are exempt from secular control.

If courts are finding that "marriage is designed to advance procreation," then that's largely an after-the fact conclusion probably intended to justify various social benefits for which married people qualify.  If marriage had any effect on procreation, then the fact that only 41% of American adults are married would explain why procreation has been significantly reduced, which it hasn't.

Mr. Smith may well be disappointed when he discovers the limited arena in which a civil rights commission opines.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:35:44 AM CDT

i would add to your point... (0.00 / 0)

...that there is also the question of heterosexual and childless married couples.

would it be legally defensible to deny those couples all the benefits of couples with children in order to encourage procreation?

if the answer is no, then there seems to be an issue of inequality under law that might deserve to be addressed as an infringement upon a fundamental right (the 14th amendment's equal protection clause is presumably invoked here), which might render moot the procreation issue raised in loving v virginia, et al.

--we are making enemies faster than we can kill them

---

by: fake consultant @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:58:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Our inestimable friends over at RedHamshire are very pleased... (4.00 / 3)

... both with the appointment, and by their perception that anyone who thinks Mr. Smith is unqualified is intolerant. This from a Mr. Tom DeRosa:

Congratulations to Kevin Smith, Director of CPR, who last week was appointed to US Commission on Civil Rights NH Advisory Board. The "tolerant" left can not fathom that someone who does not share their opinions has been appointed to such a commission. This is yet another sign of the hypocrisy with which the left lives. They claim to be the tolerant party and wish to paint Republicans and those on the right as the intolerant ones but time and again their true colors shine through and they reveal for all to see their anger for those who disagree with them.

I scratched my head about this one. Am I mad simply because Smith was appointed and I disagree with him?  And the answer is: hell no! There are plenty of people who ccould have been appointed to the Civil Rights Commissionthat I would have disagreed with politically, and I wouldn't have cared. It is after all, supposed to be about diversity, so you want as many experiences and viewpoints as possible.

I'm mad because Smith is the poster child of intolerance. It's what he is all about- spreading the word that there must not be equal treatment for all NH citizens, else we might offend "traditional values". He believes "separate but equal" is both possible and fair.  That they are putting him on a commission whose job it is to be a watchguard for civil rights when he is a spokesman against them makes a mockery of the commission. It's be like putting a bank robber on the Police Review Board.

So my objection is not because I am intolerant of other views, but because I want to see the commission be able to do its job. Whoever appointed Smith to the commission has just the opposite goal- he or she wants to give haters a pass.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:14:15 AM CDT

Here's what I wrote to Mr. Dannenfelser (4.00 / 1)

Kevin Smith is director of "Cornerstone Policy Research." This organization boasts about its recent illegal robocalling to every household in NH to deliver a "push poll" against marriage equality.

Appointing Mr. Smith is worse than merely appointing someone who does not fully support civil rights for all citizens. Mr. Smith makes his living marketing campaigns to deny people civil rights. For him it's not just a hobby - it's a full-time job. He is not just a consumer of bigotry and hatred; he is building a career on the selling of bigotry, hatred and misinformation.

I am requesting that you remove him immediately from any position with the Civil Rights Advisory Committee.

Thank you.

=Health care for all now!=

---

by: beverlywoods @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:22:46 AM CDT

will action work? (0.00 / 0)

Specifically, does the appointing body have the right to un-appoint somebody?  That is not always the case.

---

by: kite @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 19:02:35 PM CDT