LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 3,584
0 members and 3,584 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, Today at 04:16 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-20-2003, 02:54 PM   #1606
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
On the FB, Our Fearless Leader (Leagl) has opined that with the Mass Court rejecting the state law banning gay marriage, this will now be the predominant domestic issue in the upcoming campaign.

She might be right -- this is something that's always gotten the Christian conservatives wrapped 'round the axle.

This Slate article has an interesting take on why that's so*.



So, expect to hear more from the Christian Right that gay marriage is apocalyptic because (1) it's, you know, bad**, but more importantly (2) a more secular argument -- that it signals the erosion and collapse of civil society.

Gattigap

* At least to me.

** And generally icky in the view of those who oppose it.
The DEMs should not want this, based on the poll numbers.
sgtclub is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 02:59 PM   #1607
Say_hello_for_me
Theo rests his case
 
Say_hello_for_me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap

So, expect to hear more from the Christian Right that gay marriage is apocalyptic because (1) it's, you know, bad**, but more importantly (2) a more secular argument -- that it signals the erosion and collapse of civil society.

Gattigap
I ain't saying the Christian Right would be right arguing against this, but I'd expect to hear that at least several of the goal's that might have been achieved by the state encouraging and fostering heterosexual marriage, are not achieved by the state encouraging and fostering homosexual marriage.

But that all goes back to the caveman social contract ideas of sex for protection and perpetuating the tribe and having children to care for the elders yada yada yada.

I'd expect the counter-argument to be that at least a few other goals are still achieved by any kind of marriage... caring for the elderly with the need for minimal state aid etc....

And then I'd expect the other 95% of the arguments to involve the use of words like "Nazi", "hate", "sin" yada yada yada.

In the preliminary stages, it seems both sides are preparing their audience for the stage production of "I'm a victim of those people". The preparation is called "I'm going to be a victin of those people". Sound familiar?


Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'

Say_hello_for_me is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:02 PM   #1608
Gattigap
Southern charmer
 
Gattigap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: At the Great Altar of Passive Entertainment
Posts: 7,033
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
The DEMs should not want this, based on the poll numbers.
I'm sure that's true.

Frankly, I see gay marriage as threatening to neither my life nor the foundations of my society, and am fine with it. But, personally I'm not passionate about the issue, doubt that enough Americans want to push this particular boulder up the hill in an election year, and find no joy in anticipating Bush/Cheney/Bauer/GOPluminarytobenamedhere using it as a club to beat the shit out of whomever the Democrats nominate.
__________________
I'm done with nonsense here. --- H. Chinaski
Gattigap is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:05 PM   #1609
Atticus Grinch
Hello, Dum-Dum.
 
Atticus Grinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,117
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
The DEMs should not want this, based on the poll numbers.
Even in the Bay Area, it takes a pretty hardcore leftist to say that what should legally be offered to same-sex couples necessarily must be called "marriage" as a moral imperative. To me, state recognition of couplehood is fraught with peril, and this uneasy marriage between state and religious sanction of couplehood is probably doomed over the next 100 years. If we can find better ways to handle custody disputes, inheritance and medical treatment rights, the need for the state to decide when We Two Are One is obsolete.

All this is to say, the Dems have an easy fallback position: don't discriminate on benefits offered to same-sex couples, but there's no need to call it marriage. That seems to strike the centerline of public opinion on the matter. Even in the Patch, the mainstream feeling is "I don't care what you do in your bedroom." God bless America.

If only there were someone in the Democratic party with enough leadership and juice to turn the tide against framing the debate as "Should gays be allowed to marry?" But the GOP has been more effective in the past 10 years at framing social questions favorably to their position.
Atticus Grinch is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:08 PM   #1610
Atticus Grinch
Hello, Dum-Dum.
 
Atticus Grinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,117
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I ain't saying the Christian Right would be right arguing against this, but I'd expect to hear that at least several of the goal's that might have been achieved by the state encouraging and fostering heterosexual marriage, are not achieved by the state encouraging and fostering homosexual marriage.
You must be hearing a different Christian Right than I hear.
Atticus Grinch is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:12 PM   #1611
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
I'm sure that's true.

Frankly, I see gay marriage as threatening to neither my life nor the foundations of my society, and am fine with it. But, personally I'm not passionate about the issue, doubt that enough Americans want to push this particular boulder up the hill in an election year, and find no joy in anticipating Bush/Cheney/Bauer/GOPluminarytobenamedhere using it as a club to beat the shit out of whomever the Democrats nominate.
To the contrary, and much along the lines of the Slate article you quoted earlier, it is the Republicans who should be getting the shit beat out of them over this issue. How can anyone claim to be in favor of family values and a strong community structure be opposed to the formal recognition of two people who love each other as a societal unit? It is as hypocritical as being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:22 PM   #1612
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,145
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And then I'd expect the other 95% of the arguments to involve the use of words like "Nazi", "hate", "sin" yada yada yada.
Hello
I live a suburb that votes extremelly liberally. We has a human rights law on the ballot a bit ago. although it extended its protection to many other groups beyond sexual orientation, the state had a parallel law that covered everything but. thus, despite council people saying it was not just a gay rights issue, it was.

the campaign was a very strange dynamic. Monaghan's group put money in for ads against the law. there were two basic arguments: We would be legally sanctioning that which god forbades. since this argument was being put forth by neighbors of gay couples, it was put forth as politely as one could (ie not like what's his name's "fag going to hell" rap). there was also a group who were, at least allegedly concerned about the need for a law.

the pro-law group didn't really answer this "need for a law group", and spent all its resources arguing the first group. of course, convincing someone of the first group's mindset to switch votes has roughly the same chance of winning, as someone here (PB) actually being convinced to change their vote on anything.

Letters to the editor were running 50/50 in the local weekly as the election approached. I was really nervous/pissed that it would be close, especially as I thought the second group raised a point that deserved an answer. I mean, in my neighborhood there is no harassment, so it have been largely symbolic, but still it seemed like a really bad symbol, if it failed.

Anyway, it passed overwhelmingly. The "anti" people felt strongly enough to voice their opinion more frequently than the pro people. That's why the paper was 50/50. The vote was 70/30.*

My point is that the people who would turn to vote Republican over this issue are a small group; they believe strongly, but I think would mostly vote Republican anyway.

On the other hand, I think that making this any kind of negative issue by the Republicans will turn off tons of middle of the ground voters. The Reps will look Neanderthal to lots of the main stream.

*on the other hand these things fail most places so maybe I'm wrong, and my sample is skewed. I'm just saying that the middle ground people who don't already know how they'll vote will not be single issue anti-gay voters. those that are single issue anti-gay voters are probably going with the Reps anyway because of abortion.
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:29 PM   #1613
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
To the contrary, and much along the lines of the Slate article you quoted earlier, it is the Republicans who should be getting the shit beat out of them over this issue. How can anyone claim to be in favor of family values and a strong community structure be opposed to the formal recognition of two people who love each other as a societal unit? It is as hypocritical as being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.
Looks like the R's are going to take hell for their position in Massachusetts. Our Gubner has indicated that he is opposed to the decision, and is now suddenly discovering that the population of the state support it overwhelming. (Last poll was about 60/20 with the remainder not giving a rat's ass).

What is going to be interesting is how this plays into the electoral college. The Rs have been making gains in places like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and their position is going to set them back in those states. On the other hand, the Dems have been making gains in Florida, some of the southwestern and south/midwestern states, and some border states, and the God hates Gays message may have more resonance there.

Also, the R's are going to end up sounding shrill and hateful on this issue (which, of course, many of them are), and I'm betting that hurts. The D's honest but ambivalent soulsearching will play better.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:31 PM   #1614
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,145
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
On the other hand, the Dems have been making gains in Florida, some of the southwestern and south/midwestern states, and some border states,
isn't it pretty to think so?

(removed from the gays rights issue, and credit to another poster)
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:32 PM   #1615
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
isn't it pretty to think so?

(removed from the gays rights issue, and credit to another poster)
Yes, very.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:33 PM   #1616
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
and this uneasy marriage between state and religious sanction of couplehood is probably doomed over the next 100 years. If we can find better ways to handle custody disputes, inheritance and medical treatment rights, the need for the state to decide when We Two Are One is obsolete.
That's scarry. I was thinking the same exact thing this morning. When was that next meeting?

[edited to add]

I don't know why we can't just do it by contract, with the default position being that in the absence of an agreement between the couple to the contrary, the spouse get's the right.
sgtclub is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:45 PM   #1617
Gattigap
Southern charmer
 
Gattigap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: At the Great Altar of Passive Entertainment
Posts: 7,033
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
To the contrary, and much along the lines of the Slate article you quoted earlier, it is the Republicans who should be getting the shit beat out of them over this issue. How can anyone claim to be in favor of family values and a strong community structure be opposed to the formal recognition of two people who love each other as a societal unit? It is as hypocritical as being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.
Agreed, but (as Atticus has quite correctly pointed out) the Dems suck these days at framing societal issues to their advantage.

In a similar vein, this Richard Cohen opinion piece in WaPo makes the point that, in order to resuscitate the institution of marriage, DeLay should be applauding gay marriage, not combating it. Us heteros have been doing a pretty effective job in destroying the institution all by ourselves.
__________________
I'm done with nonsense here. --- H. Chinaski
Gattigap is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:57 PM   #1618
Say_hello_for_me
Theo rests his case
 
Say_hello_for_me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Looks like the R's are going to take hell for their position in Massachusetts. Our Gubner has indicated that he is opposed to the decision, and is now suddenly discovering that the population of the state support it overwhelming. (Last poll was about 60/20 with the remainder not giving a rat's ass).

What is going to be interesting is how this plays into the electoral college. The Rs have been making gains in places like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and their position is going to set them back in those states. On the other hand, the Dems have been making gains in Florida, some of the southwestern and south/midwestern states, and some border states, and the God hates Gays message may have more resonance there.

Also, the R's are going to end up sounding shrill and hateful on this issue (which, of course, many of them are), and I'm betting that hurts. The D's honest but ambivalent soulsearching will play better.
Yes, it's the R's sounding shrill and hateful by calling people shrill and hateful. Ladies and gentlemen, example number 1, the kind Mr. Greedy.

I liked Atticus's position though. What do you do with this? Benefits? Yay! I'd rather have lesbian #1 taking care of lesbian #2 in old age than nursing home #380 taking care of medicare recipient #6 million. There are reasons to confer benefits in exchange for some sorta committment. And we may all see a return.

Marriage? I don't know if you have to call it that. But civil union or something (or whatever else Atticus was saying)? There is a middle ground for most of us on this one. Labels like "shrill and hateful" aside.

More than anything, I just want to know how the G will minimize expenditures (see ex. above).

Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'

Say_hello_for_me is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 04:05 PM   #1619
Say_hello_for_me
Theo rests his case
 
Say_hello_for_me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

My point is that the people who would turn to vote Republican over this issue are a small group; they believe strongly, but I think would mostly vote Republican anyway.

On the other hand, I think that making this any kind of negative issue by the Republicans will turn off tons of middle of the ground voters. The Reps will look Neanderthal to lots of the main stream.
Exactly and exactly. I note, as I have before elsewhere, that abortion is not a winning issue for the democrats though.

Net-net, I remember reading more than once that single-issue abortion voters are overwhelmingly pro-life, and that is truly not just a republican issue for, e.g., Catholics.

Ima just saying, I'd rather not see my people getting shrill about this stuff (encouraging people to be partners for life!), especially when my people should be getting shrill about, e.g., too much government spending and a mildly unfocused administration.

Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'

Say_hello_for_me is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 04:31 PM   #1620
Replaced_Texan
Random Syndicate (admin)
 
Replaced_Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 14,280
The Big Domestic Issue for '04.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
(2) a more secular argument -- that it signals the erosion and collapse of civil society.
I heard a version of that this morning on a commentary on NPR. The speaker claimed that marriage as an insitution in Scandinavia has declined considerably since they started allowing same-sex couples to have civilly recognized unions. The focus of the argument was that people don't bother to get married in Scandanavia, and then they have kids, and then the relationship breaks up, and then the kids suffer. I'm not convinced by this argument, but I haven't looked at the stats. Frankly, I think that no-fault divorce has/had a MUCH bigger impact on the institution of marriage. At least the catholics are consistent.

I think, as time goes on, this issue is sort of going to resolve itself, because people will go ahead, get married and hold themselves out to be married without being sanctioned by the state, and more importantly other people will recognize the relationship as a marriage, no matter what legislation called "the defense of marriage act" has to say about it. Sort of like common law marriage. Socially, or at least in my social circles, it is becoming more and more of an accepted relationship, and I think that the law will eventually catch up with social convention.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
Replaced_Texan is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:10 AM.