What’s on your minds today?
Maine voters sided with bigotry and discrimination — and this will keep happening as long as the LGBTQ community insists on pushing the term “gay marriage” and not “spousal rights”. If the word “marriage” is in the legislation or the PR push for equality, we are going to keep failing every time in this. Not that anyone will ever listen, but if you keep doing the same things again and again but expecting different results, well, that’s the definition of insanity.
******
Ever hear of Gunnar Bergstrom over at Attack Cartoons?
He’s a talented artist who just happened to draw this logo below, which we hope to get on a tee shirt of our very own to wear out in Boystown as soon as possible.
November 4, 2009 at 9:44 am
hillbuzz,
i’m sorry to see another vote against the private citizens’ choice in whom they wish to marry. i can promise you that every time it comes up on the florida ballot will always vote in favor, mainly b/c i don’t think it’s any of my business, the government’s, or anyone else’s but the couple involved as to whether or not they should marry.
and i speak this as a conservative and born-again christian, to boot.
on another note:
interesting article,primarily b/c it pretty much reiterates what hillbuzz is consistently exhorting the GOP to do:
“Way back in January, we made it clear to our members on the Democratic side, get ready, fasten your seat belts because this is going to be a tough cycle,” the Maryland Democrat (chris van hollen) said. “And the good news for us is, they’ve been preparing from day one.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/03/history-portend-republicans-gaining-seats-mid-term-elections/
straight from the horse’s mouth, folks. conservatives need to heed hillbuzz’s advice: no sitting on our laurels. no basking in a victory. constant vigilance, constant planning, and constantly looking forward.
November 4, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Thank you for identifying yourself as a conservative and Christian at the end. If more conservatives and Christians would stand up publically for gay marriage or spousal rights (good call on the terminology HillBuzz), then the issue would have a different outcome. The only way some people will change or reconsider their views is if someone they already identify with presents the arguement.
I think this shirt sums up yesterday’s vote in maine:
Maine Same Sex Marriage Vote Gay Marriage
November 4, 2009 at 9:59 am
Sorry dudes! I voted against prop8 in California, Maine has also let you down. I cant believe in this century, the 21st, we are still so afraid of one and other and who has the right to do what. Keep smilin’ fellas, it will happen.
November 4, 2009 at 10:06 am
Ughh. It’s so frustrating as a conservative to get excited about elections like these (because last night was AWESOME – especially as a current DC resident and lifelong Jersey Girl) and then go to some of my other favorite conservative blogs only to see them getting excited about the gay marriage provisions being killed. It runs so counter to true conservative ideals to want the state to ban marriage between certain citizens. They don’t realize that they sound just like the bigots of the segregation years, saying that we can’t let blacks and whites get married because it’s a threat to the institution of marriage. AHH!!
November 4, 2009 at 10:28 am
“They don’t realize that they sound just like the bigots of the segregation years, saying that we can’t let blacks and whites get married because it’s a threat to the institution of marriage. AHH!!”
THAT is what is wrong with the pro gay marriage side of the debate (and I speak as someone firmly on the L/B end of the LGBTQ spectrum.) Like it or not, democracy is the American/European way, and the worst thing you can do is tell people that if they differ from you they are like the Klan.
I just want to have the same ability to spend the rest of my life with a woman, with legal protection – if I meet the right woman. I don’t want to insult people or their traditions. I certainly don’t want to equate them with racists.
It’s something I’ve noticed in liberals who claim to want equal rights for gays and lesbians. They can’t seem to find the huge number of arguments that support gay spousal rights. They just want to insult people and get their backs’ up, thereby hindering progress. It’s almost like insulting people is more important than rational debate. It’s almost like they’re more interested in using the lack of gay spousal rights as a weapon than in reolving the iss – oh, right…
November 4, 2009 at 12:17 pm
It’s almost like nothing is more important than pumping up their self-righteousness and as if they have no interest in doing good….
November 4, 2009 at 3:17 pm
That is the problem known as “psychological flow.”
That is why right wingers and left wingers fall into that rut.
They get into a psychological flow that has stimulating feedback – as when you are absorbed in a good book or great movie and the time just seems to zip zip zip by you so fast!
To debate rationally, you can not allow yourself to fall into psychological flow – even though it feels soooooooo…..good. (It is otherwise know as going on a rant.)
In other news…..
The White House Liars Club are saying these elections are not a referendum on the Great Zero.
Of course normal, moral people know
it’s all about being a
“referendum on President Obama!”
Regardless of what anyone says, it was and always will be.
NJ public TV had some interesting exit polls yesterday.
Approximately 20% of the voters said they voted to support Obama, and 20% of the voters said they voted to protest Obama!
Now consider the voters who were voting against the “Precious” knew full well that they would be called RACIST if they say they voted to protest Obama. That’s all you need to know that probably twice as many voters were voting against Obama as well as the corrupt state mafia ran NJ governorship!
November 4, 2009 at 10:16 am
Just when you lose faith in the system, the independent voters get back on track and bring it all home. It was the indie’s that voted Obama in 2008. Now after 1 year they realize he has not done the job he vowed to do. Also young people (Obama’s big base) stayed home this time around. They’re letting everyone know: It’s the economy stupid!!!! Sure hope Washington is listening.
P.S. Hillbuzz, I sincerely hope and pray that one day you will realize all your dreams. Best wishes.
November 4, 2009 at 10:30 am
Will the indies turna against Obama and say maybe support Palin in 2012?
November 4, 2009 at 10:35 am
We can only hope! It seems conservatives, indies and dems are disenchanted with the Chosen One. see article below.
http://newyorkpost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_obama_magic_has_faded_j5hVLRcxiqTHWberCV1DrK
November 4, 2009 at 10:53 am
I just worry big time about the media. they might be losing some power, but put together they are will jump all over her and give Obama a free pass for everything.
November 4, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Dan, they’re already blasting her for the results in NY District 23.
Claiming that “America really wants what Obama wants”, they fail to realize that what the voters were doing was telling the GOP that they weren’t going to be pushed around.
I see this as a shot fired across the bough to either party who tries to strongarm their way into a seat.
Too bad the rest of my brethren in NYC didn’t kick Bloomberg’s ass out of his third term
November 4, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Hey Anthony!
I love your headline over at your place! Plus the picture of Obama and the ACORN mob!
N.J. tells Obama ‘FUGGEDABOUTIT!”
LOL
http://thesibylspeaks.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/n-j-tells-obama-fuggedaboutit/
November 4, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Hey, Ant’ny! NICE blog! Thanks to Buttered for the linky-dink!
November 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Thanks, Buttered. It took blood, sweat, tears and bong hits to write that article.
Glad you enjoyed it
November 4, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Garlicnosedho:
Took your advice (above)and glad you enjoyed it too.
November 4, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Sarah Palin, with just a Facebook post managed to make a third party candidate, who she never met and did not go to campaign for, almost win a congressional seat.
Obama went to NJ and VA to campaign for his corrupt buddies and received one hell of embarrasing defeat.
Palin beat Obama 3 to 1!
November 4, 2009 at 4:47 pm
According to the WH, he was watching basketball and this:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/11/04/obama-watched-hbo-special-about-himself-instead-election-results
November 4, 2009 at 6:40 pm
First of all Anthony – that is really sick, but as I said on SWYW, why should Ozer0 watch the news about someone else if it isn’t really about him.
second, I bet he didn’t even watch the basketball. ;)
November 4, 2009 at 7:44 pm
How ever will the White House Cleaning Staff get those lip prints off the television screen?
November 4, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Ten bucks says he couldn’t go five minutes without having to spank the monkey. F”cking egotist….
November 4, 2009 at 10:30 am
Thanks for last night’s primer on “spousage.” That’s a fantastic idea. It’s always seemed to me that by insisting on the term “marriage,” the goal was really to defeat/humiliate traditional marriage supporters instead of improving the circumstances of the LGBTQ community. It’s a generalization, I know, but that’s how the movement has come across to me. I don’t want to eliminate government-sanctioned unions because I think they are good for society, but renaming them (for civil purposes and for everyone!) with a term less loaded than “marriage” is going to be the quickest way to equal rights. And in that vein, congratulations to Washington!
November 4, 2009 at 10:30 am
*state, not d.c.
November 4, 2009 at 11:57 am
Look at France. (And I can’t believe I actually wrote that!) Civil marriage is completely separate from religious marriage. The only marriage France officially recognizes is the civil one. The couple is certainly free to have a religious wedding if they choose, but it doesn’t count the least bit as far as the government is concerned.
Given not just the concerns of the gay community, but a large falling away from religion in the population in general, perhaps it’s time the US also deligitimizes religious weddings, officially recognizing civil unions.
I strongly suspect that what the boys wrote: “If the word “marriage” is in the legislation or the PR push for equality, we are going to keep failing every time in this.” is absolutely correct. Christians for the most part see marriage as a religious rite rather than a civil action. They sincerely believe that the Bible forbids homosexuality, and they do not want to grant gay marriage the status of a religious rite.
Somehow, the gay community has to find a word or words with no religious connotations that will create a civil union that grants gay couples all the legal rights of marriage.
November 4, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Thanks Kate!
The French have got it right!
RE: “Look at France. (And I can’t believe I actually wrote that!) Civil marriage is completely separate from religious marriage. The only marriage France officially recognizes is the civil one. The couple is certainly free to have a religious wedding if they choose, but it doesn’t count the least bit as far as the government is concerned.”
November 4, 2009 at 10:32 am
Spousal Rights is a much better phrase than gay marriage, I think.
It comes with much less baggage and more accurately reflects the issue.
November 4, 2009 at 10:36 am
I agree with you totally. “marriage” is a disruptive term and s/b dropped. Still supporting you in your quest.
June
November 4, 2009 at 10:38 am
Hillbuzz, I totally agree. The problem is “marriage.” Marriage has a historical and religious overtone that a majority of Americans will not accept. Based on the biblical teachings of most religions, they equate homosexuality as “immoral” and is equivalent to Beastiality, Bigamy, and Incest.
Vast majority of Americans will continue to not vote for homosexuality because they believe it is similar to beastiality, bigamy and incest.
The best bet advocates have is to have it be a “civil unions.” State based institution (only not religious) that people will be able to have its own state directory for licensing but allow those who participate in heterosexual marriage to have their own directory as well in the state. It is different than race discrimination because there is a different treatment for people of the opposite sex (e.g. male and women have different bathrooms, different sport leagues, etc…).
You will find more people would agree with the civil unions and have better passage in the legislature. But, the issue is marriage and the historical nature of it and that is why the vast majority of states WILL NOT SUPPORT IT IF VOTED UPON.
November 4, 2009 at 3:26 pm
What we are talking about is having a Legal (state recognized – as in business forms, i.e, corporation, etc.) Partnership.
November 4, 2009 at 8:01 pm
And you can do that if it is considered a “civil union.” You can have it registered with the state and solely be equivalent to heterosexual marriage. The catch is that it will not be called marriage in the traditional sense.
Second, please don’t equate homosexual marriage to the fight for racial equality. Loving v. VA does not apply. In Loving, the interracial couple were PLACED IN JAIL b/c their marriage was illegal under the doctrine of separate but equal in Virgina. A state not recognizing marriage is not the same as stating marriage is illegal. What the states are doing through the legislatures is stating that homosexual marriage is similar to the treatment of bigamy, incest and bestiality. They are not recognizing it, not placing homosexuals in jail for getting married. As a result, the comparison of gay marriage to the fight for racial equality in the Loving v. VA case is misleading and totally inaccurate.
