Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Like you, I find this amendment deplorable, along with the possibility of it being used as a wedge issue.

I disagree with your reading of its significance for the general election, however. How can you read this as a good omen for the left? What it means is that you guys can’t get your side to the polls, even when issues as polarizing as this one are on the table.

Kind of like of the Iowa primaries, where the Democrats whipped the whole state into a frenzy for months and could only get 125,000 of 600,000 registered Democrats to even show up.

Martin,

The gay and lesbian community in Missouri (however small it can be in such a Conservative state) did mobilize and turned out. But, even for energized Dem voters, like most Americans, this is not high on their priority list, or that important to them. It is not a burning visceral issue like for Conservatives.

Maybe, they see Gay Marriage as inevitable, while leaving it to the courts to make it right? Remember Martin, this is in your party’s platform, not ours. We’ve got more important things to tend to - this shows what is really important to Republicans.

Bert:

I dislike the attitude that when your side loses, you need to claim it as a “hollow victory” for the “hardcore conservatives”. Sometimes a defeat is just a defeat.

Had your side won, it would have been possible to assign the same logic to a victory, just as it was possible in 2000 to claim that Gore won the popular vote, and therefore Bush was not really elected. (By the way, the idea of all votes counting is so far gone already—-I live in NY state, and I already know my vote doesnt matter since NY will go Democratic)

Bert, I also wonder if you really like civil disobedience as you stated, or whether you only like civil disobedience when you are in favor of the cause. I see many parallels between what Gavin Newsom did and what Judge Roy Moore of Alabama did. Both cases involved breaking the lesser law by claiming there is a greater more encompassing law, yet liberals were quick to condemn Moore for his actions.

Before you make your counter claim that conservatives were just as quick to condemn Newsom, let me say strongly that I have always advocated equal treatment for both men. Since they committed similar actions (ignoring a law), they deserve the consequences of those actions in their respective states. Moore was willing to accept his consequences because he felt he was right, and he knew there would be consequences. Seems to me that the left wants the ability to show civil disobedience, but then whines about the consequences. Cake and eat it too….hmmmmm do I hear a new campaign slogan>?

Bert,

As disappointed (though not surprised) as I am about the vote in Missouri, I don’t really think we can view it as a hollow victory. 1 million people voted for the amendment out of a total population of 5.6 million and 3.5 million registered voters. You’re right that it’s less than 30 percent of the registered voters, but the turnout was huge. 40 percent of registered voters voting for a primary is amazing; general elections typically get about 55 percent, and primaries typically get about 15 percent. This was a thumping.

You might be right that it’s a temporary victory. I hope you’re right. I hope that same-sex marriage eventually is legal and recognized all over the country, similar to mixed-race marriage. It definitely won’t be soon.

Joe,

I think you’re right in your comparison of Moore and Newsome. You’re also right that I disagree with Moore on all levels and disagree with Newsome only on tactics. That’s the nature of bias.

Maybe the amendment opponents didn’t bother showing up because the purpose of the amendment was to ban something that is already illegal.

We have a similar amendment drive going in Arkansas. Since it is difficult to imagine gay marriage ever being legalized in Arkansas, let them have their silly, bigoted amendment.

Joe, are you claiming that Moore didn’t “whine” about getting kicked off the court? I didn’t follow the story closely, but that seems hard to believe. There were certainly people whining on his behalf.

The Show me state
Do not move to Missouri unless you are white, conservative and straight, otherwise you may be quite unhappy. This morning Missourians are proud of their vote to add an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. Missourians have shown me something I already knew, I live in a bigoted bible banging state. This vote was no surprise but it still angers me to know so many want to deny so few a chance for a little bit of happiness.

Dennis,

Where are you in Missouri? I live in St. Louis City, the only county in the state not to support the amendment (though just barely).

Back to Bert’s original post - I agree about “hardcore Conservatives who come out for Primaries in droves, thus having a stranglehold on many state Republican Parties.”

I don’t live in Missouri but we have the same problem in my state. My question is how can we neutralize or compensate for this phenomenon? How can we keep the more radical elements from hijaking a party?

I wonder: How is it possible to include a State Constitutional Amendment on a primary ballot? In NY, if you are not registered to one of the five or six major parties, you simply cannot vote at all in the primary. If this is similar in Missouri, then the vote is patently unfair.

-Cf

David, it will be interesting to see how Giuliani, Pataki, Bloomberg, and Schwarzennegar get along with the pro-life and anti-gay factions of the GOP during the GOP convention. Bloomberg is throwing three parties during the convention, each one an effort to counter the “radical elements” within the GOP: An “Hispanic Republicans” party, a “Pro-Choice Republicans” party, and a “Gay & Lesbian Republicans” party. It will be interesting to see who goes to these parties. (He might as well throw them all at once and get all twenty people there at the same time!)

-Cf

cf,

Missouri has open primaries, so anyone can vote for any party. Each party ballot has the ballot issues on it. Additionally, I think there’s an “Independent” ballot that just has the ballot issues.

So, anyone from any party participating in the primary can vote. If you don’t care about a party, you can either pick Independent to get the ballot issues, or pick a party ballot and ignore all but the ballot issues.

In a way, it’s unfair because the Democratic primaries were much more contested than Republican primaries, which might have lead to more Democrats showing up at the polls. However, everyone has the right and access to vote, independent of party affiliation.

Woody:

Judge Moore argued his case vehemently, as I would expect anyone in those circumstances to do. He also accepted the punishments with grace. He admitted knowing there might be repercussions, and that he was willing to deal with them. That’s not to say he was going to go down without fighting. Totally different things.

What I hear from the left is that Newsom is a hero for standing up for his (and others’) rights, but that Moore is a religious zealot who is breaking the law. Seems to me that the left wants to apply the rule of law ONLY when they see fit, and not in accordance WITH the rule of law.

I have stated that both men committed essentially the same “crime” and should be dealt with in an equivalent manner. I would suggest that those who disagree with that assessment are showing their bias, though I would welcome hearing the rationale behind it.

> Newsom is a hero for standing up for his
> (and others’) rights, but that Moore is a
> religious zealot who is breaking the law.

No, Newsom is a hero for standing up for values I agree with and Moore is a zealot who is standing up for values I vehemently disagree with. What’s wrong with me having that opinion?

Obviously both of them are breaking the law. One is breaking the law on behalf of what I think is right, the other is breaking the law on behalf of what I think is wrong.

I don’t remember anybody saying that there was any difference between the two besides their political objectives. Who has argued that the two men should not be dealt with equivalently under the law? Who exactly are you arguing against here?

-Cf

joe:

As I understand it, Newsome and Moore both violated the standing laws of the US in ways that could be seen as expressing dissent through civil disobedience. However, Newsome honored the ruling of the courts on the subject when ordered to stop, while Moore ignored a court order to remove the monument. That creates a large difference between the two, especially given Moore’s position as a judge while ignoring the validity of court orders he disagreed with.

Further (though I suspect you will see this argument as partisan), many including myself also see an inherent difference in someone defying the law in order to promote his particular religion above the religions of others, and someone defying the law in order to grant others the ability to marry the people they love.

One more thing: I am fairly confident that Newsom’s actions will someday become both socially acceptable and legal while Moore’s actions will someday become socially unacceptable and will remain illegal. But in today’s world, both broke the law and both are accountable under today’s laws.

But hey, I could be wrong. More Americans accepted the theory of evolution 50 years ago than do today.

-Cf

Jarin:

Of course there are differences in opinion, but the rule of law should still be applied. If we deal with law based on what our own personal feelings are, then we lose the objectivity of the law.

This principle was undermined when people defended Bill Clinton’s lying under oath as acceptable, since it wasnt material, in their opinion, to the case at hand. In my mind, its NEVER okay to lie under oath, and allowing the witness to decide which lies are acceptable and which are not is simply lunacy.

Chris:

If you read through the thread, you will see that the commentary about Newsom began as a question to Bert about whether he likes civil disobedience, or whether he only likes civil disobedience regarding causes that he agrees with.

And, there’s a reason that evolution is a theory…its never yet been proven. Perhaps one day someone will find the proof, but in our scientific world, lets apply the concept of proof to that first.

> And, there’s a reason that evolution is a
> theory…its never yet been proven.

Joe, the theory of the atom is just a theory, too. It has never been proven. So is quantum theory. So is the idea that the earth revolves around the sun — as far as we know, the sun and all the planets and all the stars could be rotating around the earth, as Ptolomy described it in his (accurate) models. Even the idea that parallel lines do not meet is just a theory.

The expression “just a theory” applies to everything about science - nothing in science is really ever “proven”. The concept of “proof” doesn’t really exist. Nothing in science is “proven”, it is merely accepted for the time being. We “accept” theories in order to form effective working models to form a foundation for further scientific research.

Newton’s theories, for example, are considered obsolete today, replaced by Einstein’s more complex but more accurate equations to describe motion in spacetime. But Newton’s equations are still useful so nowadays some scientists (even astrophysicists) regularly use Newton’s “obsolete” equations, while others (nuclear physicists) use Einstein’s equations. Both are theories, both are useful, both are accepted, and neither is “proven”.

Most scientists and rational people “accept” the theory of evolution because it is actually useful in trying to figure out tons and tons of other stuff about nature, such as which skull predates which other skull, which animals are more likely to be able to be used for organ transplantation, how viruses develop, how climate affects animal populations.

(Plus, like every other scientific theory, the theory of evolution is inherently disprovable, a factor that most religious beliefs lack. Religious beliefs are not “theories”, and they are not science.)

There really is no other way to put this: If you reject evolution for just being a theory, then you are rejecting science itself. Or, more likely, you never quite understood the idea of what science really is. Science is not revelation or truth, it is a tool, that’s all.

-Cf

Joe:

I don’t see the law as inherently objective in the first place. There is precedent under the law for people violating certain laws under certain conditions. Justifiable homicide is one example, medical marijuana another. The difference is ultimately which standards we use to decide when violating a law is acceptable. And that comes back to personal opinion, largely.

Also, if you’re going to cite the lack of proof as a problem with teaching the theory of evolution, then you’ve got a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science doesn’t prove things. Even scientific laws are just advanced theories with a lot of supporting evidence, but even they are ultimately just theories and are not proven one way or the other. So yes, Evolution is a theory. But so is the Law of Gravity. Want to start teaching kids that apples can fall up?

Jarin and Chris:

I’m laughing since I knew my little comment would inspire heated response. Thanks for not letting me down. Jarin, at least you managed to mention the topic at hand as well.

I do understand science, and I understand that science cannot prove that evolution between species ever occurred. Nor can they disprove that the idea of creation, though scientists tend to cynically pooh-pooh one theory in favor of the other. Guess which?

Bottom line: Even evolution requires the existence of the matter that evolves. The biggest question is where did that come from. Even the “big bang” had to be predated by the materials necessary to create the big bang.

So, rather than devolve this thread further into evolution/creation and away from its original intent, I’ll leave it that my opinion is that someone or something put all the stuff there that was necessary for our world to exist.

joe:

I didn’t think my reply was all that heated, merely logical.

The main problem with elevating Creationism to the level of scientific theory is this: unlike other scientific theories, it is not inherently disprovable. Evolution can be disproved, gravity could (however unlikely) be disproved. How exactly would you go about disproving the existence of an original creator being? The only way I can think of is conclusively proving the method by which the universe was actually created (which science cannot do, it can only theorize) and even there you leave yourself open to the idea that a creator being made the universe and that this scientific process was the method he used. In the absence of a scientific way to settle the matter, it becomes (as I think it should be) a matter of individual faith. And things based on individual faith should not be taught in our school systems alongside scientific theories as if the two were interchangeable.

Also, scientific theories by nature offer predictions about the behavior of the universe under certain conditions. The theory of gravity, for instance, predicts the velocity an object of a given mass will strike the ground with if released from a given height. The theory of evolution predicted that species from which trilobites were descended would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. These precursors were subsequently found there. In what way does Creationism fulfill this necessary criteria of prediction and rise to the level of being an actual theory, as you keep insisting that it is?

But you’re right, this is getting quite off topic. If you’d like to take it to private email, let me know, I’m quite happy to continue the discussion elsewhere as long as it remains this civil.

I know I shouldn’t but I can’t resist.

Bottom line: Even evolution requires the existence of the matter that evolves. The biggest question is where did that come from. Even the “big bang” had to be predated by the materials necessary to create the big bang.

This is not necessarily true. Matter is created out of nothing all the time. Humans have even created matter from light. It’s not so much material that is needed than it is energy. You can argue that the likelihood of any amount of matter spontaneously created with enough energy to explode into what we perceive as the universe is virtually nil but in an infinite expanse of chance, it only needs to happen once.

Bert: as a left-of-center voter who _doesn’t_ support gay marriage, I find your title (and the apparant premise behind it) troubling: not all folks left-of-center have downed the kool-aid on this issue.

Joe, the question of how it all got here in the first place is one that religion will always have an answer for, and science never will. That’s the difference between science and religion: science makes theoretical explanations that can be disproven by better theories, while religion offers explanations that cannot be proven or, more importantly, disproven.

This does have an interesting relevance to gay marriage, too. I think that rejecting gay marriage and rejecting evolution both bespeak a mindset that seeks to roll back human thought and cultural progress instead of expanding it. This is, in fact, the grade-school definition of what it means to be a conservative versus being a liberal. In the case of gay rights, it’s short term reactionaryism seeking to merely halt or at least slow the progress gays have made in our society in the past century, but to oppose evolution is almost to desire to roll back human thought to pre-Enlightenment thinking.

-Cf

And, there’s a reason that evolution is a
> theory…its never yet been proven.
Joe, the theory of the atom is just a theory, too [Wrong! Have you heard of particle acceleration!-Have you heard of simple quantum computers built of individual atoms!-It is proven]. It has never been proven. So is quantum theory. So is the idea that the earth revolves around the sun — as far as we know, the sun and all the planets and all the stars could be rotating around the earth, as Ptolomy described it in his (accurate) models[ Wrong!! This is too stupid to debate!!] Even the idea that parallel lines do not meet is just a theory[Jeez!, heard of a laser?].
The expression “just a theory” applies to everything about science - nothing in science is really ever “proven”[Huh, you need to read some science, bud!!!!]. The concept of “proof” doesn’t really exist[Again, too stupid to debate-you ignorant of which you speak]. Nothing in science is “proven”, it is merely accepted for the time being. We “accept” theories in order to form effective working models to form a foundation for further scientific research[Huh! Two well known examples: Einsteins 1st theory of relativity was proven with solar eclipses in the early twentieth century, light is bent by gravity. Time moves slower on board airplanes with atomic clocks was another simple proof.]
Newton’s theories, for example, are considered obsolete today[Wrong, most of his theories are still widely used for small scale requirements, how do you thing we got to the moon, Einsteins equations are used more for large scale calculations], replaced by Einstein’s more complex but more accurate equations to describe motion in spacetime. But Newton’s equations are still useful so nowadays some scientists (even astrophysicists) regularly use Newton’s “obsolete” equations, while others (nuclear physicists) use Einstein’s equations.[Again, both are used] Both are theories, both are useful, both are accepted, and neither is “proven”[Wrong, see above for a couple of examples].
Most scientists and rational people “accept” the theory of evolution because it is actually useful in trying to figure out tons and tons of other stuff about nature, such as which skull predates [ever hard of Mitochondrial DNA-how about carbon dating???!!!]which other skull, which animals are more likely to be able to be used for organ transplantation, how viruses develop, how climate affects animal populations.
(Plus, like every other scientific theory, the theory of evolution is inherently disprovable, a factor that most religious beliefs lack. Religious beliefs are not “theories”, and they are not science.)
There really is no other way to put this: If you reject evolution for just being a theory, then you are rejecting science itself. Or, more likely, you never quite understood the idea of what science really is. Science is not revelation or truth, it is a tool, that’s all.[Wrong!!! Many scientific theories have been proven, your premise is actually a reversal of the truth, religion is a theory that has not been proven]

dennis,

Your logic and formatting are equally incomprehensible.

Most scientists and rational people “accept” the theory of evolution because it is actually useful in trying to figure out tons and tons of other stuff about nature, such as which skull predates [ever hard of Mitochondrial DNA-how about carbon dating???!!!]which other skull,

I think he was validating your point.

I’m sorry, but I have not idea what you’re trying to say except sarcasm. Do you support evolution or creation? Do you just disagree with how he described science?

First time poster here. I’m amazed at how the comment section can go off on wild tangents, but it’s interesting nonetheless. I’d like to just bring up a simple question that directly relates to the subject of gay marriage: How does the right for homosexuals to marry harm straight couples? Where is the threat? What is the tangible reason? Will it somehow make straight couples extinct? Saying it “jeopardizing the sanctity of marriage” has no place in public policy, as it is a statement of spirituality.

jdwear,

I agree completely. On July 14, on a local NPR talk show in St. Louis, they discussed the coming Amendment 2 to ban gay marriage. They had leaders from each movement in to explain their case. About 20 minutes into it (you can listen at the link above), a caller asked the opponent of gay marriage your exact question, and he could come up with no answer besides hinting at religion. It’s sad to listen to it now knowing that his position won the referendum despite a convincing argument supporting it, even from its leader.

Yes, thisis my sour grapes :)

I am sneaking comments in while working so they are hurried and not well written, but yes, it was sarcasm, but also an attempt to inform, in a crude manner.
This debate has veered off course. I also agree with with the previous comments, as I have never heard how gay marriage would detrimentally effect traditional marriage. I would like to hear the reasons other than theological.

Dennis, I’m not sure what you are arguing against. Were you assuming that I was trying to discredit evolution and then attacked each of my statements based on that assumption? Did you understand that I was pointing out that the theory of evolution is a great theory, as good as many other scientific theories? Did you understand that I was pointing out that the ultimate incontrovertable “proof” people think science provides doesn’t actually exist in science?

All of the theories you tell me are “proven” are really only “accepted” as being practical and useful. That’s the distinction scientists make.

You should start by looking up the scientific definition of “theory” and compare it to the popular definition of “proof” and then get back to me. This is a great article that might shed some light on where I’m coming from.

-Cf

The next page of that site I linked to above goes into even more detail about the nature of scientific theories and the concept of “truth”. It’s an excellent read. In fact, that whole site’s quite good at explaining the scientific method, and should clarify what I was talking about.

-Cf

Point taken. I quickly scan through this stuff, as I am working which does not allow time for a thorough reading or well written comments. As far as scientific theory vs. proof, yes, a theory is not an absolute proof and only stands until being replaced by a better. I was being a bit too colloquial with my terms assuming you were also. Perhaps, I should have said, a proof. Next time I will try and spend more time reading posts in detail, if possible.

Sure, Dennis, no problem. WatchBlog folks are generally pretty smart, so it’s usually a good idea to begin with that assumption when reading a person’s posts, even for the Republicans! ;-)

-Cf

This was a thick and full victory for the Conservative cause and not a hollow victory. There were 800,000 DEMOCRAT voters compared to only 550,000 Republican ballots cast in this primary. Republicans did not vote because the majority of the higher office races were not competitive. Therefore, if this was a general election more Republicans would have voted and the margin of victory would have been even greater. Face it, your cause will be like that of racial reparations and gun control. As soon as more Democrats start to lose office for supporting gay marriage, like Gov. Holden did, the Democrats will drop this issue like a hot potatoE.

Your enthusiasm for the gay marriage ban perplexes me Martin.

-Cf

Christopher, that post above was NOT written by me, the usual Martin.

Either there’s another Martin who just popped up or somebody’s trolling with my handle. I think it’s the former, since the post is pretty straightforward in expressing its views and doesn’t seem to be trying to present a caricature of some hated poster he’d like to discredit. Too bad my name isn’t Obadiah or something.