I'm sooooooo glad the Senate...

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 10:31am

... has so little real work to do that we can play political touch football on the Commons.

And my family wonders why I moved to Canada.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/09gays.html?ex=1089950400&en=04eaacce3276f1f7&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLEhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/09gays.html?ex=1089950400&en=04eaacce3276f1f7&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/09gays.html?ex=1089950400&en=04eaacce3276f1f7&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[ckeaton]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 11:30am

Ms. Cutter noted that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards have said they support gay rights, oppose gay marriage.

Isn't that safe.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 11:39am

Yeah, it's safe, but it's safer than pandering to the ultra-right and trying to force a vote right in the middle of the election all for political advantage.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 11:42am

Political dis-advantage to me.

I would think that pissing off half the country even more, plus an additional 10-20% of your own supporters would be a grave mistake.

I just don't understand this one. This is one of the few issues that has caused me to teeter a bit.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 12:33pm

Because they see the base of religiously conservative voters as far more acceptable and, one must assume, larger in number than the more socially moderate/fiscally conservative base. Republicans have made their stamp on America in the last 20 years by touting "values" and "morals" (in quotes since they're their own version of what those should be) and attempting to cast anyone not in step with their views as out of touch with America. For the really ridiculous people who feel that moral edict must be legislated (and really, Dubya, what's the difference between "activist" judges telling us what to do and you?), this is a wonderful thing because then they can villify anyone who doesn't stand up and vote yes for discrimination as anti-Christian.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 12:46pm

It should read gay "marriage". It's not about marriage, it's about equal rights. They can call it the gay-union-bop-shelang-a-lang as far as I'm concerned as long as it means equal, and I mena EQUAL rights.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 12:48pm

Gay-union-bop-shelang-a-lang?
I LIKE IT!
That's my new philosophy!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 2:58pm

in 2003, according to the following poll it's 56% against and 30% for specifically gay marriage, the numbers are more even when it looks at the idea of civil unions.

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1567690.html

however>http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1567690.html>http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1567690.html

however as of february the numbers have gotten more clear as evidenced here where 62% oppose the idea of gay marriage and 59% support the idea of a constitutional amendment banning it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml

the>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml

the gop is playing a numbers game. regardless of how it may seem in an insular community like this which is dominated by a left leaning constituency that has a gay population many times that of the country as a whole, gay marriage is unpopular and the numbers show that. i'm not saying that it's not a particularly craven form of election year politics, but if i'm seeing a 62% majority on one side of an issue and i want to hurt my opponent, i want to get him clearly identified as siding with the 30%. i'm not saying it's right, but that's why they're doing it in my opinion.

Updated On: 7/9/04 at 02:58 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:15pm

That is exactly what they are doing. And it's a sick country we live in that is so proud to hate. America should always be above this kind of crap. But, we aren't. Once again.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:36pm

now, jrb, try to be objective for a sec. if you know that 60% of the people oppose you on an issue, do you make it an issue in an election year? because it could be said that the gop's hand was forced by mayors taking the law into their own hands and judges deciding cases clearly in opposition to the prevailing public sentiments.

did they think that the right was going to sit back and do nothing? by their actions, they forced a debate and discussion which is good, but in which they are unfortunately on the short end of the stick. plus by several persons acting in ways outside the law, they riled up the law and order folk (who are still the majority). looking at it from that perspective, it could be construed that had they calmly pursued legal avenues, specifically civil unions which poll markedly better, their actions might not have forced the issue.

but let's be honest, did anyone think that the right was going to do nothing? did they think that a 60% majority opposition was going to do nothing? to insist that this is merely the republican right flexing their muscles is a bit disingenuous. the activists wanted a public debate and wanted just as the right wing does to see a clear line drawn so that their candidates would have to take a stand. well, they will take a stand, usually for whatever their constituencies favor and that's still running against gay marriage.

Updated On: 7/9/04 at 03:36 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:46pm

papa--my post wasn't exactly denouncing the GOPs for playing politics. No, I don't blame them. It does disgust me a little that my rights in this country are so menial as to be game for such, but I don't ultimately blame them.

My post is in disgust with a country that is proud of its hate. We have a history of hate. And, it took "activist" judges and progressive politicians (both GOP and Dem) to do the right thing and go against the majority on issues where the majority was wrong. At one time, the majority was in favor of slavery, segregation, not allowing interracial marriages, etc. Now, history is repeating itself once again.

The question is where do these politicians want to align themselves when history takes a look back? Would a politician be proud of a racist vote?

In the end, I'm not as worried that this tactic will help Bush/GOPs or hurt Kerry/Dems. People who would be that strongly affected by gay marriage will be voting for who they were voting for anyway. I think the swing voters have much more to be concerned with than gay marriage.

And, even if Kerry and Edwards DO NOT believe in gays having the right to marry, I would rather have them in office not trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment and otherwise standing up for gay equal rights than a man who has full out attacked gays and lesbians and will never do anything to support gay equal rights.

Updated On: 7/9/04 at 03:46 PM

[ckeaton]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:49pm

As usual papa saves the day when it comes to describing the opposing political viewpoint. I don't know what I would do without a balanced argument. Even if you disagree... you have to admit that it's nice to have a conversation with two sides.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:57pm

"[t]he question is where do these politicians want to align themselves when history takes a look back? [w]ould a politician be proud of a racist vote?"

they'll align themselves with whatever will get them re-elected. then they'll spin that to say that they can do more good working from the inside where they can make your concerns felt. and as far as the racist pride vote, two words: trent lott (who still polls higher among african americans in mississippi than anybody else).

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:59pm

Yes, we should all be proud of Trent Lott and racism.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:06pm

"I'm in a glass case of emotion."

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:10pm

no, we should not be proud of trent lott or racism, but you asked would a politician be proud of a racist vote, i merely showed you one who was and who consistently gets elected. when he lost his sentate majority leader position after the strom thrumond birthday speech, i had sent emails to the president and everybody in the party urging that he be forced to at the very least step down from his leadership position and at the most, yield his seat and let haley barbour pick someone to replace him.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:14pm

I'm sure his poll numbers in Hell are just as good if not better. lol

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:21pm

The really bad thing is that the people who are "terrified" of gay marriage or are stone cold against something tend to be more likely to turn out to vote AGAINST it than the poeple in favor of something....

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:24pm

wait, bg2, isn't that how ya'll are planning to beat bush?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:25pm

yes.. that is why I am hoping that everyone against Bish turns out and votes...

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:26pm

so it's only a bad thing when people vote against something that you favor, then?

[SammyGal]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:26pm

well then all must get their butts out there and vote.
No More Ignorance In The White House!

[judy_in_disguise]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 10:44pm

and once again....
this is why I love Canada.

[Broadwaybaby614]

Posted: 7/10/04 at 6:08pm

Oh so lucky, Judy, oh so very lucky...