November 4, 2009 at 10:43 am
and Washington State passed Ref. 7, which allows equal states rights for civil-unions. “marriage” brings out the crazies, and it just needs to be accepted right now. Fight the battle in stages for right now – that’s the only way is ever going to happen. AND certainly the defeat gives President Platitude all the excuses he needs to not go anywhere near ‘DOMA’ or ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ –
I never expected him to do anything at all about those anyway, but perfect excuse for him is ‘the country is obviously not ready’.
Coulda had a Hillary!
November 4, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Excellent Econsmed!
If the goal were stated as you said, for “equal states rights for civil-unions” then that would be achieved more easily and soon thereafter everyone would end up referring casually to those unions as marriages anyways.
However, there are those on both sides of the issue who are very well aware they are working the issue for money, power, ego-gratification, and the spotlight. Plus most of those that way just enjoy being in your face on top of it all!
Not good for goal achievement – they’re just users like Obama!
November 4, 2009 at 10:47 am
HillBuzz: I am so disheartened by the voters in Maine. To deny spousal rights to our gay brothers and sisters is downright un-Christian.
My dad was the most Christlike person I’ve ever known (which is probably why he wasn’t long for this world). He was devoted to Jesus and the BVM but never proselytized. He was forgiving, accepting, loving, and understanding.
He always reminded me that I should walk in another person’s shoes before daring to criticize them. He had compassion for the hard road that gays had to travel and believed they should have the same benefits as hetero couples. And he died in 1985, so he was pretty enlightened.
Now, to me, THAT’S living a Christian life, doing what one truly believes Christ himself would do. And that does not include discrimination against any of his father’s children.
This one issue will always be a sticking point for me as far as backing or cheering on most conservatives.
Praying for enlightenment for fundamentalists with no heart or compassion.
Love you guys. Hang in there!
November 4, 2009 at 11:14 am
Don’t you find it ironic that the far religious right (and I’m a Christian, so I want to emphasize the FAR-ness of their theology) complains and demonizes the gay community for it’s promiscuity, yet desires to deny them the one thing that they themselves believe is the only way to have an unpromiscuous relationship in God’s eyes?
November 4, 2009 at 11:15 am
BINGO! The hypocrisy is astounding! To encourage the exclusivity of committed coupledom would be the way to go.
November 4, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I have no problem with spousal rights or civil unions, but I do not want it called marriage.
November 4, 2009 at 3:32 pm
AMEN KJA!
It’s the rapist blaming the rape-victim for the rape!
November 4, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Mizzougal -
what’s your rationale for that, other than a feeling that I’m not equal to you? I know the only way gay people are going to win any semblance of equality right now is by accepting other peoples prejudice, because the Fed is not going to back us up. But help me out in understanding your position, if you’re all for me having the same rights, why do you need them to be separated from yours?
November 4, 2009 at 2:01 pm
It’s not a matter of prejudice. For many it’s a matter of religious beliefs. Some churches believe marriage can only be between a man and a woman. When the state tries to force churches to accept something against their belief system then you have a serious conflict between church and state. Think Henry VIII. The church didn’t do what he wanted it to, so he forced catholicism out and created his own church. There are laws in our country to protect us from just this kind of government intrusion.
That said, I agree with the Boyz (and always have) that calling it something else is the way to achieve the goals of equality in the most expedient manner possible. A state recognized union (civil unions, spousal rights, etc.) would provide the same benefits without forcing churches to choose between their religious heritage and government mandates.
November 4, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Excellent Points Ten!!!!
November 4, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I’m Catholic and marriage between and a woman is a sacrament of the Church. If you want to have spousal rights, civil unions, I could give a rat’s patooty. I just think out of respect for many religions we should just take the word marriage out of the picture.
November 4, 2009 at 9:24 pm
No matter how much we may want to deny it, the main purpose behind governmental recognition of a pairing is financial. Think insurance, home ownership, taxes, inheritance, raising children, debts.
Separating religious marriage from civil union allows religious freedom (churches, mosques, etc can continue to decide what constitutes marriage) while extending the financial aspects to all individuals. Of course, any bills must be carefully written to prevent unwanted situations (how many civil unions can an individual be in at one time). I’ve supported this idea for years. I’m glad the Boyz have the same idea.
November 4, 2009 at 2:32 pm
How about this: the licenses from the states should be for *civil unions* for both hetero- and homosexual couples. Because, folks, that’s what they are.
When my ex- and I got our license in Hoboken, the clerk said it meant we were officially a couple under the eyes of the state. It didn’t matter whether we’d had any kind of ceremony whatsoever. We were hitched.
Save the “marriage” designation exclusively for the religious domain.
November 4, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Amen!
That would work Garlic!
November 4, 2009 at 3:38 pm
That way, if you could legally, commit in a civil, state recognized ceremony – later you could “marry” in any church that would marry you such as the Metropolitan Community Chruch.
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home
“In 1968, a year before New York’s Stonewall Riots, a series of most unlikely events in Southern California resulted in the birth of the world’s first church group with a primary, positive ministry to gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender persons.
Those events, a failed relationship, an attempted suicide, a reconnection with God, an unexpected prophecy, and the birth of a dream led to MCC’s first worship service: a gathering of 12 people in Rev. Troy Perry’s living room in Huntington Park, California on October 6, 1968.
That first worship service in a Los Angeles suburb in 1968 launched the international movement of Metropolitan Community Churches, which today has grown to 43,000 members and adherents in almost 300 congregations in 22 countries. During the past 36 years, MCC’s prophetic witness has forever changed the face of Christianity and helped to fuel the international struggle for LGBT rights and equality…”
November 4, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Legally – I agree too. But I also am of the opinion that same-sex couples seeking a marriage union due to their religious beliefs is fine. But as you can see by some of our reasoned members here – some people do have an issue with it. So yes – civil unions for the purposes of the IRS and such =) and marriage for couples seeking to add the religious component to their civil union. Let the churches decide who they will “marry”. After all – have you heard of anyone having a Divorce Ceremony in a church?
When the DH and I got our license (28 years ago!) we weren’t officially joined until the minister signed the license – which he did after our ceremony. So I can still see ministers being able to serve as the state’s representative. And couples choosing to have it all done in one fell-swoop in a church could still do so.
November 4, 2009 at 5:37 pm
ah, got it. Only Catholics can get married. My agnostic straight friends that got ‘legally married’ by a J.P., aren’t ‘really married’ because they’re not Catholic and don’t believe their ‘marriage’ is a sacrament. Got it, gotta tell them to refile their taxes for the past 15 years, and give their 8 year old up for adoption – can’t have any bastards running around either.
November 4, 2009 at 6:11 pm
You have a point – it would mean a change of the terminology in our government – and then we’re back to HB’s premise in the first place – it would be a snowball’s chance in Hades that people would vote to remove the term marriage.
November 4, 2009 at 11:02 am
More of this?!!
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/11/04/elementary-epidemic-11-uncovered-videos-show-school-children-performing-praises-to-obama/
November 4, 2009 at 11:08 am
I find it sad that the word “marriage” is what needs to be dropped for our gay brothers and sisters to be able to share in the sacred and legal rights of the marriage union. But HB, you’re right. It’s what makes people fight so hard against it. I’m conservative – and in part – it’s the conservativeness in me that wants you to be able to marry if you so choose. Does that make sense??
November 4, 2009 at 11:16 am
YES, YES, YES–it makes PERFECT sense!
November 4, 2009 at 12:12 pm
“It’s what makes people fight so hard against it. I’m conservative – and in part – it’s the conservativeness in me that wants you to be able to marry if you so choose. Does that make sense??”
I think it does. PJ O’Rourke once commented that he supported gay marriage because he was to the right of Rush Limbaugh. Today people want to get married and serve openly in the military. Tommorow we may – gasp! – suuport pro life politics and school vouchers. The desire to marry is conservative.
November 4, 2009 at 3:42 pm
and to think, gays, lesbians, bisexuals have been serving in the military for years and years and years in Israel, France, Germany, Denmark, Canada, Britain, Australia, and the list goes on and on and on…….
November 4, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Openly!
November 4, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Yes it falls under ‘the pursuit of happiness.’
I’m sorry about Maine, hillbuzz lads. Keep up the good fight.
November 4, 2009 at 11:19 am
Re other election outcomes: I just won 2 tix to the Tucson Symphony’s Patriotic Pops concert from KNST radio for my Tucson election predictions. Want to give the tix to MIA and her hubby if they can make it this weekend. If not, I’m going to ask KNST to give them to disabled veterans.
About NJ: YAY!!! We now have a chance to rid the state of ACORN and union-boss influence. Can’t wait to get home. Shooting for June 2010.
About VA: Yay! And so close to D.C. Heh-heh-heh.
November 4, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Here in Fairfax County, which went for Dr. Utopia by (I think) 21 poinst – the republicans won. In our county it was a squeaker of 1 or 2 percent (haven’t checked final numbers), but the swing in one year! Huge!
My bot co-worker called in sick today. Hmm. She needn’t worry since, unlike her, we won’t gloat….
November 4, 2009 at 3:45 pm
LOL
Oh go ahead!
Wait till your co-worker is back and gloat!
LOL JK
At least you can make sure you tell your O-Bought co-worker that unlike the immature 0-Boughts you won’t gloat in her face!
(Just behind their back! LOL) JK again!
November 4, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Watching Fox News this a.m. they had Juan Williams and Steven Hayes commenting on yesterdays elections. Juan said that the White House would say that the elections had nothing to do with Dr. U, that they were referendums on local issues and not Dr. U’s job performance at all. Stephen Hayes commented that they will probably be saying that publicly, but if they are thinking it privately – they are seriously misguided and it will cause them to be careless going into the 2010 elections.
My thought on yesterday’s elections: Just wondering how the RNC is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
November 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Who said the current administration ISN’T misguided? They’ve mucked up everything they have touched. I’ve never seen such an ineffective, mushy, wishy-washy, and damaging administration.
November 4, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Why they could tear up an iron anvil as my family used to say.
November 4, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Ten: Weren’t you alive when Dhimmi Carter was president? ;)
November 4, 2009 at 12:30 pm
It seems Obama’s living relatives are all coming out with “BOOKS” that tell more of the story of their lives, along with that of their illustrious relative, Barack Obama. Obama’s half brother, Mark Ndesandjo’s book is out this week, entitled “Nairobi to Shenzhen” and he talks about their father Barack Obama Sr., the polygamist/alcoholic, being an abusive husband and often beating his mother. A second half-brother George Obama, 27, from Kenya, is also writing a book due out in Jan. 2010. His half sister, Maya Soetoro, is also writing a book. Perhaps any one of these books inadvertently contains information on Obama’s place of birth and details thereof…
November 4, 2009 at 12:56 pm
But it is supposed to be Sarah Palin who is the money-grubbing publicity hog????
November 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Enough Already, I agree the word “marriage” is just too much for most people – so just call it something else as long as the rights are the same and let’s move on….
November 4, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Believers in traditonal marriage & values like me don’t want to be called bigots coz we’re not. The fact of the matter is homosexuality is a sin that’s why. Christians unlike our Muslim brethren are more forgiving and tolerant. If you want to legalize something that’s immoral then fine, call the union by another name to differentiate it.
November 4, 2009 at 12:59 pm
you’re right, I forgot…..
November 4, 2009 at 2:41 pm
LMAO! Good one! The concept of marriage does not enjoy a long tradition in Christianity. Christ wanted his disciples to be free of the bondage/responsibility of family.
November 4, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Yeah!
The Bible says it is BETTER for men and women to NOT BE MARRIED!
The New Testament only recommends marriage for sex-crazed, out of control people. Only for those did the Bible recommend marriage!
It’s true, tell those fundies that!
November 4, 2009 at 2:29 pm
As a fellow Christian – I respectfully disagree. Sexual identity does not create or negate moral behavior or life style. I think the PR problem Christians have is because many like to tell people they are immoral for who they are, not what they do.
November 4, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Gee, it’s just like the GLBT telling religious folk they’re bigots isn’t it.
November 4, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Basically yes. There’s enough bigotry and judgement to go around.
November 4, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Team Obama thinks other Democrats just need to “man up” to get stuff done:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/11/white-house-official-slams-democratic.html
November 4, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I am very curious, if a leading republican like Sarah Palin embraced “spousal rights” would the gay/lesbian community support her and actually vote for her? Or would they be glad for support on that one issue but still vote for Obama anyway?
Lets face it, politics is a quid pro quo most of the time and if people wont vote for you there really is no reason to give those people what they want. I know thats crass, but I mean it is kinda how politics works ya know?
November 4, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Dan -
There is nothing Palin or any other Repub could do to win LGBTQ votes. It won’t happen because the hate the LGBTQ community is taught for the GOP is too strong. What’s interesting is that blind-Dem voting straight down the ticket is the same for gays as it is for the black community, with one exception: blacks would vote en masse for a black Republican because being black trumps being a Dem to them. Gays won’t vote for a gay Republican because being a Dem is more important than being gay. Same with Jews…being a liberal/Dem is more important than being Jewish, which they proved in 2008 by supporting the candidate who was the worst for Israel, as we are seeing consistently.
For blacks, race appears to be everything. For gays and Jews, it’s wearing the liberal/Dem pin on their lapel, no matter what.
Our advice to Republicans: don’t waste time or effort courting LGTBQ votes…instead, just stop talking about gay issues altogether…stop saying nasty things…just completely ignore the LGBTQ community and take away convenient villains for liberals to rile Boystown up with.
November 4, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Your advice is probly right! Thanks for the response.
November 4, 2009 at 2:46 pm
And let’s remember that although Palin can’t wrap her arms around the concept of gay marriage, she did in fact VETO a bill in the AK legislature that would have DENIED benefits for the partners of gay state employees.
She has a heart, and she didn’t discriminate.
November 4, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Yes, Garlic.
Sarah said last year on the campaign trial that she had many gay, personal friends.
November 4, 2009 at 5:11 pm
And let’s note that the administration is nowhere and has nothing to say about Maine.
November 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm
“Paging Mr. Fierce Advocate of Gay and Lesbians, paging ‘Fierce Advocate’…. ‘Fierce’?…anybody?…..
Bueller?”
http://washingtonindependent.com/22526/obama-im-a-fierce-advocate-for-gay-and-lesbians
November 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm
He would have made a statement – but he was too busy working on DADT.
November 4, 2009 at 7:48 pm
TOUCHE Perries!
The Admin has been dead on this issue in Maine – before and after the election!
November 4, 2009 at 7:00 pm
During the debate, it was mentioned that she had the exact same views as the O/B ticket. No difference at all.
November 4, 2009 at 1:27 pm
The thing is that even if you don’t agree with the voters in Maine…it was done in the right way…it was placed on a state ballot and the citizens of that state voted on it…and they didn’t want it in Maine…I’m not sure how that should be changed? Do you think it should be federally mandated? Because isn’t that the same as the healthcare debate? Just curious..also think it would have to be clearly outlined what the gay community hopes to gain out of “spousal support” because at this point it is sorta like the GOP..not all on the same (if not similar) page..
November 4, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Of course letting “voters” vote on that makes as much sense as Harry Truman letting voters vote on whether blacks should be integrated into the military.
November 4, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Just to play Devil’s Advocate.
November 4, 2009 at 4:03 pm
And of course it has been no help (actually a HUGE NEGATIVE) that both the Dems and the GOPpers have POLITICIZED IT to the extreme!
November 4, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I don’t see a federal law allowing gay marriage as being like federally mandated healthcare, at all. Passing a law to allow gays to marry would not affect the lives or marriages of other people. Passing a law mandating the purchase of health coverage would affect every person in the country financially.
November 4, 2009 at 1:44 pm
My state also had a “partner rights” initiative which was voted down.
I think the reason it was voted down in my state was two-fold.
First, it was confusing because it basically changed all the laws to eliminate the concept of gender when referring to “husband” or “wife”. Why they didn’t just decide to add “or partner” in any part of the code where husband or wife appear is beyond me. That created a lot of fear that people are trying to destroy the concept of gender.
Second, the initiative held no information regarding education, and that is the primary fear of most people, including myself. Although I voted for the bill, I did deliberate about it because I don’t like the fact that homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter, might be presented to my future children in school, and that I might not have the option to opt them out of such education (as it is in California now, or at least parts of it).
I don’t believe it’s the school’s place to inform kids about sexuality or, if they do, then parents should have full and clear opportunities to opt their children out of such classes. When an initiative leaves a matter like this unclear, people worry that it will become de-facto law.
There is one other factor…. one of our state legislators who supported the legislation came out and said this initiative was simply a stepping stone to “gay marriage”. So that probably scared a lot of voters too.
HB has been spot on with their analysis. Reform in this area needs to completely avoid the term “marriage”, and it needs to be very clear what it’s full social impact will be.
November 4, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Here’s an interesting article on why the director of ‘2012′ destroyed the Vatican & the Rio Jesus Christ statue but left the Islamic site the “Kaaba” :
Quote:
“For “2012,” Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there’s one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn’t: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It’s the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.
“Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit,” the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. “But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, ‘I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.’ And he was right.”
Emmerich went on: “We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out.”
Entire article: http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-roland-emmerich-fatwa.html
November 4, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Very interesting
November 4, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Very scary for a supposed free, democratic nation.
