Democrats & Liberals Archives

Beyond Iraq

Although, still absent a prominent political, religious or social leader as the unequivocal face of the anti-war movement in this country, such passionate advocacy conveniently found on the web and in the Lefty blogsphere deserves due credit having influenced a now beyond wary nation to the predicament that is Iraq. Exampled by this powerful Flash presentation at, it again proves why the opposition borne out of Cindy Sheehan’s unnecessary, personal loss is more compelling than pro-war advocates more fixated on silencing her.

The deafening silence from the Democratic Party in the wake of former Colorado Senator Gary Hart's call for just such leadership is disappointing, while hinting the party leadership may be falling back into the familiar funk of political hedging. Meaning, the growing disapproval over Iraq and Bush's mishandling expressed by the future '06 Mid-Term electorate is palpable. Yet, there remains the fearful atmosphere in this country, where such purposely-misconstrued beliefs can lead to accusations of anti-troop, anti-American treasonous talk. Moreover, regardless of how firmly held this viewpoint, it's best expressed out loud to pollsters and vetted friends and family only.

But, what the Flash presentation also triggered in my memory is the little known fact that on the eve of his untimely death in the late 1960s', Dr. Martin Luther King began to speak in public opposition to the Vietnam War.

Simply read his April 4, 1967 speech in New York City entitled 'Beyond Vietnam', and one cannot help being struck by the now familiar, conflicting parallels that frame the current debate over Iraq.

As a religious leader, he was morally compelled to criticize his country's leaders for its groundless justification for its ill-advised act of aggression. He also details our government's long and hypocritical complicity in supporting and arming previous incarnations similar to the Viet Cong (when convenient and useful). Then, he goes on to explain the roots of the festering hatred our soldiers were bearing the brunt of, that date back to the financing of the French's failed colonization of Vietnam in 1945.

Sound familiar?

Dr. King makes the direct connection between the soaring costs of the war, and the devastating effect the diverted loss of funding was having on what he considered a so far successful government war on poverty program.

Sound familiar?

Dr. King makes the point that a higher proportion of young Black men being denied promised liberties here in America, were fighting and dying to guarantee such rights for Southeast Asians.

Sound familiar?

Dr. King touches on our pivotal lack of understanding (or effort) when it came to Vietnamese culture. Which led to our eventual loss of respect or concern for their welfare, starkly contradicting the steady diet of propaganda they were being fed.

Point by point, Dr. King's assertions and proposed solutions as to the Vietnam War, have been put forward repeatedly by the anti-war Left, as they so aptly apply to Iraq. Yet, I can think of only two potential leaders presently that could possibly command the same authority of a prophetic, young Baptist minister from Atlanta, Georgia.

Quoting a line from a statement by the executive committee of the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam in his speech, Dr. King emphasized 'A time comes when silence is betrayal'.

Posted by Bert M. Caradine at September 10, 2005 1:19 AM
Comment #79554

We cannot leave Iraq. Regardless of our feelings, we are now set on a course that we cannot turn from. Bush led the way and we must follow the path. Iraq MUST be a success. No matter how many dies. Iraq MUST be a success. We cannot stray from the path the Republicans lead us into. We have a destiny. We WILL destroy the Terrorists there so we won’t fight them here.

Posted by: Aldous at September 10, 2005 2:01 AM
Comment #79565

Sadly there was only ONE Martin Luther King. Who among us is willing to risk the witch hunts of the republicans? Who is so brave?

They have the money and the gall to do or say anything to get and keep power. When they tell their lies often enough and loud enough, they become believable to the lazy and stupid who refuse to seek the truth.

Look at what they did to John Kerry. A man eminently qualified to lead our country… a hero in war and in peace. But not even John Kerry was brave enough to say what really needed to be said.

AND yes, we can leave Iraq. We only need to understand that WE CAN NEVER WIN THIS WAR. If we kill them 100 to one, we will have killed only 10 million of them before realizing that 100,000 of us have died. That will still leave 990+ million more of them to keep their cause alive. Those 100,000 would serve us better HERE preventing terrorist incursions.

We must leave Iraq NOW!!! Hand the country over to the new Iraqi government and tell them you are on your own. Sink or swim.

The CAUSE of anti-American terrorism is NOT envy of our lifestyle, riches, or power as the republicans would have us believe. The muslims are content with their own lifestyle and if you’ve paid for gas lately, you’ll know that there are few who are richer or powerful than the arabs. The CAUSE of anti-American terrorism is the insistance of our nation to meddle in Arab affairs. THAT is why they will never quit fighting us in IRAQ.

Posted by: Thom at September 10, 2005 6:31 AM
Comment #79571

We WILL destroy the Terrorists there so we wont fight them here.

I don’t think we are really fighting ‘the terrorists’ in Iraq - who can tell the ‘terrorist who would strike us here’ apart from the ‘people who are fighting against the occupation?”

Who’s to say that we are only fighting them there? Ask Spain, London, Egypt… who is next?

I think Iraq has become a much stronger training ground for terrorist than it has a training ground for the Iraqi police force. Terrorist die as martyrs… the police there die in fear. One creates a natural replacement system, the other prevents replacements.

What does staying in Iraq buy us? At the ever-rising cost in American lives and money (and equipment for The Homeland…) What will happen today if we pull out that we know will not happen tomorrow? We would like to set up an Iraqi police/military force that will keep order in Iraq… but are their numbers growing at a rate that stays even with their losses? I think, if we leave today - we will loose Iraq to civil war. I think, if we stay, there’s a very high probability that Iraq will sink into civil war - with our troops in the middle. Either solution is a loss to us and them, at least temporarily… we have no idea that a resulting government from a civil war would be anymore or less hostile to Americans or their own citizens than the one being discussed there today.

How far into the future can we maintain a force in Iraq equal to what is there now? Weve had a bit of an economic bounce - but a good bit of that bounce was dispersed into Iraq. What happens if we have an economic downturn while we are still there… spending $100B or more a year? Do we bankrupt America for Iraq? Would I give up my job in order to have one more Iraqi employed?

I guess the result of all this is that I don’t think we know what will happen if we leave Iraq… and we don’t know what will happen if we stay. Until we know real answers to these simple questions, I don’t think we should be risking American lives. To say that we dare not leave Iraq for fear of what will happen… Then we are only responding to a fear, and that never leads anywhere positive.

Posted by: tony at September 10, 2005 8:39 AM
Comment #79574

To compare Martin Luther King to todays Democratic party is ridiculous. The Democrats have no ideas, no beleifs. You have to stand for something, not in the way of everything. The Democratic party has lost touch with the American people, and will continue to loose until they relize Americans want to stand for something, not in the way of everything.

Maybe Robert (Sheets) Bird is the man to lead the party, with his progrsive views on race and poverty.

Posted by: jerry at September 10, 2005 9:15 AM
Comment #79593


We must leave Iraq NOW!!! Hand the country over to the new Iraqi government and tell them you are on your own. Sink or swim.
Sounds and awful lot like what was said to the poor of New Orleans.

The Democratic Party is for Individual rights, YAY! Individual responsibility?! NO WAY!!

Posted by: jo at September 10, 2005 11:18 AM
Comment #79596

Jo said, “The Democratic Party is for Individual rights, YAY! Individual responsibility?! NO WAY!!”

Funny thing to say considering that the Republican Shrub Leadership is NEVER at fault for ANY fiasco.

Posted by: Aldous at September 10, 2005 11:28 AM
Comment #79615


Criticism of the left does not (shock as it may be to some) indicate automatic approval for the right. In fact, if you read my post, it simultaneously criticized both.

WHOA! WHodathunkit possible!

If i did not criticize the right for failing to take responsibility for New Orleans, then how is my statement criticizing the left for failing to take responsibility for Iraq?

Posted by: jo at September 10, 2005 1:29 PM
Comment #79627

Unfortunately we are in this mess. How do we get out?
1. Understand and ACCEPT their culture is not ours
2. Understand that their religion will be part of their govt
3. Train and supply their security forces. Will they perform as we want them too? No.(see #1)
4. Understand that some will cut and run. This is a human thing not a culture thing. I.E. 200 police missing in NO
5. Tell the govt they have until xx date to get it together and we will support them until that date.
6. Leave
7. Come home and beat your head against a wall for being so stupid in the first place.
8. Fully expect a civil war - it is coming, it will occur.
9. Poor massive amounts of money in the UN to clean up what is left of the country after the civil war.
10. Forget about lessons learned - we refuse to learn

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 10, 2005 3:12 PM
Comment #79635

You analysis sounds a lot like the moderate Democrats plan for Iraq, the plan of Kerry, Hillary, and others. That’s where we’re headed, no doubt. We’ve been fighting the civil war for some time, as proxies for the Shia against the Sunnis.

The Bush plan, if there is one- and that is debatable- is to stay an indeterminate length of time. The Bush plan- assuming such a thing exists- seems to involve some sort of wishful thinking connected with freedom and democracy.

But Bert, I’m with you. It’s time to leave, sooner rather than later. The moderate, pragmatic wing of the Democratic party needs to take a stand, and call for the obvious solution. If the Bush administration insists on following the path to defeat, Democrats must unite and refuse to follow. If Bush refuses to heed the recommendations of the Dems, either moderate or liberal- and he will not heed them- then withdrawal is the only logical alternative.

The most significant opportunity to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat will come with the constitutional referendum on 10/15.

An opportunity for success will come if the constitution is rejected. If three provinces reject it, the current government will disband, we’ll be back at square one, and have the chance to do what should have been done in the first place- partition the country.

Split the country into an oil rich democracy in the north, an oil rich Shia fundamentalist state allied with Iran in the south, and a poor Sunni state in central Iraq. Place the Sunni territory under UN guidance, and write large checks for decades.

It’s not a great solution, but it’s better than a civil war.

The constitutional referendum fails if three provinces reject it. Two provinces are heavily Sunni, and sure to turn it down. Two others have Sunni majorities, but not necessarily enough to defeat the constitution.

It will be a very, very close thing.

Posted by: phx8 at September 10, 2005 4:10 PM
Comment #79639

I like your plan better, spliting up countries have worked before. Why not again? Thanks for the idea. I don’t see out govt buying into it. Unfortunately, they are still upset with Iran and would rather see large numbers of people die than have them aligin with Iran.

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 10, 2005 4:24 PM
Comment #79651

The southern portion of Iraq will be allied with Iran regardless of US actions. The Shia may attempt to use a constitution to keep the Sunnis & Kurds under control, but neither of the those groups has any interest in being dominated by the Shias.

Iraq is a figment of Winston Churchill’s imagination. This fictional country arose from the British need to create a colony which united three diparate Ottoman Empire provinces together into one oil rich country.

The creation of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the wishes of the inhabitants of the provinces of Mosul, Bagdhad, & Basra.

Splitting the country into its natural, ethnic boundaries carries risks. For example, the Turks will not be pleased to see an independent Kurdish nation. Not that long ago, the Turks & Kurds fought bitterly. A century ago, the Turks and Kurds cooperated in the Armenian genocide. Truly, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. But for all practical purposes, the Kurds have been independent for over a decade. Furthermore, they’ll never agree to integrate the Pesh Merga into an Iraqi army. Dropping the fiction of ‘Iraq’ simply recognizes the already existing reality in northern Iraq.

Similarly, the Shias of Iraq, especially supporters of the dominant SCIRI party, will pull southern Iraq into a close Iranian orbit. Interestingly, al-Sadr and the young Shia firebrands detest SCIRI and the Iranians. It will be interesting to see how that power struggle goes. Does the US think it can cozy up to al-Sadr and the young generation of Shia fundamentalists?

We’d be fools to think so. Again, note the SCIRI & al-Sadr militias will under no circumstances be integrated into a national military.

The Kurds & Shias are not planning on staying together for the long term. Why should we?

Finally, the Sunnis… US policy might somehow create a win in the north, and a somewhat acceptable situation in the south, if an Iranian-allied, fundamentalist Shia state can be seen as an improvement over Saddam Hussein; but it’s difficult to see anything but a loss for the US in central Iraq.

Best bet? Bring in the UN. Write lots and lots of checks. Create a service/financial center for the Middle East based in Bagdhad. After all, thanks to Saddam Hussein, Iraqis are generally well educated and literate.

Then hope like hell the Sunnis of cental Iraq turn their back on the foreign jihadists.

Because right now, in Tal Afar, a city of 200,000, the Sunnis are embracing the foreign jihadists, and rejecting the Shia-dominated government installed by the US over this Sunnis city. US troops are killing a lot of people. We’re sure some are foreigners. But regardless, once they’re dead, they’re insurgents. It’s a microcosm for the whole ****ing mess.

Posted by: phx8 at September 10, 2005 8:04 PM
Comment #79655
Split the country into an oil rich democracy in the north, an oil rich Shia fundamentalist state allied with Iran in the south, and a poor Sunni state in central Iraq. Place the Sunni territory under UN guidance, and write large checks for decades.


I’m not sure I understand your logic. It seems like a federal, constitution-based solution would be preferable to this scenario you’ve laid out. The Shia wouldn’t be as likely to become a full-fledged theocracy and the Sunnis wouldn’t be as like to be screwed out of the nation’s oil money (would would no doubt be more likely to lead to civil war, or just a war between newly independent states). I’m thinking it’ll be better for all if the constitution does pass.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 10, 2005 8:31 PM
Comment #79667


The Sunni minority punished the Kurds and Shia so long there will never be cooperation between the parties. Even if the constitution passes I agree with C.L.O and Phx8 that, in all likelyhood, civil war is in the future. The Shia definately want a theocracy type government while the Kurds do not. Sunni and Shia have always had a divide since the death of Mohammad. It’s a long and complicated history and culture. I don’t claim to understand it all but I know enough to realize it’s going to be near impossible for a win for us whether we stay or go.

Posted by: Tom L at September 10, 2005 11:18 PM
Comment #79670

Well, it’s complicated, for sure. But keeping the country together in a loose federation is a recipe for armed conflict. The Sunnis will demand a disporportionate say in government and an undeserved share of oil revenues. In addition, the Sunnis will resent a Shia style theocracy. The Shias will expect to translate their 60%, democratically ratified rule into domination of the Sunnis, in economic and every other sense.

Incredibly, before the invasion, Wolfowicz said he did not think ethnic divisions would affect the post-war situation. It’s just unbelievable, how ignorant this adminstration chose to be about Iraq.

Posted by: phx8 at September 10, 2005 11:41 PM
Comment #79686

jo, personal responsibility is all fine and well, but where has it gotten us in the last 5 years?
Thousands killed on 9/11… WHO is personally responsible for that? OBL? Not hardly. He was just a big cog in a machine, a machine well oiled by dubya’s friends in Saudi Arabia. Nearly 2000 Americans killed and well over 10,OOO injured in Iraq. WHO is personally responsible for THAT? No, I’m not going to put it on dubya, he’s just a big cog in a machine that’s well oiled by the likes of you and everyone who cast a vote for him. Untold thousands of Americans killed by Katrina, by unregistered guns, by injury and disease untreated due to lack of health care, and on and on and on and on. And WHO is personally responsible for all those unneccessary deaths? YOU? Yeah, personal responsibility is all fine and well, but we won’t really start to heal until we start accepting SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Posted by: Thom at September 11, 2005 8:31 AM
Comment #79707

If our enemies in the Middle East or, anywhere else for that matter had any brains they would now see that they can defeat us without ever firing a shot.

They are probably putting all their effort into developing a weather altering machine as we speak. Plus, all of the terrorists who already reside here as legal immigrants/naturalized citizens and/or some of the 13 million illegal immigrants are now figuring out ways to comprimise dams, alter waterways, etc.

Then they can sit back and watch us destroy ourselves with a failed relief effort.

Posted by: steve smith at September 11, 2005 10:30 AM
Comment #79755


i am responsible because it is the right thing to do, not because it is going to get me anything or anywhere.

i worked my butt off as i was able. As a subcontractor landscaper i worked through the heat wave which caused Chicago to bury its victims in mass graves. i survived the heat stroke from working past my ability. i have spent more than half my life without benefit of health care. The effects of no health care are permanent— congestive heart failure.

Does anyone care? No. i am white. i am rural. i am heterosexual. i try to be Christian.

As a small business owner i paid ALL of my employees benefits and wages greater than my own. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. They deserved a living wage.

i spoke up to the judge at sentencing for the life of the man who murdered my little sister her two toddlers and her husband by burning them alive.

My husband and my brother both served in Viet Nam. My husband survived with PTSD. My brother did not survive.

i raised my two children, at times homeless and on the streets (fields) without any guns and not allowing them to even point their finger or play fight. Weapons are neither sport nor toys.

My oldest daughter married and has managed to get a degree through serving in the Army National Guard as a truck driver; but today finds only factory work to provide both the finances and time needed to raise her family.

My youngest daughter, still single has put on hold her teaching degree as she presently serves as active duty Air Force in Iraq.

i have volunteered in public schools, nursing homes, soup kitchens, nature preserves, libraries, fire departments, ambulance services and churches. i am not rich. i have no pension. i do not own a home. i am responsible.

WHO is responsible for pulling my vote from Ralph Nader to the Republicans? The DNC! whose platform and tactics have made it their focus to deny me the freedom i have so far enjoyed of practicing my faith— with its inherent personal responsibility.

Posted by: jo at September 11, 2005 3:42 PM
Comment #79766

I have read the comments posted and I can see what a lot are saying, but how long do we go on talking and start acting. Number one ask for a vote to recall this guy who calls himself the President. they recalled the gov. of California didn’t they? The man is not a leader of a free country. He can’t handle a crisis-he freezes under pressure-he has made the statement that he wants to be known as a war President, now I ask you, does that sound like a person of sound mind? When the World Trade Center was attack, he made an appearence, what what did he say to us, go shopping, show these evil people you aren’t afraid and in the mean time they had already started construction on a massive underground bunker under the White House, two limos were built very quickly for him that are more portective armor than a Bradley Fighting Machine. Oh yes, he also showed the people of New York that he wasn’t afraid, he was going to throw out the first ball when the Yankees came home, which he did and that was a feat in its self, for he had on more body armor than any GI in Iraq right now. When he speaks in a townhall type of meeting, it’s invited guests only and they sterilize ten city blocks and it’s put on TV as an open meeting? He has took more vacation time than any sitting President and why shouldn’t he, the ecomomy is a wreck, even though the stock market has regained a bunch on the biggest slide since the great depression, that national debt is the biggest in history, Iraq is a joke, I’d run home to daddy myself and cry-HELP ME-like some little kid. Now we have the biggest natural disaster in of the century and where was our leader, on vacation, but he cut it short to hurry back to Washington to handle this crisis in the gulf, but he took time to go to Idaho to mark the 60th year of the surrender of Japan and blow smoke up a bunch of week end warriors about how proud he was of them for their service to their country because he was one of them-he just didn’t say, back in the 60s and 70s, the guard was the place to be, it was almost a sure bet that you were not going to Vietnam-now he has used every reserve and guard unit to its max for this war in Iraq. Has anyone ever thought, that we might need to have this man checked out by a group of shrinks, to see if he is capable of determining the difference between the truth and a lie, I mean like the PDB he got on an attack on New York City by terrorist using highjacked aircraft, he didn’t take it to heart because it didn’t seem likely to him, then Iraq, weapons of mass distruction, an attack could be carried out within thirty minutes, that was his reason for going to war, but now it has turned into freedom for Iraq because the other reasons were all B.S. now baqck to where I was at, the hrring back to Washington, but stooped in Idaho to give a speech and spend the night with the rich and famous, then back to Crawford-while American Citizens were drowning-then on the Washington to start saying that the actions of the relief and the help offered by this government was unacceptable to him, on Hell, now I’m getting Mad, call for a recall vote now, not tomorrow, it can be done.

Posted by: Glendale at September 11, 2005 5:41 PM
Comment #79803
The DNC! whose platform and tactics have made it their focus to deny me the freedom i have so far enjoyed of practicing my faith? with its inherent personal responsibility.


Could you please be more specific about why you believe the DNC would ever deny you religious freedom? Maybe you could provide a link to DNC information that you think threatens religious freedom. My own view is that the Democrats would never do such a thing, either say it in their platform or advocate it behind closed doors. You sound like a responsible member of the working class, the very people who the Democrats should be trying their utmost to represent.

But keeping the country together in a loose federation is a recipe for armed conflict.

phx8 and Tom L,

So, the argument is that breaking the country up into three parts, and depriving the Sunnis of any oil wealth, will prevent a civil war? I should think it would achieve just the opposite as the Sunnis battle to preserve some of the southernmost and northermost territories that contain some of the oil wealth. Also, Turkey would be bound to attack an independent Kurdish state and Iran might be drawn into fighting an independent Sunni state if it attacks the Shiite state, right? And what about all the Shiites who live in the Baghdad region? Won’t ethnic cleansing occur there? After all, sectarian violence in that part of Iraq is already on the upswing.

I guess I still don’t see the logic in it. The first goal, it seems to me, is try to control the growing sectarian violence that could lead to a real civil war. The second goal is to make the constitution more appealing to the Sunnis. The third is to build a unified, multiethnic army. This will be badly need to prevent a civil war and hold a federation together.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 11, 2005 9:48 PM
Comment #80041


Just today Senator Shumer insinuated in his opening statement at John Robert’s confirmation hearing that he has already decided his vote on the mere fact that a special interest group has ‘endorsed’ him— as if this were an election and they had any say in the matter. Clearly Senator Shumer does believe special interest groups and PACs are powerful and integral parts of our government. Why? Because this is standard operating procedure for the DNC. Because it is the special interest groups which run the DNC. Because the DNC unanimously supports judicial activism contrary to the explicit will of the people. Because the DNC has an agenda that has nothing to do with representing “we the people” but only “we the special interest group of the moment”

Today it is gays and their intransigent insistence that marriage be legally defined in the civil courts according to their personal beliefs and values subjugating the beliefs and values of the majority. Offers of equal rights, benefits and obligations are refused. They do not want equal rights. They want revenge. When blacks and women finally received the right to vote, they did not demand men or whites be denied that right. When blacks were freed from slavery, they were not given ten white slaves. This mindset of vengeance pervades the DNC. The behaviors of the Democratic Party proclaims to all that if given power they will use it spitefully with vengeance against any who do not conform to their mold in every way.

Tomorrow the tide may turn as it has many times in even America’s short history and the now abhorred “Operation Rescue” people might start pulling the DNC strings. No one can see the future; at least not me. That the Democrats differ from me some on abortion and gay rights is/was not enough for me to change my vote. i considered them about as likely to be able to amend the constitution with their personal definition of marriage as the right wing groups… until i saw all the legislative and judicial activism being consistently applauded and supported by all the Democratic Party without a hint of dissent from any corner. Neither the constitution nor “we the people” matter one twit anymore to the DNC. Their militancy was intent on a take-over by any and all means… their power in the end will justify them as morally superior.

Why do i think the DNC would deny my religious freedom? …

Because my Church has not received the “DNC seal of approval”. Because my Church still teaches that homosexual behavior and gluttony and sloth and adultery are sins. Because the supreme court has set precedent that Americans be ruled by whatever presidents, prime minister, kings, dictators of the world they see fit. Because Canada has ruled parts of the Bible “hate speech”. Because France has enacted an anti-faith dress code for state schools. Because the European Union has barred a Catholic “unfit to hold public office” because of his religious beliefs. Because their rabid charge to define marriage legally in the courts would open my church and many others not even of my faith to charges of discrimination, hate speech and others as defined by whatever minority rises to rule the DNC.

Posted by: jo at September 12, 2005 9:43 PM
Comment #80051

Thanks for the response, Jo, but I still don’t understand. I personally don’t think the DNC can or should provide any church with a seal of approval. Would you want it to?

And how do Canada or France figure into it? Maybe there’s a specific party platform you could point to? Or a specific quote by a specific Democratic leader? Maybe it’s because some Democratic leaders don’t favor a Constitutional amendment to make homosexual marriage illegal, prefering to leave it to states? I’m just looking for something very tangible and specific to help me understand.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 12, 2005 10:16 PM
Comment #80070

If the DNC obtains power, their approval over faith based groups seems inevitable.

i doubt one would find ‘discrimination and condemnation of homosexuals” an explicit plank of the GOP either. The ‘tangible’ evidence is behavior and actions.

Canada and France became relevant when the spreme court based their decision on world opinion. i am not in favor of any civil law making homosexual marriage legal or illegal. Mormons also had trouble with the state involvment in marriage. It is my contention that the state has no business in such personal matters.

As i posted on another watchblog thread:

Marriage world wide has historically been based in RELIGIONnot necessarily Christianity. In America, that historical religious foundation was western Christianity. Ancient secular pairing was neither exclusively life-long, nor monogamous. Such conditions up to modern times have only been applied via religion. Modern secular society is attempting to adapt a heretofore religiously based institution to secular civil regulation.

The record is already clear on the states inability to adequately maintain obligations of such an intimate nature as affection, respect, fidelity etc. The state has no legitimate role in the governance of these personal aspects of our lives except imo in the case of abuse. The parading of our private lives through the courts as seen especially in both politics and celebrity debases our whole society. Civil government oversight and regulation of property rights are just that, civil. The administration of these is more appropriately covered under contract law with requirments that each party actually be are of and comprehend terms and conditions. Health and saftey covered under civil law applicable to all be they in partnerships or single.

How each person or couple chooses to relate to another is best governed by those individuals involved with or without benefit of faith or religion, and without hinderance or interference of government. Our constitution provides for the separation of church and state, not the defining of church by the state.

Posted by: jo at September 12, 2005 11:14 PM
Comment #80096
How each person or couple chooses to relate to another is best governed by those individuals involved with or without benefit of faith or religion, and without hinderance or interference of government.


I agree the government shouldn’t interfere and that religious institutions should govern these relationshipas only as far as an individual’s faith dictates. But, as far as I can see, none of this has anything to do with the Democrats. It isn’t part of the Democratic platform to support gay marriage, as far as I know. Personally, I’m fine with state-based civil unions.

And if some church wants to marry gay couples, well I guess that’s up to them. I’m a believer of religious freedom as long as nobody’s forcing their beliefs on me. The big question is whether the government should “recognize” such a marriage.

What I don’t understand is why you seem to be concerned about the Democrats when it’s the Republicans who are formally trying to dictate the specifics of marriage at the state and federal levels. The Dems are the ones taking the libertarian and state-law stance on this subject, I think.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 13, 2005 1:51 AM
Comment #80110


That’s just it, the Republicans are trying it ‘formally’, within the framework of the constitution and law— which imo almost guarantees they will not succeed. So, i have absolutely no quarrel with them running around spending all their time and energy on a lost cause. It keeps them occupied and limits the many other ways they could find to foul up the works. ; )

Democrats on the other hand are acting under the radar, outside the framework. It, imo, is greiviously dangerous when civil servants turn around and break the very laws they are charged to uphold. (Such as Calif. JP marrying gay couples ‘in protest’ of the ban)

There have been both republican and democratic incursions but republicans by and large have been met with condemnation from their own party members for such actions. Democrats on the other hand hold press conferences and do everything they can to support, encourage and applaud these actions from the left. This makes them a threat to the foundation of our government. This is what sent my vote to the republican side.

Posted by: jo at September 13, 2005 3:11 AM
Post a comment