‘I stood up for basic rights for people.’
By on Mar 7th, 2007 at 10:04 am
‘I stood up for basic rights for people.’
Wyoming legislator Dan Zwonitzer “is both Republican and straight, but the 27-year-old state representative suddenly has found himself praised by gay rights activists nationwide.” Zwonitzer spoke out against an anti-gay marriage measure, and the committee ended up killing the bill. “Zwonitzer told the House Rules Committee on Feb. 22 that he needed to publicly oppose the measure — even if it cost him his seat — because he believed that was the right thing to do. He told the committee that gay rights were the civil rights struggle of his generation. ‘I will tell my children that when this debate went on, I stood up for basic rights for people,’ he said.” (Via Towleroad)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I bow to thee
March 7th, 2007 at 10:06 amHector,
March 7th, 2007 at 10:10 amI second that!
A man of integrity. I’ve got goosebumps.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:15 amWOW!
March 7th, 2007 at 10:18 amWow, he seems to be a Real Conservative and not just a Radical Right Winger.
It’s very Refreshing to see any politician examine an issue and come to a conclusion rather than just Knee-jerk follow the party line.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:18 amBravo – for human decency and courage.
TP – any link to contact Mr. Zwonitzer with our support?
March 7th, 2007 at 10:19 amA repug that cares about human rights?
What strange, unusual dimension have I entered?
March 7th, 2007 at 10:20 amI hope Mary Cheney sends him a brownie basket or something.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:20 amAwesome! I salute you, Mr. Zwonitzer.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:21 amWow,
An honest person in politics. Be still mah fluttering heart.
Let’s hope more folks in the public arena find their moral compass.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:22 amHoly Smoke, and he’s a representative from WYOMING to boot!
March 7th, 2007 at 10:22 amNewt Gingrich stands up for gay rights too and poses with gay porn star Rod Majors.
Scroll down for the Newtie picture.
-GSD
March 7th, 2007 at 10:24 amLet’s hold with the parade though – he could just be vote-pandering. He’s still with the lying/cheating/stealing party – his associates are not nearly as friendly as he is displaying himself as.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:25 am“You’re doing a heck-of-a-job Danny”
March 7th, 2007 at 10:27 amI congradulate Zwonitzer on his stance. It is completely unacceptable to deny the gay community the basic rights afforded all Americans. I hope and pray they get gay marriage sooner then later. Zwonitzer did what was right and didn’t do the standard party loyalist crap most Repugs and Dems do these days. He cared about the “issue” more then his party. I think many here on this site should take a note from him and worry more about the country and the issues instead of simply defending your party regardless of when they are right or wrong.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:36 amI can hardly wait for the pro-polygamy lobby to get the nod of civil libertarians. Afterall, who do polygamists hurt? Consenting adults have a right to pursue happiness, correct? Whose business is it anyway?
Come to think of it – why is prostitution (gay or straight) illegal? As long as the pro’s aren’t underage….But wait…..kids are exposed to so much porn and graphic info these days, what difference does it make how old they are?
I remember the good ol’ days when people pretty much kept their private lives to themselves and didn’t need a group hug for “validation”. I don’t care who lives with who,or what they do in their home – it’s none of my business. But I won’t condone “homosexual marriage” – frankly, the “puzzle pieces don’t fit”. And that puzzle, with forced together pieces, still isn’t right. The “landscape” is skewed – and no amount of forced liberality can change that.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:40 amZwonitzer I think is one of those rare politicians who actually has a conscience. I don’t care what political party one is a member of, so often what is the right thing to do is thrown out the window for what will get them reelected, what their party demands, or what is the most expedient. Sometimes I almost lose hope about our system, but when someone like Zwonitzer stands up for what is right for our people, for our country, I regain my hope.
Thank you Mr. Zwonitzer.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:42 amThank god for a Republican with character and integrity.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:43 amGay marriage is an oxymoron.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:43 amI can hardly wait for the pro-polygamy lobby to get the nod of civil libertarians.
Why not incest marriages between siblings, because who do they actually hurt?
March 7th, 2007 at 10:45 amWhy do the anti-civil rights crowds always complain about people “shoving their lifestyle” in their face when they ask for the same rights as straights?
Interesting that they ignore the straight lifestyle being shoved in everyone else’s face, what with all the straight people holding hands in public, talking about their spouse, and all.
Double standards, anyone?
March 7th, 2007 at 10:49 am#20 …They are working on that one as we speak, in Germany…
March 7th, 2007 at 10:51 am#21 Democrat Soldier
I bet I can rub some salt on their nuttery. They are so focussed on the binary … black and white without any grey area if you get what I mean. One cannot exist without the other. They don’t realize that Straight cannot exist without Gay. I find it ironic that they would not be able to define their own sexuality if there was not something opposite, or ‘other’.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:53 amLet the swift-boating commence!
March 7th, 2007 at 10:54 am#17 – “….stands up for what is right for our people, for our country…..” In YOUR opinion (and in the opinion of the ACLU, etc. the LBGT community, etc.) Zwonitzer’ stance is correct. So what? In my opinion, he is incorrect. So what? (I hope you didn’t lose any of that hope you were in the process of regaining.)
March 7th, 2007 at 10:54 amInteresting that all the arguments against gay marriage are almost exactly like the arguments used against allowing mixed-race marriage in the 50’s & 60’s?
I wonder why?
Could it be that the arguments are just as baseless, but people want to try and make the most extreme connection they can think of to force the argument away from “equal rights for all”?
Hmmm. . . . .
March 7th, 2007 at 10:55 am#13 Xbot
Let’s hold with the parade though – he could just be vote-pandering.
If you’re a Republican in Wyoming, supporting gay rights is not the way to go about vote-pandering. It’s the exact opposite of a politically calculated move.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:55 am#23 – Good point.
The people that hate “equal rights for all” also tend to forget about homosexuality in nature. There are documented cases of same-sex activity among animals in the wild, when there are opposite sex alternatives.
I guess that “natural” is only based on their pre-determined definition, not “natural” as it exists in nature.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:57 am#20 rabidbunny
March 7th, 2007 at 10:59 amcan we infer from this proposal that you support birth control?
#20 rabidbunny
Why not incest marriages between siblings, because who do they actually hurt?
If they have kids with birth defects, then obviously it hurts the kids, the parents, and anyone else who ends up having to help pay the medical bills.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:59 amInteresting that all the arguments against gay marriage are almost exactly like the arguments used against allowing mixed-race marriage in the 50’s & 60’s?
I don’t think any arguments agains gay marriage are the same as arguments against mixed-race marriages in the 50s and 60s. Can you give some examples where they are the same?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:02 am#28 Democrat Soldier
I also do not understand the conservative use of the word ‘natural’. Since they claim to be God fearing followers of the Fundamentalist Christian belief, calling something ‘natural’ should be the last thing they would want to do since it indicates that a process in which a certain trait is developed and not by the will of God.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:03 am#20 rabidbunny
Why not incest marriages between siblings, because who do they actually hurt?
If they have kids with birth defects, then obviously it hurts the kids, the parents, and anyone else who ends up having to help pay the medical bills.
Comment by chimpeach — March 7, 2007 @ 10:59 am
So I imagine you’d be for forced birth control if DNA tests get to the point where you can predict birth defects?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:04 amIf they have kids with birth defects, then obviously it hurts the kids, the parents, and anyone else who ends up having to help pay the medical bills.
Why are you tying procreation to marriage? I never inferred anything about marriages having to have kids. If procreation is tied directly to marriage then gay marriage is a moot point.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:04 amcan we infer from this proposal that you support birth control?
I do support birth control.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:05 amI don’t think any arguments agains gay marriage are the same as arguments against mixed-race marriages in the 50s and 60s. Can you give some examples where they are the same?
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 11:02 am
How about “A black man and a white woman marrying is unnatural”? Makes about as much sense as “gay marriage is unnatural” Marriage is a human construction. It’s not natural. Try thinking of a reason NOT to let two women or two men marry each other that doesn’t have anything to do with religion.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:08 amDemSold – “Interesting that they ignore the straight lifestyle being shoved in everyone else’s face,”…….No Dem, it’s called a “societal norm”. And as sweet, kind and creative as many gay people are, they are not the norm.
I am not anti-civil rights. I am anti- gay “marriage”. If two people want to live together… fine. Buy a house…. fine. Visit in the hospital….fine. Leave everything they own to a “partner”….write a will. Do they deserve to be treated courteously – you bet. Do they deserve special treatment due to the fact they are attracted to the same sex? No.
(Libs will howl, “Special treatment??..We/They only want the same rights straight people have…”) Actually DemSold, you unwittingly provided the perfect argument against gay marriage – we don’t allow incest between adults…..What if that who they are REALLY, REALLY attracted to? You were a handy little tool today!)
March 7th, 2007 at 11:09 amQuick, take a picture.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:11 amThis is a rare endanger species, a Republican who stands up for principles that don’t involve killing or lining pockets. Wow.~
We must protect this country from the evils of Gay marriage! Just look at what it has done to Massachusetts! Oh, yeah, they haven’t had any problems and most people there are wondering now what all the fuss was about. People from all over the world flock to MA for the outstanding education offered there, and an educated community that offers a wonderful environment. So, what was the big problem with gay marriage again?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:13 am#26 – “Interesting that all the arguments against gay marriage are almost exactly like the arguments used against allowing mixed-race marriage in the 50’s & 60’s?”
What a foolish “pseudo-argument”! If you removed all the pigmentation from mixed race people in the 50’s and 60’s, you would still find MEN and WOMEN who wanted to marry each other. Their skin colour alone was the basis for such ignorant discrimination. Re: “gay” marriage, my opposiotion is behaviour based.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:14 amSo, what was the big problem with gay marriage again?
Comment by Chris — March 7, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Weren’t you paying attention… It gives gay people the strange notion that they have rights. We can’t have that.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:14 amDamn. Just when I believed that there were no decent republicans (and I mean it with a small “r”).
March 7th, 2007 at 11:15 amQuick, take a picture.
This is a rare endanger species, a Republican who stands up for principles that don’t involve killing or lining pockets. Wow.~
Comment by RUCerious — March 7, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Don’t get too excited. Figuring out the moral character of a politician from his stance on one issue is like deciding if a horse is going to win a race by only looking at his ear. A broken clock is right twice a day. And as someone else noted, this is a public coup on his part. He’s a politician, and a conservative. What are the odds that he’s saying this because it’s right and not just to get votes? If he renounced his party status because of it, I MIGHT take notice. Otherwise, he’s a conservative. He’ll say anything to get votes… even the truth.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:17 amI think the resistance to gay marriage is because it is seen as the government attempting to shove something down the throats of religions that are against it. My solution is to make sure, when gay marriage is legalized, that it is a state function only and then religious groups can decide if they are going to endorse these marriages of those in their congregation or not.
BTW, monogamous marriage wasn’t the norm until recent history. Polyamorous relationships were once the norm … example, one marriage may consist of 2 husbands and 2 wives. Brings a whole new meaning to what is ‘natural’.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:19 am“….also tend to forget about homosexuality in nature.”
Actually no, I don’t forget about “speicialiaty” (homosexual is an incorrect term- many animals, while mammals, are not homo-sapiens) in the animal kingdom.. I think of it as a way of Mother Nature providing “birth control” to various species – without a trip to Planned Parenthood – or the vet.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:20 am#33 Swordsbane
So I imagine you’d be for forced birth control if DNA tests get to the point where you can predict birth defects?
I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:22 am#31 – “”It’s hard to compare discriminations,” said Lambda Legal’s Davidson. “The heritage of slavery is something that gay people, other than gay people who are black, don’t share. But the reality is that gay people have a history of being under attack in this country.”
What’s more, he said, many of the arguments against interracial marriage in 1948 are being used today, “arguments based on tradition, based on the impact upon children, what it would mean to our social fabric” if marriage rights were expanded.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/29/MNGTF5AQGR1.DTL
“As well, some of the arguments against homosexuality sound eerily like those used to outlaw miscegenation. For example, when the AIDS crisis first emerged some homophobes declared that “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.†In a similar vein, anti-miscegenist legislators claimed God (or nature) created the races to be separate (somehow these legislators’ God only meant the White and non-White races to be apart, as at least in South Africa and the United States, marriages between two different minorities were never banned). Miscegenation and homosexuality were both seen as contrary to the natural, or divine, order of things.”
http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/275/27/
Do you want more?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:23 am#44 – Re: Polygamy – But what is the societal norm in the United States during the last 250 years?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:24 amWe must protect this country from the evils of Gay marriage! Just look at what it has done to Massachusetts
It has nothing to do with evils of gay marriage. It is about what marriage is and has always been. It has been a bond between a man and a woman. Why does the definition of something that has been around for so long have to be changed to make people feel equal? It isn’t discrimination, it is an institution that has shaped civilization for quite a while.
Another point-more than 60% of the population is against gay marriage. It has been knocked down at the polls time and time again. I always hear that we should give the public what they want when approval ratings are shown for the Iraq war. Why does that not apply here?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:24 am#45 – You conveniently ignore the latin behind the term.
“Homo” as in “same”.
Or, does that mean that ALL sex among humans is “homosex”?
Sort of means all humans are “homoseuxals”
March 7th, 2007 at 11:26 am#49 – You conveniently forget that about 40 years ago, 100% of the population was against same-sex marriages.
Give our country about 20 more yeears, and the ones that are against gay marriage will “pass on”, and same-sex marriage will be approved by 60% of the population.
Just keep on “keeping on” with the fight, and eventually the rights guaranteed to some of the people will be extended to all of the people.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:28 am#33 Swordsbane
So I imagine you’d be for forced birth control if DNA tests get to the point where you can predict birth defects?
I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that.
Comment by chimpeach — March 7, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Not in so many words, but the argument against incest always boils down to birth defects or religious grounds. I don’t care much about the religious grounds, and the birth defects is a tendency, not a certainty, and if you’d be against incest on those grounds, then you’d have to be against procreation under any circumstances where birth defects are a possibility. Eventually medical science will get to the point where we can tell. When that happens, would you be in favor of taking that choice out of the hands of two people who love each other? If not, then the argument against incetuous relationships is defeated, and for the same reasons.
Seriously people. We’ve got more important things to spend out law enforcement, clerical, court, personal and legislative time and money on than incest, gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Let the people involved in the relationship figure it out. As long as no one is lying about anything, keep my tax money out of it. I don’t feel treatened by all these alternative lifestyles. It’s not going to make my heterosexual marriage any less important to me, and could give a rats ass who else might care. Each of us is responsible for exactly one persons spiritual health: our own.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:30 am“Another point-more than 60% of the population is against gay marriage. It has been knocked down at the polls time and time again. I always hear that we should give the public what they want when approval ratings are shown for the Iraq war. Why does that not apply here?” Comment by rabidbunny
Of COURSE you’re right! The phoniness of demanding “democracryNOW!” in regard to Iraq but judicially slapping the public at large is a trademark of Dems and Progs. This agenda is about breaking down this society – and rebuilding their “idea” of UTOPIA.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:30 am#52 – “I don’t feel treatened by all these alternative lifestyles. It’s not going to make my heterosexual marriage any less important to me, and could give a rats ass who else might care. Each of us is responsible for exactly one persons spiritual health: our own.” Comment by Swordsbane — March 7, 2007 @ 11:30 am
This is the BEST post in this thread so far!
Thanks, Swordsbane!
March 7th, 2007 at 11:31 am“You conveniently forget that about 40 years ago, 100% of the population was against same-sex marriages.”
Au contraire! You’d be better off if you would quit making stuff up. You forgot to cite the non-existent polling data from 40 years ago that showed some gay people were for gay-marriage. 100%?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:33 amRaven #22
This is not quite right. Germany is one of the few countries in Europe where incest between siblings is a crime.
There is a couple, they have been separated as children and didn’t even know they were brother and sister, when they met. They did not end their relationship, when they finally found out and had four children together. The children were put in foster care and the young man in jail.
They are not talking for legal marriage, but that their relationship should go unpunished. The same legal construction under which abortion is qualified as a killing and thus wrong, but the deed will not be punished if certain requirements are met.
Nobody in Germany is seriously discussing to legalize such a situation. And the verdict by the constitutional court whether incest can be left unpunished is not in either.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:35 am#34 rabidbunny
Why are you tying procreation to marriage? I never inferred anything about marriages having to have kids. If procreation is tied directly to marriage then gay marriage is a moot point.
I said “If”. If they want to have kids, then it’s a health issue. It’s been my understanding that the taboo against marrying siblings was always about that. I didn’t say marrying siblings necessarily meant having kids.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:35 am#53 – “The phoniness of demanding “democracryNOW!†in regard to Iraq but judicially slapping the public at large is a trademark of Dems and Progs.” Comment by valiant venus — March 7, 2007 @ 11:30 am
The phoniness of saying “we support states rights” in public but fighting for a federal solution to force your agenda down everyone’s throat is the PRIMARY TACTIC OF THE REGRESSIVES AND NEO-CON REPUBLICANS!
Interesting how “states rights” suddenly becomes moot when the states don’t follow the path you think is the only one acceptable.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:38 amOf COURSE you’re right! The phoniness of demanding “democracryNOW!†in regard to Iraq but judicially slapping the public at large is a trademark of Dems and Progs. This agenda is about breaking down this society – and rebuilding their “idea†of UTOPIA.
Comment by valiant venus — March 7, 2007 @ 11:30 am
THIS SOCIETY, as you are no doubt aware of has as it’s fundamental principles the right to be free in thought and equal in opportunity. You can’t continue to claim belief in this concept when you are in favor of denying legal contracts to someone based on their sexual preferences, and if you do not believe in this concept than it is YOU who denies American values, not the culture of homosexuality.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:44 am#52 Swordsbane
Not in so many words, but the argument against incest always boils down to birth defects or religious grounds. I don’t care much about the religious grounds, and the birth defects is a tendency, not a certainty, and if you’d be against incest on those grounds, then you’d have to be against procreation under any circumstances where birth defects are a possibility.
I’m sure you’re anxious to argue this point, but I don’t think it’s me that you’re arguing with. I didn’t even begin to advocate for or against siblings marrying. I gave rabidbunny a rationale that he/she didn’t seem to think was there. I’m not a geneticist, so I’m not going to start giving a vigorous argument against siblings becoming parents. I can report what I’ve heard to be the case, but maybe you have some new information. However, the children of the two siblings in Germany that doro was referring to are reported to have some birth defects that have been attributed to their parents being related. Is it mere coincidence? Maybe.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:45 amWhy does the definition of something that has been around for so long have to be changed to make people feel equal?
Comment by rabidbunny
Um, it needs to be changed because the government/society gives different treatment to “married” couples, i.e. tax considerations, insurance for spouses, rights as next of kin for inheritance, rights to make medical decisions for incapacitated spouses, and the list goes on.
If the government wants to get out of marriage business (and allow marriage to be a reserved for a religious ceremony) and wants to call a couple’s legal union something else, then fine. Otherwise, marriage needs to be legal for gays as well as straight couples.
IMHO, restricting the terms marrige and trying to retrain our language use sounds harder than just broadening the scope to include gays.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:48 amDemocracy as “rule of the majority” does not mean the majority can, by vote, deny the basic rights of individuals in the minority.
Secular marriage is a civil union, registered with the government as a contract between consenting adults with accompanying priveleges and responsibilities. There is NO secular reason for denying the identical right to such a contract for homosexuals or polygamists.
Holy matrimony is the religious sanctioning of the secular marriage and the right of religious organizations to only endorse or sanctify those marriages consistent with their beliefs must also be protected.
Of course, this is all nuanced thinking devoid of the either-or categorizations of many individuals.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:48 am#49 rabidbunny
It has nothing to do with evils of gay marriage. It is about what marriage is and has always been. It has been a bond between a man and a woman.
Are you talking about marriage in legal terms or religious terms? They’re not the same thing. They may coincide in most cases, but they’re actually two separate things. Which one “is and has always been”?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:48 am#47
Thank you for the connections. I was not thinking about some of the arguments against interracial marriages, so there definitely are some connections. That being said, the overall key reason for me at least is about defining what a marriage is. When a black man marries a white woman you still have a husband and a wife, that cannot be said in a gay marriage. That may sound petty, but to change the entire meaning of marriage is silly. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is and always has been the bond of a man and a woman. It is what it is.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:48 amDemSold – I am for states rights – but the Uniform Commercial Clause dictates federal (i.e. across the board) recognition. Why don’t YOU respect states which have determined through the VOTING process (and not the PC whims of select “judges”) that they want marriage to remain defined as between “one man and one woman”?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:50 amHowever, the children of the two siblings in Germany that doro was referring to are reported to have some birth defects that have been attributed to their parents being related. Is it mere coincidence? Maybe.
Comment by chimpeach — March 7, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Be so kind as to state whether you think incest should be legal or if you think it is somehow immoral or otherwise “wrong”
If they have kids with birth defects, then obviously it hurts the kids, the parents, and anyone else who ends up having to help pay the medical bills.
Comment by chimpeach — March 7, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Sounds like you disapprove.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:51 amRe: “gay†marriage, my opposiotion is behaviour based. Comment by valiant venus
Ok, goddess wannabe, exactly what “behaviour” of homosexuals makes them undeserving of equal access to a secular institution, equal right to pursue happiness, and equal right to assembly as any heterosexual?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:52 ammakes me want to sing Danny Boy…
March 7th, 2007 at 11:54 am#56 …doro…
March 7th, 2007 at 11:56 amthank you for the info…
I understand the actual ramifications of that particular case, and I thoroughly applaud and respect the overall morality of EU, in many ways more than I respect the mores of particular elements of American culture.
My offhand and misleading post was simple trolling…
61
I think it would be fine to have civil unions that give gays the same “rights” as marriages encompass, but I am against changing the meaning of marriage.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:56 amFor the religious opponents who stress that homosexuality is “unnatural”,
The Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on the fact that humans are “naturally” sinful and must overcome their “natural” state. Advocates of parental discipline note that children “naturally” steal, lie, are rude, etc and must be taught to go against their “natural” state. So, remaining “sexually natural” is a bogus argument against homosexuality – unless you mean to remain true to your own personal natural sexuality, be it homosexual or heterosexual.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:58 am“THIS SOCIETY, as you are no doubt aware of has as it’s fundamental principles the right to be free in thought and equal in opportunity. You can’t continue to claim belief in this concept when you are in favor of denying legal contracts to someone based on their sexual preferences…”
I do not advocate restricting anyone’s “free thought”. Think what you want. Gays have the opportunity to marry – members of the opposite sex. If they choose not to avail themselves to this right – that is also their right. Sadly, many gay people felt compelled by society to enter into sham marriages. The shackles are off. You don’t need to pretend anything – especially marriage.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:58 am#64 – “Marriage is and always has been the bond of a man and a woman. It is what it is.” Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 11:48 am
OK, I can respect your opinion, even if I don’t agree with it.
How about “civil unions”? Is that something you could support for the sake of allowing same-sex couples some form of recognition? Or are you opposed to any form of recognition of same-sex relationships?
March 7th, 2007 at 12:00 pmIs that something you could support for the sake of allowing same-sex couples some form of recognition?
Yes
March 7th, 2007 at 12:02 pm#65 – “Why don’t YOU respect states which have determined through the VOTING process (and not the PC whims of select “judgesâ€) that they want marriage to remain defined as between “one man and one womanâ€?” Comment by valiant venus — March 7, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Porbably for the same reason I was not “for states rights” concerning slavery or mixed-race bans. There are times that the Federal Government must impose the solution when the states don’t agree.
Personally, I would be all for the states to alllow/deny same sex marriage recognition as long as the Federal Government would recognize those same rights for the states that allow them and not for the states that dis-allow them.
When you have one set of rules for one state that are ignored by the Federal Government, then you’ve just made “some people” second class (or third class) citizens.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:03 pmGays have the opportunity to marry – members of the opposite sex. If they choose not to avail themselves to this right – that is also their right. Comment by valiant venus
ROTFL “Hello, citizen, this is your government. You have the right to vote for the Orwell Party candidate, the only option available. If you choose not to avail yourself of this right, that is also your right. Have a nice day.”
/sarc
March 7th, 2007 at 12:03 pm#66 Swordsbane
Be so kind as to state whether you think incest should be legal or if you think it is somehow immoral or otherwise “wrongâ€
I haven’t had any reason to form an opinion on it. To be perfectly honest, it’s not important to me. If someone wants to marry his or her sibling, I don’t really care. If it were to suddenly become a fad and we start to see a rash of serious health problems as a result, I guess I’d be forced to say it’s not a good thing.
Just so you understand, I’m not arguing for or against it. I don’t have a dog in this fight. There are no religious arguments or even societal taboos that sway me one way or the other. The only thing that matters to me in this discussion is what science has to say about it.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:04 pm“The Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on the fact that humans are “naturally†sinful and must overcome their “natural†state.”
Wrong again, PLC. Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on Laws of the God you claim to follow. But assuming your statement is true, ( overcoming “natural sunfulness” is the foundation of Judeo-Christian philosophy), your argument allowing “gay marriage” is incorrect as this accommodates the “natural” inclination of the homosexual.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI think it would be fine to have civil unions that give gays the same “rights†as marriages encompass, but I am against changing the meaning of marriage. Comment by rabidbunny
And what if I wanted to establish a church with the religious doctrine that homosexual civil unions can and should be blessed as a holy matrimony.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:06 pm#70 rabidbunny
I think it would be fine to have civil unions that give gays the same “rights†as marriages encompass, but I am against changing the meaning of marriage.
And that would put you in agreement with about 70% of the country.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:07 pmvaliant venus
What I believe as a Christian is as irrelevant as what you believe about homosexual marriage – secular laws should not be based on beliefs but individual rights. Of course, you do not respond to that in any way. You only focus on the “traditions” of our society, which are nothing more nor less than long-standing, shared beliefs which can be antithetical to secular rights.
Personally, I don’t think Democrats should marry Republicans. Personally, I don’t think anyone should marry you. Would it be acceptable if I got a majority of people in our society to agree with me and passed laws regarding those beliefs?
March 7th, 2007 at 12:12 pmI do not advocate restricting anyone’s “free thoughtâ€. Think what you want. Gays have the opportunity to marry – members of the opposite sex. If they choose not to avail themselves to this right – that is also their right. Sadly, many gay people felt compelled by society to enter into sham marriages. The shackles are off. You don’t need to pretend anything – especially marriage.
Comment by valiant venus — March 7, 2007 @ 11:58 am
You completely missed the second bit, the part about equal opportunity. If two people who love each other are not allowed the benefits of marriage, then that is a restriction. If your basis for the restriction is only “it’s unnatural” or “it’s immoral” then you are guilty of bigotry at best, racism at worst, two things everyone recognizes as bad, or at least counter-productive. Your fear that homosexual marriage somehow is going to cause the downfall of civilization would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:14 pmI will contact my Congressman to ensure that any gay marriage bill is not passed.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:14 pmSwordbane,
I am disappointed that I see yet one more person on this site that is completely a party loyalist. You not only demonstrate this behavior, you go on and on about it. Your defense of your party at all cost makes you look foolish. This repug did a wonderful thing. He backed an issue that you agree with yet you still attempt to caste him out and talk bad about him. Do you know anything else about this man? Do you know his stance on other issues? Are you simply downing him because he has an (R) behind his name?
Why do so many here simply defend their party and trash the other regardless of the issue and regardless of what is right and wrong? You all like to call me a party loyalist yet I defend gay marriage and would defend any Dem on Gay Marriage against the Repugs. How do you square that?
March 7th, 2007 at 12:16 pm“And what if I wanted to establish a church with the religious doctrine that homosexual civil unions can and should be blessed as a holy matrimony.” Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Go right ahead, but you’re late. You might want to look up Metropolitan Community Church – and we have the pro-gay marriage Unitarians, United Church of Christ, Episcopalians…etc.
From the Unitarians, ” The Office of
Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Concerns
Risking a new vision for our world since 1973. ”
“Unitarian Universalism has been on record as supporting the rights of bisexual, gay, and lesbian people since 1970. The Office was formed in 1973. We have advocated against sodomy laws and job and housing discrimination. We have advocated for ceremonies of union and same-gender marriage”
On the same web page are talking points for liberal clergy to effectively respond to the media.
“Some of you have been, or will be, talking to the press and have asked for a few suggestions about what to say to the media. If you do make news, let us know ! If you have others to contribute, please send them to Deborah Weiner in our Office of Electronic Communication or to me. Here are are our top three suggestions for having those conversations in a positive, focused manner:
1. This is truly about equality for all people in the area of civil marriage . No religion will be forced to marry people. Religions that wish to, like ours, can. But this action is about providing the same equal protection with equal access to same-gender couples that married couples now enjoy.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pm2. Unitarian Universalism has been blessed by over thirty years of experience of working toward equality for bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender couples . We have had ministers perform ceremonies of union for over 30 years, and our congregations are richer, better places as a result. We believe that homophobia is the sin and not homosexuality.
