…I respected the hëll out of George W. Bush.
Really. No kidding. When he stated in an interview “I don’t think we can win” the war on terror, I was staggered. Because he was right, and because he was honest, and because he was making a reasoned evaluation of something that anyone with two licks of sense could have told him.
The “let’s declare war on something” mentality reduces complex issues to stark black and white terms that can’t begin to encompass the reality of the situation. And when Bush fessed up that the war on terror was, in essence, no more “winnable” than the war on drugs or the war on poverty, I thought, Wow. Okay. Maybe he’s really learning. Maybe he really is capable of growth in a way that his fixed “stay the course” mentality would make you think he’s not.
And the Democrats went to town comparing terrorism to the Soviet Union which, by the way, self-destructed, and the fall of Communism which, last I checked, is still around. And I thought, “That’s just stupid. This is another of those embarrassed-to-be-a-Democrat moments. How can they pounce on him when he’s so indisputably RIGHT?”
So what happened? Bush flip flopped. Suddenly the war on terrorism IS winnable, yes siree, don’t you believe anything else.
Oh well. Back to status quo.
PAD
• 
2) I’m not angry about the 2000 election. I’m just amused by it. Here’s the GOP, the party ostensibly for smaller government. The party that believes states should be able to handle their own affairs. And in a burst of hypocrisy, they sprinted straight to the Supreme Court to get their guy appointed, rather than let the state of Florida handle the matter as it was doing. Thus does an entire administration rest on a stench-ridden foundation of hypocrisy, and GOP pundits have been shoveling BS for so many years that they can’t even smell it.
PAD, that’s crap.
The FSC was trying to do an end run around around an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court which ordered the FSC to come up with more consistent standards to judge the votes by. Instead of doing this, and following the law, the FSC tried to sneak a vote recount by on a weekend to avoid Supreme Court action which they KNEW was going to come. They INVITED the Supreme Court intervention. Furthermore, their OWN decision to go ahead with that recount was disagreed with by none other than their OWN Chief Justice, a Democrat.
Now why did they do this? Because in Florida, if the FSC couldn’t come up with the standards needed to allow a full recount, the ball would have been tossed into the Legislature’s court. Florida law gives the legislature the authority to simply choose the delegates to the electoral college if a voting decision can’t be deteremined. And with a predominantly Republican Legislature, it’s likely that Bush would have gotten Florida’s electoral votes anyway.
Asking people sworn to uphold the law to follow it, is not hypocritical. Nice try though.
1) Regarding Bush’s inactivity for seven minutes and was it an indication of stupidity? Yes, of course it was, if for no other reason than this: It might have occurred to him somewhere in that seven minutes that a photo op with him reading to children was not only an irrelevancy in the face of America being attacked, but was going to make him look spectacularly inept for just sitting there. When someone is called the Commander-in-Chief, you kind of expect him to command. Here’s a politician who, in seven minutes of musing, was unable to come to the independent conclusion that it was, if nothing else, politically bad to appear indecisive in front of cameras recording your every breath.
To quote Patrick Swayze from “Roadhouse”, “Opinions vary”.
Of course, I expect cynicism from you regarding politicians, and particularly Bush. I suspect that had he actually done anything else, you’d be saying how easily rattled he became.
Um, Jerome?
The claim made was not that “a lot of Democrats are still angry about 2000.”
The claim was that 2000 is the ONLY reason for the visceral dislike of Bush.
Since I actually used the word “visceral” in description of the dislike, I’m assuming you’re discussing “my” claim.
I said it was MORE likely that it was the 2000 election, than because of ideology. I never made the claim that it was the ONLY reason for people to dislike Bush.
And just in case you don’t believe me, I went through the posts and clipped my own words:
I’m under no illusion that many Democrats and specifically liberals, hate this president on a very visceral level. But it’s more because they lost the 2000 election than because of ideology.
emphasis added
Whatever the dubious motivations and interpretations of the FSC, the fact remains that they were completely empowered and entitled to make the decision that they made, and that the USSC decision to intervene flies in the face of traditional judicial logic.
Hey all, this might be old news to some, but I just read it and found it amusing enough to pass on:
Arnie’s grasp of Austrian history questioned
Last Updated Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:07:11 EDT
VIENNA – While he has been a success as a bodybuilder, action star and politician, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a failure as a historian.
That’s according to some people in Austria, his former homeland, who are calling into question the picture of his boyhood that Schwarzenegger painted when he addressed the Republican National Convention in New York.
Schwarzenegger, star of such films as Conan The Barbarian and The Terminator, told delegates on Tuesday that he recalled seeing Soviet tanks and that the country was dominated by socialists.
“I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes,” Schwarzenegger said in a speech that was lauded by many observers as the highlight of the gathering.
But those who have studied the history of Austria say that would have been impossible.
Schwarzenegger was raised in the province of Styria. It was occupied after the Second World War by allied troops, including U.S., British and Soviet forces, before he was born in 1947. The Soviets withdrew from the region in 1945, one historian says.
“It’s a fact
Since I actually used the word “visceral” in description of the dislike, I’m assuming you’re discussing “my” claim.
I said it was MORE likely that it was the 2000 election, than because of ideology. I never made the claim that it was the ONLY reason for people to dislike Bush.
Fair enough; my apologies for the misstatement. I didn’t go back to check the exact wording, going instead with my gut-level memory of what was said.
I don’t feel Jerome has supported your words as stated any more than he has the mistranslation I made of them, but I do regret the mistake.
About all I can do in response to the claim itself is say that it’s heavily untrue among my circle of friends and acquaintances, but that’s certainly no guarantee of a representative sampling.
TWL
Whatever the dubious motivations and interpretations of the FSC, the fact remains that they were completely empowered and entitled to make the decision that they made, and that the USSC decision to intervene flies in the face of traditional judicial logic.
I beg to differ. What you’re saying is that the FSC was LEGALLY empowered to start the recount when in fact what they actually did was to ignore the USSC ruling that they find a FAIR way to count the ballots first. That’s where all the fuss about “hanging chads” counting as a voting or not came in. The FSC was supposed to determine what actually constituted a vote or not BEFORE they started a recount, not after.
Further, subsequent recounts by newspapers and independent organizations have found that Bush did win Florida. To counter this, the claim has been that voters were disenfranchised when no actual proof has been offered.
“Yes, and the Democrats – who historically try to federalize everything – were screaming for State’s rights because they knew the FSC was more left-leaning than the USSC. The hypocrisy was on both houses.”
The Democrats have a track record of saying that cases in progress should be yanked out of the state courts and sent straight to the Federal court? Huh. I didn’t know that.
PAD
I beg to differ. What you’re saying is that the FSC was LEGALLY empowered to start the recount when in fact what they actually did was to ignore the USSC ruling that they find a FAIR way to count the ballots first. That’s where all the fuss about “hanging chads” counting as a voting or not came in. The FSC was supposed to determine what actually constituted a vote or not BEFORE they started a recount, not after.
All I mean to say is that the U.S. Supreme Court had no meaningful jurisdiction over the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state’s own statutes, in this case. See Alan Dershowitz’s book on the debacle, Supreme Injustice, for more details on this.
Further, subsequent recounts by newspapers and independent organizations have found that Bush did win Florida. To counter this, the claim has been that voters were disenfranchised when no actual proof has been offered.
Untrue; as someone noted elsewhere, under differing standards, either candidate might have won.
At this point, we’re never going to know iron-clad who won Florida.
The Democrats have a track record of saying that cases in progress should be yanked out of the state courts and sent straight to the Federal court? Huh. I didn’t know that.
There were two cases that Bush brought federally: one that was filed before any state case started (it was filed after Gore requested the state election board authorize the limited recounts), the other was after the FSC ruled to not stop the recounts. So, neither was inappropriately yanking a case out in process in the state court.
Besides, I’m really discussing trends. Democrats tend to want large, federal solutions: labor laws, health care, education, entitlements. Republicans tend to want smaller, more local solutions: welfare reform where states get to implement work programs, state-implemented educational exams, etc.
Both parties bucked their usual trends in the 2000 election, which is why I said there was hypocrisy both ways.
(Election legal timeline: http://election2000.stanford.edu/newtimeline.html)
“Republicans tend to want smaller, more local solutions: welfare reform where states get to implement work programs, state-implemented educational exams, etc.”
Constitutional amendments to forbid certain sorts of relationships; Federal regulations to force local schools to achieve certain Federally-mandated standards – yep, sounds like “smaller, more local solutions” to me! [/sarcasm]
Let me get this straight: you respect a leader more for believing that fighting evil in various and specific forms is a waste of time and lives and such?
Or you respect him less for the notion that we’re fighting for something that at least in some sense here and there it can be achieved.
Constitutional amendments to protect people’s votes from FRIGGING activist screwhead judges….
If the majority of voters want it over the choices of a couple of few whose only thin blocked is “marriage”… well, too bad for them. And no ONE judge should just screw over the movement of the many.
Constitutional amendments to protect people’s votes from FRIGGING activist screwhead judges….
Such lovely rhetoric. I’m afraid that an interpretation dating back nearly as far as the Republic itself gives judges the right to strike down laws.
If the people genuinely want an amendment, of course that’s their right, but don’t knock judges for doing as they see fit.
If the majority of voters want it over the choices of a couple of few whose only thin blocked is “marriage”… well, too bad for them. And no ONE judge should just screw over the movement of the many.
I’m afraid that one of the founding principles of our nation is that “minority rights” and “majority rule” must be kept in reasonable balance; that’s one of the responsibilities of the judiciary.
Tim Lynch and EClark,
(Boy, whoever thought I’d be addressing the both of you on the same topic:)
You both misinterpreted what I was responding to, and therefore my conclusion.
The argument was made that a large number, if not a majority, of Democrats/liberals are MORE angry at Bush because of the 2000 election than because of ideology (PAD’s “Thus does an entire Administration rest on a stench-ridden foundation of hypocrisy” is yet another case inpoint that many/most Democrats have never gotten over it). I never said it was the only reason. My response, citing other examples, was directed at Don, who asked “Why do people believe this?” I was responding to Don.It was not directed at you, eClark.
