He just said that he doesn’t think the filibuster of his judicial appointments is an “opposition to people of faith” as the recent ads claim but an objection to the “judicial philosophies” of the appointees. I had to make sure I heard him correctly and I did. Very odd.
I wonder if this will stop the mudslinging of the GOP and religious right?
What am I saying? Of course it won’t, but still I have to respect the man for saying that (and for going on to say that he considers faith a personal matter [though how he arrived at the Constitutional ban on gay marriage as a matter of non-religious origin he didn’t mention]).
You can be opposed to extennding marriage to gays on other than religious grounds. Marriage is a critical institution that touches all aspects of our lives. It’s not to be messed with lightly (not that I’m necessarily opposed to gay marriage, but I do recognize that there are issues here).
For example, consider that men and women rarely live together for long periods of time without a romantic relationship (sitcoms notwithstanding). Therefore, the state can declare you married in common law if you live with someone of the opposite sex for a certain period of time, and this can be binding on things like your estate, child care, etc.
Should we extend that to roommates of the same sex? If marriage becomes gender-neutral, why not?
One of the fundamental reasons for marriage is to provide a stable environment for the offspring of two people. Lots of studies have shown that children raised in a two-parent household do better than children who are raised outside of marriage. So you can be opposed to trends which change that institution even if you’re an athiest.
I’m not saying these arguments trump the arguments for gay marriage - just pointing out that this issue is not all about religion and/or homophobia.
Yes, because one of the arguments is that by widening the scope of marriage, you weaken it. It ceases to be special. Marriage eventually becomes just another contract in a life full of contractual obligations. It loses its special status.
I’m not necessarily saying I buy this argument, but it’s a common one. I think a case could be equally made that by extending marriage to gays, you actually strengthen the concept. Wider acceptance is a good thing, is it not?
But let’s at least acknowledge that there is a debate there to be had, and one side doesn’t have to be evil. Too often we engage in proxy debates, by demonizing our opponents and going personal, because the real debate is too difficult or painful to discuss. Republicans do it, and so do Democrats. Look at the Bolton nomination. The debate should be about whether the United Nations should be coddled, persuaded, and gently eased back into line with sophisticated diplomacy, or whether it’s gone far enough that you need to send the sheriff in to kick some ass and take down names.
But no one wants to debate the real issue - Democrats don’t, because they think that siding against that will make them look weak and non-patriotic. Republicans don’t want to look like a bunch of yahoos with six guns blazing. So instead, they have a proxy debate: Did Bolton (gasp!) throw a file folder down a hallway twenty years ago? Did he yell at an underling? My god, he’s not suitable!
As many have pointed out, if you could get kicked out of Washington for mistreating your underlings, the place would be a ghost town.
Yes, because Britney’s one week marriage was oh-so-special. Face it, some marriages are shams, but most aren’t. As long as you are a man-woman couple, there doesn’t have to be anything “special” about it.
Please explain how the need to make sure that a law is written in order to ensure the rights of couples but NOT inadvertently extending common-law obligations to just roommates, as expressed in the post you’re quoting, has anything to do with homophobia.
Please explain how the medical-insurance industry’s willingness to jack premium rates for no reason whatsoever is going to be kept in check once they have the immediate creation of hundreds of new family units as an actual justification- and how that has anything to do with homophobia.
Is the flap primarily homophobic? Certainly. Is it entirely homophobic? Absolutely not, and to pretend that it is is disingenous.
I'm not sure that offering spurious arguments proves that there's a debate to be had. It seems to me that there have to be reasonable arguments on both sides. We wouldn't say that there's a "debate to be had" about interracial marriage would we? People might equally argue about the expansion of marriage in that case, but the existence of such an argument doesn't make the issue akin to ANWR or school vouchers.
That said, I agree with the sentiment that all too often we engage in proxy debates. Yelling past each other instead of having genuine dialogue on issues is part of why this country is sick (overly partisan). I think many people, and especially politicians, take the position that no one’s mind can be changed through reason (because of special interests, entrenched ideologies, or what have you). Under this view, what purpose can there be to reason with opponents? People that disagree with you can only be persuaded by fancy PR, emotional arguments, and symbolism (i.e. Frank Luntz techniques). The reasonable discussion only happens within political groups, but not among them. However, I think Bolton’s confirmation is not the best example. Clearly the diplomatic skills of a key diplomat are an important consideration in his confirmation.
I don’t respect him for this. Why should I? This is just his usual ‘good cop, bad cop’ routine, where he gets to play Mr. Above-the-Fray, while someone else does his dirty work.
Will he kick butt and take names of those in his party who are saying these things? Of course not. Hell, DeLay said pretty much the same things Frist is saying, and he gets a ride on Air Force One. Those who step over the line don’t have to fear Dubya, as long as they step over it in a rightward direction. They know he’s quietly got their back.
It’s just like last summer, when Dubya didn’t actually say the things the SwiftLiars were saying, but sure didn’t say anything to come down hard on them, either. BFD.