I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Amen, pragmatically and morally. My bet is that any candidate who did so would instantly get a bump in their numbers, and a lot of media coverage. The votes they lost would be GOP votes, mainly.
Beautifully written. One day some of the great writing from this crazy time will be anthologized. Brady Kiesling's resignation letter will be in the book. So will this magnificent op-ed.
All the Democratic candidates should get together and support gay marriage. Make the GOP get into the details on why they find gay marriage so reprehensible. By the time the whole thing ran its course Santorum might even be apologizing to the canine community.
One can only hope that the rightwing mullahs force shrubbenfuehrer to start spouting bigoted sound bites in the campaign. 200 million dollar may not save him.
All the Democratic candidates should get together and support gay marriage.
They should run an ad featuring pictures of prominent gays. First picture: Cheney's daughter.
God, these republican's are repulsive.
Ahem, that's "republicans".
Where do the so-called "log cabin"-ites stand on the issue?
W know where Scalia stands, maybe we can drive him crazy.
I like the fact that Lewis equates this to miscegenation laws of the past, this will make a stark comparison, and there are many intermarried couples where I live. This is in a "conservative" town, mind you. This will also bring out the race baiters in the South.
Dems need to hit this issue hard!
I was reading an article today and it mentioned that it is 6 times easier to move someone from undecided into soft support as it is to move someone from soft to hard support. So all those people that are soft and staying home are much easier pickings than undecided.
Also I think that Democrats can easily combat this issue by pointing out Bush's tolerance. Say that Clinton signed the defense of marrage act and Bush created marrage protection week.
Bush trying to make this a divisive issue would go against his record.
You know what makes this piece great? It's not the writing--it's the fact that, for once, someone addresses an important issue without being mealy-mouthed.
Here's the money quote for me:
"But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans."
Yeah, baby. This is a killer foundation for left wing meme building in this the US of A. What I like about this sentence is that it still sounds so fresh. It's not a rehashing of civil rights struggles, it's not about left vs. right--it way more univesal than that: we all have inalienable rights, including the right to pursue our own bliss. Yo, Scalia, I gotyer "original intent" right heah!
It is liberalism that should fucking own this concept. Assuming, of course, we can shed our image as being all about establishing the Mommy State...
It takes me back to the last elected President, and how he could say such great stuff, and then undercut it all with some poll-driven DLC horseshit like "don't ask don't tell". Individual liberty has always been the way to go, because it's something all Americans can relate to. The trick is believing in it, saying it, and then defending it.
Great editorial. The GOP will do anything to pander to their religious right, anything to raise their illogic anger.
All citizens should have the same legal/civil rights as all other citizens. End of story. We don't NOT grant people civil rights because some jerk thinks they're icky. It is arguably just to take away a person's civil rights after they have been convicted of a crime, but we do not and we should not base civil rights on percieved ickiness. Or on a twisted perception of religious laws. Come on: how many people ate pork this week? Should you lose your rights?
My mom is gay, she's been in a wonderful relationship for the past 20 + years. My moms do not have the same civil rights as I do. That's just weird and stupid and wrong.
Rather than divide and discriminate, let us come together and create one nation. We are all one people. We all live in the American house. We are all the American family.
This should be the rallying cry of the dems from now on. Ironic isn't it, that Bush's *great uniter* talk has been thoroughly contradicted by his actions and has led to the *great divide*.
That was a wonderfully written op-ed.
yeah, now just to get the damn democrats to actually start touting it =p it's gotta be nice to be a republican and have a leadership that panders to your core issues instead of goes wishy washy on you.
John Lewis is such a great man for so many different reasons I can't begin to talk about it.
We should all be humbled by the fact that we live in his presence.
What an extraordinary piece of writing. A Democratic presidential candidate would be wise to adopt it wholeheartedly. And atrios, thank you. Gay marriage seems to be an argument that can easily be won but it does take some political courage. If the Republicans want to make this an issue, bring it on 'cause they'll lose.
It's all how you frame the issue. The 'Publican wingnuts are trying to frame this like "Evil Democrat Homo-Lovers Trying To Destroy Institution of Marriage." Well, guess what -- there is (was?) a fairly large "libertarian" wing of the Republican party. Rather than waste time defending alleged "immorality", the Democrats need to use this as an attack poing -- "Do you really want these fanatical idiots (Ashcroft, Santorum, etc.) in your bedroom? And where does gay-baiting and fear-mongering fit into the "Compassionate Conservative" agenda?
The thing about "practical politics" is that it's such an easy, all-purpose excuse for cowardice and weakness. Yes, there is such a thing as being realistic, but there's also such a thing as a being spineless chicknshit under the cover of "realism".
A hot button issue like gay marriage is exactly like crime: the Dems can avoid doing or saying anything on the matter altogether, but as Atrios very sensibly points out, that won't prevent the GOP from attacking them as evil pro-gay supporters, even if they never utter a peep on the issue; hell, the Rethuglicans will do the same thing even if the Dems were to actively speak out & vote against gay marriage. We all know that. Plenty of pro-war Dems fawned over Bush in the most bootlicking, subservient, grovelling fashion imaginable, and that didn't stop the Rethugs from smearing them as terrorist supporting traitors when Election Day came around, did it?
I'm sorry, terra, but Bush's tolerance is a front. When the asshole kills a hate-crimes bill (behind the scenes) because it contains sexual orientation and proclaims "Marriage Protection Week" during Coming Out Week he's not being tolerant. When he proclaims that "We're all sinners" so we shouldn't judge those nasty queer sinners, he's not being tolerant, he's insulting us homos. The man is a bigot.
Also, for those of you urging Civil Unions and not marriage, Lewis nails it on the head:
Some say let's choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights but call it something other than marriage. We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The rights to liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation.
All they're trying to do is distract us with issues that are really non-issues for most of the nation. Polls show that most people want to just live and let live and keep the government out of the bedroom.
This is not to say that all people shouldn't have the same rights regardless of gender or orientation or whether blind, halt, or deaf or national origin or the rest. Of course they should.
Gay marriage is the new "litmus test" issue, like abortion used to be. It is a non-issue, like late-term abortion, about 3 of which are performed a year and never frivolously.
They are trying to distract us again, and we MUST not let them dictate the terms of the debate any longer. State the case, MOVE ON, and focus on what they don't want us to focus on.
Real issues:
1) The lying bas**turd in office
2) His friends
3) People out of work
4) People without health insurance
5) People out of work without health insurance
6) People dying in Iraq
7) People dying in Israel and Palestine and Syria and Pakistan and Liberia and Rwanda and and and and...
The hole in the ozone, the fish in the sea, the caribou in Alaska, the lungs of everyone on earth
9) The lying right-wing media, starting with the New York Times
BTW, now that Condi's "in charge", what the hell is she up to and why hasn't she slapped Rumsfeld upside the head? What's with this "honest Rummy" spin they're trying?
It's no surprise that hardcore conservatives are pushing this as a wedge issue: they hate the idea of anything interereing with their all-white, all-Christian, heterosexual world view, as if they were the only people in the world.
Using the goings on at the Episcopal Church clouds the issue: how each church wants to deal with it is their own business, but there is a big difference between the secular definition of marriage and a religious one. From a purely secular point if view, marriage just determines mainly economic issues: taxation, inheritance, etc. It also has to do with things like hospital visitation rights.
There is no law that says any religion has to accept such marriages within their church, but the law of the land should make it very clear about where legal rights begin and church memberships end.
Gov. Howard Dean has made this point well: A civil union is government's concern. A religious marriage is a matter for the churches.
Oh yes, and it could be that this is just another ruse: they will let the hardcore types scream and yell but Bush will make some sort of statement veering away from endorsing or condemning it. Nothing gets done but it looks like W is being "compassionate."
It's no surprise that hardcore conservatives are pushing this as a wedge issue: they hate the idea of anything interereing with their all-white, all-Christian, heterosexual world view, as if they were the only people in the world.
And don't forget one of the main underlying reasons it can get traction with the voting public: it involves sex, sEx, sEX, SEX!!
Puritanism and shame are a big part of the American psyche (sorry, Tena, if you're reading this generalization!). Virtually all of the major right wing social wedge issues involve sex: in this way, gay rights, abortion rights, "the traditional family" are related in the deep dark recesses of the the wingnut mind.
gays need to randomly cry-"I am not an animal"
Wow, that pretty much sums up the DLC. Too bad they won't get it.
