Well it appears that my hope for a clean victory by one party or the other may be dashed in Ohio. It is now midnight Pacific Time and in my opinion Ohio is too close to call. Which leads directly to my next topic. FoxNews and NBC should not have called Ohio–it is just too close there and it is clearly the last decisive state. It has put both networks in the ridiculous position of being afraid to call Nevada or New Mexico for Bush even though it far clearer that Bush won in those two states than it is in Ohio. At least some of the networks seem to have learned their lesson from Florida.
I also want to cast scorn on those who were peddling the early exit polls–yes that is you Slate and Drudge. Not noticing that the early exit polls dramatically oversampled women is an unforgiveable and unusually simple mistake which ought not have led to breathless and unfounded speculation of a Kerry landslide.
I also note that the Nader blaming has begun.
So, I’m still hoping to wake up to a clear winner, but I think that is unlikely. Can we talk about an efficient method of casting, verifying and counting ballots soon?
In any event, I think it is clear that things are likely to get ugly in Ohio. This isn’t what the US needed at all, but it seems likely to be what we get. I will be understanding if the Democrats want to wait to count the provisional ballots. I will not be understanding if they decide to try to cheat their way into getting non-eligible Kerry votes counted, and eligible Bush votes discounted. The only way to do that is to agree to the clear pre-election guidelines before you open up the ballots and see what is inside them.
This is why it is so crucial to have good pre-election rules. If you don’t, any post-election decision will be tainted with the fact that you know in advance how it will help, and how much you need it to help.
UPDATE: According to CSPAN, 101% of the precincts in New Mexico are reporting, but they still can’t call the state for anyone. WTF? I’ll presume that has something to do with Indian reservations? (And my paranoid side suggests that it has to do with vote manufacturing, but I’m telling it to shut up and go to sleep.)
Eh, it’s Bush’s. I think Kerry can reasonably wait until the morning when all of the day-of ballots are reported. The outstanding ballots are in Bush country, his lead’s going to go up to ~130,000, and there’s no way the provisionals and absentees could reasonably overcome that.
I can only assume that Rove will be given a seriously diminished role in the second term, now that re-election isn’t an issue, and I profoundly hope that Bush’s next term isn’t as managed by electoral politics as the last, and the gay marriage, high spending, and protectionism garbage go away.
Whoops. . up to 170K already. Maybe 180K by morning.
I also note that the Nader blaming has begun.
As of right now (3am Central, 4am Eastern), Nader’s votes are twice the difference between Kerry and Bush in New Mexico. Assuming the breakdowns from 2000 hold, one could reasonably conclude that Nader cost Kerry New Mexico; whether this costs the election is an entirely different matter.
Excuse me: whether Nader cost Kerry the election is an entirely different matter.
From Yahoo!:
Bush Prepares to Declare Re-Election Win
AP – 2 minutes ago
With Ohio looming as a Florida redux, President Bush prepared to declare re-election victory in the wee hours of Wednesday and Democratic rival John Kerry refused to concede.
That pretty much sums up both of them, I’d think.
The order’s the wrong way around: Kerry (via Edwards) has already refused to concede for the nonce, while Bush has not yet declared victory but is rumored to be planning to do so momentarily.
Yahoo has corrected those precinct reports for New Mexico and brought it back to 99 percent with Bush still the clear winner. I’ve been live blogging for about the last fourteen hours and after doing the math, called it for Bush.
It looks like Bush clearly won the electoral and (meaningless) popular vote while rather than supporting “divided government” the electorate increased Republican majorities in the House and Senate and may have sent the Senate Minority Leader home looking for work.
Enjoy the victory, those of us that stuck by the President and our Party rather than jumping ship for spurious reasons deserve it.
Can we talk about an efficient method of casting, verifying and counting ballots soon?
Certainly not if Bush is back in for the next four years.
Enjoy the victory, those of us that stuck by the President and our Party rather than jumping ship for spurious reasons deserve it.
What about those who jumped for legitimate reasons?
You beat me to that by the amount of time it would have taken me to type it, Anarch. Although I can easily predict Thorley’s answer: There are no legitimate reasons. Party disloyalty = treason.
OK, assuming that the CNN precinct statistics are correct, it’s all down to Ohio now; Iowa and New Mexico are completely moot. Here’s to a fun few days.
Never fear, Sebastian. Bush is the clear winner by over 3.5 million votes and will emerge as the highest vote getter ever. Now is the real test of John Kerry’s character. Will he go before the public and congratulate all Americans for a great exercise in the democratic process, or will he cast dispersions about the voting process. Edwards offering, with that goofy crap eating grin about promising American their vote will count came oh so close to implying Republicans were somehow nefariously affecting the election. They must do better than that. They can help begin the healing process of a situation they greatly contributed to after 2000 or they can set us on a course of strength and prepare for presenting a better candidate in 2008. We’d all profit from that.
Blogbudsman, the lesson of Florida in 2000 is that respect for democracy means challenging those who would prefer you to sit down, shut up, and accept what you’ve been told.
If Bush genuinely did get 3.5M more votes than Kerry (which is still uncertain) well, that’s how it played out. I was wrong: and, obviously, I’m sorry to be wrong.
If the results are questionable, they should be questioned until the facts are verified.
And obviously – every vote must be counted.
jes – “democracy means challenging those who would prefer you to sit down, shut up, and accept what you’ve been told.”
I agree with you whole heartedly. As much as we disagree on many things, neither you or I would accept such a scenario.
and “And obviously – every vote must be counted.”
No question, and it appears that we’ve done a credible job given the challenges of our times. Voting technology must stay the course of continuous improvement, as difficult as this seems these days in the public sector. Did you see where some states pulled back on pulling over drunks and the like on election day as not to appear they were keeping folks from voting. Kind of like the immunity elected officials get for the same reasoning. Tis a strange world we live in. We should be proudly amazed it works this well.
Question on, jesugislac, Question on!
jesurgislac, I typo’d your name. My apologies.
Blogbudsman: I agree with you whole heartedly. As much as we disagree on many things, neither you or I would accept such a scenario.
Then why on Earth are you calling on John Kerry to concede now? Every vote has not been counted. The decision is not yet certain. Why did you say it was “a test of John Kerry’s character” for him to be willing to sit down, shut up, and accept what he’s been told? If you want me to question the results, surely you should also support Kerry questioning the results? Or does your support for democracy remain wholehearted only so long as Republicans win? That is certainly what I’m getting from your comments on this thread so far.
jesurgislac, I typo’d your name. My apologies.
Absolutely no need to apologize. It’s a long handle and it’s easily typo’d. 😉
Geez, what a day. Beautiful weather here, so I left the house with family around lunch, and the exit polls were saying that everything showed a strong showing by Kerry, though hints that it wasn’t as cut and dried as it seemed were there. Came back this evening, and the WH correspondent at the White House is saying that the Bush entourage had the motorcade gassed up and they were trying to get the networks to call NM so that Bush could declare victory. Now, the story is that they want to mend fences with the Dems so they are going to hold off. Went off to aikido and then came back to search through the flotsam and jetsam of the internet.
John Quiggen at CT has this about the thin sliver of hope for a 2nd bush term, but I can’t feel optimistic. 11 states passed anti-gay initiatives and I don’t even want to think about the SCOTUS. Apparently, the electorate, despite the fact that a majority felt Iraq was going badly, felt that “values” were the overriding consideration. After perhaps reading Candide again, I will pull out my Greek grammar books and give Thucydides’ Melian dialogue a try. Or actually work on my Japanese to read Heike Monogatari. Here’s O’Neill’s translation of the first lines
The knell of the bells at the Gion temple
Echoes the impermanence of all things.
The colour of the flowers on its double-trunked tree
Reveals the truth that to flourish is to fall.
He who is proud is not so for long,
Like a passing dream on a night in spring.
He who is brave is finally destroyed,
To be no more than dust before the wind.
My garden awaits. Knock on my door in 4 years…
While a majority of the electorate may feel Iraq is going badly, that doesn’t mean that all of those people feel that it was either a mistake or that Kerry would have actually had a real plan to do the same thing only better.
Personally, I’m hoping Kerry doesn’t concede until February. He’s clearly beaten and dragging it out can only discredit the partisan Dems with the nonpartisan members of the general public. Karl Rove is such a genius for manipulating the Ohio margin to be clearly in Bush’s camp, for making it the decisive state wrt to electoral college margin of victory and just a bit too wide for Kerry to discover enough votes.
Rove doesn’t micromanage that low. The credit for that sort of thing belongs to his minions.
jes – “Then why on Earth are you calling on John Kerry to concede now? Every vote has not been counted. The decision is not yet certain.”
Isn’t it? They know. And what they do with what they know is as important now to our future as it’s ever been.
or that Kerry would have actually had a real plan to do the same thing only better.
So they voted for Bush, who they know doesn’t have a real plan…
You know, the results make it awfully tempting to go comment on Redstate, any time they’re posting about disasters in Iraq, to point out that this is what they voted for. They actively chose to have an administration whom they knew would create disaster and chaos in Iraq: after all, it had already done so, and had no plans to fix it.
Personally, I’m hoping Kerry doesn’t concede until February.
I trust Kerry won’t concede until all the votes cast have been counted. It’s interesting that you identify “the public” as Republicans who do not want votes to be counted.
Ah, but you assume that this is counter to the desired end.
I trust Kerry won’t concede until all the votes cast have been counted.
That could be a while. I hope he concedes as soon as it’s clear that he lost. Which by all appearances was several hours ago.
While a majority of the electorate may feel Iraq is going badly, that doesn’t mean that all of those people feel that it was either a mistake or that Kerry would have actually had a real plan to do the same thing only better.
According to CNN’s exit polls, 15% of voters identified Iraq as the most important issue* of the election. Of those voters, 74% voted for Kerry.
Also, 53% of voters said that the Iraq war had not made America safer. 80% of those people voted for Kerry. So I think you’re wrong on the merits, here.
*The #1 issue? “Moral values (22%).” Ugh. Of that crowd, 79% voted for Bush.
kenB: That could be a while.
Indeed – but it would set an excellent precedent. That democracy is important, and people deserve to have their votes counted.
Rather than, as the current Republican tradition has it, of stopping counting the votes as soon as it looks like Bush has won.
I will be understanding if the Democrats want to wait to count the provisional ballots.
Very generous of you.
If that were the case, we’d be done right now.
I think there was a clear winner last night: Homophobia. With Coburn and DeMint heading to congress, and eleven states passing bans on same-sex marriage, not to mention 51% of American voters casting their ballots for the Lets-Ban-Gay-Marriage/Don’t-Call-My-Openly-Gay-Daughter-a-Lesbian ticket, America has sent a clear message to gays and lesbians: “This is our country, not yours.”
In his anti-liberal screed on RedState, Tacitus talks of how those on the American left “kick to the curb those Americans for whom God and country are not much-derided abstractions of the ignorant, but the true objects of devotion of the thoughtful man.” Now, I can’t seem to register an account on Tacitus.org, and obviously RedState is off limits to anyone not interested in kowtowing to the “Party of Inclusion”, but if you are reading this, Tacitus, so you will recognize it in the future, THIS is what getting kicked to the curb looks like. It doesn’t involve having a smaller majority in one party than you do in another party. It doesn’t involve government declining to force the particulars of your religion on believers and nonbelievers alike. What it involves is the folks in the majority deciding that minority rights are either not their concern or are to be specifically denied by force of law. And that is precisely what happened yesterday.
When it comes to pass that the American left is openly advocating firing teachers simply for believing in a higher power, when they are pushing constitutional amendments on state federal level to deny the devoutly religious the right to freely and equally practice their faith, I will be a bit more sympathetic to your view, and will absolutely reject the left. Until then, I will only kick to the curb those who believe that my choice of marriage partner and the way I choose to lead my spiritual life are subject to their moral approval and ultimately their governance. Those who bring their faith to bear in fighting such tyranny are and always have been welcome allies.
LJ:
After perhaps reading Candide again, I will pull out my Greek grammar books and give Thucydides’ Melian dialogue a try.
Maybe Margaret Atwood’s ‘Handmaidens Tale’ is a better choice.
While not yet conceding Ohio, or even Florida until everything is examined closely, a EV victory under these conditions is not something I would be proud of or enjoy. Kerry would need more than that for me to to consider him legitimate. I am sad and disappointed, but not really bitter or angry, at least not with Republicans.
