-
I don't follow you.
If we are discriminating against a man (or woman) by not allowing him to marry his spouse of choice - what difference does it make what that spouse is?
Pete
-
I find it absolutely unbelievable that you could possibly fail to understand the difference between marrying a human and an animal, but you have been quite civil throughout this discussion as everyone else has, so I will try to be as serious as possible with my answer.
I think it is quite readily appearent that we give different rights to humans and animals in this country. So, allowing an animal to enter into a legal agreement like marriage as we do humans would be most unusual and far from the next logical step from gay marriage.
And, to be honest, if that doesn't make sense, I'm just gonna leave this alone. There's just nothing more to say to that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
But it is the path of least resistance & will be the future (our childrens future!) if WE don't draw the line.
But hey, at least we're sensitive.
Now, THAT'S sarcasm :)!!
Pete
"We" being heterosexuals I assume.... the majority... the ones who decide what is right and wrong, what is natural, and where to draw the line?
Civil liberties are a result of sensitivity toward human beings. You're right, we should draw the line between which humans to be sensitive toward and which ones to ignore. Why should gays deserve the same compassion and understanding we've given other human beings? They're just not natural. They're not like "us". They shouldn't be able to have the same opportunities as "us". They'd make a laughing stock out of "our" way of life. (A little sarcasm of my own) :)
As I said before, these arguments sound eerily similar to the ones made for racial segregation. Back at that time, I'm sure many people thought things would go down hill if "we didn't draw the line", and that it just wasn't "natural". I'm sure our children will be okay.
-
Whoops! Sorry!
To both Karl & Pat. I'm still trying to figure out this board! and didn't "see" your posts.
Don't worry, I'm not raising my blood pressure :).
Karl, I don't see the same words in the 14th amendment. Here's what I've got:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The other sections do not apply.
The definition of marriage (Merriam Webster):
shotgun marriage
Function: noun
Date: 1929
1 : a marriage forced or required because of pregnancy -- called also shotgun wedding
2 : a forced union <a spate of brokerage mergers... hastily arranged shotgun marriages -- John Brooks>
hahaha.
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
Therefore, marriage is exclusively between men & women and does not apply to gay couples, whether they like it or not. So, it is not discrimination, though it doesn't matter if it is, because it wouldn't be un-Constitutional discrimination.
No matter how you slice it, the court has no legal place in this matter, which is the basis of my original post :).
Pete
-
I do understand
the difference between people & animals - but that doesn't effect the discussion - and others won't. I'm just following the logic of this argument to it's conclusion.
After the Supreme Court passes gay "marriage" legislation we'll see the next steps.
Don't think NAMBLA isn't watching this closely.
We agree :) that it's nice the trolls are gone - now we can argue & still have a beer later !!!
Pete
-
At least I think we agree on one other thing. Those ****ers in NAMBLA should be shot.
And, I do see what you are saying about having to draw a line somewhere. I guess to me, logic quite easily draws that line at what can be undertaken by 2 consenting adults. Sorry, I just cannot understand the arguement that you, and many others, make that allowing a union between two consenting adults of the same sex inevitably leads down the road to child abuse and beastiality.
-
You know,
it feels a lot like you're painting me as a bigot. But I understand that words on a computer screen look and sound harsher than they are intended. I'm at least as guilty of this as anyone.
"We" is the people. Not any particular group - all of them.
Looking at segregation - it was a hard time for America. But segregation absolutely pales in comparision to much of the rest of human history in misery & degradement.
Many believe that we're somehow outside of history, that human nature has changed. And another woman is trampled at a holiday sale.
Would you define moral as one's sense of right? Every time you are arguing your points you are pushing your version of morality - you want to be fair to all - a noble thing, to be sure, but still what you think is right. Is that wrong :)? Then why is it a problem if a Christian does it?
All that aside :)), I still don't see where in the Constitution it gives the court authority to change the definition of marriage, and without it, the court is upsurping the will of "we" - the people.
Pete
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody
Sorry, I just cannot understand the arguement that you, and many others, make that allowing a union between two consenting adults of the same sex inevitably leads down the road to child abuse and beastiality.
That's what I'm saying. It's like some are afraid that recognizing gay marriages will turn more people gay or something... or even more ridiculous, will encourage more sex crimes or despicable acts. As if being gay has anything to do with that. :rolleyes:
And Pete, even the dictionary gets updated sometimes. If the only argument against allowing gays to marry is the dictionary definition, then it will likely be updated. A dictionary definition will likely not prove to be as strong as a written law (there isn't a law which defines marriage that I'm aware of). I don't see it holding up in court when people challenge it. Though you don't think it belongs in court, it will end up there as long as corporations continue to refuse to give medical benefits to people because of the dictionary's (and society's) definition of the word marriage - or if they are denied any other opportunity because of it.
So to answer your original question - it probably doesn't say anywhere, in any state legislation, that gay marriage is a right. But the equally important point is, it also isn't written in any of that same legislation that gays do not have the right to marry. Equal opportunity is something that will win out here. Heterosexuals do not have the right to more opportunities than homosexuals in our society. That's probably what it will come down to. It's the benefits afforded to married couples that will give homosexuals their winning arguments.
Hey, I know we won't agree on this and that's fine. At least the trolls are gone for now :) and I don't think you're a bigot. I enjoy debating this stuff and hearing opposing opinions and why people have those opinions.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
The founding fathers certainly would've considered that gay marriage devalues real marriage. I realize most people think that's quaint. But it's tough to ignore because of their success. They clearly understood human nature.
Kinda like they considered allowing women rights would devalue man's superiority? Like they considered abolishing slavery would devalue white supremecy? Like they considered interracial marriage would devalue"real" marriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
And, though there is some residual discrimination against gays, for the most part they are accepted, almost fawned over in the cities, at least! Can anyone here honestly say they don't have gays in their larger family circle, and/or at work? How are they discriminated against? And ask them (know any closely?) - they know gay marriage is a phony - they just want it for some sort of symbol.
Yes, as a matter of fact, a couple. Two from marriage, one at work(maybe). How are they(gays) discriminated against? Ask the mom of the serviceman that got kicked out of the service back in the Clinton days when all he did was admit his preference to his buddies. Remember the don't ask, don't tell rule? Ask the mother of the man who was beat to death outside a gay bar in Texas a few years back by a bunch of yips who obviously believed he didn't have the right to live. Don't kid yourself about marriage just being a symbol. Society has provided lots of benefits for being married. Cheaper health insurance for your spouse, cheaper car insurance for both you and your spouse, life insurance benefits, ect. You are correct that marriage is a symbol... a "right" of passage(one of many) from boyhood to manhood, a sign you have matured enough to be able to incoorperate your life with another at the most intimate level and I believe every human deserves this "right".
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
If I want to marry my dog, and it's not allowed, does that mean I'm not receiving equal treatment from the state? How about a kid?
Well, first of all, you would have to establish the dogs ability to understand what it means to get married. Then you would have to establish the dogs consent to marriage. If you can do those, then why not? If that's your thing. How 'bout a kid? As I stated before, to some extent, you CAN marry a kid! LEGALLY!!!!! In the state of Kansas, as well as others, a "kid" whose 14yrs of age can get married legally. Granted, there may be limitations. Used to be that way alot more often than now but is still legal even now. Now you might have a battle doing so since some(myself included) would consider a 14yr olds decission to get married a result of cohersion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
There is no Constitutional basis for the courts to be involved. As a democracy, this is for the majority to decide, unless we are a democracy in name only.
If you look up the definition of democracy in the dictionary(the dreaded liberals bible), and skim past the ones that talk about power of the people, you'll see at the bottom a definition that states...
"the absence hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"
Translation... the absense of in-equality.
-
So, your saying...
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
the difference between people & animals - but that doesn't effect the discussion - and others won't. I'm just following the logic of this argument to it's conclusion.
You don't want gays to marry so you can prevent someone from marrying their dog?
OR...
Are you saying that you let gays marry, you won't be able to prevent someone from marrying their dog?
Is it alright for a dog to marry another dog?(Psst., they're already doing that in California!)
If a dog humps my leg, does this me he's saying "I do"?
Just trying to lighten things up a bit Pete, no disrespect intended!
-
Bigot...
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
it feels a lot like you're painting me as a bigot. But I understand that words on a computer screen look and sound harsher than they are intended. I'm at least as guilty of this as anyone.
Webster defines Bigot as..."one intolerantly devoted to his or her own predjuces or opinions. Synonyms... fanatic, enthusiast, zealot."
It is what it is. By that definition, we are ALL bigots. Not inherently bad or good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
Would you define moral as one's sense of right? Every time you are arguing your points you are pushing your version of morality - you want to be fair to all - a noble thing, to be sure, but still what you think is right. Is that wrong :)? Then why is it a problem if a Christian does it?
Do Christians morally believe equality is right?
Now for my frustration time...
Maybe your right, maybe the whole do unto others thing is over rated.
Maybe when my parents taught that I was no better that anyone else, they were lying like about Santa and the Easter Bunny.
Maybe the Constitution did imply you had the right to practice the religion of the majority.
Maybe evolution is nothing more that a dillusional mans vision after being on an island with a bunch of guys to long.
Maybe Harry Potter is the devil(will have to wait til the last episode to find out).
Maybe child molestation in the church really is a big scandal to diminish the value the words of God and the of church.
Maybe all music(except gospel and classical) does go against what God would want.
Maybe living with the opposite sex for yrs and yrs with all the intent and respect that goes with marriage really is sinful and actually getting married for a yr or two and getting divorced is acceptable.
Maybe time out in a corner is more effective that corporal punishment.
Maybe you should trust your wife and the rhythm method of birth control(while resisting your instinctual temptations) instead of manmade contraceptives.
Maybe marriage is only about reproduction.
Maybe sex is only allowed if God wants a baby.
Maybe all the cable channels should only broadcast the 700 Club.
Maybe the Looney Tunes are less violent than the Terminator.
Maybe God is blessing America by keeping gay's from marrying.
That's just a taste of the Christian values that I'm bombarded with everyday I go to work.
I suppose keeping gays from marrying will help keep the divorce rate down to acceptable levels and by living in sin, assure their place in hell and your place in heaven for following Gods law and the moral majorities.(just incase there's any question at the gates). Strength in numbers, right?
Sorry man, I'll not do that again.
-
Wow Karl, that was a mouthful. You can't blame everything here on religion though. It's the people who use religion as a weapon, just like guns, who can be dangerous.
I think morals stem a little from comfort. Forty years ago, the majority of America didn't feel it was morally right for a white person to marry a black person. It didn't seem natural, mostly because it just wasn't common. Hell, they didn't want to share their bathrooms, let alone their marriage traditions. We, as Americans, had a great deal of racial hatred still embedded in our mindset we needed to grow out of. It wasn't until all the dust had cleared from the Civil Rights movement that more and more people became used to seeing interracial friendships and relationships that they began feeling comfortable with it. White people realized that black people were humans and deserved the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. When you see it more often, and it becomes more normal, and doesn't seem so unnatural.
The same thing that happened 40 years ago is happening now. Peoples' ideals and beliefs will be tested again. A good portion of America is still homophobic. What we all need to realize, is that these are human beings we're talking about here. And they deserve to be treated with fairness, even if you don't understand them. I think it's a little selfish and unfair to think we're better than them, and that our traditions as heterosexuals cannot be shared with them. If America can't give them equality and equal opportunity, then what the hell are our troops fighting for? Freedom and opportunities for heterosexuals? This is America isn't it guys?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by karl k
Kinda like they considered allowing women rights would devalue man's superiority? Like they considered abolishing slavery would devalue white supremecy? Like they considered interracial marriage would devalue"real" marriage?
One thing all these have in common - they are all set in stone. A white man is (somewhat) white. A black man is (somewhat) black. I can choose to stick my ____ where ever I wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by karl k
Yes, as a matter of fact, a couple. Two from marriage, one at work(maybe). How are they(gays) discriminated against? Ask the mom of the serviceman that got kicked out of the service back in the Clinton days when all he did was admit his preference to his buddies. Remember the don't ask, don't tell rule? Ask the mother of the man who was beat to death outside a gay bar in Texas a few years back by a bunch of yips who obviously believed he didn't have the right to live. Don't kid yourself about marriage just being a symbol. Society has provided lots of benefits for being married. Cheaper health insurance for your spouse, cheaper car insurance for both you and your spouse, life insurance benefits, ect. You are correct that marriage is a symbol... a "right" of passage(one of many) from boyhood to manhood, a sign you have matured enough to be able to incoorperate your life with another at the most intimate level and I believe every human deserves this "right".
Gays in the service? For starters, I think the military is a bad place to practice social enginneering, and second, I would not shower with a gay man, and would not FORCE anyone else to do so - that would infringe upon their rights?
And gay "marriage" would stop gay discrimination how? Interracial marriages have been allowed for some time now - it doesn't stop rednecks from dragging them to death.
If marriage confers benifits then following the same reasoning in many posts here it should be ruled unconstitutional - it is unfair to single people.
And be careful - with many gov'ts paying for sex change operations saying "boyhood to manhood" could be insensitive lol!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by karl k
Well, first of all, you would have to establish the dogs ability to understand what it means to get married. Then you would have to establish the dogs consent to marriage. If you can do those, then why not? If that's your thing. How 'bout a kid? As I stated before, to some extent, you CAN marry a kid! LEGALLY!!!!! In the state of Kansas, as well as others, a "kid" whose 14yrs of age can get married legally. Granted, there may be limitations. Used to be that way alot more often than now but is still legal even now. Now you might have a battle doing so since some(myself included) would consider a 14yr olds decission to get married a result of cohersion.
What I'm saying is that, if it's unfair to not let a man marry who he wants, what difference does it make what he wants? Your problem is that you're thinking like a normal person :). I'll save this for the told-you-so file 3-5 years (if that long) down the road.
I've heard in some states it was as low as 12, with parents' consent. I think that's a topic for another post ;), but those laws was made at a time when people married MUCH younger, including the boys, and it was cohersed - arranged marriages. It's much different than a 35 year old man "marrying" a 14 yr. old boy. I believe this in the short term is unlikely to happen. The judges would be lynched by me & you - but maybe not by the next one or two generations. Look back that far - how much more do we allow?
Quote:
Originally Posted by karl k
If you look up the definition of democracy in the dictionary(the dreaded liberals bible), and skim past the ones that talk about power of the people, you'll see at the bottom a definition that states...
"the absence hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"
Translation... the absense of in-equality.
Well, see the singles vs married above. Also communism claims absolute equality. And I once heard that the latin root of the word democracy is mob-rule. So again, where is the line?
We need a beer :). and BTW, back in some hollers that dog-humping thing may just be enough lol!
Pete
-
Man, I gotta get a life...
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
I would not shower with a gay man, and would not FORCE anyone else to do so-
Why not? What would be the difference between showering with a gay man vs straight man? What if the man was gay and you didn't know it? Does it still matter as long as they conduct themselves accordingly in the shower? Answer honestly please.
-
Hey Chris, glad to finally be introduced....
BTW, thanks for the off topic site, good place to go IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
You can't blame everything here on religion though. It's the people who use religion as a weapon, just like guns, who can be dangerous.
You might be right... but shouldn't those in the church that aren't using it as a weapon be held accountable just as an accessory to murder would be? I'm not religious so I can't attest to the specifics of the Bible or the followers and their opinions. I lost most of my respect for religion do to its conflicts with what I was taught about being fair and doing for yourself. But I can say that it(religion) is a driving force in how people in my acre of the wheat fields treat others. I myself face discrimination and prejudice everyday for my open and fair nature. The sad truth to the matter is that everybody wants to be on a winning team and therefore there have to be losers. Here, the winners(the moral majority) grew up with God, Beer, and country music. They have had no real exposure to any other life until such time they went to college or the big city to find work. By then they are set in there beliefs and prejudices and are not subject to discussion. Myself, I grew up with black's, gays, and women with attitudes and was better prepaired because I was forced to understand they are people too. Now, having to work around these people(farmers, ranchers, country boys, ect.) I find myself having to carefully watch what I say or face the decent from my peers. So even though I'm not gay, I can sympathize with their cause as well as other causes based on lack of understanding and acceptance. Hell, I don't understand what being gay is all about but that doesn't stop me from treating them with the same respect that I would want. IMO, there's nothing that a gay man/woman will be able to do that will diminish in value anything that I practice. The big difference between those intrenched with God and myself is that my beliefs promote equality between humans reguardless of religious beliefs and don't restrict freedoms without physical cause. They on the other hand(and keep in mind that I agree on your assessment on non religious) seek to limit your freedoms based on non physical causes. In my continuing search to answer Pete's question, I dove into the 14th... DEEP, and while I didn't find what I was looking for, I did see cases which went before the supreme court that really turned my stomach(and that's saying something). Pete talks about judges and their morality, how 'bout the government! Back in the 70's, State of Conneticutt passed a law that made birth control illegal. Why? To attempt to control or eliminate adultery. Now to me, that was like killing 2 birds... first, SOME in the church are against any man made means of preventing Gods will... ie birth. Second, since adultery is/was illegal, the ends justified the means(if you commit adultery, your more likely to get pregnant and therefore act as a derurrant). Ultimately it was struck down but the implication that a system that I don't believe in would attempt to restrict my sexual/paternal freedom with a consenting aduly based on their beliefs was extremely dissatisfying. There are lots more but I won't go into detail. I don't know how it is in the 5th largest economy in the world,(congradulations BTW) but here, most liberties of pleasure are sinful and subject to the chopping block. And it isn't just pleasure, it's also education. My beliefs and oppurtunities are slowly being pushed out(in the form of laws) by those who go to church. State schools can no longer teach evolution in the state of Kansas because it is contrary to what the majority believe in... Creationism. No proof in evolution was sited and therefore since creationism can't be taught, neither should be taught. Sex is a 4 letter word that can't be discussed because the majority can't stomach the idea that sex exists outside their own bedroom. It's just to gross. To them, it doesn't matter what I believe, if it doesn't fall within their guidelines, it should be illegal. In this state, most sex acts are illegal UNLESS you're married(look up your states sodomy laws and see what falls under the definition of sodomy, you'll be amazed!) Why does this law exist to the extent that it does, RELIGION!!! And what physical harm do these acts have on society?Very little with the exception of child molestation which is obviously tollerated by some of the highest in the church. It simply goes against what the majority wish to accept.
I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to make laws restricting liberties without first considering the possibility that said liberties are acceptable to others even if they aren't aligned with the core beliefs of the majority or those in power. No harm... no foul... no law!
It's kinda ironic that we claim to live in the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the leader of the free world, yet Denmark and Belgium have already recognized same sex marriage and Canada, as well as other countries, is on it's way to doing the same while we lack the bravery to overcome our fears and prejucies to allow the same freedoms. Once again, I'm not here to form laws that restrict peoples beliefs, just to prevent laws that restrict people from enjoying the same freedoms that I already enjoy and at the same time, ALLOWING you to believe what you want and living YOUR LIFE as YOU choose. Thanks for the space and time Chris... and Pete, if your reading, I LUV YA MAN! just not that way! LMAO :D
-
Well, you're right, we are both obviously set in our ways & can agree to disagree.
If it's an issue of fairness then marriage will have to be done away with completely, as it's unfair to singles!!
And a parting thought - if definitions are fluid then the rule of law is finished - 'cause the powers that be can say they mean whatever suits them.
Good talking to you - stop back again :).
Pete
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
when they did it - it's still what they were supposed to do!
It's actually a good example of what happens when the Judges move outside the law. If the Judges were true to their oaths, racial marriage restrictions would have been 100% overturned at the first opportunity.
Over & over, when you look at the "bad" court decisions throughout our history, it was generally the judiciary overstepping their constitutional authority.
But there are always those willing to damage the (proven) system to force their will on the majority.
Pete
I thought you were putting moral issues aside, Pete!
Anyway, to implement a Constitutional Amendment can take time, especially one which affects all sorts of laws and which runs up against ingrained prejudices. I am not up on the legal history, but the Supreme Court has to have cases brought before it.
As well, we have government and courts run by human beings. They don't always make the right decisions. Even democracy can't guarantee that. However, as for being outside the Constitution, the Constitution means pretty well what the Supreme Court says it does. The same sort of problems can arise no matter who interprets the laws.
Anyway, here we have the courts implementing laws, in this case, the Constitution, and you complain about it. It's their job to interpret the Constitution and judge less laws by it. Yet you complain about that! It's just not a sensible argument. It would be better that you simply stuck to arguing that they made some bad decisions.
Then Karl and Chris and I, among others, can show just how baseless those arguments are! :cool:
-
Going in a different direction, I think it's really funny how here this discussion is weighted heavily in the direction of people who favor the right to gay marriage, where I must admit that in my real world experience, mostly in blue collar and below circles, it is strongly the opposite.
Personally, I think this points out how this issue is going to be huge in the next election and keep Georgie in office. Democrats are going to further alienate working class democrats in middle America when they are forced to take a stance on this issue that is going to offend many in that group, losing voters who would otherwise have an economic interest in voting Democrat.
This sort of thing is really problamatic for the Democratic Party, especially in small-town America and in the South.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
I thought you were putting moral issues aside, Pete! :
There is no moral issues in the previous post that I know of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
Anyway, to implement a Constitutional Amendment can take time, especially one which affects all sorts of laws and which runs up against ingrained prejudices. I am not up on the legal history, but the Supreme Court has to have cases brought before it. :
You're absolutely right, the Supreme Court cannot go hunting for cases. The time it takes to pass an amendment is part of the check & balance system, and is a sorry excuse for subverting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
As well, we have government and courts run by human beings. They don't always make the right decisions. Even democracy can't guarantee that. :
Yes, I love Churchills' statement that democracy is the worst form of gov't, except for every other kind that's been tried from time to time:)!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
However, as for being outside the Constitution, the Constitution means pretty well what the Supreme Court says it does. The same sort of problems can arise no matter who interprets the laws.:
The Supreme Court was supposed to be the minor third in the triumverate of executive/legislative/judical. If the S.C. says white is black, does that make it so? Check/balance = no enforcement. They can be ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
Anyway, here we have the courts implementing laws, in this case, the Constitution, and you complain about it. It's their job to interpret the Constitution and judge less laws by it. Yet you complain about that! It's just not a sensible argument. It would be better that you simply stuck to arguing that they made some bad decisions.:
??? There is no convicing evidence the Constitution says our topic is under gov't power unless we wish it to be so. We have not. This strikes me as not just a sensible argument, but a duty (to protect our freedom). The Constitution does NOT guarentee fairness, and it would be an empty guarentee if it did. Not only the founding fathers but also our own fathers knew this - life isn't fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
Then Karl and Chris and I, among others, can show just how baseless those arguments are! :cool:
Thanks, I'm glad to hear it:)!
Pete
BTW, I like your tag line!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody
Going in a different direction, I think it's really funny how here this discussion is weighted heavily in the direction of people who favor the right to gay marriage, where I must admit that in my real world experience, mostly in blue collar and below circles, it is strongly the opposite.
Personally, I think this points out how this issue is going to be huge in the next election and keep Georgie in office. Democrats are going to further alienate working class democrats in middle America when they are forced to take a stance on this issue that is going to offend many in that group, losing voters who would otherwise have an economic interest in voting Democrat.
This sort of thing is really problamatic for the Democratic Party, especially in small-town America and in the South.
Impressive! I believe you're dead-on accurate. Most here will be sad about it - I'm dancing a jig lol!
I've said it before - this election is Georges' to lose. Some silly (in the publics' eye) platforms & weak candidates plague the Dems. Of course, the same was somewhat true for George Sr.(92% popularity during the gulf war), and he lost (well, there was "the economy, stupid", but that doesn't look like an option this time around. Tax cuts!!). But that was before 9-11, and although he's not as refined as his father Jr. connects better with "the masses", and a strong challenger has yet to step forward.
Believe it or not, I'd rather have a close race. It's good for us, helps keep both parties on their toes.
Reagan Democrats? Bush Democrats? Let me dance again - it looks like it! And again perhaps a majority in both houses!
"Moral" issues do more than just alienate blue collar & southerners (how could the Dems lose the south? Where is their heads?! If I was Dem I'd be pissed!) - it also energizes the Christian voters into a greater turnout, and with races running so close a 5% increase among these voters can (and will) decide many races.
Even potentially more interesting: if the Dems really blow it this cycle we may see the start of a new party.
Pete
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody
Going in a different direction, I think it's really funny how here this discussion is weighted heavily in the direction of people who favor the right to gay marriage, where I must admit that in my real world experience, mostly in blue collar and below circles, it is strongly the opposite.
Personally, I think this points out how this issue is going to be huge in the next election and keep Georgie in office. Democrats are going to further alienate working class democrats in middle America when they are forced to take a stance on this issue that is going to offend many in that group, losing voters who would otherwise have an economic interest in voting Democrat.
This sort of thing is really problamatic for the Democratic Party, especially in small-town America and in the South.
Well, that may very well be the case. I'd bet money though, that they're doing their research to see if America is ready for this yet before they take a hard stance on it. They want power back too much to take a stance on something that would hurt their chances.
I'm not sure that the working class as a whole is strongly against this issue though. Maybe in some circles the majority is against it, and some maybe even will not speak their true feelings for fear of being outcast as a "sissy" (as tends to happen in the heavy-labor sectors of the blue collar industries), but when it comes down to it, what people say out loud and how they feel about it maybe different. One thing's for sure, this is shaping up to be an interesting time in history and politics. I can't wait to see how it unfolds.
Hey, did you guys hear about the threat letters sent to the black football players? It's crap like that which makes me uneasy when issues like this come up for such open public debate. I fear some people are going to get hurt because others believe so much in their own cause. Some wackos always need to make "statements".
|