I’m happy so many of y’all are so confident that this Amendment has no chance of passage. I’m not so convinced. The fact that enough states already have a DOMA gives me pause. And what if Bush gets another term? Do you think he won’t push for this Amendment again? He’s also made it clear that he will appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe.
Homebrew, from all outward signs, this thing will be hard pressed to get more than around 40 votes. That means there are as many as twelve Republican defectors, nearly a quarter of the GOP conference in the Senate. This thing probably won’t even pass the cloture vote. It’s dead on arrival.
Do you really think the GOP has any chance of, first, getting rid of the ten or so Republicans who do not support this, and then tossing out another seventeen Democrats as well? Not in the next four years. Hell, not in the next fourteen years. And by then, this issue will be moot.
HOMEBREW –
He might push, but he’s never going to get the two-thirds he needs in both houses. He doesn’t have the votes and he knows it, but he can sure talk about it all he wants. Then, if it doesn’t go anywhere (and it won’t), it’s not his fault, it’s Congress. It’s a no-lose issue for him. He doesn’t have to worry about it actually happening, he’s playing to the ambivalence of middle America, and the only people he’s alienating are people who wouldn’t vote for him anyway. Why on earth you would want to assist him in making this the central issue of the campaign, I cannot fathom. But then, you can hardly admit the wisdom of allowing any other issue house-room, not without being indecent and unamerican. :rolleyes:
Cite? Seriously, I’d be interested to see where he said this. AFAIK (or knew), his position was that he would not make being anti-abortion a prerequisite for his judicial nominees at any level.
Jeez. Are you incabable of reading between the line. He claims he has no litmus test; yet every one of his nominations has toed a right-wing line. He also claimed Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the U.S. You can’t believe what he says. You have to look at what he does. His federal bench nominations include Pryor, whom he made a recess appointment because he knew Pryor would not be confirmed. He’s also nominated Terrence Boyle, who is decidedly unfit, having been overturned more than 100 times. A former superior once said of Miguel Estrada that he is so “ideologically driven that he couldn’t be trusted to state the law in a fair, neutral way.”
As one advocacy group says
Homebrew, while you know I oppose the FMA and the GOP with every atom of my being, I am a tad ticked off that you use my quarrels with Jodi in another thread as a weapon against her personally. Jah knows she and I have our differences, not least being our views on religion, but I don’t carry grudges from thread to thread and I don’t like anyone else carrying my luggage unasked.
I think that if Jodi were to support Dubya (and it seems to me that she doesn’t), that’s her right as an American voter. I’d disagree vehemently with that choice, but voting for Bush doesn’t make her evil, stupid or un-American. We have to stop using these labels to so antagonize one another that compromise and rapprochement become impossible. I wish to persuade people who oppose our rights that they are mistaken, not shame them that they are “evil.”
If we are reduced to arguing for gay rights with bitter personal attacks then maybe our cause is not worth defending. We should be able to make our case logically and dispassionately in a calm, rational manner because the merits of legal equality for gay people should be clearly superior to the heterosexist prejudice advocated by the GOP and the religious right. Leave the demonizing and hate to the opposition and they will reveal themselves for what they are. Screaming, Spectrum-style hysterics only hurt us, not them.
I absolutely believe that voting for Bush is a mistake, and I hope to persuade the GOP Dopers to change their minds in the intervening months between now and Election Day, but ultimately we have to respect their choice. It is their right to vote for the candidate they prefer, and we must extend our respect to them for their decision or else we have no right to ask them to respect us for ours. Tolerance is for everyone, not just for us.
Give me a break. The examples of Jodi’s hystronics are independent of you personally. If I had said she overreacts frequently in the Pit without examples, she or someone else would have said “prove it”. So I preemptively supplied examples. It’s just coincidence that two of the first three examples I picked included you. She has a history of this behavior and it’s asinine and just as silly as spectrum’s. You seem willing to call him on it, why not her?
The thing is, though, nobody had claimed Jodi is Evil; except perhaps spectrum and Mockingbird, but they do that with lots of people. Yet she is acting as if we all have done so in an attempt to distract from the point of the OP. The OP simply states that a vote for Bush supports his bigotry. She is trying to argue that it does not. That is a ridiculous claim. The GOP and the Bush/Cheney Administration are explicitly anti-gay. It is one of their campain issues. It’s a damned party plank. If she votes for them, then she is supporting their bigoted campaign. If a candidate explicitly tells you they plan to force this issue, even elevating it above any other concern*, then a vote for him is a vote in support of his position.
*Thanks to Lib for pointing this out in another thread concerning the FMA:
Uh, I think you need to read my post again. I said “everybody” implying the people spazzing ABOUT you, not you.
On another note, I do think it’s instructive to listen to the sort of bile that Republicans are spitting out about those that want to marry:
“There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first of all, begin to take this issue in a few select courts throughout this country at the state level.” -Senator Wayne Allard
“Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That’s what we hear.” - Senator frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter
Even if you are going to vote Republican, I would hope that you’d, within your party, try to change it. I think Shodan is taking this route, and I salute him for that. The reality is that the Republican party is going to be a major player in the foreseeable future: right now it IS the major player. Defeating it is important, but changing it is also important. Of course, in my opinion, the best way to change the party is to hand GW a defeat, which will crush the social conservative wing while raising up the moderate wing. But hey, you’re welcome to be wrong. 
I did not say she was evil. And I do NOT call lots of people evil. EVIL is for people like you to throw around who see the world in simpler shades. Just because you pull off the illusion once in awhile that you are reasonable doesn’t mean that you’ve become Bishp[ Tutu. YOU are not the voice of reason nor the moderate voice… that would be gobear.
Go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious son of a bitch.
But you continue to miss the point that it’s unfair to expect every voter to be concerned with a single issue. However important it is in the abstract, the average hetero voter does not have the same concern for our rights as he or she does for taxes, national defense, and the economy. If Mr. Average Voter thinks Bush’s tax cuts and national defense positions are superior to Kerry’s, why would he vote against his self-interest to defend a group of people whose liberties are not his concern?
In order to engage the moderate swing voter, we need to de-emphasize gay rights and hammer on Bush’s lack of concern for the rights of all citizens, including gay folks. And of course, point out that his economic policies are a disaster for the average citizen, that the war was founded on deliberate lies, and that Bush has been a woefully bad president in every possible way.
Must we all march lock-step? The esteemed 'luci and is out there hammering away on the lies. Somewhere stoid is raising cane. Even AirmanDoors is upset over those issues. It’s not like we’re the ones bringing up the FMA, they are forcing the issue and we’re trying to counter it. Why should we give this a pass.
This is an issue IN ADDITION to the other issues.
Did I say give it a pass? Show me where I said that. I believe I said we need to fight, but that we have to engage the larger community and show how our issue matters to them. If we allow gay rights to be seen as an issue only for gays, it’s dead, and all we’ve accomplished is to hand the GOP a useful propaganda tool.
I understand your point. I just think that Jodi and Mr. Average Voter need to understand that a vote for Bush subordinates Civil Liberties to their economic concerns. They’re free to make that choice; but it’s unreasonable for them to claim that it isn’t what they’re doing.
Exactly. As I’ve said before, if even one man is not free, then no man is free, because whatever principle it is that allows oppression in the first place hangs over us all.
FWIW, I just saw on Yahoo News that the amendment failed 48-50.
HOMEBREW –
First, the thing that’s so pathetic is that you would try to hijack the thread in such a piddly little way at all. My “hystrionics” are not the subject under discussion, nor even an issue with anyone except you. I understand that if you’re not happy with how the discussion is going you might try to divert it, but, just FYI, the attempt is less transparent if you choose a diversion that is not so wholly divorced from the subject at hand. And wasting the time to find “preemptive examples”? That’s just sad, man. I had no idea that you were waiting in the weeds for me, but if this is the best you can do, I’m not going to lose sleep about it. I trust people can review my posts and yours in this thread and decide for themselves whose “behavior” merits criticism.
Actually, if you were following closely – and since you thought I said I was voting for Bush, it appears you were not – you would see that I was floating along quite reasonably until someone took it upon themselves to construe my position as “indecent,” bigoted, and “unamerican.” That does not distract from the OP, it underscores the point I was trying to make, which is that it is ridiculous to call everyone who disagrees with you a bigot. And what do I get for saying that? I get called a bigot. Does that piss me off? Hell, yes! You may not consider that sufficient reason to be pissed off, but we’ve already covered the part about me not being you.
No, actually, it’s not. If you are voting on the balance of issues, you might vote in spite of a candidate’s stance, not in support of it. To say that everyone voting for Bush is voting “for bigotry” or, worse, is a bigot – that’s the ridiculous claim. You continue to insist that voting for one candidate or another is voting “in support” of the entire party platform, so let me ask you: How do you find a candidate where you just love everything he stands for, one who does represent your position on every single issue? And if you can’t find such a paragon, what do you do? Just not vote? Some here have said that would be their decision, but that is not IMO an option. It seems obvious to me that you vote for the one who is, on balance, the better guy. Not “in support” of the party planks you disagree with, but despite them. Again, you may reasonably disagree with this, but where people cross the line is to say that anyone disagreeing with them is voting “for bigotry,” is indecent, is unamerican. Despite your “j’accuse!” sideshow regarding my “hystrionics,” you’re generally a pretty reasonable guy, and I don’t really think you disagree with this. I mean, you right-out say “This is an issue IN ADDITION to the other issues.” That’s my point! And if you’re willing to grant that it is, then you should be willing to grant that others might consider other issues more important, without being motivated by bigotry or voting “for bigotry.”
MOCKINGBIRD –
I’m not sure that this was addressed to me, but allow me to point out that not every reasonable position is an “illusion.” Some real, live, actually reasonable people do exist. And just because they don’t agree with your point of view does not automatically make them unreasonable. Maybe they’re not stupid or mean; maybe they just don’t agree with you.
Back to HOMEBREW –
First, it would not even hypothetically suborn “civil liberties” in toto. On subset of one liberty for one class of people. That’s still a very big deal, of course, but it is not the same as if the plank were to repeal the Bill of Rights. Second, it is reasonable to look not just at what is proposed to be done, but also at the chances that it will ever be successfully done. If you conclude that the “issue” is in fact a non-issue (because it’s DOA), then it is reasonable to dismiss it and look at other things. So it is unfair of you to say “a vote for Bush subordinates Civil Liberties” if my conclusion is that he will not have be able to do it anyway. Third, you have no idea that it is “economic concerns” or indeed what flavor of concern might swing my vote for Bush instead of Kerry. But of course I recognize I will be making a choice; so will every voter who turns out. As I said, if the choice is “Column A” or “Column B,” and you don’t like every single item on either list, the best you can do is choose the one you think on balance is better. And doing so doesn’t make you, me, or anyone else a supporter of bigotry.
GOBEAR –
I know the idea of “de-emphasizing gay rights” must be a tough pill to swallow, but I agree with GOBEAR that it is the way to go in this election. If I were campaigning against Bush, I would not be talking about the Allard amendment; I’d be talking about the war. And if I wanted to discuss civil rights, I wouldn’t be talking about gay marriage, I’d be talking about Guantanamo Bay.
And thank you, GOBEAR, for your posts in this thread.
Lastly I’d just like to make sure everyone saw this CNN article. The Allard amendment is officially dead in the Senate. The Republicans could not even get a simple majority for it, much less the necessary 2/3 vote, because some of their own party defected. The article says:
I bold Senator McCain’s words because they reflect my own philosophical objections to the amendment (separate from, but in addition to, my personal objections).
I trust my position on the is true and, gosh, I hope I haven’t become indecently hystrionic in setting it forth. :rolleyes:
Don’t flatter yourself. I haven’t been “waiting in the weeds”. It’s just that once more you’ve started your whining. I just happen to have a memory that functions well enough to recognize the pattern. Review the thread and I think you’ll find that nobody actually called up a bigot. But you reacted dramatically, as is your wont, claiming to be unfairly maligned. I just thought I’d point out the hypocrisy of you accusing others of misrepresenting you and overreacting to your words when you have a history of doing the same.
BTW, I’m pretty sure Hastur/Mockingbird was addressing me with his Tutu comment. Like I said, he also has a pattern of histrionics.
But this is the topic of this damned thread. Jeez. There are other threads about the other topics. Why should we not discuss this issue?
Some issues are deal-breakers. Equality for All Americans is one of them. No matter how many topics I agree with a candidate on, if he does not support Equal Rights, then he won’t get my vote. I wouldn’t vote for someone who has made it clear that he would like to overturn Roe. I wouldn’t support someone who thinks Brown vs Board of Education was a bad decision. I wouldn’t support someone who think the Supreme Court was wrong in Loving. Some issues aren’t, like farm subsidies.
This is the part that gets my dander up. It brings to mind a poem by a pastor named Niemöller. I’m sure you’ve heard of it. You’re Pro-Choice. If Bush gets his way on this issue and gets reelected, you can bet that Roe is targeted. I’ve already given cites to several of his Federal Judge appointees and their position on Roe.
HOMEBREW –
Riiiight. Again, I’m not really interested in your opinion of my “behavior” or “history” and, since you’ve yet to find anything I’m ashamed of (look harder! they’re there), I don’t mind you posting links. Your time is your own. Post some more!
HASTUR is MOCKINGBIRD? I did not know that. That explains a couple things.
Duh. I quite obviously was not talking about de-emphasizing the issue for purposses of this thread. :rolleyes:
So let’s say you’ve got one candidate who is pro-life but also anti-Allard Amendment. And the other candidate is pro-choice but also pro-Allard Amendment. Who do you vote for? Keep in mind that if you vote for the first you are not supporting civil rights for all Americans but – whoops! – if you vote for the second, you’re not supporting civil rights for all Americans. So what’s your choice? Two issues, both important to you, who do you vote for?
You damn farmer-hater! You mean, of course, that “farm subsidies” is not a deal-breaker to you. Because you’re not a farmer. But remember: A vote against farm subsidies is vote for anti-farmer bigotry!
Yes, I have. For those who may not have, and who may not get the reference, Pastor Martin Niemoeller is said to have said of the Holocaust:
I’m unclear why a discussion about your federal right to marry your boyfriend (or lack thereof) would remind you of a statement regarding the annihilation of Jews, Communists, and trade-unionists in the Holocaust. I trust, however, that it is obvious why drawing such a comparison rather undermines your assertion that I am the one given to hystrionics.
And you did notice the bill died, right? Does the fact that the issue is now dead change your opinion on how important it is?
As someone whose family owns several farms, I must contest this. Modern farm subsidies are actually subsidies that help only the large corporate farms, not the family farmer, or even the small farm companies. Deregulation (thank you Republican Congress and Bill Clinton, you assholes) has been a disaster for small-scale farmers and family farms, and it is destroying many a small town and community through the midwest.
Supporting what we currently call farm subsidies just accelerates this process. And it encourages aquifer depletion and over-production and ground mineral depletion, the opposites of what good farm policy should do.
If you want to be pro-farmer, support the reregulation of farming and the break up of the pooled monopoly held by the large farming corporations, who gather together to set prices.
By the way, spectrum, I don’t hold your fireworks against you. I don’t think King would have been as effective without Malcolm X and Stokley Carmichael dong their thing.