This is a huge reason why Democrats are more passionate than usual in defeating Bush. Because if Bush wins in 2004, particularly in a landslide, in an election without controversy about hanging chads and Supreme Court decisions, it not only will give him a legitimate mandate (especially after his State of the Union-style convention speech), but gives a final, irrefutable legitimacy to his first term, since a re-election bid is always a referendum on the incumbent. An undisputed endorsement of the Bush Administration by a majority of American voters is too much for many Democrats to contemplate.
“Let me get this straight: you respect a leader more for believing that fighting evil in various and specific forms is a waste of time and lives and such?
“Or you respect him less for the notion that we’re fighting for something that at least in some sense here and there it can be achieved.”
I respect people who don’t fabricate positions for me and attack them and I respect people who post under their true names. Beyond that, I don’t know what the hëll you’re talking about.
(Has anyone ever noticed that the words “Let me get this straight” are, more often than not, followed by a total distortion that’s about as unstraight as possible?)
PAD
I respect people who post under their true names.
I didn’t realize that was a prerequisite for respect around here. I’ll certainly think about registering for a new account, but until then I’ll definitely think twice about posting here.
I respect people who post under their true names.
I’ve heard this a lot and I’ve just got to know…what’s the big freaking deal with posting under a true name or not?
Seriously, I mean, it doesn’t make you more right than if you post under a pseudonym, and you can lie just as well.
And for the record… “E”, is the initial of my first name, and “Clark” is my last name. “1849” was the year I achieved godhood. I’ve been living among you insignificant, but intriguing human mortals ever since.
If you need to know more than that you need to buy my book Confessions Of A God now available on Amazon.com.
BTW, I don’t need any trouble from that Elohim guy. He gets a little testy when he thinks other gods are trying to move in on his turf, so nobody fall down and start worshipping me, okay?
Spider, until 1968, my marriage would have been illegal in several states. Most of the others at least frowned upon people like us. The majority of voters, at the time, thought that the status quo was meet and proper – that “mixing the races” was evil, and would result in the weakening and destruction of humanity. Did that make the Supreme Court a bunch of “activist judges” (a phrase with little, if any, semantic value), who were wrong for opposing all those right-thinking people in the majority? Should Congress have immediately pressed for a Constitutional amendment preventing members of different “races” from marrying?
“But that’s different!” I hear you cry.
How, exactly?
“I respect people who post under their true names.”
My first name is Sean, last name Mulligan, and Blackjack is an old nickname. It ain’t on my driver’s license, but if someone says “Hey Blackjack” to me, I’ll respond.
Of course, I could post under Sean Mulligan, and be lying about that being my real name, and no one would be the wiser. So it’s really a moot point.
i was just looking for opinions on bushs speech the other night and the subsequent bounce in the polls
is the election over?
i say NO
anybody disagree?
While one could just as easily make up a fake name (“Hi, I’m Winston S. Lowell”) to post under, the idea of responding to a Sam Smith when discussing a somewhat serious topic (politics, religion etc,) is a lot less surreal than carrying on a conversation with someone named Bubba Ho-Tep or Big Poppa Smurf.
And Blackjack Mulligan has always been one of my favorite wrestlers.
” i was just looking for opinions on bushs speech the other night and the subsequent bounce in the polls
is the election over?
i say NO
anybody disagree?”
I thought it seemed like more of a first time office seekers speech than an incumbents. There was an inordinate amount of “I wills” as opposed to “I haves” in the speech. As a sitting president you would think that a major point of your reelection campaign would center around the things that you accomplished.
It wasn’t a particularly bad speech, although by the time Bush’s speech arrived I was really sick of the misrepresentation of Kerry’s Senate voting record, it was really kinda blah.
I also was completely bewildered as to how Bush planned to pay for all of his future plans considering he criticized Kerry as being a “tax and spend” president if he were to be elected.
The only offensive part of the entire thing was the enthusiasticly gleefulness that came from the audience when Bush talked about making homosexuals second class citizens.
So count me in as not thinking the election is over. I still think that the debates will be a huge deciding factor especially if Kerry can get at least one thats an open forum.
Derek!,
First, the election will not be over until the election is over. I was even nervous Electon Day ’88 when Bush The Father led by a huge margin in the polls. Also, in 1996, I still felt there was a possibility more people would vote for Dole ( and actually, more men did). So I never let myself get overconfident or resigned durng a campaign (unless it’s a ;ocal Congressional race or somethng where the incumbent is polling 80% or something like that).
regarding the supposed lack of “I haves”, I have to disagree a bit. He talked about his AARP-backed Medicare reform, which for the first tme covers prescription drugs, while taking the first steps toward reforming it for the 21st century. He talked about No Child Left Behind, and of course the tax cuts.
As for it being kind of “blah”, I know a lot of Republicans who agree with you, who wanted a rousing speech that would have had a ton of soundbites and that would have shot his poll numbers nto the stratosphere. But by giving a State-of-the-Union type speech (would you have rather he gave a Zell Miller-like speech?) he A.) Looked presidential, especially in contrast to Kerry’s almost Dean-like, angry, un-Presidential and poorly attended and ill-timed rant immediately after. and B.)By looking toward the future, and laying out his plans, Bush will be able to claim that the American people not only support his leadership on the War on Terror but claim a mandate for his domestic initiatives, like Social Security privatization, etc. It was actually quite smart in the long term to be looking toward the future. That polls, at least in the short term, have shown Bush’s standing on domestic issues/the economy improving markedly after the speech, it was definitely wise. Because if kerry can’t claim those issues he is toast, since Bush is way ahead on matters of national security.
Re: Gays as “Second-Class Citizens”. You know, it is this kind of thinking and interpretation of ebents that will likely doom the Democrats. Americans in general have become far more tolerant of gays in the past two decades. From Gov. McGreevey beng looked at with more sympathy than scorn in many quarters for his “revelation” to representation in everything form government to TV shows, to Jesse Helms emotionally telling Bono he was wrong on the AIDS issue, to Jerry Falwell having to demonize slam because demonizing gays just doesn’t fill the coffers the way it used to.
Now with all that and all the gains, has come a general acceptance of civil unions. The difference between “civil unions” and the legal rights of “marriage” are not that significant and would seem to be one of semantics. But it is important to many people because it is a RELIGIOUS ceremony. Now, I understand full well the history of marrage and how many times it was simply a mewrger between two powerful families. I also understand that many heterosexuals (Jennifer Lopez anyone?) do the institution no favors.
But what I think you and others who think like you need to understand is that you have basically won. By not being satisfied with civil unions, you are risking a lot that has been achieved, and I truly feel it will result in a backlash. The more gays are shown protestng on the news and looking more like the “We’re here! We’re queer! We’re in your face!” crowd rather than the neighbor next door, the more they will put at risk a great deal of what they have achieved.
Jerome,
I agree with almost everything you said, except for some of the gay rights arguments. I think it was a huge mistake not to at least have Ðìçk Cheney’s daughter and her partner out on the stage with the rest of the family. Since Cheney is the only–ONLY–one of the 4 candidtaes that has shown the right sensitivity to the issue, it was particularly sad. I’m guessing that she felt it would take attention away from the speech. nevertheless, were I Cheney I would have insisted and, if needed, had the president himself ask her to be there (and if I were Bush, I would certainly have asked).
Gay marriage is coming. It is inevitable. Me, I see nothing wrong with it anyway but just from a purely startegic political view there is little point in opposing something that is A-inevitable, B-makes life easier for a segment of the population, C-harms nobody else, D-gains the party little for the opposition to it.
The republican party’s opposition to Gay rights is not a dealbreaker for me but it probably is for a lot of gays and the folks who love them, people who might otherwise support the party. I don’t think it gains them much support in return. The most homophobic people I know are young black males and they ain’t voting republican anyway.
Jerome,
The minute Bush proposed a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was the moment he went over the line. Its not about being “happy with civil unions” as much as its about using the Constitution as a weapon against a section of tax paying citizens.
As for Bush’s speech he avoided two very large elephants in the room: coming up with some solution for the record deficits he has presided over and avoiding the hard truths of the employment situation in this country, namely the people who are underemployed or who have dropped out of the job picture altogether. I think that those issues are whats important to the oh so precious swing voters but since the GOP seems to think they can win with their base it was fine and dandy to gloss right over them
Gay marriage is coming. It is inevitable. Me, I see nothing wrong with it anyway but just from a purely startegic political view there is little point in opposing something that is A-inevitable, B-makes life easier for a segment of the population, C-harms nobody else, D-gains the party little for the opposition to it.
Jerome, I actually agree with you. Gay marriage is definitely coming. I actually predicted it ten years ago when everyone thought I was crazy. (They still think I’m crazy, but at least I was right).
That said, I’m still against gay marriage. It’s kind of like giving a hypochondriac woman a prostate exam. It may make her feel better, but it serves no real purpose. Despite the blather, this isn’t a civil rights issue. That’s crap. If it was, it wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t, matter whether a person is married or not.. Also, civil unions, which many people DO agree with for gays, and which gives them the “rights” that they say they don’t have. Third, as I’ve said before on the subject, neither marriage nor having a child is a “right”. They are privileges. If they were “rights”, no one could turn you down when you asked them to marry you or have your child or they would be denying you a “civil right” and therefore commiting a crime.
Fourth, and this is the one that scares me the most and ties into the last point. What happens if a church denies you the “right” to marry in their church by one of their ministers? I don’t doubt that the Supreme Court, at least, will side with the churches, but I have two words for everyone to remember…. “Boy Scouts”.
EClark,
First, I think you were responding to me, not Jerome. At any rate, I think that marriage IS a right–“pursuit of happiness” and all.. Your argument that turning down someone would violate the right is clever but I think that by “marriage is a right” one means that an adult should have the right to enter into a MUTUAL contact of marriage with someone. I mean, I have the right to own property but that doesn’t imply that you HAVE to sell me your house.
Churches already have the ability to turn down requests by people to be married if they don’t conform to certain requirements. If neither I nor my bride to be convert to judaism it is highly unlikely that we could be married in an orthodox ceremony and we can’t sue over it. So I don’t see allowing gays to marry as much of a threat to the churches.
Even if one thinks that homosexuality is a perversion or a sin or whatever…it seems to me that there is a lot of good to be gained by all if gays can enter into marriage. better that then they pretend to be straight, get married to my brother or sister and make EVERYBODY miserable in the end.
Me, I like pretty much all of the gay folks I have known. I have some great friends who are gay and if they find someone to love, more power to them, I say. But even if you just don’t like gay people,I still say you should be for gay marriage–just imagine all the hassles you will be visiting upon them–annoying relatives asking when Steve will make an honest man out of Fred, for example, not to mention the very inevitable gay divorces.
So there really is something for everyone.
‘Third, as I’ve said before on the subject, neither marriage nor having a child is a “right”. They are privileges. If they were “rights”, no one could turn you down when you asked them to marry you or have your child or they would be denying you a “civil right” and therefore commiting a crime.”
You can’t split apart “right” and “privilege” and then try to disenfranchise gay marriage on that basis.
Marriage is two people exercising their right to enter into a contract. Any contract, for it to be binding, must be entered into willingly. You postulate the equivalent of a rape situation and try to argue that it’s analogous when it’s not.
You could just as easily that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren’t rights either. That they are privileges as well. After all, if you DO rape someone, then you can lose your liberty. If a right is immutable and a privilege is something that can be taken away from you, then no one should ever be able to be jailed. But that’s not the case. We recognize that right to liberty. But it’s ALSO a privilege. Same as marriage. So why deprive a certain segment of the right and the privilege?
Because they’re gay, that’s why. It’s prejudice and discrimination, pure and simple. Worried about the institution of marriage crumbling? Divorce is doing far more to damage marriage than gays. Let’s outlaw divorce. Marriage is for the purpose of supporting children? Let’s revoke the marriage license of any childless couple. Clearly they’ve abused the privilege.
I would contend the opposite of what you’re saying. That the moment the government takes it upon itself to forbid one segment of the population to get married, they set precedent to forbid ANY segment of the population to get married. Any of those “keep the government out of the bedroom” folks really believe giving the government that kind of power is a good thing?
PAD
Me, I like pretty much all of the gay folks I have known. I have some great friends who are gay and if they find someone to love, more power to them, I say. But even if you just don’t like gay people,I still say you should be for gay marriage–just imagine all the hassles you will be visiting upon them–annoying relatives asking when Steve will make an honest man out of Fred, for example, not to mention the very inevitable gay divorces.
Bill, sorry about mixing you up with Jerome. My bad.
But what makes you think I don’t like gay people? What because I think it’s a sin? Big deal. I know lots of people who sin, I don’t hate them either. Heck, I’m sure I’m doing SOMETHING that can be considered a sin. My deal on sins is this, I only have to take responsibility for my own. Unless what you’re doing affects me somehow, I really don’t care. But you don’t get around a sin by making it legal. You can steal and kill legally, but it doesn’t make it right.
PAD–
I get back with you later. Gotta go now.
EClark:
>But what makes you think I don’t like gay people? What because I think it’s a sin? Big deal. I know lots of people who sin, I don’t hate them either. Heck, I’m sure I’m doing SOMETHING that can be considered a sin. My deal on sins is this, I only have to take responsibility for my own. Unless what you’re doing affects me somehow, I really don’t care. But you don’t get around a sin by making it legal. You can steal and kill legally, but it doesn’t make it right.
Which is exactly why there is supposed to be separation of church and state. What you call sin is subjective, infringes on your rights in no way, and “sin” should not be a consideration when looking at legislature. Stealing and killing takes away from others and so the fact that they are a sin per say, is really a moot point.
I become very concerned when this type of talk occurs as there is an assumption that our nation functions under a religion. You stated that you can’t get around a sin by making it legal. I’d counter that I get around sin simply by not believing in its existance. One needs to be spiritual to even engage in the thinking that you are talking of…. and that is problematic and dangerous when we our talking about this country, the values of freedom or the guy in the White House who is publicly discussing our international policy as being dictated by God giving him instructions.
Derek! (I love the exclamation point) said (and I don’t necessarily disagree with):
“I thought it seemed like more of a first time office seekers speech than an incumbents. There was an inordinate amount of “I wills” as opposed to “I haves” in the speech. As a sitting president you would think that a major point of your reelection campaign would center around the things that you accomplished.”
I can’t say I really noticed that, so I certainly won’t dispute it. The only reason I mention this is because this morning in the Arizona Republic a letter noted something similar to yours…Kerry’s speech said “I will” over and over again, and Bush said “We will” over and over again. I’m curious as to your reaction to that…
I will say that I caught Bush’s rally in Arizona a couple weeks back, and the theme was “There’s more for us to do” and he listed the things he still wanted to accomplish. I would interpret that as he doesn’t need to brag about what he’s accomplished, but wants to focus on what he needs to accomplish. I can easily see Kerry supporters responding with what they think Bush has accomplished, though…but believe me, Bush ain’t talking to them.
