| Author |
Message |
    
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1747
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 9:28 pm: | 
|
We must address this dire threat to American life before hotpants season.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/13/gay.marriage/ |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10666
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 4:55 am: |
|
Good politics, bad policy. Social conservatives running for election will be able to brand Senators who vote against the amendment as "in favor of gay marriage".
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 673
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 9:53 am: |
|
And that's the name of the game!
(Now, for my liberal friends, I am not agreeing with this move, but I agree it is good politics for the Republicans. They are now setting the agenda for the election. Where has all that 2005 Democratic momentum gone?) |
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 382
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
Great politics but I hate it. A big fat wedge issue to hide the fact that the Republican controlled Government is a complete and total failure. They can't run on their domestic or foreign policy achievements, so they stir up a phony "moral" debate. Dirty but smart. If it wasn't this it would have been the flag burning amendment - an equally stupid idea sure to fire up the conservative base. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2537
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 10:38 am: |
|
Yeah, but it is so "smart" that it gives certain joiner-type personalities something to gloat about, even if they don't agree with it. That's being pragmatic and wise! |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 674
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 1:36 pm: |
|
themp,
Please get over it. How am I gloating? I simply made a nonpartisan comment that it is a good political strategy. Do you think it is a bad strategy (regardless of how you feel on the topic)?
I am not a joiner type personality. I am a conservative Republican. And although I disagree with this admin on many issues, I am a pragmatist. We have only two choices from which to choose. I would easily vote for a Democrat if one existed that espoused the values and governmental philosophy I do. However, I haven't seen one in decades. Therefore, I will continue to support Republicans, warts and all. If this disgusts you then you can vote for the Green Party and waste your vote. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12519
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
When gay marriage is legal on all the land, history will show that those who opposed it were wrong.
Southerner, again you applaud your guys for being good bastards. I'd rather be a bad angel.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10674
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 1:48 pm: |
|
.....which is why the GOP will pick up several Senate seats this fall, probably including New Jersey. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 804
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Southerner, I dont think you are being true to yourself. In reality I dont think you give an ish whatever the republican/conservatives do while in power. You are proud of yourself for helping to elect them and would like nothing more then to continue to gloat about how in power they are.
Fact is they could start WW3, allow industry to polute our drinking water, and commit any ethical or criminal violations without one word of protest from you. The only thing that would get your goat would be if they raised taxes to actually pay for the expenses they caused and the deficit they created. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 983
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Noglider,
Given that same sex marriages are not legal in 49 States, does that make the people who oppose such marriages, right?
TomR |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12524
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 4:53 pm: |
|
TomR,
You are referring to the way things are. I am referring to the way things are changing. It's like the difference between observing our altitude and observing the slope of the incline, to put it in mathematical terms. Gay marriages will eventually be legal. We will look back at this period as one of change and at the opponents as those who would not face the eventuality.
-noglider |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 676
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hoops,
I guess you don't read my posts very closely which is fine. I really don't gloat very much. I simply point out the political realities. I generally denote my partisan shots by saying partisan shot. I've given the Dems props when they have made smart moves. I gave them high marks multiple times last year when they took this admin and the conservatives to school on many fronts. They completely dominated the Social Security debate and killed it. They also used Sheehan very effectively during the Thanksgiving time period for maximum press coverage. And I lauded them for their victories in New Jersey and Virginia last November. I was given that moniker of gloating by a few liberal posters who don't have the ability to see their party's own shortcomings. If you can't assess a loss then it becomes harder to win. As a conservative we lost Congressional race after congressional race, but we finally learned the strategy it takes to win. If you call calling a spade a spade gloating then I'm gloating.
As for gay marriage, the Republicans know it is a good issue in which to pick a fight. That is not gloating but a political reality. It's no different than the Dems beating Abramoff to death. That is a good political move for them to paint the Repubs as dirty.
And I do care what the Repubs do. I agree with most of what they are doing. I know you disagree but I am true to myself in that regard. I voted for them and like what they are doing. (I hate some of the pork barrel, but that is nothing new to either party.)
Reingold, I absolutely agree with your assessment about gay marriage. In the long term it will be legalized no doubt. But in the short term, it's a good political fight for us conservatives. And your statement about good bas$%^# versus bad angels is one I was waiting for. Your a good man and like I've said many times I admire your ideals. However, my idealistic view was killed many years ago watching a Democratic Congress run roughshod over the minority conservatives. If we have another thirty years of Republican controlled Congress then maybe you too will lose your idealism. Imagine having to watch a Congress dominated by the opposing party for decades. It's only been 12 years for the Repubs and you guys are already at wits end. Imagine having to do this for decades. We did and I lost all optimism. And yes, I'd much rather have my ba$%#$ than Democratic bas$%^$. |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Meanwhile, from the Washington Post:
"The financial costs to the U.S. military for discharging and replacing gay service members under the nation's "don't ask, don't tell" policy are nearly twice what the government estimated last year, with taxpayers covering at least $364 million in associated funds over the policy's first decade, according to a University of California report scheduled for release today."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302373. html
$364 million! Man, we could buy a new bomb with that kind of money. (Maybe a fancy one that only targets sodomites!)
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 985
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Noglider,
I question not your view of right; but rather your methodology.
If history proves any given viewpoint to be correct, or "right"; then history, to date, proves that the opponents of same sex marriage are "right".
Putting aside for the moment our "altitude" and looking at the "slope of the incline", I, for one, am most interested to read what our State's Supreme Court decides upon this week's presentations.
And I can hardly wait for the briefs regarding the federal DOMA, when a same sex couple, deemed to be married under some State's laws (e.g, Massachusetts, and perhaps soon New Jersey) files suit for divorce in some State which, by statute or State constitution, specifically refuses to ackowledge such marriages.
We live in interesting times.
Remember them.
Oh, the tales we will tell our children. And mightily bored they'll be.
TomR |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12537
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 10:42 pm: |
|
Law follows the morality of society. It often plays catchup. Views change, then the laws change.
It's illegal for gays to marry now. But since we're on the cusp of it being legal, it doesn't seem wrong to me. But yeah, there are consequences, and I'm not complaining about that, though maybe I should be. And yeah, I think that divorce case is probably going to be sticky.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 989
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Noglider,
What consequences do you forsee?
TomR |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1752
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 2:59 pm: |
|
One uncomfortable consequence could be that same-sex couples manage to achieve a divorce rate less than the impressive 50% notched by the "sanctity of marriage" heterosexual crowd. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 992
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 3:12 pm: |
|
cmonty,
And that would be uncomfortable because...?
TomR |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1753
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Because one of the reasons we can't extend marriage to gays is that to do so would erode that sacred institution.
Imagine if it turns out they're somehow better at it than heteros! Pat Robertson would roll over in his grave. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 993
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 3:30 pm: |
|
cmonty,
Well, at least we now know that you believe the "sacred institution" should be limited to opposite sex couples.
But really, does anybody care if Pat rolls over, in his grave, or elsewhere?
TomR |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 736
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 10:23 am: |
|
Hoops-
And you offer anything other than your typical left wing rants?
Calling the Southern kettle black I see?
-SLK |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page