OK - then help me fight some ignorance (mine) here: nonprofit organizations aren’t supposed to endorse of oppose particular candidates, but they can speak out on issues ?
…and now that I’ve read a little more, that does seem to be the case.
I apologize for the distraction.
But I’m with GaWd: I think it’s repugnant.
It’s a sad commentary on our society that measures to eliminate freedom pass overwhelmingly, while measures to increase freedom are seldom even on the ballot let alone get passed.
Well, not all that hard-pressed:
“out there” meaning not around me + “their sleeve” meaning I’m not one of 'em + the name “MacHetero” == SolGrundy isn’t completely flying off the handle.
Whether he is or isn’t “anti-Gay Marriage,” as he claims, he’s sure as hell not helping by comparing the issue to a non-sensical one to make the whole notion of “gay rights” seem silly or frivolous.
“Redneck” is an intenionally derogatory word that does not refer to a specific race or social or economic background. It is not equivalent to “black” or “hispanic” or “asian;” instead, it’s equivalent to “yuppie” or “JAP” or “mincing faggot.” That is, it implies a social-economic background and an attitude. If Crunchy Frog had meant to talk about white, rural, working class people who are not bigots, then he would’ve said “white, rural, working-class people.”
Pretending to be indignant at being called a redneck is as ludicrous as being indignant at being called a bigot. And what’s more: as soon as I hear of a state banning rednecks from being able to marry, I’ll try to work up some more sympathy. Not for the rednecks, but for the country music industry, because there’ll be nothing left to write songs about.
And that’s already much more attention than the hijack deserves.
Y’see? This is what I meant when I spoke of others using this issue to justify bigotry elsewhere. That’s it! I’m agonna start running for office soon.
And SanibelMan: FL is far more important than MO come November. Way to play strategy.
Oh, and I think that we’ll be watching Alabama with jealousy for their enlightened civil rights record by the time that this patent nonsense gets shown the door.
There are some things that just shouldn’t be put to a popular vote, and this is one of them.
Can you imagine if the 1964 Civil Rights Act had been put to a state-by-state popular vote? The entire South and a decent portion of the rest of the country would likely still have blacks as second-class citizens.
In the post 9/11 climate a proposal to amend the Constitution to read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, as long as it is Judeo-Christian” would stand a chance of passing a popular vote.
Sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes it isn’t. That’s why we
establish legislatures.
Thanks P_T. That’ll teach me to take a full look at the linked material instead of skimming the quotes of it in the thread.
That is still a disgusting amount of money to be involved in this issue. It also seems to have had no effect at all.
I’m glad I don’t consider you an authoritarian of the english language…
Your own definition provided the term “redneck” as “offensive slang”, just like some other disparaging words we all know so well as “offensive slang”. Upon further reading of your definition, it states:
Often, but not always. Therefore, not all rednecks are bigoted. Therefore, rednecks does apply to some white, rural, working-class people, who are not bigots. The main descriptor is the word “white”, which means that “redneck” is a racial term.
Yuppie crosses racial lines, therefore, not a racial term and does not compare to redneck.
Jap is a racial term, and would compare equally to redneck.
Mincing faggot? 
I guess that would qualify as offensive slang as well.
I don’t think his SN is Mac-Hetero, I think it’s machete-ero. As in, a guy who uses a machete.
Which is still misleading, because clearly the guy is a tool, not a tool-user.
Oh, I got it now…JAP (Jewish-American Princess) and Jap (Japanese) are both offensive slang terms, therefore both are racial terms.
“Cracker” = “white”? WTF??
Seriously though, I just don’t get it either. Why are so many people so threatened by the idea of SSM? And when they complain about “activist judges” countermanding majority rule to protect the reasonable rights of the minority, which is what the judicial branch is supposed to do, what they really mean is they want the court always to uphold majoritarian rule as long as it’s in line with their own moral and religious worldview. Making it a constitutional amendment is obviously meant to prevent judicial override.
In the words of Frank Zappa: “Tax the churches.”
Better news:
HRC LAUDS WASHINGTON RULING IN FAVOR OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY
And, though it appears to have received next to no press, APA council voted unanimously to support same-sex couples and families last week:
HRC LAUDS AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION’S ENDORSEMENT OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY
I believe what FZ said was “Tax THE FUCK out of the churches.”
So that’s what woke the dogs up…
At least you were coherent. I was so pissed I was left sputtering nonsense and throwing shoes at the TV.
That’s why I call it the “Blow Me” state.
Amusingly enough, this idea is far more likely to undermine marriage as an institution in our society than simply allowing two men or two women to get married, but at least none of them homosexuals are allowed to sully the sacred and holy word “marriage”.
And from now on, I think I will too.
Looking at it, it IS sort of remarkable that John Ashcroft’s home state has managed to disappoint us, isn’t it?
The SPECTRE says –
This is the rub for me as well. The fact that this measure passed is dismaying, but the fact that it passed with over 70% of the vote . . . wow. People obviously are threatened by the idea of SSM. Why? While it may be cathartic to chalk it up to redneck ignorance, it seems more productive to try to figure out precisely what the objections are and address them rationally and pursuasively. IME, the problem is that people who are anti (but who are not religious fundamentalists) are not particularly good at articulating why they are anti. They think the idea of gay sex is icky and/or threatening, but they’re not sure why. They think SSM may threaten straight marriage in some way, but they’re not sure why. They don’t like thinking about it or questioning their own assumptions, and they resent that the issue is being pressed. (And, interestingly, they blame the gay community for pressing the issue, not the anti people who are putting these proposed bans on the ballot.) So how do we effectively combat inarticulated ignorance and irrational prejudice? That’s the question, IMO. Because a 70% “yes” vote means that there is a lot of work to be done.
BAUBLE –
Here is a link giving the briefest overview of the rules regarding political activities by non-profit organizations, including churches. You will see that while a church is prohibited from endorsing a particular candidate, it is not prohibited from talking broadly about the issues presented. When, as here, the issue is allegedly one of morality, the government would be on very shaky ground if it attempted to regulate religious speech (since the issue morality is part and parcel of most major religions). But even were a church to fall afoul of the IRS by endorsing a particular candidate, the penalty would be to lose its status as a non-profit. That does not implicate the separation of church and state, nor does encouraging people to vote a particular way. The act of voting, or encouraging others to vote, is not a governmental act.
Yeah, sorry about that. Scared the hell outta my daughter, too. She’s grown accustomed to her old man being a font of wisdom and quiet rectitude.
To all of those blasting away at the people of Missouri and rednecks or whoever - what would you have the outcome be? Of course that is semi rhetorical.
Given the choice, the vast majority (I think) of Dopers has no problem with and would vote in favour of allowing SSM. But why are we here - to fight ignorance, n’est pas? The people of Missouri have displayed shocking ignorance in voting against SSM, but the decision was reached democratically*. That is something that has to be addressed. Being an ivory tower Doper is only going to lead to more outrage like this in the future.
How many Dopers live in states where votes like this are going to take place? How many of those Dopers are going to join a group and go door to door and convince people that SSM won’t cause the universe to collapse in on itself?
People here like to think that we are smarter than average, and I can agree with that. However, if you expect everyone else to show the same critical thinking or the same logical thinking than there is going to be several more threads like this.
*[Kent Brockman] I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Democracy just doesn’t work. [/KB]