Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 7, 2006

SO LONG, FMA....The outcome was never in doubt, but now it's official.

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but supporters said new votes for the measure represent progress that gives conservative Republicans reason to vote on Election Day.

The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally by the full Senate. The amendment's failure was no surprise, but supporters said the vote reflected growing support among senators and Americans.

"We're building votes," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who is among supporters of the ban who were not in the Senate when the amendment was last voted on in 2004. "That's often what's required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote."

Building votes? Proponents of the amendment couldn't break 50 and bring this to the Senate floor in 2004 and they fell short of the same threshold again this year. At the rate they're going, supporters might be able to get the two-thirds they need sometime around 2026. Good luck with that.

Well, at least this nonsense is behind us, right? Wrong. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he plans to bring this same silly amendment to the floor next month, despite the fact that it already lost in the Senate.

Well, at least the Senate can get back to substantive policy issues, right? Wrong. Next up: flag-burning.

It's going to be a long summer.

Update: Here's the roll call on today's vote.

Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (120)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

So long, rethuglicans. Adios, mofos.

Posted by: def mf on June 7, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Building votes? Proponents of the amendment couldn't break 50 and bring this to the Senate floor in 2004 and they fell short of the same threshold again this year. At the rate they're going, supporters might be able to get the two-thirds they need sometime around 2026. Good luck with that.

If we adopt Democrat-Busby logic, then getting less than half the votes is a huge victory.


YAY REPUBLICANS! WE WON!!!!!!!!

Posted by: American Hawk on June 7, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Election year. Nothing substantive ever gets done in an election year - substantive stuff gores oxen, who then withhold contributions and votes.

Posted by: rvman on June 7, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

I'd say, "I hope they do bring it up each month--it gives Dems a chance to stand up and keep saying, 'Why are Republicans so afraid to discuss the serious issues facing this nation--civil war in Iraq, an energy crisis, global warming, stagnant economy, dysfunctional healthcare system, etc.?"

I'd say that, but I'd have to believe there were more than a few Dems capable of seizing the moment.

Posted by: shortstop on June 7, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

>>"We're building votes," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

A pox on David Vitter.

"A government's proper role is to mediate between conflicting interests, not to represent one particular interest against all others." Andrew Leonard

Posted by: CFShep on June 7, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Talk while you can chikenhawk, we're coming to get you.

Posted by: Northern Observer on June 7, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

even Lou Dobbs thinks this is a bunch of nonsense.

Posted by: cleek on June 7, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/478447.html
"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.''

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?''

Goddamn right. If the show fits, then wear it. Regardless of intentions, that's what this effort amounts to. Perhaps Kennedy should have used "prejudice" as opposed to bigotry, but he's right on the money.

Posted by: Kurzleg on June 7, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

This will NEVER pass. It's a generational issue. Young voters' support for this is much lower than those they are replacing.

Posted by: Newton Minnow on June 7, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

anyone have a list of who voted which way?

Posted by: exhuming mccarthy on June 7, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

The fix is in. Whether Republicans or Democrats win or lose, the future is all about authoritarianism.

Posted by: Powerpuff on June 7, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

"Goddamn right. If the show fits, then wear it."

That, of course, should read "If the shoe fits..."

Posted by: Kurzleg on June 7, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

List from the Senate site of the votes:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00163

Posted by: Troy Adamson on June 7, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

When Republican government crashes the economy, we can blame it on flag burning, gay supporters.

Posted by: Matt on June 7, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney said that Homosexuals have the same rights as anybody else to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Just because I don't want to marry someone of the same sex, doesn't mean I shouldn't also have that right. Check your 9th and 10th Amendments Cheney. Why do you hate the Constitution? Why do you hate America?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 7, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

How shameful our "constitutional expert" Senator Byrd voted yes on this crappy piece of legislation.

How disappointing.

Posted by: exhuming mccarthy on June 7, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK
In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?''

Clearly not. I mean, I think its clear that he left open the possibility that many or most of those are just amoral, self-serving, greedy bastards pandering to bigots, rather than bigots themselves.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

I think this is the only time I've seen all the so-called moderates- Chafee, Specter, Snowe, Collins- join with the Democrats. Good to know we can count on them when their vote doesn't matter (since 60 then 67 were needed to pass). And what the hell is wrong with Byrd and Nelson?

Posted by: SP on June 7, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

The reason the politicians did not make an amendment to ban marriage between homosexuals and heterosexuals is because most politicians are in those types of marriages.

Posted by: Hostile on June 7, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK


And what the hell is wrong with Byrd and Nelson?

1. Nelson is a DINO from a state where they still burn witches. I don't expect him to stand alongside other Democrats on hot-button issues; good enough that he stands by them on the subtle procedural ones.

2. Polling shows that support for gay marriage skews young. Byrd is eleventy-million years old. Do the math.

Posted by: cminus on June 7, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Clearly not. I mean, I think its clear that he left open the possibility that many or most of those are just amoral, self-serving, greedy bastards pandering to bigots, rather than bigots themselves.

Which category do you place Bill and Hillary Clinton in: bigots, or merely amoral self-serving, greedy bastards pandering to bigots?

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Osama_Been_Forgotten:

How about the right to marry your dog or cat then?

Posted by: Don P. on June 7, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Which category do you place Bill and Hillary Clinton in: bigots, or merely amoral self-serving, greedy bastards pandering to bigots?

Well, Senator Clinton voted against the measure, so I would say neither. Bill is clearly not a bigot, but he's had his sad moments where he pandered to the bigots, notably when he approved the egregious "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Posted by: RickD on June 7, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK
Which category do you place Bill and Hillary Clinton in: bigots, or merely amoral self-serving, greedy bastards pandering to bigots?

Which of them voted for FMA? Neither, as far as I can tell. So, the description of those who vote for the FMA as falling in to one of those categories would not apply to either of them.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Don P.

Is there anything to suggest that a dog or cat could consent to marriage?

All of these sexual issues are fairly simple when you come down to the concept of informed consent. Sex with minors? Minors are legally incapable of consent. Sex with animals? Animals are legally incapable of consent. Sex with people in a vegetative state? Same thing.

The flip side of this is that the argument "there's no such thing as rape within marriage" sort of falls by the wayside.

Posted by: RickD on June 7, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

A) WTF is up with Byrd? Has senility sent him back to his Dixiecrat ways? Its really hard to have respected him for so long and then see what he's done with the past year.

B) heh, McCain voted Nay. No primary win for you! It was pretty much lose/lose for him though, either flip-flop and pander or piss off the primary voters.

C) Which may be the real reason it was brought up. Not to energize the base, which will again see Republican failure, but to kick the legs out from under McCain.

D) All of the NE republicans voted nay (except Santorum, who is A) a Virginian and B) going down), as near as I can tell. It should be clear - the states could never ratify this. There aren't enough bigot-dominated states.

Yet.

Posted by: Mysticdog on June 7, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, two human beings who get married by consensual agreement is the same as someone marrying a fucking cat.

The least you could have done was the old, "Well, what about an incestual wedding?" stupidity. Or maybe the "What about polygamy?" inanity.

You bigots are really terrified of gays aren't you?

Posted by: n.o.l.t.f. on June 7, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

"Bill is clearly not a bigot, but he's had his sad moments where he pandered to the bigots, notably when he approved the egregious "Don't ask, don't tell" policy."

Remember though, that was not his first choice. He put full tolerance on the table, and when the backlash came, the left sat on its collective thumb. There was no vocal support at all. The same was later true with Universal Healthcare. The left turned out to be filled with a bunch of slackers afraid to stand up and fight after 12 years of republican rule, and the result was the right made more gains in 94.

IF we win this year or in 2008, the left better remember that that is the START of the fight, not the time to kick back and watch others do the heavy lifting.

Posted by: Mysticdog on June 7, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

I do think that Bill Clinton pandered to bigots severely when he signed DOMA. In fact, most of the Senate did during that vote. His vote against it is one of the reasons that I really liked Kerry.

Posted by: James G on June 7, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally by the full Senate.

What does this mean?

Posted by: CMike on June 7, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Senator Clinton voted against the measure, so I would say neither.

Really? So if one opposes same-sex marriage, as both President and Senator Clinton do, one is neither a bigot nor an amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots? But if one supports the FMA, one is? I Interesting conception of "bigotry." I didn't know it concerned only amendments to the Constitution.

(as Bill is clearly not a bigot, but he's had his sad moments where he pandered to the bigots, notably when he approved the egregious "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

How is Bill "clearly" not a bigot? By the way, he also signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which explicitly excludes same-sex couples from all federal marriage benefits, and then bragged about it on Christian radio.

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

You bigots are really terrified of gays aren't you?

I disagree. Homophobes are terrified that they may act out their sexual desires, which turn out to be homosexual. They know that, for themselves, sexuality is a choice and that if they had a choice they would choose homosexuality. That is why they are so keen to have the government limit their choices.

Posted by: Powerpuff on June 7, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

I'm glad the measure was defeated, but it hardly speaks well of the country that this piece of cretinism could receive 49 votes.

Posted by: J on June 7, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Which of them voted for FMA? Neither, as far as I can tell. So, the description of those who vote for the FMA as falling in to one of those categories would not apply to either of them.

Bill and Hillary Clinton both oppose same-sex marriage. President Clinton even signed a law excluding same-sex couples from all federal recognition of marriage. So are the Clintons bigots, or merely amoral self-serving, greedy bastards pandering to bigots?


Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

His vote against it is one of the reasons that I really liked Kerry.

John Kerry opposes gay marriage (or at least did when he was running for President; I'm not aware of any change in his position since that time), and said he might even support a Massachusetts state constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

I've done a detailed analysis of the differences between the 2004 vote and today's vote on this amendment.

Posted by: KCinDC on June 7, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Ah yes - time to bring in the Clenis to make everything a-ok.

Posted by: Rickygee on June 7, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

As always, I'm ever so happy to know that everything is going just so fucking perfectly in the U.S. of A. that our bestest and wisest citizens can turn their attention to important matters like this.

So when are the worthless scumbags gonna make that horse Emperor, anyway?

Posted by: sglover on June 7, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK
Bill and Hillary Clinton both oppose same-sex marriage.

So? The statement was about voting for the FMA, not personally opposing same-sex marriage.

President Clinton even signed a law excluding same-sex couples from all federal recognition of marriage.

So? The statement was about voting for the FMA, which writes into the federal constitution a prohibition on states granting the state-law benefits of marriage or its incidents to same-sex couples, not about DOMA.

So are the Clintons bigots, or merely amoral self-serving, greedy bastards pandering to bigots?

I'd personally say Hillary is more like the latter, but not based on anything related to the application of that statement to those voting for the FMA.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Remember though, that was not his first choice. He put full tolerance on the table, and when the backlash came, the left sat on its collective thumb. There was no vocal support at all. The same was later true with Universal Healthcare. The left turned out to be filled with a bunch of slackers afraid to stand up and fight after 12 years of republican rule, and the result was the right made more gains in 94.

Clinton's proposed Health Security Act was not single-payer and largely preserved the existing private health insurance and health care delivery systems. This was intolerable to the loony left, which demands rigid adherence to its single-payer, we-must-destroy-private-healthcare orthodoxy.

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Don't you just love GOP's talking points? He can't argue the substance of the issue, so he has to resort to bringing Clinton back into it? Talk about pathetic....

And, of course, the FMA actually lost ground since the last vote, since the Republicans gained five Senate seats since that vote but were only able to muster one additional vote for this amendment.

The really great thing about this is that this is the last, best chance to actually pass this piece of garbage. As gay marriage and civil unions become more commonplace, as the sky continues to refuse to fall, as the older bigots die off, support for this will drop year by year until it becomes nothing more than an embarrassing memory.

Posted by: PaulB on June 7, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

So?

So, since they both oppose same-sex marriage, do you consider Bill and Hillary Clinton to be bigots, or merely amoral self-serving, greedy bastards pandering to bigots?

So?

So, since President Clinton signed a law excluding same-sex couples from all federal recognition of marriage, do you consider him to be to be a bigot, or merely an amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots?

I'd personally say Hillary is more like the latter,

What's the difference between what you think Hillary is ("more like" an amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots than a bigot) and a full-blown amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots?

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

until it becomes nothing more than an embarrassing memory.

Like this: Roddenberry's proposed amendment, in December 1912, stated, "Intermarriage between Negroes or persons of color and Caucasians ... is forever prohibited." He took this action, he said, because some states were permitting marriages that were "abhorrent and repugnant," and he aimed to "exterminate now this debasing, ultrademoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."

"Let this condition go on if you will," Roddenberry warned. "At some day, perhaps remote, it will be a question always whether or not the solemnizing of matrimony in the North is between two descendants of our Anglo-Saxon fathers and mothers or whether it be of a mixed blood descended from the orangutan-trodden shores of far-off Africa."

My mother thought this was a joke.

Posted by: Powerpuff on June 7, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally by the full Senate.

What does this mean?

Posted by: CMike on June 7, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

This result was on the motion for closure. Meaning that, the Senate was voting on whether or not to end debate on the matter and was not an up or down vote on actually passage of the amendment. It takes 60 affirmative votes to end debate and to allow for a final vote on passage.

The reason for the low votes is because most Senators are arguing that there is no need for a constitutional amendment at this time because of the Federal Defense of Marriage Law that was signed by Clinton in the late 90s. If that law was struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional, then this argument against the amendment would be gone and the brave "statesmen" of the Senate would be forced to take an actual position on the merits of the amendment.

Posted by: Chicounsel on June 7, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB,

Don't you just love GOP's talking points? He can't argue the substance of the issue, so he has to resort to bringing Clinton back into it?

Hypocrisy and double standards are highly substantive.

And, of course, the FMA actually lost ground since the last vote, since the Republicans gained five Senate seats since that vote but were only able to muster one additional vote for this amendment.

Er, senate support for the FMA is measured by the number of votes it receives, not by the proportion of Republican senators who vote for it.

As gay marriage and civil unions become more commonplace, as the sky continues to refuse to fall, as the older bigots die off, support for this will drop year by year until it becomes nothing more than an embarrassing memory.

19 states have now amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage, and most of those bans go beyond gay marriage and ban other types of same-sex partnership agreements such as civil unions. Almost all of these bans passed overwhelmingly--by a factor of 2 or 3 to 1. It is expected that an additional 8 or 9 states will enact constitutional bans on gay marriage this fall. The prospect of these state bans being overturned in the foreseeable future is extremely slim, as is the prospect of any federal recognition of gay marriage.

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

YAY REPUBLICANS! WE WON!!!!!!!!
Posted by: American Hawk

Keep cheering as you walk past the graveyard, you stupid bastard. Of course, the fact that Blbray outspent Busby by 2-1 in an overwhelmingly GOP district doesn't bode well for you in November, numbnuts.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 7, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting to see, in the roll call, that both NH's Republican senators voted nay. You expect Snowe/Collins/Chafee to vote their region's politics, but Sununu/Gregg are a surprise. You have to figure they see their constituents as moving further center-left every year.

Posted by: demtom on June 7, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK
So, since they both oppose same-sex marriage, do you consider Bill and Hillary Clinton to be bigots, or merely amoral self-serving, greedy bastards pandering to bigots?

Nope, I think it is quite possible to oppose gay marriage (though not to support the FMA) without being either of those.

So, since President Clinton signed a law excluding same-sex couples from all federal recognition of marriage, do you consider him to be to be a bigot, or merely an amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots?

No, I think its quite possible to have signed a law excluding same-sex couples from all federal recognition of marriage (though not to support the FMA) without being either of those, either at the time of the signing or some pile of years after.

What's the difference between what you think Hillary is ("more like" an amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots than a bigot) and a full-blown amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots?

The difference is not relevant to the present discussion.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

How about the right to marry your dog or cat then?
Posted by: Don P

You guys are as dumb as dirt. What part of "consentual adult" don't you understand, Don? Unless, of course, you're convinced your dog said it was OK if you fucked him.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 7, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Don P wrote: So, since they both oppose same-sex marriage, do you consider Bill and Hillary Clinton to be bigots, or merely amoral self-serving, greedy bastards pandering to bigots?

I consider you to be a bigot.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 7, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

descended from the orangutan-trodden shores of far-off Africa."


The orangutans are two species of great apes with long arms and reddish, sometimes brown, hair native to Malaysia and Indonesia.

Factual ignorance and bigotry so often are found to occupy the same space at the same time. Witness Jay.

Posted by: CFShep on June 7, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Nope, I think it is quite possible to oppose gay marriage (though not to support the FMA) without being either of those.

Why do you think it's possible to oppose gay marriage but not support the FMA without being either a bigot or an amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots? And why do you think that that is not only "possible," but true in the case of Bill and Hillary Clinton?

No, I think its quite possible to have signed a law excluding same-sex couples from all federal recognition of marriage (though not to support the FMA) without being either of those, either at the time of the signing or some pile of years after.

Why?

The difference is not relevant to the present discussion.

Yes it is. It goes directly to the question of what you think it means to be a "bigot," an "amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots," and this apparent undefined third category in which you place Hillary Clinton. What's the difference between what you think Hillary is ("more like" an amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots than a bigot) and a full-blown amoral self-serving, greedy bastard pandering to bigots?

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

I consider you to be a bigot.

I consider you to be a blight on humanity.

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

I am obsessed with cmdicely. I think about him all day long, and alone in my bed at night.

Posted by: Don GOP on June 7, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

John Kerry opposes gay marriage (or at least did when he was running for President; I'm not aware of any change in his position since that time), and said he might even support a Massachusetts state constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.
Posted by: GOP

While your statements are technically correct, they omit a very important point - that Kerry and both Clintons support civil unions, in which gay partners can enjoy all of the legal rights available to married couples. The FMA explicitly outlawed civil unions, as well.

I will agree that Kerry, the Clintons and many other democrats (with the exception of Russ Feingold) play semantics with the term "marriage". But republicans have made the issue so toxic that every politician thrusts his or her finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. At the very least, these dems are protecting the rights of gay partners to enjoy all of the benefits of marriage, just not calling it "marriage". Silly? Yes, but understandable given the environment.

Repukes, on the other hand, want to take the extreme step of writing the denial of civil rights into the constitution. Are you a libertarian, GOP? If so, how can you support this? Other than your being a lying, two-faced tool.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 7, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, posting as "GOP" and using a fake email address to hide his identity, wrote: I consider you to be a blight on humanity.

What you "consider" is of no significance and of no interest to anyone. Everyone who has been reading your comments here for the last two years knows that you are belligerently ignorant, a malicious liar, and a complete waste of time.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 7, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK
While your statements are technically correct, they omit a very important point - that Kerry and both Clintons support civil unions, in which gay partners can enjoy all of the legal rights available to married couples.

I think you forgot "state, but not federal," before "legal rights".

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

While your statements are technically correct, they omit a very important point - that Kerry and both Clintons support civil unions, in which gay partners can enjoy all of the legal rights available to married couples. The FMA explicitly outlawed civil unions, as well.

It would not be clear what the FMA outlawed until it was tested in court. As for civil unions, they do not necessarily confer all of the legal rights available to married couples. It depends on how the civil union law is defined. Even a civil union that conferred all the legal rights of marriage would not be equal to marriage as long as it was a separate legal category. The whole point of restricting same-sex couples to a separate legal category rather than including them in marriage is to stigmatize their relationships as inherently less worthy or important than those of opposite-sex couples who are eligible to marry. Kerry and both Clintons support this stigmatization of gay couples. Why is this not bigotry?

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Can we stop with the "rethuglican" already? It's infantile.

Posted by: C.JoDI on June 7, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

I will agree that Kerry, the Clintons and many other democrats (with the exception of Russ Feingold) play semantics with the term "marriage".

They're not just "playing semantics" with the word "marriage." All three of them oppose allowing same-sex couples to legally marry.

But republicans have made the issue so toxic that every politician thrusts his or her finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

Kerry's and the Clintons' opposition to gay marriage is their own responsibility.

At the very least, these dems are protecting the rights of gay partners to enjoy all of the benefits of marriage, just not calling it "marriage". Silly? Yes, but understandable given the environment.

Huh? Why is it "understandable?" Why isn't supporting the FMA also "understandable?" Why is one bigotry, or pandering to bigotry, but not the other?

If so, how can you support this? Other than your being a lying, two-faced tool.

Why are you such a lying moron?

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Based upon the geographic patterns of the vote, if Ambrose Bierce existed today, he'd probably say it was a shame that Gen. Sherman never had nuclear weapons...

Posted by: Vincent on June 7, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

GOP, rather pathetically, wrote: "Hypocrisy and double standards are highly substantive."

Only if the subject is hypocrisy and double standards, which it quite clearly is not. The issues we are debating are the strength of the supporters of this amendment (or the lack thereof), its chances of passage, and the election-year pandering that this involves.

Moreover, you have yet to establish any "hypocrisy" or "double standards," since the folks here have no problem recognizing pandering from either of the Clintons. We don't idolize either Clinton the way that some of you worship Bush.

"Er, senate support for the FMA is measured by the number of votes it receives, not by the proportion of Republican senators who vote for it."

ROFL.... My goodness, what a lame response. Is that the best you can do? The Republican Party added five more Senators, and yet were only able to muster one more vote and you claim this is progress? Pathetic...

[Stuff on states deleted.]

Dear heart, not one bit of this information contradicts my main point, which still stands. What you're talking about is the inevitable pushback, but a pushback that is too weak, and now will never gain sufficient strength, to address this issue at the national level.

"The prospect of these state bans being overturned in the foreseeable future is extremely slim"

Actually, the prospect of most of them being overturned in the foreseeable future is not only not "extremely slim," it's damn near inevitable. This, too, shall pass and those who think like you will go the way of the dodo.

Posted by: PaulB on June 7, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

I wish our fucking pathetic MSM would point out that genuine conservatives ought to be opposed to the Marriage Amendment. The idea that big government has a legitimate role in our most intimate private lives is an affront to everything that real conservatives are supposed to believe in.

Posted by: islander on June 7, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, PaulB

You are God's gift to conservatives. One of the main reasons this was brought up was to enrage the left and get them talking more. The world loves it's elitists. Well maybe the rest of the world. Actually it's probably only Europe. The point is the libs start calling everyone and anyone who dare disagree with them racists, bigots, perverts, whatever! It's always good politics to have fresh soundbites from liberal elitist in front of an election

There's really no need to shout out your moral superiority. Even aside from the obvious point if you need to shout about it then obviously it isn't there. In America liberal elitism doesn't sell. Your boy George Clooney wants to do some PR work on the term liberal. His 1st step should be a stick a sock in each of your mouths.

There are good reasons to be against gay marriage. It's not bigotry and it's certainly not a civil rights issue. Gay can have all of the legal rights of married couples with civil unions. Marriage is a 5,000 year old institution of a union between a man and a women and that's all it's ever been in all of those 5,000 years in every culture in every place on the planet.

It's a tradition worth preserving.

Rove wisely decided to have this vote early and get it out of the way for the tax and judicial battles to come. Your friendly red state democrat will have the honor of standing before the voters after having voted for gay marriage, for tax increases and for liberal judges. Gay marriage will be a two day national topic and then fade away to be used in local elections as Karl Rove planned all along. I think he got better than expected sound bites from Teddy Kennedy and a few others. In some of those red state races the voters are going to see so much of Teddy they'll think he's running. People uncomfortable with gay marriage love to be called bigots and it's a special honor coming from the Chappaquiddick Kid. It's very endearing. Please keep at it.

BTW: The defeat in the CA-50 is a sharp rejection of Pelosi's corruption campaign. If it's not going to work in Cunningham's district it's not going to work.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Paulb,

The state bans will hold in red states for another few decades at least. These states will also be protected from laws passed in other states.

These are the sort of laws passed in Europe where the elites run the show and control the media. In the USA the elites have little power and the MSM has less influence every day. Even if attitudes soften in the USA in a couple/few decades as I expect they will almost certainly harden in Europe. Gays can expect increasing oppression and worse. To be gay today in Europe and wander into an Islamic neighborhood is to invite disaster. Those neighborhood are becoming much larger and muslims increasingly aggressive in expressing their opinions.

Another interesting question for liberals is how will demographics effect their influence? Birthrates for secularists are significantly lower and have been for quite some time. We've seen the trend in the electoral college for 3 decades. Europe is facing disaster.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB:

Only if the subject is hypocrisy and double standards, which it quite clearly is not.

Yes it is. You're hypocrities for turning a blind eye to the bigotry and pandering to bigotry of Bill and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry amoung others.

The Republican Party added five more Senators, and yet were only able to muster one more vote and you claim this is progress?

Yes, of course it's progress in senate support for the FMA. Any increase in the number of senatorial votes for the FMA is progress in support for it.

Dear heart, not one bit of this information contradicts my main point, which still stands.

Sugar, senate support for the FMA is measured by the number of votes it receives, not by the proportion of senators of a particular party who vote for it. That fact most definitely contradicts what you claimed.

Actually, the prospect of most of them being overturned in the foreseeable future is not only not "extremely slim," it's damn near inevitable.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Do show me your evidence that it is "damn near inevitable" that the recently-enacted and overwhelmingly popular state constitutional bans on gay marriage will be overturned in the forseeable future.

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, does your magic 8-ball make non-political predictions, too ? cause i got some cash i'd like to invest - maybe you could ask it to tell you what stocks will be hot in the next five or six years ?

give it a rub, see what shoots out.

Posted by: cleek on June 7, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are also a bunch of bigots. They strongly support the FMA and oppose even civil unions for gay couples:

"We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage --by naming them marriage, civil unions or by other means."

Posted by: Anders on June 7, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Marriage is a 5,000 year old institution of a union between a man and a women and that's all it's ever been in all of those 5,000 years in every culture in every place on the planet.

Not true. Do some reading about different cultures once in a while.

Posted by: tripoley on June 7, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "You are God's gift to conservatives."

No, dear, we're not, because unlike you, we actually have a command of the relevant facts of the various issues we talk about.

"One of the main reasons this was brought up was to enrage the left and get them talking more."

Only in that little fantasy world of yours, dear. Out here in the real world, this had nothing to do with "the left" and everything to do with pandering to the base. Do feel free to join us out here anytime you'd like, won't you?

"The world loves it's elitists."

Yes, dear, it does. Not surprising, of course, when you consider what the various "elitists" have accomplished. Of course, your definition of "elitist" probably exists only in your own mind.

"Well maybe the rest of the world. Actually it's probably only Europe."

ROFLMAO.... No comment necessary.

"The point is the libs start calling everyone and anyone who dare disagree with them racists, bigots, perverts, whatever!"

No, dear; we call racists, bigots, and perverts, racists, bigots and perverts. Is this too complex for you? Do we need to use smaller words?

"It's always good politics to have fresh soundbites from liberal elitist in front of an election."

ROFLMAO.... Oh my.... I'm so worried.... Karl Rove will take my "sound bites" and use them in the election! Oh, no! What shall I do? So tell me, rdw, when can we expect to see the commercials about Condi Rice's Senate confirmation hearing that you confidently predicted would be used in 2006?

Oh, and I fully expect some of the sound bites from the recent debates to be part of the Democratic Party theme -- most notably the one about wasting the country's time with this particular bit of nonsense at a time when we have far more serious issues to discuss.

"There's really no need to shout out your moral superiority."

We don't, dear; that's your own inferiority complex coming into play. Maybe if you spent some time actually reading and thinking you wouldn't feel that inferior anymore? Just a suggestion, dear.

"Even aside from the obvious point if you need to shout about it then obviously it isn't there."

ROFLMAO.... Dear heart, nobody here is "shouting" anything ... well, except you, but that's pretty much par for the course.

"In America liberal elitism doesn't sell."

Dear heart, liberal policies are the foundation of our current society and every time the Republican Party tries to change them, they get burned. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's the way things work out here in the real world.

"Your boy George Clooney wants to do some PR work on the term liberal. His 1st step should be a stick a sock in each of your mouths."

ROFLMAO... Dear heart, I have no relationship with George Clooney. Nor am I at all ashamed of anything I write. I'd be happy to take my comments to any national forum of your choice and take what comes. You see, out here in the real world, most of my positions are shared by the majority of U.S. citizens.

"There are good reasons to be against gay marriage."

No, dear, there aren't. It's all about pandering, ignorance, and bigotry.

"It's not bigotry"

As I said, pandering and ignorance certainly come into the mix.

"and it's certainly not a civil rights issue."

Yes, dear, it is, which is why you will inevitably lose.

"Gay can have all of the legal rights of married couples with civil unions."

No, dear, they don't. Many rights granted to married couples are specifically denied to those who have a civil union. Had you bothered to actually look into this, you wouldn't have written something so stupidly wrong, but that's pretty much par for the course for you.

"Marriage is a 5,000 year old institution of a union between a man and a women and that's all it's ever been in all of those 5,000 years in every culture in every place on the planet."

