Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Burger, you are now off my "neutral reasonable guy list." Its down to Atticus.

I thought I already had gotten myself off that list with this:




That aside, my point was essentially the one you make. Remember Strom's party in 1948.

(and to maintain my inherent swissness, DOMA was veto-proof when Clinton signed it.)

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
That said, you may be overestimating the "here."
We have a burb here that is known as "gay friendly." It is the center for marches, there are bars, there are plenty of gay residents, etc.

The "here" was an online chat site comprised of overly-educated and overly-argumentative liberals and conservatives who - judging by their posts - are almost united on this issue.

Hell, last poll I read showed inner-city antipathy to "gay marriage" at around 80%

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What is different here, and troubling, is the Republicans have never resorted to cheap fear tactics.

Right. Willie Horton was designed to play on everyone's charitable instincts.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
He said it wasn't alienating.

I'm saying it is.

I suppose the question, then, is whether anyone in the GOP other than Bilmore and Hank finds this alienating. We in California are the canaries in the coal mine on how the Christian right is actually not at all interested in federalism or limited government when they have the Southern votes to impose a national moral policy. I was sincerely hoping the GOP side of this board would assure me it's red meat for his base and will be quickly abandoned because there are true libertarians secretly at the helm of the WH who simply use Christianity to dress up minimum government in some cloak of higher moral authority. The pristine river waters of Republican values actually empty into a vast, saline sea of trucker hats and KJV prophecy types.

I know some non-Christian GOP people in the South who stand for the old values (i.e., they were embarassed when Ollie North --- a guy who got off on the original crim pro technicality and who now writes Tom Clancy knockoff books --- was nominated for the Va. Senate race). I mention them because they're so rare as to be put in a zoo or something.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
I mention them because they're so rare as to be put in a petting zoo or something.

An evil petting zoo?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I was sincerely hoping the GOP side of this board would assure me it's red meat for his base and will be quickly abandoned because there are true libertarians secretly at the helm of the WH who simply use Christianity to dress up minimum government in some cloak of higher moral authority

No, no. That part of the big-tent pole was allowed to rot out a few years ago, trapping us immobilized underneath, like Gen X beneath the mounting debt.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
(and to maintain my inherent swissness, DOMA was veto-proof when Clinton signed it.)

This is slow pitch son. You going to argue this way, you stay on their side- hear?

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Really? Interesting. I wouldn't have guessed.

(seriously)

I think you will find a surprising number of people don't approve of amending the Constitution for this purpose, and actually, find it downright offensive. Regardless of their view on same sex marriage.

Actually I'm surprised he did it, he didn't need to. Who were the people who were complaining he wasn't supporting it going to vote for if he didn't support it? Kerry? He had those votes. Now the people who believe that it is inappropriate to remove this power from the states and aren't hypocritical in how they apply their beliefs in this regard will be upset. This will make some strange bedfellows that's for sure.

There is another part too. A lot of straight people know gay people now. So while they might not be completely comfortable, when people engage in what are seen as mean spirited attacks on gay people, which Bush constantly does, it angers them. Oh he tries to control his tone from time to time, but that smirk on his face gets away from him and gives him away. Those who support the amendment are rarely capable of being polite either. No surprise, bigotry based upon fear is rarely a pretty thing.

The majority of people who are uncomfortable about homosexuality and gay marriage don't see us as animals ala Santorum. They just don't quite understand us, and they don't think our relationships are equal to theirs. Something by the way that changes very quickly as soon as they have an opportunity to meet a gay couple that has been together a long time.

Unfortunately this is going to be a nasty year for gay people. It is going to be a very divisive year for this country. And it is going to be a year that history will look back on with great disfavor.

It doesn't matter though. We'll win, in the end. It might take some time, it will be hard and painful, but we'll win. They know it. Hence the panic.

Strap on your seat belts boys and girls. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
An evil petting zoo?

They're relatives of my wife. Which is to say, probably.

My side of the family supplies the sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, no. That part of the big-tent pole was allowed to rot out a few years ago, trapping us immobilized underneath, like Gen X beneath the mounting debt.

Did you manage to wriggle out yet, or not? I was thinking yes, but now you are intimating that you remain trapped. I like your illustrative language, though.

Part of me thinks that even people who don't approve of/want gay marriage would not necessarily support an amendment to the Constitution.

But then I think that a lot of people are probably willing to amend the Constitution at the drop of a hat.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you are outside Manhatten or DC you might be surprised how much fear, or hate, or whatever it is, there is.

But you also might be surprised at the tolerance out there. You know, I live in Texas, a state not necessarily known for it's forward thinking. But I also have an openly gay brother in Texas, who has never been shunned by colleagues or had problems with work or finding housing or even that much animosity. Granted, he lives and works in the part of town that doesn't care about such things, but he works in a field where he has to deal with people from all over the state in all sorts of socioeconomic classes. Not one problem. He's not flamingly gay, but I'm pretty sure most people's gaydar (or at least suspicions of metrosexuality) would go off when meeting him. No one stopped talking to him when he came out, and he spends a lot of time in very small towns in central Texas. He's an ace in the duck blind, can talk pick-up trucks with everyone else on the street, and he's probably spent more time rounding up and working cattle than most straight Texans. He's one of those normal people who happens to be gay, and the more exposure people have to people like him, the less likely they're going to care if he ends up marrying the love of his life whenever he happens to find one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The "here" was an online chat site comprised of overly-educated and overly-argumentative liberals and conservatives who - judging by their posts - are almost united on this issue.

Sounds fun- have you made Ty a moderator there yet?

What people say, even anon, isn't always accurate to true feelings. Probably the majority of people in the burb I mentioned would say they supported the HR ordinance- its when the curtains are drawn you get the bad thoughts.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I was sincerely hoping the GOP side of this board would assure me it's red meat for his base and will be quickly abandoned because there are true libertarians secretly at the helm of the WH who simply use Christianity to dress up minimum government in some cloak of higher moral authority. The pristine river waters of Republican values actually empty into a vast, saline sea of trucker hats and KJV prophecy types.

The waters analogy is a good one, as it just keeps getting deeper and deeper here.

(Trucker hats. Yeah.)

Actually, I think Bush just shot himself in the foot. For all of the polling that's been done, I think he's overestimated the support for this. I think an awful lot of people who have never been aware that they knew a gay person have sort of casually and reflexively answered "no" to the "do you favor gay marriages" question, but, when it comes down to it, they either really don't care enough about the issue to actually ratify it, or they're quietly embarrassed that some people even think it's an issue. Yeah, you do have a small hard-core group who don't like it because their own piece of the true cross (or is it ark) whispered to them that gawd hates fags, and so they do, too, but you have to figure that Darwinism is going to have its way with them before too long. That kind of idiocy has to, eventually, result in long-term job loss, and then they'll be Dems, and you can worry about them.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

But then I think that a lot of people are probably willing to amend the Constitution at the drop of a hat.

Sure, yet we still have only 27 amendments, and only 16 since 1800, and 2 of those cancel each other out.

Ultimately, I doubt it will go any further than a flag-burning amendment.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Right. Willie Horton was designed to play on everyone's charitable instincts.

Willie Horton was a Gore primary issue.