Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me The fiscal conservatives are never going to vote for the Dems.

Odd that "fiscal conservatives" would vote against their interests. Unless by "fiscal conservatives" you mean "people who support the financial interests of the moneyed." The latter used to be opposed to taxes and government spending as redistribution, but have lately discovered that it's even more lucrative to grab the machinery of government to redirect said spending into their own coffers.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Unless by "fiscal conservatives" you mean "people who support the financial interests of the moneyed."

I mean those of us who feel we already pay too much in taxes and don't want our taxes raised.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
When, in preparing for the debates, the press finally realizes that the actual wording of the House bill would not only prevent states from permitting gay marriage, but also creating civil unions that bear all or perhaps even any of the hallmarks of marriage, Kerry and Edwards will do the right thing and say they oppose the amendment, period, because they only want to preserve the word "marriage" for oppo-sex couples but have nothing against states creating unions.

I caught a little of Chris Matthews yesterday and he was grilling some Kerry and Edwards spokesmen on whether the Dems' states rights sound bite on gay marriage was a dodge. His point was that if the candidates were truly for states' rights on this issue they should also say that they would be willing to go to court to help a state who wants to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman to avoid having to recognize same sex marriages from other states (which of course they wouldn't). I think he made something of a good point, although his shouting down of the spokesmen once they started annoying him with their semi-answers kind of smothered the discussion even before it got started.

So it may behoove the Dems to start defining themselves in opposition to the amendment, as you describe, rather than getting too far into the states' rights theorizing. Although frankly I would think that the voters that this issue is primarily going to affect are the people who are just looking for the basic "pro-gay" or "anti-gay" boxes to check (or, to simplify it further, a picture of a smiling Ellen DeGeneres with a check mark next to it on one side of the ballot and a picture of a frowning Ellen DeGeneres with a slash through it on the other side). In other words, I would think that the nuances of the legal principles to be evaluated in weighing the need for a constitutional amendment are somewhat lost on many members of each party's base.

Do you think that the "right" thing for the candidate(s) to do is to proclaim that they are preserving the word marriage for oppo-sex couples? I personally would prefer they remain silent on that, because I think it would hurt them more than it would help them with the true believers in this polarized election year. This may be related to the fact that I'm one of the few people that thinks SF has a decent legal argument that will allow for recognition of its same sex marriages, so I am aware that this may not be the most dispassionate advice...

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I mean those of us who feel we already pay too much in taxes and don't want our taxes raised.

Yes. Ty is confusing "fiscal conservatives" with people who are opposed to running half-trillion dollar deficits, spending like drunken sailors, and ensuring massive tax increases in the future.

The latter are called "the Clinton administration", I think.

[Not Me]

The only solution to all of this is that the government should stay out of our bedrooms and get out of the marriage business.

Allowing gay marriage means the end of marriage because the next group to demand that their unions be recognized, too are the polygamists and there aren't any arguments against polygamy once you take away the one man-one woman requirement.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Say what?

It's no coincidence that countries in which the voting system allows teh election of second and third-place candidates/parties, there are more parties and coalition government. I'm sure you can google for a proof, but you can also look at the evidence: You need a system that elects multiple members from the same district or gives proportional representation in order to get long-run survival of more than two parties. We don't have that, at least on the national level, so there's little way for a meaningful third party to gain a foothold and ultimately provide any representation. That was Lani Guinier's point, or at least part of one of them.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
Allowing gay marriage means the end of marriage because the next group to demand that their unions be recognized, too are the polygamists and there aren't any arguments against polygamy once you take away the one man-one woman requirement.

Why? Someone should discuss that here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I mean those of us who feel we already pay too much in taxes and don't want our taxes raised.

And who doesn't feel that way? I didn't realize you a one-party state in mind.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Do you think that the "right" thing for the candidate(s) to do is to proclaim that they are preserving the word marriage for oppo-sex couples?

The "necessity" of an action does not purify it the way it does in the law. Jesus was fulfilling his telos, but that doesn't mean the instrumentalities of his death are equally deserving of thanks. Christian doctrine frowns on doing good things with bad intentions.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
the fiscal conservatives are never going to vote for the Dems.

If true, BushCheney2004 will have pulled off the greatest advertising scam ever.

[Hank Chinaski]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Not Me
Allowing gay marriage means the end of marriage because the next group to demand that their unions be recognized, too are the polygamists and there aren't any arguments against polygamy once you take away the one man-one woman requirement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by bilmore
Why? Someone should discuss that here.

