Sounds like an interesting read. I may have to give it a look. I hope you'll give us a full review after you've had a chance to read it Dave.

CTW is about as conservative as John McCain. Or Jim Jeffrods.

In other words, she's not very conservative at all.

I'll take a President Joe Lieberman (D)over a President Whitman
(R) any day...

Dave, the broadcast I saw of Bush's call to the pro-life rally clearly tagged the call as coming from Camp David, where the President was at the time - not 100 feet away as Jon Stewart claims.

That being said, Ms. Whitman made some good points about the choices available, profitable and disastrous future directions for the Republican Party to take. In that, her message sounds a lot like Joe Scarborough's.

Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of "individual liberty"? Ha!

As most of those who read my comments are aware, I am fairly liberal on many issues. However, there are a number of Republicans that I have great respect for and would vote for, given the opportunity. These include Christine Todd Whitman, John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, and Colin Powell.

I live in a fairly liberal state (Washington) and the only Republicans that get elected to statewide office are fairly moderate. These include Republican Sam Reed (Washington's Secretary of State) who is now the subject of an improbable recall petition by the extreme right of the Republican Party. His crime? He acted with absolutely impeccable integrity during the very, very close election for Washington's Governor (that the Democrats won, at least for the moment). He has also drawn the ire of the Republican leadership by putting the preferences of voters ahead of the preferences of political parties during recent fights over primary election procedures.

I think that if the Republican party can successfully shake off the dictatorship of the whacky ultra-right wing, they will become a nearly unstoppable force in American politics for some time. I think John McCain or Colin Powell would have (and possibly still could) trounce any Democratic candidate for President. Also, CTW seems to me to be much more likely to be the first female President that Hillary Clinton (I have no idea if CTW has any aspirations for the job, though).

Many (moderate) Republican ideas are consistent winners. If the Republican party can actually get back to standing for what it says it stands for, instead of standing for the neocon religious conservative agenda, they will have found a clear winner for electoral success, and might even be able to heal some of the divisiveness found in American politics at the present.

Since Lieberman (D-CT; my home state) calls himself a "pro-business" Democrat, why doesn't he just switch parties?
I have a wonderful AP picture that appeared on the front page of my hometown newspaper, in which Joe's head obscures the "BER" and a bit of the "M" in a banner behind him (think about it).
I've said it here before, but Lieberman can have my copy of Grand Theft Auto III when he pries it from my cold, dead hands.

Joe Lieberman won't switch parties unless the Republicans can escape the domination of the religious conservatives. After that - who knows?

On another note, we have lots and lots of pro-business Democrats in Washington state. They remain Democrats because they also consider things like education, healthcare, and public transit to be as important as (and often part of) maintaining a "pro-business environment".

Nick Jones: Since Lieberman (D-CT; my home state) calls himself a "pro-business" Democrat, why doesn't he just switch parties?

So, Democrats are by nature anti-business? That's the main thing that differentiates them from Republicans?

Dave

Dave says: So, Democrats are by nature anti-business? That's the main thing that differentiates them from Republicans?

No. See my comment (#7) about pro-business Democrats in Washington. There are admittedly Democrats who are anti-business (though they won't say so) but that is not part of the definition of Democrats.

In my experience, the line between pro-business Democrats and libertarian oriented Republicans can be pretty blurry (to the point of invisible sometimes). For instance, it is not all that clear to me why Colin Powell identifies himself as a Republican (he's definitely not a neocon, even if he got used by them). Similarly, perhaps, for Joe Lieberman identifying himself as a Democrat.

That comment wasn't directed at you, Roy. You're clearly right on the mark. I was trying to get Nick to think about his confused view of what Democrats in general believe in.

Personally, I don't see Lieberman in that group where pro-business Democrats and Liberty Republicans get close together. He's closer to being a merger of neocon and Democrat. The Neocons originated in the Democratic party and then slithered over to the Republicans because they figured they could gain power more easily there, but they left Lieberman behind because he was just a little too moderate.

Dave

I think it would be more accurate to say that the neo-cons got tossed out of the Democratic party because they were all nutcases. Shame on the Republicans for taking them in out of the cold.

One of the characteristics of the Republican party has always been the 'big tent' mentality - perhaps not such a great idea in retrospect.

Dave

The Democrats have the big-tent mentality too, and in some ways the contrasts are even more ridiculous. Democrats have to try to balance the demands of environmentalists and organized labor, who tend to be on the opposite sides of many, many issues.

People say that the Democrats lost all their power because they pandered to their extreme elements. People are now saying here, Bush and the Republicans have gotten all the power they have, because they pandered to their extreme elements.

I just think how that worked out, sounds f*cked.

That's just because the backlash hasn't hit yet.

Dave

anything I can do to help speed it up?

Steve said "People say that the Democrats lost all their power because they pandered to their extreme elements. People are now saying here, Bush and the Republicans have gotten all the power they have, because they pandered to their extreme elements.

I just think how that worked out, sounds f*cked."

Steve, I agree and understand your frustration. I begrudgingly tip my cap to Karl Rove for the strategy, but certainly not for what it represents. I'm afraid the plain fact is that winning electoral coalitions can be forged by joining a Republican moderate voice to an extreme one *in certain policy areas*. The Democrats could probably do likewise, but I would say that they haven't identified an extreme social position that a majority of Americans will get behind the way the Republicans did in 2004.

Moreover, I think that a party can start from moderate rhetoric and move to extremes more easily and credibly than it can start from extremes and move to moderate positions. Bush/Rove started from moderate positions and worked their way towards extremes late in the campaign. Kerry/Cahill started with some extremes in order to win the Democratic base over other challengers who used a lot of extremes. The moderates and undecideds can only start from moderate positions- something that hurt the Democratic effort coming out of their own primary campaigns. Kerry/Cahill fought for six months trying to show that he was a moderate. It would have been a blowout had Kerry taken any extreme position at any point in the post-primary campaign.

Interesting post and discussion, Dave, though I think you're going a bit far in claiming "a whacko element of extreme social conservatives who escaped from the Democratic party some years ago have invaded the Republican party and are trying to hijack it away from its traditional values and beliefs." So it's all the Dems fault, is it?

I'm a Democrat who would have a tough time voting against a few of the moderate Republicans talked about here, namely John McCain. I think that Giuliani was a great mayor (I lived in NYC during part of his term) and greater national healer, but he's become less and less impressive over the last year or so as a more-or-less right-wing attack dog.

McCain, it seems to me, is the one figure who has the power and cred to forge a lasting moderate-right coalition. His biggest problem will be getting out of the GOP primaries, however, which are rife with social/religious zealots, RINO-bashers, and so forth.

There are signs that the GOP is ready for a serious split along ideological and, perhaps, geographic and cultural lines. There is no sign -- at least not yet -- that the Dems are ready to take advantage of it, however.

For more on this and every other topic under the sun, check out:

Dumpster Bust: Manufacturing Miracles from Mind Trash, Since 2003

As far as those Neocons coming from the Democrats, if you check their backgrounds you will find that most of them were Democrats early in their careers and switched parties.

As for Democrats taking advantage of a Republican party split, they really can't. There's the possibility of a split, but I don't think the disaffected moderate Republicans would ever join the Democrats. If they can't force the Neocons out into their own extremist party then I think the formation of a moderate third party is the only solution.

Next election is going to be the real text, because I don't think the Neocon strategy which barely won the last election can win again. To win next time they need a larger gain of votes and that will only be possible by attracting moderates. To get those moderates they're going to need to risk alienating the Neocons.

Dave

Whitman has it right. No pun intended. Both parties are in a period where they will be pulled by their extreme elements. The President sets the tone of the party and he has moved more to the right, especially since the re-election. Giving new life to the far right. But be assured, it will be moderated by the mainstream leaders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ZZ Bachman / ZardozZ News & Satire Portal
Have a Blog? Ring Surf it @ ZZ OpenRing

As goofy as it sounds, Dave is right on about how most of the neocons originated in the Democratic party. That was back when there was still such a thing as a "Democratic hawk".

It's kind of hard to know what positions the "whacko element of extreme social conservatives" differ from CTW on since none are identified in the story. I usually interpret this type of vagueness to mean her positions aren't popular and need a Federal edict to thwart the will of the people. So I'll hazard a few guesses as to what Christine feels the Republican party should stand for:

* Gay marriage... During the last election, in all the states queried, the electorate voted 2 to 1 that marriage should remain defined as between a man and woman. That's a lot of "whacko's".

* No compromise on abortion rights... This has always seemed perplexing. Liberals always argue for civil rights; suspected terrorists, illegal immigrants, even animals, yet a live squiggly human being with only it's head stuck up some unfortunate woman's vagina is fair game for extermination. It would seem very liberal to extend compassion. In every poll I've ever seen, the majority concurs. A lot of fundamentalist loons I suppose.

* Affirmative Action... Another reviewer of Christines book says that Christine thinks the party should try to appeal more to minorities. This usually means a broadening of Affirmative Action programs. Americans are a very generous lot... especially if they themselves personally don't have to sacrifice. Even white men generally don't object to euphamistically titled Affirmative Action (helps people) programs that are designed to reach out to select racial groups of people who seem to need help. Unfortunately aggressive anti-white and anti-male "moderate" groups have hi-jacked this altruistic concept to include racial preferences (hurts people), undermining the Constitutional mandate of equal treatment under the law. In polls I've seen, even blacks repudiate "racial preferences" by significant margins. 'Course, no one said that blacks can't be "whacky ultra-right wing" as well.

Christine is entitled to play this game, and it might play well to her constituents in a blue state, but going against National populist opinion in favor of activist judges is not a sensible direction for a conservative party currently enjoying a profound resurgency. Crazy as that might sound.

>>It's kind of hard to know what positions the "whacko element of extreme social conservatives" differ from CTW on since none are identified in the story. I usually interpret this type of vagueness to mean her positions aren't popular and need a Federal edict to thwart the will of the people. So I'll hazard a few guesses as to what Christine feels the Republican party should stand for:<<

I think it's a safe bet that her views are the same as President Bush's were before he had to make his deal with the Neocon Devil.

>>* Gay marriage... During the last election, in all the states queried, the electorate voted 2 to 1 that marriage should remain defined as between a man and woman. That's a lot of "whacko's".<<

Whitman's PAC is endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans. They hold the position that civil unions are the proper solution to the gay marriage issue and that we don't need to junk up the Constitution with an amendment against gay marriage. This is a position shared by over 80% of the nation regardless of political party.

>>* No compromise on abortion rights... This has always seemed perplexing. Liberals always argue for civil rights; suspected terrorists, illegal immigrants, even animals, yet a live squiggly human being with only it's head stuck up some unfortunate woman's vagina is fair game for extermination. It would seem very liberal to extend compassion. In every poll I've ever seen, the majority concurs. A lot of fundamentalist loons I suppose.<<

73% of Republicans support the legality of at least some basic form of abortion, be it morning-after contraception, first trimester abortion or in some cases more radical procedures. Almost no one but radical leftist ideologues supports partial birth abortions.

>>* Affirmative Action... Another reviewer of Christines book says that Christine thinks the party should try to appeal more to minorities. This usually means a broadening of Affirmative Action programs. <<

There's no reason at all to jump to that conclusion. Most moderate Republicans are against affirmative action. They're sensible people and affirmatice action makes no sense. What they usually mean by appealing more to minorities is working to dispell the bogus notion promulgated by the left that Republicans are racists. The best way to do this is what President Bush has been doing - appointing lots and lots of minorities to public office.

>>Christine is entitled to play this game, and it might play well to her constituents in a blue state, but going against National populist opinion in favor of activist judges<<

Actually, opposition to the activist judiciary - activist in both directions - seems to be one of the her issues.

>> is not a sensible direction for a conservative party currently enjoying a profound resurgency. Crazy as that might sound.<<

I think the party is enjoying a temporary advantage before an inevitable backlash and violent sundering.

Dave

we don't need to junk up the Constitution with an amendment against gay marriage. This is a position shared by over 80% of the nation regardless of political party.

With 11 out of 11 state constitutions being modified to condemn part of the populace to second class citizenship this last election, it's amazing how you say that 80% of all people, regardless of party, hold a no-amendment position. They sure don't vote the way they feel.

80% of the nation would be against a Constitutional amendment that explicitly defined marriage as being between a man and woman? That's hard to square with a 67ish% vote against gay marriage. I don't think people are that squemish about "junking up" the Constitution... especially if it prevents activist judges from over-riding the will of the people.

"Almost no one but radical leftist ideologues supports partial birth abortions."

Then Christine is on board with the banning of this procedure?

I don't mean to jump to conclusions about CTW's views on affirmative action programs, but if Bush is already appealing to minorities in the "best way", What is CTW's beef?

Just as an aside, one way to appeal to black's in particular, might be the proposal of a marriage defining Constitutional amendment. From polls I've seen, they are the group most critical of gay marriage.

"I think the party is enjoying a temporary advantage before an inevitable backlash and violent sundering."

There's always that pendulum thing. But I'm not convinced. Some sort of economic collapse might do it. That doesn't seem likely though.

It's probably wise to reserve judgment until CTW's views on where the party is going wrong are exposed, but it sounds a little like someone attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

>>80% of the nation would be against a Constitutional amendment that explicitly defined marriage as being between a man and woman? That's hard to square with a 67ish% vote against gay marriage. I don't think people are that squemish about "junking up" the Constitution... especially if it prevents activist judges from over-riding the will of the people.<<

People in America are just a bit more sophisticated than you may realize. They know what a huge move it is to amend the Constitution, and what they'll vote for in their state - where they hardly even read most of the ballot referenda and their willingness to actually amend the Constitution are two very different things. They really do take the Constitution much more seriously.

>>"Almost no one but radical leftist ideologues supports partial birth abortions."

Then Christine is on board with the banning of this procedure?<<

It's a good question, since it wasn't an issue the last time she ran for office. But I'd guess that since even most Democrats oppose partial birth abortion it's a fairly good bet.

>>I don't mean to jump to conclusions about CTW's views on affirmative action programs, but if Bush is already appealing to minorities in the "best way", What is CTW's beef?<<

I don't think she has a beef. That issue came up as part of her reaffirmation of traditional Republican values. I think she's offended - as I am - by Democrats constantly playing the race card against the Republicans without justification.

>>Just as an aside, one way to appeal to black's in particular, might be the proposal of a marriage defining Constitutional amendment. From polls I've seen, they are the group most critical of gay marriage.<<

That sure would be the definition of pandering.

>>"I think the party is enjoying a temporary advantage before an inevitable backlash and violent sundering."

There's always that pendulum thing. But I'm not convinced. Some sort of economic collapse might do it. That doesn't seem likely though.<<

I don't think you realize how unhappy a lot of people within the Republican party are with the Neocons. They're not necessarily anti-Bush, but they see this entire social agenda as hampering getting real work done.

One of the key characteristics of the Republican party has always been its relative neutrality on social issues. The party has always been about economic policy with social issues left on the back burner. This is how the Neocons got in. There was a sort of 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on religious and social allegiance.

>>It's probably wise to reserve judgment until CTW's views on where the party is going wrong are exposed, but it sounds a little like someone attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.<<

I think that like a lot of us she sees disaster looming. The Neocons are either going to have to be allowed to take over the party or they have to be put in their place with the party moving back to a more traditional Republican model. If the Neocons truly take over then a big chunk of the traditional wing of the party will almost have to leave. I could see a scenario at the 2008 convention where a popular moderate candidate with real strength for the national election loses out narrowly to a true Neocon candidate (which Bush definitely is NOT) who isn't as viable agains the democrats, and the moderate wing of the party walks out. This is especially likely if the Neocon comes out of a near tie primary and essentially wins nomination on the convention floor. The delegates at the convention are likely to be more conservative than the general Republican population, so this kind of scenario is believable.

Dave

"People in America are just a bit more sophisticated than you may realize."

Dave, if they are very sophisticated or educated in the matter, they may realize that a Constitutional amendment might be the only way to insure that Federal judges don't overturn the State laws they voted for to prohibit gay marriage.

Here is a poll that claims 59% would support a Constitutional amendment:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml

I found another poll that said only 38% would support the amendment, but 58% would rather see it resolved by the states. I guess it fluctuates with the wording.

Not to throw water on the notion that amending the Constitution is a serious thing. You're right. But I think that people would do it if they realized that Federal trumps State.

Yes, I think Dave is right. "Sophisticated" Americans prefer to have inequality written in at the state level, not the federal level.

>>"People in America are just a bit more sophisticated than you may realize."

Dave, if they are very sophisticated or educated in the matter,<<

I didn't say they were William F. Buckley Jr, just that they aren't as pig ignorant as many assume them to be.

>> they may realize that a Constitutional amendment might be the only way to insure that Federal judges don't overturn the State laws they voted for to prohibit gay marriage.<<

I'm betting they don't care about the issue enough to pursue it beyond the easy vote on a state ballot. To most anyone gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. You see a ballot item opposing it and voting for it is a no brainer.

>>Here is a poll that claims 59% would support a Constitutional amendment:<<

Need I even point out that that's not enough to actually ratify an amendment - assuming state votes broke down similarly, of course.

>>I found another poll that said only 38% would support the amendment, but 58% would rather see it resolved by the states. I guess it fluctuates with the wording.<<

Bingo. It's all about the wording.

How many people would answer yes to:

"Should the Constitution be permanently altered to deny the right of two loving adults of any combination of genders to live together with full legal equality and raise happy families"

>>Not to throw water on the notion that amending the Constitution is a serious thing. You're right. But I think that people would do it if they realized that Federal trumps State.<<

Assuming they really care that much about gay marriage.

And that's what it really comes down to. I think that most of those people who nominally come down against gay marriage don't really care about it all that much because it has no impact at all on their daily lives. Aside from the fact that it was hyped in the recent election, most people had never and would never have given the idea a thought on their own.

Dave

I think that most of those people who nominally come down against gay marriage don't really care about it all that much because it has no impact at all on their daily lives.

This is what's happening in MA right now, where a majority of the populace didn't like the state supreme court ruling that made gay marriage legal. Just over 5,000 gay marriages have been performed so far, and the people who opposed them are realizing that these marriages have had no impact on their own lives. A recent poll in my local region showed this to be true, to the point that almost 60% of those polled said the state legislature should not vote on the gay marriage amendment again this year. We have more important state-wide issues to attend to.

And that's what it really comes down to. I think that most of those people who nominally come down against gay marriage don't really care about it all that much because it has no impact at all on their daily lives.

I am glad that blogs like this exist where we can share ideas and hopefully come to an understanding of the different ideologies and maybe find common ground. With that in mind, I sincerely want to offer some well-meaning advice to the above mentioned voters, who fall into all political parties.

My blog is about gay parenting, with extensive and ever growing links and connections into the gay parenting community. Ever since Bush announced his support for the amendment, America has had millions of existing families live in fear of being denied equal opportunity and treatment. We have had to see children as young as 3 and 4 march in parades holding signs up saying their families are okay. No freaking child so young should ever even have to face the necessity of that. If I were to even begin to get into all that we've been though because of the Neo-con Right, it goes far beyond just marriage, they are attacking us at every aspect of society, in the schools, on television, etc.

I have some firsthand knowledge of knowing the effects of what being on the front lines of this culture war is like, to adults and children alike. With that in mind, my advice to the above mentioned voters, who vote on things without really caring about it, is to give it some thought. To care about what you are voting for or against. Because what you are voting on, whether it is an amendment, or social security, or educational reform or whatever, affects peoples lives dramatically. So please, America, take the time to care about your vote. Or don't bother voting and leave it to those who care about our country and building it better, in whatever way that may be, liberal or conservative, leave it to the people who care, if you can't care enough yourself about making this world a better place for us all. If you are too busy to see beyond your own box, a vote on human, civil or equal rights should never come your way.

Telling us that all we have been through, and continue to go through, is not because of hatred, but because people just really don't care enough to think about it, is no improvement.

I feel your pain, Steve. In such a situation it comes down to who gets their message across more effectively and who behaves more obnoxiously, the rabid anti-gays or the militant pro-gays. Whichever group alienates the fewest voters and wins over the most wins.

Frankly, given the situation I think that moderate gays who are serious about protecting their rights should abandon the gay marriage issue alltogether and push for a firm federal law for civil unions with the contentious 'M' word left out alltogether. Even Bush has said he'd support civil unions. It may not be what all gay people want most, but it gets them everything substantive they can hope for.

A little realism can go a long way when it means protecting your family.

Dave

Frankly....abandon the gay marriage issue alltogether and push for ...civil unions

Unfortunately, that is no longer an option.

When the courts, in numerous states, ruled on marriage, one of the questions they had to address was if civil unions was a viable alternative. The judical system in each case decided no. So you can't really say 'oh, okay, go ahead and take them though'.

Civil Unions/Marriage was put to the Separate But Equal test and failed in each court case. Marriage is a social institution. To prevent some people from having access to such a social institution creates an aura of ostracization, a mass prejudice, which violates our rights of equality as well as the right to pursue happiness.

It's failed. It's been rejected as being fundamentally oppressive. We can't just say 'oh, okay' and accept it now.

A little realism can go a long way when it means protecting your family.

I know, but Dave, why don't you be the one to go tell your own kids that you will settle for half-assed status and the continual assaults on their family. See how you like the 'alternative'.

No, the answer is to make people accountable for their own hypocrisy. Don't tell me that marriage is too sacred for me to be a part of, when it is such a vital part of societal treatment overall, while you all have drive in chapels, wife swaps on tv, woman who will marry losers posing as millionaires, people who marry for money not love getting more governmental support than my own family, no Dave, now you got me going again.

I don't wanna settle for what courts have repeatedly said is an oppressive atmosphere, so you all don't have to go through the inconvenience of thinking about the consequence of a vote. But thanks for the offer.

>>Civil Unions/Marriage was put to the Separate But Equal test and failed in each court case.<<

Those courts are wrong and it should be taken to a higher court. This is ultimately an issue which is going to end up in the Supreme Court and if when it gets there the issue is providing equal civil rights, and not the more divisive issue of marriage specifically, then there's more chance of a positive outcome.

>>Marriage is a social institution. To prevent some people from having access to such a social institution creates an aura of ostracization, a mass prejudice, which violates our rights of equality as well as the right to pursue happiness.<<

IMO Marriage needs to be classified as a purely religious institution and taken out of the social arena alltogether. The government should NEVER have been involved in Marriage in the first place. It's a violation of the separation of Church and State. Marriages should be performed by Churches and Civil Unions should be recognized by law.

>>It's failed. It's been rejected as being fundamentally oppressive. We can't just say 'oh, okay' and accept it now.<<

I don't think it's really time to give up yet.

>>I know, but Dave, why don't you be the one to go tell your own kids that you will settle for half-assed status and the continual assaults on their family. See how you like the 'alternative'.<<

Well, as life worked out that's not the way things are for me.

>>No, the answer is to make people accountable for their own hypocrisy.<<

What does that mean? Those who object to gay marriage on religious principles are not being hypocrites. They may be bigots, but they are logically consistent.

>>Don't tell me that marriage is too sacred for me to be a part of<<

I would never do that. This is why I think Marriage needs to be taken away from the government. It should be up to individual churches whether they want to marry same sex couples, and the government should recognize civil unions of any sort.

What's paramount to me is the rule of law, and a civil union is a contract, and any two adults can enter into any kind of contract on any terms and it ought to be honored by the law.

>>when it is such a vital part of societal treatment overall, while you all have drive in chapels, wife swaps on tv, woman who will marry losers posing as millionaires, people who marry for money not love getting more governmental support than my own family, no Dave, now you got me going again.<<

I don't believe I've ever endorsed any of that silliness. It really has nothing to do with gay marriage or civil unions or anything but tawdry entertainment and human venality.

>>I don't wanna settle for what courts have repeatedly said is an oppressive atmosphere, so you all don't have to go through the inconvenience of thinking about the consequence of a vote. But thanks for the offer.<<

I think you misunderstand what I support here. I think all family units should have exactly the same rights. I think that Marriage shouldn't be part of it for anyone. Marriage is a religious ritual and should be completely separate from any legal institution that forms family units.

There are already plenty of churches which will marry same sex couples. If Marriage ceases to be state sanctioned then conservative churches can marry who they want and more progressive churches can marry whoever they want, and the state will just recognize the legality of civil union contracts without regard to the gender of the parties involved.

Why isn't this this ideal solution?

Dave

Those courts are wrong and it should be taken to a higher court.

On the state level, those rulings already come from the highest court.

when it gets there the issue is providing equal civil rights, and not the more divisive issue of marriage specifically, then there's more chance of a positive outcome.

We won. How much more positive than that can you get? Losing a court case, so having to modify the original founding documents so you can then win is not what America is about, and we can't quit fighting for equality just because well, we're right, we win and you guys don't like it so cheat.

(by saying 'you guys', I understand your position Dave and am speaking generically for convenience, but making the distinction known here. I don't want to have to keep typing 'those who do not approve of gay marriage' over and over.)

Marriages should be performed by Churches and Civil Unions should be recognized by law.

That would work for me, and most likely the entire community, but there is no way that the government is getting out of the marriage business. I mean, at least I don't see that as a realistic possibility, there are way too many laws and benefits and such tied to marriage as it is.

I don't think it's really time to give up yet.

To not give up on civil unions, you mean? As they stand now they are a losing situation. There is no attempt, as we speak, by ANY side, to pull marriage out of the government. Don't expect me to wait for that process to start some day in the unknownable future, when Lady Liberty is already telling me again and again that I'm right.

Well, as life worked out that's not the way things are for me.

I know Dave but the point was to show you what you are asking of us, and how unAmerican it is, to expect that in this country.

What does that mean? Those who object to gay marriage on religious principles are not being hypocrites. They may be bigots, but they are logically consistent.

Not in my book. The way people who are opposed to gay marriage trample all over an institution they want to keep me out of because they claim it's sacred, is very hypocritical in my book.

It should be up to individual churches whether they want to marry same sex couples, and the government should recognize civil unions of any sort.

Works for me. Nobody's platform is working towards this though. What's the likelyhood of asking voters if they want the government to not recognize marriage at all? What would the vote results of that be? Are you not asking me to work for an even greater impossibility? I don't know, but it sure seems like it's more impossible.

I don't believe I've ever endorsed any of that silliness. It really has nothing to do with gay marriage or civil unions or anything but tawdry entertainment and human venality.

I know Dave. My 'yous' are generic. Anyway, yes, I know drive-in chapels and reality shows, etc. don't have anything to do with gay marriage. Yes they are tawdry entertainment. A religious institution you all say is sacred, that you all then abuse for tawdry entertainment. It doesn't have to do with gay marriage, it has to do with hypocrisy.

If Marriage ceases to be state sanctioned then conservative churches can marry who they want and more progressive churches can marry whoever they want, and the state will just recognize the legality of civil union contracts without regard to the gender of the parties involved. Why isn't this this ideal solution?

If you ask me, it is an ideal solution. But a solution that is unlikely to happen.

Here's a question for you. Let's say that came to pass, and the government got out of the marriage business. Then say an insurance company decided to give one rate for the church-recognized marriage and another rate for couples in government recognized civil unions, and yet another rate for singles. How is that different than the different 'recognizations' that exist now, that have been proven to be oppressive?

This is my take on it Dave, and it's important to note that it's MY take and I'm not speaking for any community:

It's been said that the amendments are the 'nuclear bomb' on our equality. That they are final, and a last ditch attempt to circumvent Lady Liberty. But if you look at where the nuclear bombs went off in Japan (in WWII), there is green grass growing there now. So nothing is final. Prohibition shows us that amendments can be undone.

And once they are undone, what is left? Going back to fighting in the legal system? No, that's done all the way to the top, there is no going back there. We win in that arena. Amendments are not nuclear bombs, but 'final hands' in the great poker game of life. Amendments are the last cards that the right has, they have nothing after that. Say that Texas has an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and that amendment gets undone. Then what do 'you guys' do? There is nothing left to do. There is no higher document to rewrite, there is no recourse in the legal system it's over, it's done, the Right can shut up and go home.

So if I were a policy maker or a decision maker in the activism realm, I would make the Right play their final hand. We know what their cards are, we know what they hold. And so we know what beats it. So we should make them play their final hand on our terms (like the Right picked the most anti-gay states to put the amendment up for ballot this last election, we make them play their hand in more tolerant states or on our terms for once). In states where the amendment passed, I would begin a grassroots campaign of education, tolerance, etc. and begin the petitions to undo the amendments, realizing that the end result can take decades. The amendments might not be nuclear bombs, but they are powerful and won't be undone easily, but ultimately CAN be and WILL be undone. And the grass will grow again.

So play the final hand. Don't try and bluff and get me to fold, because I know what you hold and I know what beats it (I just might not be holding the winning hand at the moment, but I get to keep drawing cards). Play the final hand and let's get this damn game over with so I can go back to raising my kid and leaving you guys alone.

Well, if getting government out of the marriage business isn't going to work, then we're left with no choice but to resolve the issue as Gay Marriage as written. Here's how that will play out.

No anti gay marriage amendment to the US Constitution will ever meet the requirements for ratification. I'd be surprised if one could get off Capitol Hill.

Eventually the state laws will get to the Supreme Court which will likely decide that the issue is outside of its jurisdiction and a matter for the states to deal with.

The result will be that some states will end up allowing Gay Marriage and some will not, and those that don't won't recognize marriages from those that do, and the whole thing will be a godawful mess.

I suppose there's an outside chance the Supreme Court will have the balls to rule on Gay Marriage, in which case they would almost have to rule in favor of it under equal protection. Though they could rule that the term 'marriage' only apply to unions between men and women, while same-sex unions should have all the same rights, but be called something else.

What really bugs me about this issue is that it's such a stupid, pointless waste of time. It should be obvious to any sensible person what the right thing to do is, and anyone who makes decisions about other peoples lifestyles based on their personal religion just hasn't quite grasped what America is about and should go to a remedial Americanism class.

The most irritating thing is that this issue can get played up by people on both sides of the political spectrum to stir up anger and resentment and it ends up becoming the focus of election debate, when the only issue to argue over comes down to 'god hates gays' vs. 'you're a bigot'. Which is an idiotic waste of everyone's time.

One of the things I hate the most about the political process is the way that issues of limited importance which should be easily resolved are played up into huge moral crisises way out of proportion to their real significance. Not that this issue isn't important to Steve S as a gay parent, but in the larger scope of national issues, it's something that shouldn't consume all of our attention. It becomes a distraction from issues which could well be a matter of life and death for everyone in the country.

Dave

"morning-after contraception"

That is not in any way, shape, or form, an abortion.

"Almost no one but radical leftist ideologues supports partial birth abortions."

Oh, and John Kerry...

"What's paramount to me is the rule of law, and a civil union is a contract, and any two adults can enter into any kind of contract on any terms and it ought to be honored by the law."

Why not 3 adults? Or 4? Or 34?

RJ: "morning-after contraception"
That is not in any way, shape, or form, an abortion.

Tell that to the Christian Coalition.
RJ:"Almost no one but radical leftist ideologues supports partial birth abortions."
Oh, and John Kerry...

And that's contradictory of my original statement because....?

RJ:"What's paramount to me is the rule of law, and a civil union is a contract, and any two adults can enter into any kind of contract on any terms and it ought to be honored by the law."
Why not 3 adults? Or 4? Or 34?

Indeed, why not?

Dave

"like the Right picked the most anti-gay states to put the amendment up for ballot this last election"

Oregon is "anti-gay"?

(Yet another thread turned into a queer-marriage debate, thanks to Steve...)

Why not 3 adults? Or 4? Or 34?

Indeed, why not?

I'm sure RJ would love to watch two women get it on with a man for casual sex [or the camera]. But for some reason, he draws the line at them making a lifetime commitment to each other.

BHW:

I have no problem with people making "a lifetime commitment to each other."

So, if we are to have queer marriage, why not polygamous marriage as well?

Basic human rights are basic human rights, after all...

Eek, bhw balances it out with another ugly but true point.

Nice, in the general sense that there are a whole lot of people who are anti gay marriage but pro-porn (in a rather small way most of the time :-)

So, if we are to have queer marriage, why not polygamous marriage as well?

As Dave said, indeed, why not, as long as everyone is an adult?

And thanks, Temple. You caught my drift.

Okay, so from my small sample, I can posit that those in favor of queer marriage are also in favor of polygamy?

Try selling THAT to the voters in 2006...

I'm in favor of allowing consenting adults to choose whatever "lifestyle" they want.

Oregon is "anti-gay"?

Did Oregon pass their amendment? The amendments were strategically placed by the Right to draw out specific voters in the election. I am convinced of that.

(Yet another thread turned into a queer-marriage debate, thanks to Steve...)

Dave actually brought up gay marriage in comment 23. I responded in 24 and the conversation went from there. So I actually didn't bring it up. It was already a topic in discussion and I'm certainly free to add my thoughts to it.

Polygamous marriage is insulting to women.

Polygamous marriage is insulting to women.

Polygamous marriage, as you think of it, in the traditional religious form, is insulting because of the heirarchal structure of the marriage. The woman are almost property.

But in communal type marriages, where all are equal, those are not insulting, although it takes a certain type of personality to be able to live like that.

Open relationships can work for some people, and not others, I would think a communal type polygamous marriage would be the same. Example, how could a polygamous marriage be insulting to the women, if it contained 4 women and 3 men and was not built on the structure of the old Mormon church faith?

Not if the women are the ones marrying multiple husbands, Temple!

Every once in a while I veer off the standard feminist position on a topic, and this is one of those cases. Feminists don't like polygamy for a variety of reasons, most of which have to do with power inequalities in the relationship(s) and/or sexual abuse/coercion of minors.

So, I don't condone any abusive relationships. But if a woman -- even a woman who just turned 18 -- decides she wants to enter into a polygamous relationship, why would I want to stop her from exercising that freedom of choice? It's not a choice I would make, but that's not the point.

>>Okay, so from my small sample, I can posit that those in favor of queer marriage are also in favor of polygamy?

Try selling THAT to the voters in 2006...<<

Well, it would win us Utah hands down.

And as for Polygamy being anti-woman, from what I've read about quasi-illegal polygamous families which do exist out there, the women find that having multiple wives opens up a lot of possibilities for them and alleviates some of the burdens of being women. It lets them both be full time moms and raise kids and feel confident about the environment their kids are in without having to resort to daycares. It can be a very positive environment by all accounts.

Dave

alleviates some of the burdens of being women

And I thought you were alluding to having sex more than once a week with the hubby.

There's that too.

Dave

Being a resident of Massachusetts, I can honestly say that after 5,000 gay marriages, Christ has not come down on a great cloud and destroyed us as God did Sodom and Gomorrah (if one chooses to believe that it happened). Roman Catholics, who divorce, remain married in the eyes of the Church unless they undertake an expensive annulment process. There's a double standard here that can easily be resolved. As far as I am concerned, all "marriages" recognized by the state are CIVIL UNIONS. While a religious official may preside over a civil union recognized by the state, a civil official should also reserve the same right.

This debate has been used as a smokescreen to minimize real problems facing our society. We have four years remaining of this Administration. We should be most concerned with the direction they are taking us as a nation in social security, foreign policy and health coverage. Rather than be concerned with the Presidential race in 2008, my focus is on the med-term elections. A bold, thunderous message must be sent to the District of Columbia in 2006.

>>A bold, thunderous message must be sent to the District of Columbia in 2006. <<

And what is that message supposed to be? Elect more obstructionist Democrats who just say 'no' to every proposal to solve the problems the country faces?

Dave

And what is that message supposed to be? Elect more obstructionist Democrats who just say 'no' to every proposal to solve the problems the country faces?

If the proposals continue to be as awful as the ones presented thus far (privatization to "fix" Social Security, tort "reform" to "improve" health care) then I would have to say, yes, that's about right.

Actually, Dave, I would love to see several people from other parties sent to Capitol Hill. I know it is near impossible to see it happen, but there's already one "independent" Senator there.

Branding Democrats as "obstructionists" is as silly as claiming Republicans are "patriots." We need real solutions in this country, not just lip service from both sides of the aisle.

Silas- I'd still like to see the government out of the business of marriage altogether. The conferrence of rights (medical care, insurance, passing of estates, etc.) should rightfully be from one person to another *of that person's choosing*.

Good point, Mike. As in Mark 12:17 "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Even in those days, the Gospel clearly establishes a line between Church and state.

"I'm in favor of allowing consenting adults to choose whatever "lifestyle" they want."

Me too!

But should we call ALL those "lifestyles" a "marriage"?

"Did Oregon pass their amendment?"

Yep!

"The amendments were strategically placed by the Right to draw out specific voters in the election. I am convinced of that."

All evidence aside...

"if a woman -- even a woman who just turned 18 -- decides she wants to enter into a polygamous relationship, why would I want to stop her from exercising that freedom of choice?"

You don't even have the option to stop her.

Polygamous "relationships" are perfectly legal.

What I am talking about is polygamous MARRIAGES.

If two dudes can marry each other, and two chicks can as well, why not 17 dudes and 14 chicks?

(I don't think the voters would approve...)

"Rather than be concerned with the Presidential race in 2008, my focus is on the med-term [sic] elections. A bold, thunderous message must be sent to the District of Columbia in 2006."

33 Senate seats are up for election in 2006.

Most are held by Dems.

If anything, the GOP will make further gains in 2006, at least in the Senate...

RJ said: should we call ALL those "lifestyles" a "marriage"?

I guess that depends on who the 'we' is.

Call me a stickler, but I believe that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacraments are administered not by the state, but by churches. And, as there are many churches, there is room for many religious interpretations for who will receive the sacrament. Some denominations will limit this to man-woman relationships. Others will include same sex unions. You then join the church that reflects your values.

So, back to that 'we'. I believe the 'we' should extend no further than the congregation. Most Americans unfortunately seem to believe that the 'we' who has a say should be much broader, should be a matter of state, and should be enforced by law.

RJ, I said "The amendments were strategically placed by the Right to draw out specific voters in the election. I am convinced of that."

and if I understand correctly, you are saying that because Oregon passed their amendment, this is evidence to the contrary about my statement. I don't follow your logic. To strategically place the amendment, doesn't always mean in a red state. They do want the amendments passed, they would place them strategically where that was best possible, where religious voters were most likely to respond and that's not always a red state.

Mike, in regards to your thoughts in comment 65, I'm wondering how you feel about the public (business) recognition of the marriage.

Say one church only performed heterosexual marriages, one church performed a same sex marriage, an insurance company offers a rate for married couples, is it required to offer it to both couples? If we don't require it, are we then basically allowing businesses to offer different rates for denominations? Wouldn't societal pressure then cause churches to need to conform to that which is most likely to guarantee their survival?

Suppose a church in Utah performed a polygamous marriage. Suppose an insurance company bows to pressure from groups who say that polygamous marriages are harmful to women, so that insurance company wants to offer low rates only to heterosexual twosomes. Others pay single. Can they do that in your scenario?

Business, like churches, should be allowed to set their own policies. In both scenarios, I concede that there will be some that exclude. We know the Roman Catholic Church would, for example. We know that some other denominations would be inclusive, from the Unitarians up through various Methodists and Lutherans. Likewise, some insurance companies may well exclude, but others will leap at the opportunity to win this business and serve the gay community.

Insurance is insurance, and it is really all about the numbers, and it already is discriminatory. If you are male and under 25, you pay more for car insurance than a female under 25 with an identical driving record. No pressure group has gotten that changed. I have no idea about statistics regarding same sex couples and expected longevity and health outcomes, but I would expect the rates to be reflective of such statistics- and little else.

Polygamous "relationships" are perfectly legal.

What I am talking about is polygamous MARRIAGES.

So was I.

If two dudes can marry each other, and two chicks can as well, why not 17 dudes and 14 chicks?

Well, first of all, if we can regulate marriage to be between two people of the opposite sex, why can't we regulate it to be between two people no matter their sex? Why is it that the number of people who can marry suddenly must change if the sex of the people who can marry changes? That's just Chicken Little b.s.

Besides, I don't really care if groups of people marry each other. Again, why should I care or want to institute laws that prevent people from choosing their own "lifestyle" and having it legally protected like my "lifestyle" is?

(I don't think the voters would approve...)

Obviously.

The biggest problem in Mike's scenario, I think, is that the government gives special treatment to married people. So before we could institute the separation of civil unions from marriage, we'd have to get the government to stop giving married people special treatment. Each person would have to be treated as an individual even if civilly unionized and/or married.

And that's not going to be a popular idea, so it will never happen.

polygamy is a nonstarter and red herring in the gay marriage debate: why? Because it is much easier to define and support the notion of the "sanctity of marriage" being based upon two people (the entire Judeo-Christian heritage, for one thing) than it is to limit access to the rights and privileges of marriage based upon gender. But with polygamy there are always losers -- the terms "third wheel" "two's company, three's a crowd," etc, were not created in a vacuum. The contractual elements of marriage are thrown into disarray by polygamy. Open marriage is a decision within a marriage not a sanction of the state, "it takes a village" communal child care is perfectly reasonable but has nothing to do with polygamy.

The polygamy argument is similar to the "why not a man and a sheep, then" argument: why? Because we fucking say so, that's why.

well, Mike, while your scenario sounds good at the onset, I'd have to say I ideologically reject it based on the fact that you'd allow discrimination to still take place. I just see a complete mess if that scenario takes place.

If the Unitarian church 'marries' me because they ideologically believe it's okay, but an insurance company only wants to recognize Catholic marriages because they endorse heterosexual relationships, I don't see how that is different than the discrimination I face now, other than the fact that you would basically be letting businesses then discriminate based on religious persuasion.

Family discounts at the Y? Only for Southern Baptists and Episcopalians! No, no, I see a mess.

Also, while I commend your philosophy that the free market will always take care of people and someone would rush in to fill the void and give me insurance, history and my own life experiences have shown me that is not a guarantee.

If 10% of the population supports something, and 90% do not, and the 90% will refuse to do business (or boycott, etc.) with the minority, most in the 10% bracket will gravitate over to the 90% just for 'market share'.

What about a gay couple who were 'married' by Unitarians, and a gay couple who were 'unionized' by another, the school system recognizes one as a family, but not the other, so additional court proceedings are needed in the second case (second parent adoption papers or whatever). How are you supposed to know that when you get married?

'Well, we MAY move to Seattle one day, and they don't recognize unions, so we have to get married in a church so we can both be recognized by the school system as parents."

How are you going to know to do that?

You're not, and the entire legal system will get bogged down even more with discrimination lawsuits as, just like now, you will have two identical families side by side and an entity (in this case a school system) requiring different hoops for the families to jump through. I see a mess waiting to happen.

Isn't it possible that the voters in Oregon and the other 12 states who voted down 'gay' marriage had it right? I mean when you look at the facts, it just doesn't make sense to grant homosexual couples the same rights as married couples. There are valid reasons for it.

Do tell, what are those valid reasons? Because God says we should kill homos perhaps?

Dave

DCTTBD, sorry, that is too long of a pseudonym to type. It's perspective. Based on what I was taught when I was young, about equality, opportunity, prejudice and civil rights, I do not believe it is possible that voters who passed amendments got it right. I believe that from their perspective, they think they do, and I know that from their perspective, they think I am wrong.

My perspective seems to be the same perspective as Lady Liberty, so I feel I'm in good company even if I'm not in the majority.

RJ, I said "The amendments were strategically placed by the Right to draw out specific voters in the election. I am convinced of that."

and if I understand correctly, you are saying that because Oregon passed their amendment, this is evidence to the contrary about my statement. I don't follow your logic. To strategically place the amendment, doesn't always mean in a red state. They do want the amendments passed, they would place them strategically where that was best possible, where religious voters were most likely to respond and that's not always a red state.

Sooo...in what states wouldn't it have been "strategic" to "place" those amendments on the ballot?

"Well, first of all, if we can regulate marriage to be between two people of the opposite sex, why can't we regulate it to be between two people no matter their sex?"

But why would you want to?

Once we have redefined the concept of marriage to fit the views of a politically-correct minority, against the will of the people, why should we stop there? What about a politically-INCORRECT minority that wants their unique relationships also recognized by the gov't?

"Because it is much easier to define and support the notion of the "sanctity of marriage" being based upon two people (the entire Judeo-Christian heritage, for one thing)"

The entire Judeo-Christian heritage also supports man-woman marriage ONLY, and finds homosexuality an abomination...

"The polygamy argument is similar to the "why not a man and a sheep, then" argument: why? Because we fucking say so, that's why."

That's pretty much the gay marriage argument, too...

RJ's got it pretty much right. Any society has the right to define what a marriage is.

Steve- aren't you hoping that just *one* state will make gay marriage legal, and that it will stick? That would be an exception to the rule, but wouldn't it be a great thing for you?

I read what you are saying, and it sounds like you want an absolute- gay marriage recognized by the government in all 50 states. Nice ideal, but since, as you and others have argued so strenuously in so many other posts, the USA is a democracy. In a democracy, the majority sets policy. In this democracy, and most others on this planet, gay marriage is going to be voted down.

In an all or nothing proposition, you will get nothing.

Taking the state out of the picture will help you get what you want, because while there may not be many churches that will marry you, may not be many schools who will take your children, may not be many insurance companies to take your business, there *will be some*, and that's better than none.

RJ and Dan said the realpolitik item of the day, "society has the right to decide".

I would normally go on now about the importance of individual rights versus group rights, but you've made abundantly clear to me that you have no interest in that discussion.

You see my proposal as a mess. Well, real life is messy. We don't all agree on everything. The hardest thing in the world is for a minority to persuade a majority for acceptance within disagreement. You, my friend, are inside pandora's box.

What about a politically-INCORRECT minority that wants their unique relationships also recognized by the gov't?

As I've said, as long as they're consenting adults, who cares?

Steve- aren't you hoping that just *one* state will make gay marriage legal, and that it will stick?

Three cheers for Massachusetts, which is already halfway there. It's legal, and it just might stick.

aren't you hoping that just *one* state will make gay marriage legal, and that it will stick? That would be an exception to the rule, but wouldn't it be a great thing for you?

Hell yeah, it'd be a great thing, where did I give the impression otherwise?

What I meant, about making the Right play their final hand and stuff, is on our terms. IF I were a strategist or an activist, (which I am not), I'd do it to our benefit. Why not? That's what the Right does.

One way could be like Mass., where the ruling comes before the vote comes. Then when the vote comes, you hope to minimize it. The Left tells me that Mass. People aren't freaking out, and it's possible an amendment might not come to pass there, by the time the vote comes. IF that's true, then I do have one state already. I don't know about California, it's possible because of the current political climate, the amendment wouldn't pass. One factor I'm considering is the already growing backlash against the neo-con agenda. If I were a strategist, I'd be doing a grassroots campaign to tap into people who are just overall concerned about the Right and people like Dobson going too far.

*Shrugging* I'm not in politics, it's just a political strategy I would try.

it sounds like you want an absolute- gay marriage recognized by the government in all 50 states.

What I also want is an end to discrimination, prejudice and intolerance, I don't see the accomplishment of either in my lifetime.

the USA is a democracy. In a democracy, the majority sets policy

The Right keeps telling me this. I think this is where I get misunderstood. Let me see if I can respond to this in a new way:

It's my understanding that there are some things that can't be set by majority policy. If the majority of people voted on a policy that all people over 35 had to die ala Logan's Run, I don't think that means because we are a democracy, it's going to happen. In other words, it is my understanding that it's not just majority rule.

Now, with that in mind, when I read the court rulings where we win the Right to Marry, and I read the rationale why, where they talk about ostracization, societal prejudice, the Pursuit of Happiness and the effects of mass exclusion on basic social institutions, I believe that something that has such an effect on people shouldn't be subject to majority rule. I don't think that is American.

My assumption is bolstered by the fact that the only way majority rule can affect it, is by modifying historical documents. Majority rule, attempting to vote it away via laws, ultimately never stands. This also confirms my assumption about the importance of the institution itself, in terms of being part of society, and the bottom line is, since I am not a law breaker, that is my constitutional right, folks, to be a part of society, whether you think I am cool or not.

To moderates who truly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, I would hope that they understand where I am coming from, and know that it is not an attempt to do anything more than be a member of society free from mass prejudice.

Taking the state out of the picture will help you get what you want,

Although I see a mess, Mike. Part of me would probably still go for the idea, because what it does is throw us all in the mess, not just gay people anymore. If it does go the route I predict, THEN you all will know what I'm speaking against now, that is for sure.

RJ and Dan said the realpolitik item of the day, "society has the right to decide".

See, this is where I disagree with you all. Sorry, folks, no disrespect but I disagree. The Right doesn't seem to understand the effects of mass exclusion, some things society shouldn't have the right to decide. I mean no disrespect to moderates who want to preserve the tradition of marriage. What I see happening is the tradition of marriage (and it's whole societal support system) conflicting with discrimination and a form of segregation, rather than sexuality. I think that is why the opposing side keeps losing legally.

I think the most tragic thing of all this is seeing so many on the Right begin to turn on our court system, labeling judges as activists, and trying to circumvent our lands (so far state level) highest courts. But then again, it's not just marriage that is causing the Right to attack and attempt to overtake the judicial system. Which is why this ultimately isn't about sexuality. Whether it is the fight for Creationism in schools or abortion rulings or the right to marry, what this battle is about, is the right of a religious community to maintain it's ability to discriminate, practice prejudice and exert religious belief into political power over a society. But apparently the 'activist' judges are just so numerous, (like practically every one of them), that that intolerance keeps finding itself on the wrong side of the scales of justice. Unfortunately, I find myself in a foxhole on the front lines of the culture war. I didn't want to be here, but here I am.

>>the USA is a democracy. In a democracy, the majority sets policy

The Right keeps telling me this. I think this is where I get misunderstood. Let me see if I can respond to this in a new way:<<

The right I know isn't telling you this. This is generally the argument of the left, not the right. The country is not a democracy. It's a Republic which uses a democratic process to pick its representation. The idea of this sort of system is to protect the rights of minoriities against the potential tyrrany of the majority. It's not perfect, but it's way better than the craziness of mob rule - which is what absolute democracy would be.

Dave

The idea of this sort of system is to protect the rights of minoriities against the potential tyrrany of the majority.

I agree Dave. And I think laws forbidding me access to such a fundamental social instutition, violates my rights under a tyrrany of sorts of the majority. This is why the laws fall down and they have to resort to modifying historical documents. This basic premise of our country, protecting me from the majority and it's segregation, is why whether I can marry or not, is not supposed to be put to a vote. That is a corruption of the basic principles of America.

That is my belief, and why I reject the argument of 'well the majority says...'

The Right to Marry is a part of a much bigger and yet much simpler question. How far does the Right to Discriminate go? How far does the Right to be subject to Discrimination go? What happens when it conflicts with one's Right to the Pursuit of Happiness?

Let me add to this:

The Right to Marry is a part of a much bigger and yet much simpler question. How far does the Right to Discriminate go? How far does the Right to be subject to Discrimination go? What happens when it conflicts with one's Right to the Pursuit of Happiness? The opposing side is telling me that the Right to discriminate and exclude, can come to pass, if the majority say so, overruling my right to the pursuit of happiness and being a full member of society.

I'm not a lawbreaker. I'm an American citizen. Popularity isn't supposed to matter when it comes to my Rights, they are supposed to be guaranteed, not put to a vote.

Key words, Steve: supposed to. Alas, the difference between a democracy and a republic is that in the democracy, the will of the people, the great masses, is what carries the day. In a democracy, the tyranny of the majority isn't the exception, it's the expected rule. I *was* targeting the left on that dig. It is the left who generally wants majority rule and discrimination- observe the graduated income tax. That is a discrimination against higher wage earners, but the left is cheerfully in favor, and scornful of any attempt to defend the individual rights of higher wage earners. Popularity isn't supposed to matter when it comes to your rights, you say? What about the rights of higher wage earners to keep their earnings? Oh yeah- that's an item that falls under the greater good of society, and is okay to bend to the popular will of taxing the rich.

Don't act astonished when this greater good or will of society method is applied to your 10% category, and you are the object of majority rule discrimination. You've begged for it in other areas of life. Come get it in yours.

See the blind spot? See the inconsistency? This has been the crux of our dialogue for the past four months.

My tone is harsh, I know, but I've tried gentle and gentle has been deflected. I have sympathy for your position, but not for the result of inconsistently applied principle.

Mike Kole: It is the left who generally wants majority rule and discrimination- observe the graduated income tax. That is a discrimination against higher wage earners, but the left is cheerfully in favor, and scornful of any attempt to defend the individual rights of higher wage earners. Popularity isn't supposed to matter when it comes to your rights, you say? What about the rights of higher wage earners to keep their earnings? Oh yeah- that's an item that falls under the greater good of society, and is okay to bend to the popular will of taxing the rich.

The problem with many of you Libertarians is that you seem to place the "right" to make money on the same level as free speech, free assembly, or due process. But money is a social construct - it was created by society to serve the needs of society and the individuals in it. Our abilities to act and express ourselves freely as individuals predate civilization and thus are fundamentally more "unalienable" than the realization of income potential.

In actuality, your distinction between people as "wage earners" is completely bogus. An rich person isn't denied any rights that poor people have. If Bill Gates goes broke and has to get a job at McDonald's, he won't pay any more taxes than the cashier next to him. Likewise, if a homeless person wins the lottery, he will be taxed no less than Bill Gates. There is no discrimination there.

It's a cliche, but there's so much more to get out of life than a just paycheck. Maybe you should get out and experience more; although I'll defend your right to obsess over money if that's what gets you off.

>>The problem with many of you Libertarians is that you seem to place the "right" to make money on the same level as free speech, free assembly, or due process. But money is a social construct - it was created by society to serve the needs of society and the individuals in it. Our abilities to act and express ourselves freely as individuals predate civilization and thus are fundamentally more "unalienable" than the realization of income potential.<<

One of the three fundamental rights is the right to property. That means owning it, acquiring it, and using it as one will. In our society money is an abstract which represents property. That being the case, the right to acquire and hold on to wealth is as fundamental a right as any other. More fundamental than most of the secondary rights you find in the Constitution, which in fact, derive from the three basic rights - Life, Liberty and Property. In fact, the right to property/money is more fundamental than the specific rights you mention - free speech, free assembly and due process. Those three originate in the right to Liberty, but it is co-equal to the right to Property.

Dave

Amen, JR. Thank you.

See the blind spot? See the inconsistency? This has been the crux of our dialogue for the past four months.

Yes, Mike, I understand what you are talking about, and just like over the last 4 months, I reject the comparison. Let me try again to explain why.

My place in society, my right to belong, to be able to enroll my kid in school, without having to send warning notices home to parents and all that, is far, far different than if you get to bring home 100k a year or 80k. Don't compare MY right to belong to a society to your right to keep a paycheck. They are NOT equivalent, and it is insulting to compare MY basic human rights to YOUR tax, and even more insulting to hold my basic human rights at bay because YOU have a problem with contributing more to society than a poor person can.

No blind spot, Mike. I comprehend what you are saying, but as I am always telling you, I fundamentally reject it because you trivialize my situation with the comparison.

It is a blind spot, Steve. The right to property, the right to the proceeds of your labor, is as fundamental as any other. And that does NOT diminish the rights you're concerned about. But it's just as real and just as serious.

Mike may feel just as violated by the fact that he sees the government coming to his door with a gun to take his property as you do about not being treated equally because of the nature of your family. Both violations are terribly wrong, and if anything is insulting it's saying that the way you are being mistreated is inherently worse than the way he is being mistreated. A violation of basic human rights is wrong no matter how you look at it or which right it is.

The point being that I don't think Mike believes that his comparison trivializes your situation and I don't think you're right to trivialize his just because you face a different set of problems.

Dave

Mike may feel just as violated by the fact that he sees the government coming to his door with a gun to take his property

Dave, I have blogged here before, about the police brutality I have endured, the attacks on my life multiple times putting me in the emergency room, from grade school though my early 20's, I was subjected to gang beatings, bodily injury and mass ostracization. WHEN Mike opens his front door and sees the government there with a gun in his face, THEN you get back to me. As of now, Mike getting a notice in the mail that he needs to send in more money is NOT the equivalent of all that I have been through.

Both violations are terribly wrong, and if anything is insulting it's saying that the way you are being mistreated is inherently worse than the way he is being mistreated.

Has Mike been forced to perform fellatio on a loaded gun? Has taxation forced Mike to leave his home at an early age and live on the streets? Has oppressive taxation forced Mike's 'community' to have a suicide rate 5 times the national average?

Taxation is a point for debate, but no, to bring it into a discussion on my rights as a gay American is not a good cross-reference Dave. While someone might believe having to pay 5k more in taxes than the next guy is oppression, comparing it to my situation shows me that that person has no concept of basic human rights.

Dave wrote in comment #72....what are those valid reasons? Because God says we should kill homos perhaps?

That would be illegal Dave and so therefore out of the question but I did enjoy your 'thinking outside the box'.

No Dave some of the valid reasons why heterosexuals vote against granting the same rights that married couples have has to do with the cost or the cost transfer that would occur in the area of health care. Homosexual couples would drop their single coverages and replace them with dependent coverages. Inessences half of the insurance rates for singles would suddenly dissappear. Insurance companies would have no choice but to charge the remaining singles (heterosexuals) the difference. Also, because their are higher medicasl costs associated with homosexuals (as a group) the insurance companies would have no choice but to increase the premiums for all heterosexual couples to cover the increased costs.

So you see there are valid reasons for voting against 'gay' marriage. It just isn't in anyone's economic interests (unless your gay) to do so.

Steve:

You offer a litany of horrible things that you say happened to you in your past.

Fine.

But do you honestly believe that forcing gay marriage onto an unwilling populace will actually eliminate all such humiliations in the future?

Steve, I think you are severely missing the main point that I support human rights, and I support gay rights. I'm trying to get you to see beyond your world. I know it's all about you, man, but if you want to talk principle, then you have to talk beyond just about you getting yours.

For the record: I am not rich. I do not defend the rights of high wage earners because I am one. Rather, I do so because I believe in doing so on principle. Also, I do not defend the rights of gay people to live their life their way because I am gay. Rather, I do so on principle.

Fact is, you don't apply principles across the spectrum. You want the right to live your life your way, and you want to prevent a business owner from living life his way, which is to say, to set policies as fits his conscience and best judgment.

>>No Dave some of the valid reasons why heterosexuals vote against granting the same rights that married couples have has to do with the cost or the cost transfer that would occur in the area of health care. Homosexual couples would drop their single coverages and replace them with dependent coverages. Inessences half of the insurance rates for singles would suddenly dissappear. Insurance companies would have no choice but to charge the remaining singles (heterosexuals) the difference. Also, because their are higher medicasl costs associated with homosexuals (as a group) the insurance companies would have no choice but to increase the premiums for all heterosexual couples to cover the increased costs. <<

Thanks for attempting to respond, but since your statement above makes no sense whatsoever I'm afraid I can't give you any points for participating.

First, family insurance does not cost the same as individual insurance. You pay more for each family member, just not as much as you would if they were individually insured. Second, there's no evidence that monogamous homosexuals who do not already have HIV/AIDS have any higher health costs than anyone else. If they did have preexisting conditions they could be denied insurance for that reason just like anyone else. In addition, if there were acturarially identifiable lifestyle factors associated with same-sex relationships then insurance companies could increase premiums on that basis, they would not need to lay the expense off on other members of the insurance pool.

So, you've got nothing. Better luck next time.

Dave

No, RJ, as long as there is religion, there will always be intolerance, I can find no instance of them being inseparable in world history.

That is not why I want to get married. Becoming equal with everybody else will most likely increase hate, at least for awhile. But I still want to get married. If you don't alredy know why, there is no point in me telling you why.

Mike, I don't know what you are talking about, telling me that I don't want a business owner to live his life his way. What the heck does that mean? I want everybody to live life their own way.

I know it's all about you, man, but if you want to talk principle, then you have to talk beyond just about you getting yours.

Yeah, Mike, I know what you're saying.

"Are you being oppressed, stigmatized, attacked, victimized by prejudice? Yes you say? Let's talk about it but only if we talk taxes too".

Never mind, you don't get what I'm saying. I already told you that taxation IS a topic of debate. I just find it totally different than gay marriage, yet you are forever trying to link the two. How about anytime we talk about Fox news, we also demand equal time for commentary on tile grout cleaning? I think they should always go together.

and you want to prevent a business owner from living life his way

and I want to get to make stuff up about you the whole time too.

>>No, RJ, as long as there is religion, there will always be intolerance, I can find no instance of them being inseparable in world history.<<

Steve, it doesn't take religion for their to be intolerance. It may be that the most obvious examples of intolerance are associated with religion these days, but there's plenty of intolerance elsewhere in society too. Look at the intolerance of the religious which you find among secularists. It's the same thing in exact reverse. Or how about the large segment of society which has an irrational prejudice against those who own guns. Nothing of religion there, but just as irrational and intolerant.

Dave

True Dave, they are not exclusive to each other, just always together.

I have a question for you and Mike. If taxation is oppression as you say it is, as I say my situation is to me, if you want me to consider that as a valid point of view, then I need to know what your ideological peers are doing about it, so I can see it's equivalent oppressive atmosphere in action. Are there court cases where people have sued the government for being oppressive in taxation? What were the court rulings so I can get an understanding of the legal viewpoint of that issue?

Oppression, by my definition involves an increase in violence, high risk self-destructive behavior, stigmatization, higher suicide rates, higher rates of depression and school dropout rates. This is statistically verifable by looking at every group that history has claimed to have undergone some sort of oppression. I don't want higher taxes, I support progressive taxation, and I guess I'm saying you've failed to make your claim as to how I can put progressive taxation right alongside other examples of oppression. And that doesn't mean I want higher taxes for anybody.

Final addendum question for me Mike, you keep saying I am ideologically blinded, closed and in a box or whatever because I don't see your point of view.

Do you believe in Creationism? The 6 day literal version? If you do NOT accept it, should we conclude that you are ideologically closed and in a box, blinded, unable to even consider other possibilities?

Steve - I missed your litany of horrors earlier. Your experience has indeed been grim, but it's very different from the experience of many other gays around the US. What kind of an environment did you live in where this kind of thing was going on? Where I live there's virtually no stygmatization of the gay population, and that's even more true of other places I've lived over the years. I suppose I've been lucky in where I've lived, but I still have to think that your extreme stories are atypical in this day and age.

Anyway, as to the issue of taxation, I can provide links to endless tales of families destroyed, family businesses laid waste, suicides and people driven into despair and depression. But the comparison with your situation is not really a good one on an individual basis. So I suppose the question is whether intense oppression of a few individuals by other prejudiced individuals is better or worse than mass institutionalized oppression of millions of people. IMO both are unacceptable, but they're impossible to compare. You can't say one is overall worse than the other. What Steve has faced is worse individually, the results of the institutionalized oppression of the IRS might be worse in aggegate because it applies to so many more people.

That being said, I think both are less awful than the War on Drugs, which is just as bad for individuals and even worse for society.

Dave

Dave, it was in the midwest. People from my hometown tell me it has gotten more conservative over the years.

I do realize there are a lot of areas that have grown in tolerance over the years too. But I know suicide rates are up, hate crime statistics fluctuate but not by much, they stay at a too high amount, there are still high rates of depression that is traced back to societal disapproval, etc. so there is still a problem, I certainly hope that my situations are now atypical. There are several thousand hate crimes reported to the FBI every year though, and I can't imagine the number that don't get reported.

Even if the situation has improved (and legally it has) the Righ