Matt Yglesias has a few new posts on homosexuality.
John Lews for VEEP.
Call me a wuss, but my own personal response is: move to Amsterdam.
i agree with others that republicans are choosing this as a "running issue" - as a method of re-taking control of the national discourse. away from those pesky jobs and iraqi discourse issues.
the republicans have usually held onto the lower- and lower-middle classes through dominance in social conservatism. sorry, but many white lower- and lower-middle classes haven't historically placed economic fairness as a higher priority than moral righteousness. this is a great way for the republicans to regain ground with lower- and lower-middle classes who are starting to wonder how jesus is going to pay for dinner.
and, as hitler knew, scapegoating really works wonders for your popularity.
John Lewis has been an extraordinary voice from the black community for equal rights for all people, including gay people. So has Coretta Scott King. They have made a brave effort for equality.
What would be even better is if a few ministers from black churches would join in. Some have, but they have been few and far between. That is very sad.
sorry, but many white lower- and lower-middle classes haven't historically placed economic fairness as a higher priority than moral righteousness.
True. That's why not using "class warfare" because we want to "take the high road" (translation: because we are wusses) is a mistake. We need to turn "economic fairness" into a full blown, God-fearin' moral issue.
Every time the wingnuts bring up some wedge issue that involves sex, we should mock them for being Sex Obsessed, and say that they are trying to change the subject from their crony capitalist crimes. Which has the added advantage that it's true.
Hey mondo dentro - I love that generalization and I happen to believe it is true. I think puritanism is alive and well in 21st century America.
Wonderful wonderful wonderful op-ed. The time has come for this issue to be right there in the forefront and it will only do good things. The loony RR is almost the only group against it, and let them look like the bigots and intolerant assholes they are. There is plenty of soft support for this, and even if there wasn't, the Democrats should still be in favor of it because it is THE RIGHT THING.
Amen to Lewis. And with regard to Lewis' comments about "separate and unequal", and MAJeff & Joe Vecchio's observations: we don't even need, and shouldn't have, a separate law "legalizing" gay marriages. They should be covered under existing laws as all civil marriages are. It may seem like a small point, but it better than anything would take the wind out of the "special rights" argument's sails. And let the churches do as they will, which could do quite a bit of good to help re-define church/state separation.
Lewis covers the bigger issue on the right note, but I would like to see Democratic candidates add to it by asking voters: "What matters more to you in your daily life - the fact that two guys living down the street are in a legally-recognized marriage, or not having a job, having kids in crappy schools, or having no health insurance? Because that is the cost of voting Republican. If denying others the same rights you enjoy is worth not having a job, bad schools, and no health insurance, then the Republicans are ready to deliver." We have to connect the dots for most voters. They need to be shown the cost for practicing bigotry in the voting booth.
Well said, Jennifer, especially the way you would like to see Democratic candidates frame the issue.
I may be naive about this, but my experience is telling me that supporting the right of gays to marry legally is a winner. There are hardly any families that don't have at least one gay family member, and most of the families are doing a pretty good job of accepting it these days. Not counting, of course, the rabid and hate-filled.
and, as hitler knew, scapegoating really works wonders for your popularity
This is true, but in the end it's a double-edged sword: once you "defeat" your enemy you need to manufacture another one in order to keep your base intensified. The goal of totalitarian leaders is to remain in power, period, they have no other goals above and beyond that.
The neocons have only one real goal: to rob us blind. They'll use any means at their disposal to achieve their plans (including murder), and have absolutetly no sense of morals and scruples.
But sooner or later the whole plan backfires. People just won't put up with it forever. Either we will rise up against them, remove them from power, and take steps to keep them out of power, or the rest of the world unites against us. Either way, they cannot win.
Jennifer:
I don't think what Dean is proposing is a case of "separate but equal." Do we want a situation where the US Government is going to force, say, the Catholic Church to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple?
On the flip side, do we want a Church to refuse to allow someone to inherit a church member's money, or to see a sick loved one, or to raise children, because the church doesn't like their "lifestyle"?
