GOBEAR, thank you for your defense and for your post, which was very eloquent.
HOMEBREW, I say this in all seriousness: I would have answered your question fully and honestly, if you had not first construed my position as one concluding that some single issue is more important than “Liberty and Justice for All.” Having thereby illustrated another example of people willfully misconstruing my position, I do not feel your post deserves the courtesy of a response.
And thanks to BRICKER for his reasoned posts as well. While I may disagree with BRICKER’s analysis of the amendment, I agree with his conclusion: It is an unreasonable infringement on states’ rights by the federal government and therefore is unacceptable. It is also, IMO, an attempt to legislate morality for non-harmful consensual activities, and therefore also is unacceptable. I hate this amendment, and I think much less of Bush for running it as an issue. But it is not the only issue I will consider before voting.
People may disagree with my position, but to construe my position as immoral or unpatriotic is beyond the pale. It is also a prime example of the type of hysterical overreacting that makes people want to walk away from whatever cause you might be flogging. I continue to be surprised at the number of people who just don’t get this.
I respectfully call bullshit. This is an issue of individual freedom. You have stated that you plan to vote for Bush because you consider him a better choice than Kerry. Therefore, you obviously hold some issues to be, either singularly or collectively, as more important than full and equal rights of all citizens. I’m just curious as to which issues they are. No amount of hand-waving and huffing and feigned righteous indignation from you takes away from the fact that you are willing to sacrifice the rights of some of us for other goals.
I defy you to find any place where I have stated that. Get your seaching fingers out, and then come back and admit this is 100% wrong.
Once again, for the reading impaired: We are not talking about “full and equal rights of all citizens.” We are talking about one aspect (marriage) of one right (association) for one subsent of citizens (gay people). Further, we are talking about an attack on that subset of that right for that subset of the populace in the context of an “attack” that is rhetorical and highly unlikely to ever be passed. Therefore, even if important – and I have never said it is not important – it may well be considered less important at this time and in this form of attack than other issues facing the country. It may especially be considered so by someone who is not gay and has no investment in “gay rights” on a personal level.
Now, you may choose to interpret that as meaning that I am against “full and equal rights for all citizens,” and in fact advocate for the reintroduction of slavery and big heapin’ helpings of opression for all, but at that point you’re just being an idiot.
As to your second question: No. If there’s a single realistic issue that would swing my vote, I can’t think of it. (And when I say “realistic issue” I mean like education or defense or civil rights or whatever. Not “what if the president was in favor of cutting off the heads of all left-handed philipino baton twirlers, huh? What then?”)
And I feel pretty passionately about a lot of issues, gay rights being one of them, regardless of whether you believe that or not. I am fundamentally pro-choice and very much a capitalist. But if I were faced with a pro-life candidate and one who was advocating the invasion of Canada, I’d vote for the pro-life guy – especially when I concluded that his attack on the issue of choice was highly unlikely to succeed. Get it?
Again, can you find ANY suggestion that GW supports any of the following:
Kerry opposes using the word “marriage,” but he supports all the sorts of policies which will make the spread of gay marriage, state by state and also via federal benefits that he supports, effectively inevitable.
Er, actually I’m more confused. There is no single issue that would sway your vote, and most of the issues you list seem to be wins for a Kerry ticket. So what sways your vote for Bush, and is it really just all about one issue, as you seem to imply by the invasion of Canada thing?
Er, seems like a pretty common assumption on all sides. But if she hasn’t (Homebrew thinks she has, but her response is ambiguous as to whether that is the part he got wrong), then GEEZ what the heck is everyone spazzing about at this point?
Granted, I’ve inferred that Jodi supports Bush. But I think it’s a reasonable conclusion since she has, in this thread, identified as a Republican and made such statements as
and
Her whole damned arguement in this thread is that she reserves the right to vote for Bush without being considered voting for bigotry. But when the candidate makes the issue one of his primary stump issues, then it is reasonable to assume that you support his platform. She has already identified as a Republican, and their party platform contains a plank stating:
So somehow allowing gay folks to marry will not “instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself.”
Now she goes so far as to say twice that
But dammit, we are talking Full Civil Rights. If any class of people in the U.S. is denied a major fundamental right then they are by definition denied full civil rights. How difficult is that to understand? Fiat Justitia indeed (as long it it doesn’t interfere with my economic concerns or warmongering).
Why is that you so often cry about every criticism in the Pit, Jodi?* It’s pretty fucking pathetic the way you whine. Every small slight is exaggerated and you launch into another histronic tizzy claiming people are misrepresenting your words, while at the same time you make absurd statements about our posts:
Get a fuckin’ grip.
*Example 1 where she calls gobear and anti-Christian bigot because of his comments about the Methodist Church’s actions.
Good catch, CAPTAIN AMAZING. APOS, the conclusion that all of those issues are “wins for Kerry” is yours, not mine. And speaking only for myself, at this point I’m “spazzing” about being called indecent, unamerican, and a homophobe. Am I having a spaz about that? You damn right I am.
You lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas. Or… you lie down with lying bigots and are seen as being no different.
You can’t even see that this is a civil rights issue.
To deny another of your countrymen their equal standing with you IS Unamerican.
Voting for Bush is nothing short of nihilism. As you see us legislated off the bus, watch as your reproductive rights get you to the back of that bus. Once one loses rights or are defined not to have rights one is then seen and treated as less than human.
Screw your righteous outrage. Wake up and smell the coffee. It IS mourning in America and unless we divest ourselves of the shroud of shame that has been hung on us by this administration we are going to be digging ourselves out of this disgusting situation for decades to come.
By your fall-back to inference, I assume you admit your inability to find where I “stated” my support for Bush. As far as inference goes, you can “infer” whatever the hell you want. I haven’t yet decided who I’m voting for, and I never said that I had. Infer to the contrary to your heart’s content; your incorrect inference is not my problem. But there’s nothing like going on the offense to disguise the fact that you were wrong, is there?
Incorrect. My whole damned argument in this thread is that it is unreasonable to expect everyone to choose one issue – and the same issue, at that – as the be-all, end-all, only issue of a presidential campaign. Actually, I think my position here has been clear since my very first post, which perhaps you should reread. SOL got it my point; GOBEAR got it. I’m not sure why you don’t, but then I’m not sure I care, either. But you’re damn right I reserve the right to vote for Bush. I reserve the right to vote for Bush, Nader, Kerry, or Yogi Bear, as I see fit.
Incorrect. I am not a straight-party ticket Republican, and I never claimed to be. Even if I supported Bush on this issue – which this thread, and others, should make crystal clear I do not – why would that mean I support his whole platform? You, like others here, manifest the “all or nothing” mentality," the inability to grasp shades of gray, the refusal to understand nuance. You can view the entire election in such simplistic terms if you choose to, but that doesn’t mean I have to.
I never said this wasn’t an important issue. What I have said – 6000 times? – is that it is not the only issue or even, depending on your point of view, the most important issue? Do you seriously disagree with this? I could care less if the issue of gay rights “interferes” with economic concerns (leaving aside your gratitious and baseless accusation of "warmongering), but you have NO RIGHT to tell anyone that gay marriage is MORE IMPORTANT than issues of war or keeping body and soul together. You may believe that, and I in fact might join you in believing that, if I perceived the threat as being as grave as you apparently do. (I do not, for reasons already given.) But other people might not, and the fact that they might not does not justify you hysterical ninnies calling them bigots or homophobes or whatever.
Than don’t answer. I “cry” about criticisms I feel are worth crying about, and that sure as hell includes being called a bigot, indecent, or unamerican. Maybe that wouldn’t be enough to get your dander up, but then, manifestly, I’m not you. For example, I am entirely without the inclination to comb the Pit (or any other forum) for examples of your posts that I might object to. Who has that kind of time?
I find it very telling, however, the the thrust of your attack would be to drag in other posts from other threads to attempt to generalize my whininess, in a manner having nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. I trust it is blindingly obvious how pathetic that is.
MOCKINGBIRD, don’t be fucking dense. Of course I see that it’s a civil rights issue. I just don’t think it’s the only issue in the election, automatically outweighing other issues in the minds of every other voter, especially when the amendment in question is highly unlikely to pass.
As I have said before, I suspect this is a manufactured issue by Bush. As long as he can keep the focus on defending the country from the specter of married gays – something the majority of voters do not support – he can keep the focus off a war that people feel deeply ambivalent about and which, if his actions were scrutinized carefully, might well cost him the election. So I don’t understand why you would want to assist him in this distraction, but the fact that you’re gullible enough (or passionate enough) to fall for it doesn’t mean I have to be.
I guess all of those black men and women in the past were gullible when they were used as political targets too. I need to inform the Advocate, the NAACP, and the mainstream media: It’s OKAY to be used and debased by politicians because if YOU IGNORE IT, it will all go away!
No, MOCKINGBIRD, they would have been gullible if they let some small part of their larger cause become a means of distracting the populace, diverting attention away from other issues where their opponent was more vulnerable. Assuming the larger goal is to get the detested individual out of office, you do not assist him in making the central issue of the campaign one where he is strong. Politics isn’t passion; it’s The Art Of War. And only a fool lets his opponent pick the battlefield.
If it’s worth anything, I agree with most (but not all) of what Jodi’s said in this thread, and there’s no way I’m going to be voting for Bush this November. You can believe that supporting Bush is a bad idea, or wrongheaded, without believing it’s an evil act.
What everyone is spazzing about, it’s a trend I’ve noticed on these boards (more frequently, recently), and in American political culture, generally. We seem to have a very moralistic attitude, politically. We tend to put value judgements on political issues, and assume we’re “on the side of the angels”, which puts our opponents decidedly on the other side. So, on this issue of gay marriage, for example, a number of people, especially those more vocal on the issue, opposed to gay marriage think that the people who support it are evil. They think supportsrs want to destroy the family, or destroy American values, etc. Likewise, a number of vocal supports of gay marrage, think that those who oppose gay marriage are evil. They’re bigots, and their stance is “ignorant and indefensable”. On the war issue, those opposed to our invasion of Iraq become traitors, Sadaam lovers, weak on terrorism, while those who supported it are warmongers and duped by White House lies. People who are pro-choice want to kill babies, while people who are pro-life want to take away a woman’s freedom, and put her in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Pro-gun people are willing to let children die so they can be macho. Anti-gun people want to strip our rights away and leave us vulnerable to tyranny and crime. This isn’t just rhetoric, although it can be sometimes. In many cases, the people making these statements actually believe them. They are willing to condemn their opponents to the hell that you go to if you’re wrong on political issues. Politics, in this case, doesn’t become some sort of rational debate to find the good society, but a flaming of emotions and righteous indignation.
Unfortunately, this has two main negative effects. First, if your opponent is evil, there’s no point in negotiating with him. God can’t reason with the devil. God can only defeat the devil. In a situation like this, actual dialogue becomes impossible. Both sides ignore any points the other makes, even if the point may be legitimate, and the debate takes on the quality of a revival meeting, both sides having their itenerant preachers, railing against sin and wickedness.
The second negative effect is on those who are undecided, or fall between the two extremes. These are the people who don’t want to destroy the family, but don’t want to be bigots either. They don’t want to kill babies, or lock up women. For these people, this rhetoric is not inspiring, but frightening and distasteful. And since neither side talks to them, or speaks in a way they understand, they end up saying, “You people are crazy” and disengaging.
This, of course, doesn’t apply to everyone. There are people on both sides of most issues who are willing to express their views sedately and non-confrontationally. They’re willing to talk to those who disagree with them, and listen to what they have to say. Unfortunately, those people tend to be drowned out in the shouting, and I just hope that eventually they’ll find their voice and be heard.
Unless, of course, one is fairly sure one’s opponent will pick wrong. And it seems to me that is precisely the case. If the Pubbies had really believed that they would have any trouble getting a simple majority, they would never have brought it up.
But there was no realistic chance that they could gather 67 votes to pass this Amendment. Hence, the Tighty Righties are squandering important Senate time in order to make a symbolic gesture. They also hoped to force Kerry and Edwards into taking a stand they could use against them. These are not worthy goals in the best of times, and these are not the best of times.
It is not even so much that Bush promotes bigotry. It is that he is willing to exploit victory, and that his allies are willing to ignore things that need doing in order to pretend action on something that does not need doing, and cannot be done in any case.