I wasn't talking about the war in Iraq. I was talking about the gay marriage issue. If you want to sidetrack it onto the war in Iraq, as far as I'm concerned you can go talk to that wall over there.
Now, that said. You want to know how many things on this scale are still binding or unchallenged legally? Try WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE and RACIAL EQUALITY on for size. That's the size you're talking about. That is the scale and scope of the social change being discussed here.
Nor did I suggest that Keikan or anyone else give up, sit back and coast, or anything else. I was suggesting he not be so discouraged, and that he look at the fact that the people opposing these measures saw fit to push them through ONLY in states where they knew they'd succeed, and recognize that as an indicator that the opposition know they're in a fight. You can imagine what would happen if one of those bills had been put to the test in California, yes? They'd have lost. And that's why it wasn't put up in California, only in states where they knew they could win. The way to view this is a display of weakness on the opponent's part, and to realize that there's a long battle ahead and not to get discouraged because in this first skirmish the enemy seems to have 'won' (by carefully picking his battlefield to support him).
I did misunderstand the commentary on battle -- there's a lot of overlap with current issues. The challenge/binding comment I made was in regard to gay marriage/unions.
I really don't have anything further to say on the subjects at hand, at least topically.
Re: Backing DownbatratblueNovember 4 2004, 21:15:23 UTC
Alright, sorry if I got snippy. I'm dealing with a lot of tension right now with people who can't figure out the fact that I (a) voted for Bush, and am (B) pro-gay, pro-choice, etc., etc., etc.
Now, that said. You want to know how many things on this scale are still binding or unchallenged legally? Try WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE and RACIAL EQUALITY on for size. That's the size you're talking about. That is the scale and scope of the social change being discussed here.
Nor did I suggest that Keikan or anyone else give up, sit back and coast, or anything else. I was suggesting he not be so discouraged, and that he look at the fact that the people opposing these measures saw fit to push them through ONLY in states where they knew they'd succeed, and recognize that as an indicator that the opposition know they're in a fight. You can imagine what would happen if one of those bills had been put to the test in California, yes? They'd have lost. And that's why it wasn't put up in California, only in states where they knew they could win. The way to view this is a display of weakness on the opponent's part, and to realize that there's a long battle ahead and not to get discouraged because in this first skirmish the enemy seems to have 'won' (by carefully picking his battlefield to support him).
I think you ran into a tree.
Reply
The challenge/binding comment I made was in regard to gay marriage/unions.
I really don't have anything further to say on the subjects at hand, at least topically.
-M.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment