I mean, honestly: How could any conservative with a scintilla of common sense not be?
With Bush’s approval ratings at lethal lows, with the GOP chokehold on government apparently threatened, with civilians and soldiers dying at a stunning rate in Iraq, gas prices through the roof, citizens being spied on, the courts and politicians finally taking a long hard look at Bush’s historic power grabs…NOW Bush et al suddeny haul out a marriage amendment? NOW?
I mean, yes, the ploy worked wonders in energizing the conservative base and getting votes out in 2004 in a dazzling, multi-state display of voting bigotry. But no one’s mentioned it in two years. Suddenly, NOW, they announce that “marriage is under attack” and start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them. It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers’ remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they’d been hosed. It’s genuinely insulting to conservative voters’ intelligence, that their leaders think they’re THAT easily manipulated. That they’re going to overlook the very real assault that our soldiers are under, needlessly, in Iraq, because of the fake assault that the institution of marriage is allegedly under.
Is it that Bush et al believe that conservatives must be monumentally stupid because the fact that conservatives voted for them proves it?
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: If politicians are really worried about marriage being undermined, the key is not to prevent people from getting married. It’s to make it difficult-to-impossible to get divorced. But they’ll never do that because Bush and his cronies aren’t REALLY concerned about marriage being under attack. They’re worried their numbers are under attack. But they’re clinging to the notion that conservatives are Just That Stupid that they’ll fall for this crap a second time.
The question is, will they?
PAD
• 
I agree 100% that it’s a cynical ploy and, judging from the almost universally negative reactions from the blogosphere, most pundits right and left see right through it. Voters don’t seem to be jumping all over it either (Has anyone ever proved that the whole Gay Marriage issue was as much of a deciding factor in 2004 as some think? Keep in mind that Kerry was ALSO against gay marriage.)
Where you go wrong, of course, is the assumption that if voters hold their nose and vote Republican despite their seeing throuh this ploy they are demonstrting stupidity. That would be like claiming that if Rhode Island voters re-elect Patrick “I hope I’m treated like a black man and not like a rich white guy from a family taht seems to have a congenital forgetfullness syndrome in regards to auto accidents” Kennedy they MUST be so stupid as to fall for his breathtaking hubris.
You only have the choices you have.
I will say this though–if the Democrats avoid jumping whole hog into the Dailykos mudpit they should CLEAN UP in 2006–big, big gains. Very possibly take over the Senate AND House. If they nominate idiots–like the one who just lost in California in a special election for a district that lost its Republican Rep when he went to jail–they will only have themselves to blame.
1. Are people just that stupid to fall for that diversionary tactic? Probably. People are still driving around with “Bush ’04” and “W ’04” stickers on their cars. Incredible! On a different note, concerning one of your book trilogies, some of the Babylon 5 “Legions of Fire” books have become very hard, if not impossible to find. There’s a guy on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated right now whose looking for Book III – “Out of the Darkness” Isbn: 0-345-42720-3, Copyright: November 2000, Publisher: DelRey. See “Legions of Fire Book 3 for sale?.” Do you have any copies of the books that you’d be willing to sell to the fans? The reason I ask is that Jeanne Cavelos said Del Rey gave her a box of each of her books, and she’s offered to sell copies to the fans who can’t find the books. Your “Out of the Darkness” and Jeanne’s “Summoning Light” are almost impossible to find.
People will definitely fall for this bulldookey.
I know a married couple who, by any objective sign, should never vote for Bush. They are African-American, have an income somewhere between poverty and upper-lower class, have a disabled child that requires government assistance, are not veterans, think the occupation of Iraq is unneeded, and above all else, have gay friends and family members, are democrats and have always voted for democrats. Yet, they back Bush on the “protect marriage” platform, because they attend a hard-line Baptist church where the pastor rails regularly against the sins of homosexuality.
The couple wanted to vote for Bush in the previous election, but couldn’t actually go through with it, so they didn’t vote at all in order to not give Gore a vote. If enough people did that, especially in Florida, who’s to say that didn’t have an effect on the election? Who’s to say that similar voting trends won’t similarly affect the next election?
