Wow. I mean, I know he's a freaking idiot. Trying to pass off the right to hate gays as a "civil rights" issue was crazy enough.
link here But then he just plain makes shit up:
Q More than 8,000 same-sex couples have been married in Massachusetts. What threat do they pose? And what's the president's --
MR. SNOW: They don't -- this is not in response to a threat. This is merely a matter of trying to clarify what marriage ought to mean under the law. As you know, the people of Massachusetts, also by referendum, defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, and the Supreme Judicial Court decided to throw it out. And it remains a matter of contention.
I don't think people look at this as a threat. It is trying to clarify what is an important and contentious cultural and legal issue.
Say what??? Say that again (on the flip).
Q Second, the president is generally a states' rights kind of guy on issues. Why not on this issue?
MR. SNOW: He is. I mean that's exactly what he is, and I'll tell you why. And I'm glad you asked, Ken. Because states' rights -- here you have in a number of states, including Massachusetts, where the voters said we want marriage to be defined as a man and a woman. The court said no. I mean, the people you ought to be asking about the sovereign rights of states may be state and federal courts which have been overturning what the states, either legislatively or through ballot initiative, have gone ahead and tried to inscribe into their own state law.
The people of Massachusetts had a referendum and voted to restrict marriage to between one man and one women????!!!! The HELL they did! In 2001, seven committed same sex couples went to their local City or Town Clerk's office (like millions before them) and filed notices of intention to marry in order to obtain marriage licences. They were refused by bureaucrats who felt that Massachusetts law did not allow same sex marriage although it is not expessly mentioned. The couples sued the Deparment of Public Health (the appropriate regulatory authority) and the position of the Department was upheld by the Superior Court (trial court in Massachusetts) The Supreme Judicial Court accepted the case on direct appelate review (skipping a level) and decided that the oldest democratic Constition on the planet did not allow the prohibition of the benifits of civil marriage based on sexual preference or gender. see link (Take a minute to at least peruse the descision by Republican Chief Justice Margaret Mitchell. It's a thing of beauty.) Not very complicated. Sure, the nutjobs are still trying to get a referendum on the 2008 ballot, but that has nothing to do with the 2003 SJC ruling that changed the world.
So how the hell can the Press Secretary of the President of the United States stand up and make pertinent factual statements that are not even close to the truth and that give a totally distorted impression of the political reality?? I live in Mass so this jumps out at me, but what other random untrue crap is he spewing and how is it that nobody, NOBODY notices or calls him on it. Scotty would never have said something so flat out and provably innaccurate. At some point, someone will notice and this idiot will be history. What a maroon.