The popular vote margin speaks for itself. The downticket races speak for themselves. The Republicans, by a large enough margin that I am willing to use the words “Fair and Square”, have demonstrated a small, but clear, majority. However it was done, Democrats have the same weapons available, and did not use them as well.
Republicans today have earned respect, admiration, much legitimacy, congratulations, and the right to govern. You guys should be proud. I wish you luck, amd hope you serve the nation well.
My guess is that when gay marriages are passed in a majority of states (my estimate is that will happen within ten years) this will be seen–incorrectly–as a minor setback. I say incorrectly because I believe that gay marriages are most likely to be successful through constant presssure in legislatures (none of the legislators in MA who voted for gay marriage lost in this election despite quite a bit play on the issue) rather than judicial gamesmanship. But by trying to force it through the courts prematurely, gay activists spurred amendments in 11 states which will now have to be separately defeated (including Oregon! If you can’t win in Oregon, America wasn’t ready) and made an issue in the presidential campaign that may very well have been decisive for Bush.
and made an issue in the presidential campaign that may very well have been decisive for Bush.
You may be right, Sebastian. It doesn’t bother you, a gay man, at all to think that you’re supporting a President who deliberately went for the homophobe vote – and got it?
CNN says Kerry conceded…
Does it bother me at all! Absolutely. I was not thrilled with this election at all.
Ahhh, the cohesiveness has begun. The divide begins to narrow. It’s a beautiful sight.
I guess when it comes to marriage I’m one of jes’homophobes, although I don’t consider myself a hateful man and am pretty tolerant, I must have issues. And I do know there are real homophobes out there, as are there racists and other pitiful mistakes of creation. How can we discuss this, other than you all ignore my concerns and call me names?
Sebastian Holsclaw: …gay activists spurred amendments in 11 states….
Yeah, go ahead and keep telling yourself that.
These amendments were a Republican get-out-the-vote effort, based on disingenuous and, at least in the case of Georgia, outright deceptive rhetoric. Gays were painted as bogeymen out to corrupt our children (this is all the fault of “gay activists?”), the courts were vilified and delegitimized in the public view (“judicial gamesmanship?”) and nonsensical “threat to marriage” arguments were hammered over and over by demagogues. Enough voters were simply looking for an easy moral out on this question because while most of them are rightly squeamish about taking civil rights away from others, they also think gays are icky. They got their easy out thanks to the RNC, and the RNC got their votes.
If you think the electorate is going to be won over by the inherent rightness of gay marriage while you continue to support candidates who are merrily leading the electorate in the opposite direction, then you are deluding yourself.
How can we discuss this, other than you all ignore my concerns and call me names?
With regards to your concerns, blogbudsman, I think the answer of how to discuss them is for me to listen to them BUT for you to agree to consider that any moral issue or queasiness you have about homosexuals or even being called a name pales in comparison to the real life and death issues I face every day.
Jes,
“that you’re supporting a President who deliberately went for the homophobe vote – and got it?”
It’s seems he got the homophobe vote from the homo’s, too.
http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=155
“Perhaps the most surprising news for gay observers of the presidential election is that exit polls show President Bush received the exact same percentage of gay votes — 23 percent — as he did four years ago. This despite the president’s vocal support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marraige.”
To call someone homophobe because they voted for the amendment really indicates to me that you don’t understand the nuances involved.
If I had been in those states, I could have easily seen myself voting for the amendment, but that does not make me a homophobe. (As a matter of fact, my own life would indicate the exact opposite.)
It’s this lack of applying a nuanced approached that lost the day. I am often surprised how many consider themselves nuanced, but others to be simple. We are all simple on some issues and we are all nuanced on others. That reality is part of what has to be understood to win elections these days.
To call someone homophobe because they voted for the amendment really indicates to me that you don’t understand the nuances involved.
Not true. Self-loathing among gays is nothing new. It’s perpetuated by homophobic policies and attitudes in society at large.
There are simply not enough nuances in the arguments against gay marriage to explain away what is essentially the codification of second class citizeship for the countries gay population.
E,
“To call someone homophobe because they voted for the amendment really indicates to me that you don’t understand the nuances involved.”
I was actually referring to my own position and my own beliefs… because I think he would refer to me as a homophobe if I voted for an amendment like that.
I can’t speak to why others voted the way they did.
Well, blogbudsman and Blue, not that you should care about my personal opinion of you, but if you consider yourself tolerant of gays, seeing as I have no reason to think otherwise, I’ll take your word for it.
However, as far as the national discourse goes, the predominant argument against gay marriage has been that it will lead to the downfall of civilization and the destruction of heterosexual marriage, and this argument has been backed up not by facts, but by vague pretzel logic and appeals to “tradition”. The labels “pro-family” and “pro-marriage” as stand-ins for “heterosexual-families-only” and “anti-same-sex-marriage” also suggest that gays are anti-family and anti-marriage. In other words, it implies that gays are seeking not to participate in, but to destroy, family life (an argument which you would have to suspend all critical thinking in order to unravel). How is this sort of rhetoric not bigoted, and, consequently, designed to inspire or appeal to bigoted sentiments?
If I had been in those states, I could have easily seen myself voting for the amendment, but that does not make me a homophobe.
No, just a bigot. There is no earthly reason whatsoever to not only deny homosexuals the opportunity to marry, but to set up legal agreements that approximate the benefits of marriage. That’s what the No Gay Marriage crowd always tells the gays, right? “Just get powers of attorney and contracts and you’ll have everything you need without having to ‘destroy’ ‘traditional marriage.'” Well, now they aren’t even allowed to do those things. At least not in Ohio.
To be perfectly blunt about it, I don’t care how coyly you allude to same-sex adventures in your past, or how nice you are to gay people to their faces. Bigotry is bigotry, and I, for one, will call it as I see it.
What do you care if Edward and his partner get married? How does it affect you? You, personally? By what right would you cast a vote to prevent it?
the courts were vilified and delegitimized in the public view (“judicial gamesmanship?”)…
Briefly trying to spin the conversation away from gay marriage, Sebastian: given that Bush will likely appoint one, maybe even as many as three, judges to the SCOTUS, by what benchmark will you judge the level of their “judicial activism” or even “judicial gamesmanship”?
Anarch, I think my promised post on interpretation is long overdue. And with Bush set to appoint a few judges, I’ll definitely do it soon. 🙂
What do you care if Edward and his partner get married? How does it affect you? You, personally? By what right would you cast a vote to prevent it?
I might add that homosexuals (just like heterosexuals) differ in what they want with their relationship – or if they want a relationship at all. Among the homosexuals I know there is more or less the same spread in people that live together with their partner and people that actually want to get married. Which implies that the ones who *do* want te get married feel more commited towards the institution, just like my heterosexual friends feel.
Marriage these days is not a religious thing in itself, it is a legal issue with an emotional content. People who want to get married do so because they want to be as commited as can be – and want to be acknowledged as such.
Edward thought he overdid it in his ‘anti-divorce’ post, but I have made the same argument regularly. If you think marriage is a holy sacrament you should oppose divorce as fiercely. Marriage laws these days have to do with inheritence, childcare, partner benefits and such.
Marjolein
Phil,
As long as we are being so open minded and tolerant of others and their beliefs…
“No, just a bigot. There is no earthly reason whatsoever to not only deny homosexuals the opportunity to marry”
On the planet earth it seems that the cosmos has designed man and woman for each other. Is this point open for debate? Do we not all accept that it takes both men and women for the species to survive? Does any other course not cut at the fabric of our very existence?
So for one to draw conclusions from that reality doesn’t necessarily mean they are a bigot.
“By what right would you cast a vote to prevent it?”
Being an American citizen.
“How does it affect you?”
Someone getting mugged in NYC doesn’t affect me, but I am still opposed to it.
Edward and I have discussed this at length in other threads… I lack the desirec to discuss this issue in detail with somone who immediately calls me a bigot.
Gromit,
” predominant argument against gay marriage has been that it will lead to the downfall of civilization and the destruction of heterosexual marriage, and this argument has been backed up not by facts, but by vague pretzel logic and appeals to “tradition”.
That’s your interpretation of the predominant argument. That’s not mine. Marriage has been under attack for atleast 40 years in this country. Our attitude towards divorce alone is atrocious. Would we not agree that divorce cuts at the fabric of marriage and the home?
“The labels “pro-family” and “pro-marriage” as stand-ins for “heterosexual-families-only” and “anti-same-sex-marriage” also suggest that gays are anti-family and anti-marriage.”
I don’t accept that logic. Being pro-marriage doesn’t mean that one believes gays are anti-family. As, I have stated in other threads I am against gay marriage, but I am not against gay adoption.
If gay people want a union that is fine by me, but it is not a marriage.
Due to lack of my desire to engage in a lengthy discussion on this topic I have not addressed many issues. Edward and I discussed it to death already.
One more thing…
“To be perfectly blunt about it, I don’t care how coyly you allude to same-sex adventures in your past,”
I did not allude to that. I have never come close to having a gay relationship. As I have stated in the past on another thread I dated a bi-sexual girl.
This caused great pains for her because of both her gay friends and her own family. Her gay friends looked down on her because she dated guys sometimes… so she was in denial. Her family thought she dated girls just to embarrass them. It was lose lose no matter what she chose.
Even though we no longer date, I still feel for her struggle…
On the planet earth it seems that the cosmos has designed man and woman for each other. Is this point open for debate?
What does that have to do with Edward and his partner making medical decisions for each other or inheriting each other’s property? Or his partner risking future deportation because they cannot get married?
Do we not all accept that it takes both men and women for the species to survive? Does any other course not cut at the fabric of our very existence?
Has somebody come out in favor of banning men or women? Or children? If so, it’s news to me. If not, this looks an awful lot like hand-waving. Unless you’re suggesting that allowing gays the same rights as straights will encourage previously heterosexual men and women to suddenly switch teams. Which is patently silly.
And I hate to belabor the obvious, but your statement is both an argument in favor of banning sodomy, and an argument against allowing the infertile or the elderly to marry. So I’ll put you down for both of those.
So for one to draw conclusions from that reality doesn’t necessarily mean they are a bigot.
Well, yes, they are, since marriage actually doesn’t have anything to do with any of the things you brought up. You’re talking about human sexual reproduction. I’m talking about marriage. Try to stay in the same ballpark, if not the same sport.
“By what right would you cast a vote to prevent it?”
Being an American citizen.
I’ll make you a deal: You get to decide if Edward is allowed to marry, I get to decide if you’re allowed to marry. (Or stay married. Or keep your child. Or have any more.) Sound fair?
“How does it affect you?”
Someone getting mugged in NYC doesn’t affect me, but I am still opposed to it.
So gay people getting married = a stranger getting mugged. Nice.
Now, can you please answer the question? How does two gay men or women entering into a committed relationship in front of family, friends, and whatever deities they do or don’t believe in affect you?
I lack the desirec to discuss this issue in detail with somone who immediately calls me a bigot.
Your choice. I’m a relatively intelligent adult, and I know what the word “bigot” means, and, well, if the shoe fits, etc.
Phil,
It’s people like you that are going to make it impossible for mainstream America to help people in Edward’ss situation.
To quote myself this morning on the Till Death due us Part thread:
I expected this:
Sure Phil that’s ‘exactly’ how I meant it. Or just maybe, I meant when things happen in other places even tough they don’t affet me directly they still affect the society that I live in.
“Now, can you please answer the question? How does two gay men or women entering into a committed relationship in front of family, friends, and whatever deities they do or don’t believe in affect you?”
More power to them Phil… I support them… it’s just not a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Blue: On the planet earth it seems that the cosmos has designed man and woman for each other. Is this point open for debate? Do we not all accept that it takes both men and women for the species to survive? Does any other course not cut at the fabric of our very existence?
Phil is right. This is an argument against gay sex, not same-sex marriage. It is also a fallacious argument. The cosmos “designed” opposable thumbs for climbing trees. We use them for holding hammers, pulling levers, hitchhiking, and making shadow puppets. Shall we amend the constitution to stop these crimes against nature?
That’s your interpretation of the predominant argument. That’s not mine. Marriage has been under attack for atleast 40 years in this country. Our attitude towards divorce alone is atrocious. Would we not agree that divorce cuts at the fabric of marriage and the home?
Sure it does! So why are you so worried about same-sex marriage when divorce is the problem? Legal divorce allows marriages to be destroyed. Same-sex marriage allows marriages to be created. Oh, but a majority of folks won’t support banning divorce because that would infringe on their freedoms. The more politically popular stance is to beat up on an unpopular minority.
And you not only failed to articulate what is wrong with my interpretation, but you neglected to actually characterize your own interpretation.
Being pro-marriage doesn’t mean that one believes gays are anti-family. As, I have stated in other threads I am against gay marriage, but I am not against gay adoption.
First, labeling yourself pro-marriage implies that your opponent is anti-marriage, not anti-family. Second, whether you accept the logic or not, in a debate when you label yourself pro-X, it is invariably an attempt to cast your opponents as anti-X. These are polarizing labels, and a pole always has two ends. Third, labeling yourself as pro-marriage/pro-family only implies that gays are anti-marriage/anti-family if gays are your opponent. I am decidedly pro-marriage and pro-family. In keeping with this position, I support marital and family rights for ALL, and reject any attempt to limit marriage and family to a preferred class of people.
Gromit,
“Due to lack of my desire to engage in a lengthy discussion on this topic I have not addressed many issues. Edward and I discussed it to death already.”
But, if it means anything… I completely and totally support recognizing civil unions that would grant gay people the same rights as afforded by marriage… tax, health care, S.S. and such
But, you see, those are exactly the things the Ohio amendment — and some of the others — which you have said you probably would have voted for, explicitly prohibit gay people from having now. Explicitly. So you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Thank you, Mr. Tautology. Meanwhile, on planet Earth, words sometimes take on new meanings.
And FYI, I am mainstream America, pal. I’m a 35-year-old white male with a BA in the middle 20% of income earners, from lower-middle-class parents, married for 13 years, double-income-no-kids, with a $1400 a month walkup apartment, a 2001 Mazda, and I watch ABC on Wednesday nights. You don’t get more mainstream than me. You, Mr. Top 5%, are the one outside the mainstream, and don’t ever kid yourself otherwise. There are 23 million American families like me, and only 6 million like you. So there.
There are 23 million entire families like you? Have you violated any cloning laws recently?
No, I’m just a very, VERY active donor. VERY.
Hmmm…you’d have to be. Being a blueblood, I lack the stamina.
Phil,
I hope mainstream America is a little more polite… if you read what I said…
“It’s people like you that are going to make it impossible for mainstream America to help people…”
No where did I say you aren’t mainstream America.
But to be blunt, I think it is your shrillness that is going to make mainstream America feel as if is under attack.
(I can only add that months before the election I commented at this site that it is this type of behavior from Dem’s that will cost Kerry the election. Of course, recently I thought the MSM had made up for that.)
Like I talked with Edward about… it’s the tactics that are working against gay America.
Let me give you an example… I communicate with hundreds of people each year on a personal level… this morning I said to Edward that I would work to help him achieve many of his objectives through my work… but now you have called me a bigot and such… my motivation has been lessened because of your tone.
Because I respect Edward I am going to ignore you and not let it affect my actions.
But to be blunt, I think it is your shrillness that is going to make mainstream America feel as if is under attack.
I am mainstream America, and so is my wife, and the only attack we’re under is from moralists who think America stands for taking rights away from other people. If you’re part of that group, maybe you should think about what that means.
(I can only add that months before the election I commented at this site that it is this type of behavior from Dem’s that will cost Kerry the election. Of course, recently I thought the MSM had made up for that.)
When you find me a Dem, you let me know. I voted Libertarian. Nice to see you prove the maxim about what “assuming” gets us.
Let me give you an example… I communicate with hundreds of people each year on a personal level… this morning I said to Edward that I would work to help him achieve many of his objectives through my work… but now you have called me a bigot and such… my motivation has been lessened because of your tone.
Shorter: “Some straight guy was mean to me on the internet, so I’m going to punish gays some more.” Whatever.
Do you have some weird need in your life to exercise power over homosexuals? With your right hand, you express a desire to vote for an amendment depriving them of rights; with your left, you promise to use your hundreds of valuable personal contacts to drum up support for them? What kind of sick game is that?
Sorry, Edward, if I ruined Blue’s promise to institute a sub rosa plan to maybe toss you guys a bone. Me, I’ll still stump for you, because I understand that your and your partner’s rights aren’t contingent on how comfortable I am around you or how nice people are to me on the internet.
It’s people like you that are going to make it impossible for mainstream America to help people in Edward’ss situation.
Ouch.
Don’t feel like you have to do me any favors. Really, it seems to come at too high a price. One of the main points of fighting for gay marriage is to ensure the dignity of we gay Americans is as protected under the law…you know, the system that’s supposed to ensure we’re all treated equally.
If it only comes through some process by which we’re somehow beholden to you, forget it.
Honestly, do it because it’s the right thing to do, not because you’re feeling charitable.
Hate to sound like an ingrate, but that’s much more insulting than I think you realize.
Phil,
This is the second time you’ve accused me of something I didn’t do.
“When you find me a Dem, you let me know. I voted Libertarian. Nice to see you prove the maxim about what “assuming” gets us.”
I didn’t call you a dem. I have no frickin’ clue about how you voted or anything about you.
I stated what I stated. And I think your behaviour is typical of what cost the Dem’s the election regardless of how you voted. Johnk Kerry is a dem, he was shrill. Daschle is a DEM and he was darned shrill. Pelosi is a DEM and she is shrill. Al Gore is a DEM and he was shrill. Dean is a DEM and he was shrill.
Edward,
“Don’t feel like you have to do me any favors.”
I don’t make my decisions just because of some guy on a blog who could be lieing about everything for all I know. I do everything I do because I think it’s the right thing to do. Doesn’t everyone? Feeling charitable is the right thing to do. But that applies to my life in almost everything I do.
No offense meant, but I know from your posts and comments that some times you are obnoxious shrill and that the way you present yourself would most certainly be rejected by mainstream America, but that doesn’t drive what I choose to do in my life.
My comment about Phil is just like the conversation we had a couple of months ago. The gay community is employing bad tactics in order to achieve their goals and people like Phil aren’t helping you, but hurting. You want to win this issue in America… take the Ghandi approach… you want to continue to lose this issue you in America… take the anti-war protester, the PETA approach… or more aptly the current gay community tactics.
I really didn’t mean to stir up so much trouble but I posted from my heart and got slapped in the face. I’m not a homophobe and I’m not a bigot. Being called one is offensive. I know I will get over it, but right now I don’t even want to talk about gay rights with anyone.
I stand up for gay rights no matter what, and Blue does it if maybe people are nice enough to him and he feels charitable, and I’m the one being shrill and hurting homosexuals.
Yeesh.
“Shrill,” apparently, is now a synonym for “disagreeing passionately with received Republican wisdom.”
OK Blue,
I should have asked other commenters to stop with the “bigot” bit. You’re right. My sincere apologies.
And other folks here, give Blue some credit please. And let’s all remember the posting rules. For the record, Blue and I have gone rounds on this and he’s demonstrated a willingness to listen…I really appreciate that.
Regarding Phil hurting me or my argument, though…I disagree. I appreciate his comments more than I tell him. He’s a champ and a true gem in my book. He and others like him are the reason I keep the faith.
No offense meant, but I know from your posts and comments that some times you are obnoxious shrill and that the way you present yourself would most certainly be rejected by mainstream America,
Me? Shrill?
In the DeLong sense of the word, I’ll take that as a compliment.
As for me and how I’m taken by mainstream America, you’d be surprised how well I fit in. (Don’t judge folks by their online personas.) After all, you can take the boy out of the heartland, but you can’t take the heartland out of the boy. I may get seriously frustrated at how slowly they move at times, and I do believe there are those out there with hearts and souls as dark as anything in Mordor, but overall, I love Americans, warts and all, and I have faith that just as they have on other minority issues over the centuries, they’ll see the light and do the right thing by their gay citizens as well.
Blue: You want to win this issue in America… take the Ghandi approach…
You really think the “Gandhi approach” was less disruptive than current gay rights activism?
You really think the “Gandhi approach” was less disruptive than current gay rights activism?
Has anyone else read The Onion’s “Our Dumb Century” on the British response to the “Gandhi Approach”?