People can be very stupid. So stupid it sometimes diminishes my faith in humanity.
“Has anyone ever proved that the whole Gay Marriage issue was as much of a deciding factor in 2004 as some think?”
The issue was intended to alienate Kerry from his liberal base,and it was intended to provide additional incentives for the conservative base to go to the polls in order to vote on the state-based gay-hate initiatives (because, let’s face it, that’s what they were. It was the country’s very first state-wide hate crimes.) How much impact that may have had on the bottom line, I couldn’t say.
“Where you go wrong, of course, is the assumption that if voters hold their nose and vote Republican despite their seeing throuh this ploy they are demonstrting stupidity.”
Why is it that people think inserting the words “of course” into a specious argument somehow lends it weight? Are you THAT desperate to disagree with me that you have to fabricate something that completely? I never said that. I never said anything CLOSE to that. I said that conservatives…hëll, why should I repeat it just because you chose to ignore it and insert your own version because apparently you couldn’t argue with what I said, so you had to argue with what I didn’t say.
PAD
Whatever one thinks of gay amrriage, the bottom line is that it never did exist in this country, so anything restricting it is not taking away a freedom, but strongly codifying 200 years plus of law.
I would have more respect for your opinion if you didn’t constantly harp on one side and not the other every single time. When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues.
As for gay marriage, I am in favor of it. But i am also not in favor of the methods used to secure it so far. Using the courts to read things clearly not there in order to get this declared a right that never has existed is wrong. Before we get to the “but what about Brown, but what about laws against interracial marrying” there were 3 amendments past to the U.S. Consitution that secured rights that were not being enforced, by courts, state and federal governments. Hardly the same thing. In this case, seeing something seem closer, and believing, wrongly, that enough people had changed their mind, people overreached. When you have mayors giving out marriage licenses clearly in violation of state law, the whole process is a joke. Gay marriage will come when enough people have no problem with it, and think of it as a top agenda item. That will be (at least in many states) eventually, but it will take even more time.
For what it is worth, despite your blinders for anything regarding Bush, it is pretty clear (unlike Cheney) that he does believe this is a threat to marriage and truly does not want it. He reminds me of many, probably most, people who never even considered it as a possibility. They can;t articulate a reason to be against it per se, they just can’t even believe the concept exists.
Personally, I have no “buyer’s remorse” because I have not voted Republican since I was a naive 18 year old fresh out of high school in 1980 faced with the choice of Carter versus Reagan, a decision I have long since regretted.
Meanwhile Peter, etal; when do you think the GOP “jumped the shark”?
and not to nitpick, but considering 2,500 allied troops died and 10,000 total casualties on D-Day 62 years ago yesterday, it is somewhat overblown to say soldiers in Iraq are dying at a “stunning” rate. The rate is one of the lowest we’ve had for any war. For thos who think the war not worth it, 1 death is too much. But it is ridiculous to say a “stunning” rate.
Gas prices are high. They are not “through the roof” and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.
The “historic” power grabs? Not so historic compared to the other presidents engaged in war, and the troika of JFK, LBJ, and RN. More like “typical for presidents at war, especially when a domestic menace may exist.” It may still be wrong, but hardly unprecedented,except to the extent that technology makes it easier.
Spying? Well to the extent the phone companies voluntarily turned over data that they own to the government, and some of that data is routinely turned over to marketing companies with little outcry, I am not sure that itself is spying. They own data, and they voluntarily turned it over. The fact that people assumed it was private does not make it so. However, the extent of the program, and the legalities are still to come out in the wash, so I’ll give that one a push.
Since most of the conservatives supported the war, if not all of the tactics, it is unlikely that they will consider the “assault” they are under needless. As apparently, most of the soldiers do not think, jdging by polls (albeit slighlty out of date. But they overwhelmingly appeared to have voted for Bush in Nov. 2004). Other s may be having buyers remorse for many different reasons, but conservatives had buyers remorse for a different reason-not conservative enough. To much of a “compassionate consrrvatice” on immigration, Harriet Myers, not pushing gay marriage ban, spending, etc. Too liberal in effect. That’s why they have been upset, though his poll numbers are slightly up lately.
When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues.