As an aside to this topic, former president Clinton is in surgery right now, having bypass surgery. let our thoughts ( and for those who are so inclned, prayers) go out to him and wish him well.
Which is exactly why there is supposed to be separation of church and state. What you call sin is subjective, infringes on your rights in no way, and “sin” should not be a consideration when looking at legislature.
Fred, you’re assuming things about my argument. My argument has never been about the fact that I consider homosexuality to be a sin. My argument has been solely about the purpose of marriage. That I also consider it to be a sin is irrelevant to my argument. But I admit it makes a nice distraction because if people say that it is the core of my argument enough times, no matter how many times I deny it people will start believing it.
EClarke,
“But what makes you think I don’t like gay people?”
My apologies if it came out that way. My purpose was not to cast aspersions on you but to make clear my own views–I was talking about gay rights from a purely strategic political point of view and I didn’t want anyone to think that this was my only point of view on the subject.
But anyway, what do you think IS the “purpose of marriage”. If only for procreation that would invalidate many marriages, not just gay ones. Not all marriages result in a “family” beyond the two people involved. I wouldn’t dare presume to tell them that their marriage is less valid than my own.
You can’t split apart “right” and “privilege” and then try to disenfranchise gay marriage on that basis.
Come on, Peter. While synonymus, a “right” is not interchangeable with a “privilege” . A “right ” is something due to you by tradition or law. A “privilege” is something that’s allowed or earned through merit or eligibility. Neither of which fits the gay marriage debate without some “friendly” persuasion.
Marriage is two people exercising their right to enter into a contract. Any contract, for it to be binding, must be entered into willingly.
Marriage also has rules that say people must meet certain criteria to be eligible to enter into this particular type of contract.
You postulate the equivalent of a rape situation and try to argue that it’s analogous when it’s not.
Uh-huh. When the hëll did I postulate that?
You could just as easily that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren’t rights either. That they are privileges as well. After all, if you DO rape someone, then you can lose your liberty. If a right is immutable and a privilege is something that can be taken away from you, then no one should ever be able to be jailed. But that’s not the case. We recognize that right to liberty. But it’s ALSO a privilege. Same as marriage. So why deprive a certain segment of the right and the privilege?
Nice try, but as I already pointed out , you don’t have to do anything to have a right. Most of them are spelled out for us somewhere in the law or Constitution. Privileges are generally earned through merit or eligibility. Since marriage isn’t “merit-based”, and gays don’t meet the eligibilty requirements, I.e. one of each gender, it’s hard to call it disenfrachisement or discrimination. After all, it’s not that they can’t abide by the requirements, they just don’t want to.
Because they’re gay, that’s why. It’s prejudice and discrimination, pure and simple. Worried about the institution of marriage crumbling? Divorce is doing far more to damage marriage than gays. Let’s outlaw divorce.
That’s just as stupid as saying let’s legalize everything and we’ll get rid of all crime.
Marriage is for the purpose of supporting children? Let’s revoke the marriage license of any childless couple. Clearly they’ve abused the privilege.
All right. How long should we give them to procreate? Could they get an extension if they need more time? Do miscarriages and abortions count, like “hanging chads”? And since we’re so fearful of disenfranchisement what do we do with couples who find out later that they can’t reproduce . What if they were married and their child dies or was kidnapped? How about instead of revoking the license, we make them adopt?
I would contend the opposite of what you’re saying. That the moment the government takes it upon itself to forbid one segment of the population to get married, they set precedent to forbid ANY segment of the population to get married. Any of those “keep the government out of the bedroom” folks really believe giving the government that kind of power is a good thing?
So you’re saying there should be NO requirements to marriage, including age, mental condition or ability, relationship, or even numbers?
My apologies if it came out that way. My purpose was not to cast aspersions on you but to make clear my own views–I was talking about gay rights from a purely strategic political point of view and I didn’t want anyone to think that this was my only point of view on the subject.
No problem. I have the same problem. People want to try and tie me to the “discrimination and sin” aspects instead of just debating the points.
But anyway, what do you think IS the “purpose of marriage”. If only for procreation that would invalidate many marriages, not just gay ones. Not all marriages result in a “family” beyond the two people involved. I wouldn’t dare presume to tell them that their marriage is less valid than my own.
Actually, I don’t think people should get married until they’re ready to ‘have a family”, preferably by natural means. As a result, I may never marry myself because I feel I’m getting too old to raise a family. But no, I’m not advocating ripping a couple apart because they find out that they can’t have kids, but I do think those couples should be “encouraged”, but not required, to adopt. Preferably, more than once.
To be honest, I actually like the idea of “domestic partnerships”, and civil unions as a sort of “go between” position. Couples should enter a domestic partnership first, and I’d include gays in that group. Male/female domestic partners could opt for marriage if and when they thought they were ready to have kids and wanted the benefits/ detriments that come with that status, including women changing their last names, automatic inheritance/ and shared debts, and even divorce. Domestic Partners would have to file public notice that the union was over.
BTW, I DO think a childless couple has a less valid claim to marriage, otherwise to me, it really IS just a partnership.
How about instead of revoking the license, we make them adopt?
How about we let gay couples do that? Or single parents?
For you, is marriage about procreation or child-rearing?
You say childless couples have a “less valid” claim to marriage; what does that mean, exactly?
So you’re saying there should be NO requirements to marriage, including age, mental condition or ability, relationship, or even numbers?
One who is not mentally capable of assenting to marriage (i.e., a young child, or a mentally retarded person) has by definition not assented and therefore could not marry.
And I don’t think numbers matter, no.
The fifth paragraph of the above should be italicized. Sorry.
My sister and her partner went through 2 years of artificial insemination so they could have a child. By your definition they should be allowed to marry. Though they didn’t procreate with each other biologically, they will love and raise a child together. If a heterosexual couple does the same it’s OK? Since my sister and sister-in-law are a homosexual couple it’s not? Talk about your double standard. By the way, they did have a wonderful religious ceremony several years ago. It’s the US government that is keeping them from any rights and benefits that go along with a legal marriage. Legally speaking, keeping them from marrying is discrimination. Religion, which our constitution guarantees to be separate from our government is, and should be, a separate issue. That goes the same for “faith-based initiatives”.
How about we let gay couples do that? Or single parents?
I’m not in favor of either one. Although I have no qualms about gays becoming parents through natural means. Single parents rarely WANT to BE single parents.
For you, is marriage about procreation or child-rearing?
One usually follows the other, doesn’t it?
You say childless couples have a “less valid” claim to marriage; what does that mean, exactly?
Only that I consider marriage to mean a “blending” where two become one, and to me that means in the form of a child. BTW, I didn’t state that as a FACT as you suggest. I specifically said that I think of it that way, meaning it’s my opinion.
One who is not mentally capable of assenting to marriage (i.e., a young child, or a mentally retarded person) has by definition not assented and therefore could not marry.
I’m going to assume that by “assent” you really mean “consent”, otherwise I don’t know how to respond to you. You’re wrong, by the way, both CAN consent. The question is whether they know what they’re consenting to. The LAW (you know, the one that PAD says shouldn’t forbid ANYBODY from getting married) says that children and the mentally incompetent cannot legally consent on their own to enter into a contract.
And while 12 is the youngest anyone can legally get married in the US, special permission must be granted from the parents, or a judge, or both.
And I don’t think numbers matter, no.
Why, I am shocked and appalled, sir! Simply shocked and appalled! 8^)
Eclarke
Part of the problem here is that you seem to think that there is a clear definition of marriage. It’s undeniably true that marriage in this country has heretofore been between a man and a woman. I don’t deny that allowing gays to marry is a significant alteration of traditional customs and, as such, I don’t judge those who oppose it harshly.
However, approaching this from a purely reasonable point of view, it is also undeniable that traditional marriage was once also reserved, by law and custom, for men and women of the same race. When attitudes and social norms had sufficiantly shifted, the definition of who was allowed to get married changed. Nobody can rationally claim now that interracial marriages are harming anyone. I have yet to see a good argument that gay marriages will cause great harm and I can see many scenarios where it will result in an overall social good
Indded, it seems to me that the approach you prefer–a strengthening of the concept of domestic partnerships–could weaken traditional marriages far more than allowing a small segment of the population the same rights or privilages that the rest of us have.
Generally I’d prefer government to avoid creating seperate classes of people unless it is for the purpose of avoiding harm. So where’s the harm here?
>I’m not in favor of either one. Although I have no qualms about gays becoming parents through natural means.
So why should childless heterosexual couples get to? Please expand on this position.
>Single parents rarely WANT to BE single parents.
Maybe not, but I’m sure some single men and women do want to (and are financially capable of) raising children on their own.
>One usually follows the other, doesn’t it?
Not in cases of adoption, which you yourself brought up.
>BTW, I didn’t state that as a FACT as you suggest. I specifically said that I think of it that way, meaning it’s my opinion.
Where did I imply that? You inferred otherwise, but I understood it to be a position. There’s not much else it can be 🙂
>I’m going to assume that by “assent” you really mean “consent”, otherwise I don’t know how to respond to you.
By recognizing that they’re synonyms, as any good thesaurus will tell you. 🙂
>You’re wrong, by the way, both CAN consent. The question is whether they know what they’re consenting to.
A technicality. Don’t mince words. You can’t consent to something when you don’t know what it is.
>The LAW (you know, the one that PAD says shouldn’t forbid ANYBODY from getting married) says that children and the mentally incompetent cannot legally consent on their own to enter into a contract.
Which is good. Never mind what PAD said for right now.
>And while 12 is the youngest anyone can legally get married in the US, special permission must be granted from the parents, or a judge, or both.
Thanks for the tidbit. But how does this follow?
My larger point was that, with the exception of those who can’t assent (or consent, or agree, or accede), I believe all people should be allowed to marry.
What I was looking for from you is an explanation of why this is not a wise position. You brought up the idea that marriage is primarily for reproductive purposes. The problem is that this interpretation has nothing to do with long-standing legal definitions of marriage, or for that matter, with societal ones.
And what about infertile couples? Can they not get married? Or (I asked above, but I’ll repeat it here), if they can adopt, why can’t gay couples?
“For you, is marriage about procreation or child-rearing?”
“One usually follows the other, doesn’t it?”
An estimated 24 million married couples in the United States don
My sister and her partner went through 2 years of artificial insemination so they could have a child. By your definition they should be allowed to marry.
If you’re sister’s partner is male, sure.
If a heterosexual couple does the same it’s OK? Since my sister and sister-in-law are a homosexual couple it’s not? Talk about your double standard.
How can it be a double standard? You said yourself that your sister and her partner had to procreate this way. Men and women don’t have to procreate artificially unless something is medically wrong with one or both of them, and they shouldn’t be penalized for that. So unless you’re claiming that homosexuality is a medical illness or deformity of some sort, there’s no double standard.
“For you, is marriage about procreation or child-rearing?”
“One usually follows the other, doesn’t it?”
An estimated 24 million married couples in the United States don
No, it is your position that marriage is for procreation. I think that’s a bunch of hooey. I am simply pointing out that my sister procreated, sso she should, by your argument, be allowed to marry. Not a male, but the person of her choice. Forcing someone to enter into a relationship by your standards, be they religious or otherwise is not the American way. Historically we have embraced multi-culturalism. Of course, sometimes we have to be dragged into it kicking and screaming, but in the end freedom will win out. By the way, it is NOT activist judges that are deciding to change the laws. There is no such thing. The judges are ruling on existing laws. They do not make the laws, the state legislature does that.
Karen,
By your post, I realize the issue of gay marriage may hit home harder with you than many. I just want to make it clear that do not:
1.) See anything wrong with civil unions
2.) believe the only reason for marriage is to have children
I simply feel the push for gay marriage – regardless of potential political consequences – will result in a severe backlash. I simply don’t feel a majority of the population are ready to accept the term “marriage” as beng applicable to homosexual couples.
I could be wrong, but I feel if i am we should let states – citizens and the legislatures – decide. if this gets shoved down everybody’s throat, I truly fear the consequences.
When you have basically the same thing with civil unions, I just don’t feel gaining this “longest yard” is worth it.
Jerome,
I truly believe that this is a fight that will be won sometime in the future. I also think we need to leave this up to the states. I am upset that this administration wants a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage. They have no business legislating this into the constitution. They are the ones trying to shove this issue down our throats. It is also one big distraction because they will never get enough states to ratify it. Smoke and mirrors to get our minds off the economy, environment, education, etc….
So why should childless heterosexual couples get to? Please expand on this position.
Most experts say that is the ideal situation for a child for one thing, and I favor putting as many children in that situation as possible. And childless heterosexual couples would most likely opt for natural means if they could.
Not in cases of adoption, which you yourself brought up.
See above.
By recognizing that they’re synonyms, as any good thesaurus will tell you. 🙂
My bad. I wrongfully assumed that you had simply misspelled “ascent”, which is why it threw me.
A technicality. Don’t mince words. You can’t consent to something when you don’t know what it is.
Another technicality. You can agree to something and not know what it is you’re agreeing to. UNDER THE LAW, the question is will you be held accountable?
Which is good. Never mind what PAD said for right now.
So the law is only good if you agree with it?
Without repeating myself, (besides which I’m getting tired) I think I’ve answered most of your questions. Now why don’t you enumerate your reasons for allowing gay marriage and or adoption?
Karen,
I look at it this way: if there are enough votes (which I doubt) to pass the amendment, then obviously a majority of states do not want it.
As for “being a fight that will be won sometime in the future”…possibly. But I do not feel it s nearly as inevitable as you and Bill Mulligan (gee, politics does make strange bedfellows:)) claim. If it were, the mayor of San Francisco would not have had to defy the law to marry couples in a state as liberal as California. If it were, Kerry and Edwards would be ripping Bush a new one, but they know they would get killed on it. One thing the law will do is make the House, the Senate and state legislatures take a position on it, and I feel many who vote against the amendment will lose their seats as a result. I just feel that’s the political makeup of the electorate right now. Like I said, by forcing this at this paricular time, I feel gay activists have overreached.
And before you take this as just an opportunty to bash Bush for using “smoke and mirrors”, let me just say…I don’t think so. There are many Log Cabin (gay) Republicans who supported Bush last time. I don’t think he would alienate them for the hëll of it. From what I’ve read, he knew the move could be politically risky, but it s something he truly believes in. mean, if this was just a “distraction”, why wouldn’t Cheney have kept toeing the party line, at least until after the election? Please give the man credit for having convictions, even if you disagree with them vehemently. Also, why was similar vitriol not directed at Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996? t completely blows my mind that so many liberals still idolize Clinton when he signed and enacted more conservative policies than most conservative politicians could imagine in their wildest wet dreams.