Bush Will Push For Gay Marriage Ban

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Cascarino's Pizzeria, Nov 7, 2004.

  1. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Yes, you are totally wrong. Denying gays marriage is not even remotely comparable to the injustices suffered by African Americans, as you well know. Unlike you (I think, "could be wrong"), I actually care about people and am not interested in feeling self-righteous. There's a great deal of injustice in American society that I would like to remedy. Trying to push America beyond most European countries on gay marriage is (a) impossible and (b) doesn't help anyone but the Repubilcans.
     
  2. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Politics is about tough choices. It would take something that important for me to risk the Great Society.
     
  3. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    You know Ben, given your logic, you could just BECOME the Reep platform; that, in fact, would give Dems the best chance of winning wouldn't it?

    Then they could get in and do whatever needs to be done. It's about tough choices first, standing for something after that.

    Taken to its logical conclusion, the vacuous nature of your approach is obvious to anyone, and is why it will always lose. To hide it behind selflessness and to say that standing on a base of principle is self-rigtheous is to sh!t upon not only the movments and efforts inspired by MLK, Douglass, Mother Jones, and other famous folk, but, more importantly, folks you don't know, like the Philadelphia Journeymen Cordwainers (were they, from the framework of other Cordwainers or other workers, being self-righteous???) and the Tompkins Square Rioters, and the Molly Maguires and the Homestead Strikers and the Pittston Coal Company miners.

    All "self-righteous" in your frame. I hope that your frame dies nearly as much as the ideas of this adminstration. Neither of them stand for much other than winning, where in fact that "winning" damns us all.

    You don't get that the things you want to the Dems to do will never get them into power, and if they do it will be a coalition of types that won't pass universal health care ANYWAY, so what're you even talking about????

    Stand. Stand for all the tradition of rights expansion that IS the inherited legacy of this party, one that they are defecating on with thinking just like yours.
     
  4. jmeissen0

    jmeissen0 New Member

    Mar 31, 2001
    page 1078
    i simply cannot understand why people can talk about this subject rationally


    we are talking about hate... pure and simple


    we are talking about persecuting a small group of people in this country merely because of their biology



    hitler and the klan would be proud
     
  5. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    It won twice under Clinton.

    I'm a utilitarian, Mel. I'm interested in results, not winning. But if you don't win, you can't accomplish anything. You're the guy who wouldn't have supported Abraham Lincoln.

    I'm talking about winning over blue collar workers in Ohio even if it means making a speech against gay marriage. I'm talking about saying "hell yeah, I'd like to fry anyone who killed my wife!" and possibly nipping the Bush dynasty in the bud.
     
  6. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    (1) A propped-up, fake, dot-com economy, and the abject failure that is Bob Dole, along with a Southern accent and extraordinary personality, won it for Clinton. Clinton's initiatives, like universal health care, failed.

    (2) I would, as someone who would have been classified Negro in that time, would not have supported Lincoln in saying what he said. You would have had that option, but for me, it would have been self-immolating to say, well, he's against slavery, but he's for it, well, whatever he's for the Union, so let me support that. That, as a black man, would have been stupid. I would have navigated between racialshark-infested waters, and survived. Folks today can figure out how to survive just fine without the DNC ever saying or doing anything again. How can the DNC position itself in a tradition that maximizes everyone's ability to THRIVE?

    (3) Now we get to the nub; you are willing to say "I'm a Dem against gays maximizing themselves and for state-sponsored murder" and yet you still want the historcial institutional credibility that comes with being one of the two big parties.

    Now, get out there and "win."
     
  7. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is true. But these folks' humanity is a tough political decision, and sometimes you gotta pile the sh!t on some folk high enough to have a pile of sh!t to climb up, to get to the top. Looking down from that victory, who cares if it was built upon sh!t?

    See Ben, and then get out there and "win!"
     
  8. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    Gay marriage has never been part of the Democratic platform. You've swallowed the Rovian red herring hook, line, and sinker.
     
  9. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    LOL. Kerry was against DOMA and didn't take Clinton's advice to speak out in favor of the anti-gay marriage referenda. Get real, will you? People who are against gay marriage know which party is on their side. Clinton was smart enough to handle these situations (think of the death penalty).
     
  10. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Pile the sh!t on some folk? That's how millions of Americans (including most African Americans and Hispanics - talk about risking your base) feel about radically changing the definition of marriage.
     
  11. jmeissen0

    jmeissen0 New Member

    Mar 31, 2001
    page 1078
    what does it matter how many people are on your side of the arguement??

    there is only one correct view... it's 100% ok


    anything less is wrong, evil and pure hate


    it's the willingness of people to act like this is something that can be debated is what is completely ********ed up... you know what's wrong and what's right and you know which side you are on...
     
  12. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    And so would about 5 billion others. Look, most of Europe is against gay marriage, only 3 EU countries allow gay marriage. America is far more conservative than Europe and you expect America will go for this? Perhaps its time for you to start being rational, or at least realistic.
     
  13. Caesar

    Caesar Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Oztraya
    That's a little myopic... "right" and "wrong" are hardly black and white concepts. There's nothing as contentious as morality.
     
  14. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Most African-Americans I know don't give two fvcks about what someone else does inthe bed and/or how someone else lives / fulfills their love life. To busy trying to survive.
     
  15. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Ask John Kerry about that one.

    You can talk to Superdave or nicephoras or JohnGalt about their evil and pure hate.

    Actually, I don't know what's wrong or right with regards to gay marriage.

    What I do know is that nearly 1 in 5 children are in poverty, and millions of more people have gone into poverty under Bush and millions have lost health insurance. I'm not about to tell someone who is dying of cancer 3 years from now that they should be happy to die because John Kerry couldn't make a speech in Ohio about gay marriage. Understand this, many people will die because George Bush got elected. I'm not talking about Iraqis or American soldiers. I'm talking about thousands you'll never hear about right here in America.
     
  16. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002

    http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=10716&sd=12/10/03
     
  17. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why not, at a minimum, the Russ Feingold position, which got him re-elected in a landslide against a millionaire opponent with healthy GOP backing in Wisconsin?

    - against the war

    - voted against PATRIOT

    - for universal health care (state-based, federally backed)

    - likes the Constitution, and thus defends it

    - all about consumer protection enhancement

    - against regionalised, corporatised (specifically dairy) agricultural contracting

    - against the death penalty

    - leaves gay marriage outside the federal-level debate
     
  18. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Most African-Americans I know don't give two fvcks about what someone else does in the bed and/or how someone else lives / fulfills their love life such that it's even on their voting radar. To busy trying to survive. Not a voting issue that's even in the top 15 for most African-Americans I know, trust me.
     
  19. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    There are two myths Rove is pumping that he would love the Dems to embrace:

    1) The Dems lost because their campaign was too negative and elitist.
    2) The Dems lost because they refused to play ball on the GOP's moral majority court.

    He's praying that the Dems go positive and court the "moral majority" in the next election. That'll put the GOP in control for the next 30 years.
     
  20. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Without a test case, this is a specious argument.
    Your last sentence is the key one -- FMA trumps all interpretations of state laws. If they were just looking to keep states from being forced to recognize other states' civil unions or marriages, they would have used language present in DOMA. They didn't. Here's the text of the proposed amendment:
    The key word there is "construed". It's meant to give readers the belief that the amendment constrains runaway court decisions and nothing more, but a state constitution that includes the phrase We recognize the rights of gay civil unions would be "construed" to require recognition of a union that's prohibited by FMA. Even if the FMA backers say that it's meant just to stop runaway courts and any future interpretations under Full Faith And Credit, it goes far beyond that.

    And they know it, of course. That's the point of this, to eliminate the idea of gay marriage AND gay civil unions from the country. It's a clear case of the Federal government trampling states' rights.
     
  21. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    The Gay Marriage Myth
    Terrorism, not values, drove Bush's re-election.


    Based on preliminary turnout estimates, 59.5 percent of the eligible voting population turned out in marriage-ban states, whereas 59.1 percent turned out elsewhere. This is a microscopic gap when compared to other factors.

    It's true that states with bans on the ballot voted for Bush at higher rates than other states. His vote share averaged 7 points higher in gay-marriage-banning states than in other states (57.9 vs. 50.9). But four years ago, when same-sex marriage was but a twinkle in the eye of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Bush's vote share was 7.3 points higher in these same states than in other states. In other words, by a statistically insignificant margin, putting gay marriage on the ballot actually reduced the degree to which Bush's vote share in the affected states exceeded his vote share elsewhere.
     
  22. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Gringo, you should check out my thread on the election forum.
     
  23. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Are you just talking about the 1860 election? What about 1864? Would it then have occured to you that just maybe Lincoln had put forces into motion that would end slavery EVERYWHERE, including the border states?
     
  24. Thomas A Fina

    Thomas A Fina Member

    Mar 29, 1999
    Hell
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    actually this has been going on for years. social conservatives only want state's rights in the financial realm, the want full governemnt interference in social realms if it jibes with their worldview
     
  25. Danwoods

    Danwoods Member

    Mar 20, 2000
    Bertram, TX, US
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    You aren't one of those people that gets upset when others try to shove their values down your throat I hope.
     

Share This Page