Hmmmm…sound like a description of any “Dubya” we might know of?
Well, since his job is in politics, and he has to lay it out there, it is a little different (if i am reading you right). Though I don’t think “Dubya” is particularly predictable, ala a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh (or the opposite). His education, spending, prescription drugs, immigration plans are not doctrinaire conservative. On the other hand, his tax cuts, environmental policies, and social positions are more so.
As a conservative, I think the marriage amendment is bunk. Shouldn’t be an issue. We’ve got a lot of things liberals (I like to think of liberals in the classical sense, JFK & RFK liberals) and conservatives can agree on. Why not work on that? Things like getting spending under control. Conservatives and liberals all focus on the tax side of things lets focus on the spending things first. Freeze taxes the way they are and lets start looking at how we spend money. There are a lot of places to save a lot of money and pay for some things like health insurance.
It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers’ remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they’d been hosed.
Actually, I’d say the buyer’s remorse goes all the way back to the 2000 election.
Admittedly, that may have been more of a bait-and-switch. 🙂
If Bush had been President during the Vietnam War we would have heard about these attacks on the American Way of Life in order to distract the American people from his mistakes.
“Black men sleeping with our white women, this is the #1 issue that is a danger to our country”
“Your parents could be commies, this is a #1 danger to our country”
“Hippies and their long hair and smelly bodies are the #1 danger to our country.”
My mother a life long Republican said it best” I stopped listening to Bush when his issues started sounding more like Jerry Springer topics”.
That doesn’t even make any sense. Besides gay marriage, the other issues have been Supreme Court nominations, immigration, social security, Iraq, War on Terror. None of the other issues he has raised since then have even touched on “Jerry Springer” like topics. and it is really chicken and the egg anyway. It isn’t just Republicans who decided to use gay marriage to get conservative voters out, but leaders in that community going to them and saying “You haven;t been doing anything about gay marriage, I am angry, and will be telling my people not to vote at all in protest if you dont do something about it.”
and while many democrats don’t favor an amendment, few big names have come out in support of gay marriage, or even “gasp” the alternative-an amendment securing gay marriage, the only way to guarantee in all 50 states marriage for gay americans, as opposed to piecemeal decisions in states or parts of states, or supreme court verdicts which will be fought over for 100 years. Why? They don’t care that much, they don’t believe in it themselved or they know they no way have support for it.
and it isn;t just conservative Americans-most black Americans are fairly liberal, but are the most conservative on gay marriage, as conservative as Evangelical Christians (admittedly some overlap)
and of course it was Howard Dean who said, falsely, on a national tv show that the Democratic Platform said marriage is between a man and a woman. Some could call that pandering or just a brain freeze or just didn’t know the platform. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt-people make mistakes on national tv when they talk a lot.
“For what it is worth, despite your blinders for anything regarding Bush, it is pretty clear (unlike Cheney) that he does believe this is a threat to marriage and truly does not want it. “
Newsweek just quoted one of hi close freinds who said “Bush doesn’t give a šhìŧ about Gay marriage.”
Is their a name? Because given shoddy reporting that seems typical these days, unidentified sources do not impress me. Especially from supposedly “close friends” which I always wonder just how close when they give these inside dirt scoops.
That said, I don’t think Bush hates anyone, and I don’t think gay marriage is his top agenda. But I do think he sincerely doesn’t believe in it, but given his druthers it wouldn’t even be an issue during his presidency. Karl Rove? Sure, he loves that it is an issue. But then, they weren’t the ones who made it an issue at this time period either.
What’s sadder is that after the anti-gay marriage amendment fails — and no one is expecting it to pass — the Republicans are pushing for a bill banning flag burning. I guess if you don’t talk about the quagmire of Iraq or the illegality of spying on U.S. citizens without a court order, you can tell yourself they’re not so bad.
I am in favor of gay marriage — I support gay rights up to marriage and no job discrimination based on sexual orientation; after that, they’re on the same playing field as the rest of us. Alas, Bill Maher had it pegged when he wrote that while Republicans oppose same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs, Democrats oppose it because it polls poorly. Heck, in an interview Hillary Clinton (the current frontrunner for the 2008 election) said she supports same-sex unions but doesn’t want gay marriages.
Incidentally, I’ve yet to hear from any straight married couples that would get divorced because gay people can marry. How about it, people? Whose marriages are ending because you have to share the institution?
In 2004 gay marraige was an issue, thanks to a California mayor and a few court decisions. Now, those very well may have been politically motivated as well but at least the discussion during the campaigns could be justified. After the campaigns the issue fell off the radar completely.
There are two questions to ask. The first is why is this becoming an issue again NOW? If it was really a big deal why has it not been discussed for two years, and why is it being brought up again now when there have really been no big issues recently? The second is why are the Republicans wasting their time with something that most people agree will not pass? The answer to both questions is to try and pull in votes come November.
While I would like to think that the American people are smarter than this, I’m a cynic and think this ploy will help the Republicans… but that’s partially because the Democrats are having problems finding a unifying message and sticking to it other than “we aren’t Bush”, which isn’t enough.
I think the only way gay marriage would threaten heterosexual marriage would be if one partner was not heterosexual and wanted the gay mnarriage option for the various reasons legal wedlock covers them and their “partner”.JMHO
“Hillary Clinton (the current frontrunner for the 2008 election) said she supports same-sex unions but doesn’t want gay marriages.”
So why don’t she propose a new type of union? Something that is basically marriage but it is not called that? Something where people tax their incomes together and have erreditary rights and other responsabilities and benefits. A kind of “marriage light” or “diet marriege” that either gay or straight people can be a part off.
Heck, why stop there. Maybe more that two people can participate in this union.
Do this this sound too farfetch?
Just thinking out loud.
“For what it is worth, despite your blinders for anything regarding Bush, it is pretty clear (unlike Cheney) that he does believe this is a threat to marriage and truly does not want it. He reminds me of many, probably most, people who never even considered it as a possibility. They can;t articulate a reason to be against it per se, they just can’t even believe the concept exists. “
Yes, and during the Crusdades and the Inquisition christians believed they were right too, but they were still dead wrong then too.
There is a Washington court case that when decided could be devastaing to the anti-gay marriage movement because Washington, unlike Massaschussettes, has no residency statute for marriage
Plus 3 courts have overturned the “will of the people” by striking down referendums specifically banning gay marriage. So the issue has not been off the radar completely since 2004
I believe Hillary Clinton has said she supports the flag burning amendment
Part of the reason they bring this up now is issues, go away, and come back again. There are theoretically 7 more senators in support of the marriage ban now than before. one amendment took 200 years to pass. This will fail and in a year or two or months it will come up again, hoping to gain traction. so even when something fails, it can be good to discuss because later you may gain support
also, if it fails, which it will, you can say “See, Senator X voted for/against it. Vote him out and replace him with Candidate Y and we’ll do better next time.” and sometimes it is just ebcause you believe in it
I believe several groups 6 weeks ago said “You’ve done very little on this. Better move on it if you want our vote or we’ll stay home.”
Most democrats and Americans. support same sex unions but not marriage. That’s not limited to Hillary.
Which amendments made interracial marriages legal?
Yes, and during the Crusdades and the Inquisition christians believed they were right too, but they were still dead wrong then too.
****
You always know you have a great argument when you have to go back centuries for examples. Good job. Next time, bring up the renaissance as an argument for or against separation of church and state.
Anyway, back to this century, or at least the 20th/21st century, or heck, even this country at least, I do believe gay marriage is inevitable more and more, but will take time. and if done the wrong way, will be a divisive issue like abortion forever.
Which amendments made interracial marriages legal?
*****
How about the 13th (ends slavery but court says also applies to “badges” of slavery”)in theory, 14th (equal protection clause).
Now in theory, equal protection could apply in this situation, but the courts have given no special consideration to sexual orientation. They have interpreted the amendment to apply, as intended, most specifically to race, holding there would be almost no need to ever discriminate on racial grounds. Sex grounds, sometimes. doesn’t apply very heavily at all to age or other discrimination. All laws treat people unequally in some way, so it depends on what the clasiffication used and the basis for doing so.
This is what the Supreme Court actually said “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. “
Like I said, they look much more carefully at racial distinctions than anything else. Its conceivable they could do the same with sexual orientation, but it so, it won’t be for awhile, and it will wind up being Roe v. Wade-i.e. inflaming rather than solving anything.
Or are you arguing the supreme court was wrong, and that states should have had the right to have anti-miscegenation statutes, however distasteful and used an amendment beyond what it was meant to be used for, caught up in the movement of the times and simply because it was the right thing to do???
Just joshing with ya. Yeah, that is basically the reasons-the 14th amendment.
It failed, 49-48. Though supposedly that represents an increase in support. Either way, it would almost certainly never get the 2.3 of the senate, house, and states needed. Unless there was a tremendous backlash.
What gets me is the religions get into this like its going to change their world if same sex marriage is legalized by the state.
The only thing this even affects is legalities performed by a Justice of the Peace.
This doesn’t change what a particular church or faith recognizes.
This is like Divorce. The Catholic Church has never recognized a legal divorce. If you are married in the church you have to have a church sanctioned annulment to have your marriage ended in the faith even if you have been legally divorced.
Same thing with same sex marriage. Just because the state allows it the Catholic Church (or any other faith) doesn’t have to sanction it among their believers.
Same as abortion. Just because its allowed doesn’t mean you have to do it.
I never thought about it that way… making it hard to impossible to get divorced. It’s reminiscent of the old Chris Rock joke where he said “don’t take guns off the streets, make bullets rediculously expensive.”
I’m paraphrasing, of course.
Same as abortion. Just because its allowed doesn’t mean you have to do it.
****
Just like slavery. Just because it is allowed, doesn’t mean you have to have a slave (to bring up an old example like my friend above).
I am a conservative, but I am not insulted. I just roll my eyes because it is obvious that this is a move to gain support. I generally don’t get insulted when politicians treat their voters like sheep, I just accept it as doing everything they can to get into office.
“I would have more respect for your opinion if you didn’t constantly harp on one side and not the other every single time. When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues.”
Equally predictable is the response of posters who are oblivious to the many times I’ve expressed disgust with the Democratic party, including stating six months before the 2004 election that Kerry’s approach was so inept that he was definitely going to lose.
Currently I’m busy spitting tacks over the fact that Hillary is SUPPORTING a flag-burning amendment, for the luvva God.
PAD
Yes, people are that stupid. Anyone who still thought the Iraq war was a good idea in 2004 is going to fall for this load of hooey.
That said, this reminds me of the old chestnut about advice given to law students:
If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law’s on your side, argue the law.
If neither the facts nor the law are on your side … argue like hëll.
In modern Republican terms, it means drown the other side out by dragging up wedge issues and through use of loud-mouthed banshees like Ann Coulter and the =bûllšhìŧ factory called Fox News.
Marriage = A Religious Institution
America = Separation of Church & State
Therefore, the Government should not meddle in Religous affairs.
Homosexual Marriage should be accepted/rejected by the head of your religious institution.
including stating six months before the 2004 election that Kerry’s approach was so inept that he was definitely going to lose.
***
Frustrating that your candidate is performing ineptly, or even fishing for votes is not quite the same thing I don’t think, as routinely seeing the worst in the actions, thoughts, motives, policies of the other side.
Trust me, Pete. The conservatives are insulted and are VERY restless–and have been for a while (even the guys and gals at National Review aren’t entirely pleased.) Instead of addressing real problems they have no real solutions for, the current republicans in office keep retreating back to simple “problems” they think they can fix–just to look like they’re getting anything done. (Even though both parties can be guilty of this at times, I have NEVER seen it so blatant before.) I may be conservative, but by God, next election I’m giving the blue side a fair shot at this mess.
America = Separation of Church & State
***
Find it in the Constitution and I’ll agree with you.
That said, marriage is a legal, religious (often( and cultural institution. Therefore, what forms of marriage will be allowed is legitimate for public officals to debate, since marriage comes with it a host of legal (and social) benefits.
“start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) “
Except that it’s not the first amendment since Prohibition. G’won… look it up
“start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) “
Except that it’s not the first amendment since Prohibition. G’won… look it up
“start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) “
Except that it’s not the first amendment since Prohibition. G’won… look it up
Why is it that people think inserting the words “of course” into a specious argument somehow lends it weight? Are you THAT desperate to disagree with me that you have to fabricate something that completely? I never said that. I never said anything CLOSE to that. I said that conservatives…hëll, why should I repeat it just because you chose to ignore it and insert your own version because apparently you couldn’t argue with what I said, so you had to argue with what I didn’t say.
I apologize for misreading what you said but I think you grossly underestimate how easily that assumption was to make.
But they’re clinging to the notion that conservatives are Just That Stupid that they’ll fall for this crap a second time.
The question is, will they?
See now, I read that as saying that IF conservatives “fall” for it–by which I thought you meant voting for Republicans–then yes, they really ARE that stupid.
How else would you propose we measure whether or not the ploy is successful?
The thing is, many may dislike the FMA and all the other anti-gay initiatives–which, by the way, puts us in the minority, it’s regrettably safe to say–and still vote for people who are less than supportive or even actively hostile to gay marriage. It isn’t even as though there is really much choice–most of the big shots in the Democratic party like Hillary and Dean have hardly been progressive on this issue.
It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers’ remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they’d been hosed.
Interestingly, one recent poll had Bush losing in a hypothetical matchup with virtually every Democrat thrown against him…except for…wait for it…Kerry.
Egon, you raise an interesting point, but right now there is NOTHING to stop gays from getting married. It’s just that such marriages are not legally recognized so none of the legal benefits apply.
So one solution would be to get the government completely out of the marriage business–no tax breaks, etc. Private companies could choose to define couples (or triples or whatever) as they wish for purposes of insurance policies and such.
There’s a good argument to be made there but I can also see a good one being made that it would open a muy grande can-o-worms and end up being one of those “greater equality by making all miserable” things that good intentions often create.
The issue was intended to alienate Kerry from his liberal base, and it was intended to provide additional incentives for the conservative base to go to the polls in order to vote on the state-based gay-hate initiatives (because, let’s face it, that’s what they were. It was the country’s very first state-wide hate crimes.)
Hmm, it just occurred to me–would Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act have been the first National Hate crime? (the answer to both is almost certainly no, given the many many hate filled laws that ruled before the civil rights era. But the greater point stands; we should be better than this.)
These discussions, I think, are ignoring the main thrust of Republican politics. They aren’t trying to convince people to vote for them. They’re trying to convince as many people NOT to vote.
Leaving aside the Diebold stolen votes for the moment, by making political issues and talk so revolting, they are making many Americans simply disgusted with politics. The fewer total people that vote, the easier it is to swing the election one way or another.
I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying “it only encourates them.” This, of course, is stupid – “they” will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure “they” will be in charge. But by making politics stupid and disgusting – and by the Democrats not really attempting to win elections by raising issues or their voices – the Republicans are maintaining a lock on their power.
spiderrob8: Whatever one thinks of gay amrriage, the bottom line is that it never did exist in this country, so anything restricting it is not taking away a freedom, but strongly codifying 200 years plus of law.
Luigi Novi: It does take away a freedom. The freedom to live your own life as you please, which includes marrying the person you fell in love with, without undue interference by Big Daddy government.
spiderrob8: I would have more respect for your opinion if you didn’t constantly harp on one side and not the other every single time. When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues.
Peter David: Equally predictable is the response of posters who are oblivious to the many times I’ve expressed disgust with the Democratic party, including stating six months before the 2004 election that Kerry’s approach was so inept that he was definitely going to lose.
spiderrob8: Frustrating that your candidate is performing ineptly, or even fishing for votes is not quite the same thing I don’t think, as routinely seeing the worst in the actions, thoughts, motives, policies of the other side.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps the fact that some routinely see this on one side is precisely why such people have decided that that’s not the side they want to be on. Your statement implies that Peter makes these statements on an a priori basis, but like most people who do so, you haven’t bothered to illustrate this with any pattern, because of course, that would take a lot of work, and we can’t have that now, can we? The fact of the matter that Peter does give kudos to Republicans and criticizes Democrats when he feels it is warranted. One example I remember is at: http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/003704.html.
Egon: America = Separation of Church & State
spiderrob8: Find it in the Constitution and I’ll agree with you.
Luigi Novi: Not every American principle has to be in the Constitution in order to be a fundamentally correct one. Separation of Church and State is indeed a valid and vital American principle that the Founding Fathers correctly felt we needed.
There are a lot of people who have no problem with gays having the rights and privileges of marriage but are a bit squeamish about calling it ‘marriage’. Where do they stand in this?
Jon Stewart took on Bill Bennett on this issue last night, and sideswiped him by Going Serious over the whole kit’n’kaboodle. (The interview continues tonight.) By far the best, calmest rationale that I’ve seen put up:
Bennett Look, it’s a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.
Stewart:I disagree, I think it’s a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.
*shrug*
Don’t trip over my hero worship. 😉
These discussions, I think, are ignoring the main thrust of Republican politics. They aren’t trying to convince people to vote for them. They’re trying to convince as many people NOT to vote.
Leaving aside the Diebold stolen votes for the moment, by making political issues and talk so revolting, they are making many Americans simply disgusted with politics. The fewer total people that vote, the easier it is to swing the election one way or another.
I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying “it only encourates them.” This, of course, is stupid – “they” will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure “they” will be in charge. But by making politics stupid and disgusting – and by the Democrats not really attempting to win elections by raising issues or their voices – the Republicans are maintaining a lock on their power.
I question if this tactic (if it is a tactic is succeeding). My SO works as a counselor at the local community college and recently, she has been inundated with questions of registering to vote.
Religions are legalinstitutions too with regard to taxes.
Doesn’t the first amendment deal with seperation of Church and State?
“Now in theory, equal protection could apply in this situation, but the courts have given no special consideration to sexual orientation. They have interpreted the amendment to apply, as intended, most specifically to race, holding there would be almost no need to ever discriminate on racial grounds.”
That’s because race discrimination was a major issue in the US at the time.
“Like I said, they look much more carefully at racial distinctions than anything else. Its conceivable they could do the same with sexual orientation, but it so, it won’t be for awhile.”
Segregation laws were eliminated because people were willing to challenge them. People did not sit around and wait.
Ironically, in this case it is the conservatives who are using the federal government to prevent liberal states from allowing gays the freedom to marry.
“it will wind up being Roe v. Wade-i.e. inflaming rather than solving anything.”
I think the women who use abortion legally will disagree with you on that. In may inflame but it also solves the problem of other people. It is not nothing.
Ignore what I just posted above – Sasha
These discussions, I think, are ignoring the main thrust of Republican politics. They aren’t trying to convince people to vote for them. They’re trying to convince as many people NOT to vote.
Leaving aside the Diebold stolen votes for the moment, by making political issues and talk so revolting, they are making many Americans simply disgusted with politics. The fewer total people that vote, the easier it is to swing the election one way or another.
I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying “it only encourates them.” This, of course, is stupid – “they” will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure “they” will be in charge. But by making politics stupid and disgusting – and by the Democrats not really attempting to win elections by raising issues or their voices – the Republicans are maintaining a lock on their power.
I question if this tactic (if it is a tactic) is succeeding. My SO works as a counselor at the local community college and recently, she has been inundated with questions of registering to vote.
“That said, marriage is a legal, religious (often( and cultural institution. Therefore, what forms of marriage will be allowed is legitimate for public officals to debate, since marriage comes with it a host of legal (and social) benefits.”
Religions are legal cultural institutions too in the US.
Gay marriage has been legal in my country for some time now. Of course, consevatives claimed the world was going to end. Guess what… not only it didn’t, but gay conservatives started getting married as well.
And life went on.
I honestly don’t get it. People desperately want to make their relationships official and yet there are people who have no problem trying to stop that — even though it doesn’t concern them at all — and somehow they sleep well with this knowledge. It’s just crummy. Even if you think homosexuality is icky, where’s the justification for opposing this? Who’s getting hurt? It’s ludicrous to state that this will damage your own marriage. How? I’m a reasonable guy. Give me a reason. Gay couples are already living together and raising children.