ROFLMAO... Oh, my... you really don't know just how wrong and stupid this statement is, do you? Suffice to say that anthropologists and historians disagree with you.

"It's a tradition worth preserving."

Yes, dear, that's what we're trying to do.

"Rove wisely decided to have this vote early and get it out of the way for the tax and judicial battles to come."

Dear heart, there won't be any significant tax battles ahead. Rove knows better.

"Your friendly red state democrat will have the honor of standing before the voters after having voted for gay marriage,"

Dear heart, nobody voted "for" gay marriage.

"for tax increases"

As compared to voting for budget deficits? Bring it on, dear.

"and for liberal judges."

ROFL.... So Bush has nominated some liberal judges, has he? Tell me, dear, do you actually bother to read what you write?

"Gay marriage will be a two day national topic and then fade away to be used in local elections as Karl Rove planned all along."

Yes, dear, we know. That's precisely what we've been saying.

"I think he got better than expected sound bites from Teddy Kennedy and a few others."

ROFLMAO.... Oh, please do try to run on Ted Kennedy's sound bites. I look forward to those commercials.

"In some of those red state races the voters are going to see so much of Teddy they'll think he's running."

No, dear, they won't, mostly because Karl isn't as idiotic as you.

This was amusing, though, so please keep it up.

Posted by: PaulB on June 7, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Why do you assume that the kids of red-staters will vote the same way as their parents? Do you have any evidence of this? Given how many Generation X-ers seem not to follow their parents' lead politically, one could argue the opposite.

Posted by: Wombat on June 7, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Have GOP and rdw found Narnia yet?

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on June 7, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

GOP wrote: "Yes it is."

No, dear, it's not. Alas, this isn't your blog, which means that you don't get to set the agenda. Now if you'd like to discuss the substantive issues actually raised in this case, please feel free. Otherwise, I'll simply continue mocking you.

"You're hypocrities for turning a blind eye to the bigotry and pandering to bigotry of Bill and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry amoung others."

ROFLMAO.... Since you have yet to establish that I, or anyone else, has "turn[ed] a blind eye" to anyone's bigotry, forgive me if I take this for the unhinged ranting and obvious issue avoidance that it is.

"Yes, of course it's progress in senate support for the FMA. Any increase in the number of senatorial votes for the FMA is progress in support for it."

ROFLMAO.... You're almost as much fun as rdw. Wow... just think... another 50 Republican Senators and you might just be able to pass this.

"That fact most definitely contradicts what you claimed."

No, dear, it doesn't, but if it comforts you to think so, you go right ahead. I know how much your little fantasies mean to you.

"Ha ha ha ha ha! Do show me your evidence that it is 'damn near inevitable' that the recently-enacted and overwhelmingly popular state constitutional bans on gay marriage will be overturned in the forseeable future."

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice how the polls have changed over the years? You can take a projection and draw a graph, can't you? Sorry, dear, but you will lose on this one. It's inevitable.

Posted by: PaulB on June 7, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you assume that the kids of red-staters will vote the same way as their parents?

Why, just look at all the kids of Dixiecrats who today are still going "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on June 7, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Quoting:

But the notion that social issues can influence turnout in a substantial way is a matter of some dispute.

Matthew Dowd, who was Mr. Bush's campaign strategist in 2004, said it was a myth that emphasizing same-sex marriage in battleground states like Ohio was critical to Mr. Bush's re-election. He said turnout patterns were comparable in states where same-sex marriage was a chief topic and where it was not.

"If you vote on it, vote on it for principle, because it is going to have little or no benefit in an election cycle," Mr. Dowd said.

...

But one Republican strategist, Ed Rollins, said it was a mistake for the president and Senate leaders to focus attention on a marriage ban now, in what could look like a panicked reaction to shrinking public support.

"What the president needs to do is look like a leader, not be somebody who looks like a politician who is overreacting to polls," Mr. Rollins said. [Emphasis added.] "If anything, he is reminding people of what they don't like about the Republican Party."

Posted by: PaulB on June 7, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK
Marriage is a 5,000 year old institution of a union between a man and a women and that's all it's ever been in all of those 5,000 years in every culture in every place on the planet.

I'm sure this is true, I'm just not sure on what planet. It's certainly not true on Earth, though.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure this is true, I'm just not sure on what planet. It's certainly not true on Earth, though.


So when was marriage between a man and a man recognized?

Where?

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Try Sparta.

Posted by: winna on June 7, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK
So when was marriage between a man and a man recognized? Where?

Wikipedia has a reasonably good, brief overview here.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you assume that the kids of red-staters will vote the same way as their parents? Do you have any evidence of this? Given how many Generation X-ers seem not to follow their parents' lead politically, one could argue the opposite.

Because parents exert the most influence as we develop our value systems. The children of secularists are almost always secularists. Ditto for Christians, Muslims, Hindu's etc.

I don't think the kids of conservatives will definitely be conservative anymore than the kids of liberals will absolutely be liberal. But conservative families generally have conservative kids. Liberals, liberal kids.

The politics of Gen X are still not fully formulated however given recent political trends it's very clear the country is more conservative today than 35 years ago. It was inconceivable in the 60's and 70's to consider a Ronald Reagan or GWB could be elected running as authentic conservatives. Or even worse all Democratic candidates since 1988 have denied their liberalism, run as tax cutters, budget balancers, crime fighters, anti-welfare (lifetime welfare), and stong, mandatory prison sentencing.

We are nearing the end of a 4 year war in Iraq and there hasn't been a single credible anti-war demonstration. GWB pulled out of Kyoto and the ABM treaty without the slightest penalty and has marginalized the UN and NATO. Relations with liberal Europe have been deliberately degraded at the expenese of upgraded relations with Asia

We have the most conservative Supreme and Appelate courts in 70 years and a greatly restored sense of pride in America, our leading role in the world and our military services. Granted liberals don't share this pride but there are many fewer of them and they no longer drive the conversation.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Not only is this poorly sourced but most of the examples of unions are men with boys and they're temporary. That's not same-sex marriage. That's a combination of pedefilia and prostitution.

How about an example of it being codified in the law?

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

No, dear, they won't, mostly because Karl isn't as idiotic as you.

Karl is quite smart isn't he? A couple of very good races in Texas we all know of went quite well.

He did very well nationally in 2000. And in 2002. And in 2004. He's got a nice little streak going doesn't he?

Karl will in fact use Teddy and he will use him often. His best tool is liberal elitism. The Chappequiddick Kid is getting set up to be the MVP of this election, again.

How can anyone not have the highest admiration for this man? His courage is demanding the estate tax, after his Daddy made sure his estate didn't pay any, is priceless. Hey, I get it. I really do. Just because we should be paying estate taxes that does not mean liberal elites should be paying estate taxes. Why would anyone think that?

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

for tax increases"

As compared to voting for budget deficits? Bring it on, dear.

liberal tax increases will absolutely be a theme. They will bring it on.


"and for liberal judges."

ROFL.... So Bush has nominated some liberal judges, has he? Tell me, dear, do you actually bother to read what you write?

I'll explain. This is a bit tricky for someone with limited reasoning skills. No GWB didn't nominate liberal judges. Liberals tried to block his conservative picks and suceeded in a few cases. Democrats want liberal judges. We want the term 'liberal judges' in the campaign because everyone knows what a liberal judge is. Someone who will free a Willie Horton so they can rape or kill again all because Willie's mommy wasn't attentive enough and the judge felt more sympathy for the criminal than the victim.

