Subscribe to comment RSS
No more disparity from heterosexuals. The homolution is upon us.
Oct 26, 2006 at 1:38 am
thanks for sounding off on this one Silas...
i've been waiting for someone who woudl actually be effected by this one to speak up on what they Thought...
now, i know there is a segment of the population who won't tolerate Recognition of basic civil Rights to some folks no matter what... just as there are some in the population concerned who won't be satisfied until they can call it *marriage*
to me, it seems like a sound Decision..folks get their civil Rights applied by the whole "equal protection" thing...
and, bottom line...what's in a Name?
Oct 26, 2006 at 2:00 am
If my partner and I were to be accorded every right accorded to duly sanctioned heterosexual married couples, I would be completely satisfied. We can be married in our minds while being a state sanctioned corporation in the eyes of society. I just want basic respect and dignity to choose my own path in life. Anything less is unacceptable.
Oct 26, 2006 at 2:05 am
and you know i completely Agree with your position here
hell, i would be fine if said secular Union was called *marriage*...
but i think the Ruling the NJSC handed down was solid...Recognizing peolpe's Right and leaving the naming and the rest up to the elected Representatives to hammer out...
Oct 26, 2006 at 2:28 am
Indeed, gonzo. Thanks for your support.
Oct 26, 2006 at 2:54 am
I'm not clear on the title of this piece. Are you saying that Republicans are going to embrace this ruling and thereby show that they have some good sense and win votes as a result? Sounds like a good plan to me.
Oct 26, 2006 at 10:31 am
"While Democrats will say that Republicans are using the politics of division (as they supposedly did in 2004) to get votes in November, the reality is that the Republicans never put gay marriage on the agenda -- it was the Democrats"
The Massachusetts court ruling that suddenly put this issue front and center 3 years ago was surprising to many on the left as well as the right. Many people had been talking about civil unions, but it was neither a big talking point for Democrats nor a hot-button issue for the religious right before that 2003 ruling.
Since that ruling, virtually every Democrat with any national name recognition, including John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004, and including Gov. Corzine of NJ yesterday, has been doing a contorted dance around the issue: "We believe in equal rights, but marriage should only be between a man and a woman." I'd even say that many Democrats have been hoping the issue would fade into the background because it made them so uncomfortable.
Many, many Republicans, on the other hand, have been only to happy to keep the subject in the spotlight. To me, this is a transparently cynical attempt to increase their vote margins; if you insist that it is instead just a sincere expression of their genuine beliefs, you are welcome to hang on to that delusion.
In the meantime, the majority of the public has wisely moved on...they now accept, or are indifferent to, the idea of civil unions. As long as they aren't called marriages, with the religious connotation that has for many people. I can live with that. It will be fascinating to watch this play out.
Oct 26, 2006 at 11:24 am
I'm disgusted by either party bringing this issue up constantly. It's an excuse for the damned slackers in congress on both sides to avoid doing any meaningful work on issues that really matter, like health insurance (or lack thereof), immigration, etc. Instead they drag out these straw issues, red/dead herrings that require nothing but that each side posture & huff & puff about something that frankly is nobody's business to begin with, except the participants involved. So a bunch of gays wants to marry. So what? How does allowing them to marry effect anybody else, except possibly the insurance industry? And who the hell really gives a rats' ass, anyway? I haven't noticed that an awful lot of people - even evangelicals, and I live next to a nest of them, so I hear about these things more than I want to - care one jot or tittle about who does what to whom behind closed doors. Those that DO ballyhoo around the town square about it usually seem to be using it to distract from other issues, usually vastly more important. Personally, I want the damned maggots in congress to quit screwing around & get to work on REAL problems & not some stupid concocted fake issue. used solely for the purpose of rabble rousing and/or avoiding the work of having to take an actual position on real issues of importance.
Oct 26, 2006 at 12:09 pm
This is unbelieveable logic.
The Democrats have been HANDED so much gross and incompetent behavior by Bush and the Republicans you couldn't ASK for bigger idiots to run against. If the Democrats can't beat the Republicans in Nov the fault lies only with themselves: this day is ready-made for them and if they screw it up it's not because a bunch of gays got civil unions in NJ.
Oct 26, 2006 at 1:15 pm
No, it'll be because the Conservatives will get the whacko Soldiers of Christ to go out to the polls while the Apathetic Left sits at home eating bon bons playing Grand Theft Auto 109.
Oct 26, 2006 at 2:22 pm
I'm sorry to say, women & younger voters are the main villains, apparently. I just learned that while over 34 million single, divorced, or widowed women are eligible to vote, but don't. That's disgraceful as well as damned irresponsible.
Oct 26, 2006 at 8:05 pm
I don't see either party bringing this issue up very often. I travel in some pretty conservative circles, and from what I've seen, no politician wants to talk about gay marriage. It's got an awful cost/benefit ratio. If a politician fails to guess the public mood, or the mood of the room, he can make enemies for life.
I'm talking about the unprincipled, moderate politician. The kind of guy who loved the Dubai port issue, because he got to be pro-America at the cost of offending Dubaians. (That issue was sweet.)
It's tough to predict what'll happen when the people on both sides care more about an issue than the politicians do. I'm not saying that right, but maybe you know what I mean.
Oct 26, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Silas this is truly a grand day! Now people of all sexual persuasions have the door open to share the bond on martrimony...just think...now that the door is open people who were born with the predisposition for multiple wives or husbands and even interspecies marraiages may some day be possible! Yes we on the left should be proud what our activists judges are defacatiing on the US...this is a great time to be a liberal!
From The Left...JustOneMan
Oct 27, 2006 at 12:48 am
I don't think that the Foley thing is forgotten by the Evangelicals. They don't forget easily.
I think that the evangelicals are already the surest vote for republicans. They are the ONE sure thing. I don't think that they need anything to make them that much more mobilized at this late date. The ones that are registered intended to vote already and they weren't hedging between parties.
If there was an issue which affected middle class professionals, you would have something. The middle class are the people who are going to swing or stay home. Not the evangelicals.
As for the ditto heads, whether evangelical or Rush struck, they are a done deal.
I think however that in the near future, there will be an exodus of long term evangelicals from the Republican Party, at least in as far as being unequivocally loyal.