Politics: A new beginning

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank
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.

Originally posted by Hello
There is a middle ground for most of us on this one.

I agree with the above. People that care passionately about restricting marriage to heterosexual couples are already big fans of Ralph Reed and the GOP. For the rest of the "middle ground" it's going to be a case of which party looks better (for lack of a better term) getting to the compromise solution of endorsing some rationally-based civil union concept. I think it will be far easier for the Dems to get there than it will be for the republicans, for whom the religious right is a key part of the coalition.

Interestingly, I think this would be the perfect answer for the Dems (or any politician who wants to appeal to the largest number of voters):

The next step then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if these relationships should be treated the same as a conventional marriage is. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam dunk. I think the fact of the matter is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe, I also wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.

Of course, these words are Dick Cheney's (from the '00 campaign). But, since the president has become a standard bearer for the defense of marriage constitutional amendment, it's going to be tough for the GOP to then backtrack to this middle ground.

I believe this whole thing is going to be an albatross for the GOP, no matter what kind of poll data people trot out about what percentage of people favor recognizing homosexual marriages. Wishful thinking, perhaps.

Interestingly, I also saw somewhere that 6 of the 7 justices of the MA supreme judicial court were appointed by republican governors, thus giving the Dems a possible counter to an "antidemocratic crackpot leftist court up in MA forcing us to recognize these unsanctified unions" complaint by the right. Or, I guess, at least one word of that complaint.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
...
Of course, these words are Dick Cheney's (from the '00 campaign). But, since the president has become a standard bearer for the defense of marriage constitutional amendment, it's going to be tough for the GOP to then backtrack to this middle ground.

I believe this whole thing is going to be an albatross for the GOP, no matter what kind of poll data people trot out about what percentage of people favor recognizing homosexual marriages. Wishful thinking, perhaps.

There is a great point in there, and one which I had not previously actively considered. This is totally not a federal issue. And, for those of us who believe the entire abortion issue should never have become a federal issue, this would be a great place to start pushing for state's rights.

Y'all better watch how you allow that one to be framed though, because when (pro-choice... can't characterize them any other way) people start hearing calls for state's rights, the alarm bells better start ringing in (their) heads.

Hello

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Interestingly, I also saw somewhere that 6 of the 7 justices of the MA supreme judicial court were appointed by republican governors, thus giving the Dems a possible counter to an "antidemocratic crackpot leftist court up in MA forcing us to recognize these unsanctified unions" complaint by the right. Or, I guess, at least one word of that complaint.

And Margie Marshall, who wrote the decision, was appointed to the bench by Weld and appointed Chief Justice by Cellucci.

But most of the Republican appointees are probably themselves liberal Democrats.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And I hadn't heard he's scrapping the audit. When did that come out?

The Governor didn't so much scrap the audit as sort of bend the definition so that the product is more of a political document regarding how best to structure the spending cuts and, er, debt deferrals. Donna Arduin, the finance director AS hired from Florida, has done similar reports in FL and NY.

Legislators were kind of bugged about this yesterday:
"I don't think we should think there has been some intricate, complex audit done here," said Assemblyman John Dutra, D-Fremont. "The presentation has a political tone that I don't think is appropriate or beneficial to this committee."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGB236F9P1.DTL

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
And Margie Marshall, who wrote the decision, was appointed to the bench by Weld and appointed Chief Justice by Cellucci.

It only shows that the moderate wing of the Republican Party is not to be trusted with judicial nominations. See also David Souter.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The lesson for religious conservatives out of the Massachusetts decision on gay marriage is, if you like your religious views, keep the government from getting entangled in them. If marriage was purely religious, then no one would dream of telling churches that they had to permit gays and lesbians to marry. But because it is a civil institution as well, politicians get to decide who gets to marry, and this opens it up for change. If church and state were truly separated in this regard, then the religious view of marriage couldn't be undermined in the way that many think it has been. In this way, the separation of church and state makes religion stronger.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It only shows that the moderate wing of the Republican Party is not to be trusted with judicial nominations. See also David Souter.

and Blackmun (sp?)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The lesson for religious conservatives out of the Massachusetts decision on gay marriage is, if you like your religious views, keep the government from getting entangled in them. If marriage was purely religious, then no one would dream of telling churches that they had to permit gays and lesbians to marry. But because it is a civil institution as well, politicians get to decide who gets to marry, and this opens it up for change. If church and state were truly separated in this regard, then the religious view of marriage couldn't be undermined in the way that many think it has been. In this way, the separation of church and state makes religion stronger.

so you're saying the Church should tell the state it can't do marriages? you suggesting a government interfering with commerce argument, ala Detroit Edison?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
and Blackmun (sp?)

And Stevens, too, if you want to go back that far, but the far right wasn't as organized then.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so you're saying the Church should tell the state it can't do marriages? you suggesting a government interfering with commerce argument, ala Detroit Edison?

No, I'm saying that if marriage was purely a religious ceremony, without a civil component to it, then the state couldn't tell anyone that they had to let gays marry. They could have their own morally-pure church, and who visits whom in hospitals, etc., could be decided on the basis of some other criterion.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No, I'm saying that if marriage was purely a religious ceremony, without a civil component to it, then the state couldn't tell anyone that they had to let gays marry.

the civil component was supplied by the state so the church has a problem taking it away. to tye threads, maybe religions could trademark giving rings, breaking glasses, Proud Mary covers, etc. and effectively do away with non religious approved marriages. otherwise I think your point is a bit elusive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

For those of you who were curious, 8th-ranked Mexico and 55th-ranked Iceland played to a 0-0 tie yesterday at Pac Bell Park, in what surely gets tallied as a moral victory for the men in blue.

Correction: The population of Iceland, at 285,000, is much larger than the population of Fremont.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
For those of you who were curious, 8th-ranked Mexico and 55th-ranked Iceland played to a 0-0 tie yesterday at Pac Bell Park, in what surely gets tallied as a moral victory for the men in blue.

Correction: The population of Iceland, at 285,000, is much larger than the population of Fremont.

And in other news that will also only be of importance to third-world illiterates and a few Ivory-tower socialists....

allow me to introduce Comrade Tyrone Slothrop as our newest moderator for the Politics Board.

[leagleaze]

You shouldn't call him a Commie.

That's not nice.

As pope, you should be warm and fuzzy.

As far as gay marriage, it is a wonderful rhetoric issue, a good us versus them sort of a thing.

Marriage would be very nice thank you, but all things considered, not getting fired again is a bit higher up on my list. It is a lot harder for extremists to challenge the employment, accom, etc sorts of protection, so for their argument it is better to jump past them to marriage. I'd also be happy to focus on having the same rights conveyed by marriage for the moment. The word marriage is a difficult one for a lot of people. It will remain so until more gay people come out, and more of mainstream america actually sees us in relationships that aside from having two people of the same sex, look much the same as theirs. These things take time. Most Americans are not ready yet. 10 or so years from now people will shrug and wonder what the fuss was about.

It's going to get very nasty, and if the extreme right can't keep itself from attacking gay people (as opposed to gay marriage) they are probably going to have a problem. And from personal experience, the extreme right cannot help but attack gay people. It is like some kind of hobby or something.

You know, immoral, recruiting children, sinners, etc etc etc.

If I weren't gay I would probably find it amusing. Since I am, I find it painful.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by leagleaze
You shouldn't call him a Commie.

That's not nice.

As pope, you should be warm and fuzzy.

As far as gay marriage, it is a wonderful rhetoric issue, a good us versus them sort of a thing.

Marriage would be very nice thank you, but all things considered, not getting fired again is a bit higher up on my list. It is a lot harder for extremists to challenge the employment, accom, etc sorts of protection, so for their argument it is better to jump past them to marriage. I'd also be happy to focus on having the same rights conveyed by marriage for the moment. The word marriage is a difficult one for a lot of people. It will remain so until more gay people come out, and more of mainstream america actually sees us in relationships that aside from having two people of the same sex, look much the same as theirs. These things take time. Most Americans are not ready yet. 10 or so years from now people will shrug and wonder what the fuss was about.

It's going to get very nasty, and if the extreme right can't keep itself from attacking gay people (as opposed to gay marriage) they are probably going to have a problem. And from personal experience, the extreme right cannot help but attack gay people. It is like some kind of hobby or something.

You know, immoral, recruiting children, sinners, etc etc etc.

If I weren't gay I would probably find it amusing. Since I am, I find it painful.

I would think you might want to substitute "compulsion" for "hobby." Since I am not gay, I will find it amusing in a sick sad way when I don't find it depressing.

And I don't see why "commie" is automatically an insult. I know that Slave means it pejoratively, but then, people call other people gay and mean it pejoratively.