A vote for Bush is a vote for bigotry.

[Otto]

@Jodi

There certainly is. One is enshrining discrimination as law, while the other is talking it up on the stump. Neither is either president’s shining moment, but I don’t think you want to seriously argue about which is realistically more damaging.

Discrimination was already enshrined as law (Baker v Nelson, Dean v District of Columbia). DOMA effectively did nothing. The Hawaii case that inspired the DOMA hysteria was brought under the state constitution and resolved by a state constitutional amendment. The feds were never involved. IMHO Bush’s actions are more damaging. Clinton’s signing DOMA was reprehensible, but Bush’s repeated attacks have the potential of resonating far beyond anything DOMA could ever hope to achieve.

@Braniac4

There’s a reason why the Bush clan ran GW.

Yes, it’s because Jeb managed to lose his first run at the Florida governor’s mansion.

[Spavined_Gelding]

What some of my friends seem to disregard in their legitimate thirst for social justice and desire to see the plain language of the Constitution implemented is that the word marriage is freighted with conscious and unconscious meaning. Marriage is what your parents did. Marriage is a sacrament of the church. There was a time, not so long ago in historical terms, that marriage was within the church’s exclusive province and was no business of the civil government. That is, for instance, why Henry VIII had to set up his own church – because the church that was then the only show in town held all the cards. When you go off and evangelize for a coupling that traditionalist never thought about and start making them consider possibilities that are completely foreign to their thought processes and which at first glance seem outlandish and not a little bit amoral their first reaction will be adverse. To scream at them that if they do not immediately change their thinking, and no silly-sallying about it, they are bigots is just inviting an adverse reaction – and now you have one.

I know that gradualist remedies are not good remedies but I also know that, just as with the civil rights movement, the public has to be educated and persuaded. Sucessful politicians do not lead. Sucessful politicians figure out where the parade is going and then get in the front row. Before a politician of national imprortance will start waiving the drum major’s batton in the gay marraige parade there has to be a parade. There is no parade, no general national acceptance of the idea, yet. In the mean time it is apparent to me that the public, meaning the run of the mill, rural Northeast Iowan, either doesn’t care about same sex marriage of is revolted by the thought of it. That revulsion does not stem from mortal objections to the legal earmarks of marriage-- joint tax returns, vicarious liability for necessities of life, inheritance rights as a surviving spouse and the like. It arises from the image of copulation without the involvement of different genitalia. This revulsion is founded on Lord knows how many years of film of gay pride parades featuring really unattractive young men acting like idiots in public with the apparent intention of offending the moral sensibilities of the staid and conventionally proper.

To rage against President Bush and his proposed Constitutional Amendment just plays into the hands of the people who seek to use the whole issue to solidify their grip on power. Those people are not the friends of civil rights for homosexuals. They are probably not the enemies of the idea either, but they know a divisive issue when they see one. Don’t howl about people who are not four square against the amendment and likewise not four square in favor of gay marriage denominated as just that. Take the time to explain to the traditionalists just why it is unjust to deny same sex couples the protections and privileges marriage affords traditional married couples. Sooner or later the change will come and it will not take nearly 100 years it took to go from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Civil Rights act of 1964, but it will take time.

You do understand that as much as rallying the faithful to the Bush banner this is about trying to split off some of Kerry’s expected supporters? Do you really want to fall into that trap?

[spectrum]

@Jodi

In other words, for people who are not one-issue voters, you have to look at who you think is going to be the best guy for the job overall. Most people have issues that are deal-breakers for them, and it’s no surprise that for many, many gay people, gay rights is that issue. But for many people who are not gay, it is certainly defensible to be far more concerned about things like the economy and the validity of the nation being at war.

“Gimme my tax cut, and to hell with the uppity fags! They ain’t no real Americans, anyway!”

I don’t think GWB is a bigot, I think he’s a pragmatist.

Anyone who opposes gay equality is a bigot. Anyone who not only opposes it, but is leading the crusade against it, is far beyond the mere level of bigot.

[Jodi]

OTTO –

Discrimination was already enshrined as law (Baker v Nelson, Dean v District of Columbia). DOMA effectively did nothing. The Hawaii case that inspired the DOMA hysteria was brought under the state constitution and resolved by a state constitutional amendment. The feds were never involved. IMHO Bush’s actions are more damaging. Clinton’s signing DOMA was reprehensible, but Bush’s repeated attacks have the potential of resonating far beyond anything DOMA could ever hope to achieve.
[/quote]

Come on, OTTO. Is this an argument you really want to make? Baker v. Nelson? Are you talking about the Minnesota case, applying Minnesota law in the State of Minnesota? And Dean v. D.C, which applies only to the District of Columbia? How are they comparable to DOMA, which provides that no federal enactment of any kind can be interpreted to define “marriage” or “spouse” except in strictly hetero terms? “The feds were never involved”? What? This is a federal law. Who gives a shit what it was inspired by?

With DOMA in place, even if you’re married in Massachusetts, your husband will have no right to your federal spousal benefits – not if you’ve worked for the federal government for 100 years. He will have no right to make medical decisions for you at a VA hospital in case of an accident (which is to say, not unless you’ve made arrangements in advance) and no right to ask that you be considered married for purposes of immigration. Even if you’re legally married in your home state, a state you are visiting can refuse to recognize your marriage because DOMA tells it that it can.

To say that Bush’s actions in proposing an amendment that is extremely unlikely to ever pass are “more damaging” than a federal law that is on the books now – I’m sorry, but that’s just nuts. I don’t give a rat’s ass who signed it; one is law, and one is not. One is a club that can and will be used to discriminate against you today; one is an idea. A very bad idea, but just an idea. There really can be no question as to which is worse for gays, as we sit here today.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Jodi

DIOGENES –

I’m interested to hear that you think the DOMA is largely symbolic, and surprised to hear you dismissing the power of symbolic government action. That hardly jibes with how you’ve posted on the subject in the past. I, on the other hand, do not consider any act that prohibits people from receiving federal benefits they would otherwise be entitled to as “largely symbolic.”

I didn’t say it wholly symbolic, and my point i not that DOMA was harmless- I said it was stupid and wrong- but that it was not as destructive as the propoesed SSM ammendment would be, nor was it the vanguard of a political campaign.

I also consider even “largely symbolic” federal laws to be very dangerous, since they almost always supercede state laws when the two conflict. Very few federal laws summarily prevent anything from being performed at the state level. The problem is the standard the federal law sets, and the problem is that if there is later a conflict between the two, the federal law wins.

But DOMA doesn’t take away the right of states to legalize gay marriage. If DOMA bothers you, you should be far more concerned about a Constitional amendment which not only completely sweeps aside any state’s right to decide this issue for itself but also nullifies thousands of existing marriages and would create huge financial and legal problems for a great deal of families. The hypocrisy of advocating the destruction of families in order to preserve them should be obvious to anyone.

Furthermore, if you’re going to parse out “civil unions” from “marriage,” I must point out that a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would not necessarily prevent the legalization of civil unions, either.

Oh yes it would. The Ballard amendment is constructed in such a way so as not only to prevent the word “marriage” from being used but to prevent any of the legal benefits of marriage to any couple that does not consist of a penis and a vagina. From the text of the amendment:

“Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

(Bolding mine)

But the bottom line is that it is IMO just dumb to compare what a hypothetical law would do (if passed, which is unlikely for reasons already set forth), with what an existing law, in full force and effect, does do. If Bushe’s amendment passes, the earth may crash into the sun, but then if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.

Well, reprehensible is a judgment call, of course, but it seems to me self-evident that, in terms of impact, a proposed law is much less destructive than a real law, because the former has zero legal effect whatsoever.

.
[/quote]

The point is that even the fact that he would advocate something like this disqualifies him as a credible choice for president.

What if a candidate you otherwise agreed with also had a nasty streak of anti-semitism or racism? Would you be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who opposed interracial marriage or wanted Jews to wear yellow stars? It’s true that the candidate would have no chance of legislating such things into law but that make him any more palatable as a choice?

It’s my contention that Bush’s gay-bashing strategy is just as sickening as advocating Jim Crow laws. The fact that he would do it all makes it morally indefensible (IMO) to vote for the prick.

[spectrum]

@Brutus

Yes, and for all that shit-kicking, the polls are flat. Like I have said before, you fellahs should pace yourselves. You have another 4 1/2 years of starting stupid threads regarding this President Bush, and quite possibly another 8 regarding the right honorable Jebediah. Relax a little! Flip on the TV and root for the noble Iraqi ‘insurgents’ or whatever you do when not posting here. Perish the thought that you may burn out before the Bush family runs out of Presidents!

Wow, so not only are the anti-Bush people here somehow inferior to you, we’re all also America haters who support the death of our troops in Iraq? You are a real piece of shit, Brutus.

[Jodi]

SPECTRUM –

“Gimme my tax cut, and to hell with the uppity fags! They ain’t no real Americans, anyway!”

I was very amused by this, if only because it so obviously does not in any way resemble what I actually said, which you were even kind enough to quote for comparison’s sake. But if you can’t argue with what I actually said, by all means argue with something else. I can only advise you that I don’t feel constrained to defend anything I never actually thought, much less said.

SPAVINED –

Don’t howl about people who are not four square against the amendment and likewise not four square in favor of gay marriage denominated as just that.

This is what I’ve repeatedly tried to say, in other threads. This whole “If you’re not 100% with us, you’re against us” mentality – I don’t get it. I mean: If you say so, but how is calling people bigots or a homophobes going to rally them to your cause? The Angry Young Gay Man response appears to be “We don’t need them!” Except, of course, you do. You can’t do shit without the moderates, so why not try to refrain from alienating them entirely?

[Jodi]

DIOGENES –

I didn’t say it wholly symbolic, and my point i not that DOMA was harmless- I said it was stupid and wrong- but that it was not as destructive as the propoesed SSM ammendment would be, nor was it the vanguard of a political campaign.

Proposed amendment “would be”? I’m not talking about what “would be.” DOMA is far more destructive as using the idea of an amendment as "the vanguard of a political campaign. Why? Because one is law, and one is not. I don’t give a rat’s ass if it was or was not the “vanguard of a political campaign.” Does the fact that Clinton did not talk about it while campaigning, but signed it anyway, somehow make it better? At least Bush is being honest about his bad idea.

But DOMA doesn’t take away the right of states to legalize gay marriage. If DOMA bothers you, you should be far more concerned about a Constitional amendment which not only completely sweeps aside any state’s right to decide this issue for itself but also nullifies thousands of existing marriages and would create huge financial and legal problems for a great deal of families. The hypocrisy of advocating the destruction of families in order to preserve them should be obvious to anyone.

I fail entirely to be see why I should be “far more concerned” about a proposed law that would – in the extremely unlikely event it were passed – “create huge financial and legal problems” than I should be about an existing law that already does. And just out of curiosity, what “thousands of existing marriages” would be nullified? All those legally gay marriages we’re enjoying at the state level now? Remind me where that’s the case.

The Ballard amendment is constructed in such a way so as not only to prevent the word “marriage” from being used but to prevent any of the legal benefits of marriage to any couple that does not consist of a penis and a vagina.

But the Ballard amendment is not constructed so as to prevent the word “civil union” from being used to prevent any of the legal benefits of “civil unions.” Which is my point: If you intend to excuse DOMA on the grounds that it only applies to marriages, and not civil unions, it is only fair to point out that the proposed amendment similarly only applies to marriages, and not civil unions.

The point is that even the fact that he would advocate something like this disqualifies him as a credible choice for president.

IYO. My point is that if a person agrees with him (and disagrees with Kerry) on other, in their opinion equally important issues like, say, the war or the economy, they may not consider his position on gay rights to disqualify him for anything. Even if they loathe his stance on this issue, they might still believe he is overall the better choice.

What if a candidate you otherwise agreed with also had a nasty streak of anti-semitism or racism? Would you be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who opposed interracial marriage or wanted Jews to wear yellow stars? It’s true that the candidate would have no chance of legislating such things into law but that make him any more palatable as a choice?

What if Clinton had campaigned on a vow to sign DOMA into law? Would you still have voted for him? Recall that your other choice was George Bush, Sr. and let me know which level you’d have pulled.

[Otto]

@Jodi

Come on, OTTO. Is this an argument you really want to make? Baker v. Nelson? Are you talking about the Minnesota case, applying Minnesota law in the State of Minnesota?

Er, no, I’m talking about the Minnesota case which raise constitutional challenges which were denied.

@Jodi

And Dean v. D.C, which applies only to the District of Columbia?

COuld you do me the small courtesy of not pretending like I don’t know that while these decisions apply only to where they were raised, other courts can (and have) cited them in making their own marriage rulings?

How are they comparable to DOMA, which provides that no federal enactment of any kind can be interpreted to define “marriage” or “spouse” except in strictly hetero terms? “The feds were never involved”? What? This is a federal law. Who gives a shit what it was inspired by?

Oh for fuck’s sake, for someone who complains as much as you do about people misrepresenting what you say, you really ought to refrain from this sort of misrepresentation. DOMA, from the day it was enacted until mid-March of this year, had no effect because there was no such thing as a legal same-sex marriage in the United States. And what I said was that in the Hawaii case there was no federal issue. The case was brought in state court under the state constitution and the case was rendered moot by a state constitutional amendment.

@Jodi

With DOMA in place, even if you’re married in Massachusetts, your husband will have no right to your federal spousal benefits – not if you’ve worked for the federal government for 100 years. He will have no right to make medical decisions for you at a VA hospital in case of an accident (which is to say, not unless you’ve made arrangements in advance) and no right to ask that you be considered married for purposes of immigration. Even if you’re legally married in your home state, a state you are visiting can refuse to recognize your marriage because DOMA tells it that it can.

Thank you, I think I have as good a grasp on the state of SSM in this country as you do.

@Jodi

To say that Bush’s actions in proposing an amendment that is extremely unlikely to ever pass are “more damaging” than a federal law that is on the books now – I’m sorry, but that’s just nuts. I don’t give a rat’s ass who signed it; one is law, and one is not. One is a club that can and will be used to discriminate against you today; one is an idea. A very bad idea, but just an idea. There really can be no question as to which is worse for gays, as we sit here today.

Well, I was talking about the effects of the issue of a federal amendment being raised at all. But if you prefer to go on thinking that only signed law has an effect on the country you go right ahead.

[SolGrundy]

@Jodi

Right, because this is exactly what I said. Oh, wait, no it isn’t. In fact, it doesn’t even fucking remotely resemble anything I said.

“This is not a one-issue campaign” != “No one gives the smallest shit about this issue except you.” Sorry if that distinction escaped you. I never said human rights should be “dismissed.” But while you are certainly have the right to consider gay marriage more important than the war or the economy, you don’t have the right to inform me, or anyone else, that we must feel the same way.

I don’t have the right to tell you you must feel anything. But I sure as hell have the right to tell you you should value the issue of gay rights as much as any gay person does.

The distinction escaped me because it’s irrelevant. I paraphrased your words, but I got the gist of what you were saying just fine, thanks. I just removed some of the tact. You said that you could see how gay people would think that gay marriage is the most important issue in the campaign, but those of us who aren’t gay will be voting for other issues, like the economy and “war stability,” whatever that means.

And I responded to that. When you place higher precedence on the economy than on the rights of a group of people, you are dismissing human rights. No, this isn’t a one-issue campaign, but the ballot doesn’t let you pick and choose which parts you’re voting for. When you place your vote this November, you’re going to be voting for the guy who’s pushing to amend the Constitution barring me from having the right to marry. If that’s not important to you, fine. Just acknowledge that’s what you’re doing, and don’t try to pussy-foot around it.

And thanks for telling me to “love it or leave it!” by the way. I’ll just go back to where I came from, I guess. Homoslavia, or wherever.

@Jodi

But the bottom line is that it is IMO just dumb to compare what a hypothetical law would do (if passed, which is unlikely for reasons already set forth), with what an existing law, in full force and effect, does do. If Bush’s amendment passes, the earth may crash into the sun, but then if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.
[…]
Well, reprehensible is a judgment call, of course, but it seems to me self-evident that, in terms of impact, a proposed law is much less destructive than a real law, because the former has zero legal effect whatsoever.

And this is all just more obfuscation. Back when DOMA was still being proposed was the time to argue for or against its merits. But it’s already in place. Somebody dropped the ball. That’s not what we’re voting for or against this November.

We have no idea what this amendment will do, it’s all just hypothetical! Look over here! This law has already been passed! Look at it! What do you have to say to that?

That’s a completely vacuous non-argument.

[Apos]

@rkts

Yay, we now have ten Bush/Republican threads on the Pit front page, and one for Kerry and the Democrats. This board really is a bleating herd.

Honestly, does it never get old?

We have to make up for the conservative slack-offs. I mean, if they weren’t so dog-gone lazy, they’d be starting outraged threads about things like this that President Gore has shamefully brought into being:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/10/park.police.chief/index.html

The defense of our national monuments neglected! PC police fire someone for speaking out, not using dirty, slippery Washington language!

So, come on. It’s YOU that needs to pick up the slack.

[vanilla]

Bush could support gay marriage and probably would not lose the religious right.

Our pastor sent out e mails urging the signing of something; it had to do with this, but I deleted it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Jodi

DIOGENES –

Proposed amendment “would be”? I’m not talking about what “would be.” DOMA is far more destructive as using the idea of an amendment as "the vanguard of a political campaign. Why? Because one is law, and one is not. I don’t give a rat’s ass if it was or was not the “vanguard of a political campaign.” Does the fact that Clinton did not talk about it while campaigning, but signed it anyway, somehow make it better? At least Bush is being honest about his bad idea.

DOMA was not Clinton’s initiative. It was one of his concessions to the right. There is a difference between spearheading a bigoted initiative and offering a symbolic concession to the other side. It did not actually affect anyone’s civil rights at the time because there was no SSM anyway.

I fail entirely to be see why I should be “far more concerned” about a proposed law that would – in the extremely unlikely event it were passed – “create huge financial and legal problems” than I should be about an existing law that already does. And just out of curiosity, what “thousands of existing marriages” would be nullified? All those legally gay marriages we’re enjoying at the state level now? Remind me where that’s the case.

All those marriages in Massachusettes and California, for one thing, not to mention all those civil unions in Vermont. All would be dissolved under the Ballard amendment.

But the Ballard amendment is not constructed so as to prevent the word “civil union” from being used to prevent any of the legal benefits of “civil unions.”

Yes it is. It is worded to prevent same-sex couples from receiving the benefits, period. It doesn’t matter what you call it.
Which is my point: If you intend to excuse DOMA on the grounds that it only applies to marriages, and not civil unions, it is only fair to point out that the proposed amendment similarly only applies to marriages, and not civil unions.
[/quote]

It absolutely does apply to civil unions. You’re wrong on this point, I assure you. It’s the primary reason that even a lot of Republicans will vote against it.

IYO. My point is that if a person agrees with him (and disagrees with Kerry) on other, in their opinion equally important issues like, say, the war or the economy, they may not consider his position on gay rights to disqualify him for anything. Even if they loathe his stance on this issue, they might still believe he is overall the better choice.

There is no more important issue than civil rights. There is no issue even equal to civil rights. We define ourselves and distinguish ourselves by those rights first and foremost. Everything else belongs on a backburner next to the rights which make America America.

What if Clinton had campaigned on a vow to sign DOMA into law? Would you still have voted for him?

Nope.

Recall that your other choice was George Bush, Sr. and let me know which level you’d have pulled.

I think you’re forgetting about a little jug-eared loon by the name of Ross Perot. I would have voted for Perot just for the entertainment value. I seriously considered it as it was.

[SolGrundy]

And after re-reading the OP and Jodi’s first post, I have to concede that I did a lousy job of paraphrasing. The OP asked, “How can you justify voting for a man who is pushing for such a bigoted amendment?” And Jodi’s response was “I don’t justify it, but there are more pressing concerns for me.”

Which is a completely valid response to the OP. I don’t agree with it at all, obviously, or with some of the other stuff that’s been said here, but it didn’t warrant my jumping down Jodi’s throat about it.

[Apos]

At least Kerry can utter the word “homosexual” in public, and the only one who can actually speak about the families who the FMA would deny any legal existence. Bush speaks about the issue without ever mentioning the class of people whom he wants to permanently prevent from forming legal families. At least Kerry’s site actually even has a LGBT section. From his site:

"Protecting Gay and Lesbian Families
John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 Senators – and the only one up for reelection in 1996 – to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

John Kerry opposed the Clinton Administration’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy” He was one of a few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and call on the President to rescind the ban on gay and lesbian service members.

John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples."

And, given how unpopular such positions are, we’re not supposed to give Kerry any credit for coming out and saying things like this in public… because Clinton signed the DOMA? Kerry could quite possibly lose swing states over his stance on this issue, leaving Bush to roam free in a second term where he need never face voters ever again, and people think they should dump Kerry because he doesn’t think we should use the word "marriage for civil unions that have all the same rights. Am I hearing this right?

Now, I don’t know about anyone in Kerry’s family, but Dick Cheny’s daughter is a lesbian living with her partner. But just try to find any reference to the EXISTENCE of such people on George Bush’s website. The closest you’ll come is a transcript of his February 24, 2004 speech against gay marriage where he references “same-sex” once and variations on “applicants of the same gender” three times. From his discussion, you might think that these are frat boys trying to marry each other on a lark or for a pledge rite.

Kerry’s actual position: that states should ultimately decide for themselves how to do this, is what I think is the best position for all sides concerned: it’s going to allow gay marriage and gay rights to spread without tossing the entire nation into a chaotic uproar over the issue all at once. It’s the best way forward.

[Apos]

Jodi. Read:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/brownback200407090921.asp

Money quote: “If the movement for civil unions and same-sex marriage succeeds, we may well be dealing a fatal blow to an already vulnerable institution.”

Social-conservatives are not stupid. They know civil unions are just a way to slip gay marriage under the door. Wait ten years, and people will already be calling them marriages, and legally changing the name to marriages will be an almost non-event. Game Over.

They know full well that civil unions must be struck down in some way as well, though they also know that it will be harder to do so because they seem a lot less scary in name at least. Hence things like the Ballard amendment, which portray themselves as only affecting gay marriage, but quietly use language designed to make civil unions impossible.

SCs play the same game with abortion all the time. They could have had a court-proof ban on third trimester abortion with actual democratic support if they wanted. Instead, they made a bill that was so vague as to ban all sorts of abortions all over the place well outside the 3rd tri.

[Lilairen]

@Spavined Gelding

What some of my friends seem to disregard in their legitimate thirst for social justice and desire to see the plain language of the Constitution implemented is that the word marriage is freighted with conscious and unconscious meaning. Marriage is what your parents did. Marriage is a sacrament of the church. There was a time, not so long ago in historical terms, that marriage was within the church’s exclusive province and was no business of the civil government. That is, for instance, why Henry VIII had to set up his own church – because the church that was then the only show in town held all the cards.

Since nobody’s corrected this:

The Church of England had a monopoly on the rights of marriage between 1753 and 1837. (Cite from another Doper who did the research.)

Henry VIII reigned between 1509 and 1547. His establishment of the Church of England was a power play cloaked in his seeking a divorce (actually, I believe, an anullment). While marriage and divorce are related issues, they are not equivalent.

[Soapbox_Monkey]

@Diogenes the Cynic

How can you possibly support such an overtly bigoted campaign? If you for this asshole you are spitting in the face of gay people and gay families everywhere. How can you justify it? How do you convince yourself that it’s all right?

Very easily. Most of his supporters will be the conservative Christians. So if God condemns something, it’s not bigotry; just ignorance.

[vanilla]

It is Too ignorance. people know better.

[vanilla]

Um, I meant bigotry.
:smack: