Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Henri:

You hit three points, but I do not believe your viewpoint to be accurate.
1) The war on Iraq is most certainly tied to terrorism, but is also tied to holding countries and leaders accountable. By holding Saddam accountable to his many promises (rather than simply eliciting new and different promises for him to discard later), the US has shown the world that we will not sit back and watch. We will engage. Libya’s startling concession shows the effectiveness of this policy, though of course naysayers are pretending that Col. Khaddaffi’s (sp) sudden change of heart is mere coincidence.

2)The economy is cyclical—that much we know. We now know that the economy of the late 90’s was in fact a bubble economy, yet many still credit Clinton with creating “the greatest economy in US history”. Amongst the many UNknowns is this known fact: the economy is improving. It has far to go, and jobs need to be created. But to suggest that this particular economy is a bubble is to retain the firm grasp of pessimism that seems to emanate from members of the Democratic party.
3)My question on the gay marriage controversy is this: Are there ANY lines to be drawn regarding marriage? Seems to me that everyone has lines they draw, but the question is where they draw them. The logical extensions of this argument are clear. If gay marriage is acceptable, then polygamy should also be, as should marriage of brother and sister. Lest someone rail against these examples as far out fantasy, know that currently a case sits before judges where polygamists are using identical rationale for their cause: if we love each other, why should anyone forbid us to marry.

America is a great nation, and is continuing on a great path. The SOTU gave many examples of how we scale the global heights to make ourselves a great and strong nation.

Henri.

What is your “who took office based on a lie” line in reference to? I’m sure you’ve covered this view before, but I am unfamiliar with your argument.

As for the drain of middle class wealth via second mortgages or equity drain, I believe this to be a mid 90s phenomenon, as testified by my friend in the mortgage business (about 5 years ago he built a really big house).

Same for the nano tech bubble. Just as President Clinton did not force us to invest in Internet companies with no earnings or 60-100PEs, I fail to see the President’s impact on the free market with regards to nano technology.

As for the gay marriage thing, that was shot at Senator Kerry and his home State. And, as a Libertarian, I certainly believe that Mass should be allowed to have as many same sex marriages as they want up there. That’s why I don’t live there. The President merely protected my State’s right to self determination on this argument.

Bush protected a state’s right to self determination by saying we should have a Constitutional Amendment stating marriage is only heterosexual? I’m pretty sure the Constitution governs all states, thereby imposing on them and removing this right for states to make their own decisions.

“Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.”

I’d say the “activist judges” remark pretty clearly speaks to what was mentioned, but does so in a negative light since he seeks to prevent future decisions like this through the “constitutional process.”

Also, comparing this case to polygamy and incest (even if those cases are using the argument) seems absurd to me. While I see the connection between them with the “we can love anyone we want” notion, I don’t believe this is entirely thought out.

Marriage, as far as the law is concerned, is merely the joining of two people’s lives from a legal standpoint. This allows benefits in taxes, insurance and other areas. The polygamy argument does not apply since marriage is an exclusive contract between two people. As for incestuous situations, these are not allowed because of the danger posed to their offspring of developing a genetic defect.

I agree with Henri that we cannot allow an amendment that would take away rights from only a certain portion of our citizenship. The argument against same sex marriage from a legal standpoint doesn’t make much sense to me. People may not agree with it and have personal and religious beliefs opposed to it, but these should not be used as reasons to make new laws.

I’m not saying personal opinion and the ethics brought in by religion should be ignored in the law making process, I simply feel that religious views should not be used to justify law.

Paul:

I understand your points regarding gay marriage and incest and polygamy, and while you feel the latter two are not acceptable. Yet please understand that it is the DEFINITION of marriage that is being changed by those in favor of gay marriage, and that the polygamists I mentioned are attempting to do the same.

If marriage is, as you say, a legal mechanism for joining people together, how does it limit the number of people to be joined. Legal business ventures include any number of people legally joined together in partnership—why should marriage be any different?

My rationale is that all of these issues form a very slippery slope. I prefer to stay off that slope altogether.

It’s just plain silly to think that legalizing gay marriage automatically or logically leads to the legalization of polygamy or sibling marriage. Just plain silly.

It’s like saying that if it’s legal for citizens to own handguns then logically citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs. (they’re just different kinds of arms!)

It’s like saying that if it’s legal for citizens to kill turkeys then logically citizens should be allowed to kill calfornia condors. (they’re just different kinds of birds!)

It’s like saying that if it’s legal for citizens to buy stocks based on public information then logically citizens should be allowed to buy stocks based on insider information. (they’re just different kinds of information!)

It’s like saying that if it’s legal for citizens to take a tylenol then logically citizens should be allowed to snort cocaine. (they’re just different kinds of drugs!)

…

Our laws are not intended to be rigidly logical systems like programming languages or geometry. They are intended to reflect a national consensus of morality and ethics and how we think the mechanics of our society should be run. Because of this, it is perfectly normal that our laws should contain seemingly contradictory messages.

We often try to identify “axioms” to ground our laws, foundation principles from which the answers to all legal questions can be resolved. It is taken as axiomatic, for example, that in America free speech is sacred. Yet this “axiom” is full of generally accepted exceptions - sedition, libel/slander, incitement, pornography, etc.

(libertarians cringe at this idea, and in response they essentially bury their heads in the sand and try to construct logically consistent legal systems based on simple foundation axioms, leading to absurd reductions like “freedom of property —> freedom to own slaves”. There’s probably a reason why so many computer programmers and OCD sufferers are libertarians)

…

So, how is it that legalizing gay marriage DOES NOT lead to polygamy, child-marriage, beastiality, etc?

Because the legal grounds for gay marriage is not that “a citizen should be allowed to marry anyone he or she loves”. Nobody is making that argument.

The reason for legalizing gay marriage is much more simple than that. It’s that (in the opinion of gay marriage advocates) maybe the country is becoming one in which gay people are no longer hated by the majority. Maybe our morality is changing to such a degree that, yeah, maybe we don’t hate gays anymore and maybe we can start letting them have the same rights that we have.

Maybe someday we will become a society in which gays and straights are equal under the law. Maybe in the future we will become a society where comraderie, friendship, and love for our gay brothers and sisters will be considered normal.

But hey, we still detest pedophiles and polygamists! I don’t think we’ve reached a point where we’ve changed our morals about that. And - this is important - it’s absolutely insane to think that when society edges towards loving gay people that it’s edging away from hating pedophiles and polygamists.

My opinion on this is quite simple: Those who are opposed to gay marriage ultimately must rest their arguments on their own personal philosophical hatred (or fear) of gay people. It’s that simple. I wish they’d just say it so that we could see that behind the “compassionate conservative” lies a plain old gay hater. These days, conservatives try to hide this stance behind a fig leaf of pretend tolerance, but you know that behind the facade the anti-gay philosophy is real (you wont, for example, hear Bush actually call homosexuality “disgusting”, and you won’t hear him say “the world would be a better place if there was no homosexuality” - though it’s clear that he beleives both).

It still shocks me every day that anyone can be opposed to the happiness of - or even the existence of - gay people just for being gay. I wish that *all* conservatives would at least be as honest about their views on this as the Christian right usually is (just skip right to the venomous hate speech already!) so at least gay-tolerant swing voter Americans wouldn’t be tricked by “compassionate conservatism” and would see these people for what they are.

On a side note it is interesting, however, that most of the people really talking a lot about gay marriage - indeed, the only people making graphic references to homosexual acts in our law books and public debates - are those that oppose it and hate it. It’s an old saw that the most vocal homophobes are often the most latent homosexuals of all. I don’t think it’s that simple, but I sometimes wonder if homophobia isn’t a kind of “third way” sexual orientation, one in which a straight-acting person is obsessed with homosexuality. Would any Watchblog homophobes please tell me if I am right about this?

-Cf

“What is your “who took office based on a lie” line in reference to? I’m sure you’ve covered this view before, but I am unfamiliar with your argument.”

George,

That he could not have been appointed by a Supreme Court without the lie that someone’s rights were being damaged by the recount is clear. Many better legal scholars than I could become in another lifetime have made that case for me. Vincent Bugliosi’s book is clear enough for me on that issue.

There were so many lies told in the runup to, and the aftermath of that election that sorting out which ones to blame for the miscarrige of justice that occurred becomes time consuming. The big lie is that he was legally elected at all. The case for that exists in enough places that I think we can forgo that conversation in these pages. Rehashing it will not solve the problem of his presence in the White House. Read the history of the false Felon list if you want to know about another lie that changed the outcome.

“As for the drain of middle class wealth via second mortgages or equity drain, I believe this to be a mid 90s phenomenon, as testified by my friend in the mortgage business (about 5 years ago he built a really big house).”

George,
In an expanding economy the runup in home values is more likely to survive the test of time, our economy will not continue the current short term expansion driven by government spending and consumption of home values. In regard to the Real Estate bubble read the “Economist” a fine British mag with no Axe to grind that could result in their analysis of our current RE prices as a bubble. Nice for your friend, my son-in-law made a bit of coin on that market too, but that was not the story for the average Middle Class person who bought a home in the “roaring” nineties.

The average folks lost value in pension funds and other investments at the end of that stretch. Some two million lost jobs have not been replaced. The bursting of the Real Estate bubble will destroy more equity than the increase in private debt since 2000 has, but the debt burden without equity to offset it may provide the final straw for millions of homeowners. In a “Buyer Beware” world that is just another fact. But since it was driven by the government’s call for “Patriotic Spending”, and fueled by the Federal Reserve free money plan a lot more people bought in to it than might have without the interference of the Government and its bankers.

“Same for the nano tech bubble. Just as President Clinton did not force us to invest in Internet companies with no earnings or 60-100PEs, I fail to see the President’s impact on the free market with regards to nano technology.”

George
It is clear that one of the benefits of the free flowing money delivered by the mistaken fiscal policies of this Administration is a renewed freedom to gamble in the Stock Market. The upswing in stock prices which are not being held up by P/E ratios is based on freely flowing money from the Fed. Stock prices are being held up by demand side pricing based on available dollars from the quick runup of older companies into the 35/1 ratio territory using projected earnings. The nanotech stocks are flying on empty in infinity territory as they have no earnings.

Clinton helped his bubble along, as did Greenspan. So has Bush in regard to his multiple bubbles with the most fiscally irresponsible Presidency in history. Nanotech is a bubble that exists in part because there is money from unassessed taxes lying around. Fiscal discipline would demand a tightening of government purse strings along with a higher cost for money and higher taxes. That cannot happen until the election is over or the air might come out of these bubbles quickly and hurt the shrub’s chance to become a two term tree.

“As for the gay marriage thing, that was shot at Senator Kerry and his home State. And, as a Libertarian, I certainly believe that Mass should be allowed to have as many same sex marriages as they want up there. That’s why I don’t live there. The President merely protected my State’s right to self determination on this argument.”

George,
In differing with you on this I am somewhat surprised that a self named Libertarian cares about people’s sexual preferences enough to use the laws of his state to oppress them. Of course the implied offer by Bush to his base of support for a constitutional ammendment to “protect” marriage is ignored in your comment. That ammendment would be the first ammendment in the constitution to single out any group for exclusion from any social contract allowed by the government. This is hardly a Libertarian stance from what I know of Libertarianism.
Henri

Paul:

“Bush protected a state’s right to self determination by saying we should have a Constitutional Amendment stating marriage is only heterosexual? I’m pretty sure the Constitution governs all states, thereby imposing on them and removing this right for states to make their own decisions.”

The Constitution does indeed govern all of the States, and therefore a Constitutional Amendment requires ratification by all 50 State legislations. If the Mass court rulings are upheld then the States will have to amend the Constitution to re-assert their self determination. Then, once again, this issue can be settled on a State by State basis as it is now and, I believe, as it should be.

Henri. Thanks for the reply.

I see that we will have to agree to disagree on these, as I find your arguments especially hard to believe. But I do recognize and even relish that there are people who do not think the way that I do in this wonderful country.

As for my Libertarian views, the reason there is no viable Libertarian Party, even though many would say that their views are in line with this way of thinking (polls often show this) is that to apply libertarian logic to all circumstances would mean that there could be no government. And how can you have a Libertarian Party if there is no government.

Thanks for the insight.

Peace

George, you don’t understand! The proposed Constitutional amendment would *forbid* states from allowing gay marriage, even if the majority of the citizens and legislators within the state wanted. With such an amendment, the whole question becomes moot and individual states lose any right to decide *either way*.

Also, for the record, a constitutional amendment only requires 3/4 of the states to pass, not all 50 as you assert. If 1/4 of the states don’t like it they’re pretty much screwed. So much for states’ rights! (Why is it that only Republicans propose Constitutional amendments these days, seemingly at the drop of a hat? Could it be because they seek to impose their agenda on the nation even if a significant minority opposes the opinion?)

See: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5

Anyway, I stand by my assertion that as much as people who are anti-gay-marriage may try to couch their opinions in libertarian rhetoric, states-rights theories, and doomsday (polygamy!) scenarios, ultimately the anti-gay-marriage position rests on a deep-seeded, illogical, evil, and bigoted opinion that gay people deserve to suffer.

-Cf

You are correct on the 3/4 States thing as I am far removed from my GINT classes sometimes! I do not, however, interpret GWB’s call for an amendment as to “forbid” the States. That does not make sense, and why would the States agree to vote on an Amendment, at the request of the President, to specifically forbid them selves of the right to determine this issue?

My understanding is that the Amendment would specifically exempt this issue from the full faith and credit provision of the Constitution, similar to the DOMA of 1996 signed by WJC, and allow each State to determine their own laws on this issue. This is what is being addressed by the Mass court.

Christopher, my opposition to gay marriage is certainly not based on deep seeded vengeance on gays. I’m not hiding behind the States Rights argument in an attempt to hide my true intentions, I actually believe in States Rights. Do not throw away a friend based on that leap.

Thanks for the reply, and if I’m missing the boat here please enlighten me.

George,

1) You’re saying the proposed Constitutional amendment in question doesn’t say, in effect that “Marriage between two members of the same sex is prohibited”? There are probably several flavors of this amendment floating around these days, and my guess is that the one you describe (in which each state can decide whether or not to recognize marriages performed in other states) is not the version most conservatives are looking to pass. My guess is that most conservatives are in favor of the outright ban.

As introduced by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., the “Federal Marriage Amendment”, which is generally what we’re talking about here, states:

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups”

Seems pretty unambiguous to me. No gay marriages allowed anywhere, period, even if individual states want it. IO think your interpretation is “I’m not a homophobe, I’m a states-rights advocate” wishful thinking.

2) If you are not anti-gay, then why are you against gay marriage, even in your own state? I don’t throw away potential friends lightly (and I apologize for any offence if you are not guilty), but the way I see things either:
(a) you’re kidding yourself about how you feel about gay people - that you’re actually anti-gay and unwilling to admit it;
(b) I profoundly misunderstand people who think that gay people should be treated differently than straight people - that there is something besides homophobia at work, something more altruistic and kind; or
(c) you have constructed some kind of idiosyncratic or highly-nuanced “gays-are-totally-awesome-but-marriage-isn’t-right-for-them” position.

I am honestly baffled by the idea that “anti-gay-marriage” does not equate with “anti-gay-people”. And don’t give me that “hate the sin, not the sinner” junk either.

-Cf

Christopher Fahey, in your last comment you are critiquing George as a person on the basis of his views and arguments. That is not permitted here at WatchBlog. As it states at the top of each column, our policy is Critique The Message, Not The Messenger

You have important viewpoints of your own to express and your participation at WatchBlog is greatly appreciated. I must ask that you comply with that policy, however. Thank you.

Christopher:

I do not think that gay people should be treated any differently than straight people, and my argument was, as my earlier post stated, centered around my personal beliefs in how government should work. I’ll end that there as I do not want to upset the moderator.

(George, nothing about the topic is in any way a problem. It is an important political topic. Commentors are required to direct their critique and or criticism at the merits of each other’s arguments, not at each other as persons. So feel free to pursue the topic if you wish, that is fine. —WatchBlog Manager —)

As to the Constitutional Amendment, I would not support the proposed amendment that you cite as it takes away the State’s ability to decide who it give marriage license to. How I feel about gay people, straight people, or any kind of people really does not factor in to my decision making process.

Peace

Dear WatchBlog manager,

You accuse me of levying a personal insult to George.

I said that people who are anti-gay-marriage are, in effect, anti-gay. George claims that he is not anti-gay, but he didn’t explain how that was possible in light of his clearly expressed view on gay marriage. I asked him to explain the reasoning behind his view because I honestly didn’t see how he was able to reconcile the two opinions. I still wish to know the answer because I think that George represents the viewpoint of a large percentage of Americans: people who are very nice people who — perhaps subconsciously, perhaps even contrary to their stated views — at their core don’t like gay people.

Is calling someone anti-gay a personal insult? It would be simple libel if the person was actually not anti-gay - that is, it would be a lie. But calling someone anti-gay for expressing an anti-gay viewpoint is, by plain logic, not an insult. Sadly, *millions* of Americans wear the “anti-gay” label with pride. So it’s a big assumption to say that calling a person “anti-gay” is an insult at all, personal or otherwise, when millions of people think it’s a badge of honor.

Honestly, I was hoping to understand (and maybe someday help) people like George, who may subconsciously hold anti-gay beleifs but not even know it because of a mountain of rhetorical rationalizations. In a way, George’s politics might be a kind of microcosmic model of the American political middle: a world where kind, loving, fair-minded people understand and will readily agree that anti-gay views are detestable — and yet who clearly advocate anti-gay political policies.

I’ve known people with love and fairness in their hearts but who’d grown up around so much racism that they didn’t even realize that they had racist views. Homophobia is similar: a great many people are homophobes in their political opinions (the majority of Americans, if you go by a startling recent NY Times poll) but not in their intellectual and personal lives.

The first step to defeating one’s own prejudices is to admit they exist. It is not a personal insult to say that a person should investigate the roots of their political views. When the WatchBlog manager accuses me of an inappropriate argument for calling prejudice prejudice, I am saddened. There’s a strange dynamic around prejudice: our nation has come so far that we all now acknowlege that prejudice is a bad thing - it’s so bad, in fact, that prejudiced people can no longer publicly admit they are prejudiced. It’s so bad that prejudiced people are forced to construct personal rationalizations around their prejudice. It’s so bad, in fact, that we are not even permitted to point out prejudice where it clearly exists.

I apologized to George in advance of asking him to explain his ‘personal’ views, and, out of politeness, I clearly indicated that it was possible that his views could be non-prejudiced. Even in light of WatchBlog’s “Critique The Message, Not The Messenger” policy, I don’t think that I crossed the line.

Obviously we cannot speak about the roots of public policy homophobia without talking about our ‘personal’ opinions, so perhaps you’re saying that we can’t talk about homophobia here?

-Cf

(Please reread your comments to George in question. The crossing of the line is obvious if you can stand in the recipients shoes of your comments, specifically 1) and 3). Please view my comment embedded in George’s last comment on the subject matter. —WatchBlog Manager— If you wish to reply to me further, please do so to editor@watchblog.com. Thanks.)

> As to the Constitutional Amendment, I would
> not support the proposed amendment that you
> cite as it takes away the State’s ability to
> decide who it give marriage license to.

That’s a strange reason not to support it. My opposition to it is more straightforward: I don’t support the “Family Marriage Amendment” because it is hateful and bigoted. That’s reason enough for me.

-Cf

George wrote:
> I do not think that gay people should be
> treated any differently than straight
> people, and my argument was, as my earlier
> post stated, centered around my personal
> beliefs in how government should work.

George wrote earlier in this thread:
> And, as a Libertarian, I certainly believe
> that Mass should be allowed to have as
> many same sex marriages as they want up
> there. That’s why I don’t live there. The
> President merely protected my State’s
> right to self determination on this
> argument.

I don’t get it, am I misunderstanding your “that’s why I don’t live there” comment? How is it possible that you (well, okay, not *you personally* but, let’s say, a theoretical person like you who holds these same opinions) can hold these two beleifs (a-that gays and straights shouldn’t be treated any differently, and b-that you don’t want to live in a state where gay marriage is permitted)?

It’s encouraging that people think it’s okay for other states to have gay marriage, but it’s discouraging that people still oppose it in their own state.

-Cf

CF. I will end this by saying that you must understand that not all people feel the same way as you do. That is encouraging, not discouraging. Please feel free to contact me via e-mail if you would like to discuss further (so we don’t get in trouble!). I look forward to blogging with you in the future, as I enjoy varying opinions on any subject. That is why I read all three columns on the WatchBlog.

Peace

Everytime some legal decision doesn’t go their way (like school prayer, flag burning, or gay marriage) some people decide it’s time for a constitutional amendment. Now if these matters were endangering the health of our democracy, interfering with the operation of the republic, there’d be good cause to intervene.

But over gay marriage? First, it’s not that common of an occurence, like slavery was. There aren’t whole sections of the country where most men exclusively want to wed other men, or most women other women. This is a minor matter at best, hardly worth the effort or the significance of amending the constitution over.

I mean, even if one sees open, unpunished homosexuality as a problem, why does it demand all that much attention? Nature ensures that the vast majority of men and women seek out the opposite sex.

In my opinion, when the relationship is between two consenting adults, and involves no crimes against property or person, we have no business intervening. If an underage individual is involved, then, God yes, intervene. If the people in question are having sex with farm animals, be my guest, prosecute. But otherwise, we should honor people’s privacy as we expect others to honor ours.

Is Sen. Kennedy (you know, the murderer) on his last leg or what? He looks terrible. Rolling his beedy little eyes and snickering to himself does not suit him well. He is by far the least classy Kennedy of all.

Well, Lukin, the guy is likely approaching his seventies. To quote Yoda, When nine-hundred years you reach, look as good you will not!

And no, he’s not a murderer, though he was negligent, and by that, somewhat responsible for the death of that young woman. He’ll never be president, never live down the shame of that. As for snickering to himself, the prize goes to a certain unnamed Louisiana senator who could be observed mouthing the words “This is such B—-S—-” during Bush’s speech.

A sentiment I share. Bush is great at playing the visionary, at acting like he’s got grand, profound wisdom for everybody to share, but really, when it comes down to it, the man is unclear on the concept of how to lead people who do not automatically agree with him.

He doesn’t even allow an ounce of dissent. It’s lockstep, or he declares you an enemy. The result is his party is acting without moderation, and that, let me tell you, will cost him and other Republicans votes.

Trouble is, Bush treats every frustration of his aims and design as a test of his confidence or his will. He’ll get things right, if people just don’t demand results immediately, and as long as everbody blames his problems on his predecessor

Bush must learn humility and compromise, or his lack of humility will compromise him.

What have we done about WMD in North Korea (a democracy?) or Pakistan (another democracy?)

What have we done to bring democracy to the Middle East in the cases of Egipt, Saudi Arabia, etc? or they do not deserve democracy?

What have we done in respect to the normalization of trade and relations with Cuba?

What have we done respect the new treaty with some Central American countries that open totaly their borders to our trade, and we paid them with a promise to lift quotas and barriers to their agricultural products (90% of their exports)?

What happened about the environment and Kioto?

US Foreign relations have never been so bad as they are now. That means that hate against the US is higher than ever, therefore more people may be willing to hurt US interests than before. Why the Democratic party is not taking a strong stance on this, while US Servicemen are killing themselves in Irak?

Charly, I appreciate your questions, and I don’t have answers for them all. I would like to ask however, why so many Americans believe that the rest of the world has to become democratized in our image? We are currently showing the rest of the world how dangerous democracy can for other countries. We invaded Iraq against the will of the rest of the world’s people and most of the rest of the world’s governments. Now we are asking all those other countries to come in and clean up our mess in Iraq and move their military in to be killed instead of our boys and girls being killed.
Our democracy has enough nukes to extinguish the human race, and we are working on designing newer ones. We are the world’s largest guns and arms developer and exporter. We now want to put nukes over the heads of every other nation in the world in low orbit, and at the same time, we are asking everyone else to disarm their nuclear capability.
This seems to me to fail to demonstate the example that democracy is the best form of government.

China is dealing with massive problems reasonably well - problems that could never be solved under a democracy. So, why is it we Americans assume that other nations will be safer if they become democratic? We are the world’s largest democracy and look at what a threat we are becoming to other nations in the world.