Third Party & Independents: Archives

This ‘pro-life at any cost’ wing of the Republican Party is beginning to have the same effect on the GOP as the gay marriage wing of the Democratic Party had.

I didn’t know we had a gay marriage wing. I remember standing for equal rights under the law for gay couples, but Democratic leaders speaking out for gay marriage escapes me.

Anyhow, I hold the same hopes you do, David. The sooner the wackos on both sides (though I’m at a loss to name any who hold office in the Democratic Party - maybe someone could help me out here) are “divested”, the better.

Just one quick observation: The Democratic Party found themselves with a bunch of strange bed-fellows [ahem] in the last election because of GW’s, Frist’s, and DeLay’s unique polarizing effect. Unless the GOP fields a divisive candidate in 08, expect to see some divestment then. We’re still “Republocrats” to many on the left, even if Democrats are the lesser of two evils. :)

“Such moves would foster a restoration of moderates and centrists in both the Democratic and Republican parties”

These moves would be ideal for the country, but I fear this hope is unattainable in today’s political climate.
To many voters are in the [vote against] and not [vote for] mode nowadays.

AP, by gay marriage wing, I am referring to those Democrats who supported civil unions being recognized by government. Let me be clear, here. I support civil union recognition. But, that is clearly an opinion which is not shared by the majority of Americans. Because of the intense emotions that topic generates, politically speaking, it is an issue which distracts and impedes Government’s higher priority issues. By higher priority issues I mean problems our nation faces which have the potential of negatively affecting all Americans.

When Democrats allowed civil unions and gay rights to dominate over border security, globablization threats to our economy, Soc. Sec. and Medicare funding issues, and debts and deficits, they allowed minority issues and non-mainstream American values weaken and split the voter’s support for the Democratic Party.

Any issue, any minority lobbying group, and any extreme factions of either the Democratic or Republican party that is permitted to distract our government from dealing swiftly and effectively with the major issues which confront our nation and all its citizens today and in the near future, do harm to the continued strength and capacity of America to survive and prosper as we have in the past.

To the extent that the leadership in both the main parties permit such distratctions, they do the greatest disservice to all Americans and their future.

kctim, you may be right. But I see hope when internal special interests begin to vow to work against their party. That hope lies with the eventual defection of extreme minority interest groups from the major parties. Will it happen in time to salvage our future? I don’t know. But, I have hope.

While I have not reached a definitive conclusion on the stem cell issue, I have on the “gay marriage”/”same sex marriage issue”. I am vehemently opposed to it. My opposition is not entirely political and/or religious in foundation. I simply believe personally that homosexuality is a choice, not a trait of birth.

In American Pundit’s response he mentions that he cannot think of any “wackos” holding office in the Democratic party. Before responding to that I would welcome the definition of “wacko”.

David, I believe that a 3 or more party system is a viable and even necessary alternative. That said, it seems to me that at this point in time not enough work has been done to make a vote mean much. Of course you the voter will get a sense of accomplishment, satisfaction and duty fulfillment but, would you consider your 3rd party vote at this time to be a non vote and/or a vote for another party’s candidate.

Calling Warner and McCain traitors to the party brings to mind a question that I honestly do not understand. If not considered too far off the topic (it does fall in the traitor catagory) could someone help me understand the following :

Some months ago a Republican congressman or Senator from a New England State decided to change his party affilliation to Democrat. This is an individual who was elected by his constituancy to serve them as elected. What is it that permits him to do this and, is he in a sense not turning his back on the people he represents?

When Democrats allowed civil unions and gay rights to dominate over…

Haha! Believe me, David. We didn’t want to talk about it. Just like we didn’t want to talk about gays in the military. :)

Point taken, though. The Republican leadership took an ultra-hard line on it, and we responded. I don’t see what choice we had, though. We are, after all, the party of civil rights and equal opportunity. That’s what makes it such an effective wedge issue for the GOP.

kctim, perhaps you’re not aware of the Democrat’s positive legislative agenda, “The American Promise: A Future of Security, Opportunity and Responsibility”. That’s what Democrats are for - it’s what I [vote for].

Steve:

Assuming you’re right, though all scientific evidence so far seems to contradict you… so what? Religion is a choice, should we also not let atheists marry under the law? I don’t follow your reasoning that homosexuality being a choice would automatically invalidate the idea of gay marriage.

…I would welcome the definition of “wacko”.

It’s like pornography, steve. You know it when you see it. Like a heart doctor who looks at a short video clip of a woman who’s brain has liquified and who’s been in a persistent vegitative state for decades, and instantly declares she’s fully aware and capable of recovering. That’s wacko.

Some months ago a Republican… decided to change his party affilliation to Democrat. …is he in a sense not turning his back on the people he represents?

Ya’ know, Reagan had a rule when he was asking for support from the religious right. He told them, “You buy into my agenda, I don’t buy into yours.”

That’s representative democracy. You vote for an individual who’s views coincide with yours. If you just vote the party line without knowing anything about the candidate, you’re a fool.

AP, by gay marriage wing, I am referring to those Democrats who supported civil unions being recognized by government. Let me be clear, here. I support civil union recognition. But, that is clearly an opinion which is not shared by the majority of Americans. Because of the intense emotions that topic generates, politically speaking, it is an issue which distracts and impedes Government’s higher priority issues. By higher priority issues I mean problems our nation faces which have the potential of negatively affecting all Americans.

David, it seems to me that by this reasoning, both the civil rights movement and the women’s lib movement in earlier American hIstory should also have been set aside since they only affect a subset of the populace. As, too, should the issue of repealing prohibition, since only a subset of the populace drank. And the issue of mixed race marriages, and… well, you probably get the idea already.

There’s a quote by Reverend Martin Neimoeller that I’ve seen given in various combinations… it basically goes:
“In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t Jewish.
Then they came for the trade unionist,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant,
Then they came for the homosexuals,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a homosexual,
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.”

I offer this quote not to compare the current anti-gay-marriage movement with Nazi germany, but to point out that when injustice affects a subset of the population and nothing is done about it because it does not affect the majority, then injustice will be done over and over again to minority after minority until finally it encompasses the whole populace.

In the words of Martin Luther
King, Jr., “Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere.”

I support civil union recognition. But, that is clearly an opinion which is not shared by the majority of Americans.

Actually, as far as I know, a slim majority of Americans support civil unions, though they’re probably concentrated in urban centers so can’t carry the red states. (Minority rights and all that.) But most oppose gay marriage.

Somewhat dated poll data can be found at “Civil unions for gays favored, polls show.”

The Republican leadership took an ultra-hard line on it, and we responded. I don’t see what choice we had, though. We are, after all, the party of civil rights and equal opportunity.

That’s true. The Dems had to stand up even if they wanted to avoid the issue. Sometime bigotry forces your hand.

I agree that the best hope for other parties is that the right wing chases out all the moderates. My worry is that the GOP seems to move ever further rightward and yet retains power. By the time they’re a genuine minority, they may have so much political power it could be hard to remove them (obviously especially in the court system).

David
I to have hope.

AP
The majority of Americans are not into politics.
I have read the propaganda from most parties, have formed my ideas and am more politicaly active than the average American. Yourself, David and others are way above me in political activity.
I am in the minority and you guys are rare.
The last election was dominated by “I don’t like kerry, but I can’t let Bush win again” thinking and vice versa.

I agree with David: “the eventual defection of extreme minority interest groups from the major parties” is what is needed for our country to get back on track.

Lots of people in America are party line voters. Some republicans disagree or may even be disgusted with the neo-con religious radical wing resurgence of the party, but they will still vote republican.

I think the best way is to have a formal differentiation btwn moderate and extreme party members through third parties. In New York State, you can run on a multiple parties ticket. That way, a green party candidate can run w/o weakening a democratic candidate because they are one and the same. And defection won’t be a problem if you can stay in the same main party. Voters will be able to still vote the party line, but will be easily informed about the candidate by their third party affiliation. We all know the average voter does not actually research about candidate platforms and voting record.

If each main party can be officially segmented by third party affiliations, it may make it more obvious to voters who they want running the party and who currently controls the party. The bi-partisan tradition of the States is not going away, but third parties can definitely still rise to power.

Unfortunately, kctim, you’re right about the majority of Americans. I threw out that link (and will continue to do so periodically) for the thousands of people who view this blog every day. ;)

BTW, David. How do you pronounce FREC? :)

Some months ago a Republican congressman or Senator from a New England State decided to change his party affilliation to Democrat. This is an individual who was elected by his constituancy to serve them as elected. What is it that permits him to do this and, is he in a sense not turning his back on the people he represents?

I’m glad you asked this question. My answer is that he is most certainly NOT turning his back on the people he represents. Why? Because he was elected to represent ALL citizens, not just the plurality or majority that elected him (or even just those who voted!).

As much as political parties have become an integral part of politics, they are not codified in law. An elected official has a duty to his office and to his constituents. He has no legal commitment to his party.

So long as the candidate is still standing for what he promised at election, it doesn’t matter who he stands with. I would much rather have a candidate change parties while sticking to his principles than change principles while sticking to his party.

American Pundit,
Re the Republican turned Democrat. My question is that if he was elected by the people in his state as a Republican based on his campaign issues/promises, etc. In other words he agreed to represent the Republicans who elected him, how can he suddenly decide after he has been elected to be a Democrat.

I agree with you on the vegetative state example. Surely you8 are not suggesting that doctors decision/opinion was politically motivated.

Jarin,
I have no problem with atheists marrying or practicing their beliefs. I don’t happen to agree with them but I respect their right to follow their belief.
I have an extreme bias with regard to the “alternate” life style practiced by the “gay community”. I believe that same sex couples do not create the most positive environment for raising children. I believe that being gay is a product of making a conscious decision to follow that path and, as that path expands to include sexual activity it is immoral, anti social and against the teachings of any responsible religion.

AP “BTW, David. How do you pronounce FREC? :)”

A writer just can’t get away with anything anymore, can they? :-)

steve:

The most positive environment for raising children? Neither is being a single parent, but we are far from outlawing that. And I would submit, sir, that any environment can be positive for raising children if it is one in which those children are loved. This same argument was used by the state of Virginia in Loving v Virginia, in arguing against mixed race marriages.

As far as where the “path” of “choosing” to be gay leads, assuming you are right that it is in fact a conscious choice (and I would ask you, sir, if you ever recall making a conscious choice to be attracted to females?)… outside of purely religious precepts, in what way can it be considered immoral? By those religious precepts, I believe atheism would be considered immoral as well, but you’ve stated you have no problem with its practice, so I assume there is something more? Anti-social? I don’t really see where you get that… is not wanting to marry another wanting to socialize with them on a very intimate level? Against the teachings of any responsible religion? I don’t think I can really respond to this, as it presumes a level of spiritual knowledge by which one can judge the responsibility of one religion against that of another. I don’t claim such all-penetrating insight.

David,

I think you are correct(mostly),but most of the Republican base( that vote based on issues, and most often a combination of issues), are only angry at McCain, and that is where any fallout will be directed.

I think a year or so this will be little more than a blip on the radar screen, the cheers and back-slapping that Democrats did when Jeffords jumped ship was quite short lived. I predict this will be the same.

Much like the stemcell bill, President Bush told everyone before the vote, “I’ll Veto it”, Why you might ask?, that was a green-light for any republicans to vote yes if they thought a no vote might hurt their relection chances in their district, all the time knowing that enough no votes from “solid red state” Rep.’s would make an overide of the veto impossible.

Who wins? Bush (as always), he isn’t running again,and blue state Rep.’s that voted for it.

Who loses? Red state Dem.’s that voted for it.

It just doesn’t seem fair to those on the left, how can both sides vote the same(kinda), and only one side is punished for it?

The dumber they call him…the smarter he gets.

I agree with you on the vegetative state example. Surely you8 are not suggesting that doctors decision/opinion was politically motivated.

Hah! No, actually. I really think Dr. Frist is sincerely confused and a little disheartened that our Lord Jesus Christ didn’t give Terry the power to miraculously rise up and resume a normal life, and prove to all the doubters, secularists, and moderates that the wacko wing of the GOP really is doing God’s will.

What’s more disturbing to me is the number of people who think these guys are cynically using their faith merely to gain personal power. I’m convinced guys like Frist, DeLay, and Bush are sincere in their faith and truly believe they are doing God’s work. And if that means trampling the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so be it.

Jarin,
As a single parent I believe that it would be far less difficult to explain to a child that his Mom or Dad is no longer with us because…. than it is to explain to a child that he has 2 Moms or 2 Dads. Imagine being the only one in the neighborhood who can announce with great pride that his parents are both women, or men.Obviously in some instances you would have to get into the entire biological issue.

Against the teachings of any responsible religion is not intended to presume a level of spiritual knowledge by which one can judge the responsibility of one religion against the other.What I am saying is just refer to any responsible religion’s basic precepts and you will be hard pressed to find one the sanctions same sex activity and/or unions. (ie the Bible “men shall not lay down with men, nor women with women”.)

UPDATE: Washington Post has an article today on pretty much the same analysis of the Republican Party entitled, For GOP, Deeper Fissures and a Looming Power Struggle

“just refer to any responsible religion’s basic precepts”

Not to grant rights or make laws.
Its saying things like this that make the liberal loonies believe Republicans think they are doing Gods work.

