Conventions in a nutshell:
Democrats: Their speeches resonated with me, elucidating the problems facing this country, the causes, and the solutions. It's the same resonating talk I hear when Obama speaks. Unfortunately, I'm old enough to realize that this great talk won't result in much. The Democrats know the problems but will lack the will and ability to do much about it. Soft on the outside, empty on the inside.
Republicans: Cynical as hell, with a denial of serious problems in this country and belittling of those who solve problems in ways different than their own. Socially hypocritical, featuring a frighteningly inexperienced vice presidential candidate who is a poster child of failed Republican social program, such as teaching kids abstinence. In some states (like California) her daughters 18 year old boyfriend, flown in from Alaska for the event, would be charged with rape. Oh golly, what a portrait of family values. Lots of flag waving and patriotic talk, because only Republicans love their country. Hard on the outside, empty on the inside.
Well, strictly by your analysis, they are opposites, which is as they should be. They don't make everyone happy, but that is impossible anyway.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Palin was not the most appropriate choice. But who cares? Either way, we have to choose between the lesser of two evils again, whatever they may be to any given person. Again, nothing new.
Change seems to be a popular topic this time around. Change is inevitable, sure, but what can either do in the first 100 days of office? With the country so divided, probably not much.
There's actually a two year "window of opportunity" in California - so an 18 year old and a 16 year old can date without it automatically being statutory rape. Likewise a 19 year old and a 17 year old can date.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that if the minor's parent objects, they can do a little bit more in the restraining order and civil side if the partner is over 18.
iirc California allows you to marry at 16, with parental consent. We are also a state where first cousins can marry.
Oh, and in defiance of our own laws and the will of the electorate, gay marriages are allowed here as well.
About change, the Democrats are likely to enact change based on a Democratically controlled congress. That's good or bad, depending on your viewpoint. If you're a small government supporter, you probably want to see the legislative and executive branches divided. It keeps them from gaining too much power. A Libertarian might vote Republican for this very reason.
ReplyDeleteThen again, it's hard for a lot of independents (myself included) to accept a lot of the social policy BS that we've seen with G.W. It's enough to make me think I should support the Democrats, warts and all. Out of touch with reality vs. opportunistic parasites.
Interesting about California statutory rape law. I never knew that.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't consider gay marriage in defiance of California law if the courts declare that law unconstitutional. At one point my in-laws weren't legally allowed to marry in California and I'm glad to see that law overturned as well. Before 1948, my own marriage would have been "illegal."
While I'm a fan of divided government under our current system, the current make-up of the Supreme Court would prevent me from voting Republican even if the Dems had a Congressional majority that was sure to survive the next mid-term elections, which they don't and won't.
ReplyDeleteOne more activist conservative on the court could effectively end liberty in the United States as we know it. Far too many issues involving basic rights, from search and seizure to habeas corpus, are being decided on a 5 to 4 vote.
Granted, the sides reverse themselves on gun rights, but I have to balance that single issue against the dozens of others on the other side.
Disclaimer: I don't plan on voting Democrat either this year, but while I've wavered on that, I'd never even consider voting Republican.
"I wouldn't consider gay marriage in defiance of California law if the courts declare that law unconstitutional. At one point my in-laws weren't legally allowed to marry in California and I'm glad to see that law overturned as well. Before 1948, my own marriage would have been "illegal.""
ReplyDeleteDitto on that.
I've found that heterosexual reactions to gay marriage fall into basically three areas. The first is fine with it. The second goes "ewww" but doesn't really care about it that much. The third is all up in arms about how it's the end of civilization as we know it.
That third group can go fuck themselves because most of them quietly, or not so quietly, feel the same way about my marriage to someone who isn't Caucasian, and if they could they'd go back to the pre-1948 laws.
Heck, some of the older ones were saying the same thing 60 years ago about marriages like mine that they're saying about gay marriage today!
As for Palin's daughter it is an example of the failure of Republican social policy. If a child of such a good Christian family can't manage to keep her panties on then how is an abstinence centered policy supposed to work nationwide?
"I've found that heterosexual reactions to gay marriage fall into basically three areas. The first is fine with it. The second goes "ewww" but doesn't really care about it that much. The third is all up in arms about how it's the end of civilization as we know it."
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see this broken down by religion, personally. I am an atheist. I don't care who anyone marries. Let everyone have the same benefits and disadvantages such unions bring.
My issue is with Domestic Partnership. I think this should be dissolved if marriage is allowed. As a group, you either get DP or Marriage. I don't get that choice.
As for Political Parties: They ALL suck. You can't be there unless you are rich. How are you going to represent the middle and lower classes?
"That third group can go f*** themselves because most of them quietly, or not so quietly, feel the same way about my marriage to someone who isn't Caucasian, and if they could they'd go back to the pre-1948 laws."
ReplyDeleteOh hockey puck, that's silly and rude. Go to church. Listen to Revelations sermons - you know, the one given by your pastor (who's probably married to someone of another race) citing the verses about every color of person being welcomed to the kingdom of God.
And equating race with sexual preferance... that's a real knee slapper. "My marriage to X should be accepted, because if you don't accept it, you're just like a 1940s racist."
"And equating race with sexual preferance... that's a real knee slapper."
ReplyDeleteI'm in the camp that doesn't care one way or the other about same sex union, but I do believe in 50 years we'll look back and draw very similar parallels to interracial marriage laws.
Both are between consenting adults. Both were strongly denounced by the population at large. Both were struck down by the California supreme court. I believe our children will judge us harshly on this one.
"Both are between consenting adults. Both were strongly denounced by the population at large. Both were struck down by the California supreme court."
ReplyDeleteYou've covered all the superficial ways they are similar. That's why this comparison is truly humorous to me. It ignores the obvious fact that a same-gender marriage is different than a mixed race marriage. Interracial involves someone of a different skin tone and culture. Same-sex challenges more complex issues regarding child rearing, biology, and the very definition of marriage. The list goes on. These are the guts of the issues - not the fact that both unions were at one time looked down upon.
"Oh hockey puck, that's silly and rude."
ReplyDeleteRude maybe, but not silly. I don't feel like being polite to people who "defend the institution of marriage" by denying it to people.
Go do your research and you'll see that most of the arguments against gay marriage are verbatim the same arguments made against interracial marriage a half century ago. Everything from "it's unfair to the kids" to "it's unnatural" to "it's against God's will" to "it weakens the institution of marriage." The same damn arguments.
Mind you, when you look at my three groups, that "ewww" group includes a lot of people who don't like the idea of gay marriage, but they don't make it a litmus issue in politics either. I'm OK with that. I think they're wrong, but at least they aren't actively opposing something that really doesn't have any direct impact on them.
The ones I'm telling to go fuck themselves are the ones calling for a Constitutional amendment, or similar bullshit.
I normally try to be more polite when discussing things, but there were anti-miscegenation laws on the books, and being enforced, as recently as 1967. It's not like this is ancient history. So while gay marriage doesn't affect me directly, I do identify with those it does in a very personal way.
Whenever I read or hear someone ranting against gay marriage I can't help but mentally replace "gay" with "mixed-race" since the rest of the rant is almost always the same.
"child rearing, biology, and the very definition of marriage"
ReplyDeleteAgain, these were the exact same arguments raised in opposition to mixed-race marriages a half century ago... try again.
We used an adoption agency that does a lot of same sex couple adoptions, so looking at that research, children seem just fine raised in that environment. This is especially true when you remember that most of the children gay couples adopt are those ignored by heterosexual couples, often rescued from foster care.
ReplyDeleteI still think that every time someone shouts out about "pro-life" their next sentence should include something about adoption. Funny how that's ignored, such an excellent solution to abortion. I personally think a lot of social conservatives don't give a damn about unborn babies and are more concerned about controlling women, keeping them in traditional roles raising children, marrying their sweethearts -- pregnant, ignorant about the outside world and in the kitchen (don't forget barefoot).
I mean really, can you imagine the crushed dreams you would have for your 18 year old daughter if she was pregnant? Doing the right thing could still involve an education, a job, and children and marriage when she was ready.
Sorry guys, this is a very entertaining dialog, and I don't want to miss a word. And since you can't subscribe to comments on blogger without commenting, there you are. Blogger spam.
ReplyDeleteI have voted Green the past 4 elections, but this time, I think I'm going Obama.
(yes, in some small part, it's my fault Bush got elected in 2000)...
Repeat: I don't care if people are making "the same d*** arguments." Do you honestly believe the race issue is 100% compatible to the gender issue? Shouldn't each marriage issue be examined separately to determine its merits? How is that not reasonable? Some arguments could apply to one issue and not to others. How do you guys feel about polygamy? Would you all rally behind it because that movement is persecuted too? Because the "same d*** arguments" are used against that, too?
ReplyDeleteOn another note, it disturbs me how most social lefties I've interacted with are so free in making generalizations. Social righties want barefoot oppressed women. They're racist. And so on. It's no better than the "if you're not for the war in Iraq, you hate your country" tripe from the right. Same old hot air... just blowing from a different direction.
"Do you honestly believe the race issue is 100% compatible to the gender issue?"
ReplyDeleteCompatible with the interracial issue? Pretty much. Since we've already debunked a lot of the issues with gay marriage, especially when it comes to kids, it seems like it's being resisted on ideological grounds.
And yes, lots of hot air, but coming from the center, rather than the left. You're basically talking with two guys who would likely be registered Republicans at this stage in their life, if it wasn't for the outrages of GW Bush and a Republican party out of control. Social conservatives aligned with him should be feeling the pressure, something inevitable when you mix religion with politics.
"Repeat: I don't care if people are making "the same d*** arguments.""
ReplyDeleteObviously, or you wouldn't be making them, but for me those same damn arguments show the same damn level of ignorance.
Child Rearing: As blackdiamond has already pointed out, this doesn't hold water. The evidence doesn't indicate that children raised by same sex couples have any handicap compared to those raised otherwise.
Biology: Same sex couples can't have babies. Neither can many other couples. Are we going to start making fertility a requirement for marriage?
The Very Definition of Marriage: This already means many different things to many different people. To some it's primarily, or even solely, a legal agreement. To others it's a vow before God. To others it's a vow to each other to love each other for the rest of their lives. To others it's an agreement to raise a family. Sometimes these definitions overlap, but often they don't.
Are you going to insist that all married couples have kids? Are you going to insist that they all take vows before God? Then why insist that they are all male/female unions?
Of course, there are people that would like to force all married couples to have kids and take vows before God, I think everyone here already knows what I'd say to them...
"Do you honestly believe the race issue is 100% compatible to the gender issue? "
When it comes to the issue of marriage the attitude against gay marriage is exactly the same as the attitude towards mixed race marriages a half century ago. A position based on emotion, faith, and a fear of the different not a position based on reason.
And yes, my reaction to this issue is often emotional as well, for reasons I've already given, but my stance on the issue is based on reason.
"Compatible with the interracial issue? Pretty much."
ReplyDeleteSo a child doesn't need a father? Only two mothers? I'll never buy it.
"Social conservatives aligned with him should be feeling the pressure"
It's people who hold to Republican secular policies who will feel the pressure. It's the "non-religious" issues where Repubs have fallen down the last 8 years. Massive debt? Secular. War in Iraq? Secular. Tax cuts for the rich? Secular. Environmental degradation? Secular. All the things that tick you off and keep you awake at night have little to do with Bush's spiritual leanings.
As a result of Bush's screw ups in the fields of economics, foreign policy, and the environment, social conservatives are waking up to the fact that being pro-life is not the only prerequisite for the presidency. Soak the rich warmonger Repubs can't rely on the Christian vote as heavily as they used to.
Some people think that the housecleaning that needs to be done involves getting rid of the social conservatives. Wrong. It involves electing someone who can balance the budget, tax fairly, and keep us out of uneccessary wars - something that Reagan and Bush couldn't do. To blame the problems of the Bush years on sprituality is to deflect from the issue.
"So a child doesn't need a father? Only two mothers? I'll never buy it."
ReplyDeleteNuclear families and the idea of strong family bonds are a modern invention:
http://tinyurl.com/55838y
Half of marriages end in divorce, so half the kids usually just get one mother. Two mothers sounds like a win-win. When you consider adoption, most of the children gay couples adopt are considered unadoptable. They leave institutions and foster programs and now they get two parents rather than none. Also a win-win.
The biggest problems with the Bush administration are secular for sure, but many are couched in religious language or principles. GOD wants peace in the world, not just the US (says Bush). Judges need to understand our rights are derived from GOD (says Bush). Heck, GOD even told him he should be president. How could he be wrong? It's one thing to be a jackass, it's quite another to be a jackass because god told you too. It's infuriating and should insult peoples of all religions.