To me, this is just a case of separating Church from State: the Church has the right to determine how they stand on the issue, but when it comes to the things that matter in the secular world (inheritance, visitation rights, etc.) the State takes precedence.
Jennifer said: ...we don't even need, and shouldn't have, a separate law "legalizing" gay marriages. They should be covered under existing laws as all civil marriages are.
Jennifer, I agree heartily, but I don't think this is yet a very popular way to frame the issue on the left. I'd like to see your perspective better represented in the public debate as it is advanced by the left.
When we use the idea of "gay marriage" we in fact, perhaps without knowing it, are using the right wing narrative, which casts the whole debate as involving a "special interest group" for "perverts". Obviously, this is a losing narrative. In contrast, using the general notion of individual liberty and freedom to live one's life as one sees fit is more universal, and makes it clear that we see liberal values as already being encoded within the constitution. Most Americans can relate to this.
I have to say, in more personal terms, that I don't even know why the State should have anything at all to say about who it is that I love or how. I often am confused, despite my sympathies, by what exactly it is that we are asking for when we are demanding that gays be given the "right" to marry: I understand it in terms of social welfare (family health insurance, for example), but in terms of more general cultural values, I don't always get it.
Joe,
Which is exactly why it should be covered under existing law. Otherwise, there's no way to make it free of religious concerns, because the very act of treating same-sex unions under a different law sets them apart - which is the church position. There's no reason for that position to be acknowledged, even in passing, in the law. The churches are free to draw distinctions, but our law is supposed to be blind to them and treat all citizens equally. This has nothing to do with Dean - I didn't even mention him - it has to do with the larger issue of equality under the law.
the democrats could really kill the conservatives on this issue. the ones who would be totally opposed to it are already going to be voting republican anyways, and the prime problem of the party today is that we're viewed as weak and spineless.
and i think the point should also be made that marriage is already something less than sancrosact. most protestant doctrines allow for divorce and dissolution of marriage and the only christian religion that claims it as a holy sacrament is catholicism. you could frame allowing protestants the right to marriage under the law the same way people are framing the opposition to gay marriage. that'd wake people up.
I have to say, in more personal terms, that I don't even know why the State should have anything at all to say about who it is that I love or how. I often am confused, despite my sympathies, by what exactly it is that we are asking for when we are demanding that gays be given the "right" to marry: I understand it in terms of social welfare (family health insurance, for example), but in terms of more general cultural values, I don't always get it.
Actually, it's about the State protecting your rights to be able to inherit from your legal spouse, to visit them in the hospital, etc. It's the organized religions, after all, who want to take these rights away.
And while I don't understand why anyone would willingly want to belong to an institution that openly speaks against their sexual preference, I can also see where they are trying to force their church to reform.
Of course, many churches are founded on some form of exclusion to begin with. Without it, they wouldn't have a need to exist.
mondo - in the same vein as my response to Joe, it doesn't matter that you or I or anyone else may not "get it" in terms of cultural values - because we don't apply those standards to other couples who marry. In order to obtain a marriage license currently, one doesn't need to list or expound the reasons why they've determined to marry, whether they be economic, cultural values, both, or something entirely different. You present yourself, pay the fees, sign the papers, and you're good to go.
So in the interest of equality and firm legal footing, same-sex civil marriage should operate in exactly the same way. Otherwise, we start getting into this "special rights" quagmire. Suppose we have a law for "civil unions" that differ in some respects from the current law. Maybe they're easier to dissolve, maybe there's better financial shelter for the assets of the parties involved when they separate, or anything of this nature. How long will it be before someone starts screaming about how same-sex civil partnerships are more advantageous and grant "special rights" to those in them?
This is why current law should cover everything - because then we know that all are being treated equally. The short sound-bite and way to frame it is to say "I believe in equal rights - and responsibilities - for all citizens under the law."
And for the record, I would prefer to see this issue referred to as "civil unions" or "civil marriage" rather than "gay marriage". Again, it just creates distinctions where none need be.
the democrats could really kill the conservatives on this issue...and i think the point should also be made that marriage is already something less than sancrosact...
