To the socially liberal Republicans... — Page 2

There are a lot of self-loathing gays out there who deep down are ashamed and feel they owe the world an apology for being who they are. They would never admit it, but on some level they don't believe that they deserve the same rights afforded straights.

---

Updated On: 11/9/04 at 09:24 AM

well, to start with, i don't believe i made promises to anyone. i made a statement of my hopes and my beliefs for the diirection of the administration in a 2nd term.

mr. rove, pudgy little genius that he is, knows that there are 2 races still undecided down in bayou country so he's not going to back off the line that he thinks got his guy back into the white house. now, i would question why you've not got an anti-rove icon and just an anti-bush icon, but that's semantics and the "why didn't he have rove drawn and quartered for making that statement if he doesn't agree with it????????" argument would flow wildly.

while i personally disagree with the need for amendments and support a reform of the use of the word marriage and a more general civil license that would be applied equally (as i have often stated here), let's look at why mr. rove would be making such a statement. he's a political operative. he's the golden child right now, but his goose (georgie boy) is a bit of a lame duck as far as future work is concerned. by winning, karl has basically assured himself of the need to find gainful employment in at least four years. by coming out a week after the election while there are still house seats up for grabs and sayin, "oh, hey we were just kidding about that", rove would be cutting off his candidates at the knees. he would also be dooming himself should the wing nuts manage to consolidate and position themselves for total control of the republican party.

jrb, it's a week after the election. you don't turn on a dime and throw out your positions before the vote counts are official.

instead of comdemning rove and bush and wailing like banshees over their kowtowing to the toothless and those who don't normally vote because they need to have their snakes with them and the election workers generally frown on rattlesnakes in the booths, perhaps you should keep in mind that any such amendment requires a 2/3 majority in both the house and senate. so your time might just be better spent lobbying those roughly 60 representatives and more importantly aboout 12 senators from your own party whom you feel might be most receptive to such an amendment. now the fact that the gop has not even been about to get 60 votes to pass some judicial appointments should give you hope, but i think your political capital is better spent making sure that your own stay home rather than trying to convert others. concentrate on your own party, kids, because if the election showed anything it's that if it goes to the states, it just might pass.

they might be able to change some rules in the congress to help themselves with the judges, but they can't change the constitution so easily. if you're not writing letters, you should be. and not to your reps if you live in ny. research and find who's most likely to be amenable to suppporting such an amendment (most likely democrats in red states), find someone you know in that area and start working on them to lobby their friends and neighbors to write, write, write. make sure you get someone from that person's congressional district as they might file letters from out of towners in the big round file, but they do listen to constituents.

for the record, i doubt any such amendment will come to pass.

---

Papa..now you know I love you...but your post seems to be making excuses for the position of this administration on an issue that you fundamentally disagree with (I think).
What I can't understand is why talk of this amendment doesn't terrify EVERY American. Even those that feel gays shouldn't get married. This administration is proposing to write discrimination into the constitution of the United States of America! To me that's completely insane no matter what the motivation is. And if they can do it with this group who's to say what the next group will be? Who will be the political pawn in 2008? Will the gays have been beaten down enough or should we move to unwed mothers?
And conservatives should be the MOST angry about this! I mean talk about government interfering in the personal lives of citizens. Doesn't this go against the core beliefs of a conservative?
But I guess it's all about the religious right. Seperation of church and state is on it's way out...or so it appears.
And Goth...have you ever heard of internalized homophobia? When you're gay and grow up in such a hostile climate you tend to internalize some of that hate to your self. That may explain why some gays and lesbians voted for Bush. As well as a lot of other self destructive behavior many in the GLBT community might engage in.
What it boils down to, is that this President and his administration are advocating writing discrimination into our constitution. I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around that one. The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves...

he's got me blocked? lmao. that's priceless. and i didn't even gloat...much.

erik, i just think that the polls haven't even been closed a week yet. while rove might say one thing now, who knows where an administration that no longer needs the wingnut vote for anything might be in a month or two. let's see what he sketches out as his agenda in the innauguration speech and where he starts to put pressure. but either way, no amendment will go anywhere without a lot of democratic support. how can they sell filibustering judicial nominees while signing discrimination into the constitution? it will not happen.

for the record though, i love you all more than bush which is why i voted for him.

---

Updated On: 11/9/04 at 11:43 AM

See Roddikins, it's insightful posts with good grammar and no flaming, like this, that keep you off of my Block List.

---

But that's the problem. They ARE judging us by what we do...they just don't get the concept that what we do is informed by who we are.

In fact, Rodney, the Supreme Court did, in a way, recognize the inateness of homosexuality with Lawrence v. Texas.

I'm just shocked that there are people willing to roll the dice with an administration that wishes to change the Constitution in order to disenfanchise a group of tax-paying, law-abiding (thank you Larence v. Texas) Americans.

---

I just wanted to say I read your (robbiej) post and I intend to continue the conversation, but I must read Lawrence v. Texas first. Don't bother paraphrasing it, I prefer to read the whole thing.

gotham, not every straight person is interested in marriage....


there is a big difference between the outlook of "liberals" and "conservatives". Here is how I look at it.. "liberals" are not trying to force people to live like them. If you don't want to, don't.. you can put yourself anywhere on the wide spectrum that you like.. but "conservatives" are trying to force everyone into a small space on that spectrum.

You are truly hilarious!

IF liberals are good at dismissing other people's viewpoints, then conservatives are just brilliant at legislating their own brand of morality.

I'm gonna have to say that that is MUCH worse.

---

Papa, Rodeny. etc...I know that the marriage ammendmend won't pass (at least I hope so). But that doesn't matter. What does matter is this administration advocated for it as part of the RNC platform. That is bad enough. By doing that they helped spread hate and homophobia on national level.
And Goth...if fighting for the belief that discrimination is wrong and that everyone is entitled to equal rights under our constitution is forcing my beliefs on others then that is exactly what I'm doing, and will continue to do so.

Updated On: 11/9/04 at 12:27 PM

OK, Having reviewed Lawrence v. Texas (link to it below) I must point out that..

This case says that homosexuals can engage in sexual relations in their own homes that are in normal practice with the homosexual LIFESTYLE (emphasis added)

Lifestyle COULD be considered to indicate that homosexuality is a choice, not a from birth way of being such as left handedness. Like I said, you (the gay population) really need a decision that says it IS a way of being, not a choice. Lawrence v. Texas is a step in that direction, but not the whole ball of wax.

I would also point out that this was a 6-3 decision. Five gave the judgement, one concurred (O'Connor) and three disagreed (Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas)

What you really need is a strong enough case that would command a unanimous decision like Flynt v. Fallwell.

Lawrence v. Texas

The more proposals we have to ban gay marriage, the more the legality of it all will make the news. Slavery wasn't changed at the flip of a hat. State by state, slowly but surely, slavery was made illegal.
Something has huge as this won't be rectified in four years. Even if Kerry was president I can assure you that there would be no push to make gay marriage legal. I'm confident that he would leave it up to the states to decide. Which is esentialy what Bush will wind up doing.