Yay, i got all pollitical on day ass!!!!
Did gay marriage push Bush over the edge?
In his usual misguided right-wing venomous manner, Charles Krauthammer argued in his column yesterday that the ubiquitous "moral values" election story line is a conscious effort by the "liberal elite" media "to delegitimize a conservative victory." Maybe Krauthammer hasn't noticed that right-wing radical cleric James Dobson and his ilk have seemed happy enough with this story line over the past week. (Although I suppose they could be colluding with this vast liberal media conspiracy.) However, Krauthammer's column also included this interesting and counterintuitive finding about the influence of gay marriage on the election:
George Bush increased his vote in 2004 over 2000 by an average of 3.1 percent nationwide. In Ohio the increase was 1 percent -- less than a third of the national average. In the 11 states in which the gay marriage referendums were held, Bush increased his vote by less than he did in the 39 states that did not have the referendum. The great anti-gay surge was pure fiction.
If Krauthammer's numbers are correct, then perhaps this election wasn't the setback for gay rights many of us have perceived it to be.
posted by David Englin @ 5:03 PM
-----------------------------------------------
Marino13 said...
After I get by your overtly biased comments referring to Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family as "Dr James Dobson and his ilk" and "usual right-wing venomous manner," I'll attempt an intelligent reply to your post. I read one of your other posts talking about how the citizens passed amendments in 11 states "denying rights to their fellow citizens." This is the first fallacy. Every citizen has the right to find a member of the opposite sex, marry them, and live their lives. Whether gay, straight, bi, or whatever, every citizen of the U.S. has this exact same right. Gay people also have the right to live with whomever they choose and do pretty much whatever they want in the privacy of their own home.
The problem comes in when gay activists begin demanding special rights over and above those afforded everyone else. They want special exeption made for a very small minority of the population to change the traditional definition of marriage to suit them. This definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has existed for millenia. Now, all of a sudden, this small minority of the population wants to have a special definition with the corresponding special rights to benefit them.
I've lived in Colorado Springs for the last 3+ years and know that the city council faced significant budget shortfalls the last few years due to the economic recession that began in 2000. Gay activists demandedsame-sex benefits which would have cost the city money it could ill afford. Yet, when voters and the city council decided NOT to extend same-sex benefits and break the city's budget, the gay activists accused the people of Colorado Springs of being "backwards and hateful" and threatened to move out of Colorado in response.
The only way the city could possibly afford to extend these same-sex benefits would be tax increases. What's wrong with citizens NOT wanting to pay more in taxes just to benefit a small portion of the population with an unnecessary benefit?
I take issue with the tactics of the gay lobbies. They hold "gay pride" parades in an attempt to force their views down everyone else's throat so to speak. If people aren't willing to roll over and accomodate their desires, they attack those people as "homophobes and hateful." I hear gay activists compare their "fight for gay rights" to the fights for women's suffrage and the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. I personnally find this appalling and am quite surprised that the feminists and black community don't take much louder issue with this flawed comparison. Women, though clearly different from men, are clearly equals and deserved the right to vote. Blacks are born black by virtue of having black parents. The same could be said for any race. Homosexuality is a completely different matter. Two homosexual couples cannot join and produce homosexual offspring. They need a partner of the opposite sex to produce offspring. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a sex or a race. Also, no one homosexuals is denying homosexuals their right to vote, work, own a house, or anything else. The majority of the American populace is just not willing to create special rights for and redefine marriage to accomodate a very small portion of the population that wants special treatment.
Another factor comes into play here. If you adhere to the Christian faith, homosexuality is wrong. If you're a Darwinist, homosexuality is not viable for the continuation of the species. If 100% of the human population converts to strict homosexuality, no offspring will be produced and the human species will be extinct within a generation. Additionally, homosexuality as a behavior induces increased risks. Statistically, homosexuals live much shorter lives on average because of the very nature of their behavior. AIDS and other ailments may just be nature's way of saying "knock it off."
In any event, I don't intend to ever vote in favor of gay marriage and if my state ever proposes an amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, I'll vote for it. I believe in the institution of marriage and that it is the foundation for our country's greatness. The fact that gays and their activists try to force their viewpoint on me and tend to be so overtly "openly gay" only turns me and millions of others off and makes us more determined in our resolve to NOT support their cause.
======================================================================
The rights guaranteed to ALL citizens of the country are clearly written out . They have been the true backbone of thought in the law of the land for more than 200 years. In Amendment 9, which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Amendment is stating that to grant ones rights may not occur by infringing on others... Thus, it is saying that marriage being a BIAS ideal is an infringment upon the rights of others who are seeking it yet being denied. Marriage being a label brought about by the organised religious groups of the time was as you have said "between a man and a women" however it is understood that a man while sinning may well be "married" to more than one female. Also being that the Second Continental Congress of the United States is to remain seperated from the matters of the church, conversly the church is to remain segregated from the State, it has no authority to allow or disallow the viability of marriage. The State does retain the ability to tax you for being wed, which they do, and to issue certificates of legality to your partnership in all circumspectual accordance. You in your haste to answer have negleted several key items, the persuite of happiness, the rather obvious fact that it is NOT a right of any person to find any other person, let alone marry them... However you did get the last bit right, All persons "under GOD" do have the right to live their life in the manner they see fit. You, as well as many others, have said that gay people may do as they please "in the privacy of their own home", this is iddicative of a statment sounding dangerously like a double standard, Seperate but Equal???... When a heterosexual couple display their affection in the public eye, they are met with little more than a glance and much of the time less... not so in a case involving a homosexual pairing, they endure the sinicism of people such as yourself who believe people all have a place and ought to know where it, and they, should be!!! The rights granted by marriage are legally very few... The ability to remain in the hospital with the one you love on their last day of life, while not related by more than a slip of paper and a promise to each other. And, the convienance of having your spouse under your insurance provider. Oh, one more tiny thing, a two parant house hold in a more stable environment for harboring youths.
No, one wants "special" treatment, just eqaul. If you can marry the person you came to care about more than all others why shouldn't anyone else have that same privledge.
You have given one side to your thoughts when telling us about the budget short comings of your home, yet neglected to say why these damands were so erronious. I do suppose though that gay parking only is a bit further than anyone should go...
Yes, black people are born into the skin color they posses. This statement holds true, unfortunately the Woman's Sufferage movement was about attaining equal rights, just as the Civil Rights movement was for the black persons of that time. This illustrates that denying an ideal to one but no to another can, and usually will, be fought by means of strike, assembly(your parades), and petition. In the 50's and 60's when the Million Man March was congregating do you think that the nation as a whole belived for one moment that the ideal of freedom for all included blacks? Equality is the diffinitve point on which this country claims its nobility, having an equal say, as well as, equal pay, and equal treatment.
I have a friend who could not have children. She, after years of bitter resentment at this, found someone with whom she wanted to share her life... She, and her partner(husband , for future points of reference), then wanted children. They argued considerably but finally went to a mutual friend and that friend was Artificially Insemenated, and agreed to carry the child. A large sacrifice for a friend she was making. Do you believe that this was wrong... they could have addopted perhaps or taken to collecting things to busy themselves? Well, now it is curious when you consider that friend wanted no children, and nothing to do with that one other than be the mothers friend... on a side note that friend moved 1,200 miles just 3 months after she had the baby, to be with her girlfriend.
A benifit of the human race is its incredible diversity. Not one group in this world believes quiet the same thing, not exactly anyway. That diversity will perpetuate itself just as people perpetuate themselves. Each person views things in their own way and sees what someone else may not.
Speaking on risks, one should consider the risks plaguing the heterosexual world. Girls as young and younger than 12 years of age are getting impregnated, this is not only a serious risk to your health but that unbourn parasites as well. Also, how is this mother-to-be supposed to support this child she so willingly brought forth. Taxes pay wellfare, medicaid, and aide in the funding of under-privledged youths. These things cost a great deal. AIDs and other diseases are shared by heterosexuals as well. No one is clear on the exact way it came to be... some theories say a gay flight attendant, others say a staight one who hired a hooker who then caught it and passed it to everyone she slept with, including those in the bi-sexual community who would later pass it on the gay comminuty. Whatever the case in that matter it is a horrible truth that AIDs, HIV, and many other diseases are a threat to not only gays be all people of the world.
As far as your Darwin statement, I can say humbly you need to study a great deal more. Darwin says that nature will evolve to better cope with its current situation... China has well over a one billion person population, this is one country out of hundreds. We, as humans, represent the largest majority of space taken be a group of organism of this planet. Nature would therefore induce in the biological make-up of people a desire to not procreate. This, however, does not mean the desire to copulate is taken away, it is merely an explanation of the events. Nature, in this instance, is attempting to control the growth of the population of the human race.
Your vote will count, just as mine will. Also, since marriage is a religious institution I do agree that the church has that final say. Yet, to deny those rights that come with it from the state and private companies and corportations should be revoked from all "married" persons... Ipso facto, Not one person may file joint taxes, may visit loved ones in the hospital, may put their homemaker spouse or spouse in general on their insurance policy, may sign their partners name under the laws that govern forgery... et cetera. We may be better off this way or the aboloshment of the constitutional rights to EVERY citizen could be revoked thus abolishing the Federal Government but hey then gays could not marry could they? As well, all those other pesky problems go out the window too, so you can own some slaves again, and put women back in thier "proper place".
Unfortunately, people will still vote as they wish and the tide of thought amoung people is ever shifting. Eyes that can only see what they are taught can never begin to think for themselves. People will always find new ways to get under someone elses skin, so to speak. I have been to one pride festival, and that was to deliver something to a friend, but, I don't recall one person there or anywhere ever telling anyone they should, let alone, have to be GAY. I did however find a group of people telling others that acceptance of everyone is important to anyones life, these words sound remarkably familiar... oh wait, that is what Jesus, the son of God, taught. Oh dear, Jesus was crucified for believing people should live in harmony... I wonder weather many "Christians" feel as the Ancient Romans did... "these words are dangerous". Those who should "not cast the first stone lest yey be without sin" are certainly acting as if they have never done as much. Tomorrow may bring equality to all yet, but today is the day we all live in and preparing for tomorrow only delays today.
Neko~kun
Good stuff in there I swear.... its side splitting entertainment!!!!
Love you
Neko~kun