3. On May 17, 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled that ‘separate but not equal’ was unconstitutional in matters of race . Fifty years later, on May 17, 2004, same-gender couples will stop being second-class citizens in Massachusetts and will be equal for the first time in any state when they will be allowed to marry. This will be a day of celebration, when justice is served, when love and commitment are honored, when people of the United States can take pride in this remarkable and equitable moment in history.”
Seems like many of you have the Talking Points down pat! Congrats!
And what if I wanted to establish a church with the religious doctrine that homosexual civil unions can and should be blessed as a holy matrimony.
That still would not change the definition of marriage.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pmI think it would be fine to have civil unions that give gays the same “rights†as marriages encompass, but I am against changing the meaning of marriage.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 11:56 am
It was a teribble mistake to link the legal institute and the religious tradition of marriage. It creates the misperception that the two are connected. The idea that people who are against gay marriage would be for civil unions is a cop out. It’s a way to say “We have marriage. What you have is not as good.” Well if that’s the way you truly feel, let’s take it to it’s logical conclusion. I’ve mentioned this before. We should go to a modified clan structure. You can bring whoever you want to into your clan and get all the same protections as marriage. Anything else is a religious ritual, neither supported nor restricted by the legal system. You can call it marriage, but it is will not carry any weight with the government. This way, EVERYTHING is a civil union. Fair is fair.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:22 pm#74 – Despite what some people think about gay people in general, and me in specific, we (gays) are not trying to destroy “marriage”.
I don’t know if you remember from the late 70’s and early 80’s but one of the biggest arguments against acknowledging gay people’s relationship was “they never settle down, they’re always jumping from one partner to another!”
The solution to multiple sexual partners would be to recognize gay unions in the eyes of the law. This is when people started to scream about how gay marriage would destroy the US and the world if it were to happen.
So, gay’s can’t be recognized because they don’t have long-lasting relationships. Then thay can’t have marriage to recognize the relationships becasue opponents don’t want to change the definition.
It’s a way to keep gays as third-class citizens in all but name only.
I hope you can see the this from my perspective, while not agreeing with my opinions.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:23 pmSwordbane – Two people who love each other are not allowed to marry in the following instances:
People already married. (No bigamy or polygymy.)
People related.
Minors.
Your broad brush misses quite a few “victims of discrimination”.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:25 pmI am disappointed that I see yet one more person on this site that is completely a party loyalist. You not only demonstrate this behavior, you go on and on about it. Your defense of your party at all cost makes you look foolish. This repug did a wonderful thing. He backed an issue that you agree with yet you still attempt to caste him out and talk bad about him. Do you know anything else about this man? Do you know his stance on other issues? Are you simply downing him because he has an (R) behind his name?
Why do so many here simply defend their party and trash the other regardless of the issue and regardless of what is right and wrong? You all like to call me a party loyalist yet I defend gay marriage and would defend any Dem on Gay Marriage against the Repugs. How do you square that?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Of course I’m down on him because he’s a Republican. He’s a member. This means he identifies with them. They are ignorant, religious nut-balls. The fact that he has a fit of sensibility does not in any way absolve him of any of the extra baggage he carries from being a republican. I applaud his action in voting against bigotry, but it doesn’t say anything about his character. I need more.
And what do you mean by party loyalist? Do my anti-republican rants mark me as a democrat or are you actually aware enough to know that there is more than reps and dems out there and some of us hate both the major parties? I defend rational thought and decency. I admit I will defend them at all costs. I’m kind of prejudiced that way and will attack any idea that is stupid, regardless of which party it comes from. It’s just so happens that most stupidity is coming from the republicans these days. That does not mean I’m with the other camp.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:29 pmSwordbane – Two people who love each other are not allowed to marry in the following instances:
People already married. (No bigamy or polygymy.)
People related.
Minors.
Your broad brush misses quite a few “victims of discriminationâ€.
Comment by valiant venus — March 7, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
Minors, by definition are not able to make their own decisions and people who are already married already have a contract and it would be illegal to be in breach of that contract, regardless.
Which leaves those who are related. I don’t really care if people who are related get married. It bothers me just about as much as homosexual marriage (which is to say not at all).
March 7th, 2007 at 12:32 pmZwonitzer’s contact info is located here:
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2005/members/H43.htm
March 7th, 2007 at 12:33 pmDemocrat Soldier-
I don’t think that gay people are trying to destroy marriage. I understand wanting to have the state recognize relationships, however I don’t think changing a long lasting institution is the answer. Which is why I am for civil unions. It takes away any disrepency in regards to benefits, next of kin etc.., but does not redifine something (marriage) that has greatly helped society as a whole. I don’t consider gay people to be second class citizens, I personally am in favor of gays adopting. I do understand your perspective and appreciate your willingness to have an open dialogue without resorting to petty name-calling or attacks.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:38 pmThat still would not change the definition of marriage. Comment by rabidbunny
Ok, let me revise that: And what if I wanted to establish a church with the religious doctrine that homosexual civil unions can and should be blessed as a holy marriage.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:39 pmOf course I’m down on him because he’s a Republican. He’s a member. This means he identifies with them. They are ignorant, religious nut-balls.
Wow! What a narrow-minded broad perspective.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:41 pmOk, let me revise that: And what if I wanted to establish a church with the religious doctrine that homosexual civil unions can and should be blessed as a holy marriage.
I don’t care about the religious connections to marriage. I am more concerned with what marriage is and how it has benefited society as a whole. Marriage is a man and a woman-a duck is a duck.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:42 pmDemocrat Soldier-
I don’t think that gay people are trying to destroy marriage. I understand wanting to have the state recognize relationships, however I don’t think changing a long lasting institution is the answer. Which is why I am for civil unions. It takes away any disrepency in regards to benefits, next of kin etc.., but does not redifine something (marriage) that has greatly helped society as a whole. I don’t consider gay people to be second class citizens, I personally am in favor of gays adopting. I do understand your perspective and appreciate your willingness to have an open dialogue without resorting to petty name-calling or attacks.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
I refer you to my #86 argument. Suffice to say, sperate but equal status didn’t work for blacks. Why should it work for gays?
March 7th, 2007 at 12:42 pm25 points to RogRog for having some decency, and not being paranoid about a “collapse of civilization” should gays marry.
5000 more demerits to vulva, for being incurably hateful and vindictive, and for having little to no idea what she’s(?) talking about. One ann coulter is already WAAYYYY more than enough, vv, so find another malicious maven to parrot, wouldja? better yet, go out and get laid – it’d improve your attitude 1000%.
10,000 points to the man from Wyoming, who’s secure enough with himself to take the real American position on this issue.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:44 pmOf course I’m down on him because he’s a Republican. He’s a member. This means he identifies with them. They are ignorant, religious nut-balls.
Wow! What a narrow-minded broad perspective.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
You are welcome to try to convince me otherwise. I was under the impression that you should associate with a party that shares your ideals as much as possible. I’ve seen what repubicans stand for, how they vote, what they (claim to at least) believe in, and the nicest thing I can say is that they are extremely misguided.
You don’t have to be a cruel fascist to join the Nazi party either, but if you want someone to think you aren’t either of those things, one of the first things you should do is leave the party.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:46 pm#83
March 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pmDaryrll
Would your congressman there in Virginia happen to be Virgil Goode?
And, oh, still waiting for your elaboration on the tenure of President Bill Clinton as regards to the conviction of Lewis Scooter Libby (?)
rapidbunny
“A duck is a duck” is circular reasoning. We define words and institutions, then redefine them all the time. Witness the change in the meaning of the word “gay” in the last generation. Witness the change in meaning of “marriage” as a political tactic for uniting two kingdoms, to an individual contract. Witness the change in the meaning of “marriage” from “taking a wife” to “joining with a wife”. Witness the change in meaning of “marriage” from “uniting with a person of your own race and religion” to “a man and a woman”. The evolution of the meaning of “marriage” as a “committment, legal and emotional, of consenting adults” is just an extension of these changes. Therefore, there is a second “tradition” that can be considered.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:51 pm“Personally, I don’t think Democrats should marry Republicans.”
PLC, Sounds like an “Over the Rainbow” moment – WE AGREE!!
“Personally, I don’t think anyone should marry you.”
March 7th, 2007 at 12:51 pmPrince Valiant would disagree.
I refer you to my #86 argument. Suffice to say, sperate but equal status didn’t work for blacks. Why should it work for gays?
Seperate but equal for schools is quite a bit different than civil unions for gay marriages. The issues with seperate schools had to do with funding and racists people in charge. Tax codes are pretty simple, if gay people can file jointly then the issue can’t be open to interpetation. If insurance companies are required to follow next of kin rules for civil unions then the issue cannot be open to interpetation. Civil unions would not mean gays can only go into certain restaurants or are not given the same educational advantages. Your argument really isn’t very well thought out.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:53 pm#94-
“Wow! What a narrow-minded broad perspective.”
This from somebody who keeps saying that “gay marriage is an oxymoron” like some robot on acid.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:57 pmI refer you to my #86 argument. Suffice to say, sperate but equal status didn’t work for blacks. Why should it work for gays?
Seperate but equal for schools is quite a bit different than civil unions for gay marriages. The issues with seperate schools had to do with funding and racists people in charge. Tax codes are pretty simple, if gay people can file jointly then the issue can’t be open to interpetation. If insurance companies are required to follow next of kin rules for civil unions then the issue cannot be open to interpetation. Civil unions would not mean gays can only go into certain restaurants or are not given the same educational advantages. Your argument really isn’t very well thought out.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Do you really think there will be no social problems with civil unions?
“You’re not married. You’re just ‘joined’ You don’t count.”
Just try to tell me that’s not going to happen.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:57 pm100-
The definition that that marriage when joining two people has always been a man and a woman. You are not giving actual changes in the definition we are talking about. The marriage of two kingdoms? Give me a break. So is a sister country a redefinition of siblings now? As for taking a wife you are referring to vows not the definition.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:58 pmPLC – The powers that be kicked my response about establishing a church. In short, you’re late to the table. Maybe you could hook up with the Metro Community Church, the UU’s or UCC’s. Their doctrines are right up your alley.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:01 pmThis from somebody who keeps saying that “gay marriage is an oxymoron†like some robot on acid.