November 4, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Well, the Christians would never run around the world with bombs strapped to their waists eager to blow up everyone in sight. The world is rightfully afraid of these unhinged lunatics. So in the eyes of many, it’s ok to desicrate Christian symbols, and just take a little heat over it.
You reminded me of the latest crap out of hollyweird. Larry David peeing on a portrait of Christ on his show. I’ll find a link, as I can’t remember the show or the story line. Must not have been BIG news here in our NON-Christian nation(according to O).
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/10/larry_david_uri.html
November 4, 2009 at 10:14 pm
It might not matter to those who are upset by the premise of this episode, but he didn’t intentionally urinate on the portrait – it was next to the toilet bowl and he has trying to urinate with an erection and had an accident. His character was very horrified by what he had done.
But that’s Larry David – his show reminds me of “I Love Lucy” episodes, except his screw ups are *always* politically incorrect. But just like Lucy, you can really always see them coming – I tend to laugh more at surprises, myself.
November 4, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Hi Mich. It might not matter to those who are upset by the premise of this episode, but he didn’t intentionally urinate on the portrait – it was next to the toilet bowl and he has trying to urinate with an erection and had an accident. His character was very horrified by what he had done.
But that’s Larry David – his show reminds me of “I Love Lucy” episodes, except his screw ups are *always* politically incorrect. But just like Lucy, you can really always see them coming – I tend to laugh more at surprises, myself.
November 7, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Yeah, I realize the premise, and I’m fine with the comedy of it, but if it was Mohammid, the world would have been blown up by now.
November 4, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Read this article…I guess then I would tend to agree that it would have to be termed marriage…marriage is the only way to create bonds of kinship…otherwise there really isn’t anything else to it..
http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/whymarriage_4.htm
November 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm
FYI
Chicago Metro Area Sales-Tax Receipts Plunge, Property Taxes Rise
Suburban Cook County experienced the biggest drop in sales tax revenue during the second quarter relative to the six collar counties, according to a study released Wednesday.
Sales tax revenue plummeted 14.4% during the April-June period from a year ago, based on a study conducted by the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul University. That followed a 12.1% drop in the first quarter and compares with a regional average of an 11.8% slump. Suburban Cook County excludes Chicago and Evanston….
October 20, 2009
Probably not much of a shock, but it’s now official: Collectively, homeowners and businesses in Cook County are being hit up for 4.2 percent more in property taxes this year than last.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/chicago-metro-area-sales-tax-receipts.html
November 4, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Looks like Mark Kirk is seeking the endorsement of Sarah Palin….
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/il-sen-kirk-seeks-palin-endors.html?wprss=thefix
That’s gonna be a little bit of a difficult position since he voted for the Waxman-Markey crap and tax bill.
November 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Very interesting. Kirk is my rep and for the most part I’m happy with his representation – with the exception of his stance on Global Warming ummm I mean Climate Change, or is it going to be Global Cooling?
November 4, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Is anyone here suspicious about the Scozzafava withdrawal from the race, possibly coming from the WH. Maybe they called her and offered some sweet treats to drop out and endorse the Dem. Let’s keep our eyes open and see if she’s heading to DC anytime soon. I am convinced this was their doing.
November 4, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I don’t think they had anything to do with her dropping out – the endorsement definitely has the smell of a deep-fried-twinkie being dangled in front of her though. She still had 6% of the vote because her name was on the ballot – take that out of the equation and Hoffman probably would’ve won.
November 4, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Yeah but you also have to remember that there is early voting…so probably enough people voted early and perhaps voted for her…that was before she dropped out and before they found out she wasn’t really a Republican, etc..that’s why you should never vote early unless you absolutely have to.
November 4, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Of course I don’t know if it’s true, but I did read an article which said she had met with Rahm and others before dropping out. Apparently she is interested in changing parties down the road. Maybe they thought it would be cool to get her elected as a republican, but then switch after elected.
November 4, 2009 at 8:36 pm
FYI
Would we still have slavery if we’d have voted on it?
Posted on November 4, 2009 by dakinikat
The vote in Maine that put aside its new law allowing same sex marriage got me thinking. Aren’t civil rights something the constitution bestows and the courts uphold because they protect a minority against the tyranny of the majority? Why are we letting the tyrants vote on an equal protection issue? What would have happened if we’d have gotten to vote on slavery state-by-state and let it stand that way?
Also, Why are we allowing women’s reproductive rights to be chiseled away state by state? Isn’t this the same deal as allowing some states to outlaw interracial marriage and allow some states to keep slavery? What’s the difference between letting some states maintain laws that consider married women and children property of husbands and laws that saw certain classes of couples can’t access the civil institution of marriage?
When is a constitutional right given away to the voting whims of masses?
When are the rights of individual’s subservient to the tyranny of majority and their superstition and opinion?
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/what-we-still-have-slavery-if-wed-have-voted-on-it/
November 5, 2009 at 12:27 am
I don’t feel the problem is equal rights. Those who vote against “gay marriage” do so because of the “marriage” and because of ambiguity in the laws that might prevent parents from having a say in what and how their children are taught about homosexuality and sexuality in general, like in parts of California.
The government cannot define marriage. Marriage has existed since before governments existed, and if governments went away, marriage would still exist.
Saying the concept of marriage is definable by a government is like saying the concept of love is definable by the government. It’s actually a pretty ridiculous proposal if you really think about it.
All the government can do is RECOGNIZE marriages, as performed by the appropriate church or what have you, as “legally recognized unions”.
Likewise, the government should ensure all couples are granted the same rights. Marriage is not a right granted by the government… only recognized if it is done in the proper fashion (people can get “married” but it may not be recognized by the government as such). So if a church chose to marry a gay couple, the government should recognize it. And if the government performs civil unions, they should perform civil unions for gay couples as well.
November 4, 2009 at 9:26 pm
testing
November 4, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Is it just me because for the past few days comments are not posting…
November 4, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Cinie over at Cinie’s World has a hilarious post up about O and the elections.
Democrats’ Stale Lunch
In the 2008 pretendidential election, Barack Obama benefited from a similar perception; that the Democratic party could have elected a ham sandwich.
And, they did.
Unquestionably, Obie is now the Democrats’ stale lunch, stinking up the whole place after smoldering in their lunchbox for a whole year, not countingspoiled ham sandwich the previous months they spent rejecting the obviously more nutritious meat and potatoes in front of them in favor of the McHam Sandwich they gleefully and greedily invented with intent to market. Now that they’re being forced by Fate-as-a-cruel-parent to eat the spoiled porky lunch they had a fit to have, they’re smacking their own fool foreheads, crying and whining and moaning and dreaming about the V-8 they coulda had, and how they coulda been contend-uhs, like a bunch of washed-up, three-year old Marlon Brandos reduced to reprising his glory days in a cheesy vegetable juice commercial. No better for ‘em; they did it to themselves.
http://cinie.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/democrats-stale-lunch/#comments
November 4, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Page 1:
To return to the points made by Chris Burgwald, but which are certainly made in various ways by many others who argue against gay marriage: is there any social and moral significance to the marriage certificate which goes above and beyond merely living together and which gay couples are justified in desiring for themselves? Absolutely — just like there is social and moral significance to marriage which straight couples are justified in desiring for themselves.
There should be no puzzlement over a gay couple, whose love and relationship may be every bit as deep and enduring as a those of a straight couple, would want to become recognized as kin, thus creating a new relationship and new ties not otherwise available. There is also no surprise that many gay couples have chosen to have one “adopt” the other, which is the only way such a bond is even remotely available to them outside of marriage.
Yes, gays are asking the body-politic to recognize their relationships as being kinship bonds — and there is no good reason why they shouldn’t be so recognized. There is nothing about the relationships of straight couples which makes them any more “worthy” of legal, social, and moral obligations we traditionally structure as “marriage.”
But what about Chris’ final question, “why am I being forced to acknowledge gay relationship as marriage?” As a private citizen, he would be under no such obligation — at least not legally. He would be under no more obligation to acknowledge the marriage to two men or two women then he would be to acknowledge any other marriage — the marriage of a Catholic and a Jew, the marriage of a white woman and a black man, the marriage of an 60-year-old and an 18-year-old, or my own marriage for that matter.
There will be social pressures to acknowledge gay unions as marriages, however, just as there are social pressures to acknowledge the other listed relationships as marriages. When a person acts as though a spouse is little more than a random stranger, that will normally be perceived as an insult — and with good reason. But if Chris Burgwald or anyone else chooses to act in such a fashion, they will be as free to do so with gay marriages as they are to do so with other marriages today.
In summary, what’s the point of gay marriage? The point of gay marriage is the point of all marriage. Marriage is different from other contractual relationships because it creates bonds of kinship. These bonds are in turn different and more important than other bonds: they create significant moral, social, and legal obligations both for those who are married and between those who are married and everyone else. Some individuals may not choose to acknowledge those obligations, but they exist and they constitute the basis of human society — a society which includes both heterosexual and homosexual human beings.
November 4, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Sponsored Links
Ready to say ‘I do’?
Northern Indiana Wedding Minister For a personal touch visit us at
http://www.idoidos.net
Forget Marriage Therapy
Try New Alternative to Counseling. Real Advice to Save Your Marriage.
http://www.MarriageMax.com
Divorce Warning…
Here’s What to Do When Your Spouse Says “I don’t love you anymore!”
http://www.KeepYourMarriage.com
Atheism Ads
Marriage Counseling
Marriage Counselor
Marriage Certificate
Marriage Quotes
Marriage Therapist
(Continued from Page 1)
Taking Chris’ first two points together, we can address them by taking a look at just what marriage is in the first place. Setting aside all of the loaded arguments about raising children and heterosexual relationships, the most fundamental characteristic of civil marriage which differentiates it from other contractual relationships is the fact that it establishes, legally, socially, and morally, a new kinship — and by extension, a new family.
A group of people can sign a contract for the purpose of setting up a new business, but they don’t thereby become kin or family. Two people can sign a contract assigning one the legal authority to make medical decisions for the other, but they don’t thereby become kin or family. Two people can sign a contract to jointly share property, but they don’t thereby become kin or a family.
When two people marry, however, they do become kin — they are now related to each other. Furthermore, they also establish kinship ties with one another’s families — and in some cultures, establishing kinship ties between the two families has been regarded as the purpose of marriage, not establishing kinship ties between the two people actually getting married.
All of this is makes marriage fairly unique among all other sorts of contracts that can exist in society — only adoption is at all similar. In fact, this is the one characteristic of marriage which seems to be common to all forms of marriage in all cultures and societies through time. The only natural kinship ties are biological, and the only obvious biological kinship which exists is that between a mother and her children. All other kinship ties are established through culture — even fatherhood, which is often as much a matter of social convention as it is assumed biological paternity.
Kinship and familial relationships create the smallest social units of any society. The importance of kinship as a means for structuring relationships and behavior is evinced in the way societies have had so many systems (formal and informal) for establishing pseudo-kinship between people who have no biological relationship and for whom there are no means for creating traditional kinship ties. Common examples of this are the informal ways people refer to one another as “uncle” or “son” regardless of actual familial ties, the prevalence of “blood brotherhood” ceremonies in various groups, and ritual kinship bonds created by different social groups.
Kinship is an important thread in the social fabric. It isn’t an “institution” like marriage because there are generally no specific legal, religious, or social rules regulating it. Kinship is, instead, an amorphous creation of many other institutions which help people structure their relationships with one another.
If you know that someone is your kin, you know that you have different legal, social, and moral obligations to them than you do to total strangers. If you know that two people are kin, you know that they not only have different obligations to each other than they do to you, but also that you have different obligations to them as a group then you would to them as individuals if they weren’t kin.
Marriage establishes a relationship which does not and cannot exist for people who are simply living together. However much a cohabiting couple may love each other and however long they may have been together, their relationship is not such that it can be described as “kin” and, as a consequence, they cannot make any legal, social, or moral claims on others to treat them individually and jointly as if they were kin.
November 4, 2009 at 11:51 pm
(Continued from Page 2)
There are many situations where kinship creates bonds and obligations not otherwise available to people. Commonly cited is the example of a person who has been in a serious accident and who needs someone to make major medical decisions for them — perhaps even the decision to take them off life support. Whom do the doctors wish to speak to? The next of kin. If married, the “next of kin” is always the spouse, and if that person is not available, the doctors move through children, parents, and siblings.
Gay activists often use a situation like this to point out the injustice done to gay couples who cannot marry, but I wanted to bring it up in order to ask you to take a fresh look at it. Why is the “next of kin” the spouse? After all, doesn’t a person have a stronger biological relationship with parents or children? Yes, but a stronger biological relationship isn’t the same as a stronger kinship relationship.
The relationship with a spouse is often treated as more important because it is a chosen relationship. You can’t choose your parents or children, but you can choose your spouse — the person you wish to spend your life with, share all levels of intimacy with, and establish a family with.
Heterosexual couples have the option to establish kinship with one another by marrying. Homosexual couples, whose love and intimacy cannot be judged as any less valuable or significant than those of straight people, do not have this option: they cannot form a kinship bond with one another. Because of this, their relationships are at a social disadvantage. There is, after all, much more to being “kin” than the legal benefits like what I describe above.
To begin with, there exist important moral obligations kin owe one another. These obligations may be enforced legally, as in some cases with marriage, but very often they are informal and unspoken yet nevertheless supported by one’s social milieu. Kin are expected to, wherever possible, financially and emotionally support one another when a crisis hits. A man who lets his mother become homeless will be ostracized by those around him, while siblings are expected to support one another when there is a death in the family.
The flip side of this are the obligations which the rest of the community owes to those who are tied together through kinship bonds. People who are kin are not supposed to be treated as if they were complete strangers to one another. If you invite a married man to a party, it is expected that the invitation is also extended to his wife — to deliberately exclude her would be a serious insult which would not exist if you invited one roommate but not the other. When a woman’s son achieves some success, you congratulate her as well — you wouldn’t act as though she had no significant connection to him.
November 4, 2009 at 11:53 pm
(Continued from Page 3)
To return to the points made by Chris Burgwald, but which are certainly made in various ways by many others who argue against gay marriage: is there any social and moral significance to the marriage certificate which goes above and beyond merely living together and which gay couples are justified in desiring for themselves? Absolutely — just like there is social and moral significance to marriage which straight couples are justified in desiring for themselves.
There should be no puzzlement over a gay couple, whose love and relationship may be every bit as deep and enduring as a those of a straight couple, would want to become recognized as kin, thus creating a new relationship and new ties not otherwise available. There is also no surprise that many gay couples have chosen to have one “adopt” the other, which is the only way such a bond is even remotely available to them outside of marriage.
Yes, gays are asking the body-politic to recognize their relationships as being kinship bonds — and there is no good reason why they shouldn’t be so recognized. There is nothing about the relationships of straight couples which makes them any more “worthy” of legal, social, and moral obligations we traditionally structure as “marriage.”
But what about Chris’ final question, “why am I being forced to acknowledge gay relationship as marriage?” As a private citizen, he would be under no such obligation — at least not legally. He would be under no more obligation to acknowledge the marriage to two men or two women then he would be to acknowledge any other marriage — the marriage of a Catholic and a Jew, the marriage of a white woman and a black man, the marriage of an 60-year-old and an 18-year-old, or my own marriage for that matter.
There will be social pressures to acknowledge gay unions as marriages, however, just as there are social pressures to acknowledge the other listed relationships as marriages. When a person acts as though a spouse is little more than a random stranger, that will normally be perceived as an insult — and with good reason. But if Chris Burgwald or anyone else chooses to act in such a fashion, they will be as free to do so with gay marriages as they are to do so with other marriages today.
In summary, what’s the point of gay marriage? The point of gay marriage is the point of all marriage. Marriage is different from other contractual relationships because it creates bonds of kinship. These bonds are in turn different and more important than other bonds: they create significant moral, social, and legal obligations both for those who are married and between those who are married and everyone else. Some individuals may not choose to acknowledge those obligations, but they exist and they constitute the basis of human society — a society which includes both heterosexual and homosexual human beings.
« Importance of Kinship Ties in Marriages, Families | Gay Rights, Gay Marriage »
November 6, 2009 at 8:28 am
[...] to gay marriage, but not to civil unions. Also, I found some interesting blog posts on the topic: http://hillbuzz.org/2009/11/04/wedne…-november-4th/ Thursday Open Thread: November 5, 2009 HillBuzz Frankly, I'm a little sick of straight people [...]
November 7, 2009 at 8:05 am
[...] to gay marriage, but not to civil unions. Also, I found some interesting blog posts on the topic: Wednesday Open Thread: November 4th HillBuzz Thursday Open Thread: November 5, 2009 HillBuzz Frankly, I'm a little sick of straight people [...]
November 21, 2009 at 10:42 pm
[...] to gay marriage, but not to civil unions. Also, I found some interesting blog posts on the topic: Wednesday Open Thread: November 4th HillBuzz Thursday Open Thread: November 5, 2009 HillBuzz Frankly, I'm a little sick of straight people [...]
December 21, 2009 at 6:10 pm
[...] to gay marriage, but not to civil unions. Also, I found some interesting blog posts on the topic: Wednesday Open Thread: November 4th HillBuzz Thursday Open Thread: November 5, 2009 HillBuzz Frankly, I'm a little sick of straight people [...]