They are:
1. Estate Tax. (aka the Paris Hilton law)
2. Flag Burning (an oldie but a goodie)
3. Gay Marriage.
If anyone wants to spend time on the first two items, feel free to leave your comments about these earth shattering issues in the comments section below. I, however, will be talking about that ol' favorite of faves....top of the pops issue on the mind of conservative lawmakers....gay people's personal lives!!Let's hear it for that old hit from 2004 because, as we all know, conservatives across the country are shitting themselves at the thought of losing in November because the president they blindly supported is moronically incompetent and people are finally starting to wake up to that fact. And what better issue to dangle, carrot like, in front of their frustrated conservative base.
Before we go any further, let's take a look at some facts. Gay marriage is against the law in this country on both a federal and state level. Let me repeat myself because I am sure 29 percent of you didn't understand me the first time. Gay marriage is illegal in this country. So why does our government want to add an amendment to the Constitution stating the marriage is between one man and one women?
Because activist judges (aka judges who actually read the Constitution and understand what discrimination means) could allow these "people" to be married and, by gum, the Conservatives in Congress NEED to add a "double, anti-faggot, secret protection" law to the Constitution.
Interestingly, the chief sponsor of the marriage amendment, Wayne Allard, Republican Senator from Colorado, see here in this picture at left, seems to have....um...well....a male lover of his own. I am not sure who this person is to Mr. Allard's right but the look on his face reveals his innermost passions.Do Bill Frist, Wayne Allard and the other cronies in Congress realize that: a) our country is at war, b) people are dying the war because our leaders are myopic and incompetent, c) 40 million people do not have health care in this country, d) hurricane season is upon us and we might want to start planning now, and e) there are terrorists that want to detonate a nuclear bomb in this country?
I guess not. Because the institution of marriage is under attack by sinners. Well, one sinner happens to be the daughter of Vice President Cheney. Mary Cheney was recently on CNN's The Situation Room talking about her new book, Now It's My Turn : A Daughter's Chronicle of Political Life. Ms. Cheney stated that Bill Frist is just plain wrong. The discrimination that is going on against homosexuals is akin to what happened 40 years ago with interracial marriage. The Republican Party is behind the times and if they want to survive they need to stop treating gay people like 3/5 ths of a person.I believe they need to go one step further. Conservatives need to "know" gay people. People in this country are woefully ignorant of gay people and what they are really like. I know several gay people and count at least a half dozen among my closest friends. Sadly, it seems that the media, supposedly rife with homosexuals, is part of the problem as well.
Earlier this year, a show called "Welcome to the Neighborhood," produced by ABC was shelved because the subject matter was deemed too controversial. The reality show told the story of a gay couple, with adopted son in tow, moving in to a conservative neighborhood. As the show progressed, several neighbors gave testimonials about how their bias changed in time as they got to know the gay couple. In other words, they went from slinging homophobic barbs to feeling regret at their sub-human behavior.
It played out, in my mind, in the same way our country could begin to embrace gay people as intregal parts of our society. ABC really missed the boat here but, hey, that's the "liberal" media for you!!
Maybe what our country needs is a program similar to the Netherlands. In order to become a citizen in Holland, each prospect must view a series of images which reflect everyday life in the country. Several photos and videos include men having sex with men and women having sex with women. The idea here is to root out people, in this case Islamists, who go berserk and start shooting people due to offense taken at homosexual acts. If candidates are offended, they are asked to withdraw their application for membership.
Imagine, if you will, Markadelphia armed with photos and videos of gay men and women....maybe not having sex (too personal) but, say, paying their mortgage while holding hands. Or reading to their children. Or (gasp) mowing their lawn with a large gas powered implement! Ah, yes, I can hear the cries of discontent screaming from the right already.
Bringing this down to a personal level, the other day when I dropped my daughter of at school I saw a 700 Club bumper sticker on a parent's car that said "Marriage= (male symbol) + (female symbol) ." My first reaction was to have a little chat with the fucking idiot who was driving that car (I restrained myself.) Why? Because my daughter, who can read and understand symbols, asked me about it. She wanted to know why my wife and I were "married" and our neighbors, Carrie and Ann, who have two children were not "married." Why can't two women or two men be married, she asked?Taking my wife's advice, which is to never lie to my children, I told her it was because people in this country are ignorant and they haven't advanced along enough on the evolutionary ladder to understand that we are all equal in the eyes of God.
After I told her all of this she was quiet for a minute or so and then said (completely true, btw),"Well, maybe if they just read the Bible and learn about how Jesus loves everyone no matter what then they wouldn't be so angry."
Pearls of wisdom from the future of our country.
20 comments:
I think that deep down, you know that those 3 issues are winners for the GOP and that is what has you riled up because you know that those ballot initiatives on gay marriage didn’t go your way in every state they were voted on. It’s fairly obvious you are hanging your hat on a victory for democrats this November, even though you say you’re not a democrat. When they win, you’ll be happily pointing your finger and saying "See, see!" When they lose you’ll say “Well they’re morons” and move forward.
So people are starting to wake up? The persistence of violence in Iraq has done damage to GWB's job rating, and polls show that his fellow Republicans are in trouble. Yet when people actually vote, those numbers don't seem to translate into gains for the Democrats. For example, in 2004, John Kerry got 44 percent of the votes in the 50th district of California. In the April 2006 special primary, Democrat Francine Busby got 44 percent of the votes there. In the runoff election a couple weeks ago, she got 45 percent and lost to Republican Brian Bilbray. The angry Democratic left seem to have succeeded in souring public opinion, but they haven't succeeded in producing victory margins for the Democrats.
I really don’t think the cons are interested in gay peoples personal lives. It’s not like Wayne Allard is asking gays to produce nightly journals of their bedroom activities.
I got a kick out of your definition of activist judges. You defend them just about as much as you defend the media.
Everyone in this country has health care. If you go to the emergency room, it is illegal for them to turn you away. Health insurance is what you’re talking about and it isn’t the governments job to make sure people get a job that has benefits.
Honestly, I stopped reading your Holland example right when you said "In order to become a citizen of Holland..." because I know first hand that the Muslims who are flooding into that country, and every other European country for that matter, know that they don’t have to become citizens to take advantage of the generous welfare benefits those countries have. Did you know that right now, that countries second largest city (Rotterdam) is majority muslim? They will be fielding their own candidates in elections soon. So while Holland is a neat place, holding them up as a society we should model our society after in terms of immigration is hilarious. The rules of political correctness make it impossible for anyone over there to criticize the jihadists, never mind compel them to observe the rules of civil society. Just look at what happened the day after filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was stabbed on an Amsterdam street in the middle of the day by a muslim immigrant: An artist in Rotterdam improvised a wall fresco that consisted of an angel and the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill." The local imam protested, and local Dutch authorities removed the fresco.
To be fair, those countries over there do have amazing social programs for its citizens. Ever seen what it takes to become one of those citizens? Not a lot of people who qualify are in danger of poverty or homelessness. Getting permanent resident status (a prerequisite) is pretty expensive, and if you were to go homeless in many countries like Switzerland during your time over there seeking permanent residence, you wouldn't be assisted except to the border.
You’re comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement? There has never been a law declaring what someone does with their sex organs qualifies them as a protected group under the civil rights act and there never will be. There are too many vague definitions about who is gay and who isn't. There is no minority status for any group who can declare or not declare their status. Moreover, with regards to race and sex, science can identify chromosomes and genes which meet absolute scientific proof of one's status. Since you’ve shown precedence to adhering to science and not belief, the day science locates a gay gene is the day I will buy your comparison to the civil rights movement. To protect a group under the law for how they choose to express their sexuality? People just aren’t going to buy that. In addition, what do you do about bisexuals or men who like to have sex with men but consider themselves straight? People are looking for civil rights protections based on behavior and gay is not cut and dried, moreover it is behavior and not like being Latino or a female...both which have protected status.
People need to “know” gay people? That is easier said than done since gay people only make up about 5% of the population. If someone doesn’t know any gay people it might not be ignorance, it might be the law of statistics.
Jesus did love everyone…even Dick Cheney and his hunting buddy. Ya dig?
"The mark of an educated man is not in his boast that he has built his mountain of facts and has stood on top of it, but in his admission that there may be other peaks in the same range with men on top of them, and that, though their views of the landscape may be different from his, they are none the less legitimate."
- E.J. Pratt
Frankly, I think the Dems have become so obsessed with trying to prove how evil the right is that they've completely lost focus of what would be an easy "win" for them. There are notable (read: loud and obnoxious) exceptions to this, but I suspect most people aren't opposed to gay people having rights equal to those of straight people. "Spousal" Health insurance? Fine. Inheritance rights? Sure. Probate? Testimony? Lawsuits? Makes sense. From a common sense standpoint, people are open to the notion, or at the very least don't care, that people who commit to each other receive recognition as such.
The problem for the Dems is that they've associated the issue with marriage. Actually, to be honest, I don't even know how the issue got so intertwined with marriage...perhaps it was the workings of the evil ncds. At any rate, what they are categorically failing to do at this point is extricate the "rights" issue from the "marriage" issue. As long as "equal rights for gays" equates to marriage, they will lose. Period. Not only will all conservative religious bases oppose them, those of us with an ounce of common sense will oppose them too, given the unintended and undesirable consequences of government mandating a more open interpretation of marriage. Even civil unions aren't necessarily going to fly in the long run, as they ultimately go right back to being the ugly stepsister of marriage.
If the Democrats want to be visionary they need to attack the issue at its heart, which is the establishment of rights based on marital status. Doing so was, for a long time, not only the most convenient way to identify a non-lineage based relationship between people, it was also the commonly accepted method for doing so. That's obviously an antiquated notion, so let's get rid of it. Eliminate that establishment, and the question of whether or not gays can marry becomes one entirely in the realm of the churches, where it belongs. (From that point forward, you people can do whatever you want with your rituals....)
Instead, establish a legal status - I'm not clever enough to provide a name, but let's refrain from "civil union" since that already has a gay connotation - such that people who marry are, by law, included (just one more paper to sign after the ceremony) as are any people who make the trip down to the state registrar's office, sign their name, and pay the $50 processing fee. From that point forward, the two (or three, or more) people who entered into that legal status together share the same benefits (and responsibilities) as any other two people also in that legal status.
See how easy that is? For all you churchies out there, man-woman marriage is intact. Or, if it's not, take up the issue with your church and quit wasting the time of our politicians. For all you bomb-throwing lefties out there, you have the equal rights you sought.
Get a Democrat out there strongly pushing that message and frankly that's going to make the whole "defense of marriage" base, including the ridiculous constitutional amendment, look quite silly. But unfortunately for them they're too busy pushing the "anti-Bush" platform such that even those who among them who push a logical message are lost in the rhetoric.
Crab, what the fuck are you talking about? The three issues I have mentioned have gone over about as well as the 100 dollar rebate on gas thing went. The Republicans will lose in November because they are incompetent and completely out of touch with the needs of voters.
Why don't you look up who owns the various media outlets and then come and tell me they're liberal. Go and look it up. I dare you. Subject of my next column, btw.
And speaking of the media, their myopic view of what is happening in Holland is coloring your vision of what is happening there. You know I have no love lost for Islamists but your point of view is really out of whack here.
Mary Cheney is comparing gay marriage to the intolerance that occured during the civil rights movement, not me...
I think it's a lot more than 5% dude...
I will not be gloating "see-see" when the Democrats take back the House and Senate. I will pray that they can actually turn some things around in this country and head us on the right track.
There isn't any time for "I told you so."
My "point of view" of Holland is directly from a gentleman working at my company named John who is from our office in Germany. He grew up in south Holland and still lives there...he is here on a 2 year work assignment. You even met him that night downtown at Drink. My "point of view" could also come from my conversations with locals in Amsterdam at the Old Sailer pub off of Stoofsteeg last November as well as seeing first hand those people who contribute nothing to their society and simply take take take.
The population in Rotterdam = fact.
Theo Van Gogh being stabbed in the chest with a note threatening Jihad against the west = fact.
The Fresco story = fact.
No "views" there at all.
OK, I'll even grant you 10%. That still isn't a very large percentage...and many of them live in big cities. Are rural folk supposed to seek out gay people to hang out with?
Sure Mary Cheney is the one doing the comparing, and it sure seems like you're endorsing her book by linking to it.
I also have linked to the Family Research Council and other conservative groups but it doesn't mean I endorse them. I would like the readers of this blog to be able to go to the places I am ripping if they want more information.
Rural folk don't have to hang out with gay people at all...unless the people representing them want to use them as pawns to remain in power...which is what is happening now. Gay marriage shouldn't even be a political issue but it is thanks to the people you support.
I really don't see how you can blame the ncds for making this a political issue when the impetus for the constitutional amendments, the referendums, and every other sort of ban is the Dems well-meaning but misguided support for gay marriage. Did you honestly expect there would be a more positive reaction that what occurred? I think you're contradicting yourself by suggesting that the repubs are using their supporters as pawns, while at the same time suggesting they are out of touch. By opposing gay marriage, they are actually perfectly in touch with their constituents, the majority of whom oppose gay marriage.
You may hate that this is true, but there are a great many Americans who don't give a rat's ass about the lives of gay people, the lives of Iraqis, or whether or not some political think-tank is worried, on principle, about phones being tapped. You call them naive. I call them average. The Dems are the ones proving themselves to be out of touch by not speaking to those people; by telling them what is right rather than hearing what they think is right; by attempting to force on those people a change to a long-held and important religious principle.
There's no question in my mind that repub strategists relish every poll and every news story on the topic. There's no question in my mind that they'll go far out of their way to initiate or perpetuate such stories. I would too, when the dems make it such an easy win for me. If repubs capitalizing on the backlash to the dems continually telling people that they are wrong can be characterized as using those people as pawns then so be it. You and the dems can enjoy your moral victory while again failing to provide any sort of substantial leadership.
I think the worst you can blame the dems for is being fearfully silent on this issue. They know how ignorant the American public is on this issue and I really don't see them standing up to offer their wholehearted support.
To me, the issue is simple. Gay people want to have the right to be married. They can't because it is illegal. They take the issue to court and then the NCDs goes ape shit if the ruling is not in their favor. The NCDs are where the problem began not the dems. Let's be very clear about this. The Dems are not doing anything really and the NCDs are the ones trumpeting this issue.
I don't understand how you can see it any other way.
Be very clear about this....Right to be married? No such thing. Right to not be discriminated against? That's a different story. The dems will continue to lose as long as they equate the two.
Once again you look down your nose at the American public and label them as ignorant. (Typical liberal approach to building a support base...not sure why they continue to think it will work.) To the contrary, polls pretty clearly and consistently indicate that the majority of people make a clear distinction between gay marriage (majority opposed) and equal rights for gays (majority approve).
It's ridiculous to me that you would suggest it's a black-and-white assessment that "dems are not doing anything." Quite clearly what they are doing is pushing a losing position, and they are doing so with morality blinders on. Jesus apparently compels them to allow everyone to marry, no matter how horseshit the idea may be.
Railing against ncds for "protecting" marriage serves little purpose other than to further exacerbate the divide between people and doesn't get you any closer to your solution. Sure the ncds are trumpeting the issue. Like I said before, I don't blame them a bit when it's clearly a winning strategy.
I am not looking down my nose at people. I am ignorant of what it means to be a rocket scientist at NASA. I am ignorant of Chilean archeaology. I am ignorant of anything to do with the city of St Michael, MN.
Now, imagine someone comes to me and says that NASA wants to build a facility in St. Michael to research genetic links with Chilean bipeds ten million years ago. This person informs me that it will threaten my way of life. My first instinct, not knowing anything about these three subjects, is to be against the building of said facility, right?
Perhaps if I KNEW more about the topics, then I could make a more informed judgement. NCDs don't know the meaning of informed judgement when it comes to issues like homosexuality, birth control, pre-marital sex etc....they are blinded by misguided faith.
As I’ve said before, marriage is an invention, like the infield fly rule - it exists because we (society) says it does. We weren't born with the unalienable right to be married. Hell if we all have the "right" to be married, if I stop down to the courthouse tomorrow would the government have to issue me a spouse? It is an institution invented, and therefore defined by society at large that confers on qualified individuals certain priviledges. Because everyone can't have those priviledges doesn't mean we redefine it to cram more people into qualified status. The ever-expanding definition of "rights" is a miffer, too. Do I have the right to drive my car? No, but I’m granted that priviledge by the state of Minnesota. The priviledge can be taken away also.
I love how the polls showing GWB’s approval rating are heralded on this blog and the polls on gay marriage are ignored simply because liberals know what’s right and will pull out the "morality" argument in their attempt to foist something (via the courts) on the majority that the majority does not support.
Polls can be deceiving. As PL pointed out, ask someone if they support gay marriage, most people say no. Ask how they feel about civil unions, most people say that's ok. Ask people if they think gay people should have the same rights as everyone, most people say yes.
So which is it?
I don't think that most people understand that the amendment that died in the Senate would have outlawed gay marriage AND gay civil unions
It's entirely possible that people didn't understand the amendment. Personally, I think the more likely explanation is that people didn't care. It's no skin off their nose if gays don't get equal rights and it's no skin off their nose if they do (as illustrated by their indifference, interpreted as support, in polls).
Saying somebody is blinded by misguided faith is awfully dangerous territory to tread, especially for somebody who openly supports positions based on the teachings of Jesus, don't you think? Or is it safe for you to do so because your assessment of what Jesus would want correct?
All three of you have compelling arguements, but I think the point of whether marriage should exist or who should be able to participate in it is irrelevent to a discussion that should be focused on why we need to have a constitutional ammendment to either support or deny gay marriage. By attempting to put gay marriage at this level, we are equating it with the fundamental principles of our country. That is ridiculous. If what PL and Crab are suggesting is reflective of a segment of our society, then there is no right to be married. I think Markadelphia would also concede that it is not a right. So why are we trying to make it a right or legislate it in any way? The motion forward has been provided by the Republicans and maybe we should look at it from the perspective of it being a waste of our politicians time, money and effort. I think it is irresponsible to have any resources devoted to this non-issue. We as responsible voting members of the public should write our senators and representatives and tell them to quit stalling on important issues and throw this led zepplin in the trash where it belongs.
But what if the public really wants some action on it? What if the Republicans are really just in touch with their constituency? My personal opinion does not matter on the subject of gay marriage except when it comes to voting time, but I do believe that people should be able to choose how they want to live their lives and if two men or two women want to get married...more power to them. But that opinion does not matter on the broad stage of this country. Let me ask this then...if a large segment of people wanted to have a banana split after dinner, should we have a constitutional amendment that makes it available to them? I think not. I think it is as frivoulous a point as gay marriage. What I would like to hear from PL and Crab is that they agree on the frivolity of the issue and that those that claim to have strong Republican ties say so in public and let their representatives in government know that marriage is not a right and does not need to be defined as a fundamental right in a constitutional amendment. I would like to see government representation that does not place frivolous shit like gay marriage out in the public's eye to gain sympathy votes. We are not bad people...we just have to exercise some common sense for the common good of this country whether you are black, white, red,yellow, gay, straight, whatever.
Stop wasting precious legislative time with this nonsense. Let states make up their own mind. Put it to a vote in a referendum, whatever.
By the by...nice shot on the last line of the last post PL...ouch!
No shot intended, although because I support the ncds I'm sure it was subconsciously a shot (and GWB is to blame).
I agree that the amendment is ridiculous and silly (see my original post in this thread). I agree that the ncds are using the issue to gain votes. I do not agree that the topic of gay marriage, or the ncds opposition thereof, is frivolous. Ultimately, I can't condone a scenario where the repubs sit back and fail to defend something that is a deeply held religious belief by so many of their constituents. I don't happen to agree with Markadelphia's determination of the "cause" of the issue, but ultimately the cause doesn't matter as much as the fact that what the dems are asking, even pushing through the courts, is a violation of something that many people hold very sacred. I don't know how that's not considered wrong by any moral measuring stick, no matter how well-meaning their intentions. Your banana split analogy doesn't really capture the spirit of the fact that marriage is a religious principle, plain and simple, and will be defended as such.
As a society, we absolutely have more important things to worry about than what two people do in their own bedroom. But are you and Markadelphia asking that a majority of society stand aside while one of their religious principles is altered in a fashion inconsistent with their religious beliefs? As I asked Markadelphia earlier, could you have honestly expected a different response once gays started to marry? Contrary to Markadelphia's assessment, a rejection of gay marriage does not necessarily have anything to do with homophobia or lack of understanding of gays (although, on an individual basis, I'm sure it does).
In the end, the ncds response has been over-the-top (the whole "War on Christianity" and "Defense of Marriage" campaigns are ridiculous and borderline offensive even to somebody like me) and if that's what Markadelphia is opposing, I happen to agree with him. I'm just trying to suggest that there are solutions out there that do not involve marriage and even do not involve civil unions. Again, civil unions have a gay context, and that's not the spirit of the solution (I don't think, anyway). You're going to see a much better response to a solution like that than you are a continued insistance on gay marriage and the associated defensive reflex.
Markadelphia,
How does Sat. July 15th look on your calendar? It's getting to be about time for me to cash in on that bet of ours, and that would be an ideal day to do so. (It would be about a noon to 6 time committment, or more if so desired.)
So far it looks good. Let's pencil it in and talk as we get closer....
PL..I can see your point...to a point. This country was founded on religious freedom as many who first came here were persecuted for their beliefs. There do happen to be alot of Christians here, but that does not give them the right to dictate the beliefs of everyone else. A deeply held conviction is a fine thing and nobody is asking Christians or Jews or anyone else to become gay, or to participate in gay marriages. All that is going on is that one group of people who believe that it is okay to be "married" and be gay be allowed to do so. There are no victims, no one is going to be physically hurt by the process and if anti-gay marriage people want to close their eyes and turn off their tv's so they aren't exposed to it, no one is stopping them from doing that.
I guess my point is that it is not enough to be offended by something to make a constitutional amendment to ban it.
Here's a thought...if it is such a course-of-the-nation issue, how about we put it to a vote. Certainly the technology exists to put up a series of proposals and have a day for everyone to vote on the issue. Whatever the outcome is...we all live by it. You could even have a time limit of 10, 15 or 20 years when the issue would have to be revisited.
Ah well, that would mean that the people actually have a voice and then what point would their be to support a group of professional politicians who pretend their ideas and loud mouths are reflective of anything other than their own opinions.
And that is really the point here, isn't it? Pseudo-Christians around this country WANT to dictate their morals on people. This is exactly what the last five disgusting years have been all about. They want everyone to adhere to their law.
I don't think that was really my point. Giving very valid and logical reasons for why people shouldn't oppose gay marriage is, in fact, exactly the opposite of my point. But that's OK....I don't make sense to myself most of the time, so I don't know how anybody else is supposed to figure out what I'm trying to say. In the end, I don't know why I waste my time trying to defend a group of people that I don't associate with and a large percentage of whom I think are mildly delusional. You all have seen my arguments against allowing gays to marriage (those filthy sinners! just kidding...) and I'm now just patiently holding my breath waiting for any politician to actually acknowledge relevant arguments such as those.
Markadelphia, I jumped the gun on the 15th. The timeframe would be more of the 3pm-10pm variety. I have no idea if that is better or worse for you.
No prob on the 15th.
Post a Comment