I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Democrats should support equal rights for all. The 14th ammendment is all you need to read on this one.
OT: but "jumped the shark" just "jumped the shark". The NYTimes editorial page used the fishy catchphrase today.
Let it darken your keyboard no more.
It has to be "gay marriages" as far as I'm concerned.
Civil Unions creates a seperate-but-equal situation. Not only that, but it is what it is. Why pussyfoot about it?
There are many, many instances of our nation's lawmakers and leaders forcing law and principles down the throats of the majority in order to protect a minority. The majority doesn't always like it, at first, but sometimes it's just a case of doing what has to be done.
Well said, Atrios.
"Crotch inspection"?
Aren't there dogs trained in such matters?
"jumped the shark" just "jumped the shark".
Just the sort of post po-mo, post-ironic irony you latte-swillers giggle at.
Har har. Just you wait until the sanctity of your marriage is dashed against the capitol steps by the homosexual agenda...
Next week is Big Gay Week on South Park...
Dems should stand up and simply say that they're for equal rights for everyone- period. Look, if you're against gay marriage, fine, don't marry a gay person.
Let me add that I'm totally for pre-marital sex. I think everyone should have lots!!
My sense is that whatever institutions or practices enhance human happiness and fulfillment without victimizing anyone should not be interfered with by government. In France you are permitted by law to marry a dead person, if you want.
But I think this whole issue is a briar patch for Bush. If he tries to lead what will be seen as crude, strident gay-bashing, his already large deficit among women is just going to widen.
...there'd be about a week of controversy and then most people would realize it didn't affect them one little bit and they'd move on to other things.
-Atrios
Hmm.
Like abortion?
Much as I hate to say it, sapping the right's energy by letting them harp on gay marriage may actually be Ju Jistu with regard to other issues.
Don't get me wrong...I look forward to my sister's wedding. Her girlfriend will be a welcome addition to the family.
Yay, Atrios! I'm afraid John Kerry's nuanced positioon on this issue will get him pilloried anyway, just as you say. He's so terrible at explaining his nuanced positions anyway. As a gay man, I get very tired of these straight politicos like Marshall and Kerry and the rest. When will one of them take a freakin' stand?
If by some bizarre miracle the US Supreme Court issued a ruling tomorrow mandating states provide for equal marriage rites, there'd be about a week of controversy and then most people would realize it didn't affect them one little bit and they'd move on to other things.
That's sorta what happened here in VT. There was a backlash that gave birth to the laughable "Take Back Vermont" movement. Next election the GOP did take the House, but the Senate stayed Dem and Dean won his race, as did all the higher office Dems. After that we moved on to other more important things, like fixing our education financing law (Act 60).
I used to not care a whit about the difference between CU and gay marriage, viewing it as a semantic quibble over a religious matter when civil rights were really at stake. But given recent developments I can't see how we can settle for anything less than full marriage rights. I still think the "separate but equal" basis for deriding CUs is specious, but if the GOP insists on making marriage a State rather than Church issue, let's grab the brass ring right now.
Fuck the sensitivity of the bigots, and their lame protestations about the "rule of law" wrt SFO _et al_. If they don't love their fellow (gay) Americans, they should get the hell out of our country (turnabout is fair play).
...letting them harp on gay marriage may actually be Ju Jistu with regard to other issues.
sumwon
To be fair, I'm sure there are those on the right who feel this way about the left and thus keep things the way they are.
NTodd writes:
if the GOP insists on making marriage a State rather than Church issue, let's grab the brass ring right now.
What he said. Even if it does get the state into the business of sanctity, we don't have a choice.
Of course, we're all assuming that Bush will come out in favor of the anti-gay marriage amendment. My paranoid theory is that he'll triangulate on it.
"mandatory pelvic exams for the purposes of sex determination"
Maybe we should go a few steps further: Marriage is only for those who can and do reproduce. We could have mandatory fertility testing and a penalty or dissolution if no children are produced. Maybe a little genetic and religious testing too as a requirement for purity purposes.
Is anyone else tired of the gay marriage issue?
Josh Marshall is opposed to gay marriage for electoral reasons, practical reasons, pragmatic reasons. He wants to win. This can wait. If we push this now, by god, you...i mean we... might even lose domestic partnerships! Look! Is that the sky falling?
No, let's not dare stand on principle and flat out oppose the amendment. No, lets take a nuanced, mushy, calculated, muddled and indefensible position in order to dazzle the swing voter. Yes, let's do that! We can't rock the boat or upset people. Bottom line, we can't afford to be tagged as "the homo party." We just can't afford to do that at this time with this election. Americans hate homos so they will hate our party.
Another time, guys, but hey, the photos are great.
John Kerry is just another Daschle Democrat. Let's make this the last generation of these useless appeasers.
Is anyone else tired of the gay marriage issue?
I'm not, so long as the right isn't willing to grant them equal rights.
" I still think the "separate but equal" basis for deriding CUs is specious"
It is specious at the moment since, nationally, we have neither.
However, if a man/woman marriage is called one thing in the law, and a same-sex marriage is called another, it becomes possible to pass discriminatory legislation that curtails the rights of same-sex couples. And everyone here knows that the wingnuts are capable and ready to do just precisely that -- much the same way that black voters were gradually disenfranchised and jim crow grew into being after the civil war...
Yes yes, we all agree that separate is not equal, that the Mass SJC was justified in its "well, DUH" language, that gay marriage is the wave of the future (see under "Canada, Non-Collapse of Marriage in"), etc.
And we agree that, because of its moral righteousness and historical inevitability, it is the position that any Democrat with any spine at all should support.
The question is TACTICS. And here I wish some commentators would stop being so, well, Tom DeLay-ish about the issue. It's NOT black-and-white. It's not a choice between full frontal assault and "waffling" or "caving." There really are several dimensions and degrees of possible response.
And (one would think this goes without saying), this is a very volatile issue. It could work for us, and it could easily be turned hard against us. It could be used to paint the Rep-tiles as mean and nasty, in thrall to the slavering religious right, anti-civil rights, etc. It could also be used to portray us as loony liberals, anti-church, out of touch with issues of concern to Real Americans, etc.
In short, if it's a background issue, it works for us, but if it's a front-burner issue, it works against us.
The solution seems obvious, IMHO. The Dems should be for gay marriage, like other "obvious" civil rights issues, but officially we should say that we're much more concerned about jobs and health care for Americans than about what they do in the privacy of their own homes.
Let a surrogate group make waves, but the official response should be low-key. No big deal, no need to write discrimination INTO the Constitution, let's just all take a deep breath, let the legislative and judicial processes do their work, and let's concentrate on how American families are hurting today.
I wish someone would explain to me how Gay marriage will leave anything about my marriage "dashed".
The only vows that matter to me are the ones that I made to my wife. Having Newt "Boy my face looks like a rottweiller taking a crap" Gingrich dump his wife while she is laying the hospital fighting Cancer does not effect them. Nor does Brittney's quicky marriage/divoice or Kobe's inability to keep his pecker away from the, seemingly, mentally disturbed.
If your marriage IS threatened by these things, my recommendation would be, dump the kids off at Grandma's, swing by Smart-and-Final for a five gallon tub of Cool Whip, and spend a a hot and sweaty weekend thinking about each other, instead of letting weird little images of others dance around in your tiny heads.
I was surprised at Marshall's take on the whole thing. It's very uncharacteristic for him. My view is that this is an issue that's time has come, so let's get it over with. Next up, IMHO, drug reform. Here in the Northern Virginia suburbs I have yet to meet anyone that thinks gays and lesbians shouldn't be able to get married.
Now, my southern Virginia fundy family, that's a different story. But even there, most of them are somewhat ambivalent about the issue of amending the constitution, and EVEN WITH SOME OF THEM this isn't a huge issue.
Canada is a good example of the way (I think) this debate is going to go. Outside of the fundies up there, the majority attitude is, who cares? And that's the way I think most Americans will feel about it over time. Keeping it in the news will force people to think about it, and once that happens, and most people see that the sky ain't gonna fall, they'll not give two shits.
I think politicians like Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer are are typical -- politicians of any stripe tend to react conservatively to any social issue until it's freakin' obvious which side is gonna win. I think they both know that we on our side will win this debate -- they're just concerned over the short term.
I am too, but we gotta remember the old maxim that made the rounds in the Eisenhower Administration. In those days, some of the Cold Warriors were worried about America going soft on Communism. Then they would say, "ah yes, but our greatest allies are the Communists themselves". Remember Nikita Kruschev (sp) pounding his shoe on the table at the UN? The fundies here will overreact, and be perceived that way.
Bush won't want to come out strongly against it, but will have to. And once Gary Bauer and the fundies start pontificating on TV, Bush will be linked hip and bone with them.
"Josh Marshall is opposed to gay marriage for electoral reasons, practical reasons, pragmatic reasons. He wants to win. This can wait. If we push this now, by god, you...i mean we... might even lose domestic partnerships! Look! Is that the sky falling?"
Yeah, we need to stick with the same centrist go-along-to-get-along don't-ask-don't-tell wink-wink-nudge-nudge appeasement approach that has worked so well for the Democrats in the last decade.
Oh, wait...
I really have nothing to add to this
"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable im
Thanks to Gavin Newsom I'm now having pre-marital sex !
What renato said. This is so frickin' simple, and more than anything in my entire life it has solidified my disdain/disgust for the Church, the Religious Right, and reminded me why I've always been a rationalist agnostic.
Why, why, why do the Puritans still exist so strongly in our country? And what kind of morons do they have to be to not notice their cruelty, hypocrisy, and anti-Americanism?
I put the link to what Atrios said on the KU Young Democrats blog (which you can go to through my homepage below). He is absolutely and unequivocally right; the time for nuance on this is over. The GOP forced our hand and now we have to give them the bitchslap they so rightly deserve. We play to win this year.
Fox News is now reporting that Bush's dog "Spot" has died.
[Insert witty comments]
Lots of people have pre-marial sex.
yeah, there are only a few Marials around, but I'd like dibs on the Hemmingway one ;}
It's been a long time since there's been much public shaming of adulterers or social ostracism of divorcees, outside tight-nit communities of church-goers.
does this mean that they'll start keeping their cooties to themselves? I certainly hope so ;}
I really hate the 'gradualists.' Now is the time to push for marriage equality. A stand has been made in San Francisco. If we don't follow through then the movement will be perceived as weak. The Rethugs are bullies. If they see us backing down in any way they will go for the throat and all that has been done this week will be for nothing. These people will only back down if we hold our ground. Forward is the only way to go.
It boggles the mind how this issue could be so divisive. Two people who love each other want to be "joined" in the eyes of the law. It's bizzaro world. The fact that the issue is getting such play now is precisely the tactic of Repubs. It's a sure sign that Bush is terrified of not getting re-elected. It is a loser position for the Dems (though honestly I don't know why), and now they are on the defensive. By Nov it won't matter that we have no allies in the world or how many soldiers have died in vain or have been crippled. It won't matter that prescription drugs will cost more or that we've created a whole new level of underclass w/ the immigration reforms proposed. All that will matter to Middle and Southern America is that John Kerry might take steps to permit 2 people who love each other to have a civil union and build a family. What a strange world we have become.
This is so bad! Now we have even the nice Arnold Schwarzzenegger upset. We need to stop before we upset all our nice religious brethren. If we don't behave in a more docile manner, they might not let our negros vote again in Florida. Let's just stop, and issue formal apologies to George Bush, and maybe, just maybe, they'll let us participate in our democracy this year. I hope it's not too late though.
"The solution seems obvious, IMHO. The Dems should be for gay marriage, like other "obvious" civil rights issues, but officially we should say that we're much more concerned about jobs and health care for Americans than about what they do in the privacy of their own homes.
Let a surrogate group make waves, but the official response should be low-key. "
bleh, things like calculating how to get an advantage out of an equality issue is just the sort of machiavellian wish-wash that turns people off to the Democratic party.
This is a winning issue for dems, unless they punk out and go nuanced on us. A constitutional amendment is a radical undertaking, expecially one like this, unprecedented in our history and contrary to the spirit of the entire document. Those pushing this amendment are a very small core of exrtremist religious activists, the same folks who want to ban abortion, ban evolution, and tear down the wall between church and state.
This is a hateful amendment and Americans are going to have lots of problems with that even if they do oppose gay marriage itself. If dems take a principled stand against the amendment (which is not the same thing at all as advocating for gay marriage), and expose the amendment for what it is and it's supporters and their vision of America for what they are, we will win.
The nut cases out in the public eye advocating the amendment will scare normal americans, and turn them against the amendment and bush. Bush has to support the damn thing or his base will rip him a new ass hole. We should be exploiting that and forcing bush into the indefensible corner, not surrender and accept the one the gop is trying to force on us.
We will lose only if we deserve to by being cowards and hypocrites and spineless, nuanced wimps.
For the current election it may be a problem to overtly push for gay marriage (idealism versus realism). For may people gay marriage is a currently non-negotiable point (brainwashing works) and there are more important issues for this election (such as taking back our country). The Democrats can fix this issue after the election.
However, stressing states rights to decide matters such as this is something that the republicans cannot easily oppose. This was W's position before the 2000 election until it became inconvenient due to the Florida elections. There are many other examples where states rights have been trampled one being the medical marijuana issue. The current adminstration favors states rights only when the state follows the party line.
All animals are equal only pigs (republicans) are more equal.
We cannot be the first to notice the unnervingly poignant echo between al-Qaeda ("the base") and the cultlike tiny minority of mindless religious zealots often invoked as the support source for the wahhabi al-Bushi ("the base").
"Think of it, maybe George W. Bush and his so called 'compassionate' self appointed God-chosen base will announce support for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual dating and gay athletic coaches!", etc
More.
Hey, here's an idea. Why don't we all chip in and see if Vice President Cheney's Gay daughter, Mary Cheney wants to get married in San Francisco? That would be fun.
"Poppa don't preach, I'm in love with her."
I think we should sing song down at City Hall. How about this one?
"Oh the christians and the gay folks should be friends or the christians and the gay folks should be friends.
One man likes to pray to god, the other likes to marry Tod,
But that's no reason why they cain't be friends.
American folks should stick together,
American folks should all be pals.
Christians dance with gay folk's daughters,
Gay folks dance with the Christian's gals.
We should sponsor a competing proposed amendment that would prohibit any amendment to the constitution that diminishes any of the individual rights or liberties heretofor granted by the constitution, as currently amended.
Even a lot of conservatives would support that amendment. If they're real conservatives, that is.
dogbreath, I agree with you entirely. We need to have the wingnuts out on the talk shows pushing their amendment forward. It'll be good for us. Let 'em keep it up.
"If by some bizarre miracle the US Supreme Court issued a ruling tomorrow mandating states provide for equal marriage rites, there'd be about a week of controversy and then most people would realize it didn't affect them one little bit and they'd move on to other things."
Atrios, I'm shocked at how naive you are. This issue has deep political repurcussions for the party, just like the Civil Rights Act. These effects won't be gone within a week even in the unlikely scenario you paint above.
This is the age old struggle for justice against reactionary idiots. Marshall's take to go slowly exactly echoes the civil rights struggle.(a point that he admits to, but has no answer for)
That said, I believe that this can't be nuanced away in the hopes of gaining electorial safety. The time for facing this is at hand, and you are either for equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all or you are against it. Each person's position will either be as a groundbreaker or a reactionary, but make no mistake that the struggle will be long and ongoing with a political price, just as Johnson predicted.
When enough people speak out against the "conventional wisdom" it stops being the conventional wisdom and becomes only another viewpoint.
You would think that the Democrats would have learned that. There are 6 months until November. Far longer than it took Howard Dean to turn the "CW" on George Bush upside down.
Unless and until someone consistently challenges the "CW" on gay marriage it will not change. It seems from the actions of the country that this is not the polarizing issue that Republicans hope and Democrats fear that it is.
The religious right is small minority in this country, but as long as social progressives run scared the right's agenda will prevail.
... things like calculating how to get an advantage out of an equality issue is just the sort of machiavellian wish-wash that turns people off to the Democratic party.
So, rather than being Machiavellian we should be ... naive?
Taking a clear, principled stand on an issue without choosing to emphasize that issue is not "wish-wash."
A big, splashy pro-gay-marriage campaign by the Democrats is just what Karl Rove is praying to Satan for. The religious right is busily self-immolating over the issue. We shouldn't be trying to steal their spotlight.
This is a marathon. We'll win by keeping our focus and pacing ourselves.
Atrios and Matt Y. may be amused by the idea of crotch-checks, but I would not be surprised if the anti-gay types began proposing laws that required a certification of physical sex from a doctor or something like that.
May I suggest replacing "jumped the shark" with "humped the shark"?
" I still think the "separate but equal" basis for deriding CUs is specious"
It is specious at the moment since, nationally, we have neither.
That would make it 'metaspecious', then.
Atrios and Matt Y. may be amused by the idea of crotch-checks, but I would not be surprised if the anti-gay types began proposing laws that required a certification of physical sex from a doctor or something like that.
And watch what happens when some of them get genetic tests back that call into question what they've thought themselves to be their whole lives.
Anne Fausto-Sterling has a great story on this regarding a Spanish athlete at the Olympics (can't remember the year) at the beginning of Sexing the Body.
I'm a broken record, but the intellectually honest thing to do is get gov'mint completely out of the marriage business.
[dream] Progressives would take the moral and democratic high ground if they said, in unison, "In the spirit of true equality, we will give up state-sanctioned marriage and leave it to people's religious/spiritual lives. Every human partnering should enjoy equal civil benefits, as befitting a democracy. The right way to do this is civil unions for all."
This kind of thing would be a truly significant gift. [/dream]
Sigh.
Now I'm gonna wake up and smell the damn political coffee. There's a seriously tough road ahead, and I think everybody's just a bit too giddy about the "inevitability" of all of this.
Reporting here from Massachusetts, heard on WBUR (our local NPR affiliate) this morning : House Speaker Tom Finneran has supposedly given up his resistance to civil unions.
For those of you who don't know the Dramatis Personae of the Massachusetts legislature, he's been the basic totalitarian DINO conservative force attempting to run the place. He and Romney and RCC bishop O'Malley were the defeated alliance heads in the constitutional amendment deliberations a week ago.
That amounts in effect to a hugh lurch liberally in all further discussions. Finneran now abandons his pro-banning Republican buddies and releasing his partially mutinous knaves in the House from embracing bans. The effect is that the Finneran-Travaglini Amendment, formally before the adjourned Constitutional Convention session, is now the Last Stand conservative position rather than a compromise proposal. What it is in substance is: gay couples get the same rights & privileges but it's called civil union rather than marriage. (Though it's possible the legal language contains a conservative trap or two I'm not aware of.)
Iow, the Massachusetts debate is now for practical purposes reduced to arguments about the label.
I read Josh Marshall's 'position' earlier today too. I'm far more optimistic than he is that gay marriage will blow over very rapidly as an exploitable issue. The people who aren't polarized by abortion politics aren't going to get snagged by this one. The Culture War is turned and closer to its end than the Christian Right is willing to admit.
I don't know why people are in such a hurry to have John Kerry overtly take sides. Right now he has an awful lot on his plate- closing out Edwards is almost an afterthought, fending off the Bush assault is most important, gearing up a national campaign properly is the pressing managerial problem, and coordinately going after Nader and maintaining anti-Bush momentum is the PR front. He has no real leverage to influence the national debate on gay marriage at any level- all he could do is offer a shoulder to anxious people, and thereby expose himself politically at a moment he can least afford more vulnerability. The moment when he has to speak on the subject is in August, when the shadow boxing with Bush gives way to real body punching.
I personally believe that gay marriage will die as a serious issue before August. The "backlash" was all in December and January, the dying down has begun. We'll have flare-ups, of course- around May 17, when Mass. legalizes, certainly- but this thing is rapidly running out of emotional fuel.
Ahem....
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
Semantics. Ptui!
Is anyone else tired of the gay marriage issue?
You'd hope so, no? When an @sshole can't think of something better than this to get upset about, you have to wonder what kind of life he's leading.
That said, @ssholes never needed a 19th Amendment--they've always had the vote, and it counts as much as yours and mine. Which is why not pushing for marital equity until after the election doesn't strike me as an unreasonable position. FMA is Bush's only real issue now. But can you see that, if not for the folks tying the knot in San Francisco, this matter would have no more energy than his mission-to-Mars idea, making him look even more putz-tacular than he is now? (Especially with Dean out of the picture.)
Even as I type this, I know I'm wasting bandwidth--cat's out of the bag, people who've been dying to get married for years are finally doing it and they won't be stopped. The trade-off would be: They're happy vs. Wind totally sucked out of Bush's sails. What sane person can begrudge them their marriages? Not me, but I also like the thought of Bush sitting there with his thumb up his ass. As I say, a trade off---but which path's already been picked.
To defend Josh Marshall a bit -
I was also conflicted about this issue. If we call them civil unions and they get all the rights, then they should be happy. Until I saw the photos of the couples. Now I realize what this means to people. Its marriage, all the way. The only other option is to call all ceremonies outside a church a 'civil union'. And Brittney ain't going to settle with that. So its marriage for everybody. Even Santorum.I don't know about Gov. Perry. Whatever happened to skank-titty of marriage?
Re: crotch inspection. I think that you always need ID and/or a birth certificate to get a civil marriage. And I think those documents always specify the bearer's gender. So unless they are worried about transexuals or something, it should never really come to a physical inspection, even if they do try to crack down on same sex marriage.
"Look out [insert Dem candidate(s) name(s) here]! It's a trap!"
This is the age old struggle for justice against reactionary idiots. Marshall's take to go slowly exactly echoes the civil rights struggle.(a point that he admits to, but has no answer for)
That said, I believe that this can't be nuanced away in the hopes of gaining electorial safety. The time for facing this is at hand, and you are either for equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all or you are against it. Each person's position will either be as a groundbreaker or a reactionary, but make no mistake that the struggle will be long and ongoing with a political price, just as Johnson predicted.
jdw
one advantage that I don't think anyone has brought up in this is that anyone can have a gay relative and it's not intuitively obvious to the casual observer, hence making some forms of discrimination much harder. it's very unlikely that a "white" couple will produce a "black" child (unless there's some Strom action going on) whereas a conservative straight couple can have a gay child i.e. (Where's) Mary Cheney. regardless of how nuanced the response is, the Dems will never get the votes of the hardcore 'wingers on this, the swing voters are unlikely to care about this unless it's the only thing the Dems talk about, so a firm, easily stated position needs to be made and the subject needs to be moved back to the Repugs weak spots on jobs, the economy, healthcare, iWaq, etc.
So i guess Josh Marshall, along with Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and even Barney Frank are really doing me a great big favor by not supporting my right to marry, since it might cause a backlash. How could we possibly deal with a backlash?
It's nice to know who your friends are.
The Democrats can either stand with the Constitution or its Republican enemies. It's time to choose.
Right now, the remaining candidates stand for nothing.
Actually, Matt got it backwards. SF is one of the few places that won't require a crotch inspection. Make the fundies strip in front of their county clerk. We have already talked about it at my blog. The other interesting side effect of DOMA is if one partner gets a sex change operation then DOMA will force the partner to get one too.
So if the Cheerleader in Chief, or the Governor of Texas, past or present, were ever found to be out of wing sync, in their sexual orientation, would Scalia Smile if the followers of the Passion of the Christ descended onto Crawford in dissent?
At some point these issues require some courageous moral leadership.
That's my biggest problem with Kerry - no moral leadership. He's taken nuanced positions on just about every issue that grassroots Democrats feel strongly on.
The war on terra - most of us were against it; witness Dean's support when he took a direct stance.
Marriage for gays - we support it; he opposes it.
Kerry took his stances based on how little it would harm him politically, Dean took his stances based on what he believed in. At some point, as Atrios said, a leader needs to say 'This is what I believe in', unpopular or not - In fact, that is the definition of a leader, one who strikes out in a pioneering direction and pulls people to him. Kerry doesn't do this, and this is why although we're all ABB come November, we won't vote with total and complete joy.
Now enough. Too much Blue and BC hydro is messing with my grammar and punctuation.
"... things like calculating how to get an advantage out of an equality issue is just the sort of machiavellian wish-wash that turns people off to the Democratic party.
So, rather than being Machiavellian we should be ... naive?
Taking a clear, principled stand on an issue without choosing to emphasize that issue is not "wish-wash."
A big, splashy pro-gay-marriage campaign by the Democrats is just what Karl Rove is praying to Satan for. The religious right is busily self-immolating over the issue. We shouldn't be trying to steal their spotlight.
This is a marathon. We'll win by keeping our focus and pacing ourselves.
bleh | Email | Homepage | 02.21.04 - 4:40 pm | # "
bleh, I personally don't think the Dems should be using this in any way at all. It's -- as I've said here before -- a movement, not a political issue. Dems can have a position regarding the gay rights movement as a whole, but I think they should nose out of it for the most part.
Be simple. Be straightforward. Be unequivically on the side of civil rights, and say so often.
Otherwise, this one issue will eat the Dems alive this year. There are just too many ways to put yor foot in your mouth on this, and the Dems will find every manner and position in which that can be done if they try to use this for political gain of some kind. It can't be played politically, and the 3:58 post I responded to initially seemed to be looking for angles to play until I re-read it just now and changed my mind. *sigh*
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is not the time to go on the offensive on culture war issues. It's going to hurt us at thie critical juncture, when we have a chance to deliver a crushing blow to Bush and what he represents. Do that first, then worry about your culture war issues.
Gays 2004 = Greens 2000
Moebetta: Absolutely. The gay marriage hysteria was manufactured by the right to distract all the poor white folks from the fact that they have shitty health care and ever-diminishing prospects at gainful employment to focus all their righteous fury and rage at the queers that're all so uppity these days about getting married.
The Dems have been on the defensive about the culture war for 30 years. It's time to fight back.
when we have a chance to deliver a crushing blow to Bush and what he represents.
Oooh, you managed to get it exactly right, even though you didn't mean to.
We have a chance to expose that bastard for the slimy, hate-mongering hypocrite that he is. We have a chance to show America who the real defenders of marriage are.
Gays 2004 = Greens 2000
And as for that... Well. You can shove that sideways.
I think the S.F mayor pretty much stole the issue out from under Karl's nose. Now the issue has become taking marriage away from people not giving it or forcing it on the people. Its also going to be mired in state level court battles for a long time. How easy will it be to push for a national amendent when you have what will likely be dozens of cases pending
in multple states?
Do you think Bush is waiting to lend public support to an amendment until a Democrat takes a definitive stand on gay marriage?
It would seem the case... Neither Bush nor Dems are really hurrying to take a definitive side to this issue...
"Lyndon Johnson didn't create the Civil Rights movement, and I'm not sure he cared much for it, but at some point he managed to push through legislation which was almost unimaginably far-reaching. He saw where things were headed, and saw what needed to be done and he did it."
To be fair to Johnson, he understood what it meant to grow up dirt poor, and he learned the Central Texas idea of helping people (rather than the stereotypical Texas "ideal" of "every man for himself," epitomized by Houston). He didn't do the right thing because it was politically expedient; he seized the moment to do what government should do: help the helpless.
Is "gay marriage" the same kind of "right thing"? That's the thorny question people like Marshall are trying to grapple with, and not doing it all that well.
A "nuanced" position on this is a loser. Bush "wins" only because he can appear resolute on this issue, and make it seem like a "no-brainer." The Democratic response should be just as simple: "Why not?" Make the Republicans give their reasons why marriage is "sacred" ("And what does that have to do with marriages conducted by a gov't official? And 'no-fault' divorce? And ignoring things like 'adultery.'"). Make Republicans explain how marriage can be legally limited to "persons of the opposite sex," and on what grounds.
Some mainline churches (like the United Church of Christ) are already on record supporting "gay marriage." If the government says it is sacred, aren't they now in the business of defining sacraments? If the gov't is going to rely on a church definition of sacred, which church?
This opens a whole can of worms for the Republicans, if the Democrats just force the to state, clearly and unequivocally and on what legal grounds, they will declare marriage only valid between persons of the opposite sex.
Since homosexual sex ain't illegal anymore, and you can't require married couples to reproduce, or even investigate what adults do in the bedroom (well, so long as it doesn't include minors....). So....
Our position on this should be nuanced, but only to this degree:
Let them scream about "gay marriage"; our one and only response should always be "we support equal legal rights for all citizens under the law, as set forth in Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution."
In other words, avoid the whole trap the GOP is trying to set - never even say the words "gay marriage", just continually assert our support of Constitutional principles of equality for all citizens under the law. And extend on that theme by casting the bigots as enemies of the moral foundations of the Constitution.
Josh Marshall is right only insofar as saying that this should not be an issue we campaign on. It shouldn't be central to the campaign, because it drowns out all the issues that work to our advantage - the economy and all the other miserable failures of the Bush regime. That's precisely why the GOP will try to make it THE issue of the campaign. We need to refuse to play their game. But he's wrong if he thinks it can be ducked or dissembled out of being an issue. It can't be and no one should try - out of all the possible strategies to follow on this issue, that's the only one (waffling and dissembling and parsing) that is a lose/lose proposition for the Democrats.
If we play it this way, we may well see a replay of the 92 GOP convention, where the platform was all about "who we hate". I'm convinced to this day that that had as much to do with Bush I's loss in 92 as the economy or anything else. So let's force their hands on it, but at the same time, let's not hand them any ammo. Go on talking about the things that are most harmful to Bush, and make them raise the "gay marriage" issue - and every time they do, respond with the position of "equal legal rights for all under the law, as stated in the Constitution" followed by "why are these people trying to destroy the moral foundations of the Constitution by writing a caste system into the basic foundation of our law?"
Jennifer said:
Let them scream about "gay marriage"; our one and only response should always be "we support equal legal rights for all citizens under the law, as set forth in Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution."
Exactly. I agree.
Off the topic, but I just saw this and have got to share it. A prominent Georgia Republican, campaigning for the Bush administration, accuses Kerry of being weak on defense. Guess who it is- that's right Saxby Chambliss!
This according to an AP article in Yahoo news.
Don't be so hard on Marshall: gradualism sucks when your cause is just (how can one look at the wedding photos & think otherwise?), but gradualism insures that the changes are permanent.
We have a road map: Caro's _Master of the Senate_ is essential reading.
Don't be so hard on Marshall: gradualism sucks when your cause is just (how can one look at the wedding photos & think otherwise?), but gradualism insures that the changes are permanent.
We have a road map: Caro's _Master of the Senate_ is essential reading.
'Is anyone else tired of the gay marriage issue?'
I'd rephrase it to reflect the reality a little bit better:
'Is anyone else tired of the gay equality issue?
And then I'd answer it thusly:
God yes! As a gay person, I am ever so tired of it. Weary beyond human capactity for weariness. I think 5,000 years of debate is plenty. Let us just get it over with. Either allow us to enjoy the rights we are already guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, our human rights, or march us off to the ovens.
Our government needs to make a decision one way or the other, as living in limbo as to your very humanity is a disgusting and discouraging daily situation. It takes a real toll.
This IS an INTEGRATION and DESEGREGATION issue. We will never integrate fully into society if we are not allowed to enjoy the same rights as the rest of society because we are segregated from many of the institutions that comprise society.
We are wanting to blend in and are constantly rebuffed at every try. It is not we who wish to be seperated in such a way that we are second-class, but our oppressors who wish to maintain our inequality.
I don't look for our oppressors to ever 'give' us the rights we truly allredy possess, as those rights are not theirs to give. But, rest assured that we will never stop trying to claim those rights until such time as we finally do secure them.
"When an @sshole can't think of something better than this to get upset about..."
Ahhh, but, you see, for some folks, their entire existence is wrapped around worrying about what other people are doing, and thinking of ways to restrict those actions. A bigot is somebody that thinks that everything that they do is fine, and everything else, and the people doing it, is not.
I think you are right on the facts, that if we really stuck by principle and focus on civil rights we could win this argument.
But I'm not sure it is the argument we want to win. Rather than having the government recognize same sex marriages, I would like to see the government STOP recognizing ANY marriages. I understand there is a legal issue here. But that legal issue can be done under the purview of civil unions regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple.
I guess I say this as a straight single person who is really sick to death of the exhaltation of the family and all things familial in this culture. Do we really have to offer incentives for people to reproduce? Does the government really bestow "sanctity" on anything? I say it is between you and your god and your divorce lawyer. Get the government out of it.
The state has a legitimate interest in defining some concept of "marriage" for the purposes of providing spouse-specific rights and responsibilities, provide standard ways of dealing with child custody, financial obligations, property disputes, etc... Marriage as a legal institution is almost entirely about the state. It makes as much sense to get the state out of the marriage business as it does getting it out of the law enforcement business.
President Bush recently said that marriage a is a sacred institution. I agree. Therefore, marriage should be the province of churches, and churches only. Those churches that wish to perform same-sex marriages may do so, those that don't, do not have to. The state, on the other hand, should only provide civil unions, which do not discriminate between straight and gay couples.
That should be the angle - maintain the sacred aspect for the closed-minded, but also remove the ability of the state to perform anything called a "marriage".
It removes part of the attack line of the xtian right, while also avoiding the second-class status of gay couples that the "civil union instead of marriage" compromise may create.
SW
I think your idea does have some merit, but it creates other problems...
Elimination of government recognition of all marriage would be a way to solve some of the discrimination problem.
But it would leave Atheists, then, with the same problem that gays have now. If gov't officials (and their extensions such as ship's captians, etc...) could not grant a marriage license, Atheists would have nobody suitable to marry them.
It would only substitute one oppressed class for another.
"I think the S.F mayor pretty much stole the issue out from under Karl's nose. Now the issue has become taking marriage away from people not giving it or forcing it on the people. "
Exactly. I think it was both a courageous move and brilliant politics.
Here in Ohio, the state banned civil unions a few weeks ago. The reason they did so was related to placating some cro-mags, sure, but it had more to do with this being a battleground state in 2004 and setting this issue up here for same.
"The people who really care aren't going to vote for Democrats anyway. "
So what? There are enough people on the edge of this issue to sway this very close election. It's a thin ice issue that Democrats should stay away from right now. There aren't any people dying, bankrupt, or living on the streets because they couldn't get married.
Lyndon Johnson was president. Kerry isn't yet. Why don't we wait until after November on this issue? Then we can bring it to the forefront without risking everything else.
The state has only and ever been concerned with property with regards to marriage. That's the only issue decided in a divorce case today: who gets what?
Support of children is a property issue, and an issue of care, as the state must, to some degree, act in loco parentis to protect the interests of minors involved in the dissolution of a family. Other than that, the state doesn't care if married people have kids, or even if they have sex.
Put it that way, and you have to wonder: on what legal grounds do we state that couples of the same sex can't have the same property rights as couples of the opposite sex? Do we really want to say it's because "they" can't reproduce? What, then, of infertile couples, or couples who choose not to have kids?
The "defense of marriage" presently being attemped falls apart quickly when you ask a few questions and demand, not a defense of "gay marriage," but a reason why the government should even care.
There aren't any people dying, bankrupt, or living on the streets because they couldn't get married.
That may not be a true statement.
When the breadwinner in a gay relationship dies or decides to end the relationship, the other party may very well end up in the streets and may very well be bankrupted or even die as a result.
Either allow us to enjoy the rights we are already guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, our human rights, or march us off to the ovens.
Slim
Slim, I'm on your side but such a statement makes me cringe. I wonder if you have ever seen the documentary "Paragraph 175". If not, I suggest you watch it then rethink such a statement. You aren't doing anybody any good with such theatrics.
JOSH MARSHALL IS A WUSS!!!!!
Hey, I got an idea. I don't plan on ever getting married. May happen, but I don't see it. Apart from the impracticalities - I seriously doubt there's a woman out there who could stand my eccentricities and I have no desire to give said woman the legal ability to totally fuck up my life - the whole concept of seeing the same person day in, day out for the rest of my life gives me the screaming heebie jeebies. So, can I give my "sacred institution" to a gay couple who really do feel the urge to bond for life and all that good stuff? They can have my kids, too, since I don't want them neither.
Funny thing is, every conservative I've talked to about this situation - my folks, some customers, a few friends - could give a damn if gays marry. The ones who are married know it's not gonna make a difference in their union, and the ones who aren't married just flat out don't care. They know there's more important things to worry about. Even the token Bible-thumper at work thinks gays should at least get "civil unions, so long as they don't force churches to marry them".
I honestly think this will eventually bite the Bushies in the ass. Even them that were wavering have noticed society hasn't completely collapsed in the past week due to the fun going on in San Fran. It's only the hardcore bull-goose looneys who are WAY too interested in other people's sex lives that are yowling constantly about how naughty this is. Someone above made an excellent point - that they have nothing else going on in their head - but I'll add a cavet. Them that are terrified of gay marriage are sometimes frightened that mainstream acceptence of homosexuality may force them to think about those little dark secrets they've kept squirrled away in the broom closests of their souls for so long.
I've notcied a lot of folks who hate the outside world vociforously are just trying desperately to keep from deeply loathing exactly what they hate in themselves.
"Elimination of government recognition of all marriage would be a way to solve some of the discrimination problem."
No offense, but this is a classic example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
No one in or running for public office is going to support that position. "Marriage" is simply too entrenched an idea in the culture, be it a "church wedding," a "sacrament," or just a "piece of paper." "Marriage" and "civil union" are, to the state, the same thing (unless the state can provide a valid reason why one class of persons should be discriminated against, and so make "civil unions" somehow a lesser status legal relationship than "marriage.")
I haven't read the SCt case that overturned Texas sodomy law, but I'm guessing they held the state had no compelling interest in banning sex between two adults, whatever their respective genders. I don't see a "compelling interest" in any kind of law that bans "marriage" between people based on gender, either. That's why all the talk is of "constitutional amendments."
But those are cumbersome affairs. This issue is "red meat" for Bush's hardcore base, and easy for the Dem's to skate. But nobody is going to support throwing the whole thing out.
That's just not gonna happen.
sac666,
While I understand your point, what's really scary is that there's plenty of folks in this country that would be perfectly happen to comply with Slim's "theatrics". It's a bad habit - sort of like self-flaggelation monks used to do - but I'll dance around the Yahoo message boards whenever a gay issue comes up. Makes me sick to my stomach and desperately wish for a nuclear strike to just take out humanity.
Then I smoke some pot, listen to "Astral Weeks" and take a nap, and feel some better.
I've seen Paragraph 175 and admit my remark was theatrical! But as history shows us, the ovens have been a perceived 'solution' of governments to dealing with gays.
I was trying to illustrate the point that continually being in limbo truly sucks.
I'm sure my statement was going overboard -- for that I am sorry.
I hope I've not offended anyone badly, In case I have, I do sincerely apologize.
My equality is a very emotional subject for me, and it makes me prone to theatrics at times. But, I don't think that we can ignore that under a theocracy (for which we could be headed) that the idea would be impossible. Look no farther than Iraq and the executions which happened in the football arena.
What David E. said.
And stoo, we can't "wait until after November" on this issue, because the GOP is going to make it an issue now. Which means we need to have a response to it. Which as I've outlined above, should be to cast ourselves as the defenders of Constitutional principles. Let them make it an issue; we should refuse to engage them on it beyond stating that we stand for equal rights for all citizens under the law. Then let them answer to why they don't.
I see very few people advocating that we should make this issue a centerpiece of our campaign (we shouldn't because not only will we lose the battle for the issue, but the election as well if we do), but quite a few saying we should run away from it. The smart thing is to do neither - respond when it's brought up but otherwise remain focused on the many, many, many weaknesses of the Bush administration. We can make this yet another weakness for them, by changing it from the "destroyers of marriage" issue the GOP will try to frame it as to the "defilers of the Constitution" issue we should be promoting it as. They've handed us a golden opportunity to sling their own shit all over them. We can both do that and advance the overall cause of gay rights by standing firm on Constitutional grounds, but going no further - until after we win the election.
Robert M. Jeffers -- I understand exactly where you are coming from, and I know it'll never happen too.
I was speaking from an entirely theoretical angle and making the point that it would not solve the problem anyway -- only transfer the problem to another group.
You could not be more correct, Robert.
Well Slim, if marriages had no legal status whatsoever, and were strictly religious affairs, atheists wouldn't be wanting to get married, and wouldn't feel left out of the fun.
Anyway, there'd be places where atheists could have God-free "weddings" if they wanted to... you could rent a hall and hire a bad dj and just throw a reception it seems.
Slim--
I see your point.
And frankly, from where I sit (currently in west Houston), I don't see this as a burning issue. It makes the TV news, but I don't think anyone really cares, one way or the other.
Politicians will grandstand on it, because those truly opposed to "gay marriage" are most likely to vote in November, and vote on this issue. But if other voters turn out, and don't vote on this issue, it will mean nothing. Politicians, of course, can't count on the "sensible voters" to show up, and can bank on the "rabid" voters to be in line at 6 a.m.
Still, I think it's a loser. The only solution is to ask the simple question: "Why not?," and turn up to vote.
But intellectually, the difference between "civil union" and "marriage" is non-existent. No valid distinction at law could be drawn, and if a legislature tried it, I have no doubt it would be stricken by the courts on the same grounds the Texas sodomy law was stricken. Of course, then the result could be that same sex marriage was simply a nullity, but eventually the grounds for denying such marriages under law simply won't hold.
Josh Marshall is a homophobe. He can dance around all he wants, but, he is, indeed, a homophobe.
And I find it especially appalling when you think that he is a straight white man in this society. It is amazing how many straight white men want to make decisions for those of us who are not. Simply amazing.
"how many Republicans get caught with their genitals being where they aren't supposed to be."
And these "many Republicans" are demanding that Americnans justify and condone their sexual weaknesses to the point of giving them a license to lawfully engage in immoral behavior, hmmmmm?
Toodles.
Don't forget that the GOP has used race for the last 30 years in the South as an issue to distract the bubbas from education, health care, etc. The GOP could very well use this issue for the next 30 years also. Do not forget who you are dealing with here. The GOP are vicious lying bastards, and they have a base of people whose attitudes are nothing short of monsterous. I have no idea how this whole issue should be handled by the Dems, but don't forget history. We've seen this movie before in the 50's and 60's in regards to race. The Dems were right. But the GOP is kicking their ass. Discrimination against anyone is against everything we supposedly hold dear, but we all know the rank hypocrisy displayed by the right. They will bludgeon the Dems with this for a long time.
Interesting story.
About 30 years ago, not long after retiring to Florida, my dad's uncle's wife died. A little later, but not too much (as I must've been between 7 and 10 from 1st to next event), the uncle met a lovely woman in Florida, who was (I'm almost certain but I was just a kid so what did I know) a lovely Jewish lady with a great New York accent and then we had a new aunt in the family!
Wanting to introduce her to the family, Uncle Bill and Aunt Millie came to town and she was quite welcomed and loved by all. They would make biannual trips back here to the eastern Midwest and were seemingly quite happy and in love with each other for people in their 70's. When I was 13 we actually went and stayed with them for almost a week in Venice. (FL).
In high school when uncle died, I discovered from a family memeber on the opposite side that recently widowed Aunt Mille was neither recently widowed nor Aunt.
Turns out, she and Uncle Bill had never married, actually. These were 70 yo's *living in sin* in the 1970's. The reason -- IF they were married, she would have lost all claim to the income she was receiving on behalf of the husband who actually widowed her. Whether this was specifically SSI, corporate pension, etc. I do not know (not, tho, a private trust or other limiting entity). I only know that there was significant impediment to OLD HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE getting married for some reason under the law, which cast them, in order to share their domestic life and love, as sinners in the eyes of almost any church back then. Naturally, it also prohibited her from any kind of automatic inheritance (Uncle Bill was childless) and survivor benefits of the man to whom she was *married* for perhaps almost 10 years. While they may have had the *right* to marry, the economic situation precluded it.
So even though their cohabitation was no different than BEING married (she *was* our Aunt) -- that is, committing to and sharing their domestic responsibilities and economic resources, providing security and affection to each other (I do not want to think about possible intimacy) -- they actually were not, which proved as they knew it would on death to also have economic and social implications.
It was bullshit then and it is bullshit now. Marriage, which is by US law ALWAYS civil to be *legal,* is no more than the civil personal incorporation in which the 2 individuals become one civil unit (ie., joint tax returns, 5th amendment prohibitions to spousal testimony, survivorship rights, etc.). Trying to characterize it as anything else, or infer degrees of it via the lesser-privileged *civil union* as now defined, is akin to saying that certain business entities are by law prohibited from incorporating, which is not the case. It is up to the business entity to choose its status as sole prop, partnership, LLC, etc. but incorporation is not denied to it. If the state wants to posit an actual entity with lesser privileges as a
Wait a minute - Josh Marshall is straight?!?
I really feel like we had a chance to win in November and you are all doing your best to destroy that because, yet again, the Dems are supposed to be noble. Do tell me how noble you will feel when we get 4 more years of Bush, when a marriage amendment is a reality (whatever its chances of being passed), and our ecomony, foreign policy, and civil rights (that is, everyone's, not just gays) are in tatters.
I agree that the issue of "gay marriage" should not be an issue. I don't think civil unions are the answer because "separate, but equal" is not fair.
I also don't think African-Americans are yet equals, and I, as a white boy, happens to be married to one. Just as an example, my educated, valedictorian of a sister once told me that my family "let" me marry my wife. I married her (at NYC City Hall without my family's knowing and at the age of 39). Yet, my intelligent sister thinks she let (i.e., allowed) me, and furthermore had some legitimate say in the matter.
...
Hey Karen Schell I see yewr back. Where the fuck is my Pioneer's contribution yew turd? Don't yew have any money or are yew just all talk?
Atrios, especially as a gay guy, I'm so sick of gay rights this, gay rights that. I can't take it anymore. Go back to world and national politics, please. I need a break. Really.
Karen,
Well, last I checked all consensual noncommercial sexual activity between adults, gay or straight, was legal.
I'll put in a quick plug for LBJ. Despite his shortcomings, I really believe that he was committed to civil rights, and that he thought that it was right. I don't think it was just something he inherited from Kennedy and felt he needed to carry on. From what I've heard and read, he sincerely believed.
I think the question here has been pretty much covered from all angles for the last few days. Atrios is right - events have certainly outrun the politicians. Now the Democrats need to step forward and do just what Jennifer has said - tell the country that the Democrats believe in the Constitution, which guarantees all Americans equal protection under the law. And I want to hear the candidates say that they are against any damned Constitutional amendment proposed by the Republicans that would codify discrimination.
La "Toodles" - oh, so it's up to the government to define which private activities consenting adults engage in, to the detriment of no one else, are "moral" or legal, and which are not?
That's an interesting interpretation of the 10th Amendment you've got going on there, Toodles.
Why do you nutbags hate the Constitution, anyway?
All you people spouting this defeatist bullshit ("Oooh, we can't talk about equal rights because it's unpopular!") need to wake the fuck up.
The GOPranos are going to push this because they're desperate. They have nothing else at all they can run on, and this won't work for them either.
So if your opinion is that we should take a year off from trying to uphold the Constitution, what the fuck are you even doing in this country anyway? Why do you vote? If you place so little value on the very thing this country was founded on, why do you think your opinion should matter to me in the slightest?
Don't fall into the trap of believing this has to be a "wedge" issue. It will only be that if Dems continue fighting the tide of equality. It will only work as a wedge if the Dems fail in their duty as Americans.
So much for moral superiority:
Convention plan puts protesters blocks away
Protesters at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Boston may be confined to a cozy triangle of land off Haymarket Square, blocked off from the FleetCenter and convention delegates by a maze of Central Artery service roads, MBTA train tracks, and a temporary parking lot holding scores of buses and media trucks.
Under a preliminary plan floated by convention organizers, the "free-speech zone" would be a small plot bounded by Green Line tracks and North Washington Street, in an area that until recently was given over to the elevated artery. The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July.
Sheesh.
Did anyone see the HBO movie, "Iron Jawed Angels"? The parallels are amazing. I kept thinking that it was incredible that women had to work so hard to get and suffer so much to get the right to vote. Same for Blacks.
It's called EQUAL RIGHTS.
I'm straight, and right now, I don't even personally know any gays, but they absolutely have my total support.
Fuck the bigoted, ignorant religious right.
jdw
Yeah, the politics were brilliant. The mayor caught them so flat footed that for days all we saw were images of normal looking, ecstatic gay folks getting married. Those images aren't going away and I think they changed a lot of minds. Tha Ahnold response is awfully weak compared to those images.
Well, Toodles is right...sorta. The Republicans who get caught withtheir pants down don't demand the rest of us ingage in immoral behavior. They just demand we don't while they keep right on doing what they're doing.
As we know, It's Okay If You're A Republican!
Accusing Marshall of being a homephobe is a really disturbingly unnecessary chage, and entirely unwarrented. I don't agree with him, but I understand where he is coming from. I felt the same way a few years ago and I noted how well he articulated how I felt. Its not being uncomfortable with gay marriage. Its a deep concern that rushing to it could backfire and mean it will take that much longer to get there. That was always my concern. Because the public still opposes it, though it is moving rapidly away from that. We'll be there in a few years, but when State Constitutions gets ammended, it can be much harder to change things. If we ammend the US Constitution over this, we could set back the cause decades. That is exactly what I thought when this all went down in Vermont.
I changed my mind, though. I think acceptance of gays has increased at a greater pace than I expected. We also got damn lucky in Massachusetts. Unlike San Francisco, the gay marriages that will be performed starting in May in the Commonwealth aren't going to get reversed by the courts. This is for real, not some publicity stunt people will be able to pretend didn't "count". And there is nothing that can be done until November 2006 at the earliest. What I know think is that when they happen, we'll have an enormously powerful PR tool. People will see that this doesn't mean our civilization will collapse. The fake "nothing to do with religion" arguement, however, will collapse. But though I don't agree with Marshall's pragmatism on this issue, it doesn't even remotely meet the definition of homophobia. Tossing off charges like that recklessly will only weaken it when its appropriate.
I think it's worth pointing out that, if last summer we were told that Vermont-style civil unions were sweeping the country, and Howard Dean's position on gay civil rights would be considered the popular, centrist one during this election, we would have popping champagne corks for weeks. Let's not piss away our momentum through a tactical error. Supporting civil unions is tantamount to supporting gay marriage, because the two are exactly the same, legally, and once civil unions are enshrined in law and Old Testament God doesn't smite us all, the government will come to call them marriages anyway.
I think Kerry's got it exactly right; control the language so the debate is about gay people's rights and the well being of their families, not the word marriage. Cut Shrub's legs out from under him, and make him talk about hospital visition and parental notification. Insisting on calling it "gay marriage" just allows him to frame the debate in a way that benefits conservatives.
Well according to what I just read at Kos, this could turn out to be a wedge issue inside the Republican party. Gary Bauer is pissed at Bush for not taking a stronger stance on the marriages in San Francisco. If the RR decides that Bush isn't getting the job done for them - who the hell is left to vote for him?
...
Need I remind you all what we are up against?
A party that all but stole (and that's being kind) the election in 2000, that used fear (while probably lying their asses) off to get us into a useless war that has cost us major capital, both human and monetary, not to mention what it has done to our international standing, that has bankrupted our ecomony while telling us that things are getting better. A party that has much more money than ours does, has corporations in their pockets, and consequently has corporate media in their pockets.
And speaking of cognitive dissonance: how can Atrios follow a thread entitled "The Times They Aren't a Changing" with the current Crotch Inspection and its comment section.
And Slim, although I have to say it, and I see that you've backed off a bit from your comment of 5:24, I must say that it smacks of a similar argument from a kid who wanted to test HIV+ in the documentary "The Gift," a movie I found both revolting and incredibly sad. Are you really telling us that you would rather be dead than have "civil unions" and if you can't have "gay marriage," you'd rather have 4 more years of Bush and Company?
Get a grip people. Let Bush take a definitive stand first, and then let our candidates frame their response around that.
Being on the right side of history is fine, but if we get 4 more years of Bush, that history is going to be a majorly longer time in the making.
And these "many Republicans" are demanding that Americnans justify and condone their sexual weaknesses to the point of giving them a license to lawfully engage in immoral behavior, hmmmmm?
Toodles.
Karen Schell
nope, they're just being hypocritical about it, calling for sanctions on people doing the same thing they are
On the footage from San Francisco: "The mayor caught them so flat footed that for days all we saw were images of normal looking, ecstatic gay folks getting married. Those images aren't going away and I think they changed a lot of minds."
There was a story on the news up here that the King of Thailand decided, after watching footage of happy gay couples getting "married" in City Hall, that gay marriage should be legal. If Thai royalty is changing its mind, what do you think is happening all across America?
We're winning this one. The fact that Bush hasn't come out for FMA yet just demonstrates how weak the homophobe position is. The only thing that can beat us is the ol' circular firing squad.
Supporting civil unions is tantamount to supporting gay marriage
That is exactly the point: any politician supporting even civil unions will be painted as a queer-lover by the Santorums and Robertsons and Falwells. Any recognition of gays as human beings will provoke these bigots to continue making their anti-American noises.
These people will not stop, ever, until they have turned this country into a theocracy. Why settle for separate-and-unequal, when it still won't buy the political expediency some people so desperately want?
Wow, the party of shooting itself in the foot is about to live up to its reputation. It comes down to this: I'd rather have a democrat in the White House without gay marriage than another 4 years of GWB. Everyone who knows anything says this is going to be a close election. This is just the kind of issue that'll send independent voters into the loving embrace of the Republicans. Judging by the comments on this thread, I'd recommend that people get out a bit more. The echo-chamber effect here is deafening.
Government endorsed mariages are about legal and contractual responsibilities and rights. Church marriages are usually sanctioned by the state but not always. State sanctioned divorce is also about legalities. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce but Catholics can get legally divorced. It should be the same with gay couples. The state should recognize their unions as legal marriages if they are willing to agree to the rights and responsibilities. Any church should be free to "sanctify" or not sanctify as they choose. The state shouldn't interfere with church customs nor should any church set requirements for what in essence is a contractual agreement.
As for the campaign I agree with those who want to use the 14th amendment. We support the equal rights of all citizens as guarenteed by the US Consttitution and those on the other side do not. Put them and their bigotry on the defensive.
OK, this is totally OT: But one of my best and craziest friends says that he loves having sex with Christian fundamentalists -- no kidding. Because, he says, they always have the hardest, ahem
Don't know if it's true, just passing it along....
The interesting thing here is that the argument against it is the best one for it. When your prime argument doesn't even need a punchline.... Make them defend their position and break up laughing every time they say that they are "saving marriage."
"To be fair, I'm sure there are those on the right who feel this way about the left and thus keep things the way they are." - sumwon
Well, I'm sure there were plenty of folks in the South who were probably more than happy to keep lunch counters, drinking fountains, and schools open to whites only. Good thing Civil Rights were never put up to public vote.
There has to be a time when social progress trumps the high-handed morality waving finger in the face of the Religious Right, period.
As for all those lame comparisons of gay marriage opening the door to "OK-ing" bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc, newsflash: none of those things are legal for anyone, gay or straight.
Screw spineless Kerry. The only thing that he has "exactly right" is his ability to speak excessive numbers of words and say very little. He's afraid to take a stand on anything, so he always couches every syllable conditional language, in order to be able to change his position later. Just in case the political winds change. The Kerry supporters like to call it "nuance". The rest of us call it "chickenshit".
Atrios, you are so exactly right on the money.
Footage war:
Happy people getting married vs. Chimp in a flight suit
Did Albuquerque have the chance to issue any licenses before the weekend, does anyone know?
Look, Albuquerque, Chicago and quite possibly Salt Lake City are lining up behind San Francisco. Now other countries are responding favorably. How in the hell can anyone continue to insist that this is a losing issue for the Democrats? It just isn't.
If people are so against this in such numbers that it means that the Democrats will automatically lose in November if they support it, then I am at a loss as to understand how the cultural tide is flowing so strongly in favor of it. Thousands of people are getting married, strangers are sending them flowers, the movement is growing instead of being killed at its inception - how is this a loser? It isn't.
Tena--
It's only a loser if people are motivated to vote on it in November.
And by that, I mean those who are against "gay marriage." That's what the politicians fear. Turnout by the rabid "anti-'s," while everyone else says "It's too nice a day to waste it voting."
After all, what was the political effect of the massive, world-wide, anti-war protests? Even Max Cleland lost.
So the fear of the politicians is legitimate. They need an argument, and the votes, to delegitimize it. I agree with you, no one really cares about this. But that's, in a sense, precisely the problem. Because the few who do care, could make all the difference.
More fun with John Kerry:
Kerry campaign received illegal cash from contractor
Frankly, sideways - and you too, doug - if gay marriage is gonna be what pushes the undecideds into the waiting arms of Bush The Lesser and company, the pards, we have already lost. And Americans are dumber than I thought, because the ones I talk to out there in meat-space don't see this as something get all hot and bothered about. They're more concerned about, ya know, jobs and not having anymore kids killed for lies.
Atrios,
Civil rights issues have generally been popular and acceptable by a large number of Americans, and opposed by a smaller group of Americans who would be directly affected.
Also, presidents have done their work on behalf of enforcing judicial decisions (like JFK) after they were in office, and didn't win the election on that.
The gay minority is truly the litmus test, because they are truly a small minority. Do you run a popular election championing them? Many would say no.
You refuse to take their bait and run on your own platform, defining your own issues, even defining your own amendments if necessary (like how about the Equal Rights Amendment - needing only 3 states to ratify).
Equal rights for gays in terms of the marriage racket is not a presidential issue. It is an "equal protection" issue, thus a judicial issue, and the president's job is to enforce the law.
What Bush and Rove desperately need are distractions like this to get the focus off of their record.
I'm not falling for it, and it's not the job of the Democratic Party to announce that gay marriage is okay. The only two people who need to be okay with a marriage are those who are getting married. The rest is "equal protection" under the law.
But intellectually, the difference between "civil union" and "marriage" is non-existent.
As a matter of law, marriage contracts already exist across the country and can be entered into by the citizenry.
Civil union contracts do not exist as a matter of law across the country, so it would be necessary to create such contracts that apply to only a segment of the population -- specifically, those to whom marriage contracts are not available.
To undertake an entrerprise to create civil unions as a matter of law in direct, negative relation to an already existing contract structure would seem to me to represent at least an intellectual difference.
What am I missing?
Tena - I agree, it's not a loser - but at this point in time, it's also not a winner. The safest and most unassailable position for us to take is the one in support of the 14th Amendment, which also conveniently leaves the door wide open to making legalization of gay marriage very much attainable in the near future. I'm firmly in the camp of marriage vs. civil unions, because I don't want to see anything separate but unequal for these folks. By the same token, I don't think we should agree to play the GOP's game, which we will be if we make this issue central to our campaign. It distracts from all of the other issues where Bush is a sitting duck. By standing on the 14th Amendment, we can win the whole ball of wax, and not have any of the contemptable waffling, parsing, or weaseling on the whole civil unions vs. marriage bit. Let the GOP play this game by themselves - we shouldn't even address the issue unless and until they bring it up, and then only by stating unequivocal support for the 14th amendment.
An amendment is a long-term process too. Basic pragmatics would suggest that the Democratic candidate not join in the gay bashing but also not be enjoined in the controversy itself.
The election will come before an amendment is pushed through, so if the Democrats win the election, it's a wash. People will get over it, and the money won't be there to keep that up, since the immediate political benefit wouldn't be apparent.
Instead, the Democrats should come up with their own amendments, and define themselves and their own issues, and even pick up and champion the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which is only 3 states away from ratification.
Send a chill up Rove's spine, in a bad way and not a good way. Don't join in his gay bashing, take the high road, and champion equal rights by championing the Equal Rights Amendment.
www.equalrightsamendment.org (only 3 states to go)
I'll take this one slowly and respond sentence by sentence, starting with the one about Democrats being "on the defensive" on culture war issues. First off, the mayor of San Francisco, a Democrat, is openly breaking a law passed by the people of California a couple of years ago. He is also leading the charge for other city officials to break the law. One could hardly call his actions defensive. They are most definitely offensive, in many ways. Secondly, the Democrats on the national stage know better than to be offensive in front of the cameras on this issue, because most Americans disagree with them. Yes, they are on the losing side of these wars and such a notion is not pretend. Yes, you will be the party of homosexuality as long as the majority of homosexuals continue voting Democrat. Yes, you will be the party of abortion as long as the leaders of your party contintue to support keeping abortion legal. Yes, you will be the party of pre-marital sex as long as you keep supporting abortion and consequently ignoring the notion of bearing responsibility for the consequences of one's actions. Yes, you will be the party of adultery until you all stop worshiping JFK and Clinton. You are NOT the party of divorce though. Marriage comes before divorce. You must get marriage right at least for a little bit before divorce. Plus, apparently monetary, political, and social security were valued more by Mrs. Clinton and than any semblance of a healthy marriage. She does not believe in divorce.
The rest gets confusing in the writer's apparent lack of moral decisiveness and consfusion of what is and is not a 'right' here in the United States. So, I end with two short points I hope to get some responses from.
1. Marriage is not a 'right'. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution does it say every human has the 'right' to marry.
2. Homosexuals pushing for marriage 'rights' and calling laws banning homosexual marriage 'discriminatory' is like a little kid who plays basketball (and loves basketball), but wants to be called a tennis player. He (a homosexual couple) doesn't play tennis (marriage), but he really, really, really wants not only to think of himself as a tennis player (someone who is 'married'), but he wants everyone else to think of him as a tennis player, while in fact he plays basketball(homosexual relationship). When everyone around him says, "um, you're not a tennis player, you're playing basketball" he whines and moans and calls it 'discrimination'. Then he says, "hey, look at the tennis players, they're not that good at it anyway, I'm just as good at playing basketball as they are at playing tennis, I have as much passion and love for my game, my teammates and my fans as tennis players do." Everybody tells him, "but basketball is not tennis." The boy thinks for a bit and responds, "Look at the game of tennis, it's a wreck anyway!! Fewer and fewer of its players are committed
This is just the kind of issue that'll send independent voters into the loving embrace of the Republicans.
Polling of Independents over the past several months demonstrates precisely the opposite: Independents are MORE likely than other groups to OPPOSE a federal marriage amendment. Independents and young people.
Robert - I understand what you are saying - it could turn into the same kind of turnout phenomenon that wanting to get rid of Bush has turned into. And it could, I don't know. And I really really want the Democrat to win. I'm not exactly blaming Kerry and Edwards for not taking a stronger stand before now, but the time is rapidly approaching, Robert, when they will no longer be able to do that. They are going to have to make up their minds, and I believe that the Democrats stand to lose a lot more by not taking a strong stand in favor of the Constitution than they might gain by continuing to waffle.
We cannot afford to disaffect a whole segment of the progressive vote in this country. Let Bush fuck around and either waffle, and piss of the RR, and lose them, or take a strong stand on this and piss off the LCRs and others who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals, of whom I happen to know quite a few.
