Rove: Bush to AGAIN Push Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[Gibsie]

Could you describe what it entails, just a little, please? Taking away the rights of straight people, attacking churches?

[Odin]

It annoys me when when the right-wing nuts get pissed off at so-called "activist judges." Apperently the right wing idiots hate the courts preventing Tyranny by Majority.

[Arrian]

Most people only get upset about the Tyranny of the Majority when they're in the minority.

And Odin, it's not just "right-wing nuts" unfortunately. They may have started that rhetoric, but it's spread.

And there *is* a certain logic to the argument. Ultimately, I don't agree with it, but I can at least see the logic in it. That beats the everlivin' snot out of many of the other positions taken by the far-right.

-Arrian

[Odin]

Originally posted by Arrian

And there *is* a certain logic to the argument.

No there isn't, it's a disgaceful slap in the face of judical review. the nuties want to destabilize the seperation of power so they have a docile court while they go about enacting thier reactionary agenda.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DanS


Nothing at all.

Sure, gays are diverse. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an identifiable "gay agenda." It wasn't imagined into existence by some right-wing group. I see it every day in my neighborhood.

A segment of the gay and lesbian population are advocating for equal rights, yes, but I find it ridiculous that knee-jerk homophobes (not in reference to you) want to turn the word "agenda" into a negative, dirty word.


By the way, I am proud that I am one of those advocates for equal rights, and subjecting everyone to the same laws regardless of sexual orientation.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DanS

While you may believe this is so, it is false. I live a couple blocks from HRC, so I've seen the demonstrations. It was clearly an organized political top-down campaign. They got big money from somewhere in the last couple of years.

DanS, I think your reasoning is flawed here. Of course there are gay leaders and gay organizations with their own agendas, some of them well-funded and well-organized. But as Last Conformist points out, this does not mean they in fact represent (or supported by) the general gay population.

It is very hard for gays to present anything like a united voice on the most prominent political issues facing the gay community (civil unions vs marriage, "don't ask, don't tell", closing bath houses during the AIDS crisis, fighting religious people vs reaching out to them, etc).

Sure, many gay people do agree on some very general things (e.g. discrimination is bad), or may reach higher levels of organization during times of acute crisis (e.g. getting funding to fight AIDS during the Reagan administration) but beyond that it's extrememly difficult to get the "gay masses" coodinated behind much of anything -- at least far more difficult that it is for minorities which have something more tangible in common, such as job type, place of residence, membership to an organized religion, or shared poitical ideology.

The basic poblem is that "who you fall in love with" is not much of a predictor of other attributes around which organizations or agendas can form. Compare with race, religious belief, etc, which generally affect other areas of behavior, viewpoint, or lifestyle which more naturally lead to agreement and organization.

This handicap presents an enormous obstacle to anyone who wants to organize or represent gays. That is why I took exception to your posting about "why doesn't some gay leader ...". There simply is no such person, for much the same reason that there is no "leader" or agenda of heterosexuals.

[Theben]

I find it next to impossible to believe that after 5+ years of the same argument against Cybershy wrt homosexuality, Imran finally made him change his position in 2 posts.

@ Imran

(now go work on BK)

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DanS

Sure, gays are diverse.

I've been trying to think of some kind of group or affiliation within the US that is more diverse than gays. Women? The handicapped/physically-challenged? Californians?

The only one I can think of is "Americans". When was the last time "Americans" agreed on an agenda? WWII?

It wasn't imagined into existence by some right-wing group.

Actually, I believe the very term "gay agenda" was a product of right-wing religious groups. It was popularized by a film of that name they produced during the 80s, when gays were first struggling to organize in the face of Reagan administration indifference to AIDS.

Creating or exaggerating a threat for political gain is no new tactic. Think of the "Red Scare" during the '50s. Sure, there were Communists in the USA, but they were no where near as pervasive or organized as portrayed by the McCarthyites.

edit: added "within the US"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Theben: Thanks... just call me 'The Wolf' (Pulp Fiction reference!) .

Though there is the chance of sarcasm or just misunderstanding... so I won't claim anything . But Cybershy is a good person so I think he meant it.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Theben

I find it next to impossible to believe that after 5+ years of the same argument against Cybershy wrt homosexuality, Imran finally made him change his position in 2 posts.

@ Imran

I, too, was surprised and awed by that achievement!

(now go work on BK)

Well, that may be outside the limits of human ability. But don't let that stop you from trying, Imran!

[Theben]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Though there is the chance of sarcasm or just misunderstanding... so I won't claim anything . But Cybershy is a good person so I think he meant it.

Ack! DanSed!

It's possible but part of his post made me think he might be serious and after this last week I need a 'victory on my side' (not just the election, @ work too) so I'll take it as is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh yes, BK is totally beyond my powers. If I can't make him believe that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, then there is little chance on this .

edit: and to be honest, Cybershy has probably thought long and hard about his positions. I salute him for thinking through his positions, even if they may be opposed to mine. We need more people who won't blindly follow something.

[Dinner]

The Republicans always claim there was no litmus test on abortion but the truth is Bush has never nominated anyone who was pro-choice and I doubt he will ever nominate someone unless they are anti-abortion.

[Berzerker]

I guess you still don't see the difference between being allowed to marry as often as you want, and being allowed to marry at all...

Homosexuals want to marry certain people, polygamists want to marry certain people - both can't. What's the difference? You say the difference is that at least polygamists can marry, they just can't marry into a polygamist relationship. That's like saying homosexuals can marry, they just can't marry the same sex. You reject that argument when it comes to homosexuals but embrace it when it comes to polygamists. Why?

At least polygamists are currently allowed to marry

But they are not allowed to marry into a polygamist relationship. You insist on requiring polygamists to marry in accordance with the majority's definition of marriage, but reject that majority's definition to accomodate homosexuals.

Personally, I don't mind giving polygamy a fair hearing, although I don't see any link between it and the gay marriage issue other than that they both involve marriage.

The fact you wouldn't mind giving polygamists a fair hearing as if you're empowered to sit in judgement smacks of a double standard. Why do they need your blessing? You don't think homosexuals need to have the majority's blessing. As for the link - you say polygamists can marry using the majority's definition, well, so can homosexuals.

For the same reason I would not fault as selfish or hypocritical those who battled for inter-racial marriage for not also fighting for gay marriage. It's a different issue affecting different laws in different ways.

I would if they turned around after winning their cause and told polygamists they have to use the majority's definition, a definition you reject when it comes to homosexuals.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You say the difference is that at least polygamists can marry, they just can't marry into a polygamist relationship.

While polygamists cannot marry as many as they wish, at least they can marry someone whom they wish. Gays cannot marry anyone whom they wish.

In other words, polygamists can in fact participate in marriage, just not to the degree they wish. Gays cannot participate at all. Big difference.

That's like saying homosexuals can marry, they just can't marry the same sex. You reject that argument when it comes to homosexuals but embrace it when it comes to polygamists. Why?

Because, if one assumes that people generally marry for reasons of love, then gays by definition cannot marry. Polygamists can.

You insist on requiring polygamists to marry in accordance with the majority's definition of marriage

I insist? I thought I said I was open to giving the idea a fair hearing.

The fact you wouldn't mind giving polygamists a fair hearing as if you're empowered to sit in judgement smacks of a double standard. Why do they need your blessing? You don't think homosexuals need to have the majority's blessing.

Well, I guess you got gays coming and going, don't you. If they are not willing to consider polygamy, they are "selfish hypocrites". If they are willing to consider it, they are "sitting in judgement".

Your arguments are akin to claiming that someone is a hypocrite for advocating women's suffrage without simultaneously advocating multiple voting for some already enfranchised group.

As for the link - you say polygamists can marry using the majority's definition, well, so can homosexuals.

I think it's safe to say that in our society the majority's definition of marriage is one based on a foundation of mutual romantic love. Based on that definition, gays cannot currently marry, polygamists can.