Hate Under Wraps
As I was walking toward the polling place, I saw an old Chinese woman standing out front on the sidewalk, and she had a Yes on 8 banner wrapped around her waist. It was like the bigoted version of wrapping yourself in the flag.
As I approached her, she saw that I wanted to say something, so she started heading my way. She may be a bigot, but she’s an optimistic bigot!
Once I was within earshot, I said “Why do you hate other people so much?”
She stopped short and said “I don’t hate anybody!”
I’m very tall, and she was very short (maybe five feet). I think once she realized that I disagreed with her, she wanted to stay a safe distance away. Maybe her initial impression was that I was a large, lovable, like-minded bigot, but now she perceived me as an imposing, threatening, radical, terrorist-loving community organizer. A personified liberal ivory tower, as it were.
“Then why are you promoting that hate initiative?”, I said.
“This is about marriage!”
“You’re trying to deprive some people of their civil rights.”
“Marriage is not a right!” Yes, she really said that. I’m guessing I had flustered her, because that statement makes no sense.
I said “The state constitution guarantees the rights of all people to marry.”
“Pffft! The constitution!” Yes, she really said that too. “What does the constitution say?”
“It says that rights and privileges granted to one person must be granted to all. You’re trying to take away those rights from five percent of the population.”
“One percent! It’s one percent!”
“So it’s OK to discriminate against any group that makes up less than one percent of the population?”
“Let me tell you something. In 2000, 60% of Californians voted to make marriage only between a man and a woman. Then four judges threw that away!”
“Yes. They were protecting the constitution.”
“They overturned the will of the people! Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It was that way in ancient China.”
“This isn’t China.”
“It was that way in England. That’s the way it has always been in civilization!”
I looked around and said “This looks like civilization to me, and right now gay marriage is perfectly legal. It looks like civilization has survived.”
She said “God bless you,” and turned and walked away.
I went inside. While I was voting, I heard a couple of people complaining about the woman outside. The poll worker said that originally she had been standing just outside the door, and they told her that she had to be at least 100 feet away. When I saw her on the sidewalk, she probably was almost 100 feet away. The poll worker said “She’s been roaming the parking lot, too. If she keeps that up, I’m calling the cops!”
When I left, I was looking forward to talking to her again, but she was nowhere to be seen. I think she was afraid of me and was hiding until I left. It’s too bad I had to go to work today. It would have been fun to hang out there the rest of the day and talk to my new friend.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I’m doing this for the no on 8 campaign today. We’re very organized and even have a copy of the letter from Secretary Of State Bowen clarifying the 100ft rule which has come in handy.
A large majority of people are very supportive, and there are no yes on 8 supporters.
Interestingly enough I talked to an orthodox Jewish man with an Irish accent who said he was voting yes. We actually had a rather lengthy discussion and after I shot down all his arguments one after the other it boiled down to “I don’t want my 4 kids to grow up in a world where a man can marry a man, it’s against my religion”.
I told him it was statistically probable that one of his kids would grow up to be gay, and that I hoped he would not regret his choice to amend the constitution, which is for all people, to fit his personal interpretation of his religion. Oh yeah, I also asked him if he would be in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban shellfish
I’m a nervous wreck, but the outpouring of support is wonderful.
Peace,
E
November 4th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
What the hell is with old Chinese women and Prop 8? Some old biddy tried to give me a Yes on 8 flyer in front of 99 Ranch (an Asian supermarket, and do NOT fuck with me when I’m stocking up on Pocky and flying fish roe) on Sunday. I took it, then wadded it up and threw it in the trash, maintaining eye contact with her the whole time. She turned about 97 different shades of red, and probably wanted to cuss me out but didn’t speak enough English.
Anyway, I actually came here because I was wondering if you saw this article about Nathan Phelps. Yes, of THOSE Phelps. The VERY FIRST comment is from Shirley Phelps-Roper. Aww, they taught her how to use “the Google” in whatever Cracker Jack college she pulled her law degree out of!
November 4th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Sarah:
I almost didn’t mention that she was Chinese, but I thought it might have somehow have been the reason she thought that mentioning that “traditional marriage” goes all the way back to ancient China would impress me. What I should have said was “Well, the ancient Chinese invented everything else, they probably invented gay marriage, too!”
The other thing I’ve noticed over the years is that immigrants, broadly speaking, tend to be conservative.
I did read that article. Fred Phelps is an even bigger monster than I realized. It’s fascinating that he was able to pass along his mental illness to his daughter. I guess if you’re subjected to something long enough, it doesn’t matter how self-destructive it is, you’ll eventually adopt it yourself.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
From what I can tell in the polls right now gay marriage is safe in California for now.
Up here in Chicago it was pure pandemonium in the best sense of the word. My husband and I wandered down to Grant Park…there was probably well over a million people wandering around. We weren’t able to get tickets to the rally itself but we stood outside of Grant Park watching the big screens.
Obama’s speech brought me to tears. I like to try to keep myself an arm’s length from politics but I really feel there is hope for the future with this guy in office.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Sorry. As of now, the bigots are winning big.
Well things are looking a lot better than they were even a month ago. If you look through the older posts, you’ll see some that are pretty depressing. Somehow we overcame the worst elements of human nature and stand a chance of saving this country after all.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:18 am
As an American, and as a human being, I am disappointed, saddened, offended and just plain fucking pissed off that this tip of the hat to medieval religious bigotry was codified into California’s Constitution. So now I suppose that thousands of same-sex couples who married legally are to be told by people they have never before met that their rights are to be abrogated, their marriages annulled, and their equality as persons is once again in question.
I felt a lump in my throat last night at 11pm when Obama’s win was called, and the reactions across the country were all about hope and optimism. I was proud of my country. I wanted to savor the moment.
And then this. As if I needed another reason to despise religion and what it does to people. As America truly moved into the 21st century, part of it regressed to the 16th century. I don’t know how long this fucking thing will stand, but every goddamned day is one day too long.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:37 am
As far as we’ve come for racial equality is as far as we have left to go for our homosexual brothers and sisters. I am absolutely elated about Obama’s LANDSLIDE and that my great state of NC is very close to giving Obama our electoral votes, and that I now have a blue senator, still have a blue governor, and our state is adding one more blue house rep. But, I’m equally saddened that something as disgusting as Prop 8 in Cali (and every other variation of prop 8 elsewhere) are likely going to pass. (At least all the draconian anti-abortion ballot measures EPIC FAILED.)
It really goes to show that as far as we, as liberals, have come to convincing the country our way will make life better for everybody economically, we still have a LOOOOONG way to go for gay rights.
However, don’t ignore the exit polls. The under-30 crowd voted OVERWHELMINGLY for every progressive agenda on the menu, including striking down prop 8.
The kids are alright.
Our path is more clear than ever. We now have great politcal clout. Don’t stop now. Write your reps and hold them accountable. Donate to good progressive candidates. Protest. Help somebody shake off the shackles of their church.
WE CAN DO IT. YES WE CAN. YES WE WILL.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Yike…when I got home last night the souce I checked still showed a narrow victory. How truly dissapointing…but hopefully, this won’t last more than part of a generation. I have a lot of hope for the youth today…and frankly, when the older generation starts dying out I think we’ll start seeing a lot of social changes in this country that not even the fundies can stop.
Then again, I might be saying that since I’m still on an Obama high.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:42 am
P.S. I think the “civil union” approach would pass overwhelmingly in many states, including California. So it might be a good idea to start there in the future. It is a “separate but equal” solution (which I hate), but it’s far better than “no equal.” If they can’t be “married,” homosexual couples should at least be able to benefit from tax equality, next of kin, hospital visitation rights, etc.
For some reason, more people support that scenario than support marriage equality — even our beloved President Elect.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:32 am
I think Obama leans on the “civil unions” idea as a political measure- recognizing that there may be more support in the idea initially if they put a different name on. I certainly am not a mind-reader but it certainly has been a scenario of other politicians. I personally dislike it because it makes a distinction between “real marriages” and “those gays” but… well, after this amendment passage and similar laws passing in other states… we may have to take what we can get.
I’m balancing out my anger at this passage by looking at the fact that it seems parental notification for abortion did not pass, nor did the “egg as person” amendment in Colorado, and the abortion restrictions in South Dakota. Here in my home state we became only the second in the US to pass a “Death with Dignity” law with a great deal more support than I had foreseen. With the significant win by President-Elect Obama just maybe there’s still hope.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I think I am beginning to change my opinion on gay marriage. I comment on a prevoius post pretty strongly in favor of it. Now I’m not so sure that federal and state governments should recognize gay marriage. (Let me finish, let me finish., stop throwing things….)
I’m beginning to think that government should stop recognizing any marriage at all. If a couple wants the legal benefits traditionally given to “married” couples, they should register their civil union with the state. Of course, this civil union would be available to both mixed- and same-sex couples. If a couple wanted to be married, they could have any sort of commitment ceremony they wanted. A High Catholic Mass, a naked Wiccan joining, standing in a hotel garden in front of your friends and family and being joined by a man who got his ordination from those ads in the back of Rolling Stone magazine (which is what my wife and I did.)
I’m still not sure if this is exactly how I feel. It’s a notion in progress.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
OtherRob:
It’s the separate-but-equal thing that bothers me. It was wrong in the 1950s. It’s wrong now. I’m not “married” (groan) to any particular solution, as long as we end up treating all Americans equally under the law.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
No, I don’t believe in separate-but-equal either. Because, of course, it never is equal. And if it seemed like I was advocating some sort of separate-but-equal marriage for same-sex couples, then I apologize for not explaining my potential position clearly.
I’m considering the idea that government should just stop recognizing any marriage at all. If a couple — gay or straight — want the legal rights currently available only to straight married couples, they can register their “civil union” with their state. And if a couple wanted to “get married”, then they may engage in any kind of commitment ceremony they want. Now, of course, some religious groups will never perform same-sex ceremonies no matter what the law. But that’s always going to be the case and same-sex couples already have plenty of options for a “commitment ceremony.”
Oh, and I should add, our “preacher” was approved by a “higher authority” than the church in the back of Rolling Stone. My then-fiance and I met with him and really liked him a lot. But what convinced us that he was the right person for the job was that we both noticed that he was wearing a Mickey Mouse watch.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Our preacher is facing charges stemming from his traffic stop and the 500 lbs of marijuana he was inexplicably towing in a trailer behind his car.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
It was probably just for personal use.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
OtherRob, there is such a thing as “civil union” already. It’s what the state calls marriage, and it’s defined as a contract between two parties. The fact that religious institutions use the same word and can be deputized to perform the recording of the contract simultaneously to a religious ceremony has only served to cloud people’s mind into believing marriage was a religious institution. It’s not. Maybe we should not allow religious institutions to perform civil marriages anymore, that would be the fair thing to do. That’s the way it works in France; people who want to get a religious wedding have to have two ceremonies, a civil one usually at the town hall, and a separate religious one. Fat chance of getting that passed…
November 5th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I came across this interesting information, it’s worth a shot if you have five minutes to waste… Pass it along!
To report the LDS Church to the IRS, simply take 5 minutes to print these articles out and any others you can find:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10839546
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051
Then print and fill out http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf
List the taxpayer as:
Thomas S. Monson, et al
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
List his occupation as President and the business as the ridiculously full name of the church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) at the same address.
Check the boxes for False Exemption and Public/Political Corruption.
Then in the Comments section demand that the LDS Church be fined and their tax-exempt status revoked for repeated and blatant violations of the IRS’s separate of church and state rules, and for conspiring to interfere with a state’s political process.
Check Yes under “Are books/records available?” and write in “campaign finance records.”
You don’t have to provide any of your own personal info. Mail the form and the printed articles to:
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888
November 6th, 2008 at 6:37 am
ericsan – you are right that we’re mincing words, but the point of that, in my opinion, is to show just how silly they are being by having separate “real” and “gay” marriages. One of the biggest scare tactics used by the bigot crowd is “the gubment is going to force your church to marry the gheys! YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!” Well, get rid of the state’s power to marry at all and let the churches do their thing and everybody is happy. The state then replaces marriage with *cough* not marriage civil unions *cough* and we’re done.
It won’t ever happen for many, many reasons, but it’s an interesting thought experiment and a fun wrench to throw into a fundie’s argument when discussing this topic.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:38 am
TheRealistMom – I’m not entirely convinced Obama secretly supports gay marriage. He’s very religious and religion is a huge obstacle to equality. I hope the irony does not escape him.
I still love Obama, but that’s a big fault of his. Maybe he’ll come around. I hope so.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:41 am
ericsan – actually it escaped me at first, but the French system is precisely what we are talking about (I think). The “state” version is the civil union. You do that and then you can optionally have the relgious (or non-religious) marriage party thing with no state powers vested in the clergy’s administration over it.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Here’s a fairly large list of how Obama views gay rights with some issue specific quotes:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:12 am
ParrotLover, I think you missed my point: we CURRENTLY have the same system as the French. The only difference is that in the U.S. the government grants third parties (such as churches, but also parachute-jumping Elvis impersonators) the right to perform the registration on behalf of the state, which has led to a confusion between religious and civil marriage. Most people you ask in the street would probably not know there is a difference, because religious institutions have been very crafty at leveraging this power from the state.
All I’m saying is, revoke their privilege. Make people go to both places, and make religious weddings have no meaning to the state other than religious. That would drive the point home. Then again, I don’t see how this could be achieved
November 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
What, exactly, does 100 feet from a polling place mean?
Is it from the nearest voting machine, from the door? It obviously doesn’t mean 100 feet from the property since I’ve seen quite a bit of campaign activity in the parking lots and on the front lawns of several polling places.
Strikes me that the nation could use some clarification.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
@Thomas: it’s a state regulation. The electoral code states “100 feet from the polling place” and the Secretary Of State Debra Bowen issued a letter stating that for this purpose it was to be interpreted “100 feet from the room or room where voters sign in.”
Unfortunately, that’s still not clear enough. The place we were picketing had polling upstairs and we were 100 feet from that room… if you count the stairs. I had to deal with my share of jesus freaks spitting at me that I was too close, and took it up immediately with the election officials. The lady in the morning shift came to verify, I showed her the letter and she agreed. The polling inspector who came later wouldn’t hear about it, and since his decision was final… we got pushed back big time. Whether our action was any use is highly debatable, anyway.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
102 passed here…Bleh.
I love how people are fighting so hard to protect a WORD. Of course, said word is just an excuse to keep the ‘homosexual agenda’ out of their churches, but I digress.
As for Obama…not a huge fan seeing as most of his policies are basically McCain’s slightly modified. I’m glad for the racial break through at the oval office, but outside of that, eh.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Sarah, the crazy thing is that
1) it’s a word that does not belong to them in the first place: it refers to marriage as a civil contract as defined in the state’s legislation
2) we don’t want anything to do with their stupid churches, why would we want to mingle with such hideous people to begin with?
As for Obama, I think you’re a little harsh although you’re probably not that far from the truth. His health care plan particularly is fairly weak compared to Clinton’s.
But what you should keep in mind is that the regime of corruption and nepotism is finally over. Obama may introduce one of his own, but he would need decades to reach the level of corruption achieved by this administration. Just for that, anybody should be happy to see him in the whitehouse.
November 7th, 2008 at 5:55 am
I agree. I think we’ve been on the same page all along, just described it in different terms.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Seriously? Have you actually read either of their plans? The contrasts are gigantic!
Take health care for example.
Obama supports the right of everybody to have health care. He proposes a hybrid nationalized system where most people are provided for through their employer and incentives are granted in the form of tax breaks to companies to offer more insurance policies. Non-employed individuals can opt-in to a “medicare for all” type of system which is modeled after the government’s own health care program. (I believe, but I’m not 100% sure, that anybody can opt-in to that program, should they choose.) Additionally, regulations are modified to force insurance companies to insure everybody and remove the “pre-existing condition” clauses. There’s more, but that’s the oversimplified version. Ericsan is right in that Clinton’s health care plan was better, but it’s still a wonderful start. It’s incredibly difficult to do a massive paradigm shift in a single take, so arguably going with Obama’s “Hillarycare Light” proposal might be a better start, then four years later we can augment it again to be closer to, say, a Kusinich plan, which IMHO is best.
McCain proposes altering the current system such that any insurer in any state can compete with each other (his favorite part of the proposal), but this would bypass state-level regulations and would allow only states with the least regulatory protections to offer the most affordable plans. He also proposes a refundable tax credit to allow families to choose their own plan. However, it is massively underestimated. $2500/person or $5000/family does not even begin to cover health expenses for anybody over the age of 18. Otherwise, it’s the same exact system as we have now. There are no protections to ensure that everybody can receive health care when they need it. His plan still relies heavily on ER treatment if you can’t afford health care.
Only slightly modified? Not the way I see it.
The only thing they agree on (and it was easy to see during the debates) was, back on topic, gay marriage! They both opposed it and supported civil unions. Nothing else between them is even close to being the same.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
There was me thinking I’d moved to a progressive, modern state. Being from the UK, we’ve allowed gay marriage since 2005. And they call us conservative? As far as I’m aware British civilization remains and we have a lot of very happy same-sex weddings going on. To deprive a minority of a right the majority has always enjoyed is a step back into the Dark Ages.
For the first time since being in the US, I am ashamed to say I live in California.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
You’re right Parrotlover77.
Check out Obama’s stance on science and education. Compare it with McCain’s. You can sleep soundly now.
McCain’s attitude to space travel alone was (in a nutshell): ‘We go to Mars! What? NASA is under-performing? Cut their budget even more. Still no Mars? Cancel the space program, the public isn’t getting their money’s worth.’
Don’t get me started on Palin – she’s too much of an easy target.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I’ve been seeing a lot of pundits lately debating what it will take for the GOP to successfully regroup after this election. It was interesting to see responses to “it’s fine as it is…run Palin in 2012 and she’ll win.”
Despite the dissapointment over Proposition 8, I tend to think that people of my generation (people under 30) are much more diverse (as well as are more comfortable with diversity), and are more socially liberal than the older generations. I do worry about fundie reproduction, but as I thought of it more they would have to do a lot of catching up and would have to fight against immigration.
I really think the GOP as we know it is going to die out. I really have a lot of hope in my generation and those who are younger eventually to turn around these amendments prohibiting gay marriage. It might not happen now or even in 10 years, but I think I will see full constitutional rights for gays in my lifetime. The fundies will always be around, but I really think that the way they are fighting and complaining shows their desperation. They realize that year by year they are becoming less and less relevant and they are going down with a fight. Maybe with the election I’m feeling more optimistic than usual (or more than I should be) but the fact that Obama won with as large of a margin as he has won by gives me hope for the future.
November 7th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Three days later I am still seething over this goddamned initiative, and I’m not even gay! For all of the talk from conservatives claiming they’re for freedom and liberty, no one should be under the illusion that they mean that for anyone but themselves. Whenever they prattle on and on about the dangers of government intrusion into our lives, they blithely ignore their own urge to regulate our most private of activities. This is not the only reason the GOP was bitch-slapped into the next decade on Tuesday, but their cruel hypocrisy certainly played a role in it.
The “sanctity of marriage” defense is without question one of the lamest fucking arguments social conservatives make. They make it seem as if any state in which gays can legally marry will force heterosexuals into gay relationships. They argue as if there is a finite quantity of precious marriage licenses of which homosexuals will deprive god-fearing Christians. They claim children will be taught how to be gay. Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ. I know Christians can be credulous, ignorant rubes, but this is ridiculous.
They even claim that marriage, as they so narrowly define it, has been around for thousands of years, even though the notion of consenting marriage, in which the woman may choose her own husband, without the unhelpful input of male elders in her family, has only existed for barely a century in the western world. Sadly, most of the underdeveloped parts of the world still resort to cruder methods of matchmaking.
If nothing else, Prop “Hate” is a shining example of what happens when we allow mob rule to decide constitutional issues. Who reading this gives a monkey crap what other people think about whatever relationship you choose to be a part of? Should complete strangers be allowed to dictate to you the parameters in which you may legally love another person? We’ve been down this ugly road before with interracial marriage, and the country is still here. Massachusetts hasn’t been smited off the face of the earth by an ignorant, spiteful deity. This is precisely why we have a judicial system capable of reigning in the ignorant mass’s more ignorant impulses.
There is no good argument against same-sex marriage. Only the vile stench of religion and the hate it thrives on keeps this issue alive. As long as humans continue to embrace our fears, stupidity will always have a place to call home: church.
November 7th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Parrotlover: But outside of health care and science funding/education, I haven’t seen that many differences between the proposals on their websites and in the magazines featuring their positions. Now health care is a HUGE topic which will effect millions of Americans, but it is still only one stance among many that needs to be taken.
I’m not saying that McCain would be a better choice, but that Obama is not really the ‘change’ guy we’ve made him out to be. Obama is definitely better in several ways (breaking the racial barrier being one of them) but when looking at the fine print, they are practically one in the same comparing them against all of the minor party front runners.
Ericsan: I know, it was mostly just biting sarcasm from me at the time of the post. I’m ticked off and depressed about many a thing. 102 being one of them because most of my friends are bisexual and dating people of the same sex. We are only 16-18 but still…
That was what disappointed me about this election. I did love hearing Obama speak and no doubt he will do a better job than McCain in various areas, but looking at their props and trying to choose based on those stances? I swear, if McCain hadn’t been a retard and chose Palin for his V.P. I might have actually had to think about my non-existent vote.
Really, the only difference I could see was basically presentation from the media. I mostly watch Hardball and flip on Fox to laugh at the anchors so not much diversity there. Basically, Obama was going to ‘change’ the country using the same methods as McCain? Wow…thank you news media.
I have to say that I do find it amusing to see my d.A. account FLOODED with journals either titled “SQUEE OBAMA!” or “DAMNITALL! I’m moving to Canada!” I remember the last election practically passed without any raised heads.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Sarah: it’s OK, I know what you meant, and believe me, it’s knowing that there are wonderful young people like you that keeps me going.
I don’t necessarily believe that Obama is going to usher in a sea of change, partly because he’s inheriting a country in shambles, partly because he’s really a fairly conservative guy.
However, the real reason to celebrate is the sweeping removal of the corrupt leadership we’ve had for 8 years.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Amen to that XD
November 8th, 2008 at 11:36 am
ericsan:
I suspect that you and I pretty much agree on these things and that the differences you were talking about are mostly semantic. The important point is that we both agree that whatever system of marriage/civil union/domestic partnership we have, it be available equally to mixed- and same-sex couples.
Lindsay:
I strongly suspect that you are right and that the “kids today” are much more open to the idea than their elders. Never trust anyone over 60.
Frankly, I would like to see the Republican party split into two different parties, with the libertarian/fiscal conservatives in one and the religious/social conservatives in another.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Absolutely — I’m arguing these points because I think it’s important to respect their accurate definition and not concede any point to the religious right; they don’t own the word marriage, and I won’t let them get away with taking it over. But I also know I’m here among friends, so if I ever come across as grumpy or pissed off, just don’t take it personally, OK? It’s been a serious emotional rollercoaster for me here these past few weeks. Please believe that I appreciate your kindness and support.
Also, about the Republican party: I had an argument with a friend lately, who said she was a Republican because of her “fiscally conservative” views and her Vietnamese heritage, having fled a totalitarian regime, but she voted against Prop 8 and for Obama. And I was thinking: so exactly what, pray tell, makes you a Republican? When the Democratic party becomes so center-right that it can’t be bothered to mention the poor and the needy (Obama’s speeches constantly refer to the “squeezed out” middle class, but I never heard a peep about the working poor or the unemployed/unemployable), and the Republican party consistently does the very opposite of what it claims its tenets are (small government, no government interference, lower taxes…) and a painful reality check drives home the point that its “self-regulating market” is as unrealistic a concept as Marx’s theories, what really does it mean to be a Republican? Or a Democrat, for that matter.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
If it weren’t for religion, there would be no homophobia. With that in mind, I thought this was as good a time as any to share this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReYfDlIa-Z8
November 9th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
How about Iraq (forever versus let’s get the hell out of there in a year)? How about Iran (bomb the fuck outta them versus real diplomacy)? How about any other country in the middle east (mccain loves him some wars, obama does not)? How about the environment (LCV’s McCain scorecard and Obama’s scorecard)? How about energy independence (drill, baby, drill versus new clean technology)? How about taxes (tax breaks for the middle class versus tax breaks for the uberwealthy)? Do you need more examples?
I mean I really do respect difference of opinion. When the republicans at work tell me why they like mccain and give examples, i may disagree with their priorities, but i respect it. But when somebody says “there is no difference” i flip out.
obviously! 
November 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
And that’s the reason I’m not a Republican and why I’d like to see the party split into two factions as I mentioned above.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:33 am
OtherRob – I agree. I think a split Republican Party will end up being good for everyone in the end. And not just because I’m a mega-bleeding-heart-librul. A friend at work is a libertarian and damn, I swear when we discuss politics it just makes sense. We start out with a difference of opinion and gradually end up with some sort of compromise that we both are okay with. Then there’s the die-hard Republican friend at work. We never get anywhere. Lol.
