Sen

I've wrestled with how to post these thoughts because I know the audience on this board is traditionally more liberal than the population at large. In no way is this meant as disrespect or blatant flame-bait.

That being said, I have 2 thoughts about the rhetoric I've heard following the election.

1. There were 11 states that had laws banning gay marriage on the ballot last week. All of them passed overwhelmingly. In my state (MO) we passed a ban on gay marriage back in August with 73% of the population voting for it. Mississippi even had over 80% approve of their measure.(Please refrain from disrespecting the state of MS by reverting to jokes of rednecks and inter-marriage. The fact remains, even half or more of the Dems would have to vote for it to get those kind of numbers.) I hear this issue being discussed under the guise of dividing America. However, with such overwhelming opposition to gay marriage, my perspective is that it's uniting America instead of dividing it. In recent memory, there hasn't been any single issue that reached across all Party, racial and socio-economic lines to gain that kind of support. It seems to me that the talk of division comes from those in the minority who are in denile.

2. Traditional wisdom believed that if voter turnout was high, that the Dems would win. However, with record turnout Kerry still lost by 3.5 million popular votes. Furthermore, we all know that the Republicans picked up seats in both the House and Senate in addition to the White House. Rock the Vote and all of the other Democrat turnout tools failed to produce more votes than the Republicans and the so-called "value voters." Again, the talk of such a deeply divided country and discussions of how Bush needs to reach out by appointing Dems and moderates seems delusional considering that with the highest turnout in American history Republicans claimed victories and expanded majorities across the board. It seems to me that if there was ever a threshold for a mandate in American politics, this is it.

Am I the only one that feels like this or does anyone else share this perspective? Your thoughts...

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

thefictionweliv

...

Macheath

I just want to have a bit of a look at your second point.

I think "...with record turnout Kerry still lost by 3.5 million popular votes." is a LITTLE misleading considering that, aside from Gore's popular vote win of 2000, it was the closest popular vote since 1976 when the margin was 1,682,790. By contrast, George HW Bush lost the popular vote in 1992 by 5,805,334 votes.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

I don't think the "Rock the vote" type things were an unmitigated failure either. 5 million more young people voted in 2004 than in 2000 and national exit polls indicate 54 percent of these young people voted for Kerry. You have to consider the cost of getting someone to vote. This was a big money election and you have to ask, how much does it cost to get a million young Kerry voters to the polls versus the cost of a million "value voters" for Bush?

The linked article suggests that young voters are rather cheap to woo. I'd like to see more figures myself but it's nice to see some INITIAL post election number crunching that isn't all "darn-useless-kids-doom-and-gloom".

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ote/index.html

Superbelt

Bans on interracial marriage were popular in the upper 90 percentage points in the 1950's, they were struck down in the mid to late 60's. Where do you think interracial bans would poll today?

Yay, the country is currently united under bigotry!

martinguerre

*nods

The reason they are putting it in to law now is that they know that support for the bans will only erode with time.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Superbelt

Is this a cheap shot... I dunno but...

Tilted Forum Project Conservatives motto:

"Lesbians, good enough to wank to, not good enough to visit their sick/dying partner in the hospital."


-Yes, I know not all conservatives here feel that way, I'm trying to KISS to make a point. Please restrict interpretation of my comment to only those on the board who agree with a restriction of gay rights, and/or support politicians who are making it their Crusade to pass hate amendments. (Bush, DeMint, Coburn etc...)

Cadwiz

I think that it is funny when people on either side say that "half the country is for this", or "half the country is for that". Just because someone voted for Bush, doesn't mean they love war, hate gays, and think abortion should be illegal. The same goes for People who voted for Kerry. So when you say we "have a war that half the country disagrees with", I think you might be a little off the mark.

__________________
Semper Fi

Superbelt

Ya know what. No, not a good explanation.
You vote for a candidate who is on record as wanting a hate amendment, you just endorsed that view.
I voted for Kerry, there is nothing in Kerry's views that I am fundamentally opposed to. If Kerry was proposing to outlaw all guns, or was supporting a hate amendment, I couldn't put my vote behind him. No matter if everything else about him I agreed with, the utter wrongness of those positions would force me to look elsewhere. No matter how much I want to see Bush out of office. I have to live with, and at least be able to accept being saddled with any position that someone I voted for is pushing. Can anyone who is opposed to banning gay marriage, but voted for Bush really live with a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage? With Kerry, I don't LIKE his approval of the Assault Weapons Ban, but I can live with it.

When you vote for someone who has a position you are fundamentally opposed to, just because the other guy is worse, you voted lesser of two evils.
And you still got evil.

roachboy

democracy in action? where? certainly not in the states....
in general, conservative politics are about drawing clear lines between inside and outside. the most effiecient means to this end is to posit enemies. "terrorists" in general, gay folk on the "morality" front. that this move leads directly to racism in the first case and homophobia in the second seems to be an outcome that the folk who runs the show in conservativeland seem willing to accept. that they are willing to accept these consequences is a sad sad commentary on the ideology as a whole.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cadwiz

The last time I checked, the President couldn't just grab the Constitution, run to the oval office and make a few changes before anyone noticed.

__________________
Semper Fi

Superbelt

And I never said he could. I said he supports the hate amendment, he will work towards it. If you vote for him, you have to take responsibility for anything he does. He will work towards laws that keep gays down. If you voted for him, your vote facilitated that.

"The Buck stops here", we put him there, we are his boss. His decisions are our responsibility.

Cadwiz

One of the reasons I didn't vote for Kerry is because I'm not sure where he really stands. Do I whole heartedly agree 100% with GW? Hell no! But, I know where he stands on the issues.
My only point in the first post was just because you voted for either one, doesn't mean you automatically fall in lock-step with their master plan.

__________________
Semper Fi

roachboy

this is why it is better to look at the ideology as such than to speculate about how individuals might invest in it. any statement you make at the second level is falsifiable easily--this does not describe me--point.

if you look at the discourse, you could argue that even if right ideology does not describe your particular investments in it, nonetheless the nature of that discourse will pull your world in particular directions. too often, you find this to be true, if it is not true for particular bush supporters, who voted bush tactically, then maybe this kind of cr5itique will be a good thin in that it will prevent you from making the slide into the right fantasyland without being aware of it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

braisler

I despise the fact that HATE is being legislated and legitimized. I am not a very political person, but I try to be well informed. I thought that our system of government was supposed to protect the rights of individuals not crush them. Also, I was under the impression that our laws and law-makers were supposed to buffer the "popular" opinion from impacting the rights of minorities. Maybe I am being naive. This amendment against gay marriage has much further reaching consequences. What if, because Christians are a majority, they vote to not recognize any other religion as a true religion? Are we going to change that in the consitution too? This is a slippery slope!
Well, watch and learn. Or watch and be appalled. No, I am not suggesting that the current president is going to pen new parts of the Constitution, but he has taken absolutely immense steps to make sure that if he did do something like that, you and I would never know about. No other administration, including Nixon, has been so obsessed with presidential secrecy.

This is not an issue that gets talked about much, but it should be a major concern for every American regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal. Our system of government is suppose to be relatively transparent to the governed, issues of national security aside. The current administration is anything but transparent when it comes to policy. If you are more interested in the current politics of secrecy and what impact it could have on your freedoms, I highly recommend the book Worse than Watergate by John W. Dean, the cheif counsel in the Nixon administration.

__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---

Cadwiz

I don't think a clear thinking person could be unaware of a slide into fantasyland in either direction.

__________________
Semper Fi

Ilow

Not to threadjack too much, but are there a few people on this board who live in one of the 11 states who voted for the gay marriage ban, and voted for it who could explain WHY they did in a way that doesn't sound like bigotry, denial of rights, or purely religiously based dogma? It probably sounds like "trolling" but since I live in a "blue" state and support civil rights I am completely at a loss.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

Coppertop

This disagrees with you. The country is divided on the war.

KMA-628

For the record:

I am for the Gay Marriage Ban

I am also for Civil Unions or whatever.

It is not a "hate bill" (as so often repeated here) if you want marriage defined as between a man and a woman and you are also in favor of legal rights for gay couples. Let them have all the rights they want, I just want marriage to stay what it is.

/would've voted for it if it were up in my state.

guy44

Your second point has been thoroughly rebuked, although I'd like to add that Bush was elected with the most votes AGAINST the winner in American history.

As for your first point:

Your logic seems to be that since these hate amendments passed overwhelmingly in 11 states, it is uniting the country. However, according to the exact same logic, the fact that 39 states DON'T have gay hate amendments means that the country is fairly united in opposition to them.

Just saying is all.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

KMA-628

Did the 39 states vote on it?

If not, your point cannot be made.

guy44

KMA-628, I for one would call it a gay hate amendment. Because I can't understand why denying gays the same rights, titles and status that straight couples have isn't bigotry.

I'm serious about this: I'd like to know why you "want marriage to stay what it is." What negative effect could allowing gays marry have? Who would it hurt?

I hope this has come off as civil - I'm legitimately curious as to your reasoning.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

JumpinJesus

Allow me, if I may, to counter those points with points of my own.

1. I can't understand why anyone believes that allowing gays or lesbians to marry undermines the value of their own marriage. If you truly believe this, then your marriage isn't that strong to begin with. Also, since when do we celebrate our nation's diversity and liberties by denying a particular segment of the population the same civil protections because we think they're "icky"? What laws have gays broken that warrant this constitutional amendment denying them equal rights? What does "the pursuit of happiness" mean?

2. Republicans control all branches of government on the federal level. However, 48 percent of voters do not share their views or support their policies. It's delusional for them to think that they should not be ignored? The last time I checked, the president is the president of every American, not just the ones who voted for him. Unfortunately, our president has said "I will reach out to those who support our policies." What he <i>should</i> be doing is reaching out to those who <i>don't</i> support his policies. If this is not divisive thinking, then I am more ignorant than I thought.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Superbelt

I'll also repeat that it is a hate amendment.
btw, isn't it nice, us liberals learned how to frame a debate! (ie, tax relief and Social Security Reform from the Repubican side)

Denying equal rights to a minority is hateful. Most of the people who are against gay marriage do so for religious reasons, to them the gay lifestyle is evil and damnable.
The legislation being passed against gays is denying them the right to visit sick partners, be dual legal parents to a child, and inherit land with the same privlieges that a straight, married couple do.

Denying these rights is hate as much as "Separate but equal" water fountains, shitters and restaurants.
November 2, 11 states bitchslapped homosexuals to the back of the bus.

It's a goddamned Hate Amendment.

KMA-628

Don't have the time to give you a full answer now, I will try later.

Short answer, marriage is sacred to me. I married my wife in front of God. Obviously, I don't need to go into any detail about any particular church's feelings towards homosexuality, you should know it already.


That said, I don't care what people do sexually, I really don't. I don't condemn anyone for being gay. I have had many, many friends that were gay and I treated them as what they were, my friends.

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I never thought there would need to be a law needed to define it, but it seems we have moved in that direction.

As I mentioned, I have no problems with equal legal rights, property rights, etc. I have no problem with calling it something else (i.e. a civil union). So, in my mind, there is no hate. All I ask is that you let me keep the word marriage to stay exactly what it has been for centuries.

I don't see any rights being denied (that I am aware of). I just want to keep the word, if you know what I mean.

Did these states offer up any alternatives, i.e. civil unions?

Superbelt

shorter answer, marriage in front of God is a Medieval creation, before the late Middle Ages marriage was a private act between the husband, bride and the brides family. Everyone sat down around the table, had dinner and then ownership of the girl was transferred to the new husband.
God came into marriage in the christian world because of a resurging Papacy who wanted to assert more control over the various peoples.

You may have no problem with granting some rights to gay couples, but 8 of the 11 new hate amendments specifically restrict any of these rights from a gay couple. Literally, it's terrorization.

guy44

Well, the hate amendments varied - some outlawed any type of union, some outlawed gay marriage only.

I understand that marriage is a sacred thing to you, as well as your religious beliefs. Marriage is sacred to me too, as are my religious beliefs. And I realize that you don't hate gays, nor do you wish to deny them visitation rights, tax breaks, the right to raise a family, etc.

But I still see no reasoning behind the statement, "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." Why? Is it religious? Why should it not be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman? Why is tradition so important as to make a whole swath of people feel like second-class citizens?

Look, if its religious, well, a wise man once said that "you can't reason someone out of a position they haven't been reasoned into." I'm not going to argue against religious beliefs. But if it isn't a religious thing, I'd truly like to know what reasoned logic leads one to opposing gay marriage.

As for the not being hateful thing, well, I respectfully disagree. Civil unions are a step, but they are seperate-but-equal. Which is not the same thing as equal. It is demeaning, degrading, and insulting to say that a gay couple can have a union, but not a marriage. That is why I don't think that civil unions are acceptable.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

joeshoe

Hmm, I'm pretty sure marriage was a big deal even before the medieval age. They had week-long wedding festivals and such in the middle-east back then.

analog

**MOD NOTE**

Hey all- There are about 5,000,000,000 threads on gay marriage, how about we scoot back on-topic? Thanks.

-analog.

hannukah harry

by your definition of marriage, all that matters is that it is one man and one woman. they don't have to love each, they don't have to even know each other. it sounds like you'd be 100% okay with someone marrying a lady from halfway around the world that they found on a 'mail-order bride' website.

i prefer the definition of marriage as being a union between two people who love each other and want to be bound to each other for the rest of their lives.

you're definition is religous in nature, but marriage is not. the govt. performs non-religous marriages today, and in different times and places in the past marriage has been more of a business transaction than anything else, with god in absentia, no less.

i also looked up the word bigot. my favorite definition came from the 'american heritage dictionary', although they're all almost identical.

bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

and if that isn't a form of hate, i don't know what is.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

scout

HAHA that pretty much sums up a lot of posters in some shape or form, myself included. I think we have all been intolerant of something at some particular point. It's hard to find someone that isn't somewhat intolerant of something.

hannukah harry

indeed. but many of us don't either support putting bigotry and hate into our most important legal documents or denying others rights just because we don't agree with them.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

joemc91

As to 1, I believe that it is united America against a minority of people, which the government is not supposed to do. I personally believe that the state has no right to deny a marriage to a couple just because they're gay. At the same time, I understand that many, many people believe marriage is a sacred institution. My belief is that the state should not deny this right but the churches do not have to marry the people themselves.

As for 2, there is no clear mandate. With such a close margin of win, it is clear that many people do not agree with G.W. Many of my friends (most of whom are conservative) would have voted for Kerry except they voted on the "moral" issues, that being gay marriage, abortion, etc., although they preferred Kerry on economic issues and the Iraq war. <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/">A map</a> of the election results adjusted for population density and voter percentages showing that there really isn't that much of a mandate.

__________________
I prefer desert wines to dessert wines.

Dry and red

joeshoe

I say delusional minority. People in closed circles often believe their ideas are more dominant than they really are. Elitist intellectuals commonly think that everyone thinks like they do, which is usually not the case. (Not saying anything bad about elitist intellectuals or anything, just that the average person doesn't think so deeply.)

madsenj37

And when you vote, you accept the system in its current form. So even though you support a certain candidate, you must accept that he may not win and you will have another candidate in office. So by voting, you do endorse Bush indirectly. Like him or not, you have to accept that he won and that you used the system that put him in place.

__________________
"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

Rekna

It has been ruled by the courts in the past that seperate but equal is impossible. This is what ended segregation. Because of this seperate but equal civil unions are illegal. In our system we can only allow them to be married or ban it all together.


Religious stuff next ignore if you don't believe in God please, I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion.

I am a very christian person, and the most important thing I believe the bible teaches us is to be like God. Love one another unconditionally as he loves us. We shouldn't deny a minority rights just because we disagree with them. We are not God and we cannot judge people for him. Let them do what they want as long as it isn't hurting others and love them despite you disagree with it. In the end we each stand before God and if they were wrong they will pay for it. But if we go around judge people and taking away their rights then when we stand before God we will pay for it.

Letting them get married does not take away from your marriage. Remember according to the bible marriage is between 3 people only. The husband the wife and God. Your marriage is not affected by them and theirs is not affected by yours.

Konichiwaneko

some people see this as bad, but honestly the way I see it is when we are ready and when the picture is clearer then the people of our nation will decide what is the right thing to do.

Having someone tell you that you are a "Bigot" and support "Hate laws" isn't really going to open your eyes as much as piss you off. So for those nah sayers who keep on spouting the hate rhetoric please be aware of that. Keep your passion, it's not wrong.

__________________

hannukah harry

i think in order to get someone to open their eyes and look at the position from a different angle you have to piss them off. if i just say your wrong and state the same reason why as before the election, you're not gonna change. but no one wants to be called a bigot, and if you want to crack open the dictionary, you'll find that it's very fitting to say that they are one.

if you don't want to be called an idiot, don't do idiotic things. if you don't want to be called a bigot, don't display your bigotry on your sleeve.

it's not hate rhetoric. it's being honest. the hate is coming from those denying others the same rights/opportunities that they have.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

alansmithee

I am in a "blue" state where a gay marriage ban was passed. It is impossible to defend any law that isn't a "denial of rights" as that is pretty much the definition of a law. But as for the other two, I don't see gays as a minority. They are people who choose to take certain actions, no different than someone who chooses to go bikeriding, play basketball, watches foreign movies, or any other legal act (and I did agree with the supreme court's decision to strike down sodomy laws). Nobody has ever said why gay sex deserves some special status not allowed any other act. As for the amendment myself, I see modern marriage laws as a way for the gov't to support the creation of families, as people having some security for having and raising children is considered good public policy (and as someone studying law currently, there are many different legal decisions that are based on what is considered good for public policy). Being that that is the case, IMO, gay couples cannot have children and therefore should not have the same abilities as couples able to have children. That being said, I only think it should be restricted in terms of tax benefits and what benefits businesses must give. As for inheritance and hospital visitation, those things can be covered with personal contracts, and don't require some special status given to people by the gov't, just a lawyer to file documents. I know some states did vote to ban even those things, but I would rather do that than allow the alternate. Plus, I think those laws that restrict property transfer and hospital visitation will not hold up upon challenge (which will probably lead to new amendments in the respective states being passed). And they are no more "hate laws" than Roe v. Wade was legalized child murder.

And as for 48% not liking the current administration, unfortunately (or fortunately) we opperate in a winner-take-all government. What that means is that your 48% is worth around 0% in government elections. And I do think that the majority Bush got is substantial, due more to the fact that there was a very unpopular war going on, and the massive anti-Bush sentiment in the popular media. Observing the coverage given by most mainstream media, you would have expected Bush to get around 30%, not the majority he actually gained. So the delusional minority isn't so rediculous. Also, seeing how many people have overreacted after the election, it makes them seem even more out of touch.

alansmithee

The government denies people rights based on their actions all the time. If I am a pro football player, I don't have the right to spend the same percent of my income as someone who works at McDonald's. I don't have the same right as a woman to kill a child I help create. I don't have the same right to read certain classified documents as CIA agents. I don't have the same right to carry a gun everywhere that police are allowed.

hannukah harry

you're examples don't really make much sense.

a football player can spend the same percent or more or less of their salary than a mcdonalds employee. it's their money, they can do what they want with it. it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

you don't have the right to choose an abortion or not because it's not your body. again, unrelated to this topic.

cia agents can see what they see becasue they've earned/been granted the clearance, and with a permit, you can carry a gun pretty much everywhere the police can.

the govt. currently grants rights (maybe priveliges is a better word?) to people when they get married. there is no reason for the govt. to deny those privelidges to a couple just because they're homosexual. marriage is a contract between two consenting adults, their gender should not make a difference.

you said in the post above that you think govt.'s place in modern marriage is about helping create an environment to promote family and stability? well, homosexuals can have kids. i don't know a single lesbian that couldn't go get knocked up if she wanted to. if we won't let them adopt, they can always have 'em naturally. so why not let lesbians get married?

now, fags can't have kids unless we let them adopt. but we don't want that now do we! afterall, they have a dirty lifestyle, and if we keep them from marrying, hopefully they're icky ways will just die out!

anyways, the govt. can deny rights when it has a compelling interest to do so. they have a good reason to deny people the 'right' to do certain things that harm others. but there is no compelling interest in denying gays the right to get married. the most compelling interest for them to do it is 'it's icky gross!' and that's not very compelling, is it?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer