"Gay marriage is being legalized in at least two, probably three states, the first time ever in the US it's been legalized by a popular vote rather than by courts or the legislature. Wisconsin elected the first openly gay Senator ever. And, maybe most importantly, the first pro-gay president ever has been re-elected. Because of Obama's re-election, the entire Democratic party will be openly pro-gay marriage, forever and without equivocation. Obama has proven that you can be truly pro-gay and win, and this will have a permanent effect on the entire Democratic party. This is a major turning point for gay rights, and a great contrast to 2008, when we had Obama but also Prop 8."
My son Chris wrote on Facebook last night.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३७ टिप्पण्या:
Where's an eye-rolling emoticon when you need one?
Huzzah. It was a great night.
a great contrast to 2008, when we had Obama
That'd be news to Mr. Obama:
"Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage.""
Having supported gay marriage for several years I'm happy for it, and for him.
Now gays can be married as they go down the fiscal tube just like us straight folks.
Huzzah is right.
Insofar as getting married is a "right," rather than just an acknowledgement of a relationship by the state. If it's important to someone to have the state rubber-stamp their relationship, then...whoop-de-doo.
Also, Obama has already said he has no plans to do anything about gay marriage on a national level, so his cynical endorsement in order to gather campaign funds and votes is just empty words.
"Obama has proven that you can be truly pro-gay and win, and this will have a permanent effect on the entire Democratic party."
Dream on. President is the only position that get's elected nationally. The rest are by states, or worse, by parts of states.
"Obama has proven that you can be truly pro-gay and win, "
BTW, Chris, Dick Cheney proved that before Obama. After all, Obama simply adopted Cheny's voiced opinion from when he was VP.
Oh, and your earlier comments on how well New Yorkers were coming together after Sandy. That wasn't right either.
You're track record isn't the best, I have to say.
The Republican Party probably needs to find a way to flip on gay marriage before they are totally marginalized for their bigotry. Ditto the Catholic Church.
Your son makes some good points. An outstanding night all around.
I'm so glad the Democrats are nationalizing my sexual orientation!
My opinion is that this is a great battle against a non-existent bogey man... the fantasized homophobes.
The great persecution of the gays is almost entirely the product of martyrdom propaganda movies.
But, if it makes you happy to fantasize that you're a victim fighting a great battle against persecution... go ahead.
I guess it fills up your day, huh Andy?
Gay marriage is a matter of complete indifference to me, pro or con. And, I think that it is a public issue of astonishing non-importance.
Yeah Chris!
I been out and about all morning and people are so happy!
Being against gay marriage and legalizing marijuana probably cost Romney votes in certain states.
Libertarians probably could have swayed the election to Romney. Take note Republicans.
I'm so glad the Democrats are nationalizing my sexual orientation!
I just wonder when we're going to demand proof via public performance.
That should make for some great entertainment!
Anybody got any good jokes on the subject? We could really use some good jokes this morning!
That'd be news to Mr. Obama:
"Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage.""
That was okay. Everyone knew he was just lying to get votes from the rubes.
Congratulations to all the people who made this happen.
"Ditto the Catholic Church."
So much for religious freedom. Why not just be Episcopalian? I have to gay buddies - partners for 32 years - who go to that church. They voted for Romney, poor bastards. Gays are not very forgiving to sex traitors.
My lesbian sister is ecstatic also. To her, gay stuff is, and will always be, the only thing on the ballot.
Obama has always been very "flexible" in his beliefs. But, nooo, it's not flip-flopping! It's studied evolution!
Anybody got any good jokes on the subject? We could really use some good jokes this morning!
New Yorker cartoon: Marriage for gays and lesbians? Haven't they suffered enough already?
The GOP is dumb if they don't quickly pivot to a libertarian-style "who gives a shit - this isn't the role of gov't to regulate" position on this issue.
The "best revenge..."
Legalize gay marriage, but keep gay divorce illegal.
So much for religious freedom.
I'm not suggesting a state imposed solution. After the Mormon Church saw the civil rights movement, they were smart enough to say that God changed his mind about cursing black people and the Mormons moved away from their racism.
The Catholic Church is running out of time to excuse their bigotry by saying that it's what God wants. They can announce that God was wrong about gay people and try to move on, or they can face the scorn and rejection of people because of the Catholic anti-gay hate. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of bigots.
The GOP is dumb if they don't quickly pivot to a libertarian-style "who gives a shit - this isn't the role of gov't to regulate" position on this issue.
They were dumb not to have done this already. Anti-gay bigots need to surrender immediately so we can move on from this issue to more pressing matters.
The intellectual class tried for a century to destroy marriage by representing it as a hypocrisy and bourgeois constraint.
They essentially succeeded.
Now I am supposed to wax romantic about a spiritual contract that has no place in civic law without those bourgeois hypocrisies (how do you violate the contract without those assailed assumptions?) which have previously been dismantled?
They won, gay or straight they prevailed against the constraints of the contracts.
I don't dance to the intellectual drum, so I will not wax romantic now.
This is wonderful news all around. I am so happy for this. As these newly minted couples take up their normalized existences finally at last as first class citizens, do accept my heartfelt congratulations to you and yours and you your'zes happy futures, all those happy futures filled with all the love and joy and happiness that comes with paying down twenty trillion dollars in national debt. Oh dear I seem to be a little bit stuck that's okay I'll start being unstuck when the gay marriage's kids start paying down the twenty trillion dollars in debt that I'm leaving behind and that's making me stuck, oh I won't be around for that blessed moment but at least everybody will be satisfied with cheapass healthcare. Bless. We really are civilized innit. We can be sixteen trillion dollars in debt like this and celebrate such wonderful things that occur on the personal level and never really rise nor even ever should rise to State concern, but nonetheless, yes, I'm filled with love and joy. Accept this as my pop-up congratulations card it says "twenty trillion dollars in national debt" LOL That's Amazing!
