Tag Archives: David Ramadan

Election news bites

Posted on by |

In recent election news…

The Purcelle Gazette caught Dave LaRock bending the truth to explain his debate no show. While the LaRock campaign refused to commit to a date before the debate, afterwards, LaRock’s campaign website said “the Gazette went ahead with promoting and holding their event knowing that Dave could not be there.”

The Gazette wasn’t having it.

To come out after our well-attended public event and suggest we misled readers about Mr. LaRock’s participation, is unfortunately consistent with his campaign’s behavior regarding public debates. As with the Berryville forum, in which he refused to attend at the last minute claiming it was a “set-up,” and also with the Loudoun Chamber of Commerce’s forum, in which he refused to even contribute written answers to the Chamber’s standard Q&A, Mr. LaRock has shown contempt for the basic mechanisms of the democratic process. Continue reading →

Frank Wolf cosponsors Federal “Marriage” Amendment

Posted on by |

Frank Wolf trains Eugene Delgaudio (Sterlingfest, 2006)

Box Turtle Bulletin reports that Frank Wolf is co-sponsoring Rep Tim Huelskamp’s (R – KS) Federal Marriage [sic] Amendment. The language is:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

And that language runs afoul of the recent Supreme Court DOMA ruling. Here are excerpts from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion:

The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence.

…The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Continue reading →