I said it twice, but if that constitutes a robot on acid…so be it.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:03 pmI refer you to my #86 argument. Suffice to say, sperate but equal status didn’t work for blacks. Why should it work for gays?
Seperate but equal for schools is quite a bit different than civil unions for gay marriages. The issues with seperate schools had to do with funding and racists people in charge. Tax codes are pretty simple, if gay people can file jointly then the issue can’t be open to interpetation. If insurance companies are required to follow next of kin rules for civil unions then the issue cannot be open to interpetation. Civil unions would not mean gays can only go into certain restaurants or are not given the same educational advantages. Your argument really isn’t very well thought out.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
On paper, separate but equal status worked just fine for blacks, but you make marriage and civil unions exactly the same except for the name and you’ve got no excuse for making them both one in the same. Any argument you can come up with for maintaining civil unions different from marriage means you’re giving something to heterosexuals and denying it to gays. However you slice that, it’s institutionalized bigotry. That’s what I mean by ’separate but equal doesn’t work’ All of the “problems” with separate but equal for blacks could have been fixed, and it still would have been wrong for one, simple reason: spearate is NOT equal. Gays are either part of our society, or they aren’t. You have to chose. This means allowing them to marry, or forbidding it. That’s why I said civil unions are cop-outs. They’re a way to continue the reality of inequality, but pay lip-service to non-discrimination. In some ways, that’s WORSE than simple bigotry.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:03 pmDo you really think there will be no social problems with civil unions?
“You’re not married. You’re just ‘joined’ You don’t count.â€
Just try to tell me that’s not going to happen.
Please give me some examples of situations where that would happen.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:04 pmvalient venus,
“Homo” in the case of homosexuality means “same” not “man.” So any species engaging in same sex coitus is practicing homosexuality.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:07 pmThank you, erock, for getting us all up to speed. So when you call someone a homophobe – they fear “same”?
March 7th, 2007 at 1:10 pmDo you really think there will be no social problems with civil unions?
“You’re not married. You’re just ‘joined’ You don’t count.â€
Just try to tell me that’s not going to happen.
Please give me some examples of situations where that would happen.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Loans, buying a house, any situation where you can discriminate now, you will be able to discriminate against civil unions, only now, you don’t actually have to ask. If you have to write it down anywhere, you might as well say, gay marriage. Of course LEGALLY, they will be the same, but don’t be so naive. They will not BE the same.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:12 pmWell since you so snidely scoffed at the point being made related to my post, I thought I should educate you. Homophobe is actually a colloquial term referring to those that fear and/or hate homesexuals.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:13 pmI am impressed. Who says young people today don’t care?
March 7th, 2007 at 1:14 pmThis young representative and his peers will be running the nation in a few short years, making decisions that affect us. Zwonitzer is an encouraging light for the future.
eROCK – You might want to lose your hypersensitivity along with that cinder block on your shoulder.
That said – Thank YOU for taking the time to educate me in the nuances of gayness. So sweet of you to think of me! Really!! I mean it.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:18 pmMarie – You’ll be happy to know, the NRA doesn’t look too favourably on young Dan! (He’s not really a Republican….he just plays one in Wyoming.)
March 7th, 2007 at 1:22 pmthey fear “same�
Comment by valiant venus — March 7, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Literally, yes -but that is because the word “homophobe” is a misconstruction.
“Homosexual” is akin to “homogeneous”, where the particle “hom” comes from the Greek meaning “equal”, not from the Latin “homo” meaning “man”. Duh.
What did you think “homokinetic” meant, in your limited vocabulary? Man in motion? Educating you is a full time job… sshheesshh…
March 7th, 2007 at 1:23 pm109
I disagree that it has to be one way or the other. Civil union is not just giving lip service. It is taking an institution that was created to only bring together a man and a woman and giving the equivilent to bring together a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
The reason the government has given benefits to married people is because it benefits society as a whole. Family units are the best option for children to grow in and later become productive units of society. So the government recoginized that and wanted to encourage it. For this reason I think it would be fair to give the same benefits for gay couples, as I said before I am for gays adopting. If giving the same benifits that married couples get encourages more gay couples to have civil unions and in turn adopt unwanted children it is beneficial to society as a whole.
With that being said, I feel that it is important not to change something that has been the bedrock for modern civilization simply for alleged equal rights.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:23 pmI’m sorry valiant venus,
I was under the impression that people engaging in debate would want to have their facts straight before presenting arguments. When you use words incorrectly, or attack other people’s correct use of vocabulary, it damages your argument. Technically I was educating you in the nuances of the English language. Thanks for playing though.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:24 pmLoans, buying a house, any situation where you can discriminate now, you will be able to discriminate against civil unions, only now, you don’t actually have to ask. If you have to write it down anywhere, you might as well say, gay marriage. Of course LEGALLY, they will be the same, but don’t be so naive. They will not BE the same.
I don’t see how loans or buying a house would be discriminated by civil unions. Companies are driven by money and if the combined salary and credit ratings of the parties involved are adequate, they would be losing business and committing fiscal suicide to not loan to a demographic that they don’t like.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:26 pmSwordsbane,
You ability to label everyone with an (R) wrong is just beyond me. How can you and many here openly do that and the turn around and attempt to call other out as Party loyalist going on to call it a bad thing? People like you make me sick. You support what this man and his beliefs on this issue yet you still have a problem with him? You say you have seen how repugs vote and that is why you think this way. Are you suggesting that all repugs vote the same way? Your obviously wrong as this repug voted like a Dem on this issue. How could you possibly think that junk would fly on the very same thread that shows a repug voting differently then many other repugs? Furthermore, do you think all Dems vote the Same way?
If you do, you are very mistaken indeed. Funny how Pelosi and many others are even going so far as to plan to vote yes to extend the Iraq war. How do you square that many in your own party now support the Iraq war and are voting to prolong it? Seems like a very “(R)” thing to do. Are you just going to brush that off and call them repugs as well? Your statements have been illogical and proven wrong.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:28 pmI disagree that it has to be one way or the other. Civil union is not just giving lip service. It is taking an institution that was created to only bring together a man and a woman and giving the equivilent to bring together a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
The reason the government has given benefits to married people is because it benefits society as a whole. Family units are the best option for children to grow in and later become productive units of society. So the government recoginized that and wanted to encourage it. For this reason I think it would be fair to give the same benefits for gay couples, as I said before I am for gays adopting. If giving the same benifits that married couples get encourages more gay couples to have civil unions and in turn adopt unwanted children it is beneficial to society as a whole.
With that being said, I feel that it is important not to change something that has been the bedrock for modern civilization simply for alleged equal rights.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Make no mistake. I understand that marriage has been a primary foundation of US society, but I take issue that this is SIMPLY a matter of civil rights. Civil rights is a fundamental building block of this society, probably more than marriage ever was. If civil unions were the same as marriage, then there’s no point in making civil unions rather than incorporating homosexuals into marriage. If they ARE different, then how do we justify it? How do we justify denying a part of our people to an arguably important part of our culture when another fundamental part of our culture is being inclusive and celebrating our diversity?
March 7th, 2007 at 1:33 pmI don’t see how loans or buying a house would be discriminated by civil unions. Companies are driven by money and if the combined salary and credit ratings of the parties involved are adequate, they would be losing business and committing fiscal suicide to not loan to a demographic that they don’t like.
In addition to this comment:
How would a marriage change any possible disrimination in the cases you pointed out. Wouldn’t a loan officer see two male names just like he would see civil union checked? So if he was against gay marriages couldn’t discrimination still happen?
March 7th, 2007 at 1:36 pmoans, buying a house, any situation where you can discriminate now, you will be able to discriminate against civil unions, only now, you don’t actually have to ask. If you have to write it down anywhere, you might as well say, gay marriage. Of course LEGALLY, they will be the same, but don’t be so naive. They will not BE the same.
I don’t see how loans or buying a house would be discriminated by civil unions. Companies are driven by money and if the combined salary and credit ratings of the parties involved are adequate, they would be losing business and committing fiscal suicide to not loan to a demographic that they don’t like.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
You don’t sound like you know that much about discrimination. It isn’t a business decision. Businesses that discriminated against blacks in the 40s and 50s might have done better business to embrace blacks as customers even at the cost of their white customers. Many financial benefits we apply for are judgement calls and very difficult to prove discrimination. We don’t need to give them a hand by making up a “gay marriage” badge for people to place on all their applications.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:38 pmHow would a marriage change any possible disrimination in the cases you pointed out. Wouldn’t a loan officer see two male names just like he would see civil union checked? So if he was against gay marriages couldn’t discrimination still happen?
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Just don’t want to give the bigots any help.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:39 pmYou ability to label everyone with an (R) wrong is just beyond me. How can you and many here openly do that and the turn around and attempt to call other out as Party loyalist going on to call it a bad thing? People like you make me sick. You support what this man and his beliefs on this issue yet you still have a problem with him? You say you have seen how repugs vote and that is why you think this way. Are you suggesting that all repugs vote the same way? Your obviously wrong as this repug voted like a Dem on this issue. How could you possibly think that junk would fly on the very same thread that shows a repug voting differently then many other repugs? Furthermore, do you think all Dems vote the Same way?
If you do, you are very mistaken indeed. Funny how Pelosi and many others are even going so far as to plan to vote yes to extend the Iraq war. How do you square that many in your own party now support the Iraq war and are voting to prolong it? Seems like a very “(R)†thing to do. Are you just going to brush that off and call them repugs as well? Your statements have been illogical and proven wrong.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
People should stand up and be counted. How many mistakes do you give your party before you say “They don’t represent ME anymore?” Why are you a member of a political party? Are you a member because your friends are, or because it’s what you believe?
Of course republicans don’t subscribe to every single tenant the party does, but at what point do you pass the point where “The party is wrong, but it’s members aren’t?” How screwed up do the Republicans have to get things before we say “Why are you all still members if you don’t like what they did?”
My origional idea was to make the point that it is not easy to judge this mans character because of one thing he does that’s right. Like I said, the republicans are very good at saying what they think people want to hear, even if it happens to be the right thing to say. I saw at least one congressman come out against the Iraq war to win the midterms and then shaft his own constituency by voting against even debating the issue in congress.
Like I said. I applaud his stance, but not him until I know more. Being a member of the republican (or democrat) party I consider a strike against the man. Does anyone know his voting history? How he stands on the myriad of other important issues currently? Answer those questions before you come to me and say “This one is different.”
March 7th, 2007 at 1:49 pmYou don’t sound like you know that much about discrimination. It isn’t a business decision. Businesses that discriminated against blacks in the 40s and 50s might have done better business to embrace blacks as customers even at the cost of their white customers. Many financial benefits we apply for are judgement calls and very difficult to prove discrimination. We don’t need to give them a hand by making up a “gay marriage†badge for people to place on all their applications.
I just don’t understand how showing they have a civil union would actually help them discriminate.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pmrepublicans are very good at saying what they think people want to hear, even if it happens to be the right thing to say
Democrats do the exact same thing, it is what being a politician is all about. You don’t think Hillary is pandering to potential voters right now? You don’t think Obama is pandering to the black vote right now, even though he was raised by a white mother?
March 7th, 2007 at 1:55 pmI just don’t understand how showing they have a civil union would actually help them discriminate.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Why should there be civil unions AND marriage if they carry the same legal weight? If they are the same, then having two doesn’t mean anything, and if they are different, then you are denying one group something that the other has, you discriminate against one or the other.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:57 pmrepublicans are very good at saying what they think people want to hear, even if it happens to be the right thing to say
Democrats do the exact same thing, it is what being a politician is all about. You don’t think Hillary is pandering to potential voters right now? You don’t think Obama is pandering to the black vote right now, even though he was raised by a white mother?
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
As far as Obama is concerned, I don’t think he noticed his race was an issue until the republicans brought it up. In answer to your question, I do think the democrats do the same things. The Republicans seem better at turning out the votes except they’re a little blind sometimes to how screwed up they get things and the idea that some public opinion just cannot be swayed.
I do know that we will always have a scandal in the government (usually several) no matter a republican or democrat majority. Recently, the republican scandals have cost the country quite a bit more than the democrat scandals, but they’ve both passed beyond the point of no return as far as I’m concerned. I look into the voting history of any candidate and find something that makes me say “What an a–hole.” It doesn’t seem to matter if they have a D or an R in their title. It always amazes me how one party uses the stupidity of the other to prop themselves up. Instead of comparing them to what’s right they compare them to each other. The democrats look pretty good only in comparison to the republicans. Someday, it will be the other way around, I’m sure.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:04 pm#128 – “Democrats do the exact same thing, it is what being a politician is all about.”
I believe it’s the whole “perception” thing that the Republicans have built up over the past decade that makes their pandering that much more egregious.
When the Republicans spun their image to be the party of “personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, anti-special-interests, pro-states-rights, pro-troops” they set themselves up to be smacked even harder when they were exposed for the pandering, anti-personal responsibility, fiscal irresponsible, pro-special-rights, anti-states-rights, anti-troop party they truly are.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:05 pmrabidbunny… “don’t see how loans or buying a house would be discriminated by civil unions. Companies are driven by money and if the combined salary and credit ratings of the parties involved are adequate, they would be losing business and committing fiscal suicide to not loan to a demographic that they don’t like.”
um, have you been paying attention the past 30 years?
March 7th, 2007 at 2:11 pmSwordsbane,
So how can you allow your parties leaders to now support this war? You said repugs will say anything to get elected and then not vote like they said they would. Isn’t Pelosi and many of the Dems doing the exact same thing? These people campaigned with the promise of ending the Iraq war. They now have that ability and are currently pushing to support and extend the war instead. Isn’t that what you say the repugs do?
I mean honestly, please explain how that is cool with you.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:29 pm#131 – Both parties tell their constituents what they want to hear. But to hear DemSold recount and re-create “facts” – maybe he would explain:
“…for the pandering…” Do you think Dems pander to
blacks, hispanics, the labour unions, pro-choice women, “social justice” crowd, gay-rights groups, anti-war groups?
“...anti-personal responsibility…” Did you notice the hue and cry of Dems and Progs when welfare reform was OK’d by my favourite triangulator? Do you know the political affiliation of 90% of criminal defense attorneys who thrive and promote the “mitigating circumstance” responsible for a huge amount of recidivism?
“….fiscal irresponsible,...” Which party opposes allowing young people to privately invest 2% of their Social Security tax? Which party sees tax increases as a way to increase revenue?
“…pro-special-rights….” Which party backed hierarchies of victims in homicide and assault and battery cases? “Hate crimes” legislation is an oxymoron? People don’t rape, murder and maim because they like someone. Hatred is an underlying thread in cases involving white college student (and rape and murder victim) Dru Sodjin, black Texan, James Bird, or gay Matthew Shepherd. Motive should play a part in the degree a crime is charged in the information.
“…anti-states-rights…” Which party whines every time a state votes that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman?
“.…anti-troop party…” You might have a point if there were a draft. Alas, you are pointless. My active-duty brother and his friends think the NYT, and NPR are in bed with our enemies. The orgasmic reporting of casualties by suicide murderers in TP and the rest of ProgMedia is a tad repulsive. I’ve never seen people who cheer for a loss in war just to make a political point – until now.
‘Til later…..
March 7th, 2007 at 2:32 pm“…for the pandering…†Do you think Dems pander to
blacks, hispanics, the labour unions, pro-choice women, “social justice†crowd, gay-rights groups, anti-war groups?
Looking out for the interests of often neglected minorities is not pandering, it’s doing the right thing. If the group in question happens to overwhelmingly vote Democrat in return, so be it, it is after all in their best interest.
“…anti-personal responsibility…†Did you notice the hue and cry of Dems and Progs when welfare reform was OK’d by my favourite triangulator? Do you know the political affiliation of 90% of criminal defense attorneys who thrive and promote the “mitigating circumstance†responsible for a huge amount of recidivism?
I’m not sure who your favorite triangulator is, but if the welform reform he suggested consisted of cutting it, then see your second argument in this section to learn why that’s a bad idea.
“….fiscal irresponsible,…†Which party opposes allowing young people to privately invest 2% of their Social Security tax? Which party sees tax increases as a way to increase revenue?
Wow, 2% of the social security tax. Maybe if we all pool that we can pay off the illegitimate war that Bush started. Or maybe we can begin to rebuild the surplus our budget was running before the ever-so-helpful tax cuts of 2001.
“…pro-special-rights….†Which party backed hierarchies of victims in homicide and assault and battery cases? “Hate crimes†legislation is an oxymoron? People don’t rape, murder and maim because they like someone. Hatred is an underlying thread in cases involving white college student (and rape and murder victim) Dru Sodjin, black Texan, James Bird, or gay Matthew Shepherd. Motive should play a part in the degree a crime is charged in the information.
So victims who are attacked due to their race/creed/color are now more of a special interest group than say Big Tobacco or the NRA? News to me.
“…anti-states-rights…†Which party whines every time a state votes that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman?
Wasn’t it your president that wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. As in the states have no choice regarding this issue whatsoever.
“.…anti-troop party…†You might have a point if there were a draft. Alas, you are pointless. My active-duty brother and his friends think the NYT, and NPR are in bed with our enemies. The orgasmic reporting of casualties by suicide murderers in TP and the rest of ProgMedia is a tad repulsive. I’ve never seen people who cheer for a loss in war just to make a political point – until now.
See reduced veterans benefits, reduced combat pay, insufficient supplies for troops.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:47 pmWhy should there be civil unions AND marriage if they carry the same legal weight? If they are the same, then having two doesn’t mean anything, and if they are different, then you are denying one group something that the other has, you discriminate against one or the other.
Because marriage was not created for homosexual couples. Any way you slice it, homosexuality and heterosexuality are different (neither any better than the other). Why should there be something that is for two different things if there is an alternative with same legal advantages?
March 7th, 2007 at 2:53 pmLooking out for the interests of often neglected minorities is not pandering, it’s doing the right thing. If the group in question happens to overwhelmingly vote Democrat in return, so be it, it is after all in their best interest.
And you actually think that the politicians actually care about the people they pander to?
March 7th, 2007 at 2:54 pmValiant Venus,
The Peaceful Co-existance the Democratic party wants to bring us. One with a new aristocracy. One where:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
“What kind of people would control this world had been equally obvious. The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians.”
-1984, George Orwell
All the groups listed above are supported by the Democrats.
Join us for the Two Minute Hate.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:57 pmBecause marriage was not created for homosexual couples. Any way you slice it, homosexuality and heterosexuality are different (neither any better than the other). Why should there be something that is for two different things if there is an alternative with same legal advantages?
I think you’re missing the point. If the government is going to recognize a union between two people, why should we use two names for the same recognition? Leave it up to the religious and social authorities to split hairs.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:00 pmSwordsbane,
So how can you allow your parties leaders to now support this war? You said repugs will say anything to get elected and then not vote like they said they would. Isn’t Pelosi and many of the Dems doing the exact same thing? These people campaigned with the promise of ending the Iraq war. They now have that ability and are currently pushing to support and extend the war instead. Isn’t that what you say the repugs do?