They were dumb not to have done this already. Anti-gay bigots need to surrender immediately so we can move on from this issue to more pressing matters.
Andy is just too dumb to ever realize that he is precisely what he thinks he hates. I doubt that he'll ever get it.
Although, who knows. He's still just a fucking dumb kid. He can't remind this stupid forever!
"Because of Obama's re-election, the entire Democratic party will be openly pro-gay marriage, forever and without equivocation."
How does this fit with surveys showing blacks to be the demographic most opposed to gay marriage? Don't be disenfranchising black people.
Incidentally, ST's 8:53 comment is pretty much where I come down on the subject too.
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me" Matthew 5:11
*yawn*
When the economy crashes and burns, I'm sure gays being able to marry will feed him.
Also, if somebody finds their sexuality as the most important part of their person, they have never made an interesting observation.
Libertarians probably could have swayed the election to Romney. Take note Republicans.
If that's all it took for you to decide to keep Obama in power --- why would anybody cater to your nonsense?
It's time for the GOP to ignore independents completely. Demagogue like a mofo and shore up your base and just relentlessly slander any opponents.
Hey, it worked for Obama.
And, maybe most importantly, the first pro-gay president ever has been re-elected.
I wouldn't say that. Obama made a machiavelian move in order to get re-elected. He certainly didn't wave the pro-gay flag his first three years.
Why doesn't anyone go to court and challenge the will of the voters....a la Cali? Or do court challenges only go one way?
I'm glad that it passed here in Maryland. I voted for it. I hope gays do find some consolation in marriage during the troubled days ahead.
It will be interesting to see how the Democrats' most anti-gay core constituency (urban blacks) react to this.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. 2+2=4. Marriage requires a bride and groom, and a husband and wife. What gays actually want is a civil union, with all the perks of marriage.
Now, that's something I and many others can rally behind. its a semantic argument, but its skso one where semantics are rnforced through govt force so in many regards goes beyond semantics.
And now it's on to the next Civil rights marriage question - namely legalizing harems and polygamy. The Mormons should sue the govt for forcing them to give up polygamy all those years ago, because clearly society had no right to restrict their marriage. And considering the economy, there are a lot of benefits to having more than a two income household. There's no reason why you couldn't have gay polygamy either. Equal opportunity group marriage for whoever wants it.
I would just rather the government get the f out of the marriage business altogether.
Fat chance of that happening.
"They can announce that God was wrong about gay people and try to move on, or they can face the scorn and rejection of people because of the Catholic anti-gay hate"
I'm not sure you want the Catholic Church to be in a position where they face scorn and rejection of people.
That's how it started out its first few hundred years. It's quite fine in that position.
Empires fall and other philosophies flounder in the meantime.
"Libertarians probably could have swayed the election to Romney. Take note Republicans."
Nah, capital-L Libertarians were too busy re-electing Obama.
That is, wasting their votes on getting their candidate over the 5% hurdle.
Is Obama against plural marriage? Then he's a bigot as are all people who think you should only allow couples to marry. Including gay couples against polygamy.
Andy R, aside from your own obvious religious bigotry that you keep bringing here, congratulations on the successful passage of some laws somewhere having to do with something it hasn't any business to do with State in the first place that you feel so strongly about to the center of your being, that you make it a matter of State, condemning supporters and opponents alike along the way, congratulations on the success of that, whatever it was, gaining personal validity through some State law or something, congratulations on all that. And now that you're certain to get married and you're all normalized and everything I'd must say thank you while I still have the chance to, thank you to those fresh little darlings of yours passed through your cloaca or however that works, bless on all that and thank you for paying down the twenty trillion dollars in national debt I'll be leaving behind.
Now that I have this new attitude. I'm feeling it all over. I'm not seeing a problem with leaving behind personal debt. hahahaha That'll be me laughing on the way out. I think I still have lots of time if I play my cards right and avoid doctors and hospitals and such as much as possible, and just run up as much debt as I can. la la la la la. Who pays for it? I don't know? And I won't care. I'll be dead. My own relatives? So what? They're already up to their necks. They probably voted Obama for all I know. Fuck 'em. They'll have cheapass healthcare, they'll be fine.
"They can announce that God was wrong about gay people and try to move on, or they can face the scorn and rejection of people because of the Catholic anti-gay hate"
actually anti Catholics are entitled to view marriage as between a man and a woman, just as people
Are entitled to view marriage as not being three men, two women and a partridge in a pear tree.
Govt should not be in the business of forcing priests who think marriage is a sacrament between god to perform a ceremony through compulsion.
Gays have to recognize, not everyone will accept you. That's perfectly ok, since you don't have to accept them either. Civil unions gets religion out of marriage and let's the priests be bigoted and the gays get their marriage benefits.
"How does this fit with surveys showing blacks to be the demographic most opposed to gay marriage? Don't be disenfranchising black people."
How did it work trying to use homophobia to lure black people away from the Democratic Party?
s Obama against plural marriage?
Early in his campaign they were ridiculing polygamy. Personally, I find polygamy fully acceptable, although I've always found one wife to be one too many.
""Tonight is the greatest night in the history of the gay rights movement.""