All anyone ever does around here is talk about polygamy. Doesn't anyone get out ever? You should try and do outdoor things. Try kayaking or hiking.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
The only solution to all of this is that the government should stay out of our bedrooms and get out of the marriage business.

How odd that none of the major-party candidates for President have espoused this.

Allowing gay marriage means the end of marriage because the next group to demand that their unions be recognized, too are the polygamists and there aren't any arguments against polygamy once you take away the one man-one woman requirement.

Of course, that is our secret agenda -- "we" being the polygamists -- and we are in bed with the gays to bring this plan to fruition. (We fund our secret movement by selling porno flicks.) Once we bring an end to marriage, we intend to target charity, basic human decency, and hydroelectric power, in that order.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Why? Someone should discuss that here.

Exactly. Someone should try to come up with an argument that differentiates between gay marriage and polygamy. Without ignoring the fact that monogamous arranged marriages forced on young muslim and asian and Indian women happen in this country, too, yet I don't see anyone arguing against allowing those cultures to engage in arranged marriages. And without ignoring that if 2 men marry each other, that will leave 2 women without potential partners, too.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Exactly. Someone should try to come up with an argument that differentiates between gay marriage and polygamy. Without ignoring the fact that monogamous arranged marriages forced on young muslim and asian and Indian women happen in this country, too, yet I don't see anyone arguing against allowing those cultures to engage in arranged marriages. And without ignoring that if 2 men marry each other, that will leave 2 women without potential partners, too.

Or, someone should set out how, based on teh argument used to justify gay marriage--namely an equal protection one--it inherently extends to polygamy. You conveniently ignored my response to your non-answer yesterday. Maybe I haven't been keeping up, but I have yet to see an answer that's not a) a bald assertion b) "look at the language" or c) what's the difference between 2 and 3.

Seems to me that the burden is on the proponent as to why a principle extends further than it currently does.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
I still disagree, and think that Bush just lost the election on this issue (assuming he continues to push for this amendment.)

I think the support for such an amendment is far thinner than perceived. I think that, as a casual question, "do you favor gay marriages" probably gets a lot of "no"'s, but, as a much-discussed, constantly-debated long run-up to an amendment ratification election, the question of "shall we amend the Constitution to prevent these people from every marrying" isn't going to go far. Most of those casual "no, I don't favor gay marriage"'s come from people who don't think about it much, and don't know (overtly) any gay people, and so it's always been a throw-away issue. A lot of those "no" 's are going to turn into "no amendment" 's once middle America starts to really consider what's being done. Once they start to see normal gay couples on TV speaking of why they want to be married, and realize that a SanFran shock parade isn't "normal" gay America, the auto-backlash reaction is going to dissipate.

We all can make thoughtless and ignorant group-choices when that's the easiest route, but I think that people, as a whole, are more decent than not, and so I think we've probably just recently seen the beginnings of real progress for gay rights in this country. I think that Bush, with his new panderings, has firmly placed himself in line with the Nationalist Party SA in 1948. "People", in general, and after real reflection, are not going to want to be on this particular side of this issue - just as no one wants to be remembered as the one who kicked Rosa out of her seat. Bush is joining the side that wants to kick some people totally out of the bus, and there are an awful lot of people out here who believe that conservative economic and social policy work best, but aren't willing to join the new South Africa to get there.

Bush had best let this one die of its own weight, quickly. If he truly wants to make this the point of comparison in the election, well, he's foolish.

I strongly agree with your description of this issue, but I just don't see how this is going to keep anyone from voting for Bush in the fall. If people don't like the amendment idea they just won't vote for the amendment. For example, see the recent posts on this board where conservatives pointed out the recent moral failings of the Dem party to say that "you guys are just as bad." In today's polarized environment, if a voter supports Bush and his record so far he's not going to jump ship based on this plank.

But even in the likely event that I am wrong I don't think Bush can make this go away like he did with the Mars exploration proposal. With all these different court cases and legislative debates going on this issue is going to have momentum on its own for the foreseeable future even if Bush never utters the word "amendment" again.

Aside from all of the more important questions about this, I'd just like to say that I'm looking forward to the VP debates where Cheney gets asked about his support for an amendment to the constitution which specifically excludes his daughter from certain rights and privileges that he as a heterosexual can freely enjoy. That will be an interesting answer, especially after his past comments about this being a states rights issue.