A big, splashy pro-gay-marriage campaign by the Democrats is just what Karl Rove is praying to Satan for. The religious right is busily self-immolating over the issue. We shouldn't be trying to steal their spotlight.
This is a marathon. We'll win by keeping our focus and pacing ourselves.
Bleh is right. But the analogy may be more like chess than a marathon. The first side to stake its ground will be at a disadvantage. Assuming Rove induces Bush's unambiguous opposition to gay marriage (and perhaps even civil unions), the Democrats will own everything to the LEFT of that position. Conversely, if Kerry or Edwards asserts himself unambiguously in favor of gay marriage, then Rove will own everything to the RIGHT of that position.
I say wait until Rove makes his move.
As a matter of law, marriage contracts already exist across the country and can be entered into by the citizenry.
Yes. But the legal question is: are those contracts restricted to certain segments of the citizenry (such as two people of the same gender who wish to enter such a contract)? They are limited by age (minors can't enter into them without authority). But is there a legitimate interest in limiting them by gender? That's the question.
Civil union contracts do not exist as a matter of law across the country, so it would be necessary to create such contracts that apply to only a segment of the population -- specifically, those to whom marriage contracts are not available.
Which, as you undoubtedly understand, gets us back to the question: to whom are these new contracts to be made available, and on what grounds? The state has a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to adults (not minors). But to people of the opposite sex only? And why a different name, for what will have to be the same contract? Will it be different in name only? Who will that satisfy?
Legal as well as political questions there....
To undertake an entrerprise to create civil unions as a matter of law in direct, negative relation to an already existing contract structure would seem to me to represent at least an intellectual difference.
What am I missing?
Only the point (which is probably my fault), that it's a distinction without a difference. At least not one that can be legitimately maintained at law.
Josh Marshall is NOT A HOMOPHOBE. That kind of talk is dangerous and self-defeating.
The GOP has been using gay issues since the 70's, when they were going after the ERA. They're more successful than ever today. The public has a knee-jerk response. Gay = evil, especially in the South. Pretty pictures from San Francisco won't change that anytime soon.
The best we can hope for is that the amendment doesn't get out of the Senate. People who are worried about this issue need to give money to Russell Feingold's campaign, as he has said he will fight tooth and nail against this amendment. Forget marriage -- this amendment will ban EVERYTHING. I think it's outrageous that people are so blase about civil unions when the likely fact is that 98% of states probably won't even let us have those. Ohio banned everything except private employer benefits. Georgia is going to ban everything. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are trying to. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Don't worry about Kerry not being pro-gay marriage. Worry about keeping enough people in the Senate to stop this amendment.
On second thought, maybe it's more like a game-theory chicken game. Will Rove or Kerry/Edwards blink first?
Robert, thanks for that reponse.
I did misunderstand your point -- that the distinction can't be suppported as a matter of law.
Man, Jon sounds an awful lot like JamesB3 over at Kos.
But intellectually, the difference between "civil union" and "marriage" is non-existent.
Since when does America run on intellectualism? This is an emotional issue, cutting to the heart of tradition, religion and spirituality, and to most Americans there is a clear difference between marriage and civil unions.
Marriage does not have to the plaything of the state. That would be what civil unions would solve if this became an "equal protection" issue, as it ought to be.
Looking back through the annals of history, you do not see any other definition of marriage than between man and women. We can't act like this is nothing now that we live in the modern age and Will & Grace is a hit TV show.
That aside, I don't see much point in quibbling over the "civil unions" and "marriage" terminology. It's an "equal protection" issue, and if it starts to look like people are going to rise up if gays are allowed to marry and this must be explained to children as normal, then you deftly come up with the term "civil union" that shows respect and equal treatment to gay individuals while acknowledging that it shocks a large number of people who will be led into dark alleys by suspicious leaders as an opportunistic catering to their fears for selfish and/or nefarious ends.
Remember that California passed an act (unconstitutional as it will be shown to be) that got over 60% support, and outside of the Bay Area probably over 70-75%. And California is the most liberal state in the nation!
Don't overestimate or underestimate your peers. Don't get dragged into this "amendment" when it's a red herring and won't pass before the election. Don't let yourself be defined by this issue as a party and thus contribute to a much larger turnout for social conservatives in the upcoming election.
Yes, actually, giving one group of people a right and denying that same right to another group of people, based on nothing more than who they are, is the very definition of discrimination.
The 14th Amendment demands "equal protection of the law." It doesn't say "equal protection of the law, unless there are queers involved."
Tena-
Buried in this now avalanche of posts are several where I've made the same point as you.
I don't see this as a loser, but I understand the politicians who fear it. I understand their fear, I just happen to agree with Atrios that the people are, once again, out in front of the pols on this one.
I won't rehash what I've said before (it gets boring), except to say the best response for Dems to this issue is: "Why not?" Make the GOP state the case against gay marriage, AND define how they will distinguish between gay and straight marriage under law. How they legitimate the discrimination. It would have to pass muster under the SCt. Texas sodomy ruling, it seems to me.
Politically, that's a bit dicey. But a simple "why not?" puts the ball in their court, and keeps us from having to dance around the issue. And it puts the whole thing in perspective, because I think you are right: most people don't see it as a problem, anymore.
Jon,
Excellent point about the ammendment. The wonderful thing about the morass of politics and the syrup-like speed government works is that things like this - an obstentially anti-Constitutional ammendment - is it'll take for-friggin'-ever to come through, even if it does. This is why we've never had anti-flag burner ammendments get past the self-righteous stump-making speech stage, if I may practice my alliteration on y'all.
I did misunderstand your point -- that the distinction can't be suppported as a matter of law.
Glad to clarify. I think I've been kind of fuzzy all day....
All that said, I strongly believe that marriage is solely the choice between the two individuals getting married.
Create your own tradition if need be, what does it matter?
As for the state endorsing and sponsoring a marriage racket, people who are gay do not choose to be and thus should not be denied equal protection of the laws.
Marriage is a racket, but a pretty widespread racket, and noone complains about it mainly for that reason.
The state should not be able to create rackets and exclude minorities from them.
This is the definition of the "unequal protection of the law", which, as the product of legislation, this marriage racket is.
"I was surprised at Marshall's take on the whole thing. It's very uncharacteristic for him."
I disagree. He comes out with paradoxical positions often enough. Look at his support for the war. It's almost like he is Beltway Dem taking a pragmatic stance that will provide a defensible position if the 'wingers win or turn out right. I say fuck him. He is being gutless about the issue.
He was wrong about the war and he is wrong about this.
Marriage does not have to the plaything of the state. That would be what civil unions would solve if this became an "equal protection" issue, as it ought to be.
Except that legally, marriage is a "civil union." How the church defines it is a matter for you and your church. How the state defines it, is what gets decided in divorce court.
There's a world of difference.
Trying to re-name the legal relationship is a non-starter. It won't happen, and the idea will offend a lot of people who will be affected, v. the people who aren't really affected (and know it) by "gay marriage."
Trying to craft a distinction between "marriage" and "civil union" may sound good as a political soundbite, but legislators have to function also in the realm of law and lawyers. And in law, there is almost no way (never say never, but....) to distinguish between the two ideas. And unless the state can give a legitimate reason to make the distinction (an intellectual argument, but while the body politic may be emotional, the legal establishment is almost supremely intellectual), the distinction won't exist.
QED.
prob, what if i am indeed fertile, but i have absoltely no intention to breed and absolutely have no desire to? my uncle has been married to his wife for like 20+ years and he had a vasectomy before they got married, would that mean their marriage is not real?
Robert - I admit I came into this discussion late in the day, so I'm sorry if I am being contentious over nothing. I honestly haven't read every post - I've been gone all day.
Maybe the RR will be "raptured" before the election, anyway. Wouldn't that be nice?
I just happen to agree with Atrios that the people are, once again, out in front of the pols on this one.
Says who? Outside of the Bay Area, Caliornians voted 70%+ to define marriage and between man and woman.
California! The most socially liberal state in the nation.
There's a lot of fantasy on this board, and I'm someone who agrees with the overall thrust of seeing no evil in gay marriage.
Remember those swing states you need to win in order to defeat Bush (though the way Bush is looking he may go down no matter what at this point, so maybe it's not as bad as it seems)?
What happens if Bush spends $30 million there saying Democrats wants gay parents on the PTA? Mischaracterizes and bleeds the issue unfairly and gets a record turnout against the Massachusetts senator who's in league with the mayor of San Francisco?
The people are NOT out in front of this. Rove and Bush are. Our job is to keep it on the back burner while the court does it job and nullifies anti-gay marriage legislation, including an amendment, as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, either federal or state.
This is how women became free in this manner too, remember? The ERA never passed...it's still waiting for 3 more states to sign on (and Illinois is on the verge).
The only shame liberals can share throughout our history of fighting the status quo creeps is the capitulating, tiny bite, bullshit concessions we make along the way.
From freeing the slaves and leaving them in an "unequal status", to the womens suffrage movement siding with the wing nuts to not let new immigrants vote.
The amendment won't go anywhere before the election anyway. Just win the election, and the impetus behind the amendment goes away, while the weight of court decision in favor of equal protection comes into play.
1. Marriage is not a 'right'. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution does it say every human has the 'right' to marry.
So are you willing to declare the entire State interest in marriage unconstitutional?
Why, why, why do the Puritans still exist so strongly in our country?
Jung would say it's because there enough transgressive impulses floating around out there that need to sublimated by people screaming, "Gays are immoral" while privately lusting after a same-sex underling.
Excellent point about the ammendment.
Yep, Backslider.
Robert, I'm all for every solution being taken apart in court.
The state shouldn't be involved in this, and should get out of the marriage racket.
Instead, we're torturing ourselves on these issues that don't make any sense.
For the Democrats, it makes sense to talk about civil unions, whether they will be upheld or not. People don't mind so-called pragmatic and inelegant solutions that result in what is less than the optimal arrangement according to rationalism.
See affirmative action. See our history. It's anything but beautiful solutions to pressing problems. This one is an awful mess of tradition, emotion, reason, and religion, and the politically optimal way to handle this is not necessarily the most rational and beautiful in arrangement.
The people are ALWAYS ahead of the pols.
WE are the leaders. They just follow meekly behind whatever their handlers tell them the polls are saying at the moment.
And the polls are turning in our favor.
JOSH MARSHALL IS A WUSS!!!!
NO GUTS NO GLORY, JOSH!!!
(in every sense of the term, wink-wink, nudge-nudge,say no more. )
Gabriel Nichols
Just read your post....I am black, and tears came to my eyes. I wish I was half so eloquent, to better say the words 'No, this can't wait'. Thank you. I am asking if I may take your post and send it to all my friends who ask why I'm pushing for equality for gay people. I have a honours degree in English, and I cannot approach the strength of your post.
Also, when I say I don't care whether the courts and lawyers don't like civil unions, I mean it. Overturn them. The best effort right now is to stall and disallow any outright discrimination against gays.
Once the election passes, and time goes on, and it becomes more understood that gay people don't choose to be, this issue will go away like all the others.
For now, come up with politically winning strategies that will handle the "problem", which is Bush pushing a gay marriage amendment.
In this debate, I often wonder if people have forgotten that the Democrats aren't pushing gay marriage on their platform, and aren't because it would be political suicide and distract from larger issues that bring us all together on this blog.
If the other side says they're going to discriminate against gays, just say you won't, you won't discriminate against any minority, and voice support for equal rights.
Then get back to your platform and issues and get them on the defensive again. This should be a non-issue for the presidential election, aside from equal protection support, and after the election, if you win, it really goes away.
jimm - where's the insurance that the amendment won't go anywhere before the election? If Bush decides to push it to make it an issue (and there is every indication he will), it would be to his advantage to have it come up in both House and Senate before November. And the GOP controls both. jon is right, this thing will pass if it gets through Congress; the state legislatures are if anything more neanderthal than the GOP Congress. Which is why Dems need to make support of the 14th Amendment their stance, and their only stance, on both this entire issue and the amendment itself - and only after the GOP raises the issue or tries to pass the amendment. If the Dems don't get in sync on a strategy for dealing with this, we'll face the prospect of Dem congressmen and Senators facing re-election voting for this un-American piece of shit, merely to try to save their electoral hides. So for now, wait and see. If and when they bring up the issue and/or try to run the amendment through Congress, the one and only position for the Democrats should be "support of the 14th Amendment". Otherwise we face not only the prospect of losing the election, but also the trashing of the Constitution.
David E - I happen to agree that the politicians always lag behind the people. I also feel that you are right that the cultural tide is running in favor of gays' right to marry.
Not everyone agrees with that, but that's how I see it and feel it to be.
I disagree. He comes out with paradoxical positions often enough. Look at his support for the war.
Josh was wrong about the war. But he's not against this issue.
I wish everyone would be as vocal as some of you would like. It's just not going to happen. Please don't alienate those who would support you.
That's just stupid.
We all talk about those that try to force issues down other people's throats. You need allies. Don't screw that up.
I think the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amend should provide for gay marriage, but I think the only way to do with supreme court precedent is to call it sex discrimination. This was the position put for by Andrew Koppelman (no relation and now a professor at Northwestern) in a now classic law review article. He then analogized, in a novel argument, laws against same-sex marriage to miscegenation laws. Outlawing same-sex marriage is sex discrimination because the only reason Peter cannot marry Paul is because of his sex. If Peter were a female, he would have the right. The level of scrutiny the S.C. uses for sex discrimination is "exceedingly persuasive justification." Don't seem to have one of those. Ergo, unconstitutional to deny equal rights on the basis of sex. This is essientially the reasoning Mass. S.C. used.
Importantly, homosexuals (like age and wealth) are not a protected class under the 14th ammendment. Not being a protected class gays otherwise only get rational basis srutiny, i.e. "rationally related to a legitimate government purpose." Just about any law can meet that test, so under that approach gay marriages could be banned. If this goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see if they adopt Mass. and Koppelman's approach. In case anyone cared...
WHOO HOO!
This thread has LEGS!
Jennifer, keep in mind that the California initiative went through as a vote from the citizens.
I hardly believe that 2/3 of the Senate and House are going to be able to vote this thing through.
If it comes up for debate, and they try to push it through, emphasize that it's an "equal protection" issue, and not about gays, or any other particular minority.
It's a government racket and state-sponsored benefits being denied to a minority in the light of day.
California legislators never would have touched this thing at the level needed to pass it. But the voters put it through. There's no similar federal process for this to occur. 2/3 of both the Senate and House will never agree to it.
Here's the amendment requirements:
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
...Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
That's what I mean. This will never go anywhere. The ERA is more likely to pass than this.
And it's not a presidential issue. It's the president's job to enforce the law, and defend the Constitution, not write or amend it.
Gabriel's post was indeed an excellent reminder.
Coriolanus, you can listen to or download Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s complete Letter from Birmingham Jail here.
Win the election, do your best not to be defined as pushing for gay presidents of the PTA, and the amendment loses its legs and impetus (immediate political benefit). Even though there's nothing wrong with gay parents in the PTA, per se, that's my own personal opinion affirming that, and I'm only too aware that it is not shared by a large majority of my fellow socially liberal Californians and an even larger majority of my fellow Americans.
I'm sticking with equal protection.
The courts more likely than not will too, and even an amendment can't conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (can it?), if it somehow managed in a year or two to make it through 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states.
doesn't matter
Marriage is not a 'right'. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution does it say every human has the 'right' to marry.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say every human has the 'right'to breathe, either. It is included in the definition of 'human', son. Will you allow me to take away from you the right to marry simply because it doesn't say so in the Bill of Rights? Reload, son, and come again.
and even an amendment can't conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (can it?),
As soon as an amendment passes, it takes precedence over whatever was there first.
The amendment in question should be viewed more as an effort to repeal the 14th Amendment.
Hi - over and over again, I am seeing things like this from otherwise well-meaning folks:
"Supporting civil unions is tantamount to supporting gay marriage, because the two are exactly the same, legally,"
Where on earth are people getting this notion from???? If our own side can figure out the huge LEGAL distinction b/w the two, and isn't confidently explaining the distinction to republicans and gradualist democrats, then of course gay marriage will never happen in America, and "separate and (not really) equal" will be enshrined in the form of civil unions.
As Human Rights Campaign states, quite accurately:
"Moreover, even couples who have a civil union and remain in Vermont receive only second-class protections in comparison to their married friends and neighbors. While they receive state-level protections, they do not receive any of the more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections of marriage."
It is fine to say that this is acceptable, but to deny that there is a non-semantic difference between marriage and civil unions seems almost like an insulting ignorance as to the facts. At the very least, it should be a wake up call that the public needs to be educated on its compromise solution, and FAST.
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?
...tentDisplay.cfm
Frankly, backslider, people vote against their interests all the time. It's important for that reason to pick your fights. You can either run on "jobs and not having anymore kids killed for lies" and, ya know, maybe win; or you can get "hot and bothered" about some other issue -- say, gay marriage -- and, ya know, probably lose. Depends how much you want a Republican in the White House for another 4 years. Ya know.
Thanks, monica. Didn't realize it was from Dr King. Like I said, too much Blue will fuck with your cognitive abilities.
The ERA is still around? I thought you only had 7 years to ratify an amendment. This means the FMA would definitely be ratified, since state legislatures have become increasingly homophobic.
Cornyn is working on the wording for the amendment and is pushing this in the Senate. It already has almost 120 sponsors in the House. They're just waiting for Bush to push the button. My guess is he will in May.
DOMA was in an election year. Even Wellstone voted for DOMA.
There's a really strong chance that this could pass both branches. It *will* pass the House. Senate...if it doesn't pass, the total will be very close, and some of those who vote NO are in danger this November (like Feingold). We have to assume that all the Southern Democrats (except Edwards) and Daschle will vote yes. We're going to be lucky if we get 36 no. Instead of berating Democrats because they don't go all the way, we need to make sure enough of them stay in the Senate that we wind up with less than nothing.
OT: Fun MSNBC poll on Bush/Kerry/Edwards
Kerry is beating Bush 78-18 ATM.. 
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4333218/
BTW, I remember reading that someone here was in Toronto. Who's up for some Mississauga mauling?
Its not right to let a few people gamble with the party . I want to win and Im not ready to gamble .The bulk of the country have not progressed this far yet. You can say its right and I agree it is, but its not time yet. We cant go gambling away our future. Fk that.
We cant go gambling away our future.
If enough people so eager to give up on the Constitution, we won't have a future.
The Dems need to stand up for something, or get the fuck out of the way.
The ERA is still around?
Yes, I don't know the rules, but it's still around, and Illinois is getting around to affirming it this year.
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org
In the midst of this, I wanted to mention the Mass. state senate race which is going to be decided on 3/2. The Republican has a huge fundraising advantage thanks to anti-gay Romney and his cronies. He will be the favorite and is already airing tons of TV advertisements. Please give your time or money to Angus McQuilken, who has said he will vote against any of the amendments put forth by Fineran and Romney:
http://www.angusforsenate.org/
Please don't post long URLs in your comments. They break Haloscan and make it very difficult to read the comments of others.
Please, either embed the URL as a hyperlink in the body of your comments, use tinyurl.com or paste the URL into the "URL" field right above the COMMENTS box, and mention the link in the body of your comments.
Please see:
http://tinyurl.com/2bzyk,
or:
http://web.newsguy.com/christucker/tips.html
For instructions on embedding URLs and using tinyurl.
And to those people who do embed or use tinyurl, thank you for your courtesy and consideration towards the rest of us. It is greatly appreciated!
"These people will not stop, ever, until they have turned this country into a theocracy. Why settle for separate-and-unequal, when it still won't buy the political expediency some people so desperately want?"
Because civil unions are not an attempt to convert dedicated right wingers to voting Democrat. They're an attempt to attract, or avoid alienating, squishy dems and swing voters. Just as the Bush campaign wasn't trying to win minority voters by letting black Republican sewer commissioners stand on the state at the 2000 Republican convention.
Atrios is so certain that a symbolic nod with no meat behind it won't innoculate the Dem nominee from being called an anti-family queer lover. Well people, how effectively was Bush painted as a racist in the minds of moderates in 2000, after the entirely symbolic photo ops he stages with black people? I'd say he innoculated himself pretty well.
I'm available to perform crotch inspections, depending on the gender and physical appeal of those who are to be inspected. Just saying.
God, I love literalist conservatism.
Well people, how effectively was Bush painted as a racist in the minds of moderates in 2000, after the entirely symbolic photo ops he stages with black people?
The media won't be so kind to a Democrat.
Bet on it.
When I was in law school 10 years ago I discussed this issue at length with the gay student group and gay professors. I opposed "gay marriage" b/c I thought of it as grafting our already transgressive lives onto a framework laden with religious doctrine that had been used for millennia to discriminate against GLBT persons.
Also most families in the US today are not traditional father-mother-children units anyway so why not push for equal recognition and rights for all of these types of families?
I also thought the issue had the potential to further demonize single gays, e.g., "Well Mary and Jane are fine with their kids and all but that Joe coming back to our neighborhood with different men all the time is a menace."
I still have these reservations.
But the issue has been firmly framed this week in SF, Chicago and now even in New Mexico - and I am not forgetting Hawaii, Massachusetts...
The bus has already left the station. So now it's time to ride it to the end or to continue to beg for seats in the back. I’m now on the bus.
My suggestion is to humanize it. Mayor Daley's comments really put the issue on an individual level. And when the Republicans seek to 'Willie Horton-ize' the debate I suggest countering that with statements from people such as the mothers of Matthew Shepard, Barry Winchell, Allen Schindler and others who have lost their children to gay-bashing. Let the ultra-right explain to these women how discrimination and hate are okay when it viciously robbed them of their loved ones.
GLBT people are asking that their commitments to loved ones be recognized publicly – how is that going to make society crumble? Looking at it this way makes the opposition’s argument look like a straw man.
Also if they choose to hammer away at it, there’s always ‘It’s the economy stupid Vol. II,' a trumped up war bleeding our country’s treasury dry, Halliburton picking the pockets of every American taxpayer…
"Yes, you will be the party of adultery until you all stop worshiping JFK and Clinton."
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought conservative fans of Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Rep. Burton, Bill Bennett, Arnold Gropenboobie, etc. condoned divorce, fucking one's boss, fucking one's staffer, being a strung-out drug addict, Vegas gambling on the Strip where people hand out ads for porn, sexually assaulting co-workers, siring kids out of wedlock, screwing around on one's spouse and having their poon posted on the Web for the world to see. I'm *so* glad upstanding conservatives like the aforementioned are preserving moral values by preventing gay people from marrying.
" I want to win and Im not ready to gamble."
Just like in 2002, eh? The dem leadership did not want to gamble by opposing the iraq invasion out of fear of losing the mid terms. It was a blood bath as a result, both electorialy and in iraq. And it was wrong.
Besides, we've already been delt the cards. Not playing is not an option.
Now that's a different thread. I don't see the media going nearly so hard on the Dems, or nearly so easy on the GOP, this time around.
What I'm not counting on is the idea that red states, and the feds, are going to allow gay marriage to be forced on them by Massachusetts courts. Either their courts will rule that they don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, or their legislatures will pass laws and amendments stating that they don't have to recognize same sex marriages. It's a tempting line of reasoning, but it's just not going to happen.
I believe that the power of what's going on in San Francisco lies in allowing people to see what gay unions (under whatever name) really are. Did you all see that photo of the two older women who got the very first license? It's the images that are changing people's minds, not the wording. If civil union legislation provides a foot in the door so that people from coast to coast have a chance to see what gay families really are, then people will come around.
Crunchy, shoots, scores - nothing but net!
Bleh is right. But the analogy may be more like chess than a marathon. The first side to stake its ground will be at a disadvantage. Assuming Rove induces Bush's unambiguous opposition to gay marriage (and perhaps even civil unions), the Democrats will own everything to the LEFT of that position. Conversely, if Kerry or Edwards asserts himself unambiguously in favor of gay marriage, then Rove will own everything to the RIGHT of that position.
I say wait until Rove makes his move.
Mimir
yeah, in the meantime the Dems need to be out front talking up the 14th amendment and reminding folks that the Constitution has never limited people's rights, only expanded them (except Prohibition and we all remember how well that turned out), so when aWol comes out with his position they'll have firm footing to nail him
Either their courts will rule that they don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, or their legislatures will pass laws and amendments stating that they don't have to recognize same sex marriages.
That's what the federal denial of marriage act says already. And some states have screwed up their constitutions to have similar provisions.
The problem is, thanks to the 14th Amendment, if states want to ignore gay marriages from other states, they may be forced to ignore all marriages from other states.
It'll be chaos.
NTODD..........a completely ridiculous response in the form of a question you believed had some sort of relevance to the issue. See, many in the pro-gay marriage camp see the issue as an 'equal rights' issue, meaning they are being denied a 'right' to marry. In their view, this 'right' of being able to marry is being denied by the state and federal government, as well as the supposedly bigoted, racist, homophobic people of California and elsewhere who have VOTED against gay marriages. Somehow, they say, this denial of their 'right' is unconstitutional. I felt the need to uncover the simple fact that there is no written law in the United States of America that lists marriage as a right. I am right, there is no such law.
You proceeded to ask me a question on the consitutionality of the State interest in the institution of marriage. I assume you're suggesting that because there aren't any references to marriage in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that the US Government shouldn't then be able to make laws supporting the insitution of marriage. The first case, gay marriage, deals with a certain group wanting social and legal acceptance, wanting to redefine a VERY traditional social, religious, cultural, AND legal institution, and after being denied legal recognition, deciding that they are being denied a 'right'. Unfortunately for them, there is no legal precedent in this nation that ever specifically deemed marriage a 'right' for anyone. The question you pose deals with a government passing laws in a democratic manner, supporting an institution that the majority of the voters have, over many years, decided is the best way to help keep a country and its society healthy. Such laws do nothing to violate anything in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Gay marriages do not violate anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights either. But, in the case of California and many other states, gay marriages violate state laws.
In one case, laws that hold constitutionally are being broken by a minority in the name of acquiring a supposedly inherent 'right'. How they decided it was their 'right' I don't know. They are claiming a 'right' they've never had. Essentially they are claiming the right to write the definition of certain words. In the other case, a government passes, through the will of a majority of its voters, laws supporting the institution of marriage, which violate no constitutional law nor denies anyone his or her rights, as written in US law.
There's no comparison, there's no connection between my statement and your question, they are totally unrelated except for that they deal with the word "marriage", which pro-gay-marriages activists are fighting to redefine. It's that simple. And now, as CALIFORNIA (yes, LIBERAL California) has done, the rest of the country will have to go to the polls, their senators, and congressman to make sure a minority of the population doesn't r
Somehow, they say, this denial of their 'right' is unconstitutional.
Have you ever read the Constitution? You should. It would be a highly educational experience.
Grrrr, damn, glad to finally be away from those freaks!
"This is just the kind of issue that'll send independent voters into the loving embrace of the Republicans. Judging by the comments on this thread, I'd recommend that people get out a bit more."
I agree that this can't be a major issue, because chimpco is gonna want to make it one to deflect his miserable excuse for a record. And I agree with someone upthread that it's best to let chimpco take the first step and then frame opposition from that point. But...
The hesitancy and palpable fear of Dems here to make a stand is disconcerting. Let's face it, the Dems were chicken littles wrt to Iraq war...they were afraid of being painted 'weak on terra', so many voted pragmatics vs principle.
In the end did this help them appear 'strong'? No, they were mercilessly mocked by the media and in voter's hearts of hearts they knew Dems caved outta fear. Instead of trying to move beyond the war vote to issues like SS, medicare, etc they ended up looking weaker then if they had stood up and fought it, even if they had been found wrong later.
Where is the public on the war now? Not quite as gung ho, eh? But do they respect Dems and has the party gained FP/defense credibility for voting for it? Not that I can see....why don't they poll just as well as chimpco after all their warmongering?
Voters can smell flopsweat a mile away. And how many of us had the shitty feeling that certain dem pundits were supportive of the war, even though they knew chimpco would make a hash of it, then appear to not be manly-men armchair warriers and think they are great strategic thinkers because they reak Pollack and Warrier Politics? I think we know who I'm referring to....
Your entire argument for the Democratic party taking a do-or-die stand on gay marriage rests on whether you are right or wrong about this:
------I don't for a second believe that "gay marriage" is particularly popular nationally, but nor do I believe that most people give a damn either. ---------
If you are wrong in your belief about most people not giving a damn then there ARE votes to be lost on this issue by taking a definitive stand. There is no counterargument to that: if your belief is wrong, votes will be lost. If a lot of people DO give a damn, votes will be lost. It won't be a question of how many votes Kerry won't GAIN by taking a middle position; it becomes a question of how many votes Kerry will LOSE by taking that very same position.
A few months ago my sternest, most unemotional, objective political take on this would have been that your viewpoint was definitely wrong, that enough of the country (aside from the already sympathetic and hard core bigots) simply hadn't progressed enough to accept the leap from grudging tolerance of gays to full-fledged acceptance, which marriage rights certainly equates to. It seemed like resistance, though ebbing for years and shaken legally by the Supreme Court decision, was still plenty widespread enough to be reticent about bringing gay rights front and center in the political debate. Especially with an exceedingly tight election looming.
Now, I am not so sure. I find myself pretty much in the same spot as Josh Marshall: My gut's telling me that politically this issue is still too hot to handle head on, but it is amazing how affecting the images are of the gay couples who have married. There's a splendid sense of relief that transmits along with the joy and affection; and I wonder if this is enough to change some hearts and minds. It's certainly chipping away rapidly at conventional wisdom and changing the political calculus.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause (FFCC) is what DOMA seeks to do an end-run around.
US Const. Art IV, Sections 1 and 2:
"Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
For and excellent analysis of DOMA/FFCC problemsSee
http://www.geocities.com/njcivil...lunion/
full.htm
there is no legal precedent in this nation that ever specifically deemed marriage a 'right' for anyone.
Umm, you're way off on that one. As SCOTUS wrote in Zablocki vs Redhall
The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. Virginia (1967). In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia's miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. The Court's language on the latter point bears repeating: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
Hmmm, seems that SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a pretty fundamental civil right.
To doesn't matter - you're argument is a thinly veiled and well-worn bullshit conservative argument "gays want special rights" .
GLBT persons are not seeking special rights or extra rights, we are seeking equal rights.
Moreover, marriage laws have always been the province of the individual states.
You repeublicans cannot have your cake and hate it too. You all crow about limiting the powers of the federal government ad nauseum but now you're whining that if the federal government does not act to protect your bigoted and narrow views then society will crumble.
Society will not crumble. But your fear mongering will lose a lot of its power. That's why you're screaming like stuck pigs over this issue.
Toto is pulling back the curtain.
Coriolanus....
You're so right!!!! The Bill of Rights doesn't say I have the right to breathe, specifically!!!!! Wow, what an expert. Now you can come suffocate me......except for that would be illegal under state and federal laws, which are constitutional and protect my right to pursue happiness which I can only do while I'm alive, or so we all assume. You want to argue that point?
And what was that last question? "Will you allow me to take away from you the right to marry simply because it doesn't say so in the Bill of Rights?" Um.........let me explain to the slower ones. You can't take away my right to marry.....so allowing or not allowing you to do so is inconsequential. I don't have a right to marry. I do have a right to religious freedom which is where marriage comes from, from religion. So you have no way, besides suffocating me, of stopping me from being married. Whether my marriage is LEGALLY recognized by the government as a 'marriage' is another matter.
monica_nyc: Polling of Independents over the past several months demonstrates precisely the opposite: Independents are MORE likely than other groups to OPPOSE a federal marriage amendment. Independents and young people.
Wow, monica_nyc, you word your arguments like the Bush Administration. Sure, most people are against a "federal marriage amendment" but we were talking about -- and the quote you used of mine makes clear -- how Independents view gay marriage.
For a good time, have a look at these stats (pdf) from a report from Pew Research done last November. People identified either as "Independent" or "Democrat" were against gay marriage 52 to 39%.
While all polls point to a growing acceptance of gay union or gay marriage, common sense dictates that as you move from left to right on the political spectrum, that acceptance of gay marriage is likely to go down. Even in a recent ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll conducted last month, you can see this pattern (scroll down to "Views of same-sex marriage).
Gay Marriage is not an issue that's going to help us put a Democrat in the White House.
Don't you find it creepy how interested republicans are in what goes on in people's bedrooms? It is downright creepy. They really have an abnormal obsession with sex.
laws that hold constitutionally are being broken by a minority in the name of acquiring a supposedly inherent 'right'
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the argument was that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman ran afoul of the California Constitution. If there's a legal conflict, it's simply nonsense to say that anyone is defying anything until that legal conflict is sorted out.
" I want to win and Im not ready to gamble."
Just like in 2002, eh? The dem leadership did not want to gamble by opposing the iraq invasion out of fear of losing the mid terms. It was a blood bath as a result, both electorialy and in iraq. And it was wrong.
Besides, we've already been delt the cards. Not playing is not an option.
dogbreath.
Nice try dogbreath. Apparently you possess the crystal ball mentality that the administration has used for the last three years. Somehow you know that had the Democrats come out strongly against the war, there would not have been a bloodbath.
Do tell: how is that logically possible?
The sudden issue of same sex marriage will be a physical/chemical shock to many voters' brains. If the term 'civil union' helps voters through the shock -- a little delusion therapy -- then use it.
We need delusion. It's a universal coping tool used to modify brain chemistry. Why deny the Democrats the benefit of this useful tool?
Whether my marriage is LEGALLY recognized by the government as a 'marriage' is another matter.
No, it's the whole point.
Straight people get married and the state recognizes it. Gay people get married and the state refuses to recognize it.
Discrimination, plain and simple. Also unconstitutional.
Sideways:
Ruy Teixeira has also been looking at polling data. Here's what he writes:
The Gallup poll also finds that the issue of same-sex mariage ranks dead last--14th of out of 14--in a long list of issues respondents were asked to evaluate for their importance in affecting their presidential vote.
Now, people are assuming that this issue will be the defining issue of the campaign. That may or may not be the case. The task for the Democratic nominee is to take the issue away from Bush. If you give him the issue, he can take ahold of it, fan the flames of bigotry, and run with it, making it an issue.
If you turn it around--attack him with something like "George Bush claims to be protecting America's families by amending the Constitution. Could it be that his attacks on gay families are meant to distract people from the fact that American families have lost jobs since he took office?"--you can neutralize the issue.
I've been arguing for a long time that the issue doesn't need to hurt Dems. The task, though, is to not let it be used against us. That doesn't mean coming out and saying "Yes, same-sex marriage must be legal now" even though that's what I'd prefer to see happen. The issue is here--it's going to be pushed by Bush. Turn it around and use it to our advantage! People may not like gay marriage, but as of right now, they're not basing their decision on it--KEEP IT THAT WAY!
The difference between the passage of Prop 22 or other anti-gay ballot initiatives is that those were the specific focus of a question on the ballot. The election of a president will deal with many questions. A key point is that advocating for gay equality and beating Bush are not mutually exclusive--the question is how to do both!!
-Off topic time-
My family is all about what Gore wrote, I would lay it out, but I suspect you've beaten this dog to death, and those here usually teach more than I think I know-
Anyways, if fourth link is true, they won't need the social division thing for a while... till the truth bleeds like a rubber turkee-
Eschaton Principles Found
Scapegoat the CIA at your own Peril (Pitt Phrase)
Max Cleland needs to learn how to frame it,
Opps, dumbasses, to late, except JEds knows how Bush Knew, via Phoenix memo... Hmmmm...
MAJEFF ---
Notice the term 'couple' in the decision. I'm assuming this meant one male and one female. As I stated to Coriolanus, my right is to religious freedom which, for many of the major religions of the world, includes marriage as one of its most important sacraments. Traditionally, these 'marriages' have been defined as being between a man and a woman. This definition has been so understood that there has never been any need, utnil now, to be specific about the gender of the participants. There was once a time when polygamy was legal in parts of the US. Over the years people decided polygamy wasn't healthy for society and voted against it.
PS Judges don't MAKE law, lawmakers do.....well, excuse me, apparently nowadays they DO make law. Instead of doing their jobs (following laws) and deciding what is or is not legal (as described by laws made by representatives elected by citizens) both liberal AND conservative judges have decided to ignore their specific duties and create rights and laws out of almost nothing.
I felt the need to uncover the simple fact that there is no written law in the United States of America that lists marriage as a right. I am right, there is no such law.
As the SCOTUS has shown us, there is a right to privacy, even though there is no mention of it in the Big C. We also have the right to have sex, gay or otherwise, yet there is no explicit Constitutional reference to such a thing, either. As humans, we have many inherent rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which, of course, is not enshrined in the Big C, but the Declaration is a founding document). I would put marriage under the auspices of any of the aforementioned concepts.
I'll also note that the only thing the Big C ever needs to explicitly state is what powers the government has. The document is designed to restrict the State's powers, not civil rights. While we might enshrine specific rights to guarantee they are not overridden (e.g., freedom of speech, with Founders like Hamilton argued needed no protections because it was a no-brainer), the lack of wording about a particular right should never be taken as evidence that it doesn't exist.
Certainly the right to love someone and join in a union with them is self-evident.
As I stated to Coriolanus, my right is to religious freedom which, for many of the major religions of the world, includes marriage as one of its most important sacraments.
Oh, so it's a religious matter now, is it?
My religion says I can marry a man if I choose to. My religion will even bless that union, and my religion considers it as sacred as any other. Are you suggesting that the state is allowed to elevate your religion above mine?
(Incidentally, if those specious, half-baked "arguments" being offered up are the best that the anti-Constitution forces can come up with, I think the odds are better than average that equality will triumph over hate.)
The Court was clear. Marriage is a fundamental right. Marriage is a contract between the state and the two partners. Religion matters not at all--as evidenced by the separation between religious marriage and civil marriage--we're dealing with two things here. Even when same-sex couples get married here (as they are currently doing in other countries) your religious freedom will not be affected. Churches will be free to grant or refuse the "sacrament" (not all religions recognize it as a sacrament) to whomever they please.
Sagesource..........
Your argument that while the constitutionality of a law (a law ALREADY written on the books) is being debated that all is suddenly legal is a bit weak. So if the constitutionality of a law against kidnapping is being MERELY debated (while laws have already been WRITTEN against it), I can go kidnap someone and it's nonsense for anyone to say I'm defying law??
Frankly, I'm just worried about the increase in man-on-shoggoth sex I keep hearing about these days.
vivan las tetas.
(º)(º)
PS Judges don't MAKE law, lawmakers do.....well, excuse me, apparently nowadays they DO make law. Instead of doing their jobs (following laws) and deciding what is or is not legal (as described by laws made by representatives elected by citizens) both liberal AND conservative judges have decided to ignore their specific duties and create rights and laws out of almost nothing.
Bzzz! The concept of judicial review goes back to 1803 and Marbury v. Madison. It has been clearly established that courts have the right to rule on whether laws are in line with the Constitution. Ruling that anti-miscegenation laws, anti-sodomy laws, or restrictions on gay marriage is completely in the demesne of the judiciary.
And your assumptions about one man and one woman in the ruling MAJeff cited only betrays your bigotry and ignores the obvious fact that the court found there is a fundamental right to marry.
Seraphiel - the religious freedom argument was where I wanted to head next. As George Fox, the founder of my faith said:
For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests' or magistrates'; for it is God's ordinance and not man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses.
Of course, this is the crux of the entire argument. If we reduce marriage to its natural state, a matter of faith, then the State should stay out of it completely as it is an issue of freedom to practice religion. That's why the wingers want an amendment--so they're def'n is enshrined--and why I find it laughable that they still attempt to argue from constitutional grounds in the absence of an amendment.
MAJeff:
I did read the RT post and, perhaps unfairly, felt he was preaching a little to the converted.
The cautionary part of the Gallup Poll he cites is worth repeating here. You can find it under "Bottom Line":
All in all, the issue of same-sex marriage is not one that is viewed as highly important at this point in time. Still, issues that do not initially appear to be important sometimes have a way of becoming symbolically significant in an election. In a close race, relatively minor issues can become the ones that sway enough voters to make a significant difference....
More generally, if the issue does become a hotly debated one in the coming campaign, it would appear that a candidate's position that in some way registers opposition to the basic concept of same-sex marriage would be most effective in terms of appealing to the largest number of voters.
Emphasis added.
"...so their def'n..."
But you knew that.
Rove and the bigots have millions of dollars they've raised to help promote the FMA. I think it's up to $20 or $30 million. That is going to come into play very soon. My guess is by April. Ad campaigns, pamphlets, push-polling, whisper campaigns in schools and business, you name it. The Democrats just need to keep hammering away about not wanting to amend the Constitution and that the current amendment would ban everything. Because support for the amendment, and voters who say this is their most important issue, *will* go up and up and up as the year goes on. We're just in the early stages here. And until we see polls taken after the SF weddings/media coverage, we shouldn't take for granted that hearts will melt or opinions will improve on this issue. I'm guessing that opposition will rise, and acceptance of the amendment will also rise. Don't underestimate the power of fundie media and Bush fright.
BTW, as others have said, let everyone out there know the difference between civil unions and same-sex marriage. It's amazing how many, even 20-40% of gays, don't knwo the difference.
"I felt the need to uncover the simple fact that there is no written law in the United States of America that lists marriage as a right. "
For someone who speaks with such bluster, you are an ignormaous when it comes to understanding your own constitution.
Ever heard of something called the equal protection clause? Didn't think so.
I say "civil unions" for straight people, too. What interest does the state have in anything else?
Let's have health care, inheritance, child support, etc for couples (regardless of gender), without the baggage of the highly suspect institution of marriage...
An institution which, not so very long ago in America meant loss of all civil (and even bodily) rights of a woman to the man she married.
Not to mention the downsides of modern bridal-industrial complex, yecch!
And while we're about equal rights -- please, equal rights and recognition for single people, too.
Whatever the Dems should strategically do on this, I think gay marriage as a wedge is rather backfiring in the Rethugs faces politically. Definitely not the Roviavellian slam-dunk they had hoped.
And, as an added plus, by way of actual policy we have advanced light years in the past couple weeks in a stunningly beautiful way. Again not what they anticipated!
Most funny is how it pisses off the rat-wang extremists that the GOP leaders aren't doing more to stop it all.
I wonder what a gallup poll would indicate now after a week of gay marriages.
My first post. I'm a 50 year old gay guy and I have to say Atrios has it just right.
seraphiel...........
Actually yes, the government SHOULD elevate some religions above others, if some of them break laws or if some religions are deemed immoral by a majority of the citizenry. Some marriage practices in this world include 'female circumcision' which many here would not stand for. I am in NO WAY saying gays marrying each other equates to an act like that, but it does refute your notion that a government should NEVER elevate one religion over another, even if the people have voted to do so. Such is democracy.
Actually yes, the government SHOULD elevate some religions above others
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sum total of the argument against marriage equality. I think it speaks for itself.
And, dm, you really should go join you Taliban pals in Afghanistan. No room for theocrats here.
Amazing froth and vigor tonight: RDHL: Republican Distraction Muckup Language over TCP/IP.
Too bad for Bush if they capture Osama this week. Should wait another 5 months.
Meanwhile, reports are emerging that thousands of white men across America are joining the "Not Like George" movement, disavowing linking American manhood with the performance of George W. Bush.
Wow, monica_nyc, you word your arguments like the Bush Administration.
Nice, cheap shot.
I guess you strongly disagree with me then and should just scroll past my propaganda -- sideways.
(Incidentally, if those specious, half-baked "arguments" being offered up are the best that the anti-Constitution forces can come up with, I think the odds are better than average that equality will triumph over hate.)
That nails it Seraphiel - how many years have I heard these argument - they have become so threadbare the fabric is finally tearing.
uh, having problems w/ the italics thing and spelling - sorry.
seraphiel.........you assume the arguments are made out of hate and not from thousands of years of EVIDENCE and TRADITION.......and equality is the god of your religion, not justice, honor, truth, respect, or even love. For if you did have so much LOVE you'd realize what is best for the raising of a child. Marriage may not be at its best nowadays, but when it is, when a family with one father and one mother work well, there is no better way to raise a morally upright human being.
In my next life, I don't wanna be gay. I can't take it anymore.
thousands of years of EVIDENCE and TRADITION
For thousands of years, women weren't allowed to have an opinion.
For thousands of years, if a girl was found to be non-virginal when she got married, it was okay for the husband to kill her.
For thousands of years, people have killed one another over their religion.
I have to say, "thousands of years of tradition" really is one of the weakest responses yet.
there is no better way to raise a morally upright human being.
A loving family is a loving family, whether two girls, two guys, a guy and a girl, whatever. That you could even suggest that a heterosexual couple is inherently better at parenting is arrogant presumtion at best, outright bigotry at worst.
Next?
MAJEFF -- You're right, this is a civil issue, not a religious one. And on a civil level, tradition has deemed, and the people have voted, that the best family unit involves two parents of the opposite sex. And no, this doesn't affect my religious rights at all.
And on a civil level, tradition has deemed, and the people have voted, that the best family unit involves two parents of the opposite sex.
And unless the people change the Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment (as the Republicans have proposed) the ultimate law of the land remains, part of which states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
to doesn't matter -
I'm having a hard time hearing you - maybe if you took off that white sheet covering your face your ignorance would be a clarion call to all the other bigots in the audience.
The gays should stand their ground. "Revolution" isn't done in degrees. If the wingnuts are allowed to have their way, we'll return to a feudal society, with them calling the shots. Who the fuck put them in charge anyway? If they want to have their pet "niggers," and their slave "housekeepers," let them form their own colony somewhere outside of the US. This country was founded on equality for allpeople. If they don't like it, then hit the road and don't let the door hit you in the ass.
MAJeff, I think the Democratic nominee can best take the issue away from Bush by taking the fight for equal protection under the law to the Republicans, not by changing the subject. Force the Republicans to talk about why they want to deny specific rights to specific families. Did you see any of Jard Barrios' floor speech about his sick baby? I believe we can win on that stuff.
Atrios is right that the Republicans are going to campaign on anti-gay principles anyway, and he's right that the best way to win is to attack, not defend. But the point of seizing the initiative by going on the offensive is to force the enemy to defend. Bush can defend well against "State-court imposed gay marriage now!" But I don't think he wins if the fight is about civil rights for gay families.
If the Democrats define this issue properly in the next election, something that has never happened before can happen; a presidential candidate can win on a pro-gay platform. But all Democrats need to come together on a strategy for it to work.
I love how you take just little pieces of my quotes and not ALL of them. Let me explain again.
Thousands of years of evidence and tradition has proven that marriage (between a man and a woman) is successful in the survival of human beings, no matter how flawed or seemingly barbaric certain practices within the institution of marriage may have been through certain periods of history.
Also, I said that when a traditional marriage works WELL, there is no better way to raise children. That does not mean I think all homosexual couples are worse at raising children or creating loving homes than all heterosexual couples. I'm sure there are plenty of homosexual couples that would be better than a lot of the heterosexual couples attempting it.
what are you not being protected from??
homono----- if I'm so wrong try and persuade me otherwise instead of just sitting there calling me names.
I love how you take just little pieces of my quotes and not ALL of them.
Taking the rest of your quote wouldn't make you appear any less ignorant or bigoted.
Thousands of years of evidence and tradition has proven that marriage (between a man and a woman) is successful in the survival of human beings
See, the (between a man and a woman) part is entirely unnecessary. Two loving, attentive parents is all it takes to raise good kids. It just so happens, coincidentally, that historically those parents have been heterosexual couples. Considering that there isn't nearly as much data available for how gay couples raise children, there's no basis whatsoever to make a qualitative statement one way or another.
That does not mean I think all homosexual couples are worse at raising children or creating loving homes than all heterosexual couples.
Actually, when you say "there is no better way to raise children," you are in fact saying that gay parents are inherently inferior. That's what the words "no better way" mean: that anything else is necessarily not as good.
Go read the Constitution, then come back. Until you demonstrate even a basic comprehension of the founding document of our country, I'm done with you.
to doesn't matter -
Most families in the US today are not traditional father-mother-children units anyway so why not push for equal recognition and rights for all of these types of families?
You favor"traditional families; anecdotally I can tell you that I know many dysfunctional "traditional families" but also know many loving healthy non-traditional families - gay, straight, whatever.
What counts for rearing healthy children is LOVE.
Your arguments are of the typical conservative "form over substance"
variety.
I think in another age you would have argued for "separate but equal" b/c it clearly states that things would be "equal." The reality of the practice was far from equal.
Town Drunk, do you think state recognition of gay civil unions count as wingnuts being allowed to have their way? Because I'm pretty sure the wingnuts see it differently.
I swear I did not hallucinate people being excited about the court case and civil unions bill in Vermont. Wasn't that what launched Howard Dean as a national political figure?
"marriage (between a man and a woman) is successful in the survival of human beings"
It's about survival of the species!
Well then, let'em all marry and die off. Problem solved.
Joe,
I think the Dems should go on the offensive. They should propose that divorce be outlawed. If the wingnuts are truly in favor of maintaining marriage, how can they refuse?
Doesn't matter
I'm tired of bigotry wrapped in 'hate the sin, not he sinner kind of crap so -
re: name calling - honey if the sheet fits...
Your "millenial arguments" are not as subtle as you would like to think.
And you clearly have expressed fundamentalist Christian beliefs that would allow discrimination against many more groups than just gays.
So give me a break
You really should take a class on the earliest extant versions of the New Testament, they are much more open ended than your doctinaire positions-
and BTW - Didn't the New Testament explicitly supercede the old doctrines such as those in Leviticus?
The major emphasis in the New Testament is LOVE, not hate and divisiveness and fear. I do not see anywhere in it where you can fear and villify your neighbor as a means to sanctify yourself.
Don't tell me how to raise children - work on making your children healthy and loving human beings, ones not fed a diet of fear and divisiveness b/c those can be turned back on you.
OT, but who killed Spot?
It's like this. You can look at all the cave drawings you want. You aren't gonna see a guy dragging another guy around by his hair. And you aren't gonna see a gal dragging another gal by her hair.
I think it happened in 60s and 70s. All those drugs and protesting. Then boom you got gays.
Josh Marshall has posted a follow-up to his thoughts from last night, including letters from readers.
Also, I said that when a traditional marriage works WELL, there is no better way to raise children.
I don't think there's any evidence in support of that stance. TWO parents around tends to be more of a winning situation for both parent and child, but I don't see how gender has anything to do with that. And don't give me the ol' gender role model shmole shmodel argument, either. Will my daughter become hopelessly confused when her straight father takes her antique-ing and to pick out a prom dress?
"Also, I said that when a traditional marriage works WELL, there is no better way to raise children."
Saying there is no better way implies all other forms are inferior, nitwit. And what about other marriage scenarios, since you appear to insist that the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate?
My first marriage was a horrible mess, thank God no kids were involved in the divorce. My second marriage is the single most vital and loving thing I may ever experience...yet my wife and I will never have children as we are unable to do so. Is this an invalid reason for us to be married, since there is no child nurturing involved? What about people beyond reproducive age...they can't reproduce, either.
You are falling back on the inane argument that somehow marriage between gays somehow denigrates yours, or is some sort of lower form of your commitment. I would suggest that if you are that unsure of your bond your beliefs are in serious need of readjustment.
It's like this. You can look at all the cave drawings you want. You aren't gonna see a guy dragging another guy around by his hair. And you aren't gonna see a gal dragging another gal by her hair.
You also won't see drawings of God, or computers, or cars. Society evolves. It's just going to take a little time for the particularly slow ones to catch up with the rest of us.
...and when my wife teaches her how to balance a checkbook? (Guess y'all know who wears the pants in our family now.)
--Thousands of years of evidence and tradition has proven that marriage (between a man and a woman) is successful in the survival of human beings--
Seraphiel: See, the (between a man and a woman) part is entirely unnecessary. Two loving, attentive parents is all it takes to raise good kids.
===
Excuse me, but a man and a woman are entirely unnecessary in the survival of the human species?
Excuse me, but a man and a woman are entirely unnecessary in the survival of the human species?
We were talking about raising children, nitwit. And if you want to be picky about it, I guess you've never heard of artificial insemination either.
I swear to fucking god, the trolls just get more and more obtuse every day.
--Thousands of years of evidence and tradition has proven that marriage (between a man and a woman) is successful in the survival of human beings--
Seraphiel: See, the (between a man and a woman) part is entirely unnecessary. Two loving, attentive parents is all it takes to raise good kids.
===
Excuse me, but a man and a woman are entirely unnecessary in the survival of the human species?
Anonymous
doesn't matter said "human beings," not the "human species". And, thanks to modern technology, only their "seeds" and "pollen" are necessary. Not like Seraphiel needs my help in defending his posts or anything.
...case in point.
But thanks for the assist.
Seraphiel,
Missy Sullivan, aka "Anoymous," is a legend in her own mind - she can't reason out artificial insemination thoughts and stroke her ego at the same time.
I'm off to some "hot monkey sex." Hope all you troglicans have this image burnt in your heads as you try to sleep - less talking, more chimp screeching.
And all I have to do is give them some fruit in the morning - thank goodness I don't have to make omelettes. [cheers to Peanut]
Don't worry, my lesbian friends are baby sitting for me tonight. They're lawyers so I'm sure breakfast will include some discussion of Constitutional issues.
Gotta catch a train to the Bronx Zoo now.
Later.
" ...unless the people change the Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment (as the Republicans have proposed) the ultimate law of the land remains, part of which states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Seraphiel"
Has any of these state "man & woman only" laws been challenged in the SCROTUS yet? And if not, why? I mean, this seems like such an obvious first step.
oops, the SCROTUS post is me.
Has any of these state "man & woman only" laws been challenged in the SCROTUS yet? And if not, why?
The cases which challenge these laws have to work their way through the court system. It's a very slow process.
Of course, the seeds/pollen thing wasn't exactly right, but the drift and all.
We were talking about raising children, nitwit. And if you want to be picky about it, I guess you've never heard of artificial insemination either. I swear to fucking god, the trolls just get more and more obtuse every day.
I'll let your profanity-laden snipes pass and focus on the argument itself.
Let's start with the term "survival", a term which you referred to. If the conversation is somehow limited to "raising children", then where did the term "survival" come into the discussion, prior to your response?
Next, since this is a discussion about the history of humans and marriage, I'm wondering where "artificial insemination" fits into the picture. Certainly it doesn't fit into any picture before 20 or 30 years ago, so I'm wondering why you would bring that up. And unless you're privy to some medical miracle, I believe that artificial insemination still requires the participation of both a man and a woman.
Acknowledging the inherent worth and equality of all human beings is not mutually exclusive from the recognition of the universal nature of the male/female duality and the role of the unification of that duality in the creation of Life. From the Christian sotry of creation to the Taoist notions of Yin and Yang, the necessity for each part of the duality to complete the other is recognized.
I always find it pitiable when someone becomes so wrapped up in a conceptual way of dealing with the world that they somehow become disconnected with something so essential about reality.
fuzzy wuzzy wuz a bear
Speaking of legal matters, I'm sure it was discussed earlier, but doesn't NM's case for halting the marriages seem weak? ("Our application forms say man/woman." Even though marriages are elsewhere defined as non-gender specific social contracts.)
It's been rumored that people who aren't married are capable of reproduction. I don't which came first, marriage or fucking. I suppose the Cro-Magnons stood around waiting for the best man and the bridesmaids to show up, and for the wedding ceremony to be completed, before they got it on. Couples will fuck, children will be born, whether the wingnuts approve of it or not.
If the conversation is somehow limited to "raising children", then where did the term "survival" come into the discussion, prior to your response?
The "survival" notion was mentioned not by me, but by the other troll, "doesn't matter" when he said that marriage (between a man and a woman) was necessary for the survival of the human race.
Clearly, this isn't correct. All that's necessary, strictly speaking, is impregnating women either through sex or other means of insemination. "Marriage" has nothing to do with it one way or the other. My comments along those lines had, the whole time, been about raising children, which doesn't necessarily require procreation.
I always find it pitiable when someone becomes so wrapped up in a conceptual way of dealing with the world that they somehow become disconnected with something so essential about reality.
Yes, those wacky Republicans have my sympathies.
Love is love. If only they could understand that, we might be able to move past this and deal with other things. Like Georgie's lies, or his traitorous staffers, or Cheney's corrupt cronyism. And so on.
And if the Wingers were to have their way about abortion, who is going to adopt all those babies? Flash back to that picture of the two guys in SF with the papooses slung about their necks....
Now, I'm not proposing this as the function of gay couples, but it would certainly be a beneficial side-effect.
From the Christian sotry of creation to the Taoist notions of Yin and Yang
It is obvious that you've never read the Bible, much less the Tao Te Ching. Christ never mentioned creation myths, and the Tao Te Ching doesn't mention biological processes.
Ah, the Cro-Magnon days. Those were the days, I'll tell ya. No best man, no bridesmaids, no nothing. In fact, when I was the alpha magnon I'd give the other boys a go just to let'em know who's boss.
Oh, and where is the line for crotch inspections?
...and if you don't know what the words yin and yang represent, you really shouldn't speak of them. And if you do, you still shouldn't.
Sweet mother of god. Folks, one does not need marriage in order to procreate. Hello? If that were required, none of us would be here. We'd have died out at Australopithicus. Get a grip. Marriage is a contract between the state and two people to regularize their property rights. Equal protection says that gays must be allowed to marry. This isn't rocket surgery, as the man said.
As for Spot, he hated America so much that he became a suicide bomber.
Oh, and it's "close-knit," not "close-nit." That would be something else entirely. My grammar-Nazism for the day.
yea, i know. I'd fix it but blogger won't let me post right now
Sweet mother of god. Folks, one does not need marriage in order to procreate. Hello? If that were required, none of us would be here. We'd have died out at Australopithicus. Get a grip. Marriage is a contract between the state and two people to regularize their property rights. Equal protection says that gays must be allowed to marry. This isn't rocket surgery, as the man said.
As for Spot, he hated America so much that he became a suicide bomber.
Oh, and it's "close-knit," not "close-nit." That would be something else entirely. My grammar-Nazism for the day.
I posted this down below, but I wanted to mention it again. When we read stories about San Fran and New Mexico and Chicago, I think it's important to e-mail the reporters, especially if it's a good story, and encourage them to keep covering this issue. I'm sure they're getting deluged with messages from hateful Republican groups, to say nothing of the letters to the editor, but while a letter to the editor is a more formal thing, a quick note to a reporter can be private and just might brighten a day spent dealing with wingnut assholes on the phone.
"Why'dya hafta put them gays in the paper, huh? Ignore 'em and they'll go away."
I can just hear it now.
A.
Bastards! Not to worry, they won't even let me log in!
Seraphiel,
Actually you WOULD see pictures of God, just not your god of equality. Have you ever heard of Venus of Willendorf?? Yeah, one of the oldest statues ever recovered, from caveman times. It was of a big fat lady, a God, a God of fertility. Man, fat lady, fertility, children, survival.
No one has disproved anything I've said here, only called me names, told me to go "read the Constitution", cited the irrelevant decisions of lower court judges in the 1960s, and confused my open support for a traditional definition of marriage with a prejudice and hatred towards homosexuals.
Interesting.
Jesus' last words:
"They don't know what they are doing."
These words are the key to following Jesus Christ. If someone says they know what god wants or they say what is best for the community or they say this is the only way, Jesus provides the answer:
"They don't know what they are doing."
Christians, fuck off! Jesus is shaking his head and is regretting his last trip to earth, so don't count on the second coming.
Morons.
he "survival" notion was mentioned not by me
No, you quoted his words. So, you mentioned it as well.
but by the other troll
Do you think your argument is stronger by calling people names and devaluing them personally? A strong argument does not need such things.
he said that marriage (between a man and a woman) was necessary for the survival of the human race.
No, he said that "marriage between a man and a woman is successful in the survival of human beings". "Success" is not the same as "necessity".
Clearly, this isn't correct. All that's necessary, strictly speaking, is impregnating women either through sex or other means of insemination.
It's strange how you purposely keep omitting the existence of men in this scenario, since they are providing the sperm, no matter how much you want to avoid that fact. And you also keep avoiding the fact that artificial insemination is a development from within our lifetimes, which cannot just change the entire course of human society and its norms overnight, simply because you want it to.
"Marriage" has nothing to do with it one way or the other.
Well, then apparently you don't understand that marriage also means "union" (as in, "the marriage of two ideals"), and that "union" is exemplified by sexual union, throughout every culture and belief system, and that life-creating union always has and always will involve both the male and the female elements of the species.
"Marriage" in the sense of an agreement to exclusive intimate relationship also served (and still serves) as a means of creating stability in communities, especially in smaller, traditional ones. Without defining those terms, there can be chaos, and with it, the entire social structure can break down, and I am hard-pressed to see how that's good for raising children.
Yes, those wacky Republicans have my sympathies.
Again, I'm not clear on why you feel the need to make such defamatory outbursts, other than a lack of confidence in the substance of your position.
Love is love.
You know what love is? It's that simple?
If only they could understand that
If only who could understand that? All Republicans are incapable of understanding and practicing love? All Democrats and homosexuals are loving people? Really?
we might be able to move past this and deal with other things.
I've said it a thousand times -- those guys want you getting all worked up about this, and you're doing a fine job of it. A lot of us are trying to stay focused on Bush's failures, but somehow you all want to chew on Republican diversionary chum.
doesn't matter, gays are not interested in you. They are busy having their own lives. Go do something constructive instead of writing screeds to call for the government to issue RFP for gay concentration camps.
It was of a big fat lady, a God, a God of fertility. Man, fat lady, fertility, children, survival.
And that has not a single thing to do with marriage, nor is it justification to spit on the Constitution.
No one has disproved anything I've said here,
You just haven't realized it.
told me to go "read the Constitution"
How silly of me, to suggest you should read the only document relevant to the discussion.
cited the irrelevant decisions of lower court judges in the 1960s
Loving v Virginia was decided by the Supreme Court.
confused my open support for a traditional definition of marriage with a prejudice and hatred towards homosexuals.
When your "open support" of an institution is predicated on denying equal rights to an entire group of people, what did you expect people to think?
Remember when clinton's dog was hit by a car. We all laughed an slapped our knees. Too bad, clintons only friend got smashed.
On the national news tonight they showed past presidents dogs, except for clinton's, and told about what happened to them. We were all really sorry for poor old spot. Not the clintons dog though. Clinton was so bad we hated clinton and his dog.
Yeah, that liberal media, they are the best.
It is obvious that you've never read the Bible, much less the Tao Te Ching. Christ never mentioned creation myths, and the Tao Te Ching doesn't mention biological processes.
Well, first of all, Christ didn't write the whole Bible. The Old Testament begins with Genesis, which describes the creation myth. Pretty much everyone knows that, except, it seems, for you.
As for the Tao Te Ching, you're telling me there's no mention of the nature of duality? Really?
Ch. 2:
"Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other."
And a "religious scholar" such as yourself surely knows that Taoism (the term I used, not "The Tao Te Ching") encompasses many works and traditions beyond the one work most dilettantes can cite as part of the Taosit pantheon, and that the concept of "Yin/Yang" is one of the defining elements of all Taoist thought.
Homosexuality is built into the human genome as a buffer for creating stable relationships between men and women after hundreds of thousands of years of Pliestocine existence.
That's why "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is all about what?
If you have not watched the show, you will be shocked.
It is all about bringing men and women together so that they can have successful families.
Football teams, army buddies are all about creating near-homosexual relationships. The community shower and butt slapping are not accidental. Their deepseated antipathy towards gays is the result of fear of acknowloging the inescapable sexual aspects of their relationships and their desire for male respect. This also leads to the propensity to rape (see U of Colorado) and disdain for intellectual pursuits.
In other words, hating queers means you are a loser.
No one has disproved anything I've said here, only called me names, told me to go "read the Constitution", cited the irrelevant decisions of lower court judges in the 1960s, and confused my open support for a traditional definition of marriage with a prejudice and hatred towards homosexuals.
Cue the "Fiddler on the Roof" soundtrack (played with the tiniest fiddle of all). Sing it with me: Tra-Dition!
Don't feed the trolls!
Don't feed the trolls!
Don't feed that don't feed the don't feed the trolls.
(Sung to the tune of the wedding march.)
No, you quoted his words. So, you mentioned it as well.
Oh, so quoting someone, in order to rebut their argument means, I'm supporting what they said? No. Try again.
No, he said that "marriage between a man and a woman is successful in the survival of human beings"
To say such a thing implies that any alternative to "marriage between a man and a woman" is unsuccessful in the survival of human beings. Which is to suggest that heterosexual marriage is necessary for the survival of the species. He's still wrong. Points for effort though.
But that's not even what we're talking about. We're talking about the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Equal protection under the law. Some half-assed paranoia that marriage equality will somehow turn everyone on the planet gay (and thus lead to the demise of the human species) is ludicrous and irrelevant to the issue.
Why do I bother? I try to maintain hope that some of you trollish types can be reasoned with, but you are all immune to logic, completely impervious to common sense.
Tradition is not the point. The Bible is not the point. What people did a thousand years ago is not the point. The basis of our system of government is the Constitution, and it says, quite unequivocally, that all people must be afforded equal protection of the law. Equal protection. It doesn't say "unless they're queer" or "unless some people make a few bigots uncomfortable." There aren't any qualifiers on it.
If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one. But for fuck's sake, leave the rest of us alone.
And on that note, I'm going to bed. I hope you people wake up one day and realize that other people being happy won't somehow ruin your life.
Once again I am being misrepresented and/or misquoted by self-proclaimed "troll" Seraphiel.
I did NOT say that marriage between a man and a woman was NECESSARY to the survival of the human race.
I DID say that marriage between a man and a woman HAS BEEN PROVEN THROUGH HISTORY TO BE A SUCCESSFUL INSTITUTION in the survival of the human race.
BIG difference.
"Christ did not write the whole bible."
That's funny.
"I came to replace the old law with the new law."
Dumbass, there is a new law in town: that's why bible humpers always quote the old testament and revelations (which is about personal destinay, not the world's, for all you Left Behinders).
Any christ follower instantally betrays their true position (quest for power, money, revenge, war on Iraq, loss of free will) when they quote the old testament.
The old testament is like trying to explain quantum physics with Newtonian physics.
Something a kid would say.
...and if you don't know what the words yin and yang represent, you really shouldn't speak of them. And if you do, you still shouldn't.
What's yin & yang? Some kind of skull 'n bones thing?
History of humanity only goes back about 6000 years.
No marriage before that.
Ignorance once again falls before the assailable wall of science.
Unless, you are one of the pea-brains that think the earth is 6000 years old.
I DID say that marriage between a man and a woman HAS BEEN PROVEN THROUGH HISTORY TO BE A SUCCESSFUL INSTITUTION in the survival of the human race.
Actually, there's no evidence of that at all.
Throughout history, men have waged war on each other. Presumably we have been doing this throughout prehistory as well.
From a reproductive viewpoint, war is a great way to mix gene pools. Why, you ask? One word: Rape.
It's what armies DO, for the most part. Men rape women a lot during wartime. It's a sad fact, an ugly fact, but it's a fact. It probably happened a lot MORE back in "olden times" than it does now, but it still happens now. I guarantee you there have been at least some rapes in Iraq by US Soldiers of native women. It happens.
In fact, rape probably has had a LOT to do with the survival of the human race. Maybe even more than the Marriage of One Man and One Woman has.
Also, if you know anything about anthropology, you know that the One Man/One Woman marriage is a predominately western (and recent) cultural practice. Most cultures allow for serial monagamy, polygamy, and promiscious sex outside of marriage. Western culture has elements of that as well, but the point is that what we call "marriage" meant profoundly different things not so long ago.
My mom couldn't SIGN HER OWN NAME to checks and expect them to be cashed. That's just a slight indication of how women's roles in marriage have changed in our lifetimes.
So the Argument from Tradition is just as specious as the Argument from Biology.
Marriage cultures change as societies change. That's the way of the world, and twas ever thus.
OT: Look Back in ANGR Part 1, Redux is over at my blog. Click on my URL if you're interested.
Not being a Sociologist or Pshrinkologist, I could be off here, but among the Right's many problems is what I see as a "zero sum" view of the world. (Limbaugh's strident cries to the contrary) More for "them" is less for "us". In this case, happiness. Those pictures of smiling, happy gay newlyweds is gonna tear them up in a way they would never be able to honestly explain, even to themselves.
I don't know much about the Bible, but I've heard that the four accepted books of the New Testament weren't written until some thirty years after Christ died. He had nothing to do with it. Christ was under the assumption that he was a Jew. Of course, it's possible that he was mistaken.
means, I'm supporting what they said?
Stay on topic. You said that the issue had nothing to do with "survival". Then, you said you didn't mention it yourself. Then, when that didn't work, you said you "don't agree" with what that person was saying. Nice try, but the fact remains that "survival" was definitely on the table for discussion and you referenced it (by quoting) in your argument.
To say such a thing implies that any alternative to "marriage between a man and a woman" is unsuccessful in the survival of human beings.
Did he make that argument, or is this just another thing you're creating from vapor?
But that's not even what we're talking about.
Then why quote something that isn't on the narrow line you want? You keep avoiding that.
Why do I bother? I try to maintain hope that some of you trollish types can be reasoned with, but you are all immune to logic, completely impervious to common sense.
Once again the hate-filled insults fly, indicating your lack of confidence in yourself and your positions. It seems you can't get through a single post without an outburst like that.
If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one. But for fuck's sake, leave the rest of us alone.
What in the world is that supposed to mean? Leave who alone? The topic is about "liking" gay marriage? I really think you should disengage for awhile and get your head straight -- this isn't making sense.
And on that note, I'm going to bed. I hope you people wake up one day and realize that other people being happy won't somehow ruin your life.
I really don't think you should be preaching about "happiness", you know? You seem very discontented.
"What's yin & yang? Some kind of skull 'n bones thing?
Magnum"
Didn't ya just know that was coming?
TD,
Better yet, it is suspected that the Book of Matthew was written by a Woman!
Oh, the horror!
That Jesus wrote even one word of the Bible, New or Old Testament, is a new one.
"Christ did not write the whole bible."
That's funny.
Why is the obvious truth funny. The other person claimed the opposite.
Dumbass, there is a new law in town:
yak yak yak
Something a kid would say
I wish I could decipher what you meant by that, but alas, it seems impossible. I'm a "bible thumper"? "There's a new law in town"? Gratuitous insults?
History of humanity only goes back about 6000 years. No marriage before that. Ignorance once again falls before the assailable wall of science.
Excuse me -- the "history of humanity goes back about 6000 years"??? You mentioned something about "ignorance"?
Or are you just being incoherent again?
Not being a Sociologist or Pshrinkologist, I could be off here, but among the Right's many problems is what I see as a "zero sum" view of the world. (Limbaugh's strident cries to the contrary) More for "them" is less for "us".
That's an interesting observation -- perhaps you should see how it might apply to the "blame Nader" threads.
Relax, this gay thing, it'll blow over. Like bell bottoms and hula hoops. It's just a fad.
Kids today huh.
Anon,
I think he meant "written" history. And actually it only goes back about 5000 years. Of course that only took me 60 seconds to find that little tidbit out.
I think he meant "written" history. And actually it only goes back about 5000 years. Of course that only took me 60 seconds to find that little tidbit out.
I see, this is a "Psychic Debate", where one must guess what someone meant to say, and ignore the meaning of the words they used?
Also, David, I'm wondering why marriage would somehow begin only with written language? That doesn't make sense, now does it?
Perhaps you should let the poster speak for himself. It's always more fun that way, seeing someone dig themselves out of the rubble of their glass house.
fuzzy wuzzy wuz a bear
fuzzy wuzzy had no hair
his parents had an evil sense of humor
fuzzy wuzzy really needed therapy
but settled for a nice fur coat
Psychic Debate?
I have missed most of this thread, and the "debate", and knew exactly what was meant.
Especially as we are talking about the Bible, the Constitution, and whether or not Western Civilization will crumble under the weight of Gay Marriage
And, dear joycamp (the Great Religious Scholar), I thought you might want to review this part of the Tao Te Ching:
"When male and female combine,
all things achieve harmony."
I sure wish you'd share more of your great scholarly insights with us "non-readers", joycamp.
Actually Western Civilization will probably crumble because of how we have massively fucked up our air, forests and oceans
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
I was a garbalogist once, worked for the city. I still know it when I see it.
I have missed most of this thread, and the "debate", and knew exactly what was meant.
Why are you avoiding my follow-up question? Do you believe that marriage began at the time of the emergence of written language? If not, then your assumption about his argument is incorrect.
Really -- you should just let that one go, like he did.
I think the usage in question is "historic" versus "pre-historic" times. Pretty general usage from my understanding.
But that is entirely beside the point.
The first question is can anyone effectively argue that under the US Constitution gay people should not be allowed to marry?
The second question is how should the Democratic candidate(s) handle the issue in the current campaign?
Sidetrips down weird arguments around the perceived superiority of straight versus gay parents notwithstanding.
The first question is can anyone effectively argue that under the US Constitution gay people should not be allowed to marry?
I think one first needs to establish what one means by "marriage".
The second question is how should the Democratic candidate(s) handle the issue in the current campaign?
A very good question, yes. I think they should keep on the meaningful issues, not the Republican red herrings, otherwise it's almost certain to be a negative. That whole "moral certainty" thing is Republican bread-and-butter, and the only way to counter it is by not letting them frame things into no-win boxes like "gay marriage".
Keep bringing up "human rights" and "economic justice" etc whenever they want to make this into an issue of how one feels about homosexuals having wedding ceremonies.
Aren't we parsing language a bit tightly here? I can't imagine we disagree substantially on the definition of marriage in the context of this discussion.
How would you suggest the discussion be framed, if not around "gay marriage?"
Gibson's new treatment of the "Passion" will straighten this whole thing out. This movie is an accurate description of how the entire thing went down. But, to make a two hour production out of it, some additional dialogue had to be added. This shouldn't bother the wingnuts. Their fevered "desire" to see this movie is based solely on their sadistic impulse to witness the scourging of Jesus. It's like an X-rated snuff Christian flick. Will Falwell and Robertson be in the front row, jerking off when Jesus is nailed to the cross? I mean, they've lined their pockets by trading on this man's death for years. They deserve a little pleasure now and then.
Aren't we parsing language a bit tightly here? I can't imagine we disagree substantially on the definition of marriage in the context of this discussion.
I think there's a basic distinction between a religious ritual and a lifelong contract as ackowledged by the state. So, that's one way in which the term "marriage" is vague and needs to be defined more clearly. But that brings us to the next point you mention -- framing.
How would you suggest the discussion be framed, if not around "gay marriage?"
I mentioned it in my prior post -- get away from that no-win frame and get back on solid Democratic ground -- "equal rights", "economic jusitce", and so forth. In the process, one needn't get caught up in diversionary exercises, like defining "marriage", since it is many things.
It seems Kerry is doing well on this point right now, but we'll see.
The construct of Marriage as we are aware of it in the Monogamous sense is a wholly Christian manifestation.
Prior to that Man's possession of Woman was in the form of either Polygamous relationship, or Polyamorous relationship.
The first real indication of what became to be known as "Marriage" was from about the 7th century BC. According to Greek Mythology Pandora was both the first Woman, and the first bride. In fact the name Pandora is derived from the word Didomi, meaning "to give". This reflects the notion that the "bride" was a free gift to the "groom" bearing the gifts from the "brides" father for the partnership between the two families.
In the Homeric epics of the time, the "bride" was won, or stolen in competition or conquest.
From all accounts prehistoric "marriage" was more in line with Wolf Packs. You had an Alpha Male, and Alpha Female and that was all that defined a "marriage"
From all accounts prehistoric "marriage" was more in line with Wolf Packs.
How can one have "prehistoric accounts"? One can only have theories, by definition.
Perhaps I'm not getting this because it's late. But I would have sworn I put this question of marriage in the context of the US Constitution, which is not a religious document to the best of my knowledge.
Marriage as discussed here is strictly the legal contract between the state and two people.
I am not discussing marriage as some form of religious sacrament.
"We may say that the positive arguments in favour of the theory of primitive promiscuity seem insufficient to give it any degree of probability, while the biological, economic, psychological, and historical arguments brought against it by many recent writers, e.g. Westermarck (op. cit., iv-vi) seem to render it unworthy of serious consideration. The attitude of contemporary scholars is thus described by Howard: "The researches of several recent writers, notably those of Starcke and Westermarck, confirming in part and further developing the earlier conclusions of Darwin and Spencer, have established a probability that marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race" (History of Matrimonial Institutions, I, pp. 90, 91)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
09693a.htm
Now, the ancient Egyptians did believe in a more traditional form of "marriage", but Egyptian society was far more religous.
Interestingly enough, in the case of divorce, which could be brought by either party, for any reason, was a private matter, defined to ensure equal division of property for both the man and woman.
From all accounts the marriage was more a issue of financial protection rather than anything else.
Now to answer your original question, "marriage" seems to be a construct of religion. As meaningful or meaning less as you want it to be.
Since the issues of procreation are not as dire as they were in the 7th century BC or earlier, even in recorded history, the notion that either Western Civilization, or the "Institution of Marriage" (I'd like to smack the person who coined that phrase) will crumble is overblown hype of nothing more than a bigoted view of homosexuality.
Marriage as discussed here is strictly the legal contract between the state and two people.
I am not discussing marriage as some form of religious sacrament.
Right, but that's precisely the problem, because when you say "marriage", a lot of people are going to connect it to religion, without a doubt. It doesn't matter if you, or anyone, wants to limit it to its secular meaning. This is why I said it does no good to stick with the Republican's "gay marriage" frame -- no way to win with that one.
the notion that either Western Civilization, or the "Institution of Marriage" (I'd like to smack the person who coined that phrase) will crumble is overblown hype of nothing more than a bigoted view of homosexuality.
No disagreement there.
Let me take this one point here from your post Anonymous:
"The researches of several recent writers, notably those of Starcke and Westermarck, confirming in part and further developing the earlier conclusions of Darwin and Spencer, have established a probability that marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race"
Since in vitro fertilization is a recent invention, any sexual union between members of the same sex, during pre-recorded history would bear no progeney, so any record (archeological record, of which there is plenty) would only indicate the union of a male and female.
Since in vitro fertilization is a recent invention, any sexual union between members of the same sex, during pre-recorded history would bear no progeney, so any record (archeological record, of which there is plenty) would only indicate the union of a male and female.
In that quote, they said the "rule may have been frequently violated". I don't think they're arguing that gay sex never happened in prehistoric times, which would be a silly argument, yes?
I think I get Anonymous' point. We are using 'marriage' here in a relatively narrow sense. He (I naturally assume it's a he) suggests that most people immediately tag 'marriage' with a religious connotation creating some sort of bigoted response which will be difficult to counteract effectively during the campaign.
Am I close?
Because people associate the term "marriage" with religion, how many people have gone to the Justice of the Peace to get "Married"?
By the definition that Marriage is still a religous construct, means that unless people are married in a church, one is not married.
Tht would invalidate common law, by which 2 people could be considered married if they live together, as a married couple, for 6 months or more (at least in Texas). All marriages conducted by a JP in City Hall, or by the Captian of a ship are therefore invalidated.
Am I close?
Bullseye.
My point is, the campaign should not focus on Marriage as a religous construct, but remove the religous overtones from the term.
By highlighting the JP/Common Law/Getting married on a cruise ship angle, the religous angle is moot.
I don't see why marriage can't be both a religious construct, both historically and contemporaneously, and a legal construct. One just needs to be able to distinguish between the two depending on the context.
The difficulty, of course, arises from the differing religious traditions. One wonders what a fundamentalist Zoroastrian marriage would look like. Nevertheless, prurient curiosity to one side, those religious constructs would have to take place within the legal structure of the state.
Example, bigamy is approved by many different religions but is explicity forbidden by US law.
The problem appears to be one of simple bigotry and bigotry is best addressed through exposure and education. I think.
By the definition that Marriage is still a religous construct, means that unless people are married in a church, one is not married.
I'm sure it depends on the specific beliefs a person holds, but for a considerable number of people, they would never consider getting married without the mediation of a person of the cloth. Again, that doesn't make their view the only acceptable one, but it's definitely the bias that Republicans are pandering to, and the one which is inflaming all the heated responses, which is what they want.
If this were simply framed as an issue of equal economic rights, without using the words "gay" or "marriage", then there wouldn't be much there to get all up in arms about (relatively speaking), and there certainly wouldn't be the McNews "shock factor" of the imagery of homosexuals going through wedding ceremonies.
That's why I keep saying that sticking to the "gay marriage" frame is a bad move, and the Democrats need to get back on the gorund of equal rights and economic justice. For example, there's almost certainly more non-married, heterosexual Republican couples cohabitating than there are gay couples wanting to get married. "Domestic partner benefits" affect both groups of people and if the Democrats were to make THAT the issue, not only would they deflate the Republicans' nastiness, they might even pick up a good number of people who might have voted for Bush otherwise.
When exactly is Kerry or Edwards going to bring back "It's the economy, stupid." That was brilliant.
My point is, the campaign should not focus on Marriage as a religous construct, but remove the religous overtones from the term.
In 8 months? That would be a miracle, wouldn't it?
Better to both avoid the issue and reframe it when necessary. "The masses" aren't going to accept redefinitions of "marriage" into purely secular terms.
Apropos of nothing in particular, there are some really great people on this blog.
Apropos of nothing in particular, there are some really great people on this blog.
The feeling is mutual, though there are far more drones than is tolerable.
The old testament is like trying to explain quantum physics with Newtonian physics.
Something a kid would say.
cheney_usa
Thank you. That whole post at 1:12 was well said.
So many of the people who are quoting the bible have a very misguided idea of what it is really about. For starters there is the lack of understanding what the bible meant in the context of the time.
I took a wonderful class in college about understanding the bible from the point of view of the first century jew (one of the intended audiences). It really opened my eyes.
A stand must be made against the wingnut assault on commonsense and human decency. If the Dems don't want to take up the cause of "gay marriage," then pick another subject. Do we have to listen to this constant wingnut whining and phony moralizing the rest of our lives? I don't know about you, but I don't need any lessons from the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Bennett, etc. I consider them to be nothing better than cheap swindlers. If they were alive during the time of Jesus' existence, they'd be selling the spikes that were driven through his palms.
Is John Kerry supporting "civil unions" but not "equal marriage rights" really going to win him any votes? - atrios
You bet. Democrative party will be committing suicide in November for being ultra-liberal. John Kerry is right.
Do we have to listen to this constant wingnut whining and phony moralizing the rest of our lives?
Their brief moment in the limelight is about ot end. That's pretty clear.
I think hetero couples in San Fran and elsewhere should start running downtown to get "gay marriages."
Then the Dems could counter the whole debate with, "Mr. President, are you opposed to gay marriages between a man and a woman?"
Marriage is a somewhat recent phenomenon for part of my extended family. My geneologist aunt is having one hell of a time tracing a couple generations of us in 1600-1700's Quebec because the settlers just weren't bothering with this whole marriage business before getting it on and popping out kids.
And I'm blown away by how the institution has radically changed for the past five or so generations. All the way from my great-great-grandmother being completely under my great-great grandfather's control to my mother's marriage to my father being her second one (first one dissolved by mutual agreement that "it wasn't working out" and they're still friends) and her having as much financial control as she wants. When she had her first wedding in 1966, she could not have married a black man. When she had her second, in 1978, she could have.
With any luck, I'd be able to marry a woman in a few years (if that's what I wanted to do). In some ways, that's a less radical re-definition than the difference between the agreement my great great grandmother was able to enter into and the one my mom was (especially the second time around).
To doesn't matter –
You obviously don't read or respond to posts that counter your argument so here it is again - Do YOU have the fortitude to take me on point-by point - I removed the ad hominem line and apologize for making the remark - Please tell me what's incorrect in this post-
Doesn't matter
I'm tired of bigotry wrapped in 'hate the sin, not he sinner' kind of crap so -
Your "millennial arguments" are not as subtle as you would like to think.
And you clearly have expressed fundamentalist Christian beliefs that would allow discrimination against many more groups than just gays.
So give me a break.
You really should take a class on the earliest extant versions of the New Testament, they are much more open ended than your doctrinaire positions-
And BTW - Didn't the New Testament explicitly supercede the old doctrines such as those in Leviticus?
The major emphasis in the New Testament is LOVE, not hate and divisiveness and fear. I do not see anywhere in it where you can fear and vilify your neighbor as a means to sanctify yourself.
Don't tell me how to raise children -work on making your children healthy and loving human beings, ones not fed a diet of fear and divisiveness b/c those can be turned back on you.
I will raise my children to try to make the world a better, saner and more loving place - will I make mistakes along the way? Sure I will.
But I will not make the mistake of teaching them to fear, hate or denigrate people who are different from them.
Simply saying that you "support a traditional idea of marriage" is insufficient.
Also most families in the US today are not traditional father-mother-children units anyway so why not push for equal recognition and rights for all of these types of families?
I'm waiting for your response.
The most depressing part about these discussions on gay marriage is that a few years from now we'll have to do the same debate all over again, about gay divorce.
I wonder what a gallup poll would indicate now after a week of gay marriages.
Lisa | Email | Homepage | 02.21.04 - 10:16 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
I just heard on ABC News that from polls, 52% of the voting electorate have said they wouldn't be voting for a candidate based on gay marriage. That probably mean about 20% of the base of both democrats and republicans would be. I'm also taking into account the dumbass "11%" who are 'not sure.'
Hey, I guess the 11% are dumbass swing voters.
Gay marriage wont mean anything if we're all extinct in 25 years.
Can they file federal taxes as married? Big surprise in store for some.
Clinton pretty much emasculated the Democratic party on this issue when he signed DOMA. Will we grow some new ones, or not?
Well, I'm glad that Ilya and MSR have flagged up the whole Pentagon on climate change thing, even if it is OT. Note, as the Guardian/Observer did, the Pentagon are not a load of "tree-hugging hippie cr!p" (to quote South Park) but people trained to work out worst-case scenarios and how to prevent or pre-empt them. In this case, the answer is to stop trashing the planet. Preferably ASAP!
Meanwhile... Locker says "piss off, Nazi punk":
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Saturday rebuffed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's demand that he force an end to San Francisco's same-sex marriages, calling the directive political rhetoric.
"The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next 'Terminator 4' movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do," Lockyer said, adding that Schwarzenegger's written directive "was a statement designed for consumption at the Republican convention."
Faxed on Friday night to the home of a Lockyer aide, the governor wrote: "I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy." The message also said that San Francisco's actions to wed gay couples "present an imminent risk to civil order."
Lockyer called that statement "preposterous" and said it is the kind of "exaggerated, hot rhetoric" that risks stirring people up to commit hate crimes.
Of course, it's really all about Der Gropenfuehrer being a good little Nazi and sucking gestapo cock:
By dumping the gay marriage hot potato in Lockyer's lap, Schwarzenegger has managed to ease the concerns of his conservative supporters while still staying well clear of an issue he doesn't really need to get involved in.
Schwarzenegger told Republicans at their state convention in Burlingame Friday that he is opposed to gay marriage, but his letter to Lockyer leaves all the heavy lifting on the issue to the attorney general. The fact that Lockyer is a possible Democratic challenger to Schwarzenegger in 2006 is just a bonus for the Republican governor.
Attacking San Francisco has always been a surefire applause line for the conservative activists who typically fill the seats at Republican conventions, and the governor's assault on same-sex marriage brought the crowd to its feet Friday night...
Shouts of "sieg heil" were then followed by a group rendition of "California Uber Alles"...
"You bet. Democrative party will be committing suicide in November for being ultra- liberal. John Kerry is right.
verybdog | Email | Homepage | 02.22.04 - 3:03 am | #"
I sure as hell won't vote for a "infra-liberal".
But the polls are becomming increasingly murky on this...today's Boston Globe plays this out, and the findings really bum me out.
But the polls are becomming increasingly murky on this...today's Boston Globe plays this out, and the findings really bum me out.
Tim likes arnie.
The last 50 or so posts to this thread bear out what I said earlier:
The Democrats should remain mum on this issue, until the Republicans bring it up. Then their one and only response should be, "I support equal legal rights for all citizens under the law, as set forth in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution."
I hear a lot of hand-wringing over some voters having the mistaken notion that allowing gays to marry means that their church will be forced to perform gay weddings. 1) This is why the words "gay marriage" should never pass a Democrat's lips during the campaign, but instead be replaced by the wording suggested above. 2) At some point, we have to stop allowing the course of debate to be dictated by people who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground i.e., those who are so ignorant, ill-informed, paranoid, or downright stupid that they don't realize that the Constitution already protects their church from having to sanctify anything that conflicts with its particular brand of dogma.
Here's how it might play out in a debate:
Ted Koppel: Mr Kerry, what is your position on the issue of gay marriage?
Kerry: Ted, I support equal legal rights for all citizens under the law as set forth in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Ted Koppel: You didn't answer my question.
Kerry: I didn't? Ted, have you ever read the Constitution? The 14th Amendement, the one which freed the slaves and granted them equal citizenship status, guarantees equal treatment under the law for all citizens. It's been in the Constitution for about 140 years now. The Constitution has already decided this issue.
Ted: Yes, but do you favor gay marriage or not?
Kerry: Ted, I've already told you what I favor: equal treatment under the law. We don't determine what is constitutional based on what John Kerry favors or what George Bush says makes him uncomfortable. We determine it on what is in the constitution. And the constitution says that unless the state can show compelling cause why one group of citizens should be denied the rights or protection of law that all other citizens have access to, then there is no reason for excluding that group from equal treatment. I think that's a standard that has served us well as a nation - and I think all of the women and African Americans listening would agree. My opponent does not.
Now, the debate gets even more interesting if W starts screeching about how we need to amend the Constitution.
Wait it out, play out the rope, give them just enough to hang themselves.
More Perry Watch at Burnt Orange Report
TAB Fuckery
Texans for a Republican Majority sent $190,000 in corporate contributions to the Washington, D.C., group. In a single day two weeks later, the national organization returned $190,000 from individual donors to Republican candidates running for the Legislature.
Critics accused the two organizations of laundering corporate money into legal donations to candidates. Colyandro and Republican National Committee leaders said it was a coincidence.
A year ago, when the grand jury investigation began, Craddick said he had done nothing for the GOP committee except attend a fund-raiser or two. Now investigators are checking why the committee sent Craddick $152,000, more than one-sixth of the $900,000 that the committee raised from individuals, to give to Republican House candidates.
State law tries to keep a speaker race a contest among House members by limiting outsiders' influence. The law bars organizations, whether they are corporations or PACs, from aiding the speaker candidate and prohibits the candidate from benefiting from a group's help.
Detractors such as Craig McDonald with Texans for Public Justice, a group that monitors campaign finance, see a scheme behind the 2002 elections: DeLay puts his Washington, D.C., fund-raising muscle into Texans for a Republican Majority. Hammond and Colyandro brainstorm the business group's ads even as Colyandro is directing the PAC's efforts on behalf of the same candidates that the ads will help. Finally, Craddick raised money for the committee and delivered some of it to Republican House candidates.
"They both got what they wanted," McDonald said. "Craddick got to be speaker, and Tom DeLay got a new (congressional) map."
Surprise! Nader says he is in.
Nader: Gore would have invaded Iraq.
Doesn't anybody care about nader. Not a family member or freind, no one?
Look out! Pseudo-intellectual trolling again!
Yes fact fans, once more your favourite troll wheels out his claims to superiority, whilst sneaking in the not-so-vieled insults; Gasp with surprise (or don't) as yet again he makes two completely contrasting claims within a few minutes! (Today's classic: claiming that you can only have "theories" about pre-historical record human interaction, and then claiming absolute material primacy for marriage according to both Darwinian and Taoist (and other religious *snicker*) interpretations) of what came before recorded human history)
Those of you who actually are familiar with modern sociological / evolutionist thoery will know that infidelity is actually the natural state;
http://tinyurl.com/2ylw4
"Dr Emlen said there are only two monkeys, the marmoset and the tamarin, are truly monogamous.
All other primates, includes humans, often mate outside their partnerships. "
*rolls eyes* It's not as if it even takes any great self awareness to spot the huge flaw in assuming humans are monogamous, or even attracted to only one sex; if sexual fidelity was so hard wired into human existance, the entire advertising industry, which relies upon tempting you with suggestions of sex with other people would just collapse. Every advert would say "Buy The Ford Focus, And Impress Your Life Long Partner". And you wouldn't be occasionally attracted to long haired lovelies in supermarkets either, who when they turn around you realise it's actually a man either...
And anyway, anyone who asserts that male-female duality is something inherant in nature isn't even worth taking seriously. If you count the number of individual creatures on this planet, by far and away the most common reproductive method is asexual. And don't make me tell you about seahorses again...
If you must focus on the ridiculous whitterings of our pompous pal, why not just focus on whether he really is just another greenshirt, who free-bases knowledge in an attempt to justify rather than correctly calibrate his own idiotic assumptions (Yin and Yang? Yeah, real scientific that. Just because humans tend to think in bi-polar ways does not mean that the universe is bi-polar itself. But wait, in this other book, written by another human, it talks about Good and Evil too!)... or could it be that it's simply an assumed identity with which he tries to discredit those of the Green fringes (anyone remember that troll Gaia Earthlove?) whilst sneaking in right wing bullshit views like those on marriage above? Yes folks, there's literally seconds of entertainment to be had trying to work out why you should even care about what someone so obviously disjointed in their thinking has to say and whether they actually mean any of it!
Nader: Gore would have invaded Iraq.
That's crap. Just another way for Nader to say that there's no difference between Dems and Repubs.
Ralph, What are your chances of winning? Almost zero. Why are you running?
It is not the time to act
IT IS TIME TO VOTE
It is not time to care
IT IS TIME TO VOTE
It is not time to get the word out
IT IS TIME TO VOTE
The time is not now
IT IS TIME TO VOTE
Much of what this blog is about
IT IS TIME TO VOTE
The most effective communication is the clearest.
In 1996 I made the mistake of voting for Nader as a protest vote over "Welfare Reform".
In 2000 I considered voting for him because as I said then, " I can't really argue with what he's saying." I came to my senses early that year and voted for Gore.
In 2004 reality has made all of those words coming out of Ralph's mouth just a bunch of words. If he cared at all about those issues he would do everything possible to get Bush out of office.
His detractors were always right about one thing, with Ralph Nader it's always been about Ralph Nader. Anyone who hasn't learned their lesson from the disaster of the Bush administration is too stupid to learn anything.
Pretty coy about a full financial release. "They might have a retarded child in an institution." What a bunch of horse shit. Come clean, Ralph. What are you really hiding?
So Nader is going to run again! The shithead! He is the major reason we are saddled with the Palace Idiot today!
Maybe it's me but, nader looked bad and sounded worse.
There have only been two amendments to the Constitution which have restricted the freedom on the people. One allowed the government to levy taxes, the other banned alcohol. The alcohol ban was overturned.
hadenough, nope he did. History has blown the lid of his act. It doesn't pass the smell test now.
Nader: Gore would have invaded Iraq.
Fuck you, Ratfuck Ralph.
And for any of you Naderites who still persist in believing that Ratfuck Ralph is about anything beyond his own ego, from here on out, he's always gonna be Ratfuck Ralph to me, I'm always gonna refer to him as Ratfuck Ralph, and no matter how much you might whine about it, I'm not gonna apologize for calling him Ratfuck Ralph. Instead, I'll simply post again using the Ratfuck Ralph moniker and supply Ratfuck's own words that prove the appropriateness of the handle: "Gore would have invaded Iraq." Ratfuck is either delusional, or he's as big a liar as W, and either way, I owe him no respect or courtesy.
Will all the greenshirts please board the bus that's leaving for the nearest cliff? Thank you.
Ralph is in bad shape. His statement is full of typos and makes no sense. Doesn't ralph have anybody that cares about him, anybody?
http://www.votenader.org/why_ral...index.php?
cid=4
San Francisco Mayor stands by same-sex marriage decision
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 8:29am EST
He's been called a renegade and a rogue, a thorn in the side of the Democratic Party's presidential ambitions. Enemies are calling for his political head and old allies are keeping a noticeable distance.
Yet what really matters to Mayor Gavin Newsom is what they're saying in the neighborhoods of San Francisco - that his decision to buck California law and grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples makes him a hero.
"At the end of the day I sleep well, and in life there is nothing I think more important than that, whether you agree with me or not," Newsom said Saturday during an interview at City Hall, where nearly 3,200 same-sex couples have taken vows in the last 10 days. "What matters is doing the right thing. What matters is being true to yourself. What matters is standing up on principle."
Maybe the headline should read, Nader Makes George's Day.
Jennifer, Ratfuck Ralph is good. And probably more than just alliterative. Maybe a full financial disclosure would show it's discriptive of his funding too.
Misplaced - the ban on alchohol didn't single out any particular group for unequal treatment. I suppose a wingnut would argue that the income tax provision did, but since the government is able to show compelling reason in the state's interest for the unequal treatment (i.e., the wealthy benefit more materially from the services and stability afforded by the state than do others, and the state needs to raise revenues in order to provide services and stability), it passes the constitutional smell test.
Never in our history have we passed an amendment singling out a specific group for second-class citizenship.
Doesn't ralph have anybody that cares about him, anybody?
I'm sure they're are a few left who are just as delusional. But that statement about Gore is infuriating and should demonstrate how out of touch he really is.
there are a few
Part of Ralph's statement from web site:
From our viewpoint, a renews respect will be accorded the civil liberties of third parties and Independent candidates to exercise their right to reform the political system and not be told to remain silent and not speak by not running. It is a sad day when the electoral Republican thieves and the Democratic blunderers in the Florida 2000 election lead some prominent or active liberals to take it out on future candidates who might help jolt their beloved but stagnant Party in to the minds of more voters.
"At the end of the day I sleep well, and in life there is nothing I think more important than that, whether you agree with me or not," Newsom said Saturday during an interview at City Hall, where nearly 3,200 same-sex couples have taken vows in the last 10 days. "What matters is doing the right thing. What matters is being true to yourself. What matters is standing up on principle."
YES! Good for you!
Can't Democrats be the party of Human Rights and the Right to Privacy?
Misplaced - the ban on alchohol didn't single out any particular group for unequal treatment.
True, but Misplaced Patriot's point is still important. The Constitution is not a mechanism to limit the rights on the People; rather, it's designed to limit the powers of the State.
Alert, alert: S'groper all but announced for president just now on MTP!
pie,
I mean a family member or friend. Somebody to check his meds, to help him out. You know, wipe the drool off his face and make sure he has the buttons on shirt in the right holes and the shoes match. That kind of thing. He is embarrassing himself. It's sad.
Can't Democrats be the party of Human Rights and the Right to Privacy?
Since the right to privacy is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that would certainly be consistent. Oh but wait, that came out of the UN, which we all know is bad (Article VI of our Constitution notwithstanding).
Josh's comments (and the lame followup) don't add much to the debate. The shorter TPM: "I'm scared. No,I just don't care. No, you've missed the point. No, turns out I'm csared after all."
Day to day I love Josh. But he can make me mad faster than just about anybody.
I mean a family member or friend. Somebody to check his meds, to help him out.
Ah, I see.
Alert, alert: S'groper all but announced for president just now on MTP!
Whaaaaaa? For 2004?
"I think there's a basic distinction between a religious ritual and a lifelong contract as ackowledged by the state. So, that's one way in which the term "marriage" is vague and needs to be defined more clearly."
Marriages are performed by the state, dear.
ALL marriages.
There is no "confusion" save for that which you wish to create.
If 2008, so much the better. He won't win either.
OT: Observer Report on Climate Change
So... the Pentagon commissioned consultants from the CIA and Royal Dutch/Shell to write a report, and they concluded that climate change over the next twenty years will cost millions of lives and constitute a severe national security threat? These aren't exactly long-haired tree-hugging hippies.
I want ... I very much want ... to believe that this is another move on the behalf of the Republican Old Guard to divest themselves of Bush. They write an embarrassing report (embarrassing because the administration denies the existence of global climate change) and then
"leak" it to the media, causing Bush to, once again, look like an idiot.
After all, his father has strong ties to both the CIA and Royal Dutch/Shell. I don't want to believe that this could be real.
Leo, so far nothing in American media. Will they pick up the story?
NTodd - as important as Misplaced's point may be, it's not the one that serves our argument best, which is why I pointed out what I did, because that one is right on point.
The more I think about this, the more I think the Republicans will be handing us a golden issue if they push this constitutional amendment garbage.
First, there's the hypocrisy: W and the GOP loved "equal protection" when they were able to use it to get the GOP appointed majority on the SC to hand them the keys to the castle. It was good enough for them; it's just not good enough for everyone else.
Second, there's all those other unconstitutional proposals put forward by this administration: denial of due process to terrorism suspects (or people who they think might be terrorist suspects, or...whoever they want to lock up without benefit of counsel or trial), there's Ashcroft's Patriot II, which proposed among other things stripping people of citizenship and deporting them, and a whole host of others (can I get an assist from those of you who remember more of them?). Played correctly, when they open this can of worms they may find it's a can of vipers we've trained to bite them in the ass, because it offers us a golden opportunity to paint them as the dangerous radicals and enemies of the constitution that they are.
And Karl's already promised the base that W would back an amendment - they have to put up or shut up before the election or risk alienating those folks. Maybe Karl ain't such a friggin genius after all.
Like I said, wait them out, keep playing out enough rope for them to hang themselves. If there's one thing you can count on with Republicans, it's that they will always overplay their hand. Always.
That's interesting. Russert just asked Arnold if he would veto a law allowing gay marriage if it passed in both houses.
Arnold: I don't deal in hypotheticals.
Can't Democrats be the party of Human Rights and the Right to Privacy?
Wasn't that the Republicans' platform, way back in the days of Abe?
And for any of you Naderites who still persist in believing that Ratfuck Ralph is about anything beyond his own ego, from here on out, he's always gonna be Ratfuck Ralph to me, I'm always gonna refer to him as Ratfuck Ralph, and no matter how much you might whine about it, I'm not gonna apologize for calling him Ratfuck Ralph. Instead, I'll simply post again using the Ratfuck Ralph moniker and supply Ratfuck's own words that prove the appropriateness of the handle: "Gore would have invaded Iraq." Ratfuck is either delusional, or he's as big a liar as W, and either way, I owe him no respect or courtesy.
Shorter Jennifer: For the sake of the nation, I pledge to be a monotonous dimwit haranguing purposelessly into the void indefinitely.
Really, I'm ABB myself, but is there a sell-by date on this shit?
Nickname - if you want to support a delusional egotistical liar who has a chance of winning, there's always George W. Bush.
You know some of us unrepentant Liberals have a good dose of moral clarity ourselves. All this talk of "How's it going to play in Cleavland?" and "Don't let the big bad Republicans beat us up with this." I'm with Seriphiel and some others here who believe in the that there is no honor in failing to do the right thing because you might lose the fight. If you don't do the right thing, the fight is already lost.
What hero have you cheered who let the innocent down because he had more important matters to attend? What evil ever died for want of opposition? Justice does not grow wild; for all its grandure and all the praise we give it, it must me constantly tended by its gardeners. Feed it not for a single season and its flowering is not sweeter for the neglect.
"If you don't do the right thing, the fight is already lost."
catalexis
Wasn't that the Nader-2000 campaign slogan?
Step carefully (as many above have outlined quite well), counterpunch.
Need we trot out the "Do you believe Iraq was involved in 9/11?" numbers as evidence of framing and misleading?
Leave the dirty work to the well-positioned (solid-blue) mayors, and as many have suggested, let Kerry wrap himself in the Constitution.
thank you sooo much for this post! i've been hammering away at this on my blog all week. the democrats need to *stand up* and take a courageous stand for once. this is about equal rights. this isn't about infringing on churches or destroying the institution of marriage. in fact, if the GOP wants to be on the same side in history as those who opposed interfaith and interracial marriages, then let them. they've been proven wrong in the past and they'll be proven wrong again, but we need to *take it to them*. this is an incredible opportunity for the dems to show they really are the party of civil rights, and democrats need to be having this discussion now.
as you aptly point out, we are going to be the party of "queer lovers" no matter what, so we better damn well have this dicussion now so that when the GOP makes this an issue, we have a damn good justification. hemming and hawing, a la kerry, is not going to cut it and we'll look like morons.
Why not just say "although it goes against my religious beliefs, I think gay marriage should be allowed, since the government should not be legislating religious beliefs". That would seem to "get him off the hook" with the everyone except the hard-core theocrats.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
