Conversation | 05/28/2008 9:58 am

Liz Smith: Gays Don't Have the Same Rights as People on Death Row

With Candice Bergen, Lesley Stahl and Liz Smith

LESLEY: And the next justices most likely to retire are three liberals – or three on the left side — which means that the next president either gets to maintain the balance that’s there now, or gets to tip it.

LIZ: This is why it’s important to vote Democratic, even if the Democrats put up a cat for a nominee – or a dog.

LESLEY: If you were a Republican, you wouldn’t say that.

LIZ: Everybody knows I’m not a Republican.

KATHLEEN: And in fact, if you cared about these things that are now moving into courts, you might well say that your vote is going to be determined decisively by the fact that the president of the United States is going to name, potentially, those replacement justices.

LIZ: You’re exactly right and this is why every presidential election really should turn on your view of the Supreme Court – I think. This is what I always say, if you don’t like the candidate, well to heck with that. What do you think about the Supreme Court?

LESLEY: And they barely talk about it. It’s not out there as an issue, yet.

LIZ: Well, when people say to me they wouldn’t vote for Hillary if Obama doesn’t get the nomination, they say they might vote for the GOP, they’re going to turn to the Republican candidate, I always just laugh and say, "What about the Supreme Court?"

KATHLEEN: But Conservatives say the same thing. The argument for the Conservatives to not stay home in the face of McCain’s candidacy is, "Do you want to entrust those nominees to any of these Democrats?"

LIZ: Yeah. I would think that would be a real motivating force for the Republicans – the motivating force for them.

226 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

It is true: the next two elections are vitally important, because you’re voting not just for the next president, but for the sway of power in the U.S. Supreme Court for, potentially, decades to come. And I feel the Supreme Court will be wielding much, much more influence on the direction of this country in the years to come. Whether it’s abortion, the state/regional battle pending over diversion of Great Lakes water via pipeline to the increasingly parched Southwest states, and all the economic fights that will emerge between the needs of the increasingly populated states down South and the long-term economic crises of the Midwest manufacturing/automotive/steel states that are losing jobs and money at an astonishing rate.

By James the Game on 05/28/2008 10:34 am

e-mail alert

Here! Here! James you hit the nail of the head in regards to the direction of our great nation. The Q remains how do we feel about Gay marriage. I am 43 years old. I grew up in a bigoted home. My family did everything they could to convince me that one race was better than another and that gay and lesbians were wrong and going to hell. I knew in my heart that this is was wrong and it seemed to a bigger sin to be a hate monger. And it is! Gay and Lesbian rights should no longer be an issue in our courts. I do not look at my sisters and brothers that happen to be gay as a separate group of individuals. We should be able to marry who we please without the interference of government. Gay and Lesbian rights are most important on account they/we/I are just as much of a human being than the next guy. I am here to tell you that every man and woman deserves the same rights under this flag we fly. And under Old Glory stands one and two every kind. I personally can’t wait until the dead weight of the right wing moral majority with guns in one hand the bible in the other GETS OFF MY BACK!

By Liza D 08 .... beta on 05/28/2008 2:01 pm

e-mail alert

James ,Ihave a few ideas, all gay people must be allowed to marry becasue as ‘mort sahl’ says they should be as miserable as the rest of us…… Desalination plants on the west coast .i.e Aruba will solve the area thirst but who in your area will give up coastline and finally most scientist and hydroelectric enginers knows that simple tidal power plants would eliminate the need to burn any fossill fuels and be as GREEN as it comes but who will give up coastline to save themselves .its not the body politic, its the people who refuse to help themselves to simple solutions

By bob mirabile on 05/28/2008 6:01 pm

e-mail alert

sorry had to add .five desalinzation plants and three tidal hydro electric plants would solve the west coasts issues , give water to the thirsty, light the darkness, feed the poor and stabilize the population . we do not require new Oil refineries, and would supplant billions of oil dollars ,and wars for oil with the opportunity for ‘all’ the people ..

By bob mirabile on 05/28/2008 6:11 pm

e-mail alert

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere By JEREMY W. PETERS Published: May 29, 2008 ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

By Renata on 05/28/2008 9:44 pm

e-mail alert

I agree, the weight of the Supreme Court’s influence is crucial. Liz Smith mentioned rights of Death Row inmates. I personally would like to see an end to the death penalty. Right now there is an inmate on death row from Savannah, Ga - Troy Anthony Davis - that is very possibly innocent. He is awaiting a decision about his fate - his life. His family - especially his sister Martina Correia - has worked tirelessly to help him. I could only hope to have someone working as hard for me. A decision could be made soon. Please go to amnestyusa.org/deathpenalty/TroyAnthonyDavis for more information. Thank you.

By Rebecca NHG on 06/03/2008 2:10 pm

e-mail alert

From my point of view, which usually goes out of left field of religous thoughts - spirit holds no gender, only the physical. But our world continues to base spirit on the phsycial, and in turn damns or embraces choices of people accordingly. There really is no division of church and state. What is religous becomes rules of government. The bigotry of gays is directly related to the thoughts of fundamentist religions. Were here to live our desires, that is the bigger plan, but yet only allowed in many cases according to doctrine of the church. I am not bashing religous order, but somewhere in the limited acceptance of thought processes, this has become the majority judgement in our country, and many parts of the world. In a male/female union of marriage it is seen as an act of love, in a gay relationship it is seen as legalizing sexual acts between two people with the same rights as the heterosexual community. Serve this one up to Boston Legal and James Spader, and let it rock and roll. I have a piece on my site, which I can put the link rather than rewrite it all, but in many ways, what was intended became the interpetation ofman, rather than the interpetation of spirit. Blessings and have an outstanding day! Linda http://www.myspiritualwindows.info/tencommandmentsortencommendments.html

By Linda Myers on 05/28/2008 10:45 am

e-mail alert

Linda Meyers, Not allowed “according to doctrine of the church.” No, try the Bible. I am not gay bashing either. I believe in hating the sin, but loving the sinner. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Obviously, no one should even consider hurling a missile, because we are all guilty of sin. However, Leviticus 20:13 clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination to God. There are other references as well. There’s no way to distort that clear meaning - unless you choose not to read the Bible.

By Estimada C on 05/28/2008 11:04 am

e-mail alert

I could argue that Leviticus 20:13 also sanctions the death penalty - so why does the Catholic church reject one half of the passage and not the other?

By Lorraine Bates on 05/28/2008 12:00 pm

e-mail alert

A friend of mine once described Leviticus as rules for getting across the desert. That might explain why it seems to ban gay men from having sex, but not gay women. There are lots of odd rules in Leviticus, from no tattoos to not wearing clothing made of two different types of material. I don’t think it makes sense to take one passage literally but not another. You pretty much have to take it in the context of what was going on at the time of the people in the story. Also, there are many things that are “sins” that are not outlawed. We do have freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. I actually think you can’t have freedom of religion without separation of church and state.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 05/28/2008 1:18 pm

e-mail alert

Rules for getting across the desert.’ Whoa, Elizabeth, your friend is so right! It’s tribal mentality and has little place in my mind in the world today—unless it’s understanding the tribal mentality of Shiites and Sunni’s.

By Frank Peterson on 05/28/2008 8:10 pm

Frank and Elizabeth When my son was in Afghanistan he was exposed to many young men in homosexual relationships, some with men and some with other young men. It is a practice that is pretty widespread because they cannot have relationships with girls or women until they are married. I was told that they have done it that way for centuries, that may be why Leviticus has named it as such.

By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 10:36 pm

e-mail alert

the bible has many references to prohibitions on procreation .. how else could it get more members if it bans all other forms of sex.. I am with Lilith on this

By bob mirabile on 05/28/2008 6:20 pm

e-mail alert

if the sin is heterosexual, do you still love the sinner? what if lust is the sin? is one lust more favorable than another? personally, i gave up the bible a long time ago. a group of old men got together to lionize other old men. it seems sexist to me.

By mary lou s on 05/28/2008 7:27 pm

e-mail alert

By the way, Arlene, the United States Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority against the ignorance and uninformed bigotry of an uneducated majority. If you read the Federalist Papers, you will find ample evidence that the founding fathers were very very concerned about this issue; the Bible, however you feel about it, is not fact, and is not science. If you want to use it to set your moral compass, that’s your affair, but it is not my choice, and I don’t have to live my life according to your choices.

By Mugsy Peabody on 06/01/2008 3:06 pm