Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Adder]

Originally posted by Fugee
11 hours? I'm not sure I'd have waited in line that long. What were they doing, handwriting each ballot? Were there wide spread equipment malfunctions? It is hard for me to believe there were so many new voters they couldn't plan accordingly.

My point exactly.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If a social conservative ever came around here, she might get offended. As it is we lefties and libertarians might not recognize one.

Federalist social conservative (the latter part not being extreme, and certainly not being opposed to civil unions if the G is going to endorse marriage at all). Heck, from Kerry's statements on gay marriage, he might even qualify as one. Certainly the Federalist part, and unclear about the social conservative. I feel like I should send him a welcome letter but I fear someone made him go to the one meeting and he's not coming to any others.

And then from the secession talk today, it sounds like some lefties would realize the benefits of Federalism if they would look into it. Not sure, but I think Sebby might not have had any objection to it after it was discussed here vis a vis abortion. On that note, someone on Dennis Miller tonight unequivocally that Roe will be overturned in the next 4 years, and abortion will be decided by the states. The other guests, including Ben Stein, disagreed, but looked like they wanted to strangle the guy for making the comment publicly.

Speaking of secession, there were some pretty easy jokes in Virginia today due to a ballot initiative for "Succession" that related to the chain of succession should leaders die. Something about how all the central and Southern Virginians had visions of vindication after 140 years.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And then from the secession talk today, it sounds like some lefties would realize the benefits of Federalism if they would look into it. Not sure, but I think Sebby might not have had any objection to it after it was discussed here vis a vis abortion. On that note, someone on Dennis Miller tonight unequivocally that Roe will be overturned in the next 4 years, and abortion will be decided by the states. The other guests, including Ben Stein, disagreed, but looked like they wanted to strangle the guy for making the comment publicly.

You think that in a post-Roe world, the folks responsible for the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban would draw some sort of federalist-inspired line short of a national ban on abortion?

[Fugee]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Maybe I live in such a jaded place that I'm out of touch with the homespun salt of the earth types -- you know -- the smart ones (Hi BRC!) but if taxes aren't going to go up then why the fuck would these 47% care if the two guys in the neighborhood are married versus "civil unioned"? I mean it's not like the abortion issue or other stuff where people honestly consider a zygote-baby is being murdered. How does the gay marriage hurt anyone? I'm perplexed by the explanation, "marriage should be just for, you know, a man and women". Well, excuse me but it should be sunny every day too (Hi Bunny!). And it's no excuse that the Constitution doesn't envision same sex marriage. Didn't we once have laws that said blacks and whites couldn't marry? Anti-misceg......whatever that term was. Now that it's clear that mixed marriages didn't produce the feared abomination of the races, can not people see that gay marriage simply doesn't hurt anyone either?

I don't have a good handle on this from the Religious Right perspective because it is relatively new as a political issue, but it seems to have a couple of components.

1. I've been told there are statistics showing that in European countries that allow same sex marriage or civil unions, fewer couple are actually getting married vs. living together and having kids. I haven't been shown said statistics nor have I gone looking for them. That is their support for believing that same sex marriage harms traditional marriage.

2. I've also heard that people fear that churches would be prevented from preaching that homosexual sex is a sin if same sex marriage were sanctioned by the state.

3. I've been told, quite sincerely, by the few people passionately about "defending traditional marriage"with whom I've discussed this that it isn't about homosexual sex as a sin (this is response to my questioning whether they think gays will stop having sex merely because they can't get married), but about marriage as defined in the Bible. This does not explain why the state amendments didn't all say civil unions would be OK so it doesn't seem to be the reason followed by very many. Tony Campolo, a "neo-evangelical" (catch word for an evangelical Christian not part of the Religious Right) from Sebby's neck of the woods, has suggested separating the state and religious functions of marriage -- i.e. go to City Hall for a civil ceremony and then, if you want a religious marriage, go to a pastor. Then the criteria for each could be different. As you may guess, his suggestion is viewed as a bit controversial.

The Rev. Fugee Brother and I are able to agree that Christians should be spending their time trying to show Christ's love rather than trying to get the 10 commandments posted in schools and government facilities or amending constitutions to ban same sex marriage.

ETA: The Fugee Brother and I may have a different perspective on the issue because we have a gay uncle and he has two gay men in his congregation.

[Adder]

In the next four years:

1. We will not capture Osama bin Laden (although he may die).

2. There will be another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

3. We will invade another country pre-emptively.

4. Such invasion will happen before stability is achieved in Iraq.

5. The federal government will run record budget deficits each year.

6. George W. Bush will support a tax increase.

7. One Vice President, but no Supreme Court Justices, will resign (although some Justices may die).

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Other folks have been running with the idea:

Let's see.

Boston Bruins - check
New York Rangers - check
Philadelphia Flyers - check
Chicago Blackhawks - check
Detroit Red Wings - check

You know, the Canandians might just go for this.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Fugee
1. I've been told there are statistics showing that in European countries that allow same sex marriage or civil unions, fewer couple are actually getting married vs. living together and having kids. I haven't been shown said statistics nor have I gone looking for them. That is their support for believing that same sex marriage harms traditional marriage.

Not surprising. In increasingly secular societies, if you take away the civil advantages of marriage, why get married? It's not like we think it is a holy rite or something (well.. most of us).

But isn't this esssentially saying that I am against sin x (gay marriage) because it will lead to sin Y (shackin' up)? And why should this be at all more compelling than being against sin x?

2. I've also heard that people fear that churches would be prevented from preaching that homosexual sex is a sin if same sex marriage were sanctioned by the state.

I understand that people fear this, but that doesn't make it rational. Churches can discriminate now on the basis of race and religion, and gender, why would we think that wouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? Especially when no on is saying they don't have that right (and there is a whole constitutional amendment to protect it)?

3. I've been told, quite sincerely, by the few people passionately about "defending traditional marriage"with whom I've discussed this that it isn't about homosexual sex as a sin (this is response to my questioning whether they think gays will stop having sex merely because they can't get married), but about marriage as defined in the Bible.

And this has exactly what to do with what the government says is marriage? (I see what it has to do with what a church calls a marriage)

Ad(none of this is specifically directed at you)der

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let's see.

Boston Bruins - check
New York Rangers - check
Philadelphia Flyers - check
Chicago Blackhawks - check
Detroit Red Wings - check

You know, the Canandians might just go for this.

Okay. I'm all for it. Let's go!!!

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You think that in a post-Roe world, the folks responsible for the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban would draw some sort of federalist-inspired line short of a national ban on abortion?

I'm cringing as I write this, and I know the answer is not "none", but what other types of murder are subject to Federal jurisdiction? If there are none close (which could be justified in my shoes), than I'll scream to keep it out of the Federal arena. The cringing, of course, is because if might be murder, and I cringe when mass murder happens in Rwanda or Sudan so I certainly would cringe at the possibility of it* in America. Then again, even on a state-by-state basis, I'd love to know which state's end up allowing partial-birth abortion. I would seriously boycott the state and move out if it were my own.

Come to think of it, in addition to Sebby's Jesus bank, Federalism might make for a lucrative career in the Real Estate brokering market over the next few years.

Hello

*Possibility of it being murder, I simply don't know where to draw the lines here and am uncomfortable guessing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm cringing as I write this, and I know the answer is not "none", but what other types of murder are subject to Federal jurisdiction? If there are none close (which could be justified in my shoes), than I'll scream to keep it out of the Federal arena. The cringing, of course, is because if might be murder, and I cringe when mass murder happens in Rwanda or Sudan so I certainly would cringe at the possibility of it* in America. Then again, even on a state-by-state basis, I'd love to know which state's end up allowing partial-birth abortion. I would seriously boycott the state and move out if it were my own.

Come to think of it, in addition to Sebby's Jesus bank, Federalism might make for a lucrative career in the Real Estate brokering market over the next few years.

Hello

*Possibility of it being murder, I simply don't know where to draw the lines here and am uncomfortable guessing.

I was suggesting that notwithstanding your own views on federalism, whatever they may be, the culture warriors of the GOP probably will not let principles of federalism prevent them from saving the lives of the unborn with the machinery of the federal government if the levers are within their grasp.

If I understand you correctly, you're looking for a principled basis for consistency between an abortion ban and other federal criminal law. I know that murdering a federal game warden can get you the death penalty, but this crime implicates a concern of the federal government that abortions do not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

An e-mail from a staffer in a targeted House race in the Midwest:

• "Here's something you're going to hear from a lot of races in Bush winning districts. We were swamped with Republican turnout throughout the district...the wave was too high... In Coal Counties where mineworkers had just lost everything, including their pensions people seemed to be voting values more than pocketbook....the Republican base of non-voting Republicans seemed motivated to actually vote ... among new voters in traditional Republican areas and Evangelicals who vote seldom or sporadically vote we were hit hard... direct-mail attacking him as a carpetbagger and as a liberal, and robo-calls by the right to life PAC and the NRCC suggesting the our candidate was for partial birth abortion and gay marriage. These went unanswered by the DCCC ...People were murmuring homophobic messages as they slept. The culture war this year was not fought on the presidential level, they fought it locally and in congressional districts so that Bush could seem clean of the hate much of his party were spewing and thus no one was accountable for hate."

MyDD

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
An e-mail from a staffer in a targeted House race in the Midwest:
[list]" robo-calls by the right to life PAC and the NRCC suggesting the our candidate was for partial birth abortion and gay marriage. These went unanswered by the DCCC ...People were murmuring homophobic messages as they slept.

MyDD

As noted by the author, this stuff could have been addressed by the DCCC or Kerry himself. He was the candidate for months, and his only past record has been opposing bans on gay marriage at the federal level:

First on Federalism grounds. When those were dismissed due to smart people like you and DS, than just because. Its frightening to me that I raise the questions on what he meant by "I'm opposed", particularly given his record, and my questions were derided (and unanswerable at the level of this board unless someone here was sleeping with Kerry). But local organizers beg for clarification, and the DCCC (I submit intentionally) refuses to answer, perhaps thinking that its costing them only my small minority.

Do you or anyone else here have any theory on why the DCCC would refuse to answer? Because if they weren't telling their own campaign workers where he stood (other than the obvious "I'm opposed"), I think the conversations here the last two days are now even funnier.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
As noted by the author, this stuff could have been addressed by the DCCC or Kerry himself. He was the candidate for months, and his only past record has been opposing bans on gay marriage at the federal level:

First on Federalism grounds. When those were dismissed due to smart people like you and DS, than just because. Its frightening to me that I raise the questions on what he meant by "I'm opposed", particularly given his record, and my questions were derided (and unanswerable at the level of this board unless someone here was sleeping with Kerry). But local organizers beg for clarification, and the DCCC (I submit intentionally) refuses to answer, perhaps thinking that its costing them only my small minority.

Um, what? I think you're misunderstanding. The "candidate" was the congressional candidate, not Kerry.

Do you or anyone else here have any theory on why the DCCC would refuse to answer? Because if they weren't telling their own campaign workers where he stood (other than the obvious "I'm opposed"), I think the conversations here the last two days are now even funnier.

I think the point was that the DCCC was outgunned or something, not that they took a vow of silence.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Yeah but even heteros do that nasty deed - (but not me -- though I tried to try it once -- how DO they DO that????) and could still be against gay marriage. So there would seem to be another reason. If some engaged couple in Iowa think that Joe and Ed's marriage in NY is going to make their own marriage and honeymoon somehow less "special" because Joe and Ed call their setup a "marriage" then that's just plain......weird! And if you are saying the majority are even against "civil unions" - then it makes me wonder this: if the ballot said "do you favor a constitutional ban on gay sex**" It's scary to think that, behind the curtains in total privacy, a majority of heteros would vote "yes". None of this crap belongs on the ballot.

**without giving the voter the option of specifying banning just gay, but not lesbian, sex.

You gotta relax, baby. Don't try to rush it.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
I just heard that Bush got 9M more votes in this election than in 2000 and that 9M more voters voted in 2004 than in 2000. Looks like the old rule that increased voter turn out means a Dem win is no longer the rule. Heard it on the radio so no cite, but if true, Wow!

Wow, they really rallied the homo haters!