Does Gay marriage=Bush reelection?

BlueBirdPoof · Post by **BlueBirdPoof** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:44 am

KellY wrote: Even then, I'm not too sure about the mulitple partners thing - say you go into a coma; which of your spouses has power of attorney? What if they can't agree what to do and start arguing, then going to court...ay yi yi. Non-monogoamy is all well and good, but I'd keep it out of the legal sphere.

Is that really any worse than having multiple children argueing the same thing? "Equal protection under law" also means "equal liscence to be an idiot."

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 9:13 pm

KellY wrote:The city is doing this in direct defiance to state law- quixotic but very cool, I think. I heard a spokesman for some religious group who tried to get a court order to force the city to stop refer to it as "the worst sort of anarchy". And of course I'm sure to the Republicans this issue is a godsend -something to distract the homophobic masses from the war and the economy- on the other hand, maybe they'll go to far and drive moderates away with Buchannanesque moves. I'm also sure that the Demos wish this hadn't come up in an election year...

Well, sometimes you have to say to heck with the Democrats and to heck with the homophobes sitting on the fence about GWB, and to heck with the people who think Andrew marryring Mike means anarchy.

And instead say, I know this to be true and right and screw the consequences.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 11:09 pm

1937 Indian? Damn.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:15 pm

well,

looks like the peasants have fallen for the old boys plots again.

let me post "pollution" as Ms. Kelly puts it. I like to think of it as giving facts.

as I said before, it's all a distraction. need proof?
read what professors of Georgetown u. have researched for many many years.

Ya cant argue with Carroll Quigley

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/quigley.html

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:51 pm

INteresting thing I heard on the radio today on the way into work.
That historically, admendments to the constitution have been expanding rights. (Instantly thought of Prohibition--it contracted them and didn't work.)
How long has it been since we added to the constitution anyway? close on 40 years, I think. Oh wait, lowering the voting age to 18. So over 30.
And something for the former history major (yes, I know, he identifies much more as an MBA) to think about. John Boswell's implication that the "companionate marriage" that we think of as normal and traditional was developed by gay married couples in Europe ~1000ya. So lets go back to selling women into marriage--that'll be a real defence.
Hey, I gotta find--or manufacture--that silver lining.

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:24 pm

A read a great bit in the New Yorker about the homophobe amendment. The writer called it: "Defacing the Constitution with anti-gay graffiti."

Anyone catch the governator claiming that gay marriages must stop or there would be rioting in the streets? Man, I wish anti-war protests worked that well. I can just imagine Bush saying "Gee whiz, look at all that craziness out on there the protesters are causing. Guess I better bring the troops home."

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:09 pm

KellY wrote:Anyone catch the governator claiming that gay marriages must stop or there would be rioting in the streets? Man, I wish anti-war protests worked that well.

Right..all six or so protestors, who imo, look like TOTAL closet cases to me, carrying the everpopular "God Hates Fags" posters. Hell, why don't we just stick THAT in the Consitution and save some money the legislators.

Assemblyman Leno was all OVER Arnold's ass for that riot comment, bless him.

BTW - I have some friends who went to Austria, and they came back with this gorgeous little tidbit:

In Austria, Arnold is a REDNECK.

That's right. Even the Austrians couldn't mimic his accent, and were delighted when my American friend could. It's the equivalent of us electing Jethro Clampett as governor. They were highly amused.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:12 pm

No offense meant to rednecks in general, who live on the other end of the much maligned spectrum of outsider culture from the raver geeks I run with.

Anyone who brings us redneck soccer holds a dear and permanent place in my heart. It's only Austrian redneck B-movie actors that I have a problem with.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:28 pm

hey,

dont speak like that about our next President.

Arnie a redneck....that was pretty funny.And hey, i like rednecks.

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:14 am

A few years ago an assistant of mine dropped into my office and began to decry some anti-abortion group she had read about in that day's paper. Amelia went on about the lameness of the group's position and wondered how anyone could be so blind. Finally I interupted her.
"They have a different inital assumtion than you; and so they come to a different conclusion."
"They're conclusion is just wrong!"
"If one believes that life is vested at conception, then their conclusion is arguable."
"But their assumption is wrong. How can a blastocyst be a human being?"
"To them it's as obvious and inescapable as gravity. Take their assumption as a starting point and work through the moral arguments and see where those lead. Many arguments will lead to the anti-abortion conclusion. But I can think of a couple that allow for choice, as well. With such an argument you can start at their point of view and lead them to yours. But tell them that they're stupid, and they'll just shut down"
Amelia stared at me a while, then said "you give me a headache."

The point of my little story is that, like it or not, the polls and recent elections show that those favoring gay marriage rights are in the minority. Telling the majority that they're stupid, or nazis, or whatever is not going to persuade them for the simple reason that they are not stupid or nazis. They're people with solidly held belief systems and cultural expectations. It may sound wierd to my readers here, but to some people out there gay marriage sounds as scary as announcing that all children will henceforth be raised by the state (as an example). The challenge for anyone trying to sell anything is to stand in the customers shoes, understand his needs, and solve his problems. So here, the challenge for gay marriage advocates is to stand in the shoes of the reluctant, understand their fears and hopes, and come up with a solution that quells those fears and invigorates those hopes.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:57 am

Wind_Borne, you're giving me a headache.

Seriously though, IMHO it all boils down to religion. Some kind of way humans have got to realize that religion is the reason of all the ills of the world. I dont really see that happening though.

Actually I should be posting this under the God thread.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:20 am

DVD Burner wrote:Wind_Borne, you're giving me a headache.

Seriously though, IMHO it all boils down to religion. Some kind of way humans have got to realize that religion is the reason of all the ills of the world. I dont really see that happening though.

Actually I should be posting this under the God thread.

/
REligion Over Lords is why this country was populated in the first place. Didn't last at alldid it?

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:59 am

ITYM "Re-populated."

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:40 am

very valid points wind. But they do lead me to a common conclusion. When large populations have a sound basis for legislating morality and they are disagreed with by other folks, in large numbers, who have an equally debatable opposite opinion then the obvious answer is to not legislate that morality and allow for individual choice or at least individual choice among large populations. I believe Republicans call this something like 'states rights' when it is convenient and properly aligned. Folks only want to legislate against same-sex marriage because they find it, ultimately, aesthetically un-appealing. Others find it not to be so. Both of these groups are large enough that the conclusion should be to respect one's freedom to choose.

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:58 am

Stuart, you once again hit the nail on the head.

I'd like to add that you could have taken an opinion poll in Georgia a hundred and fifty years ago, and found that more than 90% of the voting population thought slavery was OK. And they could have quoted stuff in the Bible about the son of Ham to justify their position. I believe Thoreau referred to this as "The Tyranny of the Majority".

AuldAne · Post by **AuldAne** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:06 pm

Thinking back to the original question, there's another angle to consider. A friend of mine has been a Republican his entire voting career. He voted for Bush in 2000. He is also gay.

Just recently, he dropped his party status to become independent, and now plans on voting Democrat. Although he has been resenting Bush recently over financial issues, Bush recently throwing his support behind the FMA is, I think, the last straw for for my friend.

He isn't alone. Andrew Sullivan, a fairly prominent Bush supporter and pundit, is now expressing some serious doubt. Today he has been posting a slew of letters - selected from thousands he has received, according to Sullivan - expressing similar doubts. Many, indeed most, of them are indicating that they are no longer going to vote for Bush in 2004. Sullivan is also gay, but most of his readers are not.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php ... chive.html

If Bush continues to go hard right on this issue it could spell trouble for him. Personally, although I'm not given to hyperbole when I talk about Bush, I think that if he goes hard right and wins it could spell trouble for all of us.

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:16 pm

I'm with you, Stuart and KellY.

As I noted earlier in thread, it seems we're dealing with an area, romance and spirituality, that is outside of the strict role of government. Indeed, back in the late '60s young couples often rejected marriage licenses as a symbol of government intrusion and the "establishment". Today we have couples seeking government approval of their unions. Live long enough and everything becomes ironic, I guess.

We're dealing with the public understanding of the nature of Marriage. Is it a convenant, a spiritual state, or a partnership contract? Some of these? All? Can it be all? My solution, that the government get out of the marriage business altogether, is opposite of what the couples down at City Hall seem to be seeking.

But maybe not. Is the recognition of the state of marriage required to come from the government? Or is it just as valid if it comes from the church or other social institution. What is the essence of the right now denied; and who can best fill that, church or state? I'm asking here.

KellY, at the time some people in may have found justification for slavery in the Bible, others found its condemnation. These people gathered together with the common purpose of ending the abomination of slavery. Eventually this movement became the Republican party. Ironic? Perhaps. But Republicans still put a lot of stake in morality. And morality is simply the practice of doing the right thing. Appeal to that drive, sell that virtue, and you'll get somewhere.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:35 pm

yikes! the slavery issue throws an awful wrench into my previous thesis as a whole slew of folks thought it was just fine. So, erm, we get into the libertarian mode of victimless acts I guess. Or, to be burningmanesque, just don't impinge on another person's good time.

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:47 pm

I think we knew the limits implicit in your remarks. The will of the people must always be balanced against the rights of the individual -- and vice-versa. One might say that the courageous and honest balancing of those concerns is the essence of morality.

victimless acts

You bring up a good point. Why do some feel threatened by gay marriage? Does their fear have merit? How can that fear be relieved?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:10 pm

I think they fear the 'homosexual agenda'. Not sure what that means though. Not being gay, I have not been invited to the secret planning meetings.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:21 pm

A man much older than I posed a question today. "What if" two men got married. Without a sexual perferral stated. Now keep the church out of the state which is by law. I say the question would be moot.

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:00 pm

[quote="Wind_Borne"]I'm with you, Stuart and KellY.

But maybe not. Is the recognition of the state of marriage required to come from the government? Or is it just as valid if it comes from the church or other social institution. What is the essence of the right now denied; and who can best fill that, church or state? I'm asking here.

[quote]

Well, right now there are plenty of churches that are happy to perform marriage rites for gay couples, and I'm sure it's important to a lot of people. But right now society, as in 'America', as embodied by the government, is saying: "Yeah, have you're little ceremonies, but as far as we're concerned, it's meaningless." Obviously, over the last few years there's been what you might call "creeping recognition", with domestic partner benefits and civil unions in Vermont, but on the whole the attitude is "A gay reltionship is not as important and worthy of recognition as a hetero one."

So, long answer to your question, state is what's important here.

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:50 am

Something occurs to me... Just go with me here a moment... These numbers are rough...

Lets say gays account for around 10% of the general population.
Then lets imagine that all gays joined the Democratic party, which claims something close to 60% of the voters.
That would give them 20% of the Democratic party -- a small minority
In other words, gays would have little influence in the Democratic party; and even less generally.

OK. Now imagine that all those gay voters joined the Republican party, which claims only 30% of the voters.
At the very least, 25% of Republicans would then be gay.
But the numbers are even better than that, since some Republicans are already gay.
If all gays registered as Republicans, then somewhere between 25% and 33% of the GOP would be gay!
Gays would have a huge influence in the GOP; and by extension, across the country.

Hey, it's a thought.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:40 am

ummm, there is some super fuzzy math going on there wind...
but it's a funny read. Still, very vocal minorities in both parties have a good record of getting what they want. It all comes down to money and organization I guess.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:01 am

I just wish GWB would get off his butt and give us a living example of good ol' fashioned marriage by discarding Laura for a woman who could give him sons. I'm sure there are a lot of nubile, fertile, booty-of-war Iraqi women available this very instant who would be perfectly qualified to be our 2nd First Lady.

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:29 am

You expect clear thinking at 12:50 AM, Stuart?

If I achieved amusing I am well pleased.

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:36 am

And they could keep the old GOP moniker, except it would stand for

Gay Old Party

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:09 am

I think we should pass a Constitutional amendment against the "Log Cabin Republicans". They are violating the sanctity of the log cabin. What are all those lumberjacks going to do now that their log cabins are violated.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:39 am

At the end of WWII the French marched collaborators through the streets of Paris and shaved their heads, threw piss, kicked and screamed at them and worse.

I only wish that Log Cabin homosexuals could have the same thing done to them as they continue to balk at the actions of a president yet endorse the political machine that gives rise to such hate-mongers.

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:37 pm

I saw an interesting opinion today that saw a disadvantage in relying on the court action, instead of legislation, to effect gay marriage rights. In brief the argument went thus:

> Before Roe v. Wade, legislative action, state-by-state, was moving slowly toward choice.
> Once Roe v. Wade was decided, all legislative action stopped.
> Abortion rights have ever since hung on the balance of the Supreme court.
> Therefore, abortion rights are more fragile than if the right had been legislated.

> By analogy, if gay marriage rights are granted by the courts, not the legislatures, the right could easily be removed by another court.
> The effort required to sway legislatures would help build a consensus for gay marriage in the general population (currently, opposition runs 60%).
> Court action on the other hand could cause a backlash that at worst results in a constitutional amendment (God forbid); and that could set the cause way back.

Of course Roe v. Wade has stood for 33 years; but not without constant strife. I think the message there is to think politically, not just emotionally, about developing the gay marriage right.

Does Gay marriage=Bush reelection?

Re: Does Gay marriage=Bush reelection?

On the other hand...