As the election gets near...

[Bill Glasheen]

I just deleted a post. George deleted quite a few last night.

By all means SPEAK YOUR MIND. But you can do so and be respectful at the same time. Posts that are personally disparaging will be deleted with little or no explanation.

I enjoy the differences of opinion here. Take a deep breath, and type over again.

Thank you for your understanding.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Why are you surprised? This is the SECOND time that California voters expressed their opinions as such.

I dunno, I guess I got carried away thinking that people would realize that we'll look back on all these constitutional amendments to treat gays as second-class citizens the same way we look back at the Japanese internment camps and feel embarrassed for systematically mistreating a whole group of perfectly reasonable people.

More realistically I thought that maybe 8 years of people realizing that gay people being married doesn't have anything to do with their own marriages. And moreover that there is no harm in letting gay people get married. Or maybe realizing that even though they think gay people are gross or whatever, that it's not their right to crap on someone else for no good reason.

Why do you think that is so?

Because people are jerks, basically.

[Bill Glasheen]

Really... we can't compare this to Japanese internment camps. We can't say we are "crapping on" gays. More and more, there are protections in the workplace. More and more, we're beginning to understand what it means (biologically and psychologically) to be gay, lesbian, or something somewhere in-between that and being completely straight. However there IS much more to learn.

And what is acceptable (or not) is varying over time. So many fear the "slippery slope" - however well (un)founded.

California is a special place. Truth be told, they are trend setters. So it should grab your attention seeing this kind of result.

I don't know how I'd vote when presented with something like this, Justin. I guess it would depend a lot on what the measure said. I have dear friends who have all kinds of sexual preferences. I'm very close with two lesbian couples who have both had children via sperm donation. I'd like to think they could get health insurance as a "family", have family-like beneficiary and medical directive rights, etc., etc. If anyone ever asked me to donate to such a cause, I would be flattered. (Maybe I'm not as good a donor as the random, anonymous medical student... )

But "marriage" has a long history. If you're just talking procreation, we don't need the piece of paper. If you're talking about a social and religious entity, well... As such, it has a history. And SOME of the institutions which wrote that history don't want a heterosexual marriage to be exactly like other kinds of unions.

Civil union with rights? Maybe that's the smarter alternative.

What is best for everyone involved? That's the answer I'm seeking in this dilemma. Right now I don't have an answer. But I understand some of the questions, concerns, and perspectives. And there are many to consider.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Really... we can't compare this to Japanese internment camps. We can't say we are "crapping on" gays.

True, it's not as bad as internment camps. It's more like anti-miscegenation laws. Embarrassingly mean-spirited and ill-conceived but admittedly not like internment camps. I'd say it's worse than anti-miscegenation laws, however, since there's no such thing as being racio-sexual (at least to my knowledge).

And SOME of the institutions which wrote that history don't want a heterosexual marriage to be exactly like other kinds of unions.

Fine, then those institutions don't have to marry gay people, problem solved. Right now I can create myself a religion that uses "sacraments" and "communion" and the Catholic church has no right to tell me that I can't use those words because those are their special words. Another church can't tell me who I can make minister of my church. Why on earth should they get to say what marriage is in my church? If there were a church of homosexuality, would it be fair for them to decide that marriage is between two individuals of the same sex and enforce that definition on me? Not remotely.

Civil union with rights? Maybe that's the smarter alternative.

I'm all for dissolving marriage as a legal construct across the board for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Let people have marriage as a personal religious/social/spiritual/whatever ceremony and let civil unions be the legal part. That's okay, that's fair and doesn't discriminate. But that's not on the ballot. What's on the ballot is a provision which strips gay couples of legal rights and protections.

There's basically two questions here:
1: Should gay couples have the same legal and social rights and protections as straight couples?
2: What should we call it when two gay people get the straight-couple benefits?

#2 is just a stupid question, I'm sorry. Legislating language? What a silly, silly thing. Computer people have long been annoyed that the word "hacker" has been coopted to mean something different from what it originally meant when they coined it. Should we adopt a constitutional amendment that states that a "hacker" is kind of programmer and a "cracker" is someone who breaks into computer systems? No, that would be utterly insane. Language changes. Get over it. Is there anyone (outside the L'Académie française) that honestly gets this freaked out about word definitions?

#1 is at least a substantive question that there's something to argue about. Personally, I think it's morally wrong to deny rights to people that way. But at least have the guts to be honest about your position.

[Bill Glasheen]

Mostly I agree.

I note a lack of mentioning about religion. Now I am not (er... no longer) a particularly religious person. But you have to believe that many Judeo-christian and Muslim organizations are lobbying against "marriage" for non-heterosexuals.

So... what to do about that? Tell them to take a hike? Our country was founded on religious principles.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This of course was penned by Thomas Jefferson. He's the same gentleman that wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that helped shape separation of church and state in our federal government.

{sigh...}

We are such an eclectic group of people in this country. Imagine having to govern them all!



FWIW, you might be interested in knowing that Joe Biden is "No on gay marriage; yes on equal treatment." (ontheissues.org) Not surprising, given his Catholic background.

Barack Obama "supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage." (About.com) Not surprising given his own religious background.

- Bill

[Gene DeMambro]

Bill,

You can't compare Barack Obama's election to the Presidency to Adolf Hitler's rise to power and then complain about Justin comparisons about gay marriage in California (and elewhere).


Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

You can't compare Barack Obama's election to the Presidency to Adolf Hitler's rise to power and then complain about Justin comparisons about gay marriage in California (and elewhere).

Not so fast.

I said being a great orator was not a qualification for being a just leader. I used Hitler as a classic example. The man could move crowds. *

I understand your confusion. But don't create a position that I don't embrace. There is no parallel here.

- Bill

* References: Shirer, William, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

[Gene DeMambro]

Thank you, Jason, for the service and sacrifice to a greatful nation.

A nation that looks forward to a promising future.

A nation that that believes those that work deserve to earn enough to support their families in the promise of a better life tomorrow.

A nation that no longer prevents the unwealthy, or minority, or females from voting.

Gene

[Gene DeMambro]

Well, I noticed that you didn't compare Obama's oratory to FDR, or JFK or Reagan, or Churchill - all equally skilled in moving crowds. If there is confusion, maybe because that's what you intended.

Gene

[Gene DeMambro]

We don't tell those who disagree with our law on religious grounds to take a hike. We give them reasonable accomodations (exemptions for compulsory vaccinations, for example) where rational. But, we also expect them to follow and respect the laws, whether they agree with them or not.

Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

Well, I noticed that you didn't compare Obama's oratory to FDR, or JFK or Reagan, or Churchill - all equally skilled in moving crowds. If there is confusion, maybe because that's what you intended.

1) The other gentlemen had longer resumes against which to judge them. Barack is a blank slate.

2) Obama is in a class all his own. The man is amazing... and yet he says nothing. (My dad was an extemporaneous speaking coach. I know a little something about the subject.) I love listening to Obama to see how he does what he does.

Like Aretha and her music, I'm convinced Barack got some of his oratory skills from church.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

Hmm. Bill did insinuate that Obama was a socialist, and also declared socialism was a synonym for fascism, specifically the Nazi version. You may be on to something, Gene.

I wonder how Obama did with the Neo-Nazi voters.

[Gene DeMambro]

Not quite sure I saw any demographic data on that, but I guess anything is possible.

Gene

[Valkenar]

Now I am not (er... no longer) a particularly religious person. But you have to believe that many Judeo-christian and Muslim organizations are lobbying against "marriage" for non-heterosexuals.

So... what to do about that? Tell them to take a hike?

I try not to harp on religion unless it's really relevant. But yes, I recognize the role religion plays.

As to what to do about that? Well I would break it down into the two questions I mentioned before.

To the extent that they genuinely care about the word marriage, fine, let's work out a compromise where the state never uses the word marriage and therefore "gay marriage" is never an issue as such.

If they just want to persecute a group of people based on who they are I'd start by appealing to their sense of American idealism that in this country we give people the freedom to live their lives as they see fit unless we have a very good reason to interfere. I'd point out that we allow them to live according to their own principles in their own lives and don't allow gay people or anyone else to dictate what they. I'd work on getting them to see gay marriage in the general context of individual freedoms. I think most religious people are amenable to a golden rule argument... live and let live as you put it. I wouldn't bother trying to convince them that it's okay to be gay, just that it's not their place to sit in judgment or decide for other people.

But ultimately, yes, they may need to take a hike if they insist on trying to legislation discrimination. Religious conviction does not excuse immorality. Whether or not this country was founded on religious principles, we should never tolerate injustice simply because it has religious backing.

Edit:
I actually read a piece that featured some statements from a few white supremacists on their views towards Obama. I can't vouch for the veracity or representativeness of these views, but these particular racists preferred Obama because they think that he is a racist and they think it's good for their cause to have people more racially conscious in general. Also they seemed to think having a black supremacist in power would motivate the caucasian population towards white pride. Again, maybe I got duped and this was a joke piece and I missed the joke. Take it with a lot of salt, but I found it sort of interesting.

[Bill Glasheen]

Edit:
I actually read a piece that featured some statements from a few white supremacists on their views towards Obama. I can't vouch for the veracity or representativeness of these views, but these particular racists preferred Obama because they think that he is a racist and they think it's good for their cause to have people more racially conscious in general. Also they seemed to think having a black supremacist in power would motivate the caucasian population towards white pride. Again, maybe I got duped and this was a joke piece and I missed the joke. Take it with a lot of salt, but I found it sort of interesting.

Who knows what the white supremacists think... I'm not their keeper, so what-ever.

I think having Obama as president - from a racial point of view - is a good thing because race becomes a non-issue. That's what I'm hoping anyhow. So far so good. I'm not so sure that most people thought about voting for a "black" presidential candidate. And quite frankly, I'm tired of a handful of crackpots thinking that they speak for all people of one race. It's downright... racist! Do all "white" people think alike? Why should all people of any race do the same?

Ethnic pride? Yes. One race, one party? Forgetaboutit. (Condi Rice anyone?)

Done. Finished. Behind us.

Next issue!

- Bill