Perhaps a crude stereotype but very effective. Bill Clinton didn't use it for nuttin!

Another example of how conservative we've come. Mandatory sentencing, three- strikes, death penalty, etc. When the Democratic candidate for President left the campaign trail to go home to ensure a retarded man was executed you knew liberalism has faded. That's same Presidents massive prison building program didn't slow the fade any.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

It was inconceivable in the 60's and 70's to consider a Ronald Reagan or GWB could be elected running as authentic conservatives.

Yes indeed. Witness Richard Nixon, that unreconstructed Commie. Still, we settled his hash, didn't we, kids?

Posted by: Promiscuity Smith on June 7, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Why, just look at all the kids of Dixiecrats who today are still going "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"


This is perfect! You can't sneer at our Southern cousins too often or be too nasty about it. Please, please keep at it.

They love it. Really. They know it's just constructive criticism from their Northern superiors. It's a lesson for them. OK, not really. They just laugh. In fact they don't much give a crap as to what the elites think. They just know whatever your opinion is on something it's wrong and they'll go the other way.

I'm not sure but this might be why every Democratic Presidential Candidate takes great pains to RUN AWAY from the liberal tag.

Ya think?

You just keep pissing off those crackers. It's working just fine. Ask Lurch and Mr. Internet and they'll confirm.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK
This is perfect! You can't sneer at our Southern cousins too often or be too nasty about it. Please, please keep at it.

I don't see how pointing out that overt segregationism is almost completely dead even in the Deep South, contradicting the idea that parents political ideas are simply reproduced in their children, is sneering at our Southern cousins.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Yes indeed. Witness Richard Nixon, that unreconstructed Commie. Still, we settled his hash, didn't we, kids?

Nixon, like all politicians of the era was a cold warrier ala JFK. He was not a Consevative in the classic sense. Nixon raised taxes, and dramatically increased the size and scope of government. He even instituted price controls and removed the US from the gold standard. Bill Clinton was far more conservative than Dick Nixon.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "He was not a Consevative in the classic sense."

LOL... how predictable. Of course, that has been said about every conservative and/or Republican president of the past 100 years or so, including St. Reagan himself, who presided over the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And, naturally, that's now being said of the current president, as well. Too bad you guy just can't find a "real" conservative.

Posted by: PaulB on June 7, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "liberal tax increases will absolutely be a theme. They will bring it on."

Yup, and so will runaway budget deficits. Of course, the fact that the Democrats don't control either House of Congress, and therefore cannot vote for or even propose tax increases will make it kinda difficult for the Republican message to resonate, but hey, that's the way things work in the real world. Those budget deficits, on the other hand -- those happen to be real.

"I'll explain."

I can hardly wait....

"This is a bit tricky for someone with limited reasoning skills."

I know, dear, but we do keep trying to get you to work on those skills. Keep at it, won't you? Maybe someday....

"No GWB didn't nominate liberal judges."

I know, dear, which is why the Democrats in Congress couldn't possibly have voted for any liberal judges. Do try to keep up, won't you?

"Perhaps a crude stereotype but very effective. Bill Clinton didn't use it for nuttin!"

Dear heart, I'm afraid you're mistaken on both counts. That stereotype only works on morons, such as yourself, and Bill Clinton didn't use it. But then facts have never made a difference to you, have they?

As for the rest, do let me know when such liberal innovations as the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, anti-discrimination laws, and the literally dozens of others get repealed, won't you?

Posted by: PaulB on June 7, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "Karl is quite smart isn't he?"

At times, certainly. Has anyone disputed this? Alas that he won't take your advice; I surely wish he would. Maybe you should stop and think just why that is?

"Karl will in fact use Teddy and he will use him often."

No, dear, he won't, because to do so would be ridiculously stupid, just as your notion of advertisements showcasing the Condi Rice hearings was ridiculously stupid. Rove hasn't used Kennedy before; he's not going to use him now.

"His best tool is liberal elitism. The Chappequiddick Kid is getting set up to be the MVP of this election, again."

Dear heart, Kennedy hasn't been the "MVP" of any election since the Carter era. Do try to keep up, won't you? You see, dear, unlike you, most of the country couldn't give a rat's ass about Kennedy.

"How can anyone not have the highest admiration for this man?"

I dunno, dear; you certainly seem to be obsessed with him. Why is that?

Posted by: PaulB on June 7, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "So when was marriage between a man and a man recognized?"

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that homosexuals are not always men? Or that the definition of marriage has changed repeatedly over the years? Or that the Bible lists something like 8 different kinds of marriage alone, including polygamous marriages?

Now what was that you were saying about the "unchanged" definition of marriage?

Posted by: PaulB on June 7, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK
Not only is this poorly sourced but most of the examples of unions are men with boys and they're temporary.

Actually, most of them are examples of unions of men with male youths of similar age to the age at which men would marry women in the same societies.

That's not same-sex marriage.

Yes, it is. So, its temporary. So are a large number -- perhaps even most -- marriages in the US, now. So?

That's a combination of pedefilia and prostitution.

No more so than heterosexual marriage in the same societies was.

How about an example of it being codified in the law?

Codified law itself hasn't been the norm throughout the world for length of time you suggest marriage has been a constant, so that's a substantial moving of the goalposts that I will accept as admission that your original claim was false.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

I don't see how pointing out that overt segregationism is almost completely dead even in the Deep South, contradicting the idea that parents political ideas are simply reproduced in their children, is sneering at our Southern cousins.

I have no idea what are you talking about.

It was an obvious and silly smear classic of Northern elitists so typically quick to declare themselves morally superior.

I live in the North and having grown up in Philly I know how to recognize segregation. White flight occurs or has occured in every large city and increasingly now in the burbs. Northern pretenses of moral superiority on race issues are comically silly and obviously fraudalent.

Even if they were true it would not matter. The people you would identify as crackers wouldn't trust a northern elitist to have enough common sense to tell the right time of day. They don't care about you or your opinion and they are not voting for a democratic candidate from a blue state.

Regarding the passing down of values it's pretty cool when you think about it. Especially when your party is clearly more proficient in producing offspring. One thing about those religious folk, they like to have kids.

As we can see in Europe Darwins theory of natural selection is alive and well. Secularist simply don't reproduce in sufficient numbers to keep their numbers going. Europe's native populations will be 30% to 40% smaller in 75 years and then another 30% to 40% in the next 75, then again, and again. In fact their birth rates keep droppng so 40% might be a low estimate.

Secularists in the USA are following the same pattern. At the same time religious communities have birthrate above 2.1 and sometimes well above.

Thi is something Bill Clinton recognized in 1992. Bill knew he could never get eleed running as a liberal and ande sure of it. After his mis-steps in 1994 he learned welfare reform, 3-strikes and tax cuts weren't so bad after all.

It isn't just that there are more conservatives and fewer liberals but conservartives are more conservative and liberals less liberal. The country has demonstrably shifted. John Roberts and Sam Alito are as conservative as Anton Scalia. Yet they sailed through confirmation in both cases making fools of the judiciary committee.

Look to Europe. Your religion is dying my friend

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Codified law itself hasn't been the norm throughout the world for length of time you suggest marriage has been a constant, so that's a substantial moving of the goalposts that I will accept as admission that your original claim was false.

No chance. I am not moving goalposts. I am looking for credible documentation not PC lore.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK
I have no idea what are you talking about.

Unsurprising. You usually seem to have no idea of even what you are talking about.

It was an obvious and silly smear classic of Northern elitists so typically quick to declare themselves morally superior.

How is pointing out that you don't see Dixiecrats' children championing segregation, at least not overty, a smear of any kind?

Regarding the passing down of values it's pretty cool when you think about it. Especially when your party is clearly more proficient in producing offspring. One thing about those religious folk, they like to have kids.

And, strangely, though the religious have more children, the proportion of the population that is religious is declining. That passing on of values doesn't seem to be working the way you think it does, and even among religions, I don't think you'll find the relative growth rates following family size.

Look to Europe. Your religion is dying my friend

Well, yeah, given that I'm Christian, I can see how you could say that, looking at Europe -- though I think that view, like much of what you say, overgeneralizes from regional (or, for other of your comments, short-term) trends.

Seems to contradict, though, your other arguments.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, that has been said about every conservative and/or Republican president of the past 100 years or so, including St. Reagan himself, who presided over the largest tax increase in U.S. history

Nonsense, conservative and republican are not the same thing. Modern conservatism dates from the 50's and 60's and is an ideology separate from the GOP.

Reagan was absolutely a conservative and more authentically conservative than any president of the era including GWB. The point about the tax increases is also silly. When he came into office federal income tax rates reached 70%. When he left they max's at 28%.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Reagan was absolutely a conservative and more authentically conservative than any president of the era including GWB. The point about the tax increases is also silly. When he came into office federal income tax rates reached 70%. When he left they max's at 28%.

A true conservative would cut taxes and spending. Apparently there are no true conservatives in existence... at least none with balls.

Posted by: tripoley on June 7, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

And, strangely, though the religious have more children, the proportion of the population that is religious is declining.

Not according to the data I've seen. The only place where religion is declining is in blue states and not all of them.

That passing on of values doesn't seem to be working the way you think it does, and even among religions, I don't think you'll find the relative growth rates following family size.

There's significant variability between religions but this also follows a liberal pattern. Mormons and evangelicals have higher birth rate than catholics who have higher birth rates than the more moderate, mainstream protestant religions. But even in the US these moderate religions are doing better than the same religion in Europe.

Values absolutely are being passed on. Two of my kids went to Catholic Colleges and they're doing fabulously well. My kids and the schools. Notre Dame and Scranton are outstanding academic institutions with a very politically savvy student body. On virtually all college campuses the student body is far to the right of the faculty and far to the right of the typical student body of 1968.

I followed a number of anti-war rallies on campuses and the few that occured had more professors and media than students. These kids are there to get an education and a good job.

There was an old saying operative in the 60's and 70's. "if you are 20 and not a socialist you don't have a heart. If you are 30 and still a socialist you have no brain" Kids today have their brain at 15. No one believes in socialism. Tell a 20 something tax rates were 70% when Reagan was elected and they'll ask you how the country could have been that stupid.

Kids know Che as a cold blooded serial killer and Castro as a meglo-maniac, homophobe serial-killer. They're insulted by PC but will shrewdly play the game to their advantage.

There's A REASON George Clooney wants to restore the term 'liberal' to it's former luster. BECAUSE my values are begin passed on and not his. More proof of Darwins theory: I have 4 kids. George has none.


Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

A true conservative would cut taxes and spending. Apparently there are no true conservatives in existence... at least none with balls.

In a perfect world you are correct. But we elect Presidents, not kings. Presidents share power and Congress controls spending. Reagan tried. The art of politics is doing the possible.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Kennedy hasn't been the "MVP" of any election since the Carter era.

Ok, I'll cofess to a bit of hyperbole. Since the MVP can by definition only go to one person you are correct. Certainly more correct than I suggested. Lurch gets the MVP for 2004 and Mr. Internet for 2000. Teddy has 1980 wrapped up.

Still, I can guarrantee you the GOP is thrilled everytime Teddy speaks. Few people can drive the passions of conservatves as much as Teddy K. Chuck Schumer owns NY liberal the way Nancy Pelosi owns SF liberal, the way Martin Sheen owns hollywoodliberal. But Teddy is the grand-daddy of all liberals. He's a killer, a slut, a drunk, a glutton and fraud in too many ways to count. Yet he is morally superior to every conservative in the land.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely

Liberal values being passed on?

Rob Reiner's ballot proposition to soak the rich (higher income tax rate on couples who make $800,000 or individuals who make $400,000) failed -- 61% no and 39% yes. I think it required 2/3 to win. In addition, a state bond to improve libraries also went down (53% no) -- even the Republication political establishment endorsed that one. Who says Californians are eager to be taxed more?

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK
In a perfect world you are correct. But we elect Presidents, not kings.

So, in rdw's perfect world, we would elect kings, instead?

Posted by: cmdicely on June 7, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that homosexuals are not always men?

No!

Polagamy is still a union between a man and a women. It's multiple marriages.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

So, in rdw's perfect world, we would elect kings, instead?

No. Not at all.


While I think Reagan was correct to try to reduce spending and I wish he succeeded I recognize we don't ever get all we want in a democracy, especially ours with it's balanced government.

Churchill had a great line on democracy which I'm sure I'll butcher but here goes, "Democracy is the worst form of government, that is, until you start considering all other forms of government'.

I am 2nd to none in my admiration of Reagan but then I'm also 2nd to none in my admiration of the founding fathers and the system of checks and balances they devised. It's deeply frustrating to us all at times but it's also the reason why being born American is like winning the lottery.

Posted by: rdw on June 7, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

He's a killer, a slut, a drunk, a glutton and fraud in too many ways to count. Yet he is morally superior to every conservative in the land.

Yeah, the GOP has got those family values DOWN!!

Poppy Bush had a two-decade affair
Gov Musclehead admitted to groping
John McCain admitted to adultery
Rudolph Giuliani took his goomah to church (and that was OK with the Catholics)
Rush Limbaughs multiple marriages
Bill O'Reilly paid a sexual settlement
Newt Gingrich resigned in disgrace
Bob Barr murdered his daughter
Henry Hyde - well, you've all seen the pictures
and then Gary Bauer

Family what?

Posted by: Yourmonkeygenes on June 7, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

And, if the GOP isn't the party of racists, why have they systematically disenfranchised black voters in the last two elections?

Posted by: Yourmonkeygenes on June 7, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

I love how rdw and other conservatives talk about the massive Republican deficits we are all saddled with (as well as my one-year old daughter is saddled with) as just some minor regrettable mistake, as opposed to a fundamental feature of Republican supply side economics.

It's kinda like saying, "Gee, my jump off the building and flap my wings and fly plan is genius. Sure, the GRAVITY thing is regrettable, but no one is perfect ..."

Republican economic policies lead to massive deficits. It's an undisputed fact, and it's a central failing of Reagan and Bush II, not a minor aside. The ability of the snake oil peddlers to continue to sell the "cutting taxes brings in more money canard" is astonishing to anyone with one day's business experience.

Posted by: Pat on June 7, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB,

No, dear, it's not.

Yes, Sugar, it is.

Alas, this isn't your blog, which means that you don't get to set the agenda.

Fortunately, this isn't your blog, which means you don't get to control what other people talk about.

Now if you'd like to discuss the substantive issues actually raised in this case, please feel free.

I'm discussing the hypocrisy and double standards of Democrats like you.

Otherwise, I'll simply continue mocking you.

Mocking you is a lot of fun.

ROFLMAO....

URAMORON.

Since you have yet to establish that I, or anyone else, has "turn[ed] a blind eye" to anyone's bigotry,

You've turned a blind eye to the bigotry of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and the countless other democrats who oppose gay marriage.

ROFLMAO....

URSTUPID.

You're almost as much fun as rdw.

You're even more fun than sliced Ralph Nader.

No, dear, it doesn't,

Yes, Sugar, it does. Senate support by the FMA is measured by the number of Senators who vote for it, not by the proportion of Senators of a particular party who vote for it. Your claim to the contrary is such a howler, I'm not surprised you're trying to change the subject.

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice how the polls have changed over the years?

What about them, Blanche? Show me your evidence that it is 'damn near inevitable' that the recently-enacted and overwhelmingly popular state constitutional bans on gay marriage will be overturned in the forseeable future. Not only isn't there the slightest indication that they will be overturned any time in the foreseeable future, but polling data strongly suggests that an additional 8 or 9 states will vote to amend their constitutions to ban gay marriage this fall.

Posted by: GOP on June 7, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

And, strangely, though the religious have more children, the proportion of the population that is religious is declining.

It's not really strange. The decline of religion from growing hostility and indifference to it amoung the population in general is greater than any supportive effect from differences in birth rates.

Well, yeah, given that I'm Christian, I can see how you could say that, looking at Europe --

Your religion is dying throughout the developed world, not just in Europe.

I think that view, like much of what you say, overgeneralizes from regional (or, for other of your comments, short-term) trends.

It's been declining for at least a century. Not to worry, though. It's just a "short-term" thing. Revival is just around the corner. Praise Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus!

Posted by: Atheist on June 7, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

My FIL plays the but Clinton, blah blah thing also. I finally told him how pathetic he sounded and if he couldn't discuss the actual issues to just STFU.
I also asked him if he blamed his wife for his mistakes.
I was surprised that number one, he DID SFTU and number two that he still speaks to me.

Posted by: gsalln on June 8, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

atheists,


Religion is most definitely on the rise in Europe and will clearly continue to rise. Islam clearly fills more mosques than Christians fill Churches. It's just as clear the Islamic population is growing quite rapidly via high birth rates AND high immigration rates. 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants do not marry Europeans. They marry someone of ther own ethnicity and quite often from their home country.

On the other hand Europeans are starting to disappear. With birthrates of 1.2 in Spain, Italy and a few other states these ethnic populations will shrink by 40% in 75 years and then another 40% in the next 75 years. Unless of course, these birth rates continue to drop, which seems likely.

Sometime in the next decade the populations of almost all of Europe will start to shrink. Within each country the 'native' population will be shrinking fairly rapidly while the minority population will be increasing quite rapidly. Since these populations do not mix. And since the Islamic populations have mostly decided to enforce islamic law we know religion will be on the rise in Europe for the next century.

If the continent remains democratic then it is inevitable many of these states will have Islam as the official religion as voted by a majority of it's citizens.

This isn't rocket science.

Secularism proves Darwins theories.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

Pat,

I don't talk about deficits. so there's no 'as if'.

I do talk about the stunning strength of the US economy especially since 1980. European per capita GDP is about 2/3's US levels and will be less than 1/2 by 2020. By 2030 it will be less than 1/3 and by 2040 1/4. That's a disaster.

Did you see the reports of 1st Qtr GDP growth of 5.3% led by unit export growth of 14.7%? US GDP growth since the 2003 supply side tax cuts is 4% which is the fastest in over 20 years and 3x's the rate of growth in Western Europe. On that period the deficit has been substantially reduced and is well below France and Germany.

Here's one other key stat which will tell you everything you need to know about GWBs refocus of US foreign policy from Europe to Asia. GDP growth in India reached a stunning 9.5% in the 1st Qtr. The highest in over a decade and it's thought to be sustainable as India and the rest of the region move away from the tradegy of socialism toward market based, Anglo-Saxon capitalism.

GE announced a week or two ago it was raising it's goal for revenues from India from $6B to $10B by 2010. That's stunning growth. India is obviously one of the reasons unit export growth is up 14.7%. This is also one of the reasons Rumsfeld and Rice have made so many trips to the region. Rummy just got back actually. GWB has 2 1/2 more years to cement his realignment. Expect the strong export growth to continue

Th adults are in charge. It's painful to detach so dramatically so quickly from Europe but this isn't rocker science. It must be done.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, I see. Obviously my two seperate posts yesterday about the disenfranchisment of black voters in 2000 and 2004 and pointing out that many GOP party people have blown the family values claim right out of the water offened somebodies delicate sensibilities. What a bunch of lily livered punks. C ya

Posted by: yourmonkeygenes on June 8, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

monkey,

What are you babbling about? If black voter have been disenfranchised it's because they've given all of their support to the Democrats and received little or nothing in return. Just a quess but I am going to suggest they did not elect Bill Clinton to rnact welfare reform, support the death penalty and mandatory sentencing or put more police on the streets.

But it's terrific for Democrats blacks identify so closely. Terrific for Democratic pols. Not so much for blacks. It doesn't seem ot have a negative effect on the GOP. The period between 1994 and 2006 had been their mosr successful in the last 80 years.

As far as family values the 2004 elections would seem to suggest you have it exactly backwards. Americans recognize the party of family values. That's why the GOP controls the White House, Congress and the Supreme court.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Deficits are a problem but they just don't rank as high as other problems. We had a recession left by Clinton as well as a stock market bubble under Clintons watch which exploded in 2001 and 2002. On top of that we 9/11 had a war. Even with all that our deficits have been small. France and German wish their's were so small.

We have a 2nd year of 14%+ surge in tax receipts and are well on the way to cutting the deficit down.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, here's the facts:

This is a fact: On November 2, 2004, in the State of Ohio, 239,127 votes for President of the United States were dumped, rejected, blocked, lost and left to rot uncounted.

And not just anyones vote. Dive into the electoral dumpster and these spoiled votes have a very dark color indeed.
Want to know more?
http://www.gregpalast.com/how-they-stole-ohio

Family Values:
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/06/05/the-real-threat-to-marriage-top-10-gop-adulterers/
enjoy! :)
Yeah, they got family values down just great, when the MSM "forgets" or just plain doesn't say anything about it...

Posted by: yourmonkeygenes on June 8, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

and I would argue they run the government exactly because of the fraudulent voting machines that were used. A child could hack into these machines. GOP brothers own the two companies that provide 95% of the voting machines used in America. The evidence of disenfranchisment and outright intimidation is abundant and unreported. Family values my ass...

Posted by: yourmonkeygenes on June 8, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

monkey,

I don't have time for conspiracy theorists.

Posted by: rdw on June 8, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, except for those nasty things called facts (which never seems to bother the party of family values much), I suppose you could call it a conspiracy, but it's not a theory. Do you read? Fox News won't tell you this story rdw, Rove wouldn't approve, and the facts are all there. I have better evidence that it did happen than you do that it didn't...

Posted by: yourmonkeygenes on June 8, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently, rdw and GOP are the same person and in need of a life.

We're not all entitled to YOUR opinion, folks, do get over it.

Now go and masturbate to Faux "news."

Posted by: Me on June 10, 2006 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly