I think Jonathan Rauch http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805076336/103-4400193-5655858?v=glance
makes a good case in his book about gay marriage that gay marriage ISN’T just about gays: it is part and parcel of saving marriage as an institution. If gays cannot marry, if “marriage lites” get created, THAT will destroy marriage. Equality under the law dignifies the institution. It also allows it to be a universal norm for all kids (especially before they even know themselves whether they are gay or not), instead of a particularist one reserved only for a certain class of people in society. That also makes it much more powerful as a social institution.
Also: I got married purely and soley so that I could get health insurance. I and people like me are a much much bigger threat to marriage.
Tell that to your president. He’s the one who’s obsessed with gay sex.
It’s not a gay issue anyway, it’s a human rights issue. If you change the word “gay” in your post to “Jews,” you’ll see how retarded your position really is. If one group is agitating for institutionalized discrimination then that is not just an issue for the the victims but for everyone.
I suppose this would be a good spot to quote Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous poem but I’m sure you’re already familiar with it.
As a minor hijack, I’m thinking more and more that Bush has been brilliantly manipulated into taking on gay marriage by the Kerry camp.
Kerry has subsumed the Republican “values” mantra, which has forced Bush to actually define how his values are different then Kerry’s. Since Kerry’s values are pretty damn centrist (against gay mariage, in favor of making it a state issue; personally against abortion, but pro-choice) and palatable to a very broad swath of society, he’s forcing Bush to take an umambiguously conservative social stance–one that’s ultimately going to alienate a lot of voters and make it a lot harder for him to call himself a “compassionate conservative.”
Nope. It’s actually a clever move on Bush’s part. It may be hard for Dopers (whose message board is clearly more liberal than the US as a whole) to believe, but a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. By opposing it, Bush places Dems in a hard place - do they oppose him, losing moderates, or support him, losing the hardcore left?
But Kerry is against gay marriage, just like Bush.
The big difference is that Bush is in favour of a constitutional ammendment that would ban gay marriage, along with civil unions. This is a much harsher stance, and one that doesn’t enjoy majority support–the last polls put support for an anti gay marriage at around 36%.
It doesn’t matter what the majority of Americans believe about gay marriage (and most of them oppose the amendment, btw). Human rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. I don’t care about whether a naked pander to bigots and homophobes is politically effective, that doesn’t make it any less evil and it it’s no less indefensible to support a ticket which would use such a tactic.
It does, which makes forcing the debate to be framed in terms of the gay marriage ammendment that much better for Kerry. That 36% is going to be mostly hard-core social conservatives, people who are probably gonna vote Republican no matter what. By supporting this ammendment, Bush is gonna alienate a big chunk of the more traditional libertarian/Goldwater’esque Republicans, who already aren’t too happy with him because of his fiscal and foreign policies. Even if they don’t vote Kerry, they may be less likely to actually turn out on election day, or (less likely) make a protest vote for a third party candidate. This is all good for Kerry, I think.
And? Personally I’m against abortion too, but since I’m not a woman, it’s none of my fucking business what a woman does with her own body, and it shouldn’t be under my control, so therefore I’m pro-choice.
Kerry seems to have a similar stance on the subject.
I’m not sure exactly what the point of your post was. Did you just wanna let the world know your stance on abortion? Did you assume that I thought Kerry’s stance was somehow unreasonable, despite nothing I explicitly wrote or implied, in this thread or elsewhere, that would indicate I believe so? By “And?” did you mean “I’m not sure why you included this sentence?” Did you just wanna throw your own poop from up on that soapbox?
Sorry, I guess I wrongfully assumed that you saying “He is pro-choice (but personally against it)” was some sort of jab at Kerry. That’s why I commented. My bad. :o
You’re pet issue is not my pet issue. You may be incapable of grasping that “doesn’t care the most” is not the same as “doesn’t care at all,” but your inability to perceive shades of gray is not my problem. And you may be incapble of grasping that “doesn’t care the most about gay marriage” is not the same as “don’t give a fuck about gays at all, in any situation ever,” but again, your intellectual failure to detect a difference is not my problem.
First, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would not “strip you of your status as a full citizen of the U.S.” Not to put too find a point on it, you can’t be stripped of a “right” you don’t yet have. Second, who would you vote for, Bush? Or a non-starter third-party-er? Or not vote at all? As I said in my very first post, there are only to choices that are viable. Failing to vote for one or the other is tantamount to not voting at all. So you have to decide who’s the best candidate overall – or, if you prefer, who is the less objectionable. This may be a one issue election for you, but it is not for the vast majority of Americans. Pretending that it is, is a waste of your time.
But allow me to say that my commitment to gay rights – of which you know jack squat – more and more exists because of the smart (and sane!) gay people I know in my real life, and in spite of one-note, tunnel-visioned on-Board dumbasses such as yourself who wouldn’t know a nuance if it slapped them in the face. Just because I don’t live or die by this one issue as you do, I’m indecent? I’m unamerican? I’m a homophobe? Go fuck yourself, you self-righteous prick, and your little dog too.
And in case it’s not obvious, I am fucking sick and tired of posting like this:
And getting replies like this:
Or posting this:
And getting replies like this:
If you want to pick a fight with me, I can pull my jack boots on, but why not take a shot at addressing yourself something I actually fucking said.
You’re damn lucky, SPECTRUM, you’ve got people like OTTO and GOBEAR to fight your fight for you in a matter that indicates they’ve got a brain in their head. I may be willing to stand up for gays, but I don’t give a rat’s ass about the rights of people who are intentionally stupid.
Well, one of those quotes was from me, not spectrum, and I was under the impression that it’d been addressed in this thread already. Are you wanting to open that up again? I’ve still got a list of stuff I’m fucking sick and tired of…
It will be a great day in this country when we can tell any citizen, of any color, creed, or orientation, to “go fuck yourself” without being mistaken for a bigot.
Spectrum, I have to back up Jodi’s point to some extent: if people were single issue voters on things that they think are really really wrong, George Bush would be emporer for life based on just abortion alone. You wouldn’t believe the number of people who are against abortion but vote Democratic ONLY because they’ve come to the conclusion that social justice issues are more important.