I mean honestly, please explain how that is cool with you.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
You haven’t been paying attention. The dems aren’t MY party. I can tell you who the best democrats and republicans are, but that’s like saying which vegitable is most articulate. I’m certainly not going to justify the leadership of either party. I’m not sure I like the idea of political partes in general. I would like to just talk about ideas, but the dems and the reps seem to insist on public attacks: “I’m so good because my opponent sucks worse than me” It’s usually both accurate and completely besides the point. Pelosi seems to be the best politician in the government now, but that’s no saying much.
My whole stance on the Iraq war power struggle is simple. Tell Bush to bring the troops home. DON’T cut off their money. That only hurts the troops, and sets up the people who voted for the bill for a political backlash when things go wrong (and they will). If you want to set some sort of deadline for Bush, that’s fine, but it better be one that a military officer who knows the score in Iraq comes up with and not a politician. Right now they’re still talking about talking about it. Let me know when they get past that. In short, my opinion is that Bush has proven himself an incompetent military leader. There are only two options: replace him or tell him to stop. The will just isn’t there to impeach him or force him to resign. The tiny amount of respect I have for Pelosi will evaporate in an instant if she doesn’t spend 90% of her effort on that single task until she’s either at the end of her term or the job is done. She’s the closest thing to a leader that the democrats have now. If they’re smart, they’ll throw all their support behind her…. except they’re probably not smart. They have their own carreers to think of. The needs of the nation just don’t rate.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:02 pm#134 – Comment by valiant venus — March 7, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Well, as a veteran that served in the army (Did you sign up?) I’m quite aware that the VA began being underfunded by the Republicans in power. The Dems always made sure the VA had the money they needed to keep up with the demand. Go figure.
“My active-duty brother and his friends think the NYT, and NPR are in bed with our enemies.” That’s because all your brother & friends hear is the pro-war pro-repub Faux news and nothing else unless they actually look for it.
Why do YOU think Pres. Bush hates our troops so much he refuses to fully fund armour and training? I’m sure you can’t explain that one.
Why do YOU think Pres. Bush hates our national guard and reserves by forcing them into tours beyond the 24 month mandate? I’m sure you’ll try to find some squirley way to justify that one as well.
I never claimed the Dems are perfect. Far from it. BUT, they’re one heck of a better sight than the lying-pandering-slime-filled-Republican party that has taken over in the absence of responsibility that Pres. Bush has ushered in.
It’s people like you that bend over backwards to lambast anyone that doesn’t swallow the kool-aid and walk in lock-step with the neo-cons that have taken over and want war for no reason other than to line the pockets of special interests.
Until you can show me your DD-214, don’t think that you’ve done anything useful for your country. If you support the war so much, sign up.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pm#138 – “Join us for the Two Minute Hate.” Comment by goldstein — March 7, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Sponsered by the Neo-Con cabal. Don’t pay attention to the lies or corporate welfare or massive debt or outsourced jobs, just do as Dear Leader tells you to do, and you’ll be fine.
Just fine.
No, that’s NOT the Constitution he’s crapping upon.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pmLook the other way.
I think you’re missing the point. If the government is going to recognize a union between two people, why should we use two names for the same recognition? Leave it up to the religious and social authorities to split hairs.
I’m not religous. You are missing the point, the fact is they are not the same thing never will be and should not be recognized as the same thing.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pmI’m not religous. You are missing the point, the fact is they are not the same thing never will be and should not be recognized as the same thing.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
But they are essentially the same thing. No matter how you phrase the argument, its always going to just be two people who want to be together.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:20 pmI think you’re missing the point. If the government is going to recognize a union between two people, why should we use two names for the same recognition? Leave it up to the religious and social authorities to split hairs.
I’m not religous. You are missing the point, the fact is they are not the same thing never will be and should not be recognized as the same thing.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
You’ll have to explain yourself. Blacks and whites ARE different. They don’t look the same and because of cultural upbringing do not act the same, yet it is perfectly legal for them to marry each other and it didn’t used to be. There is always a time before something was done, and there’s always a first time for everything that is. That it’s never been done is NOT a reason not to do it. You’re still trying to protect something in marriage that doesn’t need to be protected. You’re just like all the others, frightened into thinking that if homosexuals are allowed to “marry” each other, the institution of marriage will somehow be damaged or destroyed.
Get over it.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:22 pm#141 – “Well, as a veteran that served in the army (Did you sign up?)”
Thank you for your service. I served in the Navy. My husband is a retired Marine.
You don’t think Dems are perfect (really??) I must have missed your numuerous criticisms of them. I have been all over cyberspace blasting Repubs for their out-of-control spending and the lack of action with regards to our borders. My problem with contemporary liberals – there doesn’t seem to be ANYTHING they value enough to fight for. There’s plenty of “causes” out there they’ll “walk for” or protest against, but when you get down to it, the pacifist wing of your Party will be the downfall of your Party. Need I remind you of 1968 or 1972? The best part of watching old, faded,”once-upon-a time” hippies? They confirm the Peter Pan syndrome….
March 7th, 2007 at 5:30 pm….the pacifist wing of your Party will be the downfall of your Party…..
Comment by valiant venus — March 7, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
The problem with democrats is not that they have a powerful pacifist wing. They have a so-so pacifist wing. They have two problems. The first is that they aren’t really passionate about anything except being passionate. They are rebels without a cause. Sometimes they get behind something that works. This time it’s Global Warming. I think they can run with it for some distance before they muck it up somehow. The Iraq thing is just something that is unpopular and that’s easy to manipulte.
The second thing is that deep down, they aren’t as ruthless as the republicans are. If it had been the democrats that screwed up a war and turned 80% of the public against them, you better believe that the reps would be all over them, pounding them into the ground with such joyous abandon that we would probably see a solid 2/3rd majority in both the house and senate, and would have at least been talking seriously about impeachment if not already underway. As it was, the dems got a narrow margin in both, and so far, the prez is still untouchable. The dems wont do what the repubs would in their place. They don’t have the brains to beat the republicans on a level playing field and they don’t have the strength of conviction or the righteous moral high ground to make up for it. Ever since Newt and his gunmen campaigned for the contract on america, the republicans have been vicious and have been playing hardball. The dems are vaguley aware that a ball is somehow involved, but they always try to take the moral high ground when they get backed into a corner, and it doesn’t work because they have just as many skeletons in their closet. Not the same variety, but more than enough ammo for the reps to shoot holes in their attitude, and the publics perception of it.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pmSwordsbane – I’m hearing your explanation of Dems as what….bland? Folks in search of a cause to make their lives feeeeel meaningful? That’s a pretty sad by-product of the self-esteem industry. I disagree with you on the historical context of 1968 and ‘72. Back then, the left-flank of the Party carried the whole group over the cliff. The Dem Convention in Chicago? Those freaks were representative of mainstream Dems – but look at the perception change by middle of the roaders. And when we revisit the lunacy of the McGovern campaign….he was repelled by patriotic mainstream Dems…..
Tooodles….
March 7th, 2007 at 6:02 pm#146 – “Thank you for your service. I served in the Navy. My husband is a retired Marine.”
Well, I do thank you for your service as well. My main reason for joining was because I felt an obligation to provide service to the country that I love. I believe there should be a “universal service” law, where everyone had to serve a minimum of two years in the milittary (only exceptions for medical inability to serve.)
I’m surprised, though. A neo-con lover that actually served in the military! Do you know that you are one of the very few neo-cons that actually stands up WITH the military rather than BEHIND it? Still not sure why you support a confirmed liar as Cmdr. in Chief, but hey, you gotta live with the liar you support.
“You don’t think Dems are perfect (really??) I must have missed your numuerous criticisms of them.”
Yes. Yes, you have.
” I have been all over cyberspace blasting Repubs for their out-of-control spending and the lack of action with regards to our borders.”
Really? Not on THIS site! Thus far, I’ve only seen you complain about anything non-Republican as nuts and crazy.
“My problem with contemporary liberals – there doesn’t seem to be ANYTHING they value enough to fight for. There’s plenty of “causes†out there they’ll “walk for†or protest against, but when you get down to it, the pacifist wing of your Party will be the downfall of your Party. Need I remind you of 1968 or 1972? The best part of watching old, faded,â€once-upon-a time†hippies? They confirm the Peter Pan syndrome.”
I don’t think you know any modern day Liberals, do you? Did you know that when I joined the Army, I considered myself a Republican? It wasn’t until I saw how much then-Pres. Reagan was screwing ouor country that I opened my eyes and startted questioning the “blind support for R’s” that the military encourages.
Need I remind you of the illegal activities of Fmr. Pres. Nixon? Don’t you know the only reason the Repub’s attacked Fmr. Pres. Clinton was because they wanted payback for the impending impeachment of Pres. Nixon? Why was there over 70 million dollars spent attacking Pres. Clinton, and NO money spent tracking down why Pres. Bush lied the US into a war in Iraq? Or do you actually think we’re going to find WMD’s there? You know, the original reason for the US to attack Iraq?
I do have a question for you, one that I’ve asked my other Republican friends: do you support the Republicans out of the things they stand for , or AGAINST the Democrats for the things they stand for?
March 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pmsheesh – when did Vituperative Vagina get such a hardon for gays? I guess it’s because the rest of her idelogical world is being laid waste to day by day, as we emerge from the long, dark night of Republican’t manipulation.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:07 pmmarriage is a primarily civil (not religious) institution the “marriage” we’re familiar with is a common law concept from medieval europe, not the Bethelhem of Jesus – were we to do marriage the Bible way, each man could have numerous wives, and be free to beat or kill them as he saw fit, and that’s just one of the disgusting elements of “real bible values”
Lay off the gay people and let’em get married. What’s the big goddamned deal – it’s no one’s business but theirs. THE END.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pmIf you want to send him an email: dzwonitzer@wyoming.com
March 7th, 2007 at 6:18 pmI believe there should be a “universal service†law, where everyone had to serve a minimum of two years in the milittary (only exceptions for medical inability to serve.)
Comment by Democrat Soldier — March 7, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
My god no. You may as well have a draft. Unless you’re talking about non-combat positions. I’m not keen of having the country defended by an army composed mostly of people who don’t want to be there. Sure, it might give them a smidgeon of respect and sympathy for those who voluntarily lay it all on the line, but they could also get that far by simply pulling their head out of their ass. I’m passed recruitment age, but I’m amazed at how high the morale actually is in our troops considering what they’ve been through so far. That’s one difference between this war and Vietnam. Hell if I want to go back to those days, in the military or as a civilian.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:26 pmSwordsbane – I’m hearing your explanation of Dems as what….bland? Folks in search of a cause to make their lives feeeeel meaningful? That’s a pretty sad by-product of the self-esteem industry. Comment by valiant venus — March 7, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
You’re a sad by-product of parents confusing self esteem with teaching you how to be a pr*ncess b*tch.
I disagree with you on the historical context of 1968 and ‘72. Back then, the left-flank of the Party carried the whole group over the cliff. The Dem Convention in Chicago? Those freaks were representative of mainstream Dems – but look at the perception change by middle of the roaders. And when we revisit the lunacy of the McGovern campaign….he was repelled by patriotic mainstream Dems….. Tooodles…. Comment by valiant venus — March 7, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Says the NAZI – C*nt. It’s your party that’s now repelled by the Nationism of your right wing Coulter Bigot c*nts. Keep acting like the crazy c*nt that you are – you assure 2008 to be a banner year for Democrats! You loser right wingnut m*r*ns couldn’t administer a toilet, let alone a government!
Fcuk off you st*pid b*tcH!
March 7th, 2007 at 7:25 pmDemSol has a good point. Though I think the M-I Complex needs to be kept in check (particularly the black budget moneypit/corporate welfare parts of it), it’s entirely likely that, had some kind of compulsory service requirement been in place, dubbie would never have been allowed to get away with what he has (and that’s why they’ve never said “draft” out loud – they know it would end the party in half an hour)
March 7th, 2007 at 7:29 pmDemSold – You must have missed my lukewarm, but sincere, praise for former President Bill’s efforts (if not outcomes) in terms of foreign policy. Yes, RIGHT here at TP!! Can you believe it? I also noted that the Republican LOST big time in November because they threw conservativism out the window – especially FISCAL conservatism!!
You’re wrong about Clinton v. Nixon. What itched the skin of Repubs was his phony “I give a crap about women in the work place”….and he was the poster boy for sexual harassment. Personally, he was a charming pig. Same thing about phony baloney Newt Gingrich;.a brilliant historian with a broken moral compass. Ditto for that drug addled gay perv, “Rev.” Haggard.
Funny, you would come to dislike Ronald Reagan after Jimmy the Rabbit depressing and disastrous run. Talk about lack of leadership! He could be depended on for that “deer in the headlights” look, though.
To answer your question: “do you support the Republicans out of the things they stand for , or AGAINST the Democrats for the things they stand for?”
My answer: I support the following Republican IDEALS:
strong national defense, free markets, pro-life with a life of the mother exception, pro 2nd Amendment, pro private-property, school vouchers and “oil is a national vital interest”.
I support the following Dem IDEALS:
I am anti-capital punishment, I support extricating ourselves from the grip of the Middle East – I would love to see alternative energy for our autos.
I am against the following Dem AGENDA: Limosine liberal hypocrites (those folks who talk of the plight of the poor, show up for the Mission Turkey Feed on Thanksgiving and wouldn’t be caught dead helping poor people.) I am against government funding of alternative fuels – I support oil companies investing some of their profits in R&D, pornography is NOT art,
Universal or single payer health care, funding public art unless agreed to by the community, (that why God made rich people – to fund philanthropies), partial birth abortion for any reason (a C-section would be faster if a mother’s life was jeopardized by carrying baby), some criminals CANNOT be rehabilitated (contrary to a few of my esteemed Dem colleagues), there is no conspiracy by the white establishment to incarcerate minorities, But my biggest complaint with Dems is something I’ve said before and will say again – those guilt-ridden Dems who wish to pay more taxes – NOTHING is stopping you from doing just that.
It’s been fun!
March 7th, 2007 at 7:52 pmValiant Venus,
Addressing your disagreements to the “Dem Agenda” in order of their appearance:
Limousine Liberals – This point is poorly formed. Here you are addressing a personal flaw of many politicians, not an actual agenda point. Many Dems who support the poor also actually help the poor.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:14 pmGovernment Funding for Alternative Fuel Research – Here your reasoning centers around the altruism of the oil companies. Isn’t it more likely that R&D by institutions without an interest in perpetuating the necessity of their products will yield a viable and effective fossil fuel alternative?
Universal Health Care – There is no reason why the United States (a nation with a reputation as the greatest in the world, with which I agree) cannot provide for the health care of all its citizens. This is especially true given that many equally developed nations already have successful implementations of universal health care.
Art Funding – I agree with you here for the most part.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:14 pmGovernment Funding for Alternative Fuel Research – Here your reasoning centers around the altruism of the oil companies. Isn’t it more likely that R&D by institutions without an interest in perpetuating the necessity of their products will yield a viable and effective fossil fuel alternative?
March 7th, 2007 at 9:15 pmPartial Birth Abortion – If a C-Section is a real option, then by most states standards the abortion is already illegal.
Criminal Rehabilitation – Even though your point is, at best, ill-defined, I will try to address it. There is a reason we have life sentences for some crimes, that reason being that the crime is so heinous that the perpetrator is beyond rehabilitation. I don’t believe Dems are against life sentences. Also, it has been shown by numerous studies that rehabilitation programs (drug treatment for example) are far more effective than simple incarceration in reducing recidivism.
Minority Imprisonment – Here again you don’t really make a point. Further, I am not aware of any part of the Dem platform that claims a vast police conspiracy against minorities. Perhaps you are thinking of some special interest groups that lean left?
March 7th, 2007 at 9:18 pmGuilt-Ridden Tax Payers – I’ve never heard this argument framed this way and the way you phrase it detracts from the idea that it is part of the “Dem agenda”, but again, I think I know what you are getting at. It may surprise you that I am for a flat tax system. However, the flat tax proposed by Pat Buchanan and others is far from flat. I am in favor of a system that taxes all revenues, both income and capital gains, and does away with taxes like the sales tax which overwhelmingly tax the lower class.
I am also in favor of the 2nd amendment, although I believe that is completely obsolete given its original intent.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pmGood man, Dan Zwonitzer.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:28 pmWE NEED BRAVE PRINCIPLED MEN LIKE Dan Zwonitzer IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY–WHAT IS HE DOING AMONG THE repugnant-repub fudge-pachyderms LIKE A FLAWLESS PEARL AMONG THE FILTHY BESMIRCHED SWINE ROOTING IN THE MUD? CHANGE YOUR AFFILIATION, SIRRAH!!!!!
March 8th, 2007 at 1:40 am# 69 Raven,
I had to just boast my wisdom.
But sincerely, be it gay marriage, be it this issue, be it interracial or intercultural unions, there are human beings and their emotions involved. Whatever one’s feelings about the legal issues, one has to respect the love people feel for each other, this is no field for criminal prosecution and no field for moralizing gay marriage bans. Fortunately we are over the interracial ban – as far as legislation is concerned, at least. (On the other hand one could write a book on that issue, e.g. when it comes to german-turkish unions.)
March 8th, 2007 at 5:32 am#158,
Actually, if the Dems refuse to blow money on pork, they would have MORE THEN ENOUGH to fund all those uninsured americans. So, if the Dems truly want to make sure we are all insured, they simply need to shift that pork money over to fund the uninsured. POOF, everyone in America is insured. Why is every harping like this is some big deal anyways? The uninsured require roughly $100 billion a year for care. We spend more in pork a year so simply shifting it over completely fixes the problem. We raise no taxes and we don’t grow government. Everyone is happy and everyone has insurance.
So, are the Dems serious about helping the poor or not?
March 8th, 2007 at 9:59 am#166 – Actually, if the House Republicans had not raided the Social Security surplus during their last 12 years in power, there would BE no Social Security “crisis”.
March 8th, 2007 at 1:23 pmLesbians Lesbian Girls Lesbian Twins
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:24 amDefinition Of The Word A Skin Care Products
Hi – just wanted to say good design and blog -
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:12 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm1000 bad credit loan personal
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:51 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:12 amLesbian Sex Lesbian Anime Teenage Lesbian
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:50 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 6:03 pmFree Porn Free Gay Porn Free Porn Vids
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 6:15 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 3:24 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 6:26 amBc Student Loan
Thanks for this post!
March 25th, 2008 at 9:26 pmYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 2:23 pmLesbians Girls Lesbians Teen Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 2:45 pmFree Porn Free Cartoon Pokemon Porn 100 Free Porn
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pmLesbians Lesbian 69 Indian Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 2:22 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 6:49 amLesbians Black Lesbian Sex Lesbian Girls Licking
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 2:01 amAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 9:59 amBad Credit Loans Personal Loan Auto Loan Calculator
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 10:30 amDefine Invest
Please keep these excellent posts coming.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:11 amLesbian Sex Free Lesbian Porn Blonde Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 6:22 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 4:36 amYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pmLesbian Sex Free Lesbian Sex Videos Lesbian Sex Videos
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 6:29 amSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 7:52 amAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 8:24 amKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pmBeaulah
Does the term “expert writer” scare you?
April 5th, 2008 at 6:22 pmAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….
…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
February 28th, 2009 at 4:22 pmShag Hairstyles and Haircuts…
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…
April 1st, 2009 at 7:38 amThe truth about Arbonne Skin Care Products…
Arbonne International is one of the prestigious companies in the world when it comes to skin and beauty care. Its skin care line is one of the best in the world that many women. The products of Arbonne International skin care products are manufactured…
April 26th, 2009 at 3:08 am