Does Gay marriage=Bush reelection?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 9:13 pm

Did you hear that Arnold claimed that the gay marriages in San Francisco would cause civil unrest?
I heard there is a group of about a hundred heavily armed lesbians mobilizing to keep the peace.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They call themselves Militia Etheridge.

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:37 pm

Rimshot!

Jesus · Post by **Jesus** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:23 am

I was discussing gay marriage in SF with a cutie at the BRC Roller Disco on Saturday; just saw this thread.

I think Gavin Newsom's actions were driven by some Democratic (National Committee?) strategy to 'get ahead of' the issue, which as things were going was likely to hurt the Dems in the next election. Clearly he's tight with the Democratic leadership - his close ties (and appointment) by Brown are true, note all the big guns coming to town to show their support during his campaign against Matt Gonzalez et. al.

How does this action 'get ahead of' the issue? Well, the GOP would bring it up if nothing happened, the Dems would have many gays and their supporters not vote for 'em. As wind said "people with solidly held belief systems and cultural expectations" oppose gay marriage. The court case(s) that will result from what happened here in SF will perhaps decide the issue so that the Dems don't have to 'stick their necks out' by indicating their position on gay marriage and thereby lose votes, irrespective of what their position is. Also, the legal argument for gay marriage is strong, and a focus on it may sway some of those folks wind referred to, better than folks yelling 'it's wrong' and 'it's discrimination' at each other. For these reasons, and, yeah, probably because he thinks it's the right thing to do, Newsom did what he did, IMO. Make sense?

So 'Does Gay marriage=Bush reelection?' No, I say!

BTW, hope y'all voted yesterday. If you didn't you deserve what we have in office.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:39 pm

Jesus wrote: I think Gavin Newsom's actions were driven by some Democratic (National Committee?) strategy to 'get ahead of' the issue, which as things were going was likely to hurt the Dems in the next election.

Really. From everything I've read/heard he's been getting flack from the (terminally wimpy) Democrats for daring to get this issue off the back burner and into the public eye. What astonishes me is the respect I'm developing for him. He actually seems to be developing a program that addresses the problems with the creepy "Care Not Cash" program. And he's trying to work on middle class housing in S.F. too--according to the paper in the past couple days. Not bad for a pretty-boy, hand-picked-successor-to-a-highly-corrupt-insider.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:51 pm

Well I guess my explaination of why the Gay issue is comming about just will fly in the wind.

It's gonna be funny in the end.

Truth can be a bitch sometimes.

Jesus · Post by **Jesus** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:24 am

theCryptofishist wrote:
Jesus wrote: I think Gavin Newsom's actions were driven by some Democratic (National Committee?) strategy to 'get ahead of' the issue, which as things were going was likely to hurt the Dems in the next election.
Really. From everything I've read/heard he's been getting flack from the (terminally wimpy) Democrats for daring to get this issue off the back burner and into the public eye. What astonishes me is the respect I'm developing for him. He actually seems to be developing a program that addresses the problems with the creepy "Care Not Cash" program. And he's trying to work on middle class housing in S.F. too--according to the paper in the past couple days. Not bad for a pretty-boy, hand-picked-successor-to-a-highly-corrupt-insider.

Haven't seen any of that (haven't been reading the paper (which paper?) regularly).
Fixing the problems with "Care Not Cash" first requires defining them (and the goal of the thing in the first place). If the goal is to say to the homeless: "we don't want you to be homeless (Said another way: we don't want to have to see you sleeping on the streets), so either find a place to sleep and pay for it with the benefits we provide, or we cut your benefits", then I'd guess it's accomplishing its goal. In other words, is it the goal that's a problem, or the method for reaching it? Having read the measure, it seems that sending this message to the homeless is what it will achieve.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:53 am

think Gavin Newsom's actions were driven by some Democratic (National Committee?) strategy to 'get ahead of' the issue, which as things were going was likely to hurt the Dems in the next election. Clearly he's tight with the Democratic leadership - his close ties (and appointment) by Brown are true, note all the big guns coming to town to show their support during his campaign against Matt Gonzalez et. al.

But I'd ask why everything has to have a motive other than just doing the right thing?

The latest charge dismissing Newsom's actions comes from our very own San Francisco Bay Guardian which in their myopic, leftist lock-step arrogance has refused to acknowledge the damn near revolutinary stance which Newsom has shown in his bold move(s) related to the issue.

Newsom is someone I didn't support in the mayoral election as he never came across as being being socially progressive enough for my tatstes. Still, what he's done and the elan which he's exhibited in doing it has me firmly in his corner - for the time being.[/i]

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:32 am

Jesus wrote: Fixing the problems with "Care Not Cash" first requires defining them .

How about that there was no "Care" involved, so that it was some draconian measure with an orwellian name. I'm not an activist on this issue, but at least waiting until they actually have care to offer you (shelter, drug rehab) before they yank the cash seems a step in the right direction.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:37 am

Badger wrote: But I'd ask why everything has to have a motive other than just doing the right thing?

The latest charge dismissing Newsom's actions comes from our very own San Francisco Bay Guardian which in their myopic, leftist lock-step arrogance has refused to acknowledge the damn near revolutinary stance which Newsom has shown in his bold move(s) related to the issue.

Newsom is someone I didn't support in the mayoral election as he never came across as being being socially progressive enough for my tatstes. Still, what he's done and the elan which he's exhibited in doing it has me firmly in his corner - for the time being.[/i]

Well said, Badger. I also have a lot of respect for his showing up at Hunter's Point murder scenes. He does seem to be someone who has gut level responces to "wrongness" or "injustice" and then tries to jump in and fix things--a long way from Brown, Feinstein, Agnos, and (my favorite shower buddy) Jordan. If these actually work, remains to be seen, but I have to say that he's astonished me repeatedly in his very short tenure.

Jesus · Post by **Jesus** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:53 pm

Thanks all for entertaining (and perhaps debunking) my conspiracy idea.

theCryptofishist wrote:
Jesus wrote: Fixing the problems with "Care Not Cash" first requires defining them .
How about that there was no "Care" involved, so that it was some draconian measure with an orwellian name. I'm not an activist on this issue, but at least waiting until they actually have care to offer you (shelter, drug rehab) before they yank the cash seems a step in the right direction.

I'm not either, but I did read the entire measure before voting on it, and while lots of folks said it yanked cash when services weren't available, I expected to find but didn't see anything in it to support that claim. I still didn't support it, FYI, but I found it very strange that this claim was made so often, and didn't seem to be what the measure actually did.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:10 pm

He just won't admit it!

A II Z

tonytohono · Post by **tonytohono** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:39 am

I'm surprised this hasn't been revisited since the election...

any of you politicos care to comment?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:45 am

tonytohono wrote:I'm surprised this hasn't been revisited since the election...

any of you politicos care to comment?

I already did and it seems what I said would happen is happening.

Sucks.

Steven bradford · Post by **Steven bradford** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 9:00 pm

Well, as always the spin ignores the past with these snapshot polls-- check this out:

<b>The mainstream press, itself in love with the "moral values" story line and traumatized by the visual exaggerations of the red-blue map, is too cowed to challenge the likes of the American Family Association. So are politicians of both parties. It took a British publication, The Economist, to point out that the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern is actually down from 2000 (35 percent) and 1996 (40 percent).</b>

That's from http://nytimes.com/2004/11/28/arts/28rich.htm

I don't get the Economist and you have to pay to read their artciles, so I can't do a primary source link.l

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:04 am

Hey guys

Does Gay marriage=Bush reelection?

Civil unrest

Bush is Gay!