In need of cheering up.

[brent]

As of now, the House & senate look like they will be solidly in Republican control. Things don't look so great for Kerry either.
Generally I'm the one offering advice about cheering others up, but at the moment I need some happy news. Any advice? Other than moving to Canada (which I don't want to do right now since I just moved to Las Vegas, and I want to enjoy the weather here for a while)?

Also, it doesn't help that my husband is having to work until 3 AM tonight...

[CelticMuscle]

Nevada's turnout was up 3.35% on the year 2000

(that cheers me up as in our last election our turnout nationally fell 12%)

[charliepanayi]

Move to the UK? Actually maybe not...
Good to see at least that there is a sizeable portion of the country who voted against Bush - gives hope anyway.

Here's a cheerful thought.

The republicans will take the country for a joy ride at our expense. The credibility of the country will be completely ruined, we'll be bankrupt, the draft will be reinstated, 100 thousand young men and women will be dead. Most of the high tech jobs will be off shore, there will be a big increase in milliionaires and a corresponding expontial increase in poverty, and if we actually survive the next four years without an assaination, major terrorist event or nuclear war, the anti-christ and his demonic cohorts will be clearly to blame.

Hmmm... never mind, too little solace there.

I now understand what happend in Germany during the 20's and 30's. I am absolutely terrified.

[ethernet_jock]

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Move to the UK? Actually maybe not...
Good to see at least that there is a sizeable portion of the country who voted against Bush - gives hope anyway.

Actually if you remember - we never really voted for him in the first place back in 2000. I'm starting to wonder the same again now.... wag the dog... that's all I have to say. If you haven't seen that movie, you must.



As for you - gryph - I hope you're wrong!! I love the foundation and basis of this nation and I love MOST of the people who live here. Your scenario would definitely suck. All this election proves is that there's still a majority of stupid and/or easily influced people out there. We've got to try harder to push independent thought! Despite my Libertarian views - in the end - I voted for Kerry too because I knew he needed our support (the Lib. party) in order to really win. I was pretty disappointed to see that still not work out.

[ashleydelfin]

I still say the American system is beyong wrong, all votes of all people regardless of what state they're in should count for the same. What's with this state is worth this much and this other is worth that much? The president will be president of ALL of USA, not only the states in which he won!

Anyway, f Bush, while I hoped he lost, part of me knew he was going to win. What *really* bugs me is the gay marriage ban that passed on 11 states. ARGH! Okay, I won't extend on this because I'm still too pissed off to make sensible statements.

Hope Bush will not go on another war, and definitely hope the US will stand strong so as not to mess up the rest of the world. And someone needs to go and explain to Bush what "separation of church and state" means and that he isn't just president of the Christian citizens in America.

effing Bush...

~Ashley

[paarke]

Welcome to the UK, part of the Bush empire. Where did our ballot papers go?

[arpeejay]

I'm not quite as terrified as LG, although really for no rational reason. The country has actually survived worse things than the Bush administration (the Civil War, World War II, McCarthyism); I think we will survive this, as well.

Still, it's terribly depressing. We've known for a long, long time that the Big Lie -- told loudly enough and often enough -- will fool a majority of voters on multiple occasions. This is way godawfully worse than the re-election of Nixon in 1972 and the re-election of Reagan in 1984 but this wasn't by any means a landslide for Bush. Nearly half the country gets it.

In the meantime, I'm hoping the other half will wake up. Whether there will be anything left to wake up to, only the Goddess (if anyone) knows. As I've told a number of friends, NO ONE who is disappointed in this outcome should leave the country. We need to retain as much sanity as possible. It may take a hundred years but eventually we will overcome!

In the meantime, I plan to remind my (gag) Republican family members that they have just voted for the most radical, right wing agenda this country has ever seen.

Keep the faith, mes freres.

Richard Jasper
Ann Arbor, MI

[glammaman2000]

lick your wounds&get informed about local politics.it's your best protection in times like these.luckily,we live in this liberal island(Manhattan)it got us through Nixon&Reagan.at least,Democrats&the media aren't as afraid to criticise the prez any more.if you're not involved in a party,register!you have much more say in smaller elections.&let's all get over this"respecting other people's religion"crap.you've got to be prepared to spit on a clerical collar now&then.where's Jessica Hahn when you need her?

[optimusx]

Hey Brent,


Think of it this way. In 2008 Bush is out (well unless he pulls a fast one)

And who knows? Something might just come up to get him booted like doing something so insane that everyone wants him out.

If there is another day to live, then there is always hope. Of course, you could be living in now Republican controlled GA (For the first time since the Civil War). Oy.

Scott

[brent]

charliepanayi, the reason I haven't moved to Canada is the weather, so I think that the UK id out for me as well. One of the straight guys I work with is now applying to move to Vancouver, BC however.

LG, I'm afraid there is too much truth to what you say. If liberal 1920's Germany could turn like it did, what's to stop it here?

I have to go to work now. On top of the election, my Internet connection has been having issues. Stupid Cox...

[ethernet_jock]

On top of the election, my Internet connection has been having issues. Stupid Cox...

*snicker* you said cox.... erm.. yeah.

Ok - I knew that was very beavis and butthead but I just couldn't resist.

This isn't cheerful but I'm afraid it's all too true.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

"
By Jim Watkins WB11 News Anchor

When John Kerry made his concession call to President Bush on Wednesday morning, the two men talked about the urgent need to heal our divided nation. Several hours later, in his victory speech at the Ronald Reagan Building after his reelection, the president promised he would work to do just that. Yeah. Right. Check a sampling of the gracious comments by some noted bloggers, and see if you think there's a national hug-a-thon being planned.
>From conservative Adam Yoshide: "Those who didn't support Bush can go perform a certain anatomically impossible act. They lost, now they can sit in the back of the bus. Thank God Almighty."

Or this, from contributor Charles Pierce on the liberal "Altercation" Web site: "So let there be no whining when your husband's national guard obligation leaves him under fire for six extra months, or when Granny and Gramps are eating cat food...you wanted this guy. No you have him, unleashed."

Kinda makes you feel all warm inside. The fact is, no matter who won Tuesday's election, the divisions that are beginning to define America were destined to widen no matter who won the election. Red states and blue states used to symbolize Republicans and Democrats.

Now, those colors represent completely different belief systems. In a way, they seem like parts of different countries. Every time President Bush sneeringly spit out the word "Massachusetts" as code for his opponent's inferior values, and every time the crowds hearing it erupted in a joyful roar, a little bit of hope drained from my heart. UNITED States of America? Who are we kidding?

Something tells me that even if the president extended a hand across the blue-red divide, lots of people in Massachusetts would slap it away. We're not really part of your America? Well, you're not really our president. In my darkest moments, I fear all of this is turning into something much worse. I think of Serbs and Croats, and Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, and other religious and nationalist groups who internalize a hatred for those who aren't like them, even as they share the same country.
Far-fetched? Probably. But when a nation becomes split between "us" and "them", and the politicians' success depends on exploiting that, you're not moving in the direction of solving the problem. Warning against what he calls "deep social conflict" and the threat of a national religious war, writer Andrew Sullivan finds the only answer is allowing states greater latitude to make their own rules. If blue states want legalized pot and stem cell research, let 'em have it.

"Forcing California and Mississippi into one model is a recipe for disaster," Sullivan writes. So the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance isn't the most controversial part, after all. "One nation" is the part we're having trouble with.
"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Perhaps what we need is another real national tragedy to bring us together. Come on Al-Qaida, do us a favor. Or hope for the super volcano in Yellowstone to blow, wiping out most of the heartland. How about a huge meteor in the ocean to drown the East coast? How about a terrible virulent plague escaping from some secret government laboratory wiping out 70% of us and the rest of the world too.

Or perhaps the time for another revolution is approaching.

Then again, a nearby star could go supernova and fry us all with gamma radiation. I thought growing up in the cold war era was bad. I don't envy this and the next generation. The bubble is bursting, people.

[brent]

Originally Posted by LeatherGryphon

...
Or perhaps the time for another revolution is approaching.
...

You might be right. I have been thinking about getting a gun license, especially since fully automatic assault weapons are now legal. I just need to find out how to do it. Time for Internet research. I've also cut all ties with Republican family members. Their coldness about the death caused by Bush's wars & inaction on 9/11/01 has lead me to believe that they aren't really human, and therefore not my family.


EJ,
I got the B&B reference, without it being explicitly spelled-out. The next day I was bitching about how Cox Communications is such an aptly named company.

ashleydelfin,
You have to remember that the US is not a democracy: it's a republic. Our system might be stupid, but so is most of this nation.

[glammaman2000]

the Canadian consul said inquiries about citizenship jumped 6X after the u.s.elections!

[brent]

I wish I could live in a part of Canada that had Nevada's weather. Aussie sounds nice...

[glammaman2000]

but we have to stand here&fight!we've been here before(vietnam).where's Jessica Hahn when you need her?

[brent]

I have a feeling that the RNC has all of GW's Jessica Hahns, "eliminated". As for Vietnam, the Dems had control of congress. Which is totally different from today. I have a feeling that we have a much more difficult road to tow this time.

[Mdlftr]

THe election's over and Kerry lost, Bush won.

Ouch! O.k., let's get back to real life. Bush is now in his second term.

He is in the line of fire of every newspaper that did not endorse him in the election, just so that they can prove to their readers that he IS not a good choice to be president. Look at Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in their second terms: Watergate, Iran Contra and Monica.

Bush is not in for the free ride "mandate" that he thinks.

The one thing about this election that cheers me up is this: American democracy works: The people voted for the candidate they preferred.

I may not like it, or I may like it. Point is, the Supreme Court did not pick the President in 2004, The Florida Secretary of State did not "certify" anything to "steal" this election. 3 million more people voted for Bush than voted for Kerry.

Sucks, but, accept it and move on.

2008 will be here before you know it! Get out the vote!


"Tough Love" Mdlftr

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by Mdlftr

Sucks, but, accept it and move on.

No.

As a gay man, what I realize from this election is that at least half this country hates me. Eleven states say the relationships I form are worthless and undeserving of legal recognition. The majority of citizens believe that, at some level, GLBT people should be discriminated against and don't deserve full citizenship.

The Republicans ran on a platform of hatred, intolerance and lies and the electorate believed them. Some will claim that the media failed us, or that the people are stupid or something else. The truth is that fear and hatred worked. I do not accept that, nor do I believe that democracy worked.

Hope that helps,

[glammaman2000]

it has been reported that in one ohio precinct 3,900+votes were tallied for bush in an area with 800 registered voters.it was corrected the day after the election.hope there weren't too many of these.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by glammaman2000

it has been reported that in one ohio precinct 3,900+votes were tallied for bush in an area with 800 registered voters.it was corrected the day after the election.hope there weren't too many of these.

I've only heard of the one so far. Of course, without a paper trail...

[brent]

Remember that the president of Diebold, the company that makes many of the voting machines used in this nation, promised that his machines would give the election to Bush. In the last few years, every state that has gone to Diebolt has shifted to Republican control. I'm afraid that what little semblance of democracy we had is now lost. If you want to work for anything, work for a system like Oregon has, where the vote is 100% absentee, uses reliable optical scans, and has a paper trail. I was shocked when I voted here in Nevada: no paper trail, and how do I know that my vote was counted, or even changed? I also heard that the Diebold machines cost 1,500 times as much as the time-tested optical scanners Oregon uses.

[glammaman2000]

&don't forget,the gallup family(of the polls)is"born again".as a buddhist who accepts the concept of re-incarnation;i can only say;,"keep trying".

[brent]

I do believe in reincarnation, but I want things to be good for everyone in this life. I'm a vegetarian since I can't think of consuming death.

Originally Posted by brent

... I'm a vegetarian since I can't think of consuming death.

Hmm... I've come to believe that "Life" is a 3 billion year old unbroken chain and the concept of death is only a recent invention of evolution. "Plants" learned to prey on other plants and evolved into "Animals". Saying that you are not consuming death is to deny the reality of the very fabric of life. It also declares that plants are not alive, which they most certainly are. We can't survive on rocks and water. How far down the evolutionary line does a creature have to be to be declared not alive and OK to be eaten?

I have no problems with people being vegetarians but do disagree with the "not consuming death" rationale. There are much better reasons, mostly related to disease or nutrition.

[brent]

OK, I said that in a really bad way, but I can't handle the thought of another animal suffering or dying for me. I'm not a plant, so it's easier for me, but I am an animal, so I can't cause the death of another animal. That's just how I've seen things. I prefer the, "gifts" of plants, or animals, like the bean, milk, fruit, or seed of something.

[Mdlftr]

Originally Posted by Corwin

No.

As a gay man, what I realize from this election is that at least half this country hates me. Eleven states say the relationships I form are worthless and undeserving of legal recognition. The majority of citizens believe that, at some level, GLBT people should be discriminated against and don't deserve full citizenship.

Corwin,
Interesting comment you made re: the morals issue. At the risk of challenging your beliefs, democracy DID work--more people voted for the winner than did for the loser.

The whole "gay marriage" issue was a classic red herring--it served its purpose, which was to mobilize voters to get to the polls. I DON'T believe that it says, "half the country hates me." What it DOES say, is, if you have activistic mayors and judges taking it upon themselves to change the law without following the legislative process, people will react--and they did.

If you look at the overall trend on social issues, in general, Americans are socially near the center. The 1960s civil rights struggles, and women's struggles for equality in the 1970s have made Americans in general more understanding of the marginalized groups in society: people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and, now, sexual orientation. The Supreme Court itself, under Rehnquist, who would NOT be described as liberal under ANY criterion, has decriminalized sodomy by overturning Bowers v. Hardwick.

If you look at the big picture: gay people are winning the war towards acceptance. Don't let a set back in one election sour you on the entire process. People in general are more accepting than they have ever been. The initiatives in this election all dealt with gay marriage. Most people would not reject the concept of the right to share property, insurance policies and inheritance. What gets to most Americans is that they feel that "marriage" is a sacred, religious and civil institution that should be protected in times of rapid social, cultural, religious and economic change.

To use a corny, but apt example: If you've ever seen the movie, "Fiddler on the Roof", it's about a Russian milk man, named Tevye, and his family, consisting of 3 daughters and his wife, in Czarist Russia in the late 19th century. The daughters need husbands, and Tevye and his wife enlist the help of the traditional village matchmaker, whose job, in this society, is to find 'appropriate' husbands for all the daughters. The daughters, to a person, reject the matchmaker's suggestions and marry for love. The oldest marries a poor tailor with ambitions. Tevye swallows hard and agrees because she will be happy. The second daughter marries a zionist revolutionary. Tevye agrees because the husband is basically a good man, even if he is a revolutionary. Also, he's Jewish. When the 3rd daughter announces that she's marrying a Russian (!) who is also a Christian(gasp!) Tevye realizes that he cannot condone this marriage, even though he loves his daughter, because he views her as rejecting her religion and her heritage. He has been pushed too far--he cannot agree to this change.

That's what the gay Marriage issue did --wrong issue, pushed at the wrong time, by the wrong people.
[And before the crys of outrage begin--remember that the Equal Rights Amendment, which was to give equal rights to women, failed ratification--in part because of hatemongers like Phyllis Schafly appealing to every scare tactic she could. Yet today, even without it, women are substantially equal to men in most fields. Sure, there's work to be done, but it's come a long way.

Gay rights will take the same course. I'd put money on it--more than my usual 2 cents.


Mdlftr

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by Mdlftr

Corwin,
Interesting comment you made re: the morals issue. At the risk of challenging your beliefs, democracy DID work--more people voted for the winner than did for the loser.

The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Majority rule is not the process that we enact laws or elect presidents.

Originally Posted by Mdlftr

The whole "gay marriage" issue was a classic red herring--it served its purpose, which was to mobilize voters to get to the polls.

Thus, by your statement, the Republicans used me and my life as a wedge issue to get people to the polls to elect a government that will deprive me of my rights of citizenship. Clearly, both the announcement that a top priority will be passing a constitutional amendment to deprive gay and lesbian families of legal recognition and the trouble Arlen Specter finds himself in for his statements on judicial confirmations each demonstrate that the goverment chosen by the majority of the people seeks to limit the rights of others.

Originally Posted by Mdlftr

I DON'T believe that it says, "half the country hates me." What it DOES say, is, if you have activistic mayors and judges taking it upon themselves to change the law without following the legislative process, people will react--and they did.

What total and utter bullshit. While I will not defend Mayor Newsom for his actions, to believe the right-wing propaganda about activist judges and advance that as a basis for any belief demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of the courts in the protection of civil rights and the role of judges and judicial review in upholding constitutional principles. Equal protection under the law is a both an ideal and a method to evaluate laws. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court applied that standard to limiting the civil rights and responsibilities of marriage to opposite sex couples, they found no basis for that except the discriminatory belief that gay and lesbian families are inferior. This is no more activist than the belief that racial segregation is wrong or that women deserve the same rights and legal protections as men.

Ours is a government of checks and balances. The Executive and the Judiciary each have a check on the legislative process. Trying to undermine that check under the rhetorical misnomer of activist judges demonstates a fundamental misunderstanding of the workings and protections of our Constitution.

Originally Posted by Mdlftr

If you look at the overall trend on social issues, in general, Americans are socially near the center. The 1960s civil rights struggles, and women's struggles for equality in the 1970s have made Americans in general more understanding of the marginalized groups in society: people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and, now, sexual orientation. The Supreme Court itself, under Rehnquist, who would NOT be described as liberal under ANY criterion, has decriminalized sodomy by overturning Bowers v. Hardwick.

Rehnquist voted in favor of Bower and dissented in Lawrence. But of course, the make-up of the court is about to change. George W Bush has said that he wants to appoint more justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the two other dissenters in Lawrence. Also, as most legal scholars will tell you, the Rehnquist court has been a very activist court in overturning long-standing constitutional principles. Yet, no one complains about Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas as being activist judges. It simply shows the hypocricy of that argument.

Originally Posted by Mdlftr

If you look at the big picture: gay people are winning the war towards acceptance. Don't let a set back in one election sour you on the entire process. People in general are more accepting than they have ever been. The initiatives in this election all dealt with gay marriage. Most people would not reject the concept of the right to share property, insurance policies and inheritance. What gets to most Americans is that they feel that "marriage" is a sacred, religious and civil institution that should be protected in times of rapid social, cultural, religious and economic change.

Federal judges are appointed for life. Turning back the judicial protections of civil rights is one of the goals of this administration, and they are quite up-front that they intend to use judicial appointments to accomplish that. The lifetime tenure of judges indicates that any use of the courts to advance civil rights is dead for a generation, not four years.

Many of the 11 constitutional amendments passed last week deal with more than marriage. They deny civil unions or any of the protections you list above. As for the sacredness of marriage, the institution has always been one that has changed over time. Women are no longer the property of their husbands. Forbidding the "mixing of the races" is no longer a permissible restriction. As Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out in Turner v Safley, "Many important attributes of marriage remain,.... First, ... marriages ... are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; ... the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. ... Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). " Those things that you say most people will not reject are exactly the things they did reject. Whether or not there is a general misperception by the majority, the denial of full marriage equality to gays and lesbians denies them the precondition to the receipt of government benefits. Trying to justify this discrimination as being somehow sacred is disgusting.

Originally Posted by Mdlftr

To use a corny, but apt example: If you've ever seen the movie, "Fiddler on the Roof", it's about a Russian milk man, named Tevye, and his family, consisting of 3 daughters and his wife, in Czarist Russia in the late 19th century. The daughters need husbands, and Tevye and his wife enlist the help of the traditional village matchmaker, whose job, in this society, is to find 'appropriate' husbands for all the daughters. The daughters, to a person, reject the matchmaker's suggestions and marry for love. The oldest marries a poor tailor with ambitions. Tevye swallows hard and agrees because she will be happy. The second daughter marries a zionist revolutionary. Tevye agrees because the husband is basically a good man, even if he is a revolutionary. Also, he's Jewish. When the 3rd daughter announces that she's marrying a Russian (!) who is also a Christian(gasp!) Tevye realizes that he cannot condone this marriage, even though he loves his daughter, because he views her as rejecting her religion and her heritage. He has been pushed too far--he cannot agree to this change.

Society allows the mixing of religions in civil marriages. While some religions still preclude this as being profane, our government is not suppose to be a theocracy and allows these marriages.

Originally Posted by Mdlftr

That's what the gay Marriage issue did --wrong issue, pushed at the wrong time, by the wrong people.
[And before the crys of outrage begin--remember that the Equal Rights Amendment, which was to give equal rights to women, failed ratification--in part because of hatemongers like Phyllis Schafly appealing to every scare tactic she could. Yet today, even without it, women are substantially equal to men in most fields. Sure, there's work to be done, but it's come a long way.

Gay rights will take the same course. I'd put money on it--more than my usual 2 cents.

Many people argued that Brown v Board, and the backlash it caused, was because it was the wrong case at the wrong time. People blamed Martin Luther King for Selma because, they said, it was the wrong action at the wrong time. Blaming the victim is easy. It is also wrong. I know you want us to be good little gays and lesbians and be happy with our second class status (well, that is what your argument is, right? don't push your issues because it will upset people), but our efforts for equality will continue. And that means not accepting the results of last Tuesday nor believing that democracy somehow worked.

Originally Posted by brent

...I prefer the, "gifts" of plants, or animals, like the bean, milk, fruit, or seed of something.

Oh, m'God, he eats plant fetuses. You beast!

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by LeatherGryphon

Oh, m'God, he eats plant fetuses. You beast!

Dude, seeds are zygotes. Sprouts are fetuses.

[brent]

I didn't mean to get the thread off course. Although I firmly believe meat to be murder, I'd rathet focus on the purely hate-filled comments of Mdlifter. "Activist Judges" are the ones that caused public institutions to be integrated, and many of the other civil rights we take for granted today. As for your example of women, many are still paid much less than man for the same job. I don't understand how anyone can defend an amendment against gay mariage, and I don't understand why polygamists have been denied the unions they belive in either. Also, how do we know that the results we were told are even the real results? Many of the voting machines have no paper trail, and software atches with names like, "Rob Georgia".

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by brent

I'd rather focus on the purely hate-filled comments of Mdlifter.

I'm more pissed at blaming the lines of loving couples seeking equality in San Francisco, Oregan and Mass. for bringing this on themselves.

[brent]

Thank you, I was in the lines in Oregon.

[Corwin]

news story

[Mdlftr]

Originally Posted by brent

I didn't mean to get the thread off course. Although I firmly believe meat to be murder, I'd rathet focus on the purely hate-filled comments of Mdlifter. "Activist Judges" are the ones that caused public institutions to be integrated, and many of the other civil rights we take for granted today. As for your example of women, many are still paid much less than man for the same job. I don't understand how anyone can defend an amendment against gay mariage, and I don't understand why polygamists have been denied the unions they belive in either. Also, how do we know that the results we were told are even the real results? Many of the voting machines have no paper trail, and software atches with names like, "Rob Georgia".

O.k., and a good day to you, as well!

If you read the thread, you will see that I am not saying that the election results are good versus bad. I AM trying to point out in the larger scheme of things, that gay rights are advancing.

20 years ago, most Americans would snigger at the suggestion of "gay rights". Today, it is taken seriously and is making progress.

Society is actively looking at assumptions that are hundreds of years old ("Those people are sick--they CHOOSE to do those perverted acts!" "They're mentally ill--just read all about it in the DSM-1 & II) to actually looking at the question (Sexual attraction to the same sex is biological in nature and can no more be changed than eye or skin color. DSM III - published in 1981 no longer defines homosexuality as a pyschological disorder.)

The Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s focused on the fact that race or skin color are "immutable characteristics" they cannot be changed. Eventually, the courts and laws came around to treat race as a "suspect class" under constitutional analysis and amended the laws accordingly. Conversely, Sexual orientation is NOT a suspect class under constitutional analysis, and thus, laws affecting it are NOT subject to strict scrutiny under constitutional analysis. The mere fact that consensual sexual relations between two people of the same gender are no longer a crime, according to the Supreme Court, is a huge step forward. [Rehnquist's individual vote notwithstanding, he was the Chief at the time the opinion was issued, so it is described as issuing from "the Rehnquist Court".]

Today, many, and probably most, Americans are still coming to an understanding of the concept of gender orientation versus "gender preference". The former is probably a more accurate description of people's sexual identities. I would venture to say that many Americans think today, that sexual attraction and behavior is a CHOSEN, rather than INNATE feature.

The significance of that distinction is this: if it's an immutable characteristic, it is part of the person and cannot be changed. If it's a choice, it can be deemed moral/immoral and treated accordingly.

As long as people thing that "being gay" is something that people "choose" to do, they will treat it as a moral choice. As people begin to see it as a biological reality, their attitudes will change.

Now, in this election, the Republicans masterfully understood the importance of using "gay marriage" as a wedge issue, much as they used Clinton's "immoral behavior" in 2002 to defeat Gore. Clinton himself rallied voters with his slogan,
"It's Time for a Change," while showing footage of George Bush (41) throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister at a state banquet.

[The winning wedge issues for the Republicans in 2004 were the issues of "leadership" -- who can lead us out of IRAQ? Unfortunately, Kerry was not able to articulate his message in a way that resonated or got through to voters.]

In politics, the winners do what works to get them elected.

Once all the venting and sobbing is over, people need to focus on what counts:
Getting more votes at the ballot box. THAT'S what wins elections--not conspiracy theories, not wild accusations, but appeals to people on bread and butter issues that they can understand.

People DON'T understand why "gay marriage" is an important issue to gay Americans. Rather than screaming at them and calling them "hatemongers" why not try to make people understand? If you want to lose their vote, by all means, call them "idiots" and "bigots" and whatever you want.

Contrary to all the hysteria, the U.S. got through this election without a civil war, without rioting in the streets, and with a record turnout to the polls.

I'm NOT happy with the results. But I AM HAPPY to know that the Dems are vowing to continue the fight-as Kerry indicated, the issues of this campaign are still very much under discussion, and this President will no longer have the benefit of a totally compliant opposition. 2006 will be here soon!

Get out and Vote!

Mdlftr

[ottomun6]

We all will have to admit that Bush won this round. And the gay marriage issue has been defeated as well. But I think we really need to pay more attention to what can be done down the road. If we make note of what is going on in the world of politics, we can mention it to friends and family (maybe make a list?).
If nothing else, at least we have learned to watch and listen (ask how they feel about the issue and show them actual facts).

You might ask how would they feel if they were not allowed to see their spouse after a car accident because of hospital policy? Be informed, let everybody know what is going on.
It's not worth getting all wound up. When emotions control a conversation, it usually always goes badly. The past is something we can't change, but the future is.

[glammaman2000]

just to stir the waters...back in the"anita bryant"days;homosexuality was presented as a"freedom of choice"issue.U.S.civil rights laws protect certain"choices"that affect behavior.f'rinstance;religion(it's certainly not innate!)according to the most recent polls i've seen;approx.94%of gay men&60%of lesbians feel they were"always that way".the important thing is:IT SHOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE!as long as it involves consenting adults,it should be the burden of a"free"society to make a case FOR discrimination;rather than having to defend ourselves against it!however...

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by Mdlftr

People DON'T understand why "gay marriage" is an important issue to gay Americans. Rather than screaming at them and calling them "hatemongers" why not try to make people understand? If you want to lose their vote, by all means, call them "idiots" and "bigots" and whatever you want.

What we called bigotted and idiotic was the rhetoric in your last post. The point of that being that using certain catch terms (e.g. "activist judges", "wrong place at the wrong time") don't advance a dialogue but shut it down by oversimplifying issues. The gay rights movement is still fighting "no special rights" (even when, in Romer v Evans said, "we find nothing special in the rights protected here").

I'm glad to see you learned from your mistake.

Scott

[brent]

I'm mostly afraid of how compliant most americans are of genocide lately. Massive numbers of Palestinians help in Israeli death camps for over 40 years is OK for Americans to accept. The slaughter of Iraqis trying to defend there homes against an overwhelming occupying force are painted as terrorists in our media. And gays are picking partners that the government doesn't approve of! Why am I not allowed to be legally married, and freely practice my own religious beliefs, just because the federal government doesn't approve? Bush has used a lot of NAZI tactics that I thought Americans were too smart to accept, and has won with them! How do I even know if I will be free in late 2006?