Election/Gay Marriage/Adoption notes
I never really posted anything serious about the election, and I'm not really going to write anything too long about it right now. But, I was watching the news this morning and actually tuned into Fox news, which generally has a more conservative bent than the other stations I would normally watch, such as MSNBC. Every once in awhile I like to
( Read more... )
Honestly, with his background, I expect him to be pretty conservative on the social issues side.
The Kansas connection and the general religious flavor he has been giving off forever really make him iffy is a lot of respects. I suspect any moves in a positive social direction would be more to win "greatest Prez since FDR evar" awards rather than personal convictions.
He's been hedging his answers for a long time, and been a clear line between marriage and civil union person forever as far as I can tell.
I expect a gays in the military law to be passed sometime in the next 8 years, but probably on the front end...though. It is US tradition that everyone gets to be shot before they get rights . It is a very common route to citizenship at the moment (and always was during historical wars), if a very dangerous one, for immigrants.
Hell, the law that covers the eventual citizenship of military volunteers may allow a loophole to get past the courts in federal laws. There may be a "after x tours you get to take the test and have all rights of a US citizen" clause that specifically states marriage.
If it does, it'll be an example of marriage as a universal citizen right. It isn't in most older documents, because the founding fathers didn't' see marriage as a political issue... but there were a ton of "Gods" and specific lists of things put into laws more recently (we've gotten more lawsuit paranoid as our courts changed and tend to list stuff very specifically a lot now in the laws). I'm almost positive they have changed that enlistment law a few times during/since WWII... and they never just change 1 word.
Trivia:
"In god we trust" wasn't made official as a US motto until.. uh 1956 I think... (too lazy to look it up, but that sounds right).
(This was a point to an argument I have since scrapped in the post, but I love to point out to Conservatives, who think it is the Header and Footer of every US document ever).
Anyway, I see equal rights in the modern era getting enacted on a legal technicality more than a real government action. (The Mass non-exclusion is a good example... but other states have read similar language differently, or outright voted the fair language out.)
Obama's Supreme court picks will be more important in many way than some of the things he does in office himself.
Another 30 years is a long time for people to continue waiting for rights. If medical science gets any better it may take even longer to get rid of a lot of these older generational politicos... including ours which is split much closer on this issue than the 20's...
Reply
http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/
Basically, Obama seems very pro-gay except for the word "marriage." It's bizarre to me how worked up people get over semantics. But, I think if he's pro civil union, then civil union is just another step towards marriage. And, it's certainly better than no steps that the Republican agenda is in favor of. I am just optimistic for the most part even though I know it's going to be slow going.
Also, I agree with you to some extent about getting enacted by a technicality. I was reading an article that I can't find right now. But, it was about the fact that the US Supreme Court may end up hearing the California case (several years down the road), and rule against prop 8 because it goes against what the California Supreme Court ruled, and the constitution, and changing it, and blah blah blah. I mean, I don't remember the whole legalese of it all. But, it was basically that the supporters of prop 8 may have ended up shooting themselves in the foot and causing universal gay marriage a lot sooner than if they hadn't tried to ban it in the first place. That would be funny as hell.
But, that's the thing too...I firmly believe that it will eventually happen. So, it's seems like such a waste of time, energy, and money on the part of the anti-gay marriage folks. They're fighting a losing battle.
Reply
As for the Repubs fighting a losing battle...Ahh but that is the whole point, not winning.
That's why Larry Flynt and Falwell got along so well.
Winning is bad, the leaders (not usually the rank and file) of the conservative movements know that. If they win, who will they rail against and ask for money to defeat?
If conservative leaders win, they are out of jobs, because most non-crazy 1 issue people will wander back home, assuming their job is done.
It happened with Gingrich... They got the majority and were left with nothing, so they had to try and Impeach/remove Clinton.. FAIL. W got pretty much everything he wanted, and everything broke. Republicans NEED to always be a little bit behind, always claim to be mistreated by the media (which is conservative). The underdogs always get more money.
It is best for conservatives if everything basically stays the same... so they have people to scream about. It works somewhat on the left as well. W was so bad, that my brother, who is so ADHD he can't plan 15 mins. in advance, actually got involved in the election and actually voted for the first tiem at age 34...(He is in CA and voted against 8 even, though mostly on a "who cares what other people do" agenda). I bet he doesn't bother to vote in 4 years.
After W, losing the presidency is probably the best thing that can happen to the up and coming Republicans. They'll have (probably) 8 years to work themselves up into a frenzy. Though the religionists and the free traders seem to be on a verge of a civil war for the party name.
I don't think the free-traders can stomach Palin again in the long term.
The next 4 years are going to be very interesting in a lot of ways.
Yeah, I've heard about the info you were talking about. It looks like the short game on prop 8 will probably kill their long game chances. I'm not surprised though. They've been hiring lawyers from that unaccredited Falwell College a lot for stuff recently on the religious right... that and some really wacky Mormon guys. Hard to win cases when your lawyers don't believe in facts. Should have borrowed some lawyers from the free traders or the tobacco lobby.
Know nothings in ---> know nothings out. Gonna bite you in the ass eventually.
BTW: I've vaguely Libertarian as well on most of those things where they chart you with the tests. Much like communism, it works on paper, but people can't be trusted to follow any set of rules/guidelines.
Reply
Leave a comment