Scott, I have a fantasy about some presidential candidate from the left speaking in full-blown preacher mode, channeling a mix of Elvis and MLK, and listing all of the infamous proscriptions against behavior in Leviticus. I'm visualizing bullets presented on a TV screen while he rails and rants. Her "sermon" would illuminate those things that the so-called religious right are fixated on, and those that they are not. Then she would keep talking about them these curious inconsistencies, in speech after speech, until the point sinks in.
The Chaldonians and other would-be American Christian theocrats are correct: if one takes the Bible literally, our society would be radically different than it is today. Most people, even regular church goers, are not really aware of just how different, and they need to get their minds right. I mean, I don't think most people are ready to stop eating shellfish, sacrificing animals on specially-designed altars, or stoning adulterers. It would be interesting to force the wingnuts to explain why these things are not as important to them as homosexuality. And fun, too!
Jennifer:
I'm not sure, but I think we're both kind of agreeing on the issue to begin with. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but I don't see how the US Government can hold a gun to a priest's head and demand they perform a ceremony. That's how the right wing will portray the issue, certainly, just as they portray all kinds of taxation as a form of robbery.
And of course the issue isn't covered by existing law, many states do not allow same-sex marriages or civil unions to begin with, and many companies will not give benefits to same-sex couples.
I brought up Gov. Dean because he is one of the candidates who has made this an issue, in the sense that he passed the civil-unions law in Vermont. I didn't intend to make it a campaign issue for him, I have no doubt the other candidates feel similarly. Rep. Lewis wrote a powerful and compelling article, it's unfortunate that too many people see homosexuality as being evil...
No real disagreement from me here, either, Jennifer. Just a different emphasis, perhaps.
"The Chaldonians and other would-be American Christian theocrats are correct: if one takes the Bible literally, our society would be radically different than it is today"
Perhaps, but there is no way to take to wholly babble literally.
Perhaps, but there is no way to take to wholly babble literally.
Would that that were true, raj. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think otherwise. And a lot of them seem to be running the government.
The very definition of conservativism is a belief that the past is more important than the future. Scalia, for example, decries the SC decision making anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional as going against the "original" Constitution. To people like him, once something has been written down, to change it or go against it in any way is just plain wrong.
And of course that's how organized religions are: they are conservative by their very nature, they demand, at the very least, subservience to their pareticular views, if not a literal translation. But the Bible is a product of a very different time. While there's a lot of good things it has to say, there's a lot that simply should not apply any more: we no longer should simply take slavery for granted, after all, as the Bible does.
The Constitution, also, is a product of a completely different time, but the FOunders were intelligent enough to create a "living document" that was rigid when it had to be yet also flexible enough to change as our society evolved. Our feelings towards homosexuality are bound to change just as our feelings towards slavery have changed over the years.
Of course, when Christianity first came about, it challenged the "conservativism" of the time as well, just as the idea of self-government challenged the conservativism of it's time (that royalty ruled by divine law).
Humanity is still, as President Clinton says, in the process of "becoming". We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. Ideas that seemed inconceivable fifty years ago are becoming stronger possibilities. The right can make this an issue for a time, but in the end they will not succeed. Mindless hatred breeds mindless actions, and they often are the victims of what they have unleashed.
>>>>Perhaps, but there is no way to take to wholly babble literally.
>Would that that were true, raj. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think otherwise.
They may believe otherwise, but obviously they do not think.
If they did think, it would be clear that they would wonder why the necessity of so many translations for the wholly babble, even into english alone. One would believe that, if this god of theirs was so all powerful, he would have a better translator.
Others raise great points... John Lewis is a great man... he would make a great VP candidate for oh so many reasons.
Pair him with Dean, and Dean no longer seems like an alien to black voters. Instantly, people know what he stands for.
For chrissakes, we are talking about a man who stood alongside Martin Luther King, and was beaten viciously for what he believed in... but with amazing courage and steadfastness, marched again and again for equality.
We should all be emailing the Dean campaign to get them thinking about this.
I just want to know why I had to go to the web site of The Boston Globe to read this; why doesn't The Atlanta Journal-Constitution have it?
Not only should the Democrat simply support gay marriage and explain why, but then fire back that it is rather unbelievable that Republicans are making this such a high priority. Never mind the economy, terrorism, health care, etc., they want to focus on gays. They're obsessed.
Two heterosexual Catholics get married in church and have a child. One of them is abusive and unfaithful so the other decides to get a divorce. In the eyes of the Church they're still married. Because of this, neither one can get married again in the Catholic Church. Nobody is suggesting that the government should compel the Catholic Church to accept the divorce and allow them to re-marry. But the Church cannot compel them to remain single in our secular society; they can still get a civil marriage. That's the only thing gays demand. And yes, let's stop this 'gay marriage' bullshit and call it what it is, civil marriage. If it will make straights more comfortable we can call it civil unions, but the rights and responsibilities must be equal.
I just want to know why I had to go to the web site of The Boston Globe to read this; why doesn't The Atlanta Journal-Constitution have it?
Because the AJC is about the worst piece-of-shit newspaper in the country for a city the size and import as Atlanta.
I live in Atlanta and I say this, mainly because I know it to be true.
"of" Atlanta, not "as" Atlanta
damn not being able to edit
"of" Atlanta, not "as" Atlanta
damn not being able to edit
I don't know why the thugs are pretending there's some question about it.
Gay marriage has just as much constitutional protection as straight marriage.
I think the government should just get out of the marriage biz altogether. Civil unions for financial convenience etc. should be available to any pair of people, regardless of sex. Marriage is left to the churches, and then the problem is solved. People who believe that gay marriage is okay can go to churches that will marry gay people, and people who don't believe it's okay can go to churches that don't marry gay people. What people do with their genitalia should not fall under the jurisdiction of the government (except for rape and whatnot), but rather the jurisdiction of whatever church you belong to.
I'm in agreement with Cynical. I know it doesn't go over well with most of the regulars on this site, who naturally hold strong political opinions. But elections are decided by the middle 30% who *don't* hold strong political opinions. These are the people who are swayed by impressions formed by TV sound bites and newspaper headlines. Those are the people who the campaigns must be aimed at.
Don't let the republicans continue to set the agenda. Stay on message. Focus on the core issues that impact the average American at home:
* The Economy
* Bush's Class Warfare (cuts in benefits to lower classes, massive subsidies to wealthy classes)
* Health Care
In order for Middle America to vote against Bush they don't have to hate him, or to believe in gay rights, gun control, abortion rights, affirmative action, or in separation of church/state. They just have to realize that Bush is making their lives, and their childrens, much worse.
The Dems should simply say:
The book is still out on whether homosexualism is genetic or a matter of choice. I think we ought to find out a bit more on that before we start looking at anything as serious as a Constitutional amendment.
OK, so that statement isn't quite true. But the beauty of it is that it strikes right at the middle. You're not giving anything, but you are also not taking anything away.
Why would this work? Look, just about everyone was pissed at Clinton's BJ. But most were even more pissed when the Puglies tried to make it a Constitutional issue. They didn't "get" this back then, and they won't get it now. And the same thing will happen. People (i.e., swing voters) will look at the Puglies and wonder while they always have to whine about sex. They are going to end up looking stupid on this. All the Dems have to do is get out of their way.
This is a no-win for the Dems, but it could be a big loser for the Puglies. Keep it off the candidate's lips, but keep it in the news. And then just let them hang themselves with it.
The book is still out on whether hetereosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice. I think we ought to find out a bit more on that before we start looking at anything as serious as a Constitutional amendment
What other constitutionally protected rights are established on the basis of genetics? I'm really fastinated, where is the genetic research on the right to due process? Ok, that's a bad choice since it seems to be history. How about the prohibition on an establishment of religon.
I think that the reliance on genetics in discussing civil rights leads to no good.
Amen, EPT. The question of genetics is irrelevant to civil rights. We make civil rights protections (esp with employment discrimination) based on such choices as marital status (for hets) and religion. The point of living in a free society is that folks should be able to enter relationships with whomever they choose, regardless of gender. Who cares if it's a choice? If that's a choice people want to make, they should be free to.
"Where do the so-called 'log cabin'-ites stand on the issue?"
Initially they supported gay marriage as they once did hate crimes legislation. But just as the Bush Administration emphasized its strong opposition to hate crimes laws and now Bush speaking out specifically against gay marriage, Log Cabin is backtracking. Now, many of them say they support 'civil unions' but believe the 'sanctity' of marriage must be reserved for heterosexuals alone. Obviously, this immediately begs the question: which 'Compassionate Conservative' (Bush included) would ever support the concept of civil unions while strongly opposing gay marriage. Guess what - not a single fucking one. Just another shell game by these freaks to position themselves for power without regard to civil rights. Remember, Schwartzanegger even admitted he wouldn't have signed AB-205 (civil unions basically). These are dishonest scum who are playing coded word games with people's lives - 'family-values' indeed.
"What other constitutionally protected rights are established on the basis of genetics?"
Actually, quite the opposite. Christianity and other religions are specifically protected because they are a conscious lifestyle choice. The groups have demanded and received special rights because of their chosen lifestyle (of their own admition). I've never understood how they could argue against glbt EQUAL rights with a straight face.
If gay marriage becomes the Democratic issue, it cedes the moderate vote to the GOP. We are speaking of "ritual suicide with honor".
If gay marriage becomes the Democratic issue, it cedes the moderate vote to the GOP.
The same could be said if the thugs choose to make it their central issue.
The Democrats would do best to speak of gay marriage as a fait accompli, a forgone conclusion. This will just make the thugs look more and more like the regressive theocrats they are.
Well, I guess we know who failed the latest spine check.
Y'all can f*ck off. You try living as a second class citizen, and see how many of your rights you think should be ignored in order to feed party politics.
I mean it. f*ck you.
If gay marriage becomes the Democratic issue, it cedes the moderate vote to the GOP.
*
The same could be said if the thugs choose to make it their central issue.
*
It would cede votes to the GOP?
Benedict, a couple of things. I wasn't pissed about President Clinton's blow job in the slightest. You know why? Because it was a)his and Hillary's and Monica's business, b)it had nothing to do with anything, c)if the most powerful man/person in the world needs to let loose a little, morepower to them, d)because I really couldn't have cared less.
Your strategy is scarcely different than the "don't look, don't tell, don't, don't, don't, d-d-d-d won't get fooled again" approach for the military. Saying you need to study it some more before you decide is the gopper's lame excuse for everything, from stem cell research to California's budget.
Triangulation only serves in dragging things further to the right. No, I'm sorry, that approach, espoused by the DLC, will not cut it this time around.
As Rep Lewis rightly points out, Separate is not equal. The rights to liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation.
Rep Lewis lays it out about as well as you need to without alienating liberals or progressives or undecideds or however we label them who might be uncomfortable about gays getting married.
Me: I just want to know why I had to go to the web site of The Boston Globe to read this; why doesn't The Atlanta Journal-Constitution have it?
Joe Vecchio: Because the AJC is about the worst piece-of-shit newspaper in the country for a city the size and import of Atlanta.
I live in Atlanta and I say this, mainly because I know it to be true.
I assume you are exempting the Washington Times from your evaluation, right? 
Anyway, everywhere I've lived, people have always loved to hate their local papers, with varying degrees of justification. For my money (and, yeah, I live here, too), the AJC isn't too awful; of course, given the categorization of your sample set ("cities the size and import of Atlanta"), the AJC could be, say, the twentieth-best paper in the country and still meet your criteria for awfulness.
Comparing it to other places I've lived, the AJC is clearly better than the Columbia (SC) State and Record (although the State and Record improved tremendously in the years I lived in Columbia), and is also better than the Tampa Tribune-Times (on the other hand, it may not be as good as the St. Petersburg Times).
I dunno. It seems to me that what we see of other newspapers are usually their Greatest Hits; whereas when we read our own newspapers from day to day, we get a chance to really get our noses rubbed in the warts (like, say, Furman Bisher's increasingly senile mutterings in the Sports section, or Jim Wooten's disconnected editorials). I guess the print is always blacker on the other side.
Hell hopefully the GOP will press this issue, as if the stupid dems don't screw it up, could easily be turned into a huge dem winner. Just go out and have every dem say,
"I don't think that at a time when our soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq, we should be wasting out energy and effort to add bigotry to our founding documents. I refuse to single out any group for special treatment, especially discrimination."
Because this amendment is the GOP pushing for "special treatment" or a certain group. You've just got to point out over and over again that the GOP is trying to single out a specific group and create laws to treat them differently. Come up with a way to do this and every time it gets brought up more and more average Americans will be forced to confront the issue from the angle that they try to ignore.
If gay marriage becomes the Democratic issue, it cedes the moderate vote to the GOP.
*
The same could be said if the thugs choose to make it their central issue.
*
It would cede votes to the GOP?
No, if the GOPranos make a huge deal of this, it could easily give their votes to the Democratic nominee. Moderate voters will be turned off by the hatred and bigotry and vitriolic nature of the thug position. Not to mention its outright senselessness.
Almost everyone in this country can think of one of their relatives or friends or co-workers who's gay. The GOP campaign to cast these people as second-class human beings is, in the long term, doomed to failure.
why I had to go to the web site of The Boston Globe to read this
After a life of reading the Globe I'm sorry to tell you that it is going from being a great newspaper, when it was locally owned by people who cared about it, to just another purchase by the NYT corp, to be starved and diminshed so that the "American Beauty" can grow. The second great paper NYT corp. has killed in my area. God, I miss the old Coast Star. Now that was a great weekly.
The Globe still has moments of its former greatness, The Lewis guest column is one of these. Derrick Jackson is always worth reading too. Most of the other columnists are bad to really bad, Jacoby and Young being the last apples left in the barrel with good reason.
The reportings going down hill too. Especially the Washington reporting, surprise, surprise.
It would cede votes to the GOP?
*
No, if the GOPranos make a huge deal of this
*
They don't need too, it is a "status quo" item. They are in the position where they only need to react to gay activist's and Democratic demands. i.e., defending marriage in response. That doesn't require pushing something like a constitutional amendment, though the majority of Americans approve of a "defining amendment". It only requires maintaining the status quo "status" in a reactive, not proactive, political methodology.
-- I agree that framing, or punctuating, the issue as needing to create special rights for a special interest group needlessly and dangerously skews the matter so as to allow for the usual lurid polarization, with a sound and fury of demagoguery and counter-demagoguery that will probably leave the progressive/enlightened forces vitiated, exhausted, and possibly routed. And the status quo will remain. Still, it would be refreshing to see Democrats echo Lewis' crisp and unambiguous position, even if it imposes the difficult task of not letting themselves be slimed by reactionaries who'll frame the issue in the least rational and most pernicious way.
Isn't this the same dilemma as the ERA supporters faced? Opponents who claimed there was no NEED for a special amendment to establish and protect women's rights were able to take the moral and political high ground. They were, it seems, correct in a purely logical and rational sense, and the debate became marginalized and ultimately dismissed because pro-ERA forces became more strident and insistent. And, Oprah notwithstanding, inequality persists.
-- I disagree with Cynical, though. I guess I am more cynical, because I don't think that focusing on "real" issues is going to help. For reasons which continue to baffle me, the great broad mass of citizenry remind me of a "Simpson's" clip where Homer is trying to knock out Barney Gumble-- I forget just why, now. Homer punches him over and over, and Barney keeps yelling "Ow!" and such but doesn't fall over until Homer hits him reallyhard with a baseball bat or something.
Polls and TV coverage may "prove" that Americans really do care about bread, butter, and aspirin issue like health care and the economy. Yet it seems as if citizens will sit by year after year, slack-jawed and uncomprehending, while plutocrats cheerfully pick their pockets and transmute laws into one vast Wealth Press that squeezes a lower class dry while the elite grow wealthier. And people won't pay more attention to politicians who concentrate on the bread butter and aspirin issues. Appeals to rationality are boring. They'll yawn, change the cable channel to a recycled blockbuster movie, and vote, if they vote, for the charismatic flavor du jour.
If gay marriage is the central issue in the 2004 campaign, Bush wins in a landslide. Period.
The Dem nominee should explain his position clearly and then do everything he can to get the issue out of the spotlight and keep the focus on the Bush administration's massive foreign and economic policy failures.
In any case, the smart Dem candidate won't let this be the central issue. There are much more important things people should worry about: Bush impeding the 9/11, Bush disposing of millions of jobs, Bush giving sweetheart contract deals to his campaign donors, Bush destroying our credibility in the world, etc...
Do the right thing.
Damn strait.
bunny strip poker bunny strip poker bunny strip poker // credit or debit card credit or debit card credit or debit card
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