And that's FABULOUS!
It's facinating that all of this happened with so little fanfare or even discussion. I consider myself awfully tuned in, but if it hadn't been for this blog and it's Wisconcentricity, I would have had no idea about Tammy Baldwin, and I'm not even sure I've heard word one about the state issues.
Congratulations. Now the civil rights battle moves to giving singles equal protection under the law.
How did it work trying to use homophobia to lure black people away from the Democratic Party?
See my comment above again.
Althouse, why are you buying into the persecution fantasy? Just because directors make martyrdom soap operas about gay persecution doesn't mean it's actually happening.
You're usual pretty realistic. You're much too smart to be taken in by the martyrdom fantasies. It's not happening. Never was happening.
Sure, some straight guys beat up gay guys. Some gay guys beat up straight guys.
Get real. The homophobes thing is a pile of crap.
Ann's right: gay issues will not alter black devotion to the Dem Party to any meaningful degree.
"Tonight is the greatest night in the history of the gay rights movement."
That's what I said when I first got laid.
Funny how priorities change.
And, Althouse, you are usually a fair minded person.
Calling opposition to your political view, which is favoring gay marriage, opposition to some form of "bigotry" is just plain bad faith.
Even you fall into the bad faith arguments on this crap. Why do you abandon decency and sense over this nonsense?
Andy what's your position on polygamy. Are you against it or for it? If for it do you not see that many people might have plenty of objections to redefining societal
Marriages to be plural that don't boil down
to hatred of polygamists?
If you are against them (on practical grounds mind you) what if we applied your standard for those opposing gay marriage to your opposition to polygamy.
If you don't define marriage as being whatever people want it to be, which society must acknowledge equally, then you are forced to restrict marriage along some line. Why would you not be a bigot if you thought society was right to draw the line at that point?
Because those who don't thinks the line should be drawn there are being told that they cant marry the person/people they want and are being denies rights on top of it all?
Your position inevitably becomes society must view
All relationships equally and provide benefits to all or society is bigoted and anyone thinking there should
Be restrictions is bigoted.
Who is able to draw the line and why? And supporting which marriage restrictions makes you a bigot and which are common sensical? And who decides that?
Come on! Black people rallied around Michael Jackson. They rallied around OJ Simpson. Race, to many American blacks, trumps everything, up to and including child molestation and murder.
Thanks for the bit of humor, Palladian.
No subject accounts for more hollow buffoonery and stupid chest thumping than this one.
Even Althouse starts behaving like a lout.
You know what's really funny about this bullshit?
If you start to talk reality, which is that the great gay persecution is just bullshit manufactured through martyrdom movies, people start talking like you were some sort of sexual prude.
They even do that to an old degenerate whore monger like me, without ever realizing just how stupid they are behaving.
Even telling them that I lived in SF and NYC, in the very neighborhoods where the gay debauchees live doesn't serve to disabuse them.
This is a subject that turns the smartest among us into idiots. Even Althouse can't help herself.
Andy R. your act is so fucking last week. You won. Congratulations, you won. Hasn't that sunk in? I know it's thick but let it sink in, you won. Congratulations, you won. Is it sinking in? You won. Congratulations. Feel it? You won.
Do you feel it Andy R? You won.
Sixteen trillion dollars in national debit with momentum to conservative twenty trillion dollars in national debt, you won Andy R., you won that accompanied with opposing it attendant opposite force determined to drive down that anticipated twenty trillion dollar in debt without additional taxations by other names and that means strangulation so you've won that intensified fight too. You won a much more serious fierce series of fights, yes, Andy R, you won all that. Why aren't you hopping up and down and celebrating like the people on teevee? I always have to check to see if it's hopping or hoping. I mean bouncing like you're happy. boing boing boing. twentytrilliondollarsinnationaldebt something about gay marriages somewhere or something gay la la la weeeeeeeeee.
I almost forgot racists, homophobes, key your car twentytrilliondollarsinnationaldebt gay something weeeeeeeeeeee
That's my new phrase that starts everything: twentytrilliondollarsinnationaldebt sez what? then act baffled like my hearing is just coming online and I aim my ear to focus through the whitenoise of twentytrilliondollarsinnationaldebt that this retarded country I'm in voted for willingly.
How did it work trying to use homophobia to lure black people away from the Democratic Party?
So althouse is arguing that blacks against gay marriage are homophobes engaging in homophobia? For standing for traditional marriage?
Why must blacks kowtow to the position that they have to bend on their support of marriage otherwise
Run the risk of having their party brand them homophobes?
And if the other party holds the same view what's wrong with trying to court like minded individuals. And here's the thing, they may view "homophobia" as destruction of traditional marriage and not as homophobia. So the appeal is not to stick it to the gays but to stand in solidarity on how we define marriage. It's your side dating that blacks majority view is in fact homophobia.
Chip, thank you from the bottom of my disheartened heart this morning.
How did it work trying to use homophobia to lure black people away from the Democratic Party?
Luring black people? I think it is pretty damned clear that the GOP hasn't even tried luring anyone to their party. If they had, they would have stopped yammering about illegal immigration and worked to find a way to let immigrants into the country. If they had, they would have stopped talkin altogether about social issues.
Luring people into the GOP...there's an idea. The Libertarians could use a place to find candidates they can live with. Let's start there.
As for "homophobia", I cannot think of the last time I heard anything even remotely homophobic. Except from my liberal friends.
And how fortunate we are to have the "rights" of 3% of the population defining so much of the political landscape affecting the future of the other 97%.
Andy R. wrote: The Republican Party probably needs to find a way to flip on gay marriage before they are totally marginalized for their bigotry. Ditto the Catholic Church.
You really don't get it about moral issues trancending politics, do you? What a surprise.
I am so tired of reading, re: Tammy Baldwin, that she will be the first Openly Gay Senator, mainly because I don't care. But if the media is going to talk about her sex life ad nauseum, I'd like to know all about how the other Senators are sexing it up. Because that's only fair.
Wow, 95% of blacks think the govt ought to be creating jobs.
No, it's the worst night because people voted to turn themselves into thralls of the state.
They'll live to regret it.
Andy R. said...
The Republican Party probably needs to find a way to flip on gay marriage before they are totally marginalized for their bigotry. Ditto the Catholic Church.
The Church has lasted 2000 years under worse persecution than the PC crowd can devise. It will survive.
And, if Hatman thinks a couple of Lefty states voting same sex marriage means the country is now in love with the idea, most states still don't like it.
somefeller said...
Your son makes some good points. An outstanding night all around.
Gee, Althouse at "the office"?
PS I thought it went down in MN.
Gerry Studds was openly gay back in 1972! And open about bonking the congressional pages as well long before Mark Foley (who didn't actually bonk any of he pages while they were in the program).
How did it work trying to use homophobia to lure black people away from the Democratic Party?
When did that happen?
As a practicing homosexual, I feel I have perfect authority here.
Your son comes off, here and elsewhere, as a self-centered prick. Sorry. It's true. But that's what this election was about, right? Selfishness? Dicing up the electorate into neat voting blocs and inquiring: "What can I do for YOU?" It was quite sickening--a campaign narrowing its focus to every conceivable minority and quietly explaining to them how their vote is their best shot at Revenge. Every minority enjoyed a quiet lecture on how the broader population of their country hates them, but vote for me, Barack, and I'll circumvent them to get you some goodies. Single women--tired of being stigmatized? NO MORE! It's abortions all the way down. Black people--life stinks, eh? Affluent people aren't paying their Fair Share, eh? Let's wring it from their hands. Homosexuals--I know I ignored you last time, but DADT, etc. People are coming around at the state level, but if we want Progress, we need to start legislating.
The hard sell for conservatism is that it's a hard sell. The shiny object you pay for later is an easier sell than saying we need to stop charging shiny objects and start paying for the ones accruing interest.
See? Boring. What's in it for me? What will the government give ME?
Will all that's going on in the world--our fiscal insolvency, another round of foreclosures (it's coming. I'm in the industry. People are terrified), a foreign policy in shambles, a disastrous healthcare law, stagnant economy, exploding student debt--your son decides his Prime Concern for 2012 was fucking gay marriage?
Gay. Fucking. Marriage.
First, let's dispense with the absurd idea that gays even want to get married. They don't. They think they should want to, but don't. In states and countries it's legal, their participation rate is far, far below that of straights. But their divorce rate is astronomically higher. I read an amusing story about the first lesbian couple to get married in New York is already divorced. Hmm. They seem to want to get married but not to stay married.
Meanwhile, the gay 'community' is rotten to the core. HIV rates among the young are higher now than at any point during the AIDS epidemic. Drug abuse is rampant. Depression and suicide is prevalent. These are systemic, chronic problems that were entirely ignored in favor of gay marriage. Some fucking priorities!
So, yeah, sorry if I don't run out and find someone to enjoy a celebratory hump with over the fact that, what? What exactly? Some states are letting gays get married when they a) won't and b) will get divorced? And Obama alluded to finally having reached the last stage in his "evolution" of understanding marriage?
Stupid.
Next election, my primary voting concern will be the quality of my gardening soil. Who will help with drainage? And adding organic matter? That's all I care about. Fuck you. And you. And you. Fuck you all. I'm in the minority. Fuck you.
It was a fricking awesome night.
What a difference from the 2004 election when it was so depressing with all the gay marriage amendments passing overwhelming.
tits.
As a practicing homosexual, I feel I have perfect authority here.
How much practice does it take?
Good thing republicans don't want to nationalize your orientation Pads.
Yay, gays can be bought very cheaply. Good to know. Soon maybe we can add to our entitlement crisis survivor benefits for the gays. That should help things tremendously.
It seems that any time you attach "obia" to the end of anything it's simply saying you disagree witha a position and are a bigot for doing so. But every single issue could be viewed from both sides of the aisle and an "obia" could be attached to the countervaling argument as well. How disingenuous. It's simply trying to villify alternative opinions from our own.
Take althouse's use of the word homophobia. What if I used the word "tradition phobia" the hatred of traditional marriage from those bigots opposed to it. To either side, the other side is bigoted. So where does that get us? If we're all bigots for holding contrary opinions then what is the relevance of calling someone bigoted.
Althouse and Andy R are bigoted towards the concept of traditional marriage. For the majority of blacks who might hold the view that marriage means something why are YOU not hateful?
Coke town wrote:
Your son comes off, here and elsewhere, as a self-centered prick. Sorry. It's true. But that's what this election was about, right? Selfishness? Dicing up the electorate into neat voting blocs and inquiring: "What can I do for YOU?" It was quite sickening--a campaign narrowing its focus to every conceivable minority and quietly explaining to them how their vote is their best shot at Revenge. Every minority enjoyed a quiet lecture on how the broader population of their country hates them, but vote for me, Barack, and I'll circumvent them to get you some goodies. Single women--tired of being stigmatized? NO MORE! It's abortions all the way down. Black people--life stinks, eh? Affluent people aren't paying their Fair Share, eh? Let's wring it from their hands. Homosexuals--I know I ignored you last time, but DADT, etc. People are coming around at the state level, but if we want Progress, we need to start legislating.
in other words, you're saying Obama was engaging in the worst kind of cynisim. And yet Obsma defines it as moving past cynicism. The very idea that he's somehow moving past it was one of the most cynical aspects of his speech. We're getting into Orwellian language at this point.
How much practice does it take?
Haha, plenty. At least to do it well. But I was elevating my orientation to the absurd level most gay rights activists do. You know. Practicing it as a religion.
@Coketown:
(musical notes symbols) Did you ever know, that you're my hero? You're everything I wish I could be . . .
Well, not quite everything, but you get the idea.
Hooray for receptive anal intercourse and other forms of sodomy! It's a great day for America!
"PS I thought it went down in MN."
Althouse, please tell your #1 doting trained seal to stop "trying" to think.
TIA
Ann: Thanks for posting this. As gay, (small-l) libertarian/Goldwater-conservative white trash, I was elated by some of what happened last night, depressed by much of the rest, and in need of a good pick-me-up.
As for those asking about all this "oppression" they hear so much about, I would agree that it's certainly greatly diminished from what it used to be, in the bad old days before Lawrence vs. Texas, but to argue that there has thus never been oppression -- and therefore no reason for gays to fear social conservatives who for some bizarre reason believe that any violation of their sensibilities is some sort of violation of their religious liberties -- is absurd on the face of it.
It's nice to see that, even in this thread, there's no short of straight conservatives who don't buy it, either.
This is an honest question; an invitation that I think is uniquely suited to the Althouse blog.
I'd like a Wisconsin voter who supported Scott Walker in all of the various statewide referenda on his refrom efforts (Walker election, state legislative elections, Prosser election, Walker recall, etc.) AND WHO ALSO VOTED FOR TAMMY BALDWIN to explain that pairing of votes.
How do you support Walker, and Baldwin?
Whoops! Sorry, I have no idea why the Google sign-in rendered me anonymous. My nameis Dirk Deppey, and I'm the author of the above post.
Jeez, How the hell do I stop being "unknown" around here, anyway?
Chuck said...
This is an honest question; an invitation that I think is uniquely suited to the Althouse blog.
I'd like a Wisconsin voter who supported Scott Walker in all of the various statewide referenda on his refrom efforts (Walker election, state legislative elections, Prosser election, Walker recall, etc.) AND WHO ALSO VOTED FOR TAMMY BALDWIN to explain that pairing of votes.
How do you support Walker, and Baldwin?
I've been asking that all morning.
Althouse says it's because Romney wasn't enough of a fiscal conservative and was too much of a social conservative.
I'm not buying it.
Oh, good. Gay marriage and women wanting to kill their fetuses are safe today. Thank y'all for voting accordingly.
Long live the King.
It seems to me, given Obama's re-election and the success of the dems in the Senate - that cultural issues were A LOT more important than most of us thought.
The GOP is stupid! Akin was the worst - but Murdock and others just reinforced it. Live and let live is the free person's philosophy. It doesn't matter what religion you belong to or what your personal morality is - it is NOT ok to try and impose it on others. The GOP doesn't get that. Gays exist and have the same liberties as everyone else. The GOP doesn't get that. They are unconscious. It's time to wake up.
I think the answer is this:
1. Walker successfully demonized the left. Baldwin successfully demonized Tommy.
and
2. There must've been a larger youth turnout. Young people want Obama to free the gays, who are like the blacks were during the civil rights movement. Baldwin's gay. Therefore, she's a hero. Voting against her would be voting against fairness and equality and feeling good about yourself for being fair and equal. And that would be yucky.
The really difficult question is why people voted for alleged fiscal responsibility by voting for Walker - twice - and against it by voting for Obama - twice. My guess is that #2 is responsible for that as well but who knows.
I'm pretty meh on the overall topic, but I really hate it when a major social/societal change is dictated by a bunch of geezers in black robes. If you're going to make a change like this, then a popular vote is about the best way to do it. Congrats to the peoples of those states - you got your day at the ballot box. I just wish the left would respect ballot box results when they don't turn out their way. But that's just unrealistic wishing.
Of course, we'll ignore the anti-Mormon bigotry from the left and extreme religious conservatives that may have been the difference for Romney.
"That'd be news to Mr. Obama:
"Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage.""
----
Republicans love to bring up that Obama only recently "evolved" on gay marriage. That's true, but it's also true that most everyone knew Obama was pro-gay all along. He made that clear with one sentence in his 2004 convention speech. He was just being careful about the gay marriage issue for political reasons, until he was sure enough people would have his back.
Ann, they hate your son, because they are bigots, homophobes and selfish jerks. Conservatives should be reevaluating how much the religious right has ruined their Party, if they ever want to win another Presidential election.
Tammy Baldwin won, damn right!
Of course the Republicans engaged in a deliberate strategy to disenfranchise black voters from the Democratic party. Why the hell do you think we have had ten years of nonsense constitutional amendments and referendums?
Honestly, have any of you actually worked in the back room of a national or even state-wide campaign? This strategy was widely discussed and deliberate. Guess what they are talking about now: how to sway Hispanic voters.
Yesterday was a tremendous victory for gay rights. Those victories will continue to spread because most people believe in treating fellow citizens equally. As I said here years ago, you have the choice to decide what side of history you will be on. How many of your racist grandparents and great grandparents are ashamed of the way they or their government treated racial minorities? We evolve. Most of us anyway.
Inga said...
Ann, they hate your son, because they are bigots, homophobes and selfish jerks. Conservatives should be reevaluating how much the religious right has ruined their Party, if they ever want to win another Presidential election.
Tammy Baldwin won, damn right!
I don't hate Ann's son. I just think gay marriage is a lot of horseshit. What happened to the call for civil unions? Why is marriage suddenly considered a "right"? And if it's a right, why don't homosexuals support opening up marriage for everybody?
If you think the GOP has moved to the right, you have a short memory. You don't even need to go back too far - back when Reagan was staunchly anti-abortion and had no interest in helping AIDS victims and Ed Meese was spending God only knows how much money preparing a multi-volume report on pornography.
The GOP's last two presidential candidates have been moderates who wouldn't have lifted a finger to impede the progress of gay marriage.
But the voters rejected them, and people like you demonized them. Maybe you've been dealing with moderate Republicans for so long you've forgotten what a real social conservative looks like, but John McCain and Mitt Romney have a lot more in common with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama than they do with Rick Santorum.
Honestly. Mitt Romney. Tommy Thompson. Scott Brown. This is the evil, right-wing GOP in your book? I hope you never meet a real conservative - you'll drop dead from shock.
I love you, Inga, but you're dead wrong here.
Inga: "Ann, they hate your son, because they are bigots, homophobes and selfish jerks. Conservatives should be reevaluating how much the religious right has ruined their Party, if they ever want to win another Presidential election.
"Tammy Baldwin won, damn right!"
Inga, speaking just for me, I don't know Ann's son; I have never met him. But I do hate you, for projecting whatever your general opinion of Republicans is on to me.
You are the best/worst example of Democratic identity politics. My question steered away from any question of sexual orientation. I asked how a "Walker" voter could also be a "Baldwin" voter.
Perhaps my question should be taken out of this comments thread and re-placed elsewhere. It would be nice if Ann would host the discussion elsewhere.
'What sort of voter would vote for Walker and for Baldwin?'
Maybe there AREN't any Walker/Baldwin voters. Maybe Obama pulls a different game-changing demographic and that is how he carried Wisconsin, when Walker's opponents couldn't. It is still interesting, to think that marginal voters who turned out to vote for Obama but not in any state races, were also the margin of victory for Baldwin.
"How did it work trying to use homophobia to lure black people away from the Democratic Party?"
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, how ignorant can you be?
First, it is not about homophobia. Traditional marriage is a sacrament of the church.
Second, who was doing the "luring?" Black pastors who are overwhelmingly Democrat.
Maybe by the next election gay and lesbian Obots and single female Obots will have figured out that in terms of the future the economy trumps where the dick goes or doesn't go.
Coketown, that was magnificent.
sunsong:
"The GOP is stupid! Akin was the worst - but Murdock and others just reinforced it. Live and let live is the free person's philosophy. It doesn't matter what religion you belong to or what your personal morality is - it is NOT ok to try and impose it on others. The GOP doesn't get that. Gays exist and have the same liberties as everyone else. The GOP doesn't get that. They are unconscious. It's time to wake up."
sunsong, the media very consciously chose to flip out over Mourdock's comments. In fact, Joe Donnelly is very strongly pro-life as well. There is scarcely any daylight, between the Mourdock and Donnelly abortion positions. Mourdock made a single comment, that had no policy effect, that the media blew up into the largest story in the campaign. Joe Donnelly's reflexive pro-life ideology is informed, he says, by his Roman Catholic faith. THAT'S MOURDOCK'S OPPONENT.
Inga bleated: Ann, they hate your son, because they are bigots, homophobes and selfish jerks. Conservatives should be reevaluating how much the religious right has ruined their Party, if they ever want to win another Presidential election.
You really are a stupid twit, aren't you? It's not about hating her son. Traditional marriage is a sacrament of the church.
Oh, and let's see, Romney/Ryan got 57,304,430 votes (according to Drudge this AM). McCain/Palin got 59,934,814 in 2008. The Repubs reported high energy among their voters. Who do you think stayed home because there wasn't a Christian to vote for, Inga?
Republicans can't win without conservative Christians.
Democrats, the party of deficits and death, won't distinguish between religious moral principles, genuinly held, and fodder for political trash talk. It's good politics, but bad for the soul.
sunsong wrote: Live and let live is the free person's philosophy. It doesn't matter what religion you belong to or what your personal morality is - it is NOT ok to try and impose it on others. The GOP doesn't get that.
Nobody gets that, including you, because it's bullshit.
You think "live and let live" resulting in 52 million abortions is not imposing your morality on others? You think laws against "hate speech" is not imposing somebody's morality on somebody else. Etc., etc.
Progressive pablum!
Traditional marriage is a sacrament of the church.
A church that does not want to marry two Gay people will never have to in this Country. People who think otherwise do not understand a particular phrase in the Constitution.
He was just being careful about the gay marriage issue for political reasons, until he was sure enough people would have his back.
A principled man. Romneyesque, dare I say.
Chuck,
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss further how very stupid the GOP is :-) Here is what Mourdock said:
"And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
That is beyond the pale. The GOP does not *get* that. Akin was worse! If you think that there is any other reason that Mourdock lost, you are mistaken.
I live in Utah. Mormons believe that it is wrong to drink alcohol and to gamble. Many of them are too stupid to understand that it is NOT their place to impose that on the rest of us.