The last paragraph in Davids topic fits very well with the gay-marriage issue.

Steve:

As a single parent I believe that it would be far less difficult to explain to a child that his Mom or Dad is no longer with us because…. than it is to explain to a child that he has 2 Moms or 2 Dads. Imagine being the only one in the neighborhood who can announce with great pride that his parents are both women, or men.Obviously in some instances you would have to get into the entire biological issue.

So now we have gone from outlawing it because it is not the proper environment for children, to outlawing it because it is difficult to explain to children? So are many things. This is, again, a variation of the arguments that Virginia used against mixed race marriages, since you are arguing that society would stigmatize them. (At least, this is what I believe you are implying by the statement “Imagine being the only one in the neighborhood who can announce with great pride that his parents are both women, or men.”)

Against the teachings of any responsible religion is not intended to presume a level of spiritual knowledge by which one can judge the responsibility of one religion against the other. What I am saying is just refer to any responsible religion’s basic precepts and you will be hard pressed to find one the sanctions same sex activity and/or unions. (ie the Bible “men shall not lay down with men, nor women with women”.)

The problem with this argument is that it virtually defines a “responsible religion” as those who include precepts against homosexual activity. There are branches of Christianity which no longer prohibit homosexual union, and have even gone so far as to marry homosexuals in the church. The Quaker religion was the first of these, I believe, but many others have followed suit over the years. Presently, government has chosen not to respect such religious marriages, while respecting heterosexual marriages by the same churches. Non-christian religions likewise include no such prohibitions and actively marry homosexuals. Buddhism, and many branches of paganism, for instance. Including many native american religions, where homosexuals have often filled the role of shaman.

David, nice article.
You wrote:
“if defections from the GOP occur by FREC voters to a third party, the GOP may lose its edge over the Democratic Party at the polls. Such a defection however, is not likely in the near future. The money and number of FREC representatives in the GOP will not leave the GOP without exhausting their effort to overtake the party.”

I think you’re right. I also think it’ll always be an uphill battle getting anyone to vote third parties because of the electoral collage factor.

“BTW, David. How do you pronounce FREC? :)”

:^D
Let’s be demure and not use the overtly derogatory pronounciation, shall we?
“Freck”
As in: These fanatical FREC’s are hijacking the GOP in order to destroy all Separation of Church and State.

Adrienne, spoken like a true diplomat. Bravo!

Once again, banning civil unions is just one of many symptoms of a more fundamental problem.

Religion and religious groups are not the problem.
People are the problem.
Religion is just another single issue (of many issues) used as a distraction and focal point from which to rally a voter base, while ignoring all other important issues. Have you ever noticed how worked up people get about the daily minutiae and process (e.g. filibuster), while ignoring the root cause and other many fundamental issues and problems? No wonder nothing gets better.

What’s also interesting is that a minority is initiating, creating, or pertetuating most of the problems, while the majority only whines and complains about it, without a clue what to do about it.

The groups that are abusing their power are securing their own fall from power. It seems like neither party can retain power for long without abusing it and losing it. So, they take turns abusing it. Actually, they take turns abusing the people, because the abusers still make out like bandits.

And voters still wonder what can be done about it. Many voters stop wondering and are seduced to support one party or the other. Often, though, they grow tired of that party’s message, and sometimes, switch parties, only to find out it’s screwed up too or has no chance at ever succeeding. So, voters still wonder what can be done about it. Most people don’t quite realize what the fundamental problem really is, but they have come to believe it’s beyond their control. The fundamental problem is actually a human condition, and there is something we can do about it. We can’t resign or surrender to failure. We have to recognize that there are two groups of society. Those that control others (government), and those that are controlled by others (i.e. in a democracy, that would be the voters). Government is more guilty of the two groups. They are irresponsible, corrupted, wasteful, thieving, arrogant, and abusing the Voters. Voters are guilty also, but only slightly to a lesser degree, of apathy and unwittingly continuing to empower government to abuse the voters.

So what are voters to do? Treat government as one entity, and start holding all politicians, as a whole, accountable. Start by voting the all out of office.

Then, require some solutions be implemented. Here’s an unusual web-site that proposes solutions. It’s unusual, because most articles and web-sites merely wallow in the many problems, repeatedly, day-in and day-out, without ever proposing solutions or identifying root causes.

Adrienne,

If we’re going to define “frec”, to most in the country it will sound like a new fishing lure, or a fryed food.

In the big citys, most will see as the initals for a new group that will save the enviornment and the world. (they’ll also donate money to the cause).

In the real world.. it might just be a teenagers term for someone with “freckels” caused by genitics or being out in the sun , or there could be something more sinister going on here?

Beagle:
“If we’re going to define “frec”, to most in the country it will sound like a new fishing lure, or a fryed food.”

Oh, but is a new fishing lure — for GOP votes. I don’t know about food, but what they’re doing certainly fries my temper! :^(

“or there could be something more sinister going on here?”

Yes, I’d say there is something very sinister about these FREC’s trying to impose their religious beliefs on the entire country.

Political humor is the best kind. Keep it up you guys and no one will be interested in anything serious anymore! Seriously! :-)

Jarin,
Perhaps I was not clear when I said “environment” for children. You obviously interpreted it very narrowly to think that my intent was for environment to be limited to one’s dwelling or immediate space. Then when I described the difficulty one might experience explaining it to children and/or children explaining it to their peers, you are able to introduce stigmatization as the reason for my concern, which it is only a component of my concern.

The “responsible” religion I referenced was a poor choice of words. You are correct to jump on that. I did not mean that responsible religions should be only those with precepts against homosexual activity. Non-christian religions including paganism (what a reference) as you point out do not have homosexual prohibitions.

Suffice it to say valid arguments for and against homosexuality and same sex activity/marriages can be made. I take comfort in knowing however that it will be a very long time if ever, that people believing in and living such lifestyles will ever amount to more than a nano-percentage of world polulation.

I sometimes listen to talk radio (purely entertainment purposes - I love listening to all the announcers bitch and moan about how the RINOs are letting them down and everything is the democrats’ fault - too funny!). Today I heard Neal Boortz (sp?) warn the fundamentalists that they are scaring the moderates. He brought up Terry Schiavo and stem cell research as examples of ammunition that the democrats were going to use to scare moderates away from the rep party in ‘06 and ‘08.

Although I was a little surprised to hear a firm right winger say such things, it made me remember one of the threads I read at free republic about the evolution trial in Kansas. On that thread, quite a few reasonable people were eerily echoing Boortz’s words and cautioning the fundamentals not to scare away the moderates.

I think that in this case, the democrats are putting too much faith in the republican party fracturing from within. I honestly believe that the fundamentalists in the rep. party are going to be contained come election time in ‘06 and ‘08 and because most voters are not paying attention right now and won’t remember any of this stuff next year, the republicans won’t be punished at the polls next year.

Boortz depressed me so I switched over to Laura Ingram (sp?) and lo and behold, she was bashing the those lousy RINOs that bent over for the democrats. Yeah!!!

It’s the little things that get me through the day…

Steve:

Perhaps I was not clear when I said “environment” for children. You obviously interpreted it very narrowly to think that my intent was for environment to be limited to one’s dwelling or immediate space. Then when I described the difficulty one might experience explaining it to children and/or children explaining it to their peers, you are able to introduce stigmatization as the reason for my concern, which it is only a component of my concern.

I see. Could you elaborate then, on your overall concern? I apologize if I have confused your meaning, I was trying to follow what you were implying as best I could.

The “responsible” religion I referenced was a poor choice of words. You are correct to jump on that. I did not mean that responsible religions should be only those with precepts against homosexual activity. Non-christian religions including paganism (what a reference) as you point out do not have homosexual prohibitions.

Thank you for acknowledging that. As for the reference to paganism, it seemed pertinent since I practice a variety of it. The fact that government has chosen to acknowledge all marriages performed by religions which vilify homosexuality, while acknowledging only heterosexual marriages from religions which embrace it, troubles me not least of all because it shows a degree of contempt for the beliefs and practices of these religions, and a degree of governmental endorsement of those religions which condemn homosexuality.

Jarin,

I think we have beaten this one to death, don’t you.

Steve:

*shrugs* If you believe you have still not gotten your meaning across about the environment homosexual marriage creates for children, I don’t see how the subject could have been beaten to death. But if you are tired of the discussion, fair enough. Another time, perhaps.

Jarin,

*Bows in apology*

Homosexuality unto itself and, same sex marriages are abhorrent to me. Discussing them with an open mind is difficult. That said, I know several people who are homosexuals (male and female). I do not treat them any differently than I do anyone else. We do not have open discussions about their lifestyles. That said,

I am a traditionalist in the sense that marriage is between a man and a women. Children growing out of that relationship should be raised with a mother (having a flexible set of responsibilities) and a father (having a flexible set of responsibilities). I say flexible because I realize that in this day and age many young families need 2 working parents to make ends meet. Also child raising reponsibilities overlap. In fact, very often a day care worker is a temporary parent.

Kids grow up with visual references about families (TV, books, friends, etc.). I cannot imagine how you would raise a child (and do him/her justice) with two men for example. How would you explain the biology. He sure didn’t come from “inside Mommy’s tummy”. If a second child is involved, the first child does not see evidence of its birth, etc.

Difficulty in explanation aside there are a ton of family activities that involve “traditional” parenting (Mom and Dad). What about the sexual activities and innuendos that would occur in the houshold. How do you explain Dad and Dad hugging and/or kissing. I could go on forever with this and you will have responses to allay my fears.

As best that I can describe my political position is right wing conservative although I take issue with most of the real radical right wing stances.

Steve:

*Bows in apology*

You have no reason to apologize, but thank you for the gesture.

Homosexuality unto itself and, same sex marriages are abhorrent to me. Discussing them with an open mind is difficult. That said, I know several people who are homosexuals (male and female). I do not treat them any differently than I do anyone else. We do not have open discussions about their lifestyles.

Understood. Now, you know one more.

That said,

I am a traditionalist in the sense that marriage is between a man and a women. Children growing out of that relationship should be raised with a mother (having a flexible set of responsibilities) and a father (having a flexible set of responsibilities). I say flexible because I realize that in this day and age many young families need 2 working parents to make ends meet. Also child raising reponsibilities overlap. In fact, very often a day care worker is a temporary parent.

I can’t help but notice your own experience differs to some degree from what you just described, however. In an earlier post, you described yourself as a single parent, did you not? Unless you and your wife are merely separated, and share custody of the children, I would presume they were raised by a single male acting on his own.

Kids grow up with visual references about families (TV, books, friends, etc.). I cannot imagine how you would raise a child (and do him/her justice) with two men for example. How would you explain the biology. He sure didn’t come from “inside Mommy’s tummy”. If a second child is involved, the first child does not see evidence of its birth, etc.

Do you really need to explain the biology? Generations of children were raised believing in the stork when they were young, and only learning biological realities as they matured. Is it really imperative to the development of young children that they have direct evidence of and knowledge of the biological processes involved in human reproduction?

I would also point out that the same is true for parents who are unable to conceive children and adopt. The children did not come from “inside mommy”, but there is no difficulty explaining that another woman was involved, a birth mother.

Difficulty in explanation aside there are a ton of family activities that involve “traditional” parenting (Mom and Dad). What about the sexual activities and innuendos that would occur in the houshold. How do you explain Dad and Dad hugging and/or kissing. I could go on forever with this and you will have responses to allay my fears.

Yes, I think I would. For example, in this very paragraph, I would point out that you apparently managed to raise your child or children as a single parent without such “traditional” Mom and Dad parenting. (Unless, as I said before, you and your wife are merely separated and sharing the responsibility through joint custody)

I’d also point out that explaining kissing and hugging between men is really no different from explaining kissing and hugging between a man and a woman: it’s explained as an expression of love, not in terms of sexuality. And frankly, if children are privy to a great deal of sexual activities and innuendoes in a household of either orientation beyond mere hugging and kissing, I would have much more pressing concerns than the genders of the parents involved.

As best that I can describe my political position is right wing conservative although I take issue with most of the real radical right wing stances.

You don’t by any chance work in Mount Jackson, Virginia do you? I used to work with someone named Steve that said basically the same thing to me once, though I’m no longer at that job.

Jarin,

I am terribly sorry for giving you a wrong impression, it is totally my fault. Earlier when I used the single parent analagy I intended it to be as an example. I have been happily married for 40 years (this Saturday). My wife and I raised a son who we adopted. He is now 34, married has a 2 year old and another on the way.

It is incredibly interesting that you mention Mt. Jackson, Virginia because I once lived and worked in the Valley. I lived in Harrisonburg. I am very familiar with Mt. Jackson. My son was born in Harrisonburg, VA.

I presently live in another part of the state of VA.

Steve:

I live in Harrisonburg, at the moment. I temped for a bit at the Merrillat plant in Mount Jackson earlier this year. Small world.

Apologies as well for the misconception on my part, but whether you’ve been a single parent or not, I think you can see my point about those aspects of your argument about homosexual marriages applying equally to single parents, and those who adopt. Especially given your personal experience with the latter. You did not, I assume, explain to your son that he came from “inside mommy’s tummy”? In your experience, was the concept of a birth mother other than your wife difficult to explain?

Jarin,

From the very beginning we told our son (he was 6 weeks old when he came into our lives) that he was adopted. We told him he was “special” because we picked him. The explanation was never difficult to make or understand. He even has a “special birthday” in addition to his real birthday. The “special birthday” is the day we brought him home.

Maybe my position on “same sex” parents would be different if I knew someone who had experienced it. I can see your point.

Steve:

Maybe my position on “same sex” parents would be different if I knew someone who had experienced it. I can see your point.

*nods* I think that’s all it comes down to for a lot of people. Not knowing people who have experienced it makes it hard for them to imagine, even if they share experiences that rather directly correlate to what they imagine could be objectionable about homosexual marriage, and did not find those experiences objectionable.

I’m glad we had the chance to talk this out. I’ll see you around Watchblog. (And who knows, perhaps Virginia as well. *grin*)

*rolls eyes*

Come on, AP, don’t roll your eyes. How often do people from the opposite perspective on an issue become such good friends so quickly?

AP~
Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? You seem exceptionaly irritable today?

David,

I agree with Reed’s point of a slight majority of Americans preferring civil unions (as I do), yet I strongly feel you’re way off base by insisting Dems ‘…allowed civil unions and gay rights to dominate over border security…’ I’ve long asserted here, that the Right’s ability to dictate the debate of the last election due to control over a complicit, cowering media, is what leads to a skewed impression.

And, I further disagree, predicting Dobson & Co. will huff, puff and threaten - but, they ain’t going nowhere!

The Evangelicals are powerful freeloaders within the GOP, but their true strength lies on the local and state levels, where they’re able to slate their preferred candidates (with little opposition), as far up as US Senate and Governor in most states. They’re able to turn out their base for primary elections consistently, a fact not lost on Presidential aspirant Bill Frist.

As long as Karl Rove retains power with Ken Mehlman at the RNC, the Christian Right’s pull within the GOP extends only as far as their electoral usefulness.

Come on, AP, don’t roll your eyes.

*shrug* Sorry. *frowns* All the emoting reminded me of guys who spend way too much time playing online games. *grin* Not that that’s bad, I’m a game programmer (among other things) when I’m not opining.

*pretends like he’s raising a toast* Here’s to new friends!

*looking embarrassed because he has nothing constructive to add to the dialogue at this point* Bert, I agree with your post.

Bert and AP, I respectfully submit that you are failing to recognize the FREC’s ability to sway Christians to their candidates on religious issues. They have spent decades sending their reps to college and developing a national strategy. These are not dumb hicks from the sticks. These are Ph.D’.s and statisticians, and performers, and singers, and roadies, and marketers, and advertisers all working in concerted effort to make the US a Christian nation.

I truly believe you both totally underestimate the opposition who have brokered their own message into the Presidency. This was not a fluke, you guys. This was planned and careful, artful, and politically brilliant strategy. And they are not satisfied with just the Presidency.

Frist, or whomever the GOP runs, will have no choice but to exhort the FREC’s carefully crafted messages and issues in 2008 as well, and neither of you seems to appreciate how the religious issues transformed a Democratic Congress and Presidency and S.C. into a GOP monopoly. The GOP must use the religious sentiments to divide American voters and move centrists and moderates to their camp on religious issues.

If Dean and Clinton et.al. fail to see and anticipate this, they might as well put their Gore/Kerry masks on now and concede.

I am new here and did not read all of the posts but only about the first 25 or so.

I am a Christian, conservative and voter of an independent party (Constitution) for the last 12 years or so.

I am writing to address the comment on “justice” for all subsets. Justice presumes laws and theres the rub. Christians and conservatives adhere to a higher law and believe that man-made laws authority flows from God. Which is different than the post’s author’s position i which law is determined by representative democracy or in the case of gay-marriage by our courts.

So I can see how you can use the term “justice” with your concept of law…but for us “justice” is being violated.

Our originating documents were written to reflect my concept of law and justice. But entropy affects everything including government systems. So if I accept your ideas of “justice” based on man-made laws that change with time then it is only a matter of time before the laws will evolve to a level that will be unacceptable to even you and then what?

This is the problem with unfixed standards.

Darrin:

Our originating documents invest Congress with the power to make laws, through the process of representative democracy. You might want to re-read them. They do not establish the united states as a Christian nation, deriving its laws from God. They do not even put in a requirement that laws enacted by congress agree with the teachings of the bible. If you want a state which does contain such guarantees, I would highly suggest Iran as your model. Laws there must pass a religious test where learned scholars of the Islamic faith compare the laws suggested by the legislature to the teachings of the Koran, and can veto them if found to conflict. This sounds very similar to what you want the United States to become. If so, please, do not hesitate to openly lobby for such changes. It would be more honest than asserting that the United States were originally meant to be that sort of pseudo-republican theocracy, rather than the republic our founders actually established.

David, I don’t think that’s what Bert is saying. I’m pretty sure we both realize how powerful and insidious the fundamentalist movement is in the GOP. The last couple speeches I heard from Clinton made clear he also understands. I haven’t heard Dr. Dean on the subject, but he’s doing a hell of a job getting a grassroots movement organized.

Darrin, the problem isn’t unfixed standards - standards change with circumstances. Evolve or die. The problem is with people who believe history started and ended 2000 years ago.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

Seems that you misunderstand me. What I was trying to say was that the concept of law and a derivative concept justice is based either on fixed standards or evolving standards.

That is elementary logic.

It seems the founders were trying to estableish law (our constitution) on fixed standards and left social norms to be fixed at a lower level (state governments).

Gay-marriage (I believe) violates a fixed standard. However since you want it to be a social norm at least let it be determined at the local level in a representative method (as in not by the courts.)

Is that really so un-American>

Darrin:

Would you have also argued for the issue of mixed-race marriages to be decided at state levels, not the federal level, and through the means of legislation rather than court battles?

I would not use the word un-American, but I do not think that true justice would be served in such a situation. Multiple states would almost certainly come to different conclusions, and what was a guaranteed right in one state would be prohibited by law in another. But one of the things the constitution directly implies is that human rights are universal things and do not stop at the borders of individual states. All states are bound by the bill of rights, equally, because of this premise. So how could justice possibly be served in a situation where a person’s basic rights and liberties change when crossing a state border? I don’t think that this is an issue which can be left to be handled at a local level.

As for courts vs legislature… I don’t know which is the correct route to take, really. I see this as an issue of fundamental rights, so it grates against my sense of right and wrong to contemplate going before congress and petitioning for redress as if congress had the authority to grant natural rights, and as if there was nothing wrong with the prior treatment that had been received, since after all these would be new rights handed down by congress not fundamental rights that had simply been denied us.

Congress’ role is to create new laws. Is what we want a new law stating that gay couples are to be given equal treatment under the law as straight couples? Personally, I’m appalled to discover there was ever reason to think we shouldn’t be.

What I’m looking for, and I think this goes for other people who are gay as well, and their straight supporters, is for the enforcement of principles already firmly established in our law. The enforcement of the idea that everyone has an equal right to the pursuit of happiness, for starters, a concept which would seem to me to go to the heart of the marriage issue. The enforcement of the idea that religious precepts cannot be forced onto others through acts of law, that we are in fact a nation which was established on the idea of freedom of religion. The concept that people have freedom of association, which should and indeed must extend to such intimate associations as marriage. The concept that no state shall deny to any group of its citizens the equal protection of its laws, which laws against gay marriage certainly do as they do not afford gay couples the same legal protections afforded to straight couples. The very idea that there are, in fact, rights afforded to the people apart from those explicitly enumerated in the constitution (the ninth amendment.) These are all part of our laws already, but we have been treated as if we are a special group to which such tenets of law do not apply. Why on earth should our fight be for new, fresh laws that specifically say we should be treated equally, rather than simply for the proper enforcement of the laws we already have?

Darrin:

A decent parallel may also be found in the recent court decision where a judge ordered that two Wiccan parents could not expose their child to their religion, or any other non-mainstream religion, on the grounds that it would confuse him.

Should the parents in this issue, and other Wiccans, take the fight to the legislature and appeal for a law to be made to stop this? Or should the fight rightly be kept in the courts, appealing for our government to uphold the basic rights guaranteed in our constitution regarding freedom of religion?

Jarin,

I would indeed accept that such contentious issues be handled at the state level. All state license are invalid in other states unless specifically exempted by the state (as in marriage licenses). If you change residency from one state to another you have to get updated driver’s licenses, gun permits, etc.. The fact that marriage licenses were not reuired to be updated is because of the general agreement between states as to what marriage went. Since this is now changing the general agreement has to be revisited. This only makes sense. Federalism works.

Gay citizens are not denied their right to happiness, as far as I know. They are certainly not denied their right to liberty or justice either. I am quite certain you will disagree and I am willing to try to understand how I am wrong.

As a Christian, I am not happy with the state of government education. Is my right to happiness being denied to me? I do not have the right to share my faith in a political forum (“separation of church and state” you know.) According to Prof Randall on the Democrat Blog I should not even have the right to vote. This concept of being denied happiness is nebulous and could apply to anybody, pedophiles, rapists, murders…

As to the specific example of the judge interfering in the Wiccan family’s raising of their child, I am in complete disagreement. I don’t understand why he even has the authority to do this.

I guess in the end, I would have to say that marriage is a law that comes from God not man so in that respect man-made laws should reflect Gods laws. If you want to go with man-made laws that are based on moral absolutes then I would prefer to go with federalism. Otherwise everybody will “right to happiness” will be infringed upon one way or another. This is the beauty of federalism. If you really don”t like it and you are in the minority, you can always move to another state.

Jarin,

I would indeed accept that such contentious issues be handled at the state level. All state license are invalid in other states unless specifically exempted by the state (as in marriage licenses). If you change residency from one state to another you have to get updated driver’s licenses, gun permits, etc.. The fact that marriage licenses were not reuired to be updated is because of the general agreement between states as to what marriage went. Since this is now changing the general agreement has to be revisited. This only makes sense. Federalism works.

So it is your perception that the issue of interracial marriage was improperly handled? You deny the supreme courts findings in Loving v Virginia, and think that it should have been left to individual states to decide? To this I can only point out that federalism includes no provision for states being allowed to act against the natural rights of man. Federalism IS working when the state steps in to preserve such rights.

Gay citizens are not denied their right to happiness, as far as I know. They are certainly not denied their right to liberty or justice either. I am quite certain you will disagree and I am willing to try to understand how I am wrong.

If you were to tell a straight person that he has the right to marry anyone he wishes, as long as they were the same gender as he is, would that allow him to pursue happiness in the realm of marriage? Marriage is the most intimate bond possible between two people who love each other… imagine for a moment being deeply in love with a woman, and she with you, and being in a society where you were required to only marry another man and she was required to marry another woman. Does this strike you as providing the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness? This is essentially the situation gay couples find themselves in.

Liberty? Since liberty literally means freedom, I could argue that gay couples are deprived of the freedom to marry other consenting adults of their choice. But I think you probably don’t mean it that broadly, so I will err on your side and assume that liberty implies only freedom from incarceration. I would say you’re right, gay couples are not being deprived of this, though current laws which do not respect gay marriages and force gay partners to testify against each other in court certainly make it more easy to use their relationship to deprive them of liberty than their heterosexual counterparts, who have a right not to testify against their spouses.

Justice? I think I’ve already made my views on that quite clear.

As a Christian, I am not happy with the state of government education. Is my right to happiness being denied to me? I do not have the right to share my faith in a political forum (“separation of church and state” you know.) According to Prof Randall on the Democrat Blog I should not even have the right to vote. This concept of being denied happiness is nebulous and could apply to anybody, pedophiles, rapists, murders…

The right to happiness has never been applied so broadly. More specifically, it deals with the right of man to live his life without being interfered with, governed by his own sovereign conscience, so long as his actions do not impede the rights of others to do the same. It has been said that the legitimate action of government is limited to preventing only the acts which do impede such rights by another, and not to prosecuting victimless crimes. This is the whole rationale behind free speech being extended to all, even those we might disagree with, and the reasoning behind the idea of freedom of religion. It ultimately comes down to the sovereignty of personal conscience in all matters where it does not impinge upon the person of another.

As to the specific example of the judge interfering in the Wiccan family’s raising of their child, I am in complete disagreement. I don’t understand why he even has the authority to do this.

Under our laws he does not. That is the point of hashing it out in the courts, our laws already guarantee freedom from such actions, there is no need to go to the legislature for new laws redressing such a problem. Nor reason to suspect that if there were such a law it would be respected any more than the current ones, if we have not pushed legally for their enforcement.

I guess in the end, I would have to say that marriage is a law that comes from God not man so in that respect man-made laws should reflect Gods laws.

That presumes that everyone in the country worships the same God and believes in the same laws. Yet everyone can marry under the law, including pagans and atheists. Civil marriage is not a Christian institution. It should no more be limited to a Christian definition than we should define “religion” itself as “the worship of Jesus Christ.”

If you want to go with man-made laws that are based on moral absolutes then I would prefer to go with federalism. Otherwise everybody will “right to happiness” will be infringed upon one way or another. This is the beauty of federalism. If you really don”t like it and you are in the minority, you can always move to another state.

Federalism includes no right of the majority to infringe the rights of the minority, even on a state-by-state basis. People are guaranteed by the constitution the right to pursue happiness, in other words the total sovereignty of their personal conscience, so long as that pursuit does not impede another from doing the same. Currently, anti-gay laws are impeding others from doing the same, and should be redressed at a federal level.

Jarin,

I appreciate the fact that you are taking such time with me. I think that you continue to avoid the main thrust of my arguments which is that originally our laws were based on the concept of immutable moral laws…todays laws are not.

Justice is meaningless in a law system that flows with mob mentality. Today it is legal for me to be a Christian and have an opinion. THat is a heritage from founding fathers who believed in absolutes. Tomorrow it will likely be illegal for me to be a Christian and have an opinion. That is the heritage of a legal system based on mob mentality (might makes right).

Darrin:

Apart from the rights guaranteed by the constitution, very little is said on the subject of morals. And those rights basically indicate that no one person’s morals shall have control of another man over the dictates of his own conscience, so long as the actions dictated by his conscience do not impede the same right held by another. Thus, our laws very much were NOT spelled out on an immutable moral basis. The Bill of Rights itself wasn’t even originally part of the constitution, it was added to allay the fears of anti-Federalists and was contributed to by a number of states. 210 amendments (about 100 of them unduplicated) were proposed by various states at the time, and the original draft by Madison that the House approved included 17 amendments, which the Senate pared down to twelve by combining some and rejecting others. The twelve articles of amendment were then sent to the states for ratification, of which only ten passed giving us the bill of rights we have today. Does this sound like a foundation of immutable moral law to you? ‘cause it sounds like regular representative democracy at work to me.

I truly believe you both totally underestimate the opposition who have brokered their own message into the Presidency. This was not a fluke, you guys. This was planned and careful, artful, and politically brilliant strategy. And they are not satisfied with just the Presidency.

David,

By describing in my last comment post how the FRECs’ have solid control of the GOP electoral slate in most local and state organizations, I thought I acknowledged clearly their strength within the Republican Party. However, the fact is, they are considered (at best) 23% of the electorate, and Bush won by about 3 million.

Where their strengths lie, are helping slate the perfect Senate candidate (backed by Conservative radio, Club For Growth money) in Pennsylvania, but they could not unseat the Bush/Rove backed Arlen Specter. And, I’d be willing to bet my first Social Security check against Rick Santorum’s re-election.

Their strength is in the electoral margins, as Karl Rove accurately calculated down the stretch last year, that increasing the Christian Conservative base turnout by 10 million (many of whom sat out 2000), was the key to victory.

Yet, such pull within the party does not discourage a Presidential run by McCain or Guiliani, nor does it sink a Frist candidacy without their backing. Frist strung the FRECs’ along on ‘the nuclear option’, knowing he did not have the votes. He was running out the clock, making it look legit to lessen the eventual blow-back, but praying for a compromise. Go back and read Bush’s statement on the Gay Marriage Amendment just before the Inaugural (passing the buck to Congress), and explain why this FREC priority has not been mentioned since.

Bert, that FREC priority will be an issue again in just 6 months as we enter the ‘06 races in earnest. The thing to remember is that the FREC’s have their own Ph.D’s and think tanks, and strategists. Make no mistake, their strategists are as much about keeping a low profile to the extent possible as they are about changing the laws of the land.

Their goals depend on their strategies. And what I think is being underestimated is the sophistication of their strategies. The fact that such a minority has been able to create such a huge 50-50% divide among the electorate in each and every federal election cycle, is glaring evidence of their abilitiy to leverage their numbers with PR, Ads, lobbyists, and sophisticated probability and statistics numbers surrounding key races of those they choose to influence.

I would not be nearly as concerned if this was the KKK or Aryan Nation we were dealing with who lack the sophistication to mask their intent and strategies. But the FREC’s are not the KKK or Aryan Nation (though they likely support the FRECs), they have gone to college and graduated poli-sci Cumma Sum Laude or whatever that designation is.

And the money! They have become very, very sophisticated with money, not just in raising it, but leveraging it for maximum impact and barter for votes. This is all below voter’s radar screens. Voters don’t realize who is controlling the agendas and election rhetoric. And the rhetoric is designed expressly in that manner, to avoid being viewed as FREC sponsored by using the likes of Bush, Frist, and DeLay to mouth the rhetoric, the voters are unaware of the authors of the rhetoric and its ultimate designs.

David,

You are correct in defining the very radical Christian wing of the GOP as being quite small(23%?), but I think the reason they can have such a big impact on elections is because most Americans(in some small part)believe themselves to be Christian.
All they have to do is get Christianity into the political debate with any issue( abortion, gay marriage, ect.) and its very hard for any Dem. to debate/counter them without seeming either anti-Christian or wishy-washy.

Its EXACTLY the same thing the NRA has done so succsessfully since they started.
The majority of voters believe the 2nd amendment gives private citizens the personal right to own firearms, (atleast in some form).
The NRA only has about 3 million members?, but they play the slippery slope card VERY well and Democrats avoid that debate like the plague, much like the gay marriage debate.

I hope you understand the point I was attempting to make; useing the same “play book” they will ge very hard to debate/counter.

Beagle, I agree with your comments above entirely. It is leveraging the Christian side of the debate on the slippery slope that gives them such awesome political bartering power.

That is why any opposition simply must surgically debate the slippery slope argument pointing to that line in the sand that must be safeguarged in accordance with the beliefs and wishes of most moderate Christians and which separates them from the FRECs. It is not an easy debate tactic nor guaranteed in anyway, but, it is the only leg the opposition, moderates, and centrists have to stand on.

David,

I’m glad you could see my point without thinking it was diverting the origional topic.
I think it is related to the political reasons that 04 elections came out as they did.

BTW… I put my sence of humor in a bucket outside, and will attempt to only look into it seldom/ rare.( it’s hard though, some neat stuff in there).
Thats why I love watchblog, you can debate issues, and also debate the finer points of political engineering.

Beagle and David:

So, since most americans also do not want a theocricy, why can’t we set up a slippery slope debate about sliding towards a fundamentalist religion-dominated government that works to the same effect?

Jarin,

I wasn’t passing judgement on you or anyone in the the gay-rights movement. I was only stateing what sells/dont sell politically.

You could use “the slippery slope” card if you can define it as other rights that could be lost if gay marriage bans are upheld(as they seem to be).

I personally think that if that group would have stuck with; civil unions, with every benifit afforded with marriage of non same sex couples, you could have won on most of what you wish for.

By a few challenging the laws and demanding that it be called marriage, you set yourselves back 20 yrs. or more.

Just my opinion(politically).

Beagle:

I realize that is your opinion, but frankly it still strikes me as the same as if you told blacks during the days they were considered 3/5ths of a person that they could have all the same rights of a full human being/citizen, but would have to use a different name to describe themselves to avoid the political backlash from the people who would be offended by blacks being considered the same as themselves.

Or, as someone recently said in one of the threads around watchblog… if someone wants to cut off both your legs, and settles for cutting off one, it doesn’t really feel like a generous compromise to the person without the leg.

Jarin asked: “So, since most americans also do not want a theocricy, why can’t we set up a slippery slope debate about sliding towards a fundamentalist religion-dominated government that works to the same effect?”

Finding spokespeople who can make this argument without falling into linguistic booby traps that sound anti-Christian or anti-Religion after the FREC’s are done taking it out of context, is the hard part.

Jarin,

I am the one that used the anology of ones leg being cut off. I don’t see the gay rights issue as fitting the anology I used in another thread.

In political context on this issue it would be more like having NO legs and you were offered one, perhaps even two( if you agreed to call them lower extreamitys), by refusing and demandind two that MUST be called legs, you wind up back to none.
I understand that this is a very personal issue for you, and I wasn’t making light of it, only speaking in political terms of what will sell to the voting public.
If you check the figures for the votes for the gay-marriage bans just passed, I think you’ll find that they closely match the population of the voters within that state that consider themselves Christian.

I wont debate the right/wrong of the issue, I wont even offer my personal opinion on that.
The only opinion I’ll offer is the political engineering aspect of the issue.

I hope you accept them as that without reading something into it that wasn’t there.

That said;…. By taking the issue to the courts without first changing the opinions of the voters, I fear you wont change many minds or laws, you may however, sucseed in changing the courts and the judges sitting in them.

Beagle:

I am the one that used the anology of ones leg being cut off. I don’t see the gay rights issue as fitting the anology I used in another thread.

In political context on this issue it would be more like having NO legs and you were offered one, perhaps even two( if you agreed to call them lower extreamitys), by refusing and demandind two that MUST be called legs, you wind up back to none.

Looking at it from the perspective of someone having no legs and being offered one is much like looking at the black man in the past as an animal who was magnanimously offered the right of being considered three-fifths of a person by those who previously had relegated him to the status of an animal.

I understand that this is a very personal issue for you, and I wasn’t making light of it, only speaking in political terms of what will sell to the voting public.

I do understand that. I’m not trying to accuse you of anything here, I just think that your perspective on this is rather skewed being, as it is, the view of an unaffected third party. I’m trying to show you my position more.

If you check the figures for the votes for the gay-marriage bans just passed, I think you’ll find that they closely match the population of the voters within that state that consider themselves Christian.

I haven’t checked the figures, but my guess would be you’re right. My parents are Catholic and though they love my boyfriend and repeatedly refer to him as their “future son-in-law”, they stand vehemently opposed to legalizing gay marriage. Yes, the level of cognitive dissonance is frightening.

I wont debate the right/wrong of the issue, I wont even offer my personal opinion on that. The only opinion I’ll offer is the political engineering aspect of the issue.

I hope you accept them as that without reading something into it that wasn’t there.

I assure you, my comparisons of this issue with the racial issues of the past are in no way meant to imply that you are bigoted against homosexual unions. My point is merely to draw an analogy that shows why I feel your reasoning is untenable, and that is both one of the most effective and most easily made analogies I can think of.

That said;…. By taking the issue to the courts without first changing the opinions of the voters, I fear you wont change many minds or laws, you may however, sucseed in changing the courts and the judges sitting in them.

The funny thing about our position is that it really doesn’t require changing many laws… we’re not asking for new rights, we’re asking for the same rights that everyone else has. We’re asking for the constitution to actually be respected with regard to us. Only fairly new “defense of marriage” laws would really need to be overturned. Since we’re not looking for special rights or new rights, the courts are the appropriate place to take that up, not the legislature.

As far as changing people’s minds… do you really think that’s possible, on the whole? I wouldn’t know how to begin changing the minds of people who consider the bible an infallible text and are certain the bible condemns homosexuality. As you said, on the whole it’s Christians who stand in opposition to gay marriage. How do you debate an article of faith?

Jarin,

Please Sir, back up and underline the point that my opinions on this issue are only about “the political aspects of it”, if my reasoning is “untenable”, and I stated that they they ONLY involved the politics of the issue, what more could I say?

All they have to do is get Christianity into the political debate with any issue( abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and its very hard for any Dem. to debate/counter them without seeming either anti-Christian or wishy-washy.

The problem with your theory here Beagle, is that the tactics and intolerance displayed by those leaders supposedly representing Christianity in the current debate, have not only alarmed people of faith, but also turned off much of America.

I see plenty from the Right willing to excuse or dismiss such behavior, but I’ve yet to find a compassionate Christian who subscribes to the vitriol of Dobson & Co.

I guess we’ll have to disagree gentlemen as to the degree of power FREC possess. Yet, I will continue to assert that the abysmal approvals of Bush and the Republicans are a direct result of their continued capitulation to these extremists. To contend otherwise, is to believe the GOP’s complicity in the Schiavo debacle, the assault on the judiciary, and indefensible opposition to stem cell research funding, never registered with the American electorate.

Bert, the polls show the numbers are falling NOT because of FREC issues, but, because of our protracted and non-fruitful occupation in Iraq, and the managing of the economy and social programs.

Now Consumer Confidence took an unexpected jump this week, and if that trend continues, the GOP will regain the economy as an issue in their favor. Economic indicators are look good through the next 6 to 9 months.

Bert,

My theory is only about political engineering and if in the context and issues I used, it didn’t work?, you could have fooled me.
Voters dont care about Dobson, he’s not running for office and only gets one vote.

By 2006 who will remember or care about the Schivo case?

The stem cell funding bill is DOA and Bush isn’t running again. If that becomes an issue and is brought up in 2006, once voters UNDERSTAND that the reasearch is legal NOW, but they just don’t have to pay for it, I see little fall out.

The courts will be changing, I expect 2-3 new USSC judges will be comming shortly.

After the 2006 elections I expect the congress to revive the “ban partial-birth abortion bill”, It will pass and be signed into law, challenged in the lower courts and appealed to the USSC, Chief Justice Thomas will hear the case, uphold the law, and might just word the ruling in a way to ban it all.

With that said:..Who would run for President in 2008 with a platform that wants to revive the barbaric act of partial birth abortion?

I may not know much about politics, but perhaps I know something?
P.S. I’ve had crow before, with lots of pepper and garlic, its still nasty but you can gag it down.