Democracy in action: dividing the country or revealing a delusional minority?
 

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 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

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!

*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.

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...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Did the 39 states vote on it?

If not, your point cannot be made.

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.

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'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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

**MOD NOTE**

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

-analog.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I'm not supporting this, but wasn't their an argument about how a Same Sex couple raising a child can do harm to the child as they grow up in our society. Thus working off Harry's "Harming others" part.

What ever happened to that.

In reponse to you harry, no I don't respond as well to people who piss me off because they never did anything to earn my respect. They tend to try to interject their opinoin over mine rather then lead us both to thoughtful conclusion.

i've heard of numerous studies showing that a child of a same sex couple is not better or worse off then a child of a hetero couple i've never heard any that state otherwise (not taht i'm sure there aren't some out there, but the fact you don't hear about them even when gay marriage was a big election issue that wasn't raised as a reason).

you may not respond to people who piss you off well. neither do i. but politely saying "excuse me, sir, ma'am, but... " doesn't seem to work these days. to compete with people like rush and coulter unfortunatly you do have to be brash.

since you don't know me, of course you necissarily have any respect for me. you know nothing or very little about me for you to base any respect or disrespect on. but don't you think if you were walking down the street and 10 people whom you don't know say you didn't tie your shoe well, you'd eventually stop to look down and see if they might be on to something? and sometimes in order to get someone to give thought beyond their normal processes you've got to do something drastic.

actually I'm from the south, we tend to say "Sir your shoes are untied."

And yes it's constant down here.

Your example I can understand though, I guess it's jsut where you are from.
The world seems so much ruder the colder it gets, and the more people stuff into one area.

Marriage is a vow between 2 people. An oath to your partner more than to your personal god. Why can a man or woman marry 10 times in a life yet deny this legal bond to a same sex couple of a lifetime? Why is this an issue?

heh, well that's because when the air's cold it hurts to talk so we try to say what we can as succinctly as possible. :)

Really? I'm sure the IRS would have something to say about that.

I disagree, I'm not asking to cut off a woman's arm, I want to have the same say in a child that I would be responsible for that the woman does. Are you saying discrimination against males is ok?

That's good to know, now I can pack heat when I go to the hospital. And gays can gain the same benefits, males just have to marry a woman, or women marry males.

It should if gender is inherent to purpose of the contract.

They can, all they have to do is marry the guy who got them pregnant.

Why would they die out? People can always chose to be gay. And many "fags" don't think they should be allowed to adopt. Also, I personally believe it lessens the value of a mother and father in raising a child.

Apparently many people think there is compelling reasons for denying them the ability to marry. Wouldn't it make sense that the "public" would define what is in their intrest? And it happened in at least 11 states this year. There are lots of things that are prohibited because people think they are "icky". Again, you are framing the question wrong. It's not "Why should these people be denied rights" its "Why should a particular behavior have prefered status over others?" and no gay marriage advocate has come up with a logical reason for that (at least that I have read or heard from someone, maybe there is one somewhere).

All legal bullshit aside, why the hell does it bother you so much? Is it religious upbringing? Personal distaste? Where does this predjudice come from?
Why should anyone really give a shit? If it makes em happy...

sometimes it's not prejudice but people getting tired of "Fuzzy Definitions".

Prejudice is once again one of things I mention earlier about "Hate Rherotic". You probably mean well, but your assumption that people voted against the law is because of prejudice can cause a lot of anguish and gap into the conversation.

If we allowed gay marraiges would we allow also polygamy?

The way to best counter what you and those in the eleven states that voted
to "protect" marriage espouse is to demonstrate against your penchant for
legislation intended to restrict the sexual behavior of consenting adults or the
reproductive rights of women, by boycotting your tourist and convention
venues, and other currently conducted commerce that the rest of us do with
you or your business interests. There are still many areas in the U.S.
where the majority of the voters have no interest in using their state
constitutions as instruments of discrmination, intolerance, or to extend
the police and prosecutory powers of government. The consequences of
your political philosophy will be more evenly shouldered by you and everyone
you intend to disenfranchise and control if the rest of us avoid doing
business with you. If we don't act to discourage you, who will you next
focus on when your goals of anti gay and anti women's reproductive rights agendas have been fully achieved?

If you "want to have the same say in a child that I would be responsible for that the woman does" , why not ask your lawyer to draw up a contract
that you can present to any woman that you intend to have intercourse
with, that informs her that as a pre-condition of mating with you, she must
agree to surrender her right to choose whether or not to endure a full term
pregnancy and birth that might result from you fertilizing her ovum?

Are you so insecure about how desirable you are as a sex partner to members
of the opposite sex that you are unwilling to allow women to choose between
you and your pre-natal "paternal rights", versus other potential partners who
recognize a woman's right to choose whether to host an embryo in her body
until it grows large and robust enough to sustain itself?

You feel strongly about having "the same say" as the woman who must carry
and deliver the product of your mutual conception. Other men do not, and
are willing to cede the choice entirely to their female partner. Why not
conduct your own interpersonal relations with members of the opposite sex
without attempting to interfere with the existing right of choice currently
enjoyed by most women of reproductive age in the U.S., by advocating
legislation to restrict access to safe and legal abortion?

You are free to advocate for equal pre-natal paternal reproductive rights
for yourself, but if you advocate legislating your rights so that you will
be on equal footing with the male competition who largely are pro-choice,
you demonstrate that you are not willing to endure the consequences of
your position which even you seem to recognize as diminishing from your
attractiveness as a potential mate.

You're right that it's "not prejudice". It's homphobia encouraged by religious
centric intolerance and the ignorant belief that homosexually oriented
individuals "choose" to be attracted to members of their own sexual gender.

"Gay" marriage is interchangeable with "same-sex" marriage, which is defined
as <a href="http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=same-sex+marriage">"two people of the same sex who live together as a family".</a>

How does your question, (reasonable from your point of view, as you are
influenced by the belief systems endemic to your geographic environment)
read when the word "Gay" is replaced with: If we allowed two people of the same sex who live together as a family, "would we also allow polygamy"?

I' m from the northeast, more recently residing in Manhattan for several
years. I also have the perspective of living very near to where you are
located for the past 33 months. When I read your polygamy question,
I reacted with the same huhhhh??? at the apparent disconnection in your
question, with your use of "gay marriage" and "polygamy" in the same
sentence. Your point of view is totally foreign to mine. You apparently
see the term "Gay" as a deviant reference, where I see it as interchangeable
with "same-sex" orientation or attraction. We both apparently recognize
the term "polygamy" as deviant.

My 33 months living in your area has opened my eyes to societal differences
that I had never before considered. Creationist earth science and geology;
a belief that the earth is only 10,000 years old.....and the declaration that
evolution is "just one theory" were probably the "biggest eye openers" for
me to adjust to.

People in your area do not accept that "gay" is normal. Same-sex marriage
is not something that you.....or your local laws, "allow", any more than you
"allow" opposite-sex marriage. Marriage just "is". Sexual attraction and
romantic love, just "are". You will see that constitutional law, as embodied
in your Georgia state and in the U.S. constitutions is incompatible with
your state's new "marriage" amendment.

Much of what you attriibute to the ways of your part of the country, are,
in their intent, and in their impact, prejudicial and intolerant, whether you
perceive it or not. Manhattan is the center of the most vibrant and
internationally and minority inclusive city in the world for a reason. It is a
city comprised of people who want to live there because they stand a
better chance of being accepted there because of what they can accomplish,
and in spite of who they are, than just about anywhere else.
From what I have experienced, you live in a parochial and homogeneous
society, not unlike a typical communtiy in the European countryside.
Primarily composed of people of one race, one religion, one political
orientation. Your environment constrains your ability to react matter of
factly to people of different ethnic, sexual, religious, or political orientation
than the ones that are dominant in your communtiy. Your tendency is to
be intolerant and to exclude reflexively. The new marriage amendment is
a symptom of a deficiency that short changes everyone in your state, not
just those that it aims to "control".

New York may seem like a cold, hectic, and harsh place to live, from your
point of view, but I assure you, having lived in both places, unless you are
a caucasian, middle class, protestant, republican, Georgia would seem a
much more harsh and unforgiving environment to live in than Manhattan.
If living in freedom is about not being held back because of your race, creed,
gender or sexual orientation, Manhattan is recognized by the world as the
place to be. What kind of a place do you want your state to be recognized
as ?

Regardless of the rest of the statement made above, this particular section seems to me to be extremely condecending. I think this would be offensive to the many, many minorities that live in GA. Have you been to Atlanta lately? To suggest that only caucasians are "social conservatives" is not to understand the demographics of our country. True, the vast majority of African Americans vote Democrat, but I would also venture to say they support gay marriage bans. I have many African American friends that are Dems, but are socially conservative.

Yeah....Atlanta schools are a compelling example.......

First of all, I would like to commend your typing technique. It must be quite a trick to reach the keyboard while looking down your nose from that far :rolleyes: . Maybe instead of regurgitating whatever line you have been brainwashed with, you would try to read what I was saying and not just jump over 2 carefully selected lines. My point was that the way many liberals frame the gay marriage issue is wrong, and they do not appreciate when they have the same tactics used against them. They try to say how anti-gay marriage legislation are "hate laws" and bigoted, giving the impression they are morally superior. I was taking an issue that they could be seen to fall on the other moral side of (abortion) and framing it in their same way they view gay marriage, as a discrimination issue and something that is morally abhorrent.

You also made alot of assumptions about my child murder views (as well as labeling me "insecure" which seems to have no logical justification, and was made by jumping to many conclusions that could not rationally be seen in the couple of lines I typed on the subject of child murder) so I will elaborate on those so you won't be as misinformed. You seem to think that males are largely pro-child murder, do you have any evidence for this? The whole right to abortion arises from a legal decision, and was not voted on. It was based purely on the opinions of 9 people who happened to be positions of power at the time. And it could easily be overturned by 9 people who are currently on the bench. Many laws have been passed in the states restricting the womens right to unilaterally murder their offspring, some of which have been overturned by various state courts. I don't personally care, as I have no desire to have children and make sure to use protection. But where I find inequality is that women can choose to carry a baby to term or kill it, with the father having no say in a decision which could greatly effect his life. Around 2 months ago, a woman won a paternity judgement against Sean "Puffy" Combs where I think he was ordered to pay approx. $50,000 per month in child support (can't remember the figure, but it was high and I don't feel like checking it exactly). Now, this child arose from a one-night stand. There was no reason to believe that either desired a child, yet she was able to cash in off his wealth, and he had no recourse. This is where I feel an inequality comes in. It has nothing to do with whatever you were trying to say. And unlike most liberals, I'm willing to work through the system to change these rules, and accept defeat if they don't change.

More on topic, I think the quoted post shows how many liberals think, namely that because they think a view is correct that the majority hold it to be the truth and anyone who doesn't is a "bigot" or "redneck" or "fundamentalist" or whatever the buzzword is. They don't acknowledge that a differing view can have the same merit and think anyone who disagrees is automatically inferior. That is why you can have some in the media still thinking that the election was stolen, or that it's result is somehow invalid. I couldn't personally stand Clinton, but when he was re-elected in 1996 I didn't run around crying, throwing fits, or threatening to leave the country. I accepted it, and took a long term view.

1. Gay Marriage

I don't believe the average voter was knowingly thinking that they were being hateful towards gays when they voted for the ban. I really don't think most people considered the legislation that deeply. They just thought to themselves "should marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman" or not. People across all demographics simply affirmed the traditional definition of marriage.
Very often the majority will discriminate (pass laws) against minorities. The only recourse is the constitution and the courts.

2. Voter Turnout

I believe that both sides managed to help themselves by increasing turnout among those most likely to vote for their cause. It could have easily gone the other way. Even though GW was a weak candidate, Kerry was considered even weaker. I don't consider the margin of victory that much of a mandate of Bush's policies as much as a statement of just how weak Kerry was as a candidate. A "good ol' boy" like Bill Clinton would have made it much closer.

I think that folks on the TFP are more socially aware and consider the issues in greater depth than the general public. I hope this doesn't come across as elitist,, I'm basing my opinion on discussions with family, friends and neighbors.

Opinion as fact, and wrong at that.

Good question. I don't think anyone has answered it. What about cousins marrying?

But it is about the law. None of this would have come up before the voters if four state judges in Mass. hadn't tried to change the law by misinterpreting the constitution (my opinion). It is about the legal definition of marriage, whether the constitution requires same sex marriage and whether by ballot initiative, the people want to allow it if it is not a constitutional issue. As to your question as to why people voted how they did, I have two guesses: 1) there were many, many, many different reasons; 2) since you have labeled them all as prejudiced, few people who voted to ban gay marriage are likely to want to discuss it with you.

Is there a deep divide in our country? Simply put yes, but then again there always has been. North vs. South. Rich vs. Poor. Urban vs. Rural. (Ultra) Religious vs. Secular. These divides are not new but have existed for as long, no, longer then our country has been in existence. What does this latest vote show, if anything? I would submit to you that it shows that Americans are just only as divided as they ever have been. So Bush got more votes then Kerry. So what? Does this mean there is a new deeper divide among Americans? No. It simply shows that Bush’s team was better able to get out voters on election day. Is Bush’s reelection the harbinger of some great new divide in American culture? No, America has always been a greatly divided country. It is both our blessing and our curse. Because of these divides America has been driven to do great horrors to our own citizens (Slavery, Segregation, etc). But these divides have also driven us to some of our greatest accomplishments.

Now to depart a moment to address a different direction that this post seems to be slipping into, that being the topic of gay marriage. It’s always amazing to me see so many people throw themselves into this topic and make such conclusive statements about certain court decisions when it is evident that they aren’t really addressing the opinion expressed by the court but their own personal feelings on the topic. Case in point, the decision reached by (certain “liberal” judges in) the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court. So, and because we are talking about a “legal” definition here, lets take a look at what those “liberal” judges really had to say shall we, and not all that political pundit bullshit we are fed by the media. So here it is, or at least the brief edited version of the key points (please feel free to read the entire for yourself). Goodridge v. Department of Public Health 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass.,2003.)

“ Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." ...

... The larger question is whether, as the department claims, government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that "marriage" means the lawful union of a woman and a man. But that history cannot and does not foreclose the constitutional question.The plaintiffs' claim that the marriage restriction violates the Massachusetts Constitution can be analyzed in two ways. Does it offend the Constitution's guarantees of equality before the law? Or do the liberty and due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution secure the plaintiffs' right to marry their chosen partner? ...

... We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage.

In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. While only the parties can mutually assent to marriage, the terms of the marriage--who may marry and what obligations, benefits, and liabilities attach to civil marriage--are set by the Commonwealth. Conversely, while only the parties can agree to end the marriage the Commonwealth defines the exit terms. ...

... The Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more so, than does the Federal Constitution, even where both Constitutions employ essentially the same language. That the Massachusetts Constitution is in some instances more protective of individual liberty interests than is the Federal Constitution is not surprising. Fundamental to the vigor of our Federal system of government is that "state courts are absolutely free to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Constitution."

The individual liberty and equality safeguards of the Massachusetts Constitution protect both "freedom from" unwarranted government intrusion into protected spheres of life and "freedom to" partake in benefits created by the State for the common good. Both freedoms are involved here. Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family--these are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights. ...

...In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. ...”

So did the Massachusetts Supreme Court define “marriage” to include gays as many people have claimed? No, they simply stated that baring a state constitutional amendment, the Massachusetts State Constitution bared the legislature from defining “marriage” as only between one man and one women. Was the Court acting out of some liberal agenda? Maybe, but more importantly they were adhering to the law, and their ruling was based upon upholding that law. 11 states recently passed State Constitutional referendums defining marriage, why? Because that is how law is made. Had Massachusetts such a constitutional provision defining marriage, then, the court would have been bound to uphold that provision. As it was, however, no such provision existed and because of this the court was bound as a matter of law to make the ruling that they did. Thank God for “liberal” judges who know how to follow that law, instead of handing down opinions based upon personal religious moral ideologies.

thank you publius.

and aliali, I support polygamists marrying--and I've stated this before. And before you throw out another non sequiter, I also think statutory "rape" laws should be revamped.

I also don't have any pressing issues against cousins marrying, if you must know my position on that. I think it's even legal already in some states.


EDIT: Here is my original post on the topic:

from here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...light=polygamy

1. To be fair, there is some truth to this statement. Much of the country can agree that they believe marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman, and it does cross party, racial, economic and religious lines. There is (inexplicably to me) a sense in this country that sanctioning same-sex marriage will damage the institution of marriage and denigrate the moral standards of our nation. On this issue there is a great deal of agreement. However, this agreement does not extend to other issues, nor is the reasoning behind the opposition homogenous. It is alltogether too simplistic to say (and frankly sickening if true) that this issue is acutally bringing us together as nation. You said the initiative in MO passed with 73%, but the President only received 53.4% of the votes in this past election in MO. If this were such a homogenizing issue, I think we would have seen a true landslide (not a statistical one) in this last election.

2. I believe that there is a movement towards conservatism in the country. We have, throughout our history, had times when the country moves to the right and times it moves to the left. Frequently these movements are pushed by a Charismatic individual (FDR, Reagan) and at other times, like today and during the 1960's, there is simply a feeling within the populous that we need to move in a new direction. George Bush is riding that wave and has helped to strenghen it at the same time. It is a little silly, to call this a mandate in the traditional terms, but I don't blame the Bush administration or the GOP for claiming it. Any edge they can get to push through their agenda they will take. (Just as the Dems would). The point has already been made, but it is worth pointing out, that due to the large turnout, the President did received the most votes ever for President, but he also has the most votes against someone who won the presidency. This is not the recipe for a "clear mandate". As far a the concept of a large turnout helping the Dems. What do you know, the media and pollsters were wrong. What a shock. (Disdain for pollsters, may actually be a unifying issue)

The Republicans now have one of those very rare opportunities. They control pretty much the whole ball of wax. What they do with their power and influence will determine the fate of this nation and will have strong effect on the entire world. Extremism and hubris will not make them successful (IMO) in the long run. They have the opportunity to develop this victory into a true mandate. If they govern with prudence, even-handedness, forethought and equality they have an incredible opportunity to dominate our politics for many years to come. If they fail, they have the potential to severely hurt the country, the world and their party. This being said, the protection of Tom Delay and the attacks on Arlen Specter do not show me a party ready to create this true mandate.

Again, lower courts held that the law did allow for restricting marriage to something between a man and a woman. The lower courts also probably thought they were acting within the law.

Hopefully one of these new state amendments actually gets before the US Supreme Court, and have the issued settled once and for all (at least until there is a fundamental shift in the court's makeup).

You may think it is o.k. for cousins to marry and for people to have more than one spouse at a time, but does that mean that everyone who disagrees with you on those two topics is an irretrievable bigot? If not, then why are they bigoted for opposing gay marriage.

I've met lots of people who disagree with me on all of the things you listed.
I believe that personal disagreement is separate from legislating one's differences and imposing those beliefs on others in a hetergenous society.

What do you mean by "irretrievable?"
Whether they are bigoted or not depends on the reasons for their disagreement.

I think the problem comes in when certain groups attempt to legislate away the rights of a minority groups, despite the fact that those rights have zero effect on the lives of those who would prohibit it. Bigotry is going out of your way to be intolerant.

"I' m from the northeast, more recently residing in Manhattan for several
years. I also have the perspective of living very near to where you are
located for the past 33 months. When I read your polygamy question,
I reacted with the same huhhhh??? at the apparent disconnection in your
question, with your use of "gay marriage" and "polygamy" in the same
sentence. Your point of view is totally foreign to mine. You apparently
see the term "Gay" as a deviant reference, where I see it as interchangeable
with "same-sex" orientation or attraction. We both apparently recognize
the term "polygamy" as deviant."


Carpetbagger! :)

Joking aside and think you did yourself a disfavor Host by assuming about me. I brought up the point of polygamy because it's a state of union. Am I against it? No not really. I don't really care.

I'm not to say any point you brought up is unvalidated because of this. I feel a conversation is more constructive basing it on what you know and feel then what you assume others to know and feel.

I know you don't mean it this way, but could we also assume that many Liberals would support fornication and having affairs because they supported clinton?

Are liberals responsible for 911 because Clinton refused to capture Osama in 1996?

I don't think they are. You can't have a perfect client. You vote for who you believe covers most of your beliefs. Our country allows change as time goes on. This situation now with gay marraiges. The institution of marraige has been in place for centuries, if you can't change it now, try again when people are more willing. If they don't want to change it then analyze why you really want it and see if you can get those individual rights.

If some people are just fighting to have the good fight, then you risk alienating more and more people. If gays can't marry it doesn't mean they can't still love each other, and work for some of the rights a married couple has. It's not a downright defeat.

I for one hope that eventually can get "married" or whatever media coined termed is popular at the time.

While I am not sure where my personal opinion lies on this matter, I find it difficult to swallow the assumption that people who were against gay marriage are "bigots". I think they are just looking for a definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I think a line defining marriage must be drawn somewhere and some people want it here. Some say it would devalue it, I can't say that legalizing same sex marriage would devalue it for me, but I can understand how it could for someone else.

If you redefine it to allow same sex couples, this devalues it for some.

If you redefine it to allow polygamy this devalues it for others.

If you redefine it to allow bestiality this devalues it many more. (I would imagine)

Not saying any of the above is right or wrong, but it is something to think about.

Something else to think about, however, is that none of those things are "redefinitions."

Marriage hasn't historically been union between one man and one woman, that's just a specific group's (in this case, christians) rhetoric to claim ownership over some term they never possessed.

The idea of how it crosses over into unacceptable behavior is that the legislation passed didn't just merely define something, it made other forms of unions illegal, too.

Touché. However, it is important to keep in mind that the lower courts are courts of limited power. They are bound in their decisions to reach verdicts that are compatible with the long precedent laid down before be higher courts and the legislature. In this particular case the courts were asked to rule on a question of law that had not been directly addressed by the Massachusetts Courts before. Therefore, the lower courts are expected to give deference to the custom interpretation(s) given to the law by other governmental agencies. It is not often when a lower court or even an appellate court will risk itself to overturn this precedent. Remember, they have to run for election too. They often leave the dirty work to the Supreme Court, as in this case. The Supreme Court (SC)reviewed the custom interpretation of the marriage laws and determined that this interpretation was in conflict with the rights guaranteed to citizens of Massachusetts by their State Constitution (It may be amazing for some to learn that most of our rights are protected by state constitutions rather then the Federal Constitution. Take for instance California, which has the largest constitution in the world. If you are a citizen of California you have a constitutionally protected right to fish. Try finding that in the Federal Constitution. Point being, your rights may vary from state to state. Scary ain’t it?) The SC found in their ruling that, as a matter of law, the common interpretation given to the Massachusetts marriage statute was in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution’s guarantees of equality before the law. In making this ruling the SP held open the door for the Massachusetts legislature or the people of Massachusetts to amend the State Constitution to specifically define marriage in the common interpretation. Seeing that this ruling was likely to duplicate itself in other states, 11 of these states took the hint, drafted constitutional amendments to change their constitutions to reflect the common interpretation of marriage and as such preempted similar rulings in their own SC. My point is, this entire process and the preemptive action taken in these 11 states is much more nuance then the talking heads and political pundits would have one believe.

and in terms of the gay marriage argument, you're 'counter examples' still are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

1) the irs won't care if someone who works at mcdonalds spends every dime they make or if a football player does it. yes, they're paying different %'s of their income in taxes, but you can spend as much of the takehome income as you want. and there's nothing wrong with that. trying to argue that having to pay taxes is somehow related to gay marriage is assinine.

2) you do not get to same say as a woman because you do not have to carry it to term for 9 months. you will not get morning sickness. you will not get fat and feel bloated all the time. you will not risk getting pregnancy related diabetes. when you are equal partners in teh pregnancy, then you can have equal say. until then, you're nothing more than a gob of goo giving her a nine month headache. and no one's restricting your rights there. and the govt. isnt' restricting hers there. if anything, this would be an argument FOR gay marriage.

3) my impression from things you've posted are that you live in michigan. well, here in michigan, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. you can pack heat at almost anytime anywhere. as long as you make sure you've got that permit on you, you can probalby carry it anywhere unless the location does not allow them on site. which would be not the govt. telling you what you can't do, but telling businesses and property owners that they can make those restrictions on their property. again, that would be an argument FOR gay marriage because the property owners have the freedom to do what they wish with thier land.

4) gender is not inherent in the purpose of the contract. many states do not have marriage as stated as being between a man and a woman. gender is not included. thats why massechusets allows gay marriage. because they don't define gender in teh contract. they arent' the only one.

5) a modern family is about love. it is about 2 people whom love each other raising a child (in the ideal form, non-ideal form being current 'broken homes' due to divorce). if two women love each other and either adopt or get sperm from the bank, or two men that love each other adopt, why should they not be allowed to get married? why should they not be allowed to share legal custody of the child, share all assets and have all the same inheretance priveliges that hetero couples have?

6) it's called sarcasm. that was dripping with it. nice umbrella. i think you'd have a hard time finding a enough gay people to fill a small room who think that gays should not be allowed to adopt. and if you want to do something about lessening the values of the mother and father rasising a child, do something about the current divorce rate and dead beat dads. go help get kids adopted so they aren't being raised by the system... oh wait... might accidently give 'em to one of them thar fags.

7) most people's compelling reason for denying gays the right to marry is religous. and since govt. should have no say in religion, and religion no say in govt., the govt. should, as long as it is in the business of marrying people, disregard the religious argument for it. part of the function of our govt. is to give voice to the minority and protect their rights. but that isn't happening now.

and no, i'm not framing the question wrong. my stance is that in order for something to be denied, there must be a compelling reason for the govt. to do it. and people thinking it's icky or morally (religiously) wrong are not compelling reasons.

but you are framing the question correctly. why are heterosexuals getting perferred status over homosexuals? and out side of religion and 'i think homosexuality is wrong', there is no reason. i have yet to hear one that doesn't involve god or bigotry.

if you haven't heard a logical reason for game marriage, i think you need to look into a hearing aid or glasses, cause their not hard to find.

i don't mean this next statement to be an insult, although it could be taken that way.

you sound like one of those christians who thinks that not getting preferential treatment (no 10 commandments in the courtroom, no prayer in school) over other religions is the same thing as being discriminated against.

you're not losing anything by having gays get married. but maybe you just like the fact that you can hold someone back.

/gays, the new blacks.

or maybe you'd find that many minorities that live in georgia, out side of being in atlanta or other predominatly black (that's the minority we're talking about, right) towns, would agree.

if you're point was that liberals don't like it when their argument is taken out of context, has arguments irrelevant and unrelated to the issue used as strawmen against it, then you're right. liberals aren't framing the question wrong. we're saying 'why deny these rights/privliges that everyone else has?' and outside of religion or hate or fear, there are no reasons. it is discrimination. if using the bible and jesus saying 'love thy neighbor' while telling them that they can't get married is morally superior to allowing them, then i guess i'm misinterpreting the jesus.

abortion isn't a discrimination issue. to frame it that way is logically incorrect. or maybe it's not. in which case it's discrimination either way... you either discriminate against the mother by giving the father control of her body, or you discriminate agasint the father by letting the mother control her own body. so i dont' think you really want to try to use that as an example.


uhm... how have liberals not worked through the system for change? was there a hostage crisis that lead to change that i don't know about?

i've already posted the definition of bigot in this thread. and based on it's definition, it's a very accurate word to describe most people who are anti-gay marriage. fundamentalist is used to describe people who vote based on the bible and 'morals.' again, an accurate buzz word that i have yet to see used improperly (whether or not argumet has had merit, the use of the word has). and you don't hear 'redneck' too much anymore. we prefer the term 'white trash.'

not really. marriage is between two people. in some places, it's further defined as between a man and a woman. and seeing as how there are people who marry without god involved, marriage is about the couple.

his definition is fact, but incomplete (dependent on location, etc.)

currently, second cousins can marry (or maybe it's third). and the reason cousins can't marry is because the closer together two people are genetically the more likely birth defects are to occur. hemophilia used to run rampant in royal familes of europe becuase by the 15-1600's, the relationships between royalter were so close they were basically inbreeding. i read a study recently though about inbreeding with rats (i think) where they concluded that it's not as bad as previously thought.


misinterpret? i'm sorry, but i believe they stated that because the law on marriage in mass. did not specify that marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman, gays could marry. they followed the letter of the law. you may not like that interpretation, but they were followign their states law.

but then you have to wonder why redefining it (in the case of gay marriage) would devalue it? is it supposed to be some secret club that only people who know the handshake can enter?

Obviously, people disagree on all of these issues. Obviously, there are laws in many states prohibiting not just same sex marriage, but polygamy and incest (defined as first cousins or something like that). The question is whether or not you must be a bigot for voting for or against repeal of any or all of these laws. It doesn't seem to make sense to separate the same sex part of this as a special minority group when there are lots of people who fit into the other categories as well. The crux of the argument for same sex marriage seems to be that it is a private matter that doesn't hurt anyone and the gov't should stay out of our private lives in that respect. The same arguments seem to work for the other situations. I don't think it is fair to label everyone who may be against some or all of these types of marriage a bigot without knowing more about the person and the reasons for their thoughts. You seem to be suggesting that as well. I just don't like reading over and over on these treads--and there are lots of them--how the bigots of the world support hate amendments if they don't vote a certain way. It's too simple, too convenient, unproductive, and unnecessarily insulting

it´s kinda sad that some folk can work themselves into such a frenzy over this. We, as humans on this earth, are facing such crucial issues that all this trivial crap serves only to distract from the all important life threatening reality of the modern world. If it ain´t gay marriage it´s Martha Stewart or Scott Peterson.
Taking your minds off the real problems is the greatest achievment of the last century. Janet Jacksons tit is a bigger concern than the American kids gunned down in a foreign country the same day. Look at the goddam big picture. It ain´t pretty.
If you´re against gay marriage, don´t marry a gay person. C´mon, get a grip.