Live and let live is the philosophy of free people. It is utterly stupid to not even understand that it ok for people to have different ideas, different beliefs, different religions, different sexual orientations, different dreams and desires and it is all ok. The GOP will simply fade away and die if they do not wake up from their 'my way or the highway culture war' stupor.
Yes, Magnificent Coketown, LMAO. No wonder you folks lost.
Farmer, I don't consider you a right winger, you seem to be a moderate, a fair minded type. The Republicans need far more of you and far less of Coketowns and Erikas, that is unless they like losing elections.
that cultural issues were A LOT more important than most of us thought.
We'll have a wonderful, fair, culture that can't afford anything. Huzzah.
I'd like to know all about how the other Senators are sexing it up.
What, no love for Larry Craig?
Oh wait, what he did was wrong.
A church that does not want to marry two Gay people will never have to in this Country. People who think otherwise do not understand a particular phrase in the Constitution.
I would like to agree with you MadisonMan, but I have a feeling that the buck won't stop there, so to speak. There will pressures for churches to conform to secular standards. Like paying for birth control, for instance.
Now, if the government would get out of marriage entirely, and just enforce social contracts that covered partner benefits and agreements, I would be eternally happy.
The Republicans need far more of you and far less of Coketowns and Erikas, that is unless they like losing elections.
I didn't realize they lost every election last night.
The NYT map shows a right(er) blowing wind,wouldn't you say?
Inga, you must be a very unhappy person.
Inga said...
Farmer, I don't consider you a right winger, you seem to be a moderate, a fair minded type. The Republicans need far more of you and far less of Coketowns and Erikas, that is unless they like losing elections.
But I don't want to be a Republican.
gutless said...
Inga, you must be a very unhappy person.
She seems pretty happy!
MadisonMan said...
A church that does not want to marry two Gay people will never have to in this Country. People who think otherwise do not understand a particular phrase in the Constitution.
The Constitution means whatever the 5 leftmost Blackrobes say it does. And while I'd like to think people would be satisfied at being able to make choices for themselves there's nothing about the left's cultural activists which suggests any end to their demands. Success is not a moment for celebration, it's a moment to formulate the next attack lest the political coalition fall apart.
I think your confidence is greatly overstated.
Ha, I'm incredibly happy gutless. Especially today! I live a great life, have great kids and grandkids, live in a gorgeous home on a gorgeous lake and dare to care for my fellow man more than the the god of money, selfishness.
I've been a care giver all my life, yet never hated the ones who were forced to take because of circumstances beyond their control. I've nursed the dying, saved a few lives, given birth to four wonderful children. I lost those I loved, yet I'm a very happy and contented person. You should wish you were me.
Farmer, well be whatever fills your sails, fair winds and following seas, is that how it goes? Anyway we need more "farmers". :)
So you created a liberal kid, more focused on this kind of idiocy than he is on economics. Good job, you must be proud.
Sunsong, that quote of yours is not a Conservative quote, it is a Catholic one (Mr. ABortion won the Catholic vote anyway). Catholics are chock-full of "God's will" and pre-ordained outcomes. He just happens to be GOP too.
You libs are the most knee-jerk intolerant and ignorant folks out there. The first sign of that is you accuse other people of it.
Obama's not truly pro-gay. He's pro-gay at the moment for political purposes. He has no plans to do anything about it now that he's gotten the useful idiots who think SSM is more important than the economy, jobs, foreign policy, or health care to vote for him.
If you can't see that, you're either naive, stupid, or far too involved in the pro-SSM movement.
"If you start to talk reality, which is that the great gay persecution is just bullshit manufactured through martyrdom movies, people start talking like you were some sort of sexual prude."
This statement is bizarre.
Mad Man wrote: "Traditional marriage is a sacrament of the church."
A church that does not want to marry two Gay people will never have to in this Country. People who think otherwise do not understand a particular phrase in the Constitution.
I am actually reasonably well-versed in constitutional law and you simply cannot make that statement with certainty.
You, on the other hand are not appreciating the significance of "sacrament." Without lecturing you - I know you are a serious commenter and I do not intend to be patronizing - a "sacrament" is a sacred rite thought to be ordained by God. Traditional marriage is among the most sacred. The concern is not that churches will have to perform the ceremonies, but that ssm denigrates the institution flowing from the rite unnecessarily and, some think, intentionally.
What smarty said 4:53.
True or not, that's the impression Althouse projects of her younger son. Her older son has economic sense.
"The concern is not that churches will have to perform the ceremonies, but that ssm denigrates the institution flowing from the rite unnecessarily and, some think, intentionally."
My concern is that that the denial of SSM intentionally denigrates the institution flowing from the rite thought to be ordained by God. You are not appreciating this significance.
were forced to take because of circumstances beyond their control.
I argue that in many instances, the government has created those circumstances.
Kchiker said:
My concern is that that the denial of SSM intentionally denigrates the institution flowing from the rite thought to be ordained by God. You are not appreciating this significance.
Clarify please. Are you asserting that SSM is possibly a rite ordained by God but blocked by churches?
I've heard of more bizarre rites manifest in other religions.
It certainly has more in common with "traditional marriage" than say, Peyote.
I think there is growing acceptance to SSM as a right, but SSM as a rite is far, far, less popular.
I understand your desire either for absolution or destruction (whichever it may be).
Inga said, "Ha, I'm incredibly happy gutless. Especially today! I live a great life, have great kids and grandkids, live in a gorgeous home on a gorgeous lake and dare to care for my fellow man more than the the god of money, selfishness.' It sounds like I was wrong. Sorry. It does sound like a good life.
"I think there is growing acceptance to SSM as a right, but SSM as a rite is far, far, less popular. "
Well darn. The popular religions always win.
dare to care for my fellow man more than the the god of money
Your arm must get tired patting yourself on the back for being such a good person all the time.
"My concern is that that the denial of SSM intentionally denigrates the institution flowing from the rite thought to be ordained by God. You are not appreciating this significance."
You are apparently a heathen and probably a moron.
Kchiker writes: Well darn. The popular religions always win.
I'm just suggesting that if you seek full blown equality, keep the notion of "SSM is ordained by God" out of your political arguments. It's not even a political argument.
This is primarily for Inga.
This is the information for marriage requirements for Cooks county in Illinois (just chose it randomly). You called us bigots and say we need to change but I'd like your opinion on some other restrictions .
And note, if there is a marriage restriction in place, it means that the people who don't meet the criterion CAN'T get married, and are thus denied rights. (If we are assuming marriage is a right)
Applying For A Marriage License
Before getting married in Chicago or suburban Cook County, couples must obtain a marriage license from the Cook County Clerk's office.
right off the bat, we have a restriction limiting marriage only to couples. So Inga are you pro polygamy, harems? Is the county bigoted towards polygamists for limiting marriages only to couples? Why hasn't the Democratic Party gotten ahead of history history and said this restriction be repealed. Or is it ok to restrict this? Is this the next civil right movement that must be protected. Are we bigots if we say its ok to restrict marriage to couples only? Why or why not?
Eligibility
Under Illinois law, only eligible persons can marry. Both the bride and groom must:
be 18 years of age or older well right off the bat this one is problematic since of course other places allow lower marriage requirements. But the more pressing point is, should there be an age limit at all? Why? Might that age restriction be more of a cultural decision (much like saying that marriage is between a man and a woman and not based on people's ability to a tally marriage. What if we found marriages throughout history between people much you ger than 18. Isn't imposing an age requirement then nothing but a cultural imposition? Should the next civil rights platform be protecting underage kids right to marry? Are you a bigot if you say this restriction should be imposed? do you think 17 year olds might call you a bigot? How about 16? 15? When would there objection to the restriction be bigotry or a necessary restriction. Who is deciding that and how?
be of opposite sex no more needs to be said.
not be blood relatives is this simply a cultural imposition based on cultural bigotry, or should society deprive people of the right to marry? What if siblings say you just don't understand and tht you're simply imposing bigoted cultural values on their love? Are you a bigot if you say there should be a restriction on blood relatives marrying? why not? It may be the traditional view, but maybe you are simply one of the bigoted ones who is standing in the way of meaningful change? One argument is that there could be birth defects, but this isn't the case with say gay siblings. So if they can't impregnate one another should they be restricted. Again, are you a bigot or engaging in common sense and who is deciding that?
Exceptions
Under state law, first cousins older than 50 years of age may marry. but not 49 year old first cousins? Why? Are they somehow incapable of marrying their cousin? Are 49 year old first cousins not deprived of rights which you say are absolute by not being able to marry? Are they not taxpayers. Do they not lose rights if they don't get married? are they not consenting adults? Is this bigotry, or is it common sensical and can they restrict marriage for 49 year olds at al.
-cont-
The marriage license fee is $60. not a restriction, per se, but what about people who can't afford the fee? Many people claim they can't afford ID's to vote. What if they can't afford the license? Should they not get it for free from govt just as they should get their birth control free as well? Do you hate the poor if you agree with the licensing fee?
I that's one county where I've listed various restriction for marriage that affect people other than gays. Why hasn't the Democratic Party championed these marriages? Why is opposing gay marriage an example of bigotry but opposing blood relatives from marriage not? since you ARE denying people rights in doing so. And I thought you couldn't do that. Would you call someone a bigot who opposed marriage between blood relatives. What if someone called you a gigot for opposing marriage between blood relatives.
Look, marriage is something specific. There are age requirements,sex requirements, limits on the number, limits on who can marry. And for every restriction there are people who want to marry despite that restriction. If marriage is an absolute right then you can't really have any of these restrictions at all without at least recognizing that you are restricting rights if individuals and making some relationships less equal than others. Are you ok with that in any of these cases.
Finally, suppose your two,daughters wanted to marry each other. Other than your personal objection would you find any reason to not allow it? Would you be a bigot if you had a personal objection?
There is no doubt that the tax exempt status of most main stream religions will be conditioned on performing same sex marriage ceremonies.
If you don't think that is not coming then you are just fooling yourself.
"I'm just suggesting that if you seek full blown equality, keep the notion of "SSM is ordained by God" out of your political arguments. It's not even a political argument."
The real political argument is to point and yell "Heathen". Always a crowd-pleaser.
Seriously, what is the societal benefit to publicly sanctioning gay marriage? Over time, society began to apply certain benefits to marriages because stable marriages produced healthier children upon whom society depends for its future. So, arguments about fairness aside, what benefit does society gain by treating gay marriages the same? It can't be children because only a small minority of gay couples have kids. Why not grant the same benefits to any two people who want to pool their resources? An elderly mother and caretaker child, for example. Or two friends whose individual incomes don't quite hack it.
What's love got to do with it?
The real political argument is to point and yell "Heathen". Always a crowd-pleaser.
The "heathen" part was something of a jape because of the rarity of its usage.
It was the "moron" part that actually had substance.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा