The Montana Supreme Court just made it a whole lot harder to be a parent, and a whole lot easier to become one.
Let's review the travesty of Maniaci v. Kulstad, decided on a 6-1 vote in an opinion released on Oct. 6 (hereinafter known as Black Tuesday).
The court affirmed a Missoula District Court ruling by Judge Ed McLean that Michelle Kulstad had earned the right to be known as a parent to two children because she had "shacked up" with the children's adoptive mother during the time when they were adopted.
That's a crude way of saying they were living together, but don't be misled by any grandiloquent claims of "civil rights" that attach to this case because Kulstad and Barbara Maniaci were engaged in a homosexual partnership prior to their 2006 breakup. There is nothing "civil" about what the Supreme Court did, and nothing "right" about it either.
All parties agreed that the matter of sexual preference was not an issue in the case, so it should not be seen as a victory for gay couples. In fact, it is as detrimental to gay parents as to anyone because what it establishes is that a rightful parent can lose custody or be forced to share custody with anyone who shares household obligations and acts in a kindly manner to children in the house. As Barbara Maniaci has learned, this can cruelly rip apart her family that began while she was in a gay relationship as easily as it can destroy the family of a heterosexual who lets her children form a relationship with her live-in lover.
Let's be plain. The "family" relationship between Kulstad and Maniaci was the kind of "family relationship" which is endemic in our society - one based on convenience and need - rather than one based on commitment and law. The two women were not married, legally could not be married, and could not adopt a child together without taking extraordinary measures that they did not choose to pursue. In the case of both adoptions, Barbara Maniaci adopted the children on her own, assumed responsibility for them, and asked Michelle Kulstad for help in fulfilling those responsibilities.
The same situation takes place in thousands of families in Montana, and millions of homes across the United States. Only a tiny percentage of those families involve a homosexual relationship, however. This is about parental rights; not gay rights. If you have a complaint about Montana's marriage laws or adoption laws, change them, but don't give homosexuals "special privileges" in custody cases because you think they are victims elsewhere.
Everyone involved in the adoption process knew that Maniaci was homosexual at the time (she has since married a man), but everyone also knew that there was no attempt to include Kulstad as a legal parent in either adoption.
Yes, Maniaci informed the social workers who did household visits prior to the adoption that Kulstad would be present in the house and would help to raise the children. It would be fraudulent for her to pretend otherwise considering the circumstances. By the same token, a single woman adopting children on her own (or involved in a custody battle) might well inform any official household visitors that her live-in boyfriend would be available to help pay the bills, take the kids to school and generally provide assistance.
Such information might be taken into account, but it obviously should not be given too much weight because live-in relationships, by their very nature, are fluid, non-committed, and subject to change without notice. And it certainly does not mean the mother wants her boyfriend to get joint custody of her children.
When the state awards custody of a child, a precious human life, to a mother or father, it obviously is expecting a lifetime relationship to develop between the child and his or her new parent. No such expectation attaches to the "live in" boyfriend or girlfriend.
At least, not until now.
The Montana Supreme Court has thrown all that on its head. Because by awarding parental rights to Michelle Kulstad, they have in essence changed the playing field for all parents. From now on, it is not the state alone which will have the power to determine custody, but each and every parent. Every time a parent invites another adult into the home as a partner (even should no sexual relationship at all exist) there is a chance that the "partner" may eventually sue for custody of the children in the house.
There is certainly nothing stopping them from doing so because the Montana Supreme Court has ruled inexplicably that parental rights may be abridged or abrogated even with no finding of unfitness on the nominal parent's part. This completely reverses the constitutional principle which had prevailed in all previous Montana case law that "a natural parent cannot be denied custody of his or her child absent termination of that person's parental rights for abuse or neglect."
The one bright spot in the ruling came not from the benighted majority, but from the lone dissenter, Justice Jim Rice, who spoke eloquently for parents and for sanity.
"The Court's decision," Rice noted, "will open a Pandora's Box of potential attacks upon the right of fit and capable parents to raise their own children."
After establishing that the Montana Supreme Court has previously held fast to the rule that "a finding of abuse, neglect or dependency is the jurisdictional prerequisite for any court-ordered transfer of custody from a natural parent to a third party," Rice demonstrates conclusively that his fellow justices in this ruling have ruled in favor of Kulstad "for the apparent purpose of diminishing the reach of the constitutional rights previously declared for parents."
And they did so, remarkably, without openly acknowledging what they were doing. Rice notes that the court mistakenly offers that the "pre-1999 statutes made termination of parental rights, based upon dependency, abuse or neglect, the only option available to the Court before it could award a non-parent a custodial interest."
That is the language used by Justice Brian Morris in his majority opinion, and it is clearly intended to convey the impression that statutory changes in 1999 had the effect of giving third parties new parental rights that did not exist previously.
However, this interpretation is inaccurate, flawed and deceptive, as Rice points out: "Contrary to the Court's analysis, it was not the pre-1999 statutes that limited the claims of third parties, but the Montana Constitution." Therefore statutory changes would still have to meet the constitutional test, and they plainly don't.
I invite everyone to read Rice's dissent for themselves [link provided at end of story] to see how many holes he pokes in the majority's "politically correct," but legally errant, opinion. In essence he notes that the court has failed its statutory responsibility to interpret the Constitution and has "permitted the Legislature to legislate Maniaci's constitutional rights out of existence."
In a broad rebuke of his colleagues, Rice declares, "the Court offers no rationale explaining how a third party's relationship with a child can overcome, constitutionally, a fit and capable parent's right to raise the child. It offers no analysis about how the Legislature's elimination of the fitness requirement can withstand strict scrutiny. The Court simply declares that the Legislature's will trumps this Court's declaration of constitutional rights."
Ultimately, Rice proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the majority opinion is simply a case of legislating from the bench. In order to prevail in her lawsuit, Kulstad needed to establish that Maniaci had "engaged in conduct that is contrary to the child-parent relationship." Such proof was not possible, because from all accounts Maniaci was a good mother. Therefore, in its ruling, the District Court changed the statutory requirement and said that Maniaci had engaged in conduct contrary to "an exclusive child-parent relationship," by allowing the children to have a relationship with Kulstad in the first place.
This is so bizarre as to be unfathomable, but for legal purposes all that matters is that such a finding is based on some notion of "social justice" and not on law. As Justice Rice notes, the very first section of the Montana Code Annotated instructs the judiciary how to interpret statutes contained therein:
"In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted."
Yet by adding the word "exclusive" to the statutory requirement, the District Court did just what it is forbidden to do. As Justice Rice says, "It inserted new language into the statute," and the Supreme Court simply "affirmed the error."
Unless this ruling is overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, Montana parents will never again be sure that the state won't be able to take their children from them. After all, according to the statute (MCA 40-4-228), "It is not necessary for the court to find a natural parent unfit before awarding a parental interest to a third party..."
If the court wasn't smart enough to throw out that usurpation of a fundamental right guaranteed not just by the Constitution but by the natural order, then it must be time to throw out the court. Remember, in Montana, Supreme Court justices are elected. For the record, the justices who voted against parents in this case were Brian Morris, Mike McGrath, James Nelson, John Warner, W. William Leaphart, and Patricia Cotter.
(NOTE: Read the court's opinion and Justice Rice's dissent by clicking on "Cases Decided Within the Past 30 Days" at http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/sll/SLL_FN_Home.htm)
n Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com
Bronco
Howdy, mtboat.
Rob123
mtboat.....good to hear from you.......still chasing contrails with your sail boat? Just kidding.....kind of.....(-:
mtboat
Good grief! .....Nothing has changed here. The same old stuff as when I left, because of all the flaming. To those who stay and fight on....my hat is off to you.
rtr
Bighole, You are the empty shell and jealousy mixed with envy are never good traits.
Bighorn0216
rtr, now that you've outted yourself as a working-age "man" who doesn't work, every one of your hundreds of "WORK"-oriented postings has gone away like a fa*rt in a whirlwind. You've unwittingly ensnared yourself in your shell game. All your rants were obviously self-loathing, directed at the mirror. You've self-diagnosed yourself and saved thousands in the cost of treatment. Of course, you're not well, but then, most folks who leave treatment aren't, either. You just forge on.
You now have 0% credibility or interest. The next shuttle back to Earth leaves in 3 months. Try to miss it. You'll be happier where you are.
Now have another beer, Mr. WORK.NOT, and check out Frank's new column. You're going to get really excited. And you've already got all your posts pre-written, so there won't be any tests! Just like the best days in reform school!
rtr
Little baby robbie, I am going to have to take you off my adults list and start a new one with stupid only that you and Bronco can be on if you insist on acting like a fool.
Rob123
Ah, 1917 was WW1.....And al qaeda went into Iraq after we overthrew Saddam.....Ya see, Saddam and al qaeda hated each other......Do some research, for gGod's sake.
rtr
The Ottoman Turks fought with the Germans. Big difference. And Iraq had what to do with 9/11?
===
That is NOT true at all............Islamics fought all over Africa against the USA in WWII...
There has been many al qaeda that have been killed in Iraq and DOCUMENTED and is better to get them there that to have them over here.
But then I can understand how a Marxists that hates the USA probably would post what you did.
Are money value is ONLY falling because of the Kenyan and his worthless policies and has NOTHING to do with the wars.
You should have taken economics young robbie instead of the foolish classes you did in college which have obviously did you no good at all.
Rob123
The Ottoman Turks fought with the Germans. Big difference. And Iraq had what to do with 9/11? And the Taliban, outside of being paid handsomely to let al qaeda live in their sections of Afghanistan, had WHAT TO DO with 9/11? We have pushed al qaeda into Pakistan. The Taliban doesn't want them back, since they can't pay rent. Why are we killing Taliban? And why are historical Taliban enemies joining with the Taliban inorder to push U>S> out of their country? And what does history say about the various tribal groups in this country that is bigger and more populated and more rural than Iraq? And how far are we going to let our dollar fall as we borrow money for this expedition of spreading Democracy in a land of rural Warlords?
rtr
I can't wait till Franks next column comes out and you start bragging about just how intellegent you are and how you should be the editor of the Daily Interlake.
rtr
To little Robbie, I am so confused, We have 3000 US citizens killed RIGHT here on our own land and it means NOTHING to you other than shame on the USA for attacking another country even though they had plans to attack more places here in the USA.
Your Kenyan Messiah at this time is sending more troops to both wars and expanding them so your HATERED of Bush is idiotic.
Well at least you acknowledged you are a Marxist loving HATER of the USA.
As for your stupidity with the “German efforts” remember the Islamic’s fought for Germany.
Rob123
rtr: It's 2:00a.m. on a Sunday morning, and I am working. Your probably snoring it off, as you prepare for another hard day of retirement. Try to get a full night of dreams in.....It's important for your psyche to reconcile all your contradictions before your waking consciousness regroups and once again goes on the attack. And what do you think about the $250.00 per SS receipient that the Obama Presidency is going to send out? Good thinking?...,.... or buying some elderly support for Health Care Reform after the Right Wing propaganda machines' image of Death Panels? Heck if I know, but I'm sure you do.
Rob123
rtr: It's 2:00a.m. on a Sunday morning, and I am working. Your probably snoring it off, as you prepare for another hard day of retirement. Try to get a full night of dreams in.....It's important for your psyche to reconcile all your contradictions before your waking consciousness regroups and once again goes on the attack. And what do you think about the $250.00 per SS receipient that the Obama Presidency is going to send out? Good thinking?...,.... or buying some elderly support for Health Care Reform after the Right Wing propaganda machines' image of Death Panels? Heck if I know, but I'm sure you do.
Rob123
Pete: "..."creator" of the Obama HOPE poster...." Nothing like a bunch of "Hope" posters to make a guy angry. Unless bombing the hel# out of a country then invading it "Hoping" to find some really nasty chemicals......and after hundreds of thousands of dead people and a trillion dollars of off-budget expenses, 'the people" hire a new leader and marginalize the instigators of the failed crusade. But what a mess! When your in that deep, it's hard to fix. Especially when the original instigators refuse to think it out, and the 'wanna-be #1' foreign leaders are thinking "Waterloo" and subtly pulling strings to make everything really costly as the hole just keeps getting deeper. And then there is Afghanistan.....And the Pentagon acknowledges LAST WEEK that the Taliban SUPPORTERS seem to fight for whomever pays them the most! Well gee, the rest of the world knew that by 1917 (see German efforts to create a second front in India), and the Brits knew it by 1870. But hey, those Hope Posters are Bad News.
rtr
Little Robbie and Bronco with some documented classics.
Little Robbie posted:
now I am a MAXIST Sanitary Napkin in your little convoluted world?.
=================
rtr posted:
You said it not me, I have to say you did take the thoughts right out of my head though.
You can now add mind reader to your resume.
Little Robbie stated he was looking out for my best interests:
So be careful, and use those quotation marks. Just being nice, with a little 'heads up'.
==================
rtr posted:
You are looking out for my best interests about as much as I am looking out for yours if you were swimming in a lake full of quick sand.
Here is the ALL TIME best classic of all.
Bronco Posted:
Rob wins
rtr
Oh by the way Bronco, I just changed my mind, I'm not going to add "STUPID" to the criteria.
Guess you won't make the list next time either.....laughing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqYkCJaBAyA
rtr
Hey Bronco,,,Do you feel like you got just a little bit set up by me not adding your name to the list with your buddies.
I knew you couldn't resist trying to make the list to impress what you think are your only friends when you seen you were left out.....LOL.......If you don't think I am laughing big time about that then I don't know what to tell you.
rtr
Oh now Bronco, I promise the next time I make up a list of your buddies that are trying to intimidate people here I will add in the criteria of "STUPID" and that way I can add your name to the list so you don not feel left out.
Bronco
Edible man-ties. Go brush your teeth, Flame Boy.
Bronco
rtr posts: "What are you doing "LOOKING FOR ATTENTION." Out of 286 comments here, 86 are yours, JrRush. And many of them have some reference to homosexuals. I'm sure that coming out of the closet recently has made you crave so much attention. And you can't seem to stand the women who post here, another clue. Bet you pitch a pup tent every time one of the real men responds. You are so flamboyant I 'm gonna give you a nickname: Flame Boy. You can have it airbrushed onto the rear of your man-ties just above the hole in the 'O' of WELCOME. You probably have the reversible man-ties but it'll look fabulous either way. How do you get those tapioca and chocolate stains out, Flame Boy?
rtr
I am only sharing this so everyone can see Bronco was NOT acknowledged here.
Sorry horse man but you still don't make the list.
Let see here we have:
Little baby robbie
Bighole
Bendovernd
boredoutinkali
That have tried to use intimidation, bullying, ganging up on and coercing to drive me away today so they can get back their little Marxist, Socialist Facist, New Democratic Party Platform and Pride Parade that they so much loved to have control of here.
rtr
Hey Bronco, Did you notice I didn't even acknowledge you with what you think are your buddies when it came to intimidation and etc... There is a reason for that, You are a loser that isn't worth mentioning.
What are you doing "LOOKING FOR ATTENTION".
I never once said they were Republican owned companies like your Kenyan Motors is. “Opps stepped right in it again didn’t you” “Even little baby Robbie isn’t dumb enough to leave himself that wide open”.
What I said is that they are Republican RUN companies, another words they are NOT tree hugging greenie weenie scum bags with tax and steal ideas that have the jobs available unlike your Marxist, Socialist, Communist, New Socialist Democratic Party that has NOTHING to offer.
As for the Jobs I had given you way more credit than I should have I can see when it comes to looking up jobs in the oil industry, OH yeah you probably never had a job in your life so how stupid of me to think you could find one now.
As for you being a teamster, I can't imagine anyone even letting you ride a tricycle in the driveway....Remember what I said about posting when you just wake up.
Giddy up there horse man…
Bronco
Hey, rtr, I'm a card carrying member of Alaska Teamsters Local 959 and I haven't heard a word about "drill, drill and drill some more time and lot's of jobs there." And these Republican run companies, I didn't know the Republicans owned any corporations. I want to live in your parallel universe, though. How did you make it over to this one? Do I take Hate Blvd. and turn right at Delusion Ave. or keep heading south to Ignorance and then turn right?
rtr
This is worth expanding on. Little Robbie posted:
I used to sit on the front porch with my Mom and wait for the Interlake to be delivered in the late afternoon. Mornings were The Spokesman (R)or Missoulian (D). We always got the Spokesman.
=====================
Let’s make a comparison here.
We have Little Baby Robbie that has nominated himself as number one editor for the Daily Interlake, Then he votes for himself as number one editor, Then he proclaims himself as number one editor just because he has sat on the porch with his mommy waiting for the paper to show up at his house.
We have a Kenyan that made it to be a president do to the fact that he is black, criminal elements like Ayers the terrorist, Acorn with voter fraud that gets a Nobel Peace Prize for 12 days in office signing papers and partying.
Little Baby Robbie, I think you have a great shot at becoming president or at the least getting the Nobel Peace Prize, My hats off to you.
rtr
These are readily availible jobs that are produced by Republican run companies that the New Socialist Democratic Party doesn't want you to know about since they have produced nothing other than tax and steal jobs that will be short lived and are doomed to fail.
Alaska is BEGGING for people right now in the fishing industry "But then again they would expect you to work"
Oil is going up again and it is drill, drill and drill some more time and lot's of jobs there too in MANY different states "But then again they would expect you to work"
Gold and Silver is sky high and the mines are hiring like crazy all over the USA "But then again they would expect you to work"
Pete
Rob...I'm sure rtr would be happy to credit rush as long as you and others credit the Huffington Post and the Democrat Underground...I would say CNN but that didn't turn out to be a very good source for you last time around...remember....ACORN? What's ACORN?
rtr
Let see here we have:
Little baby robbie
Bighole
Bendovernd
boredoutinkali
That have tried to use intimidation, bullying, ganging up on and coercing to drive me away today so they can get back their little Marxist, Socialist Facist, New Democratic Party Platform and Pride Parade that they so much loved to have control of here.
rtr
Oh little little robbie, I hate to inform you but I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, or Oral Roberts......That made me laugh so hard.
I personally pointed out the Jobs myself that you LAZY bums could go get that are produced by the Republicans ONLY because your Marist, Socialist, Facist, New Democratic Party has produced NOTHING AT ALL....Too funny
Laughing again, You are looking out for my best interests about as much as I look out for yours if you were swiming in a lake full of quick sand.
Pete
How fitting that the "creator" of the Obama HOPE poster Shepard Fairey has been caught lying about the source of the picture he used and taking credit for anothers work...Like most of Obama's facade even the promotional materials are fraudulent...similar to foam "Greek Columns". Obama is the original "Hollow Man", with a "Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!" Cue the teleprompter and dim the lights as the Jersey Childrens Choir sings..."Here we go round the prickly pear...Prickly pear... prickly pear...Here we go round the prickly pear...At five o’clock in the morning."
Rob123
"You still didn't answer the question as to what jobs your New Socialist Democratic Party has produced,,,Didn't think you would because there are NONE other than what is paid for by my tax dollars." You really should put quotation marks around stuff you lift from Rush Limbaugh. I've heard that since he was rejected by the Republican Football Owners Club for being a wormy little clown with no class, he has decided to protect his classic put downs, and has hired some lawyers from Oral Roberts U to enforce his Intellectual Property Rights. Heck, their unemployed anyway, unless they get the White House back. So be careful, and use those quotation marks. Just being nice, with a little 'heads up'.
rtr
Sorry Bighole, No beer but nice try........How about answering the question about the Jobs.
Oh yeah darnit, I keep forgeting you are the person of the worthless party that doen't work.
Bighorn0216
rtr: "Remember what I said about typing to soon after they wake up from your dreams."
I assume you're writing now after your beers have "kicked in," as you said it. It's after noon, maybe we'll talk again when you're sober. But it won't really matter, will it?
rtr
To Bighorn0216, I have plenty of money and NO layoff, What a waste of a story you wrote just to insult me.
Remember what I said about typing to soon after they wake up from your dreams....That would be you.
You still didn't answer the question as to what jobs your New Socialist Democratic Party has produced,,,Didn't think you would because there are NONE other than what is paid for by my tax dollars.
Bighorn0216
P.S. rtr, that must be a special pension plan--one of a kind--putting you on the dole at 55. Congratulations.
Bighorn0216
Okay, rtr, now we're getting there. You're 55, and "retired." That tells many books' worth of stories. You were laid off. What are you going to do with the next statistical 20 or 30 years of your life--post hate screed on the Internet? There is a more sane approach, you know. You can learn new skills, or even if you don't want to "WORK" anymore, you could read some of the canonical works that your teachers may never have exposed you to.
Since you're out of work at 55, I now understand why you've investigated the fishing industry in Alaska. I assume you've done your research to verify that, as you said, the businesses are all run by Republicans, and I'm sure your research is impeccable and admissible in any forum. So what's stopping you? Why aren't you heading north? I absolutely love fishing, and the sea, and I have nothing keeping me from heading up to join a crew. I don't really care if it's dangerous, or if I'll drown or get killed. We're all going out, why not in adventure instead of while posting on a small-town newspaper's comment thread with inane tripe?
You may be a nice guy, who has discovered the Internet, where you can finally spout off with impunity. I think you probably are a nice guy, and a good neighbor. You and your "wife" probably get together with folks and have a good time. You could do that here, too, if you'd like to holster the weapon and talk about how to approach and resolve difficult issues. You know, you can cartoon your little gun, but in all likelihood, most of the folks posting here have a gun rack that would blow your arm off before you got a 500 round off. So you know what? Nobody's 'fraid. 'Cept you.
It does occasionally sound like your own experience would be a beneficial addition to this discussion. You're very careful not to share it. If you don't want to stand up for yourself, and if you want to keep sitting on the porch and firing shots into the dark, you should expect that your targets (missed) will fire back. How long will you enjoy that?
Wouldn't you like to talk about some things that affect your life and about which you'd like to ask others for their views?
Or at 55 are you fully informed? 55 is mid-life, rtr. You're only halfway there. Now what? 30 more years of living the fact-life of talk-radio entertainers? Who earn milliions more than your pension and 401(k), just because they're buttheads, and your masters?
Books are available at your library. Even at www. audible.com
rtr
Benznd posted:
Some have goals and objectives, perhaps tag or jump rope, while others are there to harass and disrupt as they have no agenda.
=====================
I know what your goals and objectives are and is has worked for you in some areas in the past…The THE ONION, ACORN and the list goes on.
Your goal is to use this comment section on the DIL as a political platform and pride parade.
The use of intimidation, bullying, ganging up on and coercing are all acceptable to you in order drive away any opposition to your political views..."How’s that working out for you here lately".
rtr
Little Robbie posted:
I used to sit on the front porch with my Mom and wait for the Interlake to be delivered in the late afternoon. Mornings were The Spokesman (R)or Missoulian (D). We always got the Spokesman.
=====================
Yep that would qualify you to critique the editor on the Daily Interlake..........Hummm
rtr
Little Robbie posted:
rtr....knock it off, pinhead.
==========================
I don't see any name calling there........Hummmmmm
rtr
Little Robbie Posted:
So knock off the 'stupid', figure out your not the center of culture here in NW Montana, and start thinking instead of mere blow-hard tough guy baloney.
=================
There was No insult in your post that I could see....Hummmm
Rob123
rtr....knock it off, pinhead. Find a new topic. I used to sit on the front porch with my Mom and wait for the Interlake to be delivered in the late afternoon. Mornings were The Spokesman (R)or Missoulian (D). We always got the Spokesman. And I still work for a living. I have no desire to retire and turn into a pure consumer. I'd rather produce. It's just me. So knock off the 'stupid', figure out your not the center of culture here in NW Montana, and start thinking instead of mere blow-hard tough guy baloney. Go get some firewood and burn off the nervous energy.
rtr
To boredinkali, I am NOT militia and have no time for them as they are the other side of the spectrum from the likes of you. "Was the tree hugging mail bomber a friend of yours"?
rtr
To Little Robbie, I am sure am glad Frank is writing the columns instead of you.
The paper would go broke from lack of support if you were the editor. "It’s that supply and demand thing that you HATE so much you know"
The Daily Interlake is like an ICON in the Flathead Valley and Frank’s columns are very representative of the culture in the Valley therefore it is a successful News Paper.
If you think you are so smart why don’t you start your own News Paper, Oh Yeah it’s that supply and demand thing again and there wouldn’t be much demand for it now would there.
benznd
rtr, your logic does not make sense to me. The people who buy and read the DIL are protective of their paper as it represents the political philosophy of the Valley. If you trash it (DIL) you trash everyone who reads it and therefore deserve to be trashed yourself. Not to go into depth here, but your first line of thought is flawed. This site is an example, as many political views are represented. We have not appointed, nor has Frank that I am aware of, a blog sheriff. When one puts "themselves" on record, they must handle the comments. Hopefully in an adult-like manner. Sometimes the posts are personal and somewhat rude. I am a perp and have tried to demean others through my blogs. Not very adult-like on my part. Now back to your comment. Take a step back and look closely at what you stated. We will no doubt, continue to level personal attacks. It is just the nature of the beast. Yet, it can be done in a civil manner. Most personal responses are IN response to a personal attack. But, things will be as they are. Kind of like recess at an elementary school. Some have goals and objectives, perhaps tag or jump rope, while others are there to harass and disrupt as they have no agenda. Same kids have the same behavior in the classroom as well. Lets try to eliminate the bullies. I will do my best to change my behavior.
boredinkali
I don't know what to feel after reading the comments about this article. Relief that the valley has someone like bronco who read more into the facts about the case than Frank, the author of the article did, or fear that paranoid persecution complex montana militia types like rtr really exist here?
Rob123
rtr....Don't deflect my criticism to the Daily Interlake.....I sell hundreds of them a week at my stores, I read it and enjoy it.....This is about YOU, and your ......I don't know what it is and I don't care anymore. I may disagree with Frank now and then in his Editorials, but he could solve that in a heart beat......but then what would be the point? I know, I know, such thoughts are over your head. Just don't hit your head on the counter to many times; studies in Sweden have pointed to a connection betwen concussions and type 2 diabeties in middle age. Maybe it wasn't the Agent Orange floating in the South China Sea after each and every rain?
rtr
To Benznd, I fail to see where safety is a concern, I was merely pointing out that when you trash the Daily Interlake you are trashing everyone that buys and enjoys reading the paper "Which is the Majority of the people in the Flathead Valley" and if you continue to trash it then you deserve to have your posts here trashed as well.
benznd
"New research suggests that there is plenty of oxygen available in the subsurface ocean of Europa to support oxygen-based metabolic processes for life similar to that on Earth. In fact, there may be enough oxygen to support complex, animal-like organisms with greater oxygen demands than microorganisms."
rtr, interested? (-: Now I am just kidding my man. I do sense that you are trying to become a member of this family and appreciate your efforts. Now if you can just draw little robbie back into the water. Tell him it IS safe.
rtr
Benznd posted:
That gun we see in these posts? What exactly does it represent?
=================
There is NO representation with it at all, Just like I don't see any representation with your avatar.
Would you prefer I have an Indy car reving it's engine or a junkyard dog as my Avatar?
Bronco
rtr, the robotic sheep. Baaa....baaa....Bamg!
benznd
"And here is how war too often ends for those who serve and the families left behind, the uncounted casualties among us: a knock on the door of a home located on a small-town street where fallen leaves glisten in Autumn sun. Two soldiers on the stoop bearing the bitter details of death. A mother and father driving to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to stand on a tarmac while their oldest boy, a lost treasure to his family and his nation, is carried gently to a hearse. A crowded service last Tuesday at Congregation in Hamden. A dining-room table filled with pictures of his life, letters of condolence, medals awarded for bravery, a folded flag and young Ben's parents — Gary and Laura Sklaver — left with a permanent hole in the heart, two more casualties of a war waged by the forgotten few." That gun we see in these posts? What exactly does it represent?
rtr
Here is a post for you little Robbie and the rest of the lemmings that follow you.
What you fail to see through all that clouded wisdom of yours is that “WE” the people that live here in the Flathead Valley are the ones supporting the Daily Interlake and “WE” buy it because “WE” enjoy the contents with in it.
Every time you start TRASHING the Daily Interlake you are in reality TRASHING all of us that live here.
It is not like there aren’t any other News Papers here and I don’t see the Daily Interlake going out of business so I am just guessing my point has already been made by the supply and demand side that you all HATE so much.
I am sure Frank will have a lot more columns in the future so think REAL HARD before you go TRASHING the contents of it next time unless you want the same in return and I don't plan on going anywhere for a while… “Get my drift”
Bronco
Rob wins.
rtr
Little Robbie posted:
now I am a MAXIST Sanitary Napkin in your little convoluted world?.
=================
You said it not me, I have to say you did take the thoughts right out of my head though.
You can now add mind reader to your resume.
rtr
Little Robbie posted:
If I WAS a Socialist, I would be a Trotskyite and put the worker ahead of Production
====================
You are what you want to be, We all are.
I have to tell you little Robbie, Your posts remind me more of a little dweeb than that of a scholar.
Rob123
rtr: "As for your MAXIST views wishing to be a Trotskyite type I find that pathetic." I bet your Computer Systems were fun to navigate after you wrote the code(s) in. I mention a little bit about the intellectual life of Lenin (ends=production) and Trotsky(ends=workers condition), with the assumption that you have at least read a little about their lives and philosophy (surely your hate is based on something deeper than prejudice?), and know a little something about what happened when Lenin died and Stalin grabbed power and Trotsky fled to Mexico City only to be found with an Ice Pick in his head because he continued to write about the cause of the Worker while Stalin was consumed with the notion of Production at any Cost and needed to get this Trotsky thorn out of his side; plus millions of other possible thorns/threats....All standard reading for someone obtaining a degree in Political Science ......and now I am a MAXIST Sanitary Napkin in your little convoluted world? Geez, and I went to a Catholic University. What if I had gone to a dreaded State University? A mandatory class studying the proper technique used for making a Molotov Cocktail? I'm tired of playing with you. I sincerely tried to get to the bottom of where you are coming from, but I will no longer dive into the shallow end of the pool inorder to attempt to bring you up to the surface and revive your stagnant being-as-such.
It's not becoming. Like a Black Hole, you defy the laws of physics. Not to mention Being and Time.
Bronco
rtr, the nurse is late with your meds. Push the button by your bedrail.
rtr
Bronco, You are impotent and rendered not worth my while but thanks for thinking you are on little Robbie’s or BigBuco’s league I’m sure they will love you for it.
Now go play in your sand box.
Bronco
rtr, were you born stupid, uncaring, and selfish or did you have to study to get this good at it? Every time I sit down...do you feel pressure?
rtr
Young with an early retirement that I worked for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqYkCJaBAyA&feature=related
Just like Leroy Brown I am still meaner than a Junkyard dog when it comes to Marxist communists and or the New Socialist democratic Party.
Want to go another round Little Robbie or BigBuco.?
rtr
By the way so you lazy BUMS that are looking for handout can quit insinuating I am all that old.
I am only 55 and worked hard enough and smart enough to retire early.
Nice try on the Social Insecurity BigBuco.
I am sorry if they have turned you down as a Wal-Mart greeter but I still don't owe you anything..
rtr
BigBuco posted, So you see, it is possible to "WORK" and not be able to afford even T.V. dinners when there's no one in the house who can fry an egg or bring you another beer.
===============
So another words to are to d*mn lazy to cook your own eggs or even get out of a chair to get your own beer…”No wonder they didn’t pay you anything”
Hey BigBuco, remember I was forced to pay into Social Insecurity so I UNLIKE you have worked for it so now you are back to just plain old stupidity.
NOW BigBuco try answering the question as to why your New Socialist Democratic Party hasn’t created any jobs and yet the Republican run companies are creating jobs.
rtr
Oh little Robbie, Two beers doesn't do that much to me and it certainly doesn't change the way I believe about your Marxist Communist views.
I notice your little buddy Bigbuco hasn't responded to the JOBS question yet, Did you have to come in and try to save that pathetic piece of dirt too.
What is he another one of your little followers, Speaking of James Town and unintelligent people.........
Your kind of sheep are like the ones in San Diego that volunteered for castration before the Halley's Comet came over.
Bighorn0216
So, rtr, are you cashing your Socialist Security checks yet, or has it been too soon after the downsizing and the cutting out of deadwood for you to come of age? I'm sure you're so disgusted with Socialist Security that you do, or will, just tear up the checks when they show up. (If you don't, then your logic requires that you declare yourself a Socialist. So what's it going to be, Comrade?)
Actually, I'm very gainfully employed, 30 years now, thank you, in a licensed profession that pays me very well. In fact, I'd like to quit working someone else's calendar, but I love the dough. It's being paid by a global business concern that not only champions but insists upon a diverse workforce and tolerance for all minority populations within the company. You'd probably enjoy sitting in at the GLBT group meetings down on 4th floor. You could be kind of the poster child.
Before this job, I worked in the Flathead, farming and in the timber industry. Those were all 12-hour/day jobs, but didn't come with any benefits or pension. So you see, it is possible to "WORK" and not be able to afford even T.V. dinners when there's no one in the house who can fry an egg or bring you another beer.
I'm glad your "wife" enjoys your company and your perspective on life. That's always a sweet story in print. She must also enjoy your verbal abuse to no end, especially after the beer kicks in. But you're a good provider, so what's not to love?
Rob123
"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was funny. Fear and Loathing in rtr's Bigfork is rather pathetic. Beer Thirty without Vitamins will do it everytime, especially retired old farts without the stamina. Walk it off, big guy, and try again in the morning. And after 4 hours, well, you know the drill.
rtr
Little Robbie I will have know I take care of my own when it comes to my family, BUT your not my family and if you were I would dis-own you.
As for my wife she reads them and agrees with with me, In fact she is more hard core than me when it comes to despising you tax and steal punks.
As for your MAXIST views wishing to be a Trotskyite type I find that pathetic.
No wonder you tried to say China wasn't communist, It just wasn't your version of communism is all.
You are the selfish self-loathing thief in the night parading as a savior of the people...YOU make me want to PUKE.
Rob123
rtr: "I agree there are some selfish jerks out there BUT I don't owe anyone anything"......
.....ok........Within the Body Politic, you're firmly in the Majority Camp. Do you share these posts with your wife? You know, a second opinion that would matter, to you? 'Together against the World'......It's well documented.......or do you hide these thoughts of yours from your only significant other?
rtr
Rob posted:
I am NOT a Democrat. If I WAS a Socialist, I would be a Trotskyite and put the worker ahead of Production. But I'm not a Socialist, because like you, I know the world is filled with Selfish Jerks who just don't get it.
=================
Please expand on the above.
What we know is that Clinton forced the REGULTION on banks to make them give out loans they knew they couldn't pay back, HOWERE Bush did not repeal that REGULATION is why we had the meltdown with housing.
I agree there are some selfish jerks out there BUT I don't owe anyone anything and the TAX and Steal is just cr*p which does NOT equate to me being selfish just to clarify that.
rtr
Hey thanks for the heads up this morning "Nat" with your post.
I had an extra cup of coffee to REV my engine this morning and I was thinking since it's Friday it is almost beer thirty....If you think were having fun now just wait till that beer kicks in.
Rob123
rtr: well, big dude, I know you and your branch of the Republican party accepts no responsibility for the 8 years of non-regulation while spending money like numbskulls and lowering taxes too. But I'll try one more time, and await the insult. I am NOT a Democrat. If I WAS a Socialist, I would be a Trotskyite and put the worker ahead of Production. But I'm not a Socialist, because like you, I know the world is filled with Selfish Jerks who just don't get it. So this morning, I started trading at 1:30 a.m. and got all the money I lost yesterday back, plus a little. Some commodity trader in Shanghai is feeling today like I did yesterday. And I don't think he's a Socialist either. Take your Vitamins. Breathe. And realize we are all in this together.
Rob123
Bronco....Thanks for the kind words. In fact, for your next novel, I will waive the intellectual property rights to 'ideological nincompoopishness.' so that you are free to use it. An old fashioned footnote acknowledging my existence would be cool, but totally up to you......(-:
rtr
Little Robbie posted:
Your Mood swing to ugly.
===============
So it is now an ugly mood when I point out that it is the Republicans that are making the jobs and supporting this country and You Socialists are contributing to nothing.
Here is how you should look at it little Robbie, "IT IS THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT YOUR New Socialist Democratic Party which is the problem and NOT my MOOD.".
Instead of insulting me why don't you answer the question little Robbie.?
Rob123
Rawhide: "Rob: I think you have me confused with someone else." Sorry about that....didn't you say something about Ft. Benning a few months back? O'well, at least I got to tell my "Airborne is nuts" story. Just about everone I knew who went the Airborne route now has compressed disks and 1 numb leg,,,,,, (-:
Rob123
rtr.....If your going to eat garbage, at least have the courtesy to take some Vitamins, heavy on the B Complex. Your Mood swing to ugly is nutrition based, I am sure. Just trying to make you a better person. I'm sure in your present state of vitamin deficiency, AC/DC's "H*ll's Bells" could come on, and you'd barely tap your toe. What a waste.
rtr
Hey Bighorn0216, Did you notice by the way that those jobs I posted that are in HIGH demand are from Republican run companies and NOT your Socialist run companies..
Where is your New Socialist Democratic party when it comes to creating jobs other than Kenyan motors which is only staying alive do to my tax dollars.
Help me out here BigBuco, Tell me were all these jobs are that your Socialist party has produced in the last year. And NOT jobs from your TAX and Steal programs.
Bronco
Tox, at the risk of reinforcing nat-res' fantasies of a "kumbaya lovevest", whatever that is, allow me to add my kudos regarding your perspicacious contributions in this week's and erstwhile discussions. Interesting how conservative republicans here refer to Liberals agreeing as a lovefest, replete with hugs, song, and dance. But when the Libs view the Repubs' unity on an issue it's called close-minded, archaic thinking, done in lockstep wearing blinders. Glad I wear a toga. Some here can't because there's no place for a holster.
cnyngrl
We should all be grateful that rtr is the only one that has ever WORKED in this county. And we should thank him for it. I also like the Swanson dinners. I think it's the apple crisp that does it for me. As for chainsaws, I like the way they sound. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeerrrrreeereeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........................Wait, what was this comment section all about? Children?? Mothers, Parents? Wait, there's another tree that is looking at me for a hug. Oh no, it was a little kid with a dog. It sucks for me to be such a bad person. Bad Person.
Bronco
Good post, Rob. I love it when people can simplify things like that. Gives the rtr/nat-res/Pete/Rawhide-type characters little excuse not to "get it" but stubbornness and a distorted sense of fairness usually prevails when reason raises its head and challenges 'ideological nincompoopishness.' And Zootown, my apologies to any of the thinking women who post here. My 'thinking men' was a generality for mankind...er, womankind...humankind? But thanks for bringing that forward.
rtr
Let see here Bighorn0216, If you had enough ambition to work instead of complaining you would know there are a ton of jobs out there.
Alaska is BEGGING for people right now in the fishing industry "But then again they would expect you to work"
Oil is going up again and it is drill, drill and drill some more time and lot's of jobs there too in MANY different states "But then again they would expect you to work"
Gold is sky high and the mines are hiring like crazy all over the USA "But then again they would expect you to work"
I know it is that “But you would have to work” that bothers you and you would rather TAX and STEAL from the ambitious WORKING middle class.
Under the lying deceitful Kenyan claim of TAX, STEAL, CAP and TRADE from the rich you think that will make everyone feel good when in reality those TAX and STEAL programs just get passed on to the working class, "But I guess you will never have to worry about that with an attitude like yours".
Bighorn0216
Good acting gig you've got there, rtr. Limited, marginal role, only a few lines to memorize. Be careful, though--word on the street is that the acting profession has been infiltrated by a lot of thespians. Some of them have even been seen cooking their own steak and eggs. They're gonna gitcha.
And lucky you, not to be a candidate anymore for a reduction-in-force in these economic times. I'll bet you could win.
rtr
Little Robbie posted:
Legal System needs to dispense Blind Justice in the here and Now,
===================
Really, Even though there is no legal law to back it up, I bet that only works for you if it is some LIBERAL, SOCIALIST, LOON of a judge that is dispensing the law however.
God forbid if it would have been a conservative decision that was being blindly dispensed.
rtr
Ok I’m back, Just got done feeding the dog, cat and my pet deer.
The wife out of town visiting her family, I sure miss her when she is gone. "No steak and eggs today for me today"
I’m sitting down eating one of those Swanson TV dinners, I have to say it is so nice to have WORKED all my life and know I have plenty pension for retirement, Health insurance so I can eat anything any time I want, and money enough to play the stock market just for the fun of it… "It’s the American dream come true"
"Them D*MN Socialists that are trying to take away the American Dream corrupt society with their lies, hate and deceit with their TAX and STEAL and Perversion programs just make me want to PUKE".
Rawhide
Rob: I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm too well grounded to be jumpin out of a perfectly good aiplane.
rtr
I'll even wait for you at the bottom with a chain
---------------
That should have been "chain saw".
rtr
Good morning naturalresources, Are you trying to say it has the appearance that there is an insurgence of Platform building and Pride organizing building up again today.
A little early isn’t it, Haven’t even finish my coffee yet but I’m always ready for a civil battle.
To cnyngrl, I just got up, "No breakfest yet just coffee, remember I am retired since I worked all my life, I have to go do some rearrainging since the Stock Market is down do to that D*AMN Kenyan showing his face on TV every day lately.
Hey by the way I have a tree on my propety you can hug it has a small platform about a 100 feet up, I'll even wait for you at the bottom with a chain "Just to make sure you are ok once you get there"
Don't br kicken no dogs or they will bite ya.
cnyngrl
Thanks rtr for bringing me back to reality. Actually tho, we have steak and eggs for breakfast , sometimes we go for the fruitloops/milk if we are in a hurry. How am I doing? I think I could get this down if I just keep typing about nothing. How was your breakfast this morning rtr? What did you have? What are you going to do today? It sounds like it might be beautiful. I'm thinking I might go hug a tree and kick a dog after I finish my coffee.
Bighorn0216
Nah, NatR, just a temporary outbreak of civility. Not to worry--quarantine orders have been issued until an antidote can be administered. Can't vouch for its safety, though. Some nasty side effects have been reported in clinical studies. Take at your own risk. Keep out of reach of children.
naturalresources
to bBighorn and tTox; looks like another kumbaya lovevest is shaping up between the left leaning contributers. Careful not to pat yourselves on the back too hard as it may cause a false sense of security and civility.
Tox
Bighorn wrote: "...you should be writing for an appreciative and paying audience."
Thanks for your appreciative comments. If there are just a few readers like you out there who can garner some pleasure or useful information from what I write, that is plenty for me.
For my part, I very much enjoy reading your articulate, informed and witty posts.
They make a difference here.
Please keep it up.
Rob123
Rawhide: "Guess that’s why I’m not a democrat. " Maybe? Although if I remember correctly from some posts a while back, you did jump out of perfectly good airplanes with 100lbs on your back, and thought that was 'good thinking'. If you want, I'm sure I could make an appointment for you on benzrd's couch. He's not Freudian, so don't worry about 'those' things.....(-: p.s. don't get me wrong....I used to drive around Fort Campbell with bandages and splints and a knife cutting 'good thinkers' out of trees and patching them up. But HEY, they got to wear the Shiny Jump Boots down to the Grand ole Oprey in Nashville on weekends.
Rob123
I don't understand some of the folks who jump into this little discussion area and express their HUGE concern over our legitimate use of time and energy. Believe me, we are not sitting inside a cubicle working for 'the man' while goofing off in cyberspace. We are all individuals, on our own clocks, expressing opinions about this and that. This weeks prime interest, (to me?), was should a Lawyer/Judge legislate from the Bench inorder to represent the Best Interest of the Children in a State who's Legislature refuses to acknowledge the Sexual Politics ingrained in 100 year old Laws that no longer represent the Reality of Here and Now. I say "H*LL Yes!". Of course, I would never get mySelf into that position in the first place, but for those who do, the Legal System needs to dispense Blind Justice in the here and Now, not 1950's ideological nincompoopishness that is all too common in Family Court type situations. A few decades ago, a man could come home from the bar drunk as heck, find his wife in bed with the neighbor, and shoot them both and everyone knew he had the legal right to do it. Things like emotional abandonment, good father, healthy child role model, etc., never even entered the case. Heck, he probably didn't even get hauled to jail. Merely a few questions concerning the obvious, and maybe a little 'Sorry for your Loss', and case closed. Everyone understand. Ugh! Those days are over, because SOME Judges legislated from the Bench until the "I've got to get re-elected" Legislature changed the Law/Statutes. Reality is incredibly sloppy, if you turn the T.V. off and go outside and immerse your Self in it.
rtr
OH now little bronco,,,,I can see it is just tearing you up that you lost control of the comment section and it isn't your personal little pride parade any more.......TOO BAD FOR YOU.....
As for being a thinker neither You or ZooTown have as much of a brain as a squirrl has nuts in his mouth at one time.
Signed
Junkyard DOG
ZooTown024
You must be sexist Bronco. I do not believe the argument was resolved solely by thinking men. Some of the posters here are women. Nevertheless, back on topic...oh what was it again.....oh yeah dissecting a country editors opinions and thoughts on a daily basis even though he hasn't done anything particularly interesting or impressive in his career...Wait....I take that back...he probably had a hand in setting up these threads and he does provide the content for you thinking men to resolve. Regards.
Bronco
Zootown is a free thinker. I like his style. Doesn't run with the herd. But then, like most of us, he doesn't give a Shiite about JrRush either. As far as discussion goes, the heart of that issue has been addressed and been resolved by thinking men. That's why we have digressed.
rtr
Zootown024, Sorry I was disingenuous regarding the amount of verbage it would take to get my voice heard.
===============
Nobody is listening to you any way, Haven't you heard this is FREE FOR ALL Thursday.
rtr
Rawhide
Beam him up, Scotty.
===============
Click on his avitar and read some of his past posts in other comment sections and I think you will agree the problem is that he has ALREADY been beemed up before.
Rawhide
Beam him up, Scotty.
ZooTown024
Ya know one last thing. There was one dissenting judge and in a way I can agree with part of his dissent but for reasons other than his opposition of legislating form the bench. The one dissenting judge said they inserted language into the statute and that's forbidden...pretty feeble considering they get paid to interpret legislation. Perhaps congress should have made it more clear as to the intent of the law rather than leaving it open-ended. Maybe we should be trying to redefine the definition of a judges' duties if you don't want them legislating from the bench. It seems to me that is what they are paid to do.
ZooTown024
I have some breaking news. Shortly after posting my blogs I had a blackhawk buzz my house. It was the damndest thing. It bore a UN flag with rainbow stripes. Guess who the pilot was.
ZooTown024
Except it wasn't just one judge sir. It was six.
ZooTown024
@rtr....sir, you should change your handle to ThpethialEd and specialize in gay studies. It appears to be your thpethialty.
rtr
To ZooTown024, I am sure the judge would be very happy to hear you support the fact that he is making laws from the bench instead of upholding the existing laws that he has sworn an oath to up hold.
rtr
The reality of it is I don't think the parents were too bright to begin with "They had the balloon because they were amateur storm chasers".
I was in Carlsbad NM. one time when a tornado was setting about five miles from town not moving but no one knew where it would go and the SIRONS went off and the radios in the cars driving down the road were BLASTING telling everyone to get under cover.
I came away with the understanding that storm chasers were idiots and not people to respect for their bravery.
ZooTown024
Man I have been chastised on these threads for repitition. This is the biggest uff duh I have seen in awhile. It's amazing you people can go back and forth in this fashion every single day. What is funnier is it is so absurdly obvious where the intellect lies within these feeble threads. Well anywho I just wanted to throw in a quick two cents to laugh at you who offer up a huge chunk of your time and opinion for no renumeration. Any who I will make my opinion known with one or two quick sentences. Based on the facts put forth it is pretty clear this was a full fledged relationship where both parties appear to share parental duties equally. It is not an erosion of family values or parental rights. That is clearly fear mongering. People raising their kids together, married or not are not going to have the state beating down their doors to grant rights to a third party that did not exist in a significant way in the dynamics of their family to begin with. Get real. I am not a legal scholar and my opinion does not matter but it appears to be the right decision based on the facts and the interpretation of the current statutes. Sorry I was disingenuous regarding the amount of verbage it would take to get my voice heard.
rtr
To naturalresources, Yeah either way that poor kid is in deep p**p and the funny part is it will be a life LONG memory for the parents that they will NEVER ever let him forget..
Bighorn0216
Hey, Tox, nice to read you, sorry you're spending time here; you should be writing for an appreciative and paying audience. A tardy thanks for the Fromm ("To Have or To Be") recommendation. Have it here and will get after it when the current read is absorbed.
Rawhide
Rob: When I was little and got in trouble my dad had a way of getting down close to your face and getting his point across without being physical. My mother was something else. She had been a teacher in a small two room country school. When I and my brothers did something wrong, she would send us out to select a switch for her to use on our butts. I always put a lot of thought into the selection, stalling as long as I could before coming back to the house. If I stalled long enough, she would just waive the switch in front of me in a menacing way and then send me to my room. But then I had to wait for my dad to get home and that was worse than being threatened with a switch, although I did feel it once or twice. Guess that’s why I’m not a democrat.
rtr
Hey Kimber, That put a smile on my face and a lot better than that of the Political platform builders or Pride paraders.
Happy FREE FOR ALL Thursday and good luck with the kids and carnies.
naturalresources
rtr, if the kids parents are liberals, there's a real good chance he won't be in trouble. On the other hand, if they are conservative in the liberal bastion of Colorado; well, they might be in the same company as Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Search and rescue, police, military, IRS ,State Police, social services , etc. . might be knocking on their door. Thus, the kid would be in much more trouble.
kimberprincess
hi rtr-well of course i agree; don't let anyone tell you size doesn't matter, but even a small piece, in the right hands, can get the job done........
ok its been a long day Time to load the kids on the merry go round and the roller coaster-the magic of the carney life.
kimberprincess
hi rtr-well of course i agree; don't let anyone tell you size doesn't matter, but even a small piece, in the right hands, can get the job done........
ok its been a long day Time to load the kids on the merry go round and the roller coaster-the magic of the carney life.
kimberprincess
hi rtr-well of course i agree; don't let anyone tell you size doesn't matter, but even a small piece, in the right hands, can get the job done........
ok its been a long day Time to load the kids on the merry go round and the roller coaster-the magic of the carney life.
rtr
It sure made for quite the show like Rob pointed out this afternoon watching that balloon go across the farm land thinking the kid was in the balloon.
That is way way too funny, Are you sure that kid won't be in trouble Rob.......?
Rob123
In the end, VERY funny..........but what a 4+ hour drama......If I was 6 years old, I'm not sure I would want Rawhide as my father? Ouch. (-:
Rawhide
He was hiding in the garage attic ! Too many cops in the neighborhood.
rtr
Rawhide are you saying the kid wasn't in the balloon, Too funny if that was case.
Rawhide
Smart kid. He came out of hiding in time for dinner.
rtr
Rob, That was UNREAL wasn't it......The way they showed that balloon whipping across the farm land you could almost imagine what that poor kid was thinking and for a LONG time too........
They said the balloon was capible of going to 10,000 feet, That would have been a bummer.
Glad to hear he is OK...I didn't see the rescue.
Rawhide
It’s pretty obvious there are way too many unemployed attorneys in the valley with too much time on their hands and too little to do. Thank goodness our Country Editor comes up with a new topic each week to keep you all entertained.
Anyone know a new lawyer joke?
Rob123
I've been stuck watching CNN the past 4 hours with the 6 year old in the Helium balloon. What an emotional rollercoaster. And he's safe! And I bet he's not in trouble.!
Tox
Rob wrote: “I'm pro-civility....”
I realize and appreciate that. That’s why your statement surprised me as it did.
and continue: ”...Just not all the time. A little down and sweaty is good.”
Ahh, yes, of course. I could I miss that. We wouldn’t want civility to domintae this blog all the time, now would we?. We mustn’t forget that a “little” down and sweaty is good. That’s just what we need here, isn’t it.? Just a little. ;-)
Nevertheless I can appreciate where you’re coming from, especially when you cite Nietzsche in such a context. (Does “Hans” have a good command of German?) Nietzsche’s use of the German language is so stunning, captivating, ruthlessly provocative and utterly blasphemous, while the content is rich, thought-provoking and harshly, you could even say rudely, enlightening. In its own right an uncompromising quest for truth. Never lacking profundity. But to draw on someone of his caliber to make a point for the “anarchy of amateurs” here is quite a stretch, don’t you think? Unfortunately we are not blessed with a “Nietzsche” to provide us with shattering and provocative reads, which we could enjoy for the sheer power their language and reasoning.
Rob123
tox...tox...tox.....I'm pro-civility. Just not all the time. A little down and sweaty is good; it enables the new synthesis to have meaning that is sometimes obscured by the age old thesis-antithesis logic of the parlor room. Or the Court Room. Descarte's Reductionism in an Aristotelian world. That was down and sweaty. Nietzsches' fallen and broken clown after his fall from the tightrope strung between the Courthouse and Church Steeples. Pointing out the Beauty of Low Taxes to an IRS Auditor doing a complete 5 year in-house audit for weeks on end in my office. He bought into it. While I merely had an autopsy without the benefit of death. And if Descarte wasn't so concerned with the placement of his head, I'm sure he would have ended with "Cogito ergo Cogito". Would have speeded up Evolutionary Psychology, I am sure. Back to those darn Dominicans and there love of Dogma. A lot of Lawyers have taken their place?
rtr
You know Bronco that post of yours was down right disgusting.
You might want to take some lessons from little Robbie, You know like the cat and mouse thing he had which was hilarious and written intelligently…"Just a thought"
Bronco
rtr, why is it you know more about gay pride parades, dates, etc., than anyone else here. You keep inserting gay this and gay that into your posts. Are you part of that "gay agenda" thing and are trying to keep you and your buddies in the spotlight? Not that I care which way you stand...or kneel. You can come out, ya know. You are among friends who understand that people despise that in others which they fear is in themselves. Benznd, a..k.a. bimmermt, has room on his couch for you. You can even hold his ankle while you talk this out. Oh, how profound! You sure have a big one, rtr. I have barrel envy.
benznd
And comments by Rob and sensible and woody and Bronco (cracked me up) et. al to keep the topics civil. DId not just wish leave them out (-:
benznd
Probably some of you have found when backspacing, use caution how long you hold the backspace key as your entire post will be erased as you are sent to jail and not allowed to pass go. Start over. I think I may have stepped over the line a bit. I went after individuals using my profession with the intent of taking them down or demeaning their character. That is not what I am all about. Never have been, and do not wish to be at this time of my life. I am not affected by the personal attacks, as in general it means that I have come close to identifying some character traits that one may wish to keep hidden. With that in mind, I will try my best, as I have stated often, to keep to the topic. I liked the recent comments of bighorn and kimber. Move us back to the topic and continue with civil discourse. I wish to continue with my own investigations into the views of the opposition, as I wish to understand the other side of the debate. I got stuck on homophobia and could not move on. I posted information from the right that seemed to reinforce the idea that discrimination is at the bottom of this argument. Yet, I can see that if one goes for the "bottom line" there is little discussion left. As a long hair 60's vet, I experienced discrimination. I taught the handicapped at that time (talk about discrimination), long hair and all. Yet, I could not eat in some of the restaurants with my straight wife who worked at the bank! It does not take many of those experiences. The curtain is pulled back and the hard truth is exposed. Then came the reservation experience of 12 years. Wasn't that something. The curtain had been exposed earlier in life, so it did not take long for me to understand subtle bigotry. It is a part of life, I understand that now. Yet, to see columns written that attempt to divert ones attention from the underlying bigotry is an insult to ones intelligence and humanity. I stand corrected and I apologize to Pete and others whom I may have attacked unfairly. I will try to do my part to keep the peace.
rtr
Will someone PLEASE let benznd know that the gay pride parade was held a month ago and is over now.
benznd
Last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner objected to House passage of a bill that would expand hate crime laws and make it a federal crime to assault people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Based on that statement, CBSNews.com contacted Boehner's office to find out if the minority leader opposes all hate crimes legislation. The law as it now stands offers protections based on race, color, religion and national origin. In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics." It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislation would cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. "He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.
Boehner's position, then, appears to be grounded in the notion that immutable characteristics should be protected under hate crimes laws. And while religion is an immutable characteristic, his office suggests, sexual orientation is not.
Northeastern University professor Jack Levin, who co-authored the first book written about hate crimes, told Hotsheet that "to use immutability as a criterion doesn't make any sense at all." "Especially if he supports the current stand," Levin continued. "Religion is clearly not ascribed. It's not built into the organism. People can change it at any time and people do." "It sounds to me as though the criticism is focused on the addition of gays and lesbians to the list of protected categories at the federal level," he said. "That seems to be the problem."
rtr
cnyngrl, I feel humbled by you.
I prefered to feed my kids Oat Meal, Rasin Bran, Pancakes, Bacon and Eggs you know the deal instead of Friuts and Nuts for breakfest..."Get my drift"
As for us all acting like children here today "Your Opinion" I don't if you noticed or not but this comment section is about wore out and it appears to be FREE FOR ALL Thursday.
Now go enjoy the last of your morning coffee
Tox
Rob wrote: "Civility in discourse is emotionally pleasing, but has nothing to do with 'truth'. “
I must say, that I am quite surprised that you, of all people, would make such a statement. Civility in discourse is far more than emotionally pleasing and has VERY much to do with “truth”. As I am sure you are well aware, what we understand as "truth" is usually just an approximation. Civility provides the space, the atmosphere, the freedom to seek this approximation of truth, to strive for it in an unobstructed fashion. It is the nurturing ground for truth to thrive and blossom and bear fruit.
When civility is lost, the honest, unhindered, unfearing quest for truth is usually one of the first casualties. And thus our inherent longing for seeking common understanding, the collective consensus of what we call truth is shattered like a glass, what we attempt to agree on as being true, is broken or even lost.
Although we still might want to reach it, it becomes an unattainable enigma. A quest too arduous to embark on collectively, and we are condemned to remain isolated on our lonesome island of subjective truth, until we are allowed and enticed to seek and attempt to express what we see as broader, more general truths in the nurturing climate of civility.
cnyngrl
Wow!!! Why dont you guys (& girls) go fight amongst yourselves somewhere else. What about the kids? Does anyone know how they feel? These days kids are lucky to have one parent, much less two. Is it really anyones business? This has been going on for a long time between coulpes that aren't married, same sex or not. And ya.........You can go on and on. But it's usually the kids that take the brunt of the breakup, same sex or not. Fortunately, kids are so much more forgiving than selfish adults.
rtr
Voom Voom got my motor rev’en
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMbATaj7Il8
Not a pitbull but meaner than a junkyard dog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqYkCJaBAyA
rtr
Well good morning Kimberprinces, I just don't know what to say about you this fine morning other than you worry me. "Thank God I only have about 25 or 30 years left is all I have to say".
You really should check into getting one of this monsterous 500's, That Kimber of yours is like taking a knife to gun fight.
rtr
Oh now little Robbie your just mad because you stepped right in the middle of my Banznd bear trap, Don't feel bad though if it wasn't you it would have been one of your other munchkin friends.
I am sure it didn't do that much psychological damage and if you take a deep breath you will recover.
Woody, That was a little funny.
rtr
Oh now little Robbie your just mad because you stepped right in the middle of my Banznd bear trap, Don't feel bad though if it wasn't you it would have been one of your other munchkin friends.
I am sure it didn't do that much psychological damage and if you take a deep breath you will recover.
Woody, That was a little funny.
kimberprincess
Bighorn, outstanding post and thank you. And excellent link to Taitz...Actually I thought that WAS the entire point of this week's column (judicial activism), at least that was what it was billed as. We were informed repeatedly that the women's sexual orientation was irrelevant, so the issue appeared to be something like "activist judges make bad law". However, discourse on that topic was just too hard, given the obvious issues in the case. The Taitz case is extremely interesting and directly relevant to what I thought this topic was about-"use of the courts for a purpose unrelated to the resolution of a legitimate legal cause of action". On the emotional side of things I also have family members who represent both sides of this issue, and it's painful all around, although I cannot pretend to be objective or unbiased. But whether or not the courts can adequately "resolve" emotional issues is another topic, likely for another profession (psych). I could not agee more that, when not posting here, people should be rolling up their sleeves to do the good work, to make a difference in our community in whatever form that takes. I actually suspect many of us are :) I dunno-people spit and claw here but at the end of the day we are interacting with each other, maybe that is a good thing in itself. I actually learn a great deal here from posters such as yourself so I hope this forum, connected or not to the actual column, continues.
kimberprincess
Bighorn, outstanding post and thank you. And excellent link to Taitz...Actually I thought that WAS the entire point of this week's column (judicial activism), at least that was what it was billed as. We were informed repeatedly that the women's sexual orientation was irrelevant, so the issue appeared to be something like "activist judges make bad law". However, discourse on that topic was just too hard, given the obvious issues in the case. The Taitz case is extremely interesting and directly relevant to what I thought this topic was about-"use of the courts for a purpose unrelated to the resolution of a legitimate legal cause of action". On the emotional side of things I also have family members who represent both sides of this issue, and it's painful all around, although I cannot pretend to be objective or unbiased. But whether or not the courts can adequately "resolve" emotional issues is another topic, likely for another profession (psych). I could not agee more that, when not posting here, people should be rolling up their sleeves to do the good work, to make a difference in our community in whatever form that takes. I actually suspect many of us are :) I dunno-people spit and claw here but at the end of the day we are interacting with each other, maybe that is a good thing in itself. I actually learn a great deal here from posters such as yourself so I hope this forum, connected or not to the actual column, continues.
Woody
Shhhhhhh! Don't tell rtr he has that revolver pointed at himself.
Rob123
After changing 3 words, I finally got by the censor....geez....not a profanity anywhere? I started thinking maybe the Pope had unleashed the Dominican Dogma Bums again. Scary thought.....
Rob123
"In this thread, it has been impossible to separate the emotional charge and hyperbole from the facts and the law, and so everyone's had his or her say, and no one's mind was changed about anything." With a politie and civil "HUH?", I must ask you bighorn, 'How do you know that "no one's mind was changed about anything"? Even Aristotle's Cosmology, dripping with logic and facts with the end result being a Universe that was orderly with all things in there place, had more to do with Politics than Truth. Pathagorus already had the Earth's circumference figured to less than 1% error, and the Earth circling the Sun, yet Aristotle logically proved a flat Earth with everything in Heaven (sky) in it's place; and the Roman Catholic Church embraced this logic along with some 'Risen Lord' metaphysics thrown in, for 1800 years with a lot of heretics burned or beheaded. Logic has it's downside. Civility in discourse is emotionally pleasing, but has nothing to do with 'truth'. And rtr is more sophisticated than he lets on. He enjoys being the Right Wing rabble rouser playing the crowd. He's fun to play with, like watching a cat with a mouse. After awhile, however, one must pick the little animal up by the tail and dispose of it correctly. (This censor thing is silly? I can't even find the offensive word?)
Bronco
Funny how the birthers can't produce a Kenyan birth certificate.
Bronco
Funny how the birthers can't produce a Kenyan birth certificate.
rtr
Bighorn0216 posted:
There are a lot of people in need, and it isn't the fault of liberals or conservatives, unless members of either side refuse to roll up their sleeves and get to the good work.
==================
You know Bighorn I just couldn't leave this alone.
Long winded post you had with a nice come back at the end but let evaluate it.
First "didn't have to point cartoon pictures of weaponry" was pointed at me and I take offence at that, I just happen to love my guns and this happens to be one of my favorites but you tried to turn it into something BAD.
Second you sound NO better than the Kenyan with Hope and Change with what I copied at the top and has NOTHING more to offer than he does with insulting BOTH sides of the road here.
Question, Are you running for a government office Bighorn0216 if so you just might get elected since you are an empty shell just like all politicains.
rtr
Bighorn0216, I fail to see what this has to do with this column and it is of NO value what so ever since there is a legal law suit in Arizona that will be followed through on when it comes to the Kenyan and his birth certificate.
Personally I don’t know one way or the other if he has one but it is not looking very good for the Kenyan after all this time no matter what you posted here since he is unwilling to produce the original at this time. “Pretty sad when it comes to the highest office in the land and the Kenyan can’t produce something like a birth certificate”.
If you are still trying to turn this comment section into a New Socialist Democratic Party platform you failed miserably.
rtr
Bighorn0216, I fail to see what this has to do with this column and it is of NO value what so ever since there is a legal law suit in Arizona that will be followed through on when it comes to the Kenyan and his birth certificate.
Personally I don’t know one way or the other if he has one but it is not looking very good for the Kenyan after all this time no matter what you posted here since he is unwilling to produce the original at this time. “Pretty sad when it comes to the highest office in the land and the Kenyan can’t produce something like a birth certificate”.
If you are still trying to turn this comment section into a New Socialist Democratic Party platform you failed miserably.
Bighorn0216
I should have clarified that the sanction was imposed against the attorney who prosecuted the "birther" suit on behalf of the plaintiff.
Bighorn0216
I know this is off-topic but I'm outta here, yet I have to give you a shot at it. This is a court sanctioning the de facto "leader" of the "birthers," to the tune of $20,000, for pursuing a frivolous claim. I don't care which side of the "debate" you're on, this is a long but just exquisitely crafted work of art, the caliber of writing you always hope to see in a judicial opinion.
http://images.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/10/13/taitz/taitzsanctions.pdf
Bighorn0216
Kind of lost track of who's who, with the name changes after the site revision . . .
Seems like the thread is pretty well played out, anyway. Those who are interested in getting any more of the story behind the story generally have access to the court filings, including memoranda and the appellate briefs. No need to challenge others to "come up with evidence." Each of us carries our own burden of proof; otherwise we're all mere sound and fury. Still, much of the story will be unknown and unknowable to outsiders. And any time a case turns so pointedly on credibility, the trial court and the jury are going to be presumed to have been the best judge of that. It's been mentioned here that a particular set of "facts" contrary to the court's ruling was "proved" by expert testimony. It isn't enough that some expert testified to some opinion about a determinative matter in the case. To even be admitted, all expert testimony has to be relevant, competent, and based in reliable methods and observation -- but being admissible doesn't mean it will be believed. In this case, some of the expert testimony was accorded more weight than the rest. That's a judgment the trier of fact (jury, usually) makes, and it's very rarely overridden by an appellate court.
As for the legal--as opposed to emotional--maneuvering that was required to bend the statute into something that still seems to me mind-boggling (grafting the "exclusive" language into the statute), it's a done deal, unless and until the legislature revisits it, and even then, any revisions will have to pass constitutional muster; the greater the level of enmity and vitriol behind a bill, the less likely it will do so, because it will become a heavy-handed political stunt rather than a solution to a problem.
I have relatives living on both sides of this debate. I have relatives, even siblings, who were in "traditional" relationships that ended horribly and with grave damage to the children. I have relatives, even siblings, in homosexual relationships in which the households and the children are doing great and having wonderful success and rich lives.
In this thread, it has been impossible to separate the emotional charge and hyperbole from the facts and the law, and so everyone's had his or her say, and no one's mind was changed about anything. Nothing was learned, except that the lessons of talk radio and unmoderated Internet comment threads have become part of our cultural psyche. We shout in print out of fear (it sounds like anger, but anger grows out of fear.) We are a nation that is scared to death, and so this kind of exchange--considered objectively--is very instructive; yes, even the mind-numbing but unwittingly revealing playground insults.
Fact is, if some of us met on the roads, mayhem would ensue, and if we met up to compare barrel lengths, people would get shot. In that sense, we don't stack up very well in terms of sophistication or intelligence. (Yes, I'm including myself.) But the greater the bellicosity, the weaker the argument. We may overcome, but we don't win.
The finest teachers in my life, including some at Flathead High and later at what used to be "the" Montana State, in Bozeman, and later in grad school, never once had to threaten or bully anyone to make their point. Didn't have to shout, didn't have to point cartoon pictures of weaponry. But they exacted a precision in the expression and support of an argument, and let you know by their example when you'd missed the mark.
I don't expect to see that here, in part because the columns are provocative in themselves--even the titles are intended to incite (which is what titles are to do)--so the game is on from the first kick. The columns SHOULD be provocative--that's the whole point of an opinion piece. But we probably expect too much from what follows, in what has been termed by one Internet observer as an "anarchy of amateurs."
Question now is whether this is a profitable expenditure of life's time, which for some may run out in minutes, and for others, decades. All this energy might be put to getting out there and helping out. There are a lot of people in need, and it isn't the fault of liberals or conservatives, unless members of either side refuse to roll up their sleeves and get to the good work.
rtr
Bronco. rtr, I want you to have my baby.
=============
My name isn't Hillary Clinton anf this isn't a village so take care of your own d*mn baby.
Bronco
rtr, I want you to have my baby.
rtr
sensible
rtr: you come climbing with me......and take an unfortunate fall, you may come to rest until you ARE in north dakota. and some mountain bike tires are studded.......ouch.
=======================
Yeah I probably had that coming sensible but let's just hope he learned a leason.
sensible
rtr: benznd is a big boy. and where is this WE you reference?............methinks there are voices that only you hear. BOO!!
sensible
rtr: you come climbing with me......and take an unfortunate fall, you may come to rest until you ARE in north dakota. and some mountain bike tires are studded.......ouch.
rtr
Little Robbie posted:
benznd.....If your feeling lonely and alienated and shunned, like rtr wants you to feel.
========================
Now quit that, I was the one asking you to give him a liberal group hug many many many posts ago, It's about time you did.
Benznd, Now be a good little boy and thank little robbie for the hug.
rtr
Oh "Beanznd" Your last post was only seven lines long and in those lines you insulted Pete, You called me a big b*tt, You brought up a black president, Health care, There was a did you serve, Rotten country, Good job Frank, Great post Rob, Proverbial bazooka.
And you wonder why we think you are smoking to much whacky weed there Mister spacey casey.
Rob123
benznd.....If your feeling lonely and alienated and shunned, like rtr wants you to feel, so that he too can identify with someone, raise your hand and jump up and down on one leg. Otherwise, I'm going to assume the obvious......Your ok. Here's some meat for you, rtr, so you know you are a part of this whole, also: "
"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so
enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss
of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal
processions. ... Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the
Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be
Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security,
more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.'"
--Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
rtr
Benznd, Frank, I like the update to this site. Once I figured it out, now it is very user friendly.
======================
Let see here you register and then login, How long did you say it took you to figure that out?
rtr
Oh "Beanznd" You didn't rile the ant pile at all, We are ALL just making a joke out of you and you can't even see it..
Remember what I said about the kid that thought he had friends just because some one talked to him once even though it wasn't civil they thought they were their friends just because NO ONE else would talk to them....
LOOK BACK through the posts Benznd, The only person that ever posted in your defence was sensible and that was a one time post and short lived.
NOTE: sinsible, kimber, Bighorn, Bronco, little Robbie, Futureres, all back one another but not you.
I realize some times you just have to be a man and stand on your own two feet but I just don't think it applies in this situation when it comes to you being an outcast from both sides of the house.
benznd
Pete, last comment then we can read each other's comments on the sly, OK? Don't shoot the messenger. Nothing to say about religion and discrimination? Nothing to say about health care profts? Nothing to say about a black president? OK. I will leave it at that. Oh, rotten country. DId you serve? Great post Rob. He is kind of a big butted individual isn't he? Frank, I like the update to this site. Once I figured it out, now it is very user friendly. You are not totally repressed. And please unleash rtr. I have the proverbial bazooka. I must be doing something right as the ants are certainly riled.
rtr
Now little Robbie remember what happened the last time you insulted me and stepped right in the middle of it with insulting my intelligence.
First off I live in the Flathead Valley and don’t live in ND so I won’t be buried there now will I?
Second off like I had pointed out “Benznd” appeared to be a very lonely and self loathing person just like Pete pointed out.
Third I had ask you and your ilk to stick up for “Benznd” "Out of the kindness of my heart mind you" since he was acting like he needed your LIBERAL hugs and love but instead you chose to insult me so what does that say…."Oh yeah you think he is an idiot too but you wanted to have a little fun with me instead of supporting him"….Shame on you.
Fourth is I have already requested my wife to bury me face down so I can MOON you LIBERALS for the rest of eturnity.
Rob123
Ya know, rtr, in North Dakota they bury the dead face down in school yards, and use the protruding rearend as a bicycle stand for the kids. You will service a whole classroom, I am sure.
Pete
Benznd...Let me try to understand the your points. 1. Discrimination based on Gods word is wrong. Who quoted the Bible here? 2. You grew up in a rotten country sounds like...then you moved to ND where you can live sans prejudice. Last I checked ND is still part of the US...much to my chagrin. (as an aside, you obviously haven't spoken disparagingly about Lutefisk or you'd know a little about ND discrimination) 3. You speak about a humane respect for others and then revel in smack talk to move your 'humane respect" agenda forward? Well, self pity is one thing...well deserved pity from others is quite another, and as I'm not real interested in contributing to your masochistic desires I will let you alone to argue with yourself as you are so obviously well equiped to do. As that great philosopher Mr. T said...."pity the fool".
rtr
I am in North Dakota, leaving a small footprint and understanding how others live,
=======================
Ok I get it now, I can see why Montana's have always made jokes about North Dakota, You are living proof of the reason why.
benznd
Pete, the services you get at the DMV or any other State agency is what you pay for. Next time you vote for someone to represent you, ask them to increase your taxes so that we can hire the appropriate number of employees to better serve the people. The health insurance industry just increase premiums to hire the number of employees it needs to speed up processing. Uncle/Aunt Sam/Samette cannot do that. The Uncle/Aunt must deal with individuals who purposely underfund to make a political point. One cannot trust the government to do anything well... Keep them underfunded, oppose any taxes, ensure incompetence, therefore ineptness. I you wish to have competence, set up a pay system based upon productivity. Fund the system. Simple, share the wealth. As you are aware, in prehistoric times, top pay used to exceed bottom pay by 30 times. Now, top pay exceeds bottom pay by 300+ times. What do we have to say about that? Watch "Capitalism, A Love Story." You don't need to love MM, just watch it sans prejudice Pete.
benznd
"Teach your children well" Pete. Now I understand. Sorry man. You are YOUNG. You have kids at home? Well, that puts your comments in the proper context. I am glad you have a family still at home. At that stage in one's life, the trees often overshadow the forest. We do tend to run with lymbic system intelligence during that time frame. Remember it well. One thing you do not want to pass on to your children is pity. Pity is a destructive human characteristic. Everyone is responsible for who they are and what they do. That goes for me as well as you. I may have talked about by recent past, but I do not hide behind it. Teach your children that pity allows for victimization. I have arrived at this point and time in my life based upon my collective experiences. That is what this is all about. I did not disappoint gGod. I was not sent into exile. I am here and happy to be alive and happy to be commenting on this blog. If you take offense at what I say, then stand up and offer a differing view that passes muster. I throw it out there. I open myself to criticism or ridicule. I am OK with me, so I am OK with criticism and ridicule. Don't take pity on me my man, take off the gloves. Wonk me in the chops. I will turn the other cheek. I would probably like you in the REAL world, and you MIGHT even like me. The nice thing about blogs is that we can say what we think as opposed to being "nice" then talking behind one's back. I can tell you what I think, to your face. I can even deliver a low blow if I think it necessary. You are provided with the same options. The issues we discuss are REAL. The attitudes on display represent person to person interaction. Discrimination, yes I will call it that, towards others based upon gGod's words is WRONG. I choose to believe this is NOT the world in which I live. I grew up in a country undermined then guided by prejudice, disenguous goals and greed. So, I am in North Dakota, leaving a small footprint and understanding how others live, sans prejudice. What a treat Pete. Try it someday.
benznd
I don't question God. The Lord is my Shepherd and I shall put none above Him. Which is why I know that if it were part of God's plan for me to stop viciously condemning others based solely on their sexual preference, He would have seen fit—in His infinite wisdom and all—to have given me the tiniest bit of human empathy necessary to do so.
It's a simple matter of logic, really. God made me who I am, and who I am is a cold, anti-gay zealot. Thus, I abhor gay people because God made me that way. Why is that so hard to understand?
"THE ONION"
Pete
Sensible... :-) Speaking of aliases reminds me of Ron White...they call me Tator...Tator Salad...
sensible
rtr: agreed on the good shot.........and cheney. there was never a "country first" from him.
pete: ahhhh.............more "tongue in cheek" fun.
rtr
sensible, I have to tell you I never did think much of Cheney even before I found out he had a friut for a daughter.
I will say this much, He's a pretty good shot, He hit the lawyer.
Pete
Sensibe..."how did I become Woody?" Probably the same way Rob became "Hans" and vice versa. "Woody" is a bit less subtle than "Hans" but I guess picking up chicks these days takes a bit more transparency than in the archaic days when "Hans" was bebopping down the slopes. ;-)
Pete
Benznd...Thanks for the new moniker you threw my way...Grand Sovereign Commander has a nice ring to it. I ran it by my kids but they said it wouldn't fit on a baseball cap so forget-about-it. On a more serious note, I'm beginning to think you are more interested in dragging people down to your own level of self-loathing than in making any compelling arguments in favor of your positions. I have been deferential in the past because of your situation, but my patience is wearing a bit thin. No amount of personal bile is going to change the situation you find yourself in. Transference, counter-transference? I don't know your issue, and your attitude makes it hard to care, which I'm sure is your point, whether you know it or not. You seem to be successfully aquiring the likeness of two characters ...little boy blue and the boy who cried wolf, and you'll notice neither of them have grown up over the centuries.
Pete
Having dealt with the state MVD on a title issue for the past 2 months...I just can't wait until the government gets more of a say in healthcare. Maybe doctors offices will only be open 4 days a week and closed every conceivable holiday...or even shut down the phone lines when they decide to have a staff meeting. I bet Kevin Trudeau can't wait either...there will probably be a whole new crop of do-it-yourselfers looking for answers. Put a little witchhazel on it, spit to the four winds and do three Hail Marys. I just wish Trudeau had a book on do-it-yourself title changes...anything would be better than this torture.
sensible
what happens here, if mary cheney, who is expecting her second child with her partner, heather poe, break-up? no adoption, but a birth-mother................
egads........cheney's daughter is "gay" rtr..........the agony.
Claus
I was trying to remember when it was that I voted "committed relationships" had legal standing, or when it was that the state legislature voted that that would be the case. I can't remember ever doing or seeing that done.
Then I see this line by future resident, "When 6 judges agree in a conservative state that it's time to change, that's a big signal that it's time to change." Well, I have a problem with that; I thought the court was supposed to rule on laws that the legislature had formulated on behalf of the people, not create new laws where they imagine a need.
Further, taking my political signals from the six wise oligarchs seems a bit restrictive, one might say tyrannical. In a free society I may inform my opinions from whom and where I please, be it my religion, political party, favorite uncle, or the entrails of birds.
naturalresources
The main point of Franks' column was to emphasize that the court has overstepped it's authority as many other liberal courts have done all across the country when it comes to ,gay rights, environmental laws and decisions, marital ,issues etc. Laws are written for good reasons and should'nt be discarded or re-interpreted,or superceded for the advancement of a cause by any court that deems it beneficial to a case. First, the law should be changed, then , abide by that law. But liberals seem to be perfectly happy to see the courts go down this perilous road.
sensible
how did i become woody?
sensible
sensible
editor: you are a good writer. this article was well written. but as with many of your positions it was inadequately researched, or was properly researched but written from a point of blantant advocacy. i appreciate your guts to jump into the ring, but perhaps you should enter with the gloves......................or borrow the mace from rtr.
sensible
FutRes: excellent.
sensible
rtr: "don't clutter up the column with stuff that doesn't pretain to the column" ..............the editor made a false claim. just as you have. you both claim you need evidence. it has been offered, sourced, and documented many times over.
again. the bailout took place last september (fact). gm first took money last november (fact). aig first took money last summer. bush's deficit (the basis for subsequent budgets) was the first over $1 trillion (fact). unemployment was in a death spiral since dec. of 2007 (fact) . bush vetoed nothing.
your denial of fact is not my problem.
now, on to more pleasant tasks.........you want climb mt. cannon with me? near the top a narrow 2 foot wide "ridge" must be navigated before summit........it's 3500 ft down one side and 5000 ft down the other................i'd love to watch your pants fill.
Woody
Frank How do you know that these two people had sex. Rather presumptuous, I think.
Rob123
FutureResident: As a Montana Native (sorry rtr) I enjoyed and agree with your last two posts. Very well put. And like Bronco said, there will be a lot of dinosaur excrement on the trail. Panic does that to the bowels. Best to calm down and think it out, and maybe get the legislature up to speed. And Frank, people don't "shack up" for 10 years, and you know it. Editors choose there words carefully. Acknowledge your underlying prejudice; use this piece to grow.....As for the Legal Precedent set by this case, well gee: Ye olde divorce with two good parents who have witnesses to document there good parenting skills but one tries to hurt the other by doing a custody trip on the other so the other fights back and wins......Happens a couple thousand times a day, in court rooms across the country, and has more to do with Psychology than Law. As I said in my first post, best to not even go there (court room). But if you must, well...............
rtr
FutureResident, Let's hope NOT, Posted.
Then, just like that, because they "Homosexuals" cannot legally marry, judges are forced into an impossible position.
===================
Just like I stated before it is a minority of basically NONE when it comes to the Flathead valley and the out of state homosexuals posting here trying to turn this comment section into a Gay Pride Parade..........."It's enough to make you want to puke".
FutureResident
""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (except homos), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (unless they are gay)."
"one people, under God, with liberty and justice for all (except gays)."
"government of the people, by the people and for the people (except lesbians)."
Just doesn't seem to feel right, does it? The definition of hypocrisy: to invoke the constitution and the founders in nearly every column while ignoring that blaring disagreement that you have with the primary message.
One insightful comment, one incite-full comment - time to go to bed....
Bronco
FutureRes, that last post pretty much summed it all up. The dinosaurs will still tender some angry posts. The evolved will let it lie until rtr lets slip some inanity. So it's inevitable we'll all join in the fray soon. Till then, good evening, and next drink is on me.
FutureResident
It's just so hard to avoid that elephant in the room. You can resist all you want, but this country was founded on equality for all. The ethical momentum of that philosophy eventually trumps all prejudice that resides in us. First women, then slaves, and eventually homosexuals. As history has shown, someday it will become a point of embarrassment to align oneself with the anti-gay stance, just as it has with the racist stance. When 6 judges agree in a conservative state that it's time to change, that's a big signal that it's time to change. The experts on child well-being have made their choice regarding homosexual parenting, because they focus on healthy kids who fare much better with loving parents than foster homes or orphanages (or worse). They based their assessment on scientific and qualitative research, not a "feeling" or a "belief". Interestingly, that's how many changes begin - someone taking a stand because it's the right thing to do when you look at the bigger picture. Because of that decision, now you have gay couples caring for kids, which means that eventually custody cases will arise. Then, the question of legality of marriage. Then, just like that, because they cannot legally marry, judges are forced into an impossible position. Damage the welfare of the child for the sake of an unequally applied law, or try to find an arguable stance that ruffles some feathers. Sorry Frank, but no matter how hard you fight and occasionally win a battle, you will lose the war because it's simply a matter of ethical and humanistic ideals that won't be stopped in this country. Try a theocratic country and you might have some peace when you reach 70. Otherwise, you'll be a grumpy old man whining to your grave as gays are slowly accepted into our equality based yet slow moving system.
rtr
So, how could these two adults (Maniaci and Kulstad) in a long-term relationship do anything but "shack up" in a state that would not sanction their marriage?
--------------------
Yep it's all about turning this comment section into a gay pride parade like I said....."Pathetic but ture".
benznd
But Frank, why did this particular case catch your interest in the first place. One would think this is the first child custody case to hit the Supreme Court? Or the first to be surrounded by controversy. What sparked such outrage? And Claus, there are SO many comments that could be directed your way regardlng YOUR comments about your gGod. Do you think that talking about nails in heads of fetuses makes a point here? Do you think that your gGod meant for HIS children to starve to death, or die of aides, or be blown to bits by a bunker buster. Clean it up Claus and think outside your self imposed glass ceiling. And rtr, "On the day I was born, the nurses all gathered 'round and they gazed in wide wonder, at the joy they had found.
The head nurse spoke up, and she said leave this one alone. She could tell right away, that I was bad to the bone. BAD TO THE BONE! Spent some days in the hosp fighten and drinken at an early age. Also spent some days in jail cause I sent some to the hosp. Always carried some tissues to give to the rtr's on the ground who had broken noses thinken they were tough. But not tuf enuf
DavidS
Could it be that our little country editor truly is going through a mid-life crisis; possibly not his first? He tells us here that he is reading comments on his home computer shortly before having supper in the evening. No doubt he has had a few by then. Possibly more than a few like a recently notorious local state senator. Then he posts his witty ripostes to the comments he has scanned. Bigotry, chemical dependence and emotional crises often accompany one another, sometimes in prolonged episodes.
faithful reader
Wait! Wait! I know! Let's discuss whether there is documentary evidence that either of the women is a witch! Or whether any of the justices are leprechauns! Anything to deflect from the failed premise of this column!
ValleyViewer
So, how could these two adults (Maniaci and Kulstad) in a long-term relationship do anything but "shack up" in a state that would not sanction their marriage? It's impossible to "shack up" (using your Webster's definition of "live together as unmarried sexual partners") if it's impossible to marry, correct?
faithful reader
If there were a sound effect for a reader finally losing respect for an editor, I would sound it here. In the courts' findings and in 116 comments here, being "unfit" was never a discussion here. Indeed, as Frank is fond of saying, the courts clearly stated that neither woman was "unfit." That you raise a red herring now, instead of answering the questions that readers put to you on the basis of your opinion, you show that you are unable to counter reasonable debate. I have always defended you as an intelligent person, but I surrender now.
Editor
I invite anyone to post any documentary evidence from the trial transcript that concludes that Barbara Maniaci was not a fit parent. Such testimony does not exist, and in fact the majority declared she was a good parent. There have been a lot of "statements here about what the trial showed" but no citations from the trial. The majority cited evidence that Kulstad "intended" to be a parent, but Maniaci's lawyers presented contradictory evidence that she did NOT intend Kulstad to be a parent, and since she was absorbing all the risk by signing her name on the legal paper, her intentions should certainly have bearing.
There was obviously also conflicting testimony about various other elements of the case, but those issues are relevant only as examples of the impact of "empathy" in the courtroom -- as recommended by Justice Sotomayor -- which is why I stuck with an analysis of what the law itself said, and how the justices interpreted it. That ought to be the focus of judges, not what they view as the best outcome. Judges are there to interpret the laws written by others; not to write the law themselves.
As far as the rather silly squabble over "shacking up," I will defer to Merrian-Webster over The Dictionary of American Slang.... Webster's says "shacking up" means ":to sleep or live together as unmarried sexual partners" and that it dates from 1935. I think it captures the legal status of the relationship just as well as "cohabit" and has the benefit of not being quite so stuffy.
faithful reader
kimberprincess, I'd give you a high-five because your comments are intelligent and right on the mark, but people like rtr would try to turn it into something dirty.
Sorry to burst your bubble, rtr, but I'm straight with happy, well-adjusted children and a marriage with greater endurance than yours. I normally skip over your name-calling comments, but I thought I'd set the record "straight." I never ONCE mentioned homosexuality (that seems to be your focus, interestingly enough). I repeatedly said Frank's argument is based on a fallacy. Reading comprehension is a beautiful thing.
rtr
To kimberprincess, By the way I left your name out in my last post, Sorry about that.
rtr
faithful reader, What is it with you and your other homosexual friends posting here with trying to turn this comment section into a "Gay Pride Parade" when homosexuality had NOTHING to do with the column at all as Frank pointed out multiple times to you?
It had everything to do with the essence of what is right and what is wrong with the LIBERAL LOON JUDGE doing what he did in a custody case by taking the children away from the LEGAL parental parent. "What part of that don't you get and or how many times does it have to be explained to you before you get it"
My advice to you is go to the main street of Kalispell without all your out of town and out of state friends with a sign stating you are lite in your loafers and love to swing your limp wrist and that you are looking for a friend "See how that works out for you" instead of polluting this comment section with your LITTLE gay pride parade.!!!
kimberprincess
Montana Jim, Sensible, you are correct; Frank is simply incapable of responding to comments on the issue/content of his own column (because he himself doesn't understand it). Of course people have laid out evidence actually regarding the case (what a concept) but Frank does not respond to this. He makes snide remarks but cannot offer any legal analysis to buttress his position. He whines about personal attacks while making ignorant comments about the couple ("convenience and need") and then disingenuously claims that "shacking up" is not a derogatory term. However, how this case will play out really remains to be seen; it is not obvious that only "the left" will benefit here and hard to see how considering the best interests of kids is such an affront.
faithful reader
Seriously, Frank? "I am frankly amazed that people can take offense at the term shacking up, which simply means cohabiting." You are amazed? If shacking up is a neutral term on par with cohabiting, why did you not once use the term cohabiting? This is the second time I've found you to be disingenuous.
The only two definitions for shacking up in the Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions (Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition, Copyright 2007, McGraw Hill) are "1. to have a one-night stand with someone; to copulate [with] someone. 2. to move in with someone temporarily, presumably for sexual purposes." That is the common understanding of the term.
You are AMAZED that people take offense at that term to describe a 10-year romantic relationship? Really?
Oh, that's right, because your point was that "live-in relationships, by their very nature, are fluid, non-committed, and subject to change without notice." That this relationship was based on convenience. That it's akin to some promiscuous woman taking in yet another lover and threatening the very custody of her own children and ALL of our children, based on this court decision.
You have yet to answer challenges to the predicate of your argument - that this was some casual relationship - despite evidence to the contrary. Instead, you urge two women who disagree with you to stop reading your column and defend the pejorative characterization you make of their relationship - shacking up. Is that the best you can do?
Claus
The left is good with free speech as long as they set the ground rules, write the script, and there's no ad-libbing. So, it is that they seem to live in a constant state of disappointment with those of us that never seem to get the proper talking points.
benznd has some interesting ideas about religion, in particular about those with "elevated levels of free will" going to heaven. I wonder though what happens to those poor schmucks that expire before they reach that blessed level. What about all the people that are murdered and thrown into anonymous graves, or the fetuses that have a spike driven through their craniums and their brains suctioned out, before they are thrown out with the medical waste?
Does G-d's love only extend to the elevated, and the rest are just so much anonymous filler to be discarded?
rtr
To sensible, What does Obama making the biggest deficiet in history when it comes to the USA, bailing out the banks, insurance companies and Kenyan motors that were his campaign funders have to do with this column?
Better yet don't clutter up the column with stuff that doesn't pretain to the column PLEASE..."You know the deal, If you have nothing to say don't say anything"
sensible
as i've stated before..............you blame the ambulance driver for the accident.
sensible
as i've stated before..............you blame the ambulance driver for the accident.
sensible
editor: evidence? you speak of evidence? you dismiss evidence.
i have not found one economic topic in which you accept evidence. like who bailed out the banks (ans. - bush).......like who bailed out the auto companies (ans. - bush).......like who presided over 14 months of the worst job losses in history and then handed it over to his successor (ans. - bush)...........like who produced the deficits inherited by his successor that have been characterized by the silly and inane tea-baggers as obama's deficits (if bush had handed obama a balanced budget the argument would hold water - it doesn't because bush created the dispicable current situation)..........
evidence has been offered, documented and ignored. don't you dare speak of "no evidence"...................
MontanaJim72
Very rarely do those who oppose my opinions offer an alternative based on evidence, but just based on their preconceptions that I am a bad person and therefore can be dismissed out of hand.....FROM FRANK
..........................................................................................................................................................
I'm sorry Frank, but people did put comments on here about the material you left out. There was the recommendations from the people who worked with the kids that it was something the kids wanted, as Bronco and Faithful Reader both pointed out early on. You seem to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your point of view and pretend it never existed.
rtr
Frank, Remember the kid in school that wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer that you talked to once and even though the conversation wasn't all that civil they thought you were their friend just because no body else would talk to them at all..."We all know that kind"...."Does the poster Benznd ring a bell"?
VOOOOM,,,,,VOOOOM...Got my engine runne'n now....Laughing
benznd
Never got to finish. Man, I hit some key with my left little finger and bamg, posted. Must watch what you write as your posts are instantaneous, spelling errors and thoughts that you might have wished to change. Wow. That was close. I could have said some things that were not accurate, ya think? Anyway, I was saying that everyone is responsible for understanding themselves and why they tend to do what they do. This is THE road to free will and religious freedom as well. Religious freedom is reached when one comes to grips with the individual they are and what/why they choose to believe. That is good and healthy as it removes the anger and ugliness we see with religious people. Just the opposite of what is preached I believe. People who are most comfortable with themselves, all of the components of themselves, can believe what they wish without forcing their ideologies on others. They then become members of the larger healthy community. Say what you will about my misperceptions. We can follow a more humane path towards respect for others. IMAGINE. If their is a gGod, and that gGod were a kind and loving gGod, then those who reach elevated levels of free will would go to heaven, as they had most closely realized their potential as hHis creation.
Editor
Benz, etc: I am frankly amazed that people can take offense at the term shacking up, which simply means cohabiting. It has been around since I was a kid and probably well before and refers to people who live together without getting married. It is a factual reference, and not necessarily a pejorative one unless someone has a particularly narrow view of love's possibilities.
It is also in common usage. For instance, here is an article from msn.com that uses the term casually:
"5 financial rules for shacking up - MSN Money"
Apr 24, 2009 ... 5 financial rules for shacking up. Maybe it's love or maybe it's a way to save on rent, but before any keys are copied, talk about the ...
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/HomeMortgageSavings/5-financial-rules-for-shacking-up.aspx
Editor
Bighorn: I have to say that generally I enjoy your contributions to this site, but please lighten up on the conspiracy theories. So far as I know, I have never met rtr nor corresponded with him. I picked him because of his reputation as a pitbull, and I said "we" could rev him up (i.e., the group zeitgeist), not me personally.
The interesting thing about this blog is how "politically correct" it is becoming in an effort to shut up various members through intimidation, bullying, etc. Very rarely do those who oppose my opinions offer an alternative based on evidence, but just based on their preconceptions that I am a bad person and therefore can be dismissed out of hand.
I really never thought I would live in a country where that was the norm, but I also can't say it surprises me.
benznd
Frank, I beg to differ. Tillie and Kimber do go after you, often personally. Yet, they are not the only ones to call your personality or abilities into question. You used the term "shacking up" in your most recent editorial. Did you ever think that perhaps, just perhaps, you have been rather discriminatory in your views? Really? Think about it? We all have our stories to tell Frank. I have mine as well. I discussed some of them. I am responsible for my own behaviors, regardless of why!
Bronco
Sam Adams, you said “This is a question about parenting.” Then you go on to say “One of the women is the child’s parent, the other is not.” adding “Go complain about that law.” OK. So which is it, Sam? “Parent” is a legal term but “parenting” is a performance of duties of a mother or father. If it is a question of parenting and the court-appointed agent who investigated these relationships found that the woman who is not the legal “parent” is the better at parenting, and that her contributions to the children’s emotional, social, intellectual and physical needs outstrip the paper-parent’s, then the court made the correct decision by the children. Everyone here who opposes the court’s decision has not mentioned what is best for the children. How revealing that they are only concerned with secondary priorities. And let me add that paper does not rule our lives. They who hold those papers do.
benznd
Oh rtr, u thilly thing!!
rtr
To Bighorn0216, And to think just a few posts ago I complemented you on your good behavior and now you start throwing insults again….Shame on you
Bighorn0216
Frank says: "If you don't see it that way, perhaps we can rev up rtr to throw a few insults your way so that you can demonstrate your higher understanding. "
I wrote a while back that I couldn't quite understand what rtr was doing here, or who was backing him.
Thanks for clearing that up, Frank. It's a big disappointment.
Sam Adams
Bronco, you posted: "Sam Adams' opinion is that paper should rule our lives. He discounts emotions, dismisses what would be best for the children, and reinvents the meaning for 'parenting.'"
I respond: At what point does paper not rule over our lives? That's the basis of our legal system. What you call a piece of paper, I call a car title, a marriage license, a deed to a home, a loan contract, etc etc etc... Shall we declare all of those pieces of paper null and void every time someone makes a strong, emotive argument to invalidate them?
Could you please tell me how, by arguing in favor of a parents right to direct the upbringing of her child, I am 'reinventing' the meaning of parenting. In the traditional sense, I am doing exactly the opposite.
rtr
Lete'm rip and listen toe'm squeal now....LOL...LOL.....LOL....LOL...LOL
rtr
listen to benznd. he knows of what he speaks.
===============
No he doesn't, He is nothing but a limp wristed piece of dirt trying to turn this comment section into his own little gay pride parade..."Very pathetic to I might add"
ValleyViewer
I think Frank is funny. If you cannot chuckle at Frank's logic of criticizing the two women for extramaritally "shacking up," while he simultaneously opposes same-sex marriage, then you have no sense of humor. That construction of logic is comedy by definition. Folks, don't read too much into these entertainment columns. These weekly deadlines come up fast. It cannot be easy to pinch off a column week to week to week. I suggest we take a deep breath and look for the good in each other, even if my suggested approach probably won't generate many column ideas.
Editor
BenzND: Thanks for the civics lesson, er, I mean slapdown. I always enjoy a good thrashing by a liberal before dinner... It's rather invigorating.
On the other hand, I must take exception to your charge of sexism, which is based not on any evidence, but on your belief that if you accuse me of it, then I will be properly cowed (oops! Is that sexist language?) and will suddenly learn to be a man and take whatever shellacking Tillie or KimberPrincess wish to apply to me.
The reason I did not respond to anyone else's comments is that for the most part the posters are civil and reasonable and express a personal opinion. Tillie and KimberPrincess and now you have all challenged me directly by accusing me of immoral, unethical or stupid behavior. I feel that is worthy of response.
If you don't see it that way, perhaps we can rev up rtr to throw a few insults your way so that you can demonstrate your higher understanding. I will enjoy watching you turn the other cheek as your silence dominates the blog.
Rob123
rtr.....So sorry I offended you. I have no clue how, but I apologise. Of course, your use of the affectionate "robbie" reminds me of the old Habu with the house outside Helena and the Big One down in Florida with a Wall Street-Marine-Cia background. Semper Fi, old fart. Don't tear all up on us. We can feel your pain.
sensible
rtr: i know some nice class 4 climbing routes in the park that may shake that "krap" right out of you............1 missed step.........
sensible
rtr: i know some nice class 4 climbing routes in the park that may shake that "krap" right out of you............i missed step.........
sensible
rtr: and you were doing so well.......................
i've tried to figure out which of the children you remind me of at st. joe's children's home in mpls where i used to counsel (as a volunteer - my roomates were social workers ) in the late 70's................and my conclusion is.......all of them. your problems run deep my friend.
listen to benznd. he knows of what he speaks.
rtr
I am not sure yet little robbie if the health plan that probably won't pass as it is today will affect my cadilac health plan or not.
I asume not since your New Socialist Democratic Party is bought and paid for by the largest insurance companies in the USA...I feel pretty safe.
By the way it isn't a union plan either since it is you socialists that love the unions so much I have no idea why you would say that.
You know the use of spear chucking and now thowing is starting to get on my nerves since for all you know I may be black and that is a D*MN bigoted thing to say to me I will have you know..
Rob123
rtr: "........stick up for one of your own......" I'm not a scientist. Of course, Tox would say that about Psycholog(y)(ists) also, I am sure. Now see, little rtr, that is a long range Spear Throw with many possible results, and all of them most likely to enlighten everyone just a little. Maybe if we get personal, you could share some information? Will the Tax on Cadillac Health Plans put your Union Retirement into financial distress? You and the Wall Street guru's? Finally, the amoral and Self Centered are going to pay. Maybe......
Bronco
My, my, rtr, racism, sexism, and now ageism. Like your avatar. Barrel envy?
rtr
To DavidS, You have tryed to use the OLD liberal race card and bigotory when you have nothing else so what was your point with that last post....."Pathetic"
rtr
Rob: I like to see you stick up for one of your own but the truth is his posts have been that of a menatlly disturbed and desparate person only which is why I ask you to help him out.
Rob123
rtr.....It's good to see you finally coming around. The old Spear Chukking gets old when everyone around you Spear Chuks at least as well. Might as well slow down, and take a real bite and see what your actually eating. Like benzrd, an expert, does so well. Read his stuff carefully. You don't want it coming back up and chewing it all over again. He says his words, and if their hard to swallow, get off the couch and do a little retort.
DavidS
Wow, another big burst of bigotry from our little country editor; the second in the past couple of days. His first one displayed his conniption fit over President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and now this one drips with sarcasm and hypocrisy as he piously denies that he is a bigot at all. Good editors contribute to civil public discourse, but that appears to be beyond the grasp of the Daily Interlake these days.
rtr
Hey, By the way sensible, Bronco, Bighorn and the rest do you suppose you could respond to "benzard" since he has done everything he can to get a rise out of the conservative side and NO ONE is responding to him it appears he is getting a little lonely.
His last posts were that of someone that had smoked way to much wacky weed mixed with lonely desperation.
rtr
Bighorn0216
Posts: 24 That last misfire, rtr, calls to mind an old saying that applies to you: Having you on board is like losing two good men.
-------------
I'll give you credit for that one it was a little humorous as was mine, At least it wasn't like the stupid ignorant insults I was getting for no reason and NOT even responding to from couple of the other posters.
As for sensible's last response, thanks for NOT doing the rediculas insults.
sensible
rtr: lately i do feel old..............it took me almost a week for my back to recover from climbing bishop's cap and mt. pollack in mid-september. perhaps if i hadn't just finished my yearly reynold's summit just a week earlier, it wouldn't have taken so long
part of being a clunker, i guess.
benznd
Frank, your sexism is apparent. Just another aspect of your personality. Many, many individuals confront you weekly. Tillie, who posts about once a week, was honored with a dismissive response. Now, guess who? Kimberprincess? Writes maybe twice a week. Your turn. A comment about love even. Oh, those types of Freudian flaws are much more psychologically revealing. The comment is the TIP of the iceburg Frank. Your apparent chauvinism and editorial arrogance are motivated by a sexually repressed self image. Oh, the couch man is at it again. So, free will? Does it really exist? It is a prized possession that one must strive to achieve. It does not come willy-nilly to all. There is no predisposition. Life does not come with cruise control. However, if you purchase the religious version, it most closely resembles the Hummer sans headlights. Who needs them when you drive such a henous i.e., abominable all consuming monster. OK, that is MY take. Shoot me. I am waiting. I open myself to ridecule. Just "can" the rhetoric.
Bighorn0216
That last misfire, rtr, calls to mind an old saying that applies to you: Having you on board is like losing two good men.
benznd
Pete, your waterboarding take is BS and you know it. There has not been one statement that I recall, on this blog, indicating the direct connection of waterboarding and Muslims. Waterboarding was internationally outlawed, we (US) signed the document outlawing the use of torture. Not a Muslim issue, a legal, ethical, and moral issue. The same, in any sense of the word, applies to lesbian/gay issues and the law. Moral and ethical Pete. Trying to spin your own bigotry is BS also. I am assuming you are a Grand Soverign Commander in your church community, as religion is too often used by the unethical as justification for societal exclusion. Shame, and I don't use that term lightly.
Rawhide
Bronco: You are right. I stand corrected. Thank you.
rtr
You know if Obama comes back with that cash for clunkers I am going to have to trade "senisible and Bronco" in since they are getting OLD I need something that really WORKS in stead of broken clunkers.
Bronco
Rawhide: "My friends which include black, Asian, Native American and gay people..." The word 'which' pertains to things; perhaps you meant 'who.' JrRush, if you were awarded custody, it had to have occurred at the courthouse and not the halls of justice. Who was your lawyer, Johnny Cochran? But then it's not a stretch to imagine that spending enough time with you would make anyone unfit to raise a child. Chronic depression, the drugs, the denial and shame; most choose suicide. I admire her strength of character and will to live by choosing divorce instead.
sensible
Yet by adding the word "exclusive" to the statutory requirement, the District Court did just what it is forbidden to do. As Justice Rice says, "It inserted new language into the statute," and the Supreme Court simply "affirmed the error."
THIS THE SAME WAY CORPORATIONS GAINED PERSONHOOD.........
The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394). However, that particular Supreme Court decision did not address the matter of whether corporations were 'persons' with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment; in Chief Justice Waite's words, "we avoided meeting the question". ....................."The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[5]
This quotation was printed by the court reporter in the syllabus and case history above the opinion.
NOW THAT'S A "REAL" EXAMPLE OF THE COURT "....inserted new language into the statute," and the Supreme Court simply "affirmed the error."
Rawhide
To those people who suggest that anyone who disagrees with President Obama is a racist, or anyone who dislikes a court decision involving 2 gay litigants is a gay basher, then I say get over it. My friends which includes black, Asian, Native American and gay people, aren’t racists and don’t discriminate either. Your feigned indignation over such issues is recognized for what it is. In President Obama’s words, there is no longer room for racist views in America. I agree.
Pete
The line of reasoning put forward by Kimber, Faithful, Benznd, etc is comparable to saying that a ruling on water-boarding is about Muslims. If you're for waterboarding you're an anti-Muslim bigot, and if you're against it you're probably a Muslim extremist sympathizer. This is a false argument on both sides and simply a way to marginalize someones position in order to advance an agenda. As if Muslims are the only terrorists and homosexuals will be the only ones caught in the dilema the court ruled on. Incredibly short sighted on both accounts and outside the purview of the argument no matter the strenuous attempts to put it front and center.
sensible
rtr said: How do I know this you say, I got one of the first custody cases being a male in the state of Montana 30 years ago with my boy
my gGod..........you've reproduced.
Editor
Kimber Princess: I cannot stand to see you in such pain week after week. Therefore, your wish is granted: You no longer have to read this column. Enjoy your life free of me. But if you come back, I will know you really love me.
kimberprincess
Just unbelievable how Frank can take a topic that has NOTHNG to do with him and somehow make it about him and his feelings, just incredible. Of course Faithful Reader is totally right; if Frank had written, "This woman should not have access to the kids because she is a lesbian" he might not have gotten so much flak. People are entitled to their opinion about that (however misguided it may be!) but he tries to pretend (the dishonesty others have mentioned) that he is undertaking some kind of legal analysis and that this has nothing to do with sexual orientation. And he seriously thinks his readers will buy it. They may buy his viewpoint on marriage but hardly his legal scholarship. Same thing for the endless "I hate Obama" diatribes he spins out each week. Cuts and pastes whatever he can (that charity in the constitution issue has been debated to death) from other sources..really sad. I would probably prefer Pete (always love to be stimulated Pete so I am hoping you'll keep on posting!) or Rtr columns as long as they are honest and upfront about their viewpoints. And Rtr-you may complain about our "halls of justice" but good luck living in a country with NO reliable source of redress. Ours is far, far from perfect but a lot better than in many places in the world.
Rob123
A little something for all the Cynics out there: "This just in.
Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game! "
rtr
Let’s just be thankful the column was written by Frank instead of by some dishonest and distorted liberal point of view that would have been enough to make a normal person puke.
Rob123
faithful reader: " I do not respect the intellectual dishonesty that went into this column." Very good, and thank you. Although I might change "intellectual dishonesty" to "subliminal profiling", with a note "Know Thy Self". Most of the responses also fall into this category. Does this ruling allow the Children the Best that can be Saved from a Failed Relationship? I hope so.
Bronco
"Principle absent human compassion is just intellectual masturbation." L. Pitts
faithful reader
Thank you for your comment, Rawhide. But I did not attack anyone's personal life. I didn't say Frank was an unfit parent or a poor spouse or someone who kicks puppies or has hygiene issues. That would be an attack. I fully believe that Frank is a fine man. My comment was a factual observation right on point with his column. Frank judged these women's relationship to be uncommitted, contrary to the evidence presented to the court. Yet their relationship lasted longer than his own marriage. I think that is telling about the nature of their relationship. I thought it was a valid point to make. I still do, but I regret if it comes across as an attack. Frank, I apologize.
benznd
Excellent point faithful reader. Put it up front. This is all about isolating partner selection. Social rejection of those who go against the word of gGod. Just put it out there. Intellectual honesty Frank and your supporters in this situation. We can then have a decent discussion. I say, partner selection is a private issue and is not to be a bottom line fact. Just put it out there! If you believe partner selection should be regulated by religious thought, then say it! It is the 800# gorilla in the living room
faithful reader
Well, there you go, Sam Adams. I respect your opinion. I do not respect the intellectual dishonesty that went into this column. Frank flatly refuses to acknowledge the evidence before the court that these women were in a committed relationship for 10 years. He calls it shacking up and compares it to a casual live-in relationship. He then draws the jaw-dropping conclusion that all our children are now in peril. "Montana parents will never again be sure that the state won't be able to take their children from them." If you, Sam Adams, object as a parenting issue, I completely respect that. If people believe lesbian women should not be looking for custody in court, I'd even respect that if it's honestly conveyed. This column was just an exercise in dishonesty and distorting facts that are set out in black in white, in my opinion.
Pete
Frank...you're right this sets a poor precedent and invites more government involvement in private lives. I can see it now...another tool for "the lover scorned".
Pete
Faithful Reader...your clumsy insult and smug attempt to justify it serves only two purposes. One...to make you look silly and the other to stimulate Kimber and Tillie. The first is your prerogative, but the second may be downright hazardous. :-)
rtr
I believe this is apporpriate in this case.
A judge was annoyed to find that his car wouldn't start. He called a taxi, and soon one arrived at his house.
Climbing in, he told the driver to take him to the halls of justice. "Where are they," asked the driver.
"You mean to say that you don't know where the courthouse is?" asked the incredulous judge.
"The courthouse? Of course I know where that is." replied the driver. "But I thought you said you wanted to go to the 'halls of justice.'
Rawhide
Faithful: If you disagree with someone’s opinion, challenge his arguments, don't resort to attacking his personal life. These two women chose to go to court (and go public) with their family/child custody situation. I have no doubt they fully intended to challenge court precedents and succeeded. You and all the rest of us have a right to comment on what these women chose to make a public and legal issue, but you do not have a right to attack the private life of someone who disagrees with you. In your words: "Mr. Miele's first failed marriage, ……." and "Frank, I was personal, but not nasty or even judgmental." Faithful, I hope you see my point.
faithful reader
Rawhide, please show me where I made a personal attack. I said these women's relationship lasted longer than the editor's first marriage, as HE writes that theirs was not a committed relationship. It was a pertinent fact, not an attack, and I certainly made no judgments about the editor's personal life, nor would I.
rtr
I have to assume some people here no names mentioned are vivid dreamers at night and then post to soon before they completely wake up in the morning from those dreams.
First off, Montana courts IN GENERAL not these liberal judges like the one in this column that is trying to make a personal pathetically LIBERAL point go for who they believe the best parent is along with financial responsibility and unlike what one poster stated the kids go to the parent with the most money if both parents are equally qualified.
How do I know this you say, I got one of the first custody cases being a male in the state of Montana 30 years ago with my boy and it was precedent setting in the state of Montana.
Frank is correct that these Liberal scum bag Judges that make laws from the bench instead of uphold the law are a very bad thing which does set a precedence in some cases.
Bighorn0216
Might want to work on the filters a little bit. I had to revise to "same-s*x" in that post to "remove the objectionable profanity."
I realize that there are those who regard the reference as profane and an abomination, to boot, but come on.
Bighorn0216
As it happens, this opinion has come across my desk this morning, for editorial work preparatory to its commercial publication. Completely apart from the social implications of the decision—the case has to stand on Constitutional or statutory grounds—I remain surprised at the leap taken in the statutory interpretation. In this case, the majority finds that the natural parent’s conduct that was “contrary” to the parent-child relationship—a statutory requisite under the so-called “nonparenting” statute—was permitting a good relationship to develop between her partner and her children. No matter how you think this case OUGHT to turn out, this is a significant revision of a statute by the judiciary.
There’s no question that the same-s*x aspect drives both the celebration and the furor over the decision. Were this a man and woman united in common-law marriage, the custody battle wouldn’t have made the papers. And yet the gloss on the statutory language would have been just as surprising. I very seriously doubt that the Legislature meant that a parental adult’s permitting a nurturing relationship to develop between his or her children and a nonparent would give rise to visitation rights. Yes, I realize this case is loaded with additional considerations—not the least of which is that the result JUST SEEMS FAIR—but an end run around the statute was required to pull it off, and that makes the decision vulnerable.
Bronco
John53, the reason courts side with the mother is a matter of money. Dad makes more money, is often the only breadwinner in the family. Give the kids to him and mom can't afford child support. Dad now has interference with his commitment to his job because he has kids to look after first. The courts feel that it's better to keep dad as a workhorse and mom as nurturer so the welfare coffers and employment insurance aren't overly taxed. Laws accommodate low income families because there are so many of them. Many folks here are only focussed on the two women and these folks' beliefs fuel their opinions. The courts are mostly above that. Their focus and decision was based on what was best for the children. Sam Adams' opinion is that paper should rule our lives. He discounts emotions, dismisses what would be best for the children, and reinvents the meaning for 'parenting.' His rule of thumb is whoever can show him a piece of paper wins by default. His second sentence says it all: "I don't care..."
Rawhide
Faithful: The Country Editor's remarks are well made and justified. He was not crying Chicken Little as you claimed. As for personal attacks against anyone, are you really qualified to cast the first stone? I'm not.
kimberprincess
Well Frank certainly makes it personal, commenting that the women were "shacking up" and in a relationship of "convenience and need" (evidence of his shrewd legal analysis) so sure, I guess it is absolutely fair game to make assessments of his performance, or more likely lack thereof, in his relationships. And rob, wouldn't you say that a third party was "invited" in? Not all relationship endings, even with kids, involve drawn out contentious custody battles but those that do clearly need some kind of intervention which is what happened. It will be interesting to see how this gets played out (I'm sure they will appeal) because it could wind up also actually supporting the more conservative position, in that it might cause people to think hard before establishing a lover as a co-parent, although I think the criteria for parental interest will be pretty rigorous,as it was here. It really is a victory for kids, as it does acknowledge the attachments they form and the enduring signficance of these attachments.
Interesting though, don't you wonder if people, for biological reasons, say gays and lesbians, are not able to avail themselves of the full benefit of the law (marriage and the benefits that come with it) if they are in fact experiencing the full benefit of citizenship? I think a good argument for separating civil from religious marriage (churches can certainly determine who they do and don't want to marry but that should not jeopardize a couples' ability to form a legal unit and derive the legal benefits (and grief!) that come with it.
Rtr- sounds like fun, probably more than i need unless I head to the alaska bush, but then again when it comes to firearms, "need" doesnt' have much to do with it:).
Rawhide
Future Res: Thank you for making my point clearer when you said “ironically and unfortunately, it does create precedence that extends beyond this individual case and could affect other heterosexual (or "traditional") marriages.” This case is not just about child custody in a homosexual relationship, but will be legal precedent in deciding many future child custody disputes in Montana. Supreme Court decisions become the foundation for deciding other cases which follow. Even out of state court decisions influence local case law. I cringe when I hear someone citing California case law to justify Montana laws, as K Princess did, but it is unfortunately true.
Sam Adams
Kimber, Faithful, Bronco, Rob, FutRes and the rest of you. I don't care if the two women were partners, had exchanged rings, lived in the same igloo, intended to raise the children together, etcetera etcetera etcetera. This is not a question about how they felt towards each other or how they felt towards the children or what their plans were. This is a question about parenting. One of the women is the child's parent, the other is not. End of story. You may be mad that both were not legally able to adopt the kids. Fine. Go complain about that law, but don't destroy parental rights in your quest to resolve what you think to be the greater injustice.
faithful reader
Frank, I was personal, but not nasty or even judgmental, because I don't feel that way. If my facts are wrong, I apologize. Are they? My point stands. The relationship that you characterize as "shacking up," based on convenience and need, and not "commitment," lasted longer than many marriages. There IS plenty of evidence of commitment in this case, not just someone living in a home "acting kindly" to the children and performing household duties, as you put it. By setting yourself up to judge those circumstances as you did, you invite scrutiny. There certainly are implications to this decision, but I believe you are too smart to sincerely take the Chicken Little stance that this decision on these two women and their 10-year relationship somehow threatens all parents.
Bighorn0216
faithful: "If you can't address the circumstances in the most remote factual way, your contribution to discussion is worthless"
Ah, and your review of Frank's marital history was a contribution.
Okay, got it now.
Claus
Frank, as you know the leftists that post here, like leftists everywhere, mean well, and that trumps everything! So, we must look past their rude, silly, illogical personal attacks, masquerading as arguments, and embrace (and agree with) the well-meaning mench lurking beneath that repulsive crack-brained exterior.
The same goes for the Court, of course. After all, it couldn't be more clear that they meant well, and were only trying to do the politically correct thing. So, let's all join hands and sing that old lefty favorite, "Imagine you have no country, because pretty soon you won't..."
rtr
To kimberprincess, It's a 500 Smith & Weson Mag. I love it.
You should check out some of the you tubes on it, There pretty funny.
Sorry for being off topic, I'm just trying to be polite by answering a question.
John53
She made a mistake by becoming a man. Males have almost always been the losers in custody fights, no matter what the state. The court systems always finds a way to determine that a male is incrapability to assume custody of children and that the woman no matter how poor her actions or material instincts maybe.
Rob123
I find arguements like this, where third parties try to judge a relationship without ever knowing anything about the relationship 1st hand, extremely condescending and ripe for forcing personal garbage onto someone else. There is no "answer", and all one can do in a failed relationship is 'the best" one can. It's all so subjective. But I guess some people need an 'objective' 3rd voice to tell them what to do. I sure as heck don't, and many years ago, didn't. Just a worthless piece of paper (Divorce ) that was meaningless, and I remained a loving Father, just from a distance. And I think back to my senior year of college, and hanging out in Law Libraries around Oregon, inorder to talk to students in Law School inorder to see if I really wanted to be a Lawyer (had the grades and the LSAT Score) and realized I didn't want to join the ranks of these bozos. And to put them in charge of a failed relationship is, for lack of a better word, absurd.....but again, that is my take on my relationships. Others are free to see it differently, but beware: When you try to objectify the subjective, it's going to be weird.
FutureResident
"You reap what you sow"......That's the message of this case exemplifies to me. By denying a means for a committed homosexual couple to meet the legal criteria of marriage, you've put the courts in a difficult position where sooner or later this was bound to happen. If civil unions were legal, we wouldn't be talking about this case, and the court would have ruled in the exact same manner because it represents the best interest of children. So, Frank your issue is "the judges legislated from the bench", my issue is that "the judges were forced to creatively apply the law in the interest of the children's welfare because the law is antiquated for the modern world". Now, ironically and unfortunately, it does create precedence that extends beyond this individual case and could affect other heterosexual (or "traditional") marriages. So for the first time, homosexual relationships actually may have an impact on heterosexual relationships, where before it was just a bigotry battle cry. The word is to describe this phenomenon is "KARMA" - and you "protect marriage" folks are now choking on it.
Editor
Faithful Reader: Don't be nasty and personal. It doesn't become you. The issue isn't my marriage (first or second). The issue is Barbara Maniaci's relationship with her children and whether the state can award custody and have it be meaningful, or whether parental relationships have to be as fluid as our live-in relationships.
By the way, here is the link to my earlier column on the district court ruling:
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/columns/article_c6ac190a-3846-5982-9b9e-43d73ce77088.html
Unfortunately in a case this complicated, I wasn't able to revisit some of the same issues I covered earlier.
sensible
rtr: you want to be another punk as$ thug intimidating people with a gun............where do you live............
sensible
rtr: can't help but notice "the gun".............where do you live
kimberprincess
hey rtr, is that a smith 44 mag? maybe a ruger? Nice piece but you'd be better off with a kimber...
faithful reader
Maybe we should just be honest. This couple's relationship lasted longer than Mr. Miele's first failed marriage, before he met a woman from China on-line and married her. The fact is, few of us anymore have families that would stand up to a court's scrutiny if the Cleavers are the standard. Yet, people like Frank want to determine what that standard should be and discount others' commitments. Rings, living wills, adoption agreements, financial interdependence and the like can be minimized and compared to a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend situation if that is how you choose to represent it. But it's not truthful. This was not some transient relationship and it doesn't put us at risk of the state swooping in and sweeping up our children as this column represents. I can only say that this is journalistic dishonesty at its worst.
sensible
this is great..............personal interest journalism, albeit not without the usual slant. thank you for a topic that's relevant and real. imagine if economic topics concerning the plight of average americans were treated with such regard by our editor.
great discussion.................and a much better topic.
kimberprincess
I would just love to hear Frank discussing the legal merits of this case without the cliff notes from Rice. ("Uh, uh, she's gay..uh..uh") The two women were clearly partners (hardly a "legal stranger') and Kulstad clearly proved her parental relationship with the children (not to mention her extensive financial contributions to the relationship). Troxel, the case on which Maniaci relied, does not apply (had to do with awarding g'parents visitation rights over objections of parents). I think it was pretty liberal about granding visitation rights if in the kids best interests. Rice's opinion is unfounded as the the majority opinion clearly calls for a robust showing of parental relationship prior to filing a parental interest application. And Maniaci's behavior was inconsistent with her claim of exclusive parent, hardly a stretch given her relationship with Kulstad. The Court also affirmed the decision to award Kulstad compensation for her financial contribution to the family. Frank and his ilk may buy that sexual orientation was irrelevant to the ADF and the 2 amici Mt Family Fdn and Pac Justice Inst but given their right wing, anti-gay stance, that's pretty specious. For a much more interesting discussion, Lenhardt in the CA Law Review writes about how marriage laws shape group identification and can exclude some groups from full citizenship (interesting discussion of group membership and norms). Schuman (GT law review) writes about separating religous from civil marriage, as we have discussed here already. Maybe Frank should write about....MOVIES! As an aside, Morris (wrote the opinion) clerked for that blazing liberal left-winger Rehnquist....
faithful reader
Why did you even bother posting, bighorn? "If I were on the hook with every girl I’d ever sent a card or roses to, or thought that I’d earned Constitutional rights (and duties, let’s be fair) because of it.." What does that have to do with anything? This is a couple who exchanged rings, went to counseling, named each other on insurance policies and as end-of-life deciders on living wills, and whose friends considered them co-parents. Far cry from some girl you sent a card or roses to and you know it. Just as as Frank knows this is not a situation of some promiscuous and short-term liaison. If you can't address the circumstances in the most remote factual way, your contribution to discussion is worthless, but it does tell volumes about both of you.
Bronco
Now let’s put this column into the average Montana citizen’s perspective including mine.
We have one woman living with another woman that adopted the kids since they couldn’t adopt them together “As lovers” since they were donut bumping lovers which is not allowed in Montana when it comes to adoption and one of the donut bumping lovers got mad and left the relationship but had the most amount of money and took it to the Supreme Court of Montana to get custody of kids that should have NOT been given to either one of them in the first place.
Help me out here, Has the USA really become this pathetic?
rtr
Now let’s put this column into the average Montana citizen’s perspective including mine.
We have one woman living with another woman that adopted the kids since they couldn’t adopt them together “As lovers” since they were donut bumping lovers which is not allowed in Montana when it comes to adoption and one of the donut bumping lovers got mad and left the relationship but had the most amount of money and took it to the Supreme Court of Montana to get custody of kids that should have NOT been given to either one of them in the first place.
Help me out here, Has the USA really become this pathetic?
curious
There is always more to a story that what is reported. My take away is that Barbara is the person who was able to adopt the children, and therefore the legal gardian. I have not been able to gather why Barbara was the person that received the adoption versus Michelle. But the point that is being made is the ability of this third person, who probably should have been the person on the adoption papers to receive the legal custody, to have custody granted with no ties as a legal guardian. She was the other person in the household, regardless of the relationship. So would this apply to any live in? Had they been living in Massachusetts where they could have been married, I would see the reasonableness on child custody. This is wrong. I guess we should turn all our children over to the state to be put willy nilly where ever the court decides are best. Family has no value I guess.
Bronco
Yes, KimberP, but only when I am in residence. I'll be back next summer.
Bronco
It has the apearance the New Socialist Democratic Party is trying to use and turn this comment section into another political platform like they have before instead of being truthfull they would rather play the game of ACORN to fraudulently post misinformation for anyone that comes into the comment section.
Bighorn0216
Frank, I don’t know all the facts that accrued over a little more than a decade’s worth of these folks’ tenuous relationship and self-described marriage, but I’ve read the Supreme Court’s opinion and I have to say, I’ve never seen anything quite like it. Rarely will an appellate court even admit that it is re-trying the case on appeal—usually, appellate courts will insist that they cannot— much less detail “evidence” such as the sharing of anniversary cards as being legally significant.
If I were on the hook with every girl I’d ever sent a card or roses to, or thought that I’d earned Constitutional rights (and duties, let’s be fair) because of it, well… well, let’s just say I might have to reconsider the Costa Rican retirement ads, and get my passport in order.
I’m not even going to get into this thread beyond here. It’s just going to get too weird. I didn’t ever expect to see this from a Montana court. I don’t mean the result – I mean the judicial method. I have too many friends and family members walking on the same picket line. But I’m surprised at the statutes on the Montana books (not dismissive of, just thinking – Montana??) Yet the justices’ lopsided vote indicates that times have changed in the Big Sky faster than I have.
Two final notes: Activist judicial panels have made a lot of law in this country. And dissenting opinions have very often been adopted by higher appellate panels as their majority opinions.
Note to rtr: barrel envy. BTW, don’t point that at anyone with a real gun. (I have to say that, though I know you’ll ignore it.)
Note to DIL: exercise a little discretion with incendiary, violence-porn avatars, or become a co-defendant when the nut cases go postal. (This would be known as constructive notice of that potential.) Not a joke; run it by your legal counsel. Even if you win, how many copies do you have to sell this year to cover attorney fees?
benznd
OK, OK, I'll type here!! JEEZ
benznd
et tu rawhide?
benznd
et tu rawhide?
benznd
et tu rawhide?
rtr
It has the apearance the New Socialist Democratic Party is trying to use and turn this comment section into another political platform like they have before instead of being truthfull they would rather play the game of ACORN to fraudulently post misinformation for anyone that comes into the comment section.
kimberprincess
So, Bronco, we are agreed that Flathead county residents DO have a monopoly on intelligence, good sense, the correct political slant AND the proper selection of pistols?? i sort of took that as a given.....:)
kimberprincess
Wow, just when I thought Frank could not get any more moronic, he proved me wrong! As Tillie noted, if Frank thinks he is a legal scholar, capable of assessing if the Court "mistakenly" interpreted law, he is smoking crack. Whatever one's views of the decision, only someone with the IQ of wallpaper paste (Frank) would not note, as Bronco, did that Michelle was not a "stranger" but in fact had repeatedly demonstrated her strong "parental role", that the kids definitely considered her such, that experts had commented on the importance of her role in their development and that the kids would be greatly harmed if contact with her were severed and as many have noted, that Kulsted could not have adopted them anyway. You'd think that Frank would celebrate this victory for the KIDS, whose welfare the Court has protected. MacLean did not have to work hard to find support for this position, as Montana law does provide for protection of the rights of children. And why does Frank think this was a relationship of "convenience and need"? 10 years? 2 adoptions? Building a house together? Hardly a casual relationship. Frank lies that this case gives "anyone who shared household obligations or acted in a kindly manner to the children.." standing to file for custody, which is hardly the case (again, the strong support from both experts AND the kids indicating Kulstad's role). Amazing that this is our "editor" who does not write or generate a thoughtful, discussion but instead (as usual) just cuts and pastes.
Rawhide
Keep in mind fans, this Supreme Court decision does not just pertain to this one case, but becomes legal precedent for many other child custody disputes in Montana. This decision opens the door for the state and other non-related parties to intervene in the custody of your children too.
rtr
The essence of family being destroyed started with Hillary Clinton with it takes a village to raise a family in order to make it appear your children were just as well off with the government raising them and indoctrinating them as it would be if the family stayed intact.
Typical "Socialist, Communist, Fascist" form of indoctrination into the New Socialist Democratic Party we have running the government and courts today that make laws from the bench instead of from what the public is demanding of them and what they were elected to do in congress.
faithful reader
Bronco, I pointed out your facts when Frank first took up this battle cry. The children were adopted with the adoption agency understanding that both women would parent them. Experts testified that it was in the interests of the children that both women continue their involvement with the children's lives. Teachers stated that the children related to both women as parents. At the time, Frank said he hadn't read the documents with those pertinent facts before he formed his opinion. I suppose the best interests of children easily take a back seat to hysteria to the tune of "Montana parents will never again be sure that the state won't be able to take their children from them." Yes! Our families are all at risk! The evil government could arbitrarily seize our children from us! Shame on you, Frank. Your fear-mongering has just reached epic proportions.
Bronco
JrRush, you said Friday you were going hunting this weekend. Then you continued to post the whole weekend. More lies from the hypocritical right? I was hard put to come up with some bizarre excuse you could possibly have for insulting me during this week's topic. But you didn't let me down. You have some egocentric bent that only local Flathead county residents have a monopoly on intelligence and good sense, the correct political slant, the perfect beliefs, and are the only human beings who have a life. I think I speak for everyone here when I say you are complete. You are the most intelligent man posting here. I worship you, rtr. This week, I will try my best to be JUST LIKE YOU.
FutureResident
Sometimes I'm envious of the "Franks" of the world, where everything falls into such black and white categories. I read the opinions and found the story incredibly sad for everyone involved and incredibly grey. But Frank isn't grey, is he?
That fleeting envy disappears when I think about poor Frank being bombarded on all sides by the evils of the modern world. How can he feel any peace when he's constantly battling gays, socialists, terrorists, illegal immigrants, the liberal media, legislating judges, constitutional villains, liberals, France sympathizers, hippies, chemtrails and Hollywood stars. Did I miss any of the arch-enemies? Maybe we should help Frank come up with his alter ego SuperHero name and costume?
benznd
There is always more to a story than what is reported. BECAUSE, if ALL the story were reported, there would be no story, just coverage of an event with the Montana Supreme Court. The real story behind this story is Frank's obvious discriminatory attitude towards those who live outside the box. First we start with the attitude, then we find the fuel to ignite. Tiz not an easy task going through life pecking painted red dotted boards? Human sexuality can easily be manipulated by those with dogmatic personality deficiencies. If you were in a relationship with a person of like sexuality and Frank was renting an apartment, do you think you would get his approval to move in? He would base his decision upon the out of box life style, then think of "what if" followed by a closed door policy. That is "the rest of the story." Substitute black, Muslim, long haired country boys, Hispanic, possibly Asian (?), you get the point. There is NO argument here. Frank would discriminate against his fellow human based upon sexual preference.
rtr
Hey Frank, Outstanding Column and sure points to the reason the DIL is such a successful news paper in the Flathead Valley.
Two other points.
You are so correct as to why these mostly out of state liberals even read your columns unless it is because they don’t have a life or they just can’t handle a good column that points out the atrocities of their beliefs.
Bronco
I dug into this and found a few mitigating circumstances that were not revealed in today's column. Both of these women tried to adopt these children but because Michelle had been told that she and Barbara Maniaci could not both adopt the children, Michelle’s name is not on their adoptive-birth certificates. Still, the people who did the home studies for both adoptions testify that Barbara and Michelle told them they both would be parents to the children. This sheds a different light on the case as a whole and exposes the proffered "shacking up" term used by Frank as rather derogatory, his eloquent explanation notwithstanding. An expert appointed by the Court to do a parenting evaluation of Michelle and Barbara told the Court about the strong parental bonds that the children have with Michelle. The expert testified that it was in the children’s best interests for their relationship with Michelle to continue. Importantly, she also testified that the children could be harmed if Barbara were permitted to sever their relationship with Michelle. The expert characterizes Michelle as the “stabilizing influence” in the children’s lives. The children’s therapist also testified that the strong parental bonds between Michelle and the children must be left intact for the mental and emotional health of the children. So I went to the annals of Montana law and found that it "recognizes the importance of maintaining a parent-child relationship, and that such a relationship arises not only through the birth or documented adoption of a child, but also when certain strict criteria are met by clear and convincing evidence. The court recognizes a person as a parent when: The person shows that he or she has provided for the physical needs of a child by providing food, shelter, clothing, care, education and discipline; The child’s adoptive/birth parent allowed the development of the parental bond; and It is in the child’s best interests to recognize and continue the parent-child relationship." The Montana Supreme Court found that Michelle meets all these requirements. Bronco now stands with Woody on his assessment of fear being the great motivator here. By the way, meet my new avatar, my Belgian malinois, Bronco.
Editor
Tillie: As you point out, you don't like me, or my column, at all, so it is no wonder you don't like my column this week. The wonder is that you keep reading it since you detest me.
I don't profess to be a legal scholar, but the court doesn't make rulings for fellow legal scholars, but rather for citizens. I find your dismissal of citizens investigating their own government to be rather haughty at the least, and possibly downright anti-American.
As for my acknowledgment of Justice Rice, it would not occur to me to not give credit to him for his fine work, but I can assure you I had already read the majority opinion in shock before I read the dissent. The left seems to think that when two people agree that the left is wrong, one of them is being duped by the other. It is entirely possibly that two people independently realized the errors of the left's arguments, since they are so many and so broad.
Tillie
gawd, first we had frank the tinpot intellectual. now we have frank the amateur legal scholar. all he did was swallow the lone dissenter's opinion hook, line, and sinker, and rehash it for his story. according to his piece, there is only one possible correct way of interpreting this case, and everyone but him and justice rice got it right. get over yourself frank, you're not a legal thinker. you're barely even a thinker.
Woody
Nat Comparing the Montana Supreme court and Jim Jones is a stretch, even for you. Do you believe that the people who followed Jones to the jungle were "thinkers"?
naturalresources
Woody, after viewing the graphic documentary of the Jim Jones massacre last night by CNN, yes I occasionally help their ratings too, not just Fox or MSNBC etc as you libs like to portray the consevative right wing sector as ill informed and closed minded know nothings, I 'd like to relate that abuse of power and authority to this column. It seems that if his faithfull flock had "aligned" themselves with fear from an earlier time in their realtionship with Jones as to what "might happen", many or all of them would have turned the corner toward reality and still be alive to talk about it today. I prefer to look at life with a cautious optimisim whenever reading courts decisions and there is nothing to be optimistic about with the results of this courts decision.
sensible
well written article frank.
Woody
I just read the official biographies of the Montana Supreme court and their decision. The justices all have impeccable educational and legal backgrounds. The majority decision is based on existing Montana case law. The dissent is based on fear of what "might happen". As usual, this column aligns itself on the side of fear.
Rob123
"Such information might be taken into account, but it obviously should not be given too much weight because live-in relationships, by their very nature, are fluid, non-committed, and subject to change without notice." I know married people like that, while I know 'relationships' that are deeper, and really hurt when ended. Huge generalization ....the real question is, what did the Children want? I didn't see that anywhere? And the second question is, in any breakup, getting the State involved is plain dumb/naive/selfish/shooting craps/the proverbial box of chocolates. Try not to go there, but if you get pushed into a courtroom, be prepared for anything. Bone up for the experience by reading Camus and Kafka, and hiring the most Silver Tongued Lawyer money can buy, who is willing to throw legal garbage with Class. An ugly game, child custody and wills and personal injury cases.
gommygoomy
It's like an epidemic out there. When you think that the OBVIOUS couldn't get any more screwed up, the next COURT RULING comes out. Ya know, Shakespear wrote: First, kill all the Lawyers. I'm inclined to agree. But it's looking more and more, like it would be a far better thing, to start Killing the JUDGES, instead.