A split would ensure Democratic domination of a lot of parts of government initially, because a single liberal party and a split conservative party will just do that unless we get instant run-off voting. The problem is that this will inevitably lead to massive corruption in the Democratic party. I don’t want to see that. But hopefully the sane non-fundie conservatives will come to sufficient power to keep the Democrats honest.
Ahh, well we can dream… Casting off the fundies… Removing the invocation of god and faith every two seconds in every speech…
November 13th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Sarah,
I graduated from the same college the entire Phelps klan came out of. They’re actually an assemblage of very intelligent individuals, which makes their work even more frightening. Just remember: although they may have convinced themselves of the rhetoric they spew, the movement started as a desperate ploy for attention. But yeah, Washburn University wasn’t that bad.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Everyone voted for Obama for change, now let’s watch him like we should have done with the last guy. We gave him power so he can give it back to us. We have to pay attention and make sure it done right. We say “i’m gonna do this…” and government says “well, looks like you won’t impinge on anybody’s right to life, liberty or property, some may get offended, but no one is hurt or in any real danger except for maybe yourself, so be careful and have a good one.”
November 13th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
In my opinion, Forbidding same-sex couples to marry is often rationalized via the hypocritical embrace of Biblical literalism, but the root concern that these people have is protection from ideas which seem to threaten their social isolation. They’re fighting gay marriage because they are genuinely unnerved by the thought of tolerating it or ignoring it. It is against everything they believe in (i.e. that everyone should act as they act, because that’s how their social world works–conformity is social cohesion, which provides a safety net against a world that, they perceive, has isolated them)
November 14th, 2008 at 5:57 am
“…let’s watch him like we should have done with the last guy…”
Who’s the “we” in that sentence, exactly? Many, oh so many, complained loudly about Dubya.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:58 am
You might like to point out to her that the UK has had civil partnerships since 2004 =]
November 14th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Let me preface this by saying I’m all for letting gay couples enjoy the same benefits as hetero couples including marriage. BUT, to me marriage is not a right any more than buying a slushie is a right. Marriage is an institution created by religions, I’m not even sure we’re genetically meant to be monogamous, but I like the idea. So as long as we live in a country where Judeo-Christian theology drives law making and the vast majority of the voters follow that philosophy, there will be issues like this. That’s why I like the fact that it was left to the voters. If enough people support an issue so as to amend a constitution then that’s the way they want it. When more people support repealing it, then repeal it. Your argument about the four judges protecting the constitution is fine, except on November 4th, the people voted to change the constitution thereby nullifying those judges decision.
Again, I don’t agree with Prop 8, but the people of that state have spoken and if you don’t like how they voted, beat feet and find a more accepting place, or drum up support for your side and get the amendment repealed in the next election. That’s the beautiful thing about Democracies, nothing is permanent.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Daniel,
I agree with much of what you said, especially whether we’re evolved to be monogamous or not. That’s a great question worthy of further study. I do, however, take issue with your assertion that the best resolution to an issue like same-sex marriage must come from voters.
In a democracy, most of the time the electorate gets it right. As much as I’ve bitched and moaned here about how stupid our fellow citizens can be, the truth is more often than not we, as the voting public, usually make good decisions, with a few notable, regrettable exceptions. Prop 8 is one such exception. This is something that never should have been subject to a public referendum. Since when has it made perfect sense for individual rights, which infringe upon no one and cause no harm, to be subject to the whims of voters? No individual or group was threatened in any way by same-sex marriage, so its not as if a greater public good existed to trump the rights of gays and lesbians.
This measure was driven by one thing, and one thing only: religious bigotry. I make this point not to argue that religious people ought not have a voice in how their country runs, but to illustrate that human prejudice comes in many forms, and that it is always devoid of an intellectual and rational foundation. I would make the same assertion if Prop 8 sought to revoke the rights of Christians to go to whichever church they preferred. I despise religion and all that it has done to debase and belittle the species I belong to, but for all that, another person’s right to believe trumps my disapproval, no matter how right I might believe myself to be. How can a matter of marriage be any different?
Not so many decades ago, most Americans thought the marriage of a Caucasian to an African-American was sufficiently wrong to merit laws in several states forbidding the practice outright. Today only the most minuscule fraction of Americans hold this view. Knowing what we know today, would it seem appropriate to you to put an initiative on the ballot outlawing interracial marriage if an aggrieved group of people could muster a sufficient number of signatures? If such a measure could somehow pass, would you still be so sanguine about the results, comforted perhaps in the knowledge that, if nothing else, democracy had spoken? If the Judeo-Christian theology you spoke of contrived some means of screening your own personal choice of a mate through its narrowly defined filter of morality, and found that person (or persons) unworthy and unacceptable, and most of the country agreed with it to the point of codifying it in the Constitution, how would that sit with you? How is that any different from the latest example of mob rule in California last week?
November 15th, 2008 at 7:21 am
This writer is keeps calling this woman a bigot for being intolerant of a gay marriage. And yet it seems to me that he is being intolerant of her intolerance, which, would mean he is a bigot.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Mike, that is an inane statement. Why should anyone put up with intolerance. If a group of people disliked everyone named Mike and tried to deny every Mike on earth his/her rights, would you tolerate that behavior?
November 16th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Lindsey, first, you are missing the principle. It’s not inane. Its logic. The definition of a bigot is one who thinks their opinion is superior to everyone else’s. Since the author is telling this lady that her view is wrong and his view is correct, he is expressing bigotry in its very definition. This is the problem with postmodern thought: it says, “I will be tolerant of everything, except intolerance.” Now this is inane.
You asked, “Why should anyone put up with intolerance?” Well, why should I put up with your intolerance of my view? Do you not see that this view is an argument that goes in circles. To think not is to not understand the principle.
Second, what does the word, “tolerate” mean? In essence, it means, “to put up with.” Notice it isn’t the word, “accept.” So, is it not valid then to disagree, but not accept?
Third, disagreeing with the gay marriage movement should not make proponents rush to believe that opposers “hate” gay people. This is ridiculous! Is it not possible to disagree with someone and love them at the same time? If my kid was doing something that I disagreed with, I still love him, and if his behavior is doing something that is harmful to him, I am going to do my best to prevent him from doing that (yes, I realize what I just said about my view). If someone was in bondage to bestiality wouldn’t we try to lovingly restore him out of the habit? Though that is a sick analogy, we know that it is a distortion of the created order and should be restored to normalcy through love and accountability. However, if we want to keep with the modern mindset, shouldn’t we rather say, “Doesn’t he/she have the right to love anything they want?” Therefore, we must create boundaries…
November 17th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Herein lies the problem: Ron’s disdain of the anti-gay marriage proponents is not depriving those people of their rights. He, nor anyone on here would supress yours or anyone’s freedom of speech. Basically, I don’t care if you don’t like gay marriage or even broccoli or redheads. However anti-gay marriage proponents are actively denying the rights ofgays based only on biblical principle…not one based on modern secular thought (of which our government is supposed to be based on).
I don’t care if a church will or won’t marry a couple…it is the church’s right to decide how they run their congregation. I hope the attitude changes over time but it likely won’t anytime soon. But churchs…much less any set of religious beliefs…making public political efforts (as the Mormon church did) to influence law by using scare tactics on voters should not be tolerated by anyone who considers themself a supporter of modern American democracy.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:39 am
wut?
Please tell me you are not making the “gheyness is a mental illness” or the “gheyness can be corrected by [insert deity]‘s love” or (worst of all) the “slipper slope” argument.
Beastiality is incredibly rare and is almost always accompanied by some other sort of recognizable mental illness. In other words, the subject would likely be recognized to be mentally ill and should receive treatment even without the beastiality component.
The same argument is not true for homosexuality. Homosexuality occurs without any mental illness. In fact, denying one’s homosexuality and attempting to lead a heterosexual life can lead to mental illness.
All that being said, the reason our country is a republic and not a democracy is because unfettered democracy with no checks and balances would not be an ideal society for most people. At some point, we have to defer our expertise to somebody else (a representative) who has the time to research the position and make laws on our behalf. In addition, we have the judiciary to further put a check on the legislature because sometimes the majority of people are just, frankly, wrong, as Brian to eloquently put it with the parallels to interracial marriage from not so long ago.