Of course I agree that if the state is going to be in the business of handing out the title ‘married’, it shouldn’t be reserved for only straight folks who marry someone of the opposite sex. I would very much like my friend to have the same opportunity to marry his boyfriend that I’d have to marry a man.
I’m sure it would be. It’s also still what I want. I want someone to finally have the balls to say that the really old parchment paper in the national archives is pretty damn clear on the fact that all citizens are equal and that nobody’s religion gets enforced in a government office. The ‘religious right’ needs a drop kick in the ass with a boot bearing the message ‘You do not own this country.’
Let them be as obnoxious as they want as they stand outside with no power to inflict their religion on the unwilling. Eventually, if their bitching gets them nowhere, they will STFU. We cannot continue to let them insinuate themselves into the lives of every single American because it’s easier on our ears than the whining. It only reinforces their bullshit behavior.
Back when the book was out, there were plenty of bloggers and such trying to find substantial inaccuracies in Franken’s book. None of them added up to anything. Most of the objections were to Franken’s tone, which is about half as malignant as any randomly chosen passage from Ann Coulter.
Given what you’ve come to realize in reading this book, I hope you can understand a bit better those of us who have been beating our heads up against the wall for the last five years.
I haven’t weighed in on one of these arguments before, but I think that ** Catsix’s** idea is about the only compromise that might actually get some traction in this day and age.
The issue to me seems to be one of semantics. Gay people are riled up about “Marriage” as a word, not as a state. They’re looking at it as an all-or-nothing situation, and the reality is that it just ain’t going to fly that way. Expecting to change 2000 years of Christian traditions, 1400 years of Islamic traditions, etc… overnight is tilting at windmills.
However, by working to redefine the civil part of a marriage as a “civil union” for ANYONE who gets legally joined, then you shift the entire “Marriage” issue to the churches. In other words, everyone, gay, straight, etc… has to go to the courthouse and fill out the same paperwork and swear before a JP or however it works. At that point, in the eyes of the States and Feds, you’re joined, but not “Married”.
“Marriage” then becomes the province of the religious authorities, in whatever capacity they see fit. Basically, we remove the civil authority of ministers to marry people- if you get married without the civil ceremony, it doesn’t count, and if you never get the religious ceremony, so what?
Better yet, under this scheme, why not have some gay-friendly ministers found a denomination or off shoot of an existing one that will specifically marry gays?
I opened this thread (taking note of who the OP was) interested in seeing someone attack Franken. I was very impressed by Liars and would be surprised to see holes shot in it. Instead I found a much more interesting thread. I always appreciate it when someone sees the value in the opposition’s arguements or recognizes the defects in their own (I realize you are not Republican, but are Conservative).
For this reason, I was wondering if anyone knows of an equivalent book from the other side. Is there any book out there that acurately skewers the Dems without resorting to unfounded accusations? I doubt you would be able to find one with as good a sense of humor, but I would like to be able to understand the arguements.
Oh, and I can see how Franken’s book could have that effect on you, particularly when you consider the section on Bob Jones university. In it he tries to go undercover to expose and make fun of the ultra-conservative school and comes out making fun of himself. He shows them to be very good concientious people who would like it if we on the left would stop making fun of them so much for their personal beliefs.
Nothing wins over this* intellectual lefty more than challenging my views by using my own beliefs (respect for the views of others). Makes his attacks on other conservatives all the more weighty.
*I was going to say us, but there are some wackos on my side who for whom this wouldn’t hold.
Goldwater lived to see the early stages of the decay of GOP principles, and was pissed about it then.
The three possibilities for reform are 1)for people who actually believe in getting the government off people’s backs to take back the GOP, 2)for the Libertarians to get their act together, or 3)for another party to successfully take up the cause. They all look like long shots (though Door #1 might open if 8 Noiv 2006 turns out to be a day of wailing and gnashing of teeth at GOP HQ).
Excalibre, sorry, but I can not agree with you on this. While Marriage is thought to have some religious weight, that has nothing to do with reality. Looking back at history, we see many different pairings occurring which can be translated as “marriage” Partially, they wear do to attraction, and partially, they were due to the rights of inheritance. The only way to keep such things straight were to have the government register them. Just as how, in the eyes of the gov, an Io worshiper was the same as an Asterah worshipper, religion had nothing to do with it. Today, the government still owns the term marriage, just as it did then. Now, I understand that a large segment of the population believes the exact opposite, but that doesn’t make it any less true, just as how the majority might believe that atheist are out rightly denying plain evidence for the existence of god, a definition which has nothing to do with actual atheists.
However, unless every one in this country happens to correct people when they claim that religion has, and has always had control of the term marriage, a quite impractical thing to do, I bet things will go down exactly as you say. Of course, the fact of the matter still makes for good letter to the editor material.
Which is a great theory except that in Virginia (and other Medeival re-enactment groups) they’ve hauled off and made any contract that even LOOKS like a civil union illegal.
In Virginia two best friends of the same gender - no romantic entanglement, hell, they might be STRAIGHT - can’t buy a house together because it is a legal contract between two people of the same gender in which legal rights normally granted to a married couple are conferred (joint ownership of real estate). At least, according to the law passed last Autumn.
Airman: Just follow what you think is right, no matter what the political hacks on either side say, and you’ll be fine. I left the Republican party years ago, when I thought they were getting too chummy with Falwell’s “moral” majority - the Reagan years. Just remember, it isn’t about party lines, and there is a lot of gray - it isn’t all just black and white. Sometimes you don’t vote for something so much as vote against something you feel is worse.
As far as I can tell, you’re pointing out that marriage is a governmental issue. I have never argued that - instead, I have been unequivocal that it’s pure hypocrisy for the Religious Right to try to have it both ways: either marriage is a religious rite, in which case your church may define it exactly as it wishes (and be smug with the knowledge that mine ain’t a ‘real’ marriage - I don’t care what anyone’s religious beliefs are); or marriage is a civil institution, in which case arguments about God’s definition of marriage are wholly irrelevant. I see the Religious Right’s argument against gay marriage as a legal tactic to use the government as an enforcer of their religious beliefs on nonbelievers.
As it is, the federal government must either drop the nonsensical religious restrictions it places on marriage, or ideally do as catsix just suggested. I’m not sure where your statement above comes in.
I’ve already told my good friend that if/when he marries his boyfriend, I wanna be ‘best chick’, and he thinks that’d be great.
Then we need a SC ruling that says these kind of things violate the Constitutional prohibition of sex discrimination. It is my understanding that states cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution right?
Indeed. State constitutional amendments can be struck down if they are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. But constitutional limits on sex discrimination are very weak - the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) has never given sex discrimination the same weight as racial discrimination because there is a legal history of acknowledging a rational basis for sex discrimination much of the time, while there is no rational basis for racial discrimination. So while racial discrimination merits “strict scrutiny”, sex discrimination does not. Thus, it would be a fairly daring ruling to apply equal protection to the gay marriage issue, sad to say.
If any of that is not correct, someone please let me know. I’m not talking out of my ass, but at the same time I haven’t read extensively on the legal issues behind gay marriage.
Airman, in your apparent hour of indecision and struggle, I reach out to you earnestly and with great trepidation and say - Have you thought of becoming a man of the People? The only thing you have to lose is your bondage to The Man.
Yeah, Franken seems to be a lot more intellectually honest. I really enjoyed Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot and Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them - my friends and I will do occasional dramatic readings of particularly funny parts if we get bored. Moore’s Stupid White Men, on the other hand, I couldn’t even finish. There were too many points where I could tell that he was purposely ignoring data that didn’t fit what he wanted… or, even worse, relying on his readers’ lack of understanding of a subject to give them extremely misleading information.
Come to think of it, the best parts of Fahrenheit 9/11 were the ones he wasn’t in. Hmm…
I too, know of which you speak. As a social liberal and fairly fiscal conservative, I consider myself a “liberal independant” (I vote for Democrats unless they are stupid). Several people here have suggest people like me are libertarians - but they seem to have more stupid numbskulls than average (i.e. the “don’t tax me at all crowd” - I believe some public goods are good and necessary).
I for one, can’t wait, can’t wait for Al Franken to move back to Minnesota and begin his Senatorial campaign. I’ve not been very politically active in the past but I’m going to volunteer and work hard. With Squeaky Wheels on his side he can’t lose.
This is the best solution, one that I think most rational-minded people come to eventually. I also think that it will never, ever happen, unfortunately. You’ve got too many ‘traditionalists’ for whom the concept of American Values is inextricably tied up with ‘God of MY Religion’. They will never release this stranglehold view of ‘my way or the highway’. Sadly, it’s these people who tend to have more children than the average, and raise them up to be just the same way.
Good luck to you Airman. Deep personal change is never easy, but always worth it, in my experience. Nothing valuable is ever gained without effort, and/or pain.
Al Franken is an entertainer and a satirist. The second of those positions is crucial, needful, important, far beyond the meager status of a Senator… a freshman Senator, worse still. More than that, he is the very epitome of the pencil-neck liberal weenie. That ought not to count, but 'struth, it does.
The struggle is dire, and the stakes are too high. Can’t afford to be frivolous. If we can find one Wellstone, we can find another.
