August 31, 2004: Which Party Is This?

Listening to Giuliani and McCain last night, I was starting to think, well, this Republican thing ain't so bad. Just like when I listen to Lieberman or Evan Bayh I think the same thing about Democrats - hey, these folks make sense. But then, in the middle of the night, or in the dim, subterranean light of the bowels of Madison Square Garden, I wonder if there will ever be a political party for me anymore. While the Democrats thrill to a "disingenuous filmmaker," the ideologues of the Republican world rock on with their special version of intolerance, making their own justifiably crazy:

Christopher Barron of the Log Cabin Republicans, a GOP gay-rights group, was livid after the panel endorsed the first-ever call for a constitutional gay-marriage ban in a GOP platform and went beyond that to oppose legal recognition of any same-sex unions.

``You can't craft a vicious, mean-spirited platform and then try to put lipstick on the pig by putting Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger on in prime time,'' he said in an interview.

But you can, evidently. We live in a strange world where hypocrisy piles on hypocrisy. [You're sounding rather ornery this morning.-ed. Are you in a bad mood? Yup. Sleep deprivation. I guess I'm feeling a little like a flak for the Republican Party. I don't particularly enjoy that feeling. I don't like being a flak for anybody. Yes, we're in a war that's important.Terribly important. And, yes, I think John Kerry is a straw man who should not lead us in such a situation. But there's nothing that makes me more angry than masked or unmasked homophobia. It's deeply reactionary and immoral.]

UPDATE: I just had coffee with one of New York's finest(bloggers)Jeff Jarvis - a man with whom I have been exchanging email for about a year and a half and had not met face-to-face. It was a pleasure to meet him. Ditto Jay Rosen who stopped by earlier today. Jeff had an interesting proposal regarding political parties and conventions -- that party platforms be abandoned. There are obvious arguments against this, but it sounds like an idea whose time has come, expecially given our present parties whose tents are so big ideology becomes meaningless.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I have similar ideological heartburn, expressed in the middle of this rather long report. Scroll down to:
"The event was an interesting experience for me as a social liberal."

We don't have a political home at this point, Roger. Maybe we can capture one of the two parties, or maybe one will be so fractured it will die and be replaced by a new one, but for the near future us fiscal conservative, socially liberal hawks don't have a home.

Posted by: Yehudit at August 31, 2004 12:21 PM

It was stupid to put this in the platform. I disagree with the position. I don't know if it helps but we need to keep in mind that it is possible for people to oppose gay marriage without being anti-gay. I know such people.

Posted by: Emory at August 31, 2004 12:29 PM

No need to flak for either party.

Instead why not buttonhole a GOP spokesperson and confront him with Barron's statement? Hell, enlist one of the other bloggers and double team them.

Isn't that the what credentialled bloggers are there for? You could have gone without sleep at home.

Posted by: ter0 at August 31, 2004 12:30 PM

Roger, I'm sure that you must realize that not all people who are opposed to same sex mariage are homophobic. The issue of redefining marriage is very complex but ultimately also comes down to children. If one were in charge of an adoption agency and had to chose the parents for a newborn baby and one had the choice of an equally loving a)single woman b)two men c)two women or d)man and women couple, who would you choose to be the baby's parents? I believe it would be unfair to the baby to deprive it of either a mother or a father in starting out life if one has a choice. I believe each of the sexes brings something truly unique to the baby's development. If marriage is legally redefined it would be impossible to give preference to the opposite sex couple. Certainly for older harder to adopt children same sex adoptions are occurring and would continue to occur. This is only one, but a very important reason to retain the present definition of marriage. On a personal level I believe it is important to show compassion to same sex couples and be loving on an individual basis, without redefining marriage and all that it entails. Dennis Prager writes an article on this topic here. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040504.shtml

Posted by: rickE at August 31, 2004 12:31 PM

Third Party, Roger. Socially tolerant, fiscally conservative, dead serious about national security and preserving the moral high ground as well.

Practical? Hell yes. Win over the Republicans and non-crazy Dems in CA and NY, as Arnold and Giuliani have done, and focus intensively on moderates and independents from Texas to Seattle. Add asian-Americans and latinos and a healthy portion of the military vote and you have a national party that's not dependent on some flaky quixotic figure like Perot or McCain.

A change is gonna come....

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 12:35 PM

A thought:

Has anyone stopped to analyze just exactly what will happen if someone actually *does* start this "Gay Marriage Ban" constitutional amendment process? 38 states have to ratify it...does anyone *actually* believe that it has a shred of possibility of passing, given that the bulk of the population has no real desire to see it happen?

The amendment plank in the platform is a sop to the radical right. Anybody who thinks it will pass is simply ignoring the expressed will of the populace at large. If the amendment is acted upon by Congress, it will be defeated by the states. The constitutional amendment process was put in place by the party leadership *only* to prevent the establishment of gay marriage by judicial activism (there are still too many people in the country—"flyover" states—that oppose the word "marriage" in association with gays). Civil unions with full legal rights equal to marriage will be established in a few years; it's what most of the country wants.

I personally cannot for the life of me understand what the objection is to combining the words "gay" and "marriage". But in conversations with friends and (older) family members, this seems to be the only major objection to establishing some sort of "partnership rights" situation for gays. I think it's mostly a generational thing—like Andrew Sullivan—and that in 10 or 15 years, the whole argument will have gone away.

I know it's difficult to counsel patience to people who have waited their whole lives to be considered equal and productive citizens under the law...but it's coming. Society changes slowly.

Posted by: stumbley at August 31, 2004 12:39 PM

Oh Gawd, Roger is channeling Totten!

Can anyone 'splain to me what Party Platforms are used for other than to keep some portion of convention attendees sober for a little while while they screech out the details? They are non-binding documents that set out a set of party principles and positions.

The Defeating Terrorism as its number 1 item. Does anyone really believe the Democratic Party has any intention of trying to subdue, never mind defeat, terrorism? Ed Koch sure doesn't seem to think the Democratic Party has the stomach to followthrough with their first freakin' plank.

The Republican Party Platform, such as it is at this point, says:

We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.

I don't know what the words have been changed to, but the chances of a consitituional ammendement "banning" same sex marriages are slim, fat, and none. The wording that is likely to be proposed, if anything is proposed, and will never see life as a ratified ammendment, will do nothing more than take the matter out of the hands of the federal judiciary and remove state definitions of marriage from the "full faith and credit" clause.

In other words they will put this matter where, IMO, it belongs - state legislatures. For the life of me I cannot see why that is viewed as some unbelievable horror. Proponents will have to slug their way through the legislatures as elected by their fellow citizens. What a burden.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 12:39 PM

thibaud
I mused about that how McCain or Giulliani couldn't get the nomination due to the socially conservatives not wanting them, not that it would be impossible depending on who the social conservative in the primary would be.

The problem is the Middle tent isn't large enough nor has enough money to make a dent and then would have a hard time governing in Congress? though if the right person with the right amount of magnetism to the American people he could change the landscape somewhat and dent it.
Wey're not even close to being there. The only 3rd parties are from the extremes, Greens, Buchananites etc..
Moderates are moderate by nature and thus less motivated I personally think?
So you'll have to get moderates from the Repubs and Dems or pared down leftist or rightists like Clinton and Bush.

The far alternative is the nutsy Parliamentary System of Britain or France.

Mike

Posted by: Mike_Nargizian at August 31, 2004 12:43 PM

There really are only two choices here. The Dems will deliver SSM at the federal level by judicial fiat. The Reps will attempt (very possibly unsuccessfully) to force SSM proponents to achieve their goal through legislative action in the states. A third, fourth, or twentieth political party will not change this fundamental situation.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 12:43 PM

Roger, the whole subject of gay marriage was discussed under the DOMA during the Clinton era. It was the extreme left that brought all the confrontations using the unelected liberal judges and mayors pandering to their base as a divisive wedge during this election cycle. Many Democrats (Feinstein, et al) wanted this to wait for more peaceful times, ie, after this nation dealt with the alligators in the boat (islamic terrorism, leftist agitators, etc).
While our house if burning is not the time to discuss whether Jimmy or Judy gets the bigger bedroom. It would (& will) happen naturally...soon.

Posted by: Plinypere at August 31, 2004 12:44 PM

Roger:

As stated above you are not a flak, you don't need to like that part of the platform and you have a website in which you can speak your mind. As far as third parties go they don't work, never have worked and unless there is a parlimentary system installed they never will.If TR couldn't do it no one can. It would take years to form one and a solid money base. What you can do is speak your mind and try to influence the direction of the party. Remember platforms are usually constructed for the hard core party members and don't always point to what the party leader is going to push during his term.

If you are feeling shakey about supporting Bush because of this issue just re-read the Kerry-Edwards give the Mullahs the bomb plan and read about the latest suicide attack in Israel.It may not make you feel good but I think you have made a wise choice in choosing the security of this nation your #1 priority in deciding which party to back. You can always go back to the dems in the future, but not if a WMD goes off in LA.

Posted by: Kevin P at August 31, 2004 12:50 PM

I forget where I first heard it--it may have even come from Clinton's '92 campaign--but the expression "boob-bait for the bubbas" I believe best describes the attitude of the leaders of both parties for the populist effluvia that must of neccessity be included in official platforms.

Presidential contests between the major parties are fought and won between the 40-yard-lines, and the proven game-winning strategy includes appealing to the instincts and fears of the worst in and among us.

Being a political grown-up requires recognition of the fact that politics in a democracy isn't pretty.

As for the larger issue, there's no question that in another decade the issue of gay marriage will be settled in the affirmative due to simple demographics. Polls of young voter attitudes on both sides of the fence are virtually unanimous on this finding.

In the meantime, we have ideological issues that won't be settled so simply and inevitably, and we have no choice but to join the battle.

Posted by: Rick Z at August 31, 2004 12:51 PM

The gay marriage debate ain't about gay, it's about marriage. And judicial activism, these days. Set fire to me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how homophobia even has any bearing one way or the other.

Posted by: Brian at August 31, 2004 12:53 PM

I met a "Fag for Bush" at this Sunday's protest. He calls himself a homosexual and believes the "Gay movement", a term he abhors for it's myoptic stance on homosexuality, is nothing more than a fascistic hyjacking of homosexuality. He is also a man of deep religious faith and considers himself to be "Over" the Rainbow.

Roger, sometimes we fight for the right thing but go about it in the wrong way.

Not all homosexuals consider themselves 'gay' nor do they believe in the politically correct gayness that is being forced upon them. For my homosexual friend, he believes it is dangerous to follow a constricted ideology which is forcing him and others to deny their own core beliefs.

He is a Republican, Bush-supporting, religious man, see him for this not because he has been labeled "Gay" by a constricted movement.

This is what I love about the majority in the Republican party, they honor an individuals right to their follow one's core beliefs.

By the way, my friend believes that the powers that be in the gay movement are hijacking marriage so that one day they will be able to completely eliminate the core value of marriage, thus destroy the entire institute. His voice is condemned in the "gay movement" which is why he joined our group of counter-protesters.

This NY'er has provided me with food for thought I haven't heard in my eleven years living in NYC.

Hope I can help pass his message along before it is too late.

Posted by: syn at August 31, 2004 12:59 PM

Thibaud, nonsense. There isn't going to be any third party in the near future. That would come only in the event of a major breakdown in the entire political system.

Roger, there's a lot to be said for standing outside the two parties and being that oft derided independent who continually pulls the two parties back to sanity. On the one hand, it's nutso to believe, as Edwards seems to believe, that playing nicey nice with the mullahs is going to solve the problem. That's classic head-in-the-sand make-it-go-away-daddy behavior. On the other hand, we have TmjUtah (with whom I usually agree and whom I often admire) stating that Giuliani's not a real Republican.

I simply do not feel obligated to agree with one group or the other on every issue.

Take one of the most contentious ones, abortion. I agree completely with Clinton here: "abortion should be legal and rare". I also understand the problem with this: if it is legal, the ability to have one is going to be abused sometimes. I also sympathize with the frustration of pro-life activists who have found that their opinions have been completely ignored by judicial fiat. When they've tried to "play within the system" by getting their own judges appointed (a necessary check on the judicial branch, by the way), they've been stymied by Democratic shenanigans. Think what you will about abortion, there's something that stinks in those tactics.

Or take gay marriage. I favor it, but I also realize that it's a major change from millenia of history, and the "law of unintended consequences" should probably give us pause here. I think in another generation it's a done deal. I know people in the present are suffering and I'm sympathetic to that. So we'll probably have it before another generation. But it's going to take time for people to mellow on the concept.

I don't, in short, fit at all into either party. And I don't expect a whole bunch of people to suddently join me in some ill-thought-out third party; crazy as I am, that would undoubtedly be an even worse solution than the present mess.

I agree with ter0. Knock the Republicans on their behind. Ask them the hard questions. Don't be shy. Right now we've got Michael Moore trying to pretend he has some level of objectivity in his coverage of Republicans. How much better for this important task to be accomplished by someone with intelligence, humanity, and taste?

Inconvenient facts are ignored by both parties, albeit different ones in each case. It's a civic duty to continually bring these facts to their attention, whether they are pleased or not. Sometimes that means voting for the other party, since that's the only real leverage any of us possesses. Often that means holding our nose and voting for the other party, because the facts being ignored by the one are more important than the nonsense being spewed by the other.

Posted by: WichitaBoy at August 31, 2004 1:02 PM

First off, this is more than some obscure plank in the Republican Platform that is never going to be mentioned again. The Republicans already pushed this issue and they'll push it again.

Secondly, if it is not about homophobia, then exactly why is it being fought so furiously?

As a liberal, my unease over this issue is that it is yet another attempt by the religious right to impose their values on the rest of us. If their churches don't want to recognize gay marriages then don't perform them. However, people outside of their sects may have different beliefs about gay marriage and I see no reason why those different beliefs should not be respected buy our secular government.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 31, 2004 1:09 PM

Mike,

The problem is the Middle tent isn't large enough

Not so. Look at the numbers, starting with who's off limits to a third party: The hardcore left-liberals are about 40% of Dems, who account for barely 30% of likely voters. There's 12% of the total. Add perhaps another 5% who are left-libs but do not identify with the Dems, so maybe 17% of likely voters are too left and therefore out of reach.

The hardcore social conservatives are maybe 50% of Republicans, who account for maybe 33% of likely voters. That yields about 17% of the total. Add another maybe 10% of the electorate that's very socially conservative and you have about 27% who are out of reach on the far right.

That leaves about 56% who are in the center and 44% who are on the far left and far right. Even if I've underestimated the extremes, it's very unlikely that left-libs account for more than 20% of the population or that social conservatives account for more than a third of the population.

This is a centrist country, and winning over two-thirds of the centrists will give you a plurality of the vote in a presidential election.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 1:11 PM

Brian,

As far as I can ponder this out, SSM is one of several issues that one side just cannot accept disagreement about without assigning a dark, even subconsciously held, motive. No matter how one arrives at the decision to be "against SSM" and no matter what form the "against" takes, those "for SSM" will insist (and probably believe) that some form of active or latent homophobia is the "true" cause. Abortion is similar. One cannot present any case against abortion without being assumed to be a radical, right-wing, religious freakazoid.

I don't understand why SSM proponents are unwilling to fight this out in legislature and, seemingly, would rather piss off half or more of the population by attempting to achieve it through Judicial Usurpy.

Abortion is another example. If I were a supporter of Abortion on Demand, No Questions Asked, Taxpayer Funds It and Shuts Up, I wouldn't want my cornerstone to be dubious nonsense like Roe v. Wade. But one cannot discuss the legal merits of Roe v. Wade - the topic is banned. In fact, accepting that piece of judicial idiocy with a polite smile and sage nod is considered a litmus test. One cannot even discuss the idea of discussing limits to abortions procedures or funding sources without being labeled a VRWC fanatic.

Just one of those odd topics that drive people bonkers beyond any ability to discuss or even consider reasoned argumentation about. Talk about gun control to some gun folks sometime.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 1:13 PM

Secondly, if it is not about homophobia, then exactly why is it being fought so furiously?

Because marriage is an important institution, and weakening marriage typically leads to an increase in state power and intrusiveness.

Posted by: Brian at August 31, 2004 1:17 PM

Oh geeze.

Gay marriage:

If you are a Left activist, it's a chance to stick one right in the eye of the conservative right, with the added spice of limitless opportunities to hurl homophobe, fascist, and fundie labels with reckless abandon. From the right, you are defending an institution that predates our constitution by about four thousand years and WORKS.

Speaking of the war thing:

I just watched the first thirty seconds of the Nepalese hostages being slaughtered. Then I threw up all over my lap. No warning at all; I moved just quick enough to keep from more than splattering my desk and the carpet below.

I've seen dead people before. Shucks, I've watched a few die from trauma. I've felt more empathy while dressing a deer than those barbarians evinced during their act of murder.

I don't think our current Doctrine can work fast enough to defang the evil that is become Islam. I applaud the vision and still respect the limitations of our political divisions, and recognise that we as a nation are probably doing the best we can do at this time...but it may be time to put away the scalpel.

Screw that. It's past time.

Islam delenda est.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 31, 2004 1:17 PM

For those who believe there is some magic "center" that holds uniform opinions on the "important" issues, please construct, for discussion purposes, a Centrist Party 2004 Platform.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 1:24 PM

Mr. Simon,

I have a question for you. Do you believe it is possible to oppose gay marriage without being homophobic?

Gerry

Posted by: Gerry at August 31, 2004 1:26 PM

WichitaBoy,

Here's the problem with the two parties. This nation is facing two catastrophes, one that's top of mind and that may or may not occur, another that's all but ignored but is almost certain to occur.

The first disaster has provoked a reasonably respectable response from one party and total confusion from the other. The second looming disaster provoked a reasonable response from one party when it held power and total incoherence from the other now that it has power.

In other words, if I vote Republican and they control the Congress and the White House, it's a near certainty that these don't-tax-do-spend opportunists will hasten a fiscal catastrophe caused by the confluence of enormous dependence on foreign capital, demographics, medical technology and the entitlements mentality. There is next to zero likelihood that fiscally-irresponsible Rove Republicans will address this honestly and courageously. My vote doesn't mean squat to Karl Rove, who's more interested in raising evangelical turnout than appealing to intelligent centrists.

OTOH if I vote Democrat I may get some hope on the fiscal front if only because of divided government (recall 1994), but there's a serious chance that these irresponsible naifs will be blackmailed by a nuclear Iran. And there's little chance that I can persuade my party's leaders otherwise. They think they can win my vote by saluting at the camera and mouthing idiocies like "Reporting for duty!" while putting forth more Carterite mush.

So we're screwed if we vote D, screwed if we vote R. This is not an acceptable choice.

This situation cannot hold. It must change before we collapse, either from an Iranian-supplied dirty bomb or a cascading financial collapse triggered by Asian central banks deciding that massive Treasury holdings don't look so necessary after all.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 1:27 PM

There are two main views about homosexuality. On is the secular notion that it is a sexual orientation some portion of the population is prone to. The second is the religiously based notion that it is a sin.

If the secular people are right then civil same sex marriages make sense. If the religious notion is right, then same sex marriages are sinful unions. That is the fault line the debate seperates on, and to pretend otherwise serves no useful purpose.

We live in a secular society. I'll respect a religious sect who's dogma does not sanctify same sex for its membership. I will not respect a sect that attempts to make its dogma national policy.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 31, 2004 1:28 PM

Two looming catastrophes, and the party in power wishes to talk about... homosexuality.

It's the political equivalent of bread and circuses.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 1:30 PM

Roger, great post. But why would attending the Republican convention, and being favorably impressed by some of what you see and hear there, make you a "flak" for the Republican Party? I hope you're not slipping into this leftist mentality where if you happen to agree with [insert applicable authority figure here], you must be selling out to "the Man".

I'm a registered Republican. I plan on voting Republican this November, and my blog is listed on "Blogs for Bush". Does that make me a "flak for the Republican Party"?

Posted by: asher at August 31, 2004 1:32 PM

Thibaud,

What's the difference between proportionally smaller deficits today (along with huge ongoing productivity and economic growth) versus the larger deficits of the past? Why are we suddenly about to face economic collapse that has heretofore failed to visit us?

I'm not a fan of government spending, but I fail to see the sky falling.

Posted by: Matthew Cromer at August 31, 2004 1:34 PM

Ambi,

Secondly, if it is not about homophobia, then exactly why is it being fought so furiously?

There is no exactly. There are numerous reasons in various combinations with various weights and priorities.

And what is your definition of fought so furiously? Anything short of rolling over and letting whichever Minor or Major Mayor or JoP decide its time for the nation to shut up and accept SSM is "fighting it furiously"?

For those who are fighting so furiously for SSM, what exactly is it you want? What, exactly, is marriage and what, exactly, are the benefits it confers upon those who enter into it that are needed so badly, right now? And why, when the Dems had both houses and Clinton as president, wasn't this issue getting the same full-court press it get's today?

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 1:34 PM

It's an uneasy marriage for most of us. Both parties are so big that you have to "swallow hard" in either.

The battle is between the Eagles and the Social Conservatives in the Republican party on domestic policy and they agree on foreign. It is between the pacifists and the hawks in the Democratic one, and they agree on domestic.

Right now, the war on militant Islam is the overriding issue. That controls my vote.

Posted by: lindybill at August 31, 2004 1:38 PM

I meant to say ...when the Dems had both houses or Clinton as president... (did they ever have both?)

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 1:39 PM

And what is your definition of fought so furiously

Going off half-cocked and proposing a Constitutional Ammendment banning it before it had been addressed at the local and state levels.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 31, 2004 1:42 PM

Ambi,

You set up a false dichotomy. It is possible to be opposed to SSM strictly based on secular arguments. There are many such arguments, but please go back to the top of this discussion and read my post( the fourth one down, discussing newborn adoption issues) and the article linked by Dennis Prager. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040504.shtml Homophobia or religion is not the issue.

Posted by: rickE at August 31, 2004 1:46 PM

ambisinstral

"..the secular notion that [homosexuality] is a sexual orientation some portion of the population is prone to. ....If the secular people are right then civil same sex marriages make sense."

You are making some incredible leaps of logic there. How does this "make sense"? There are a great many things that people are "prone to"; that does not mean that society needs to embrace and endorse them all, surely?

Posted by: flenser at August 31, 2004 1:52 PM

From my viewpoint as an economist, the purpose of marriage is to protect the father's investment in the child. In marriage, the father, "forsaking all others", is promised in return that the child for whose upbringing he is responsible carries his genes. In a same-sex union, there is no fatherhood to protect.

Posted by: fatherson at August 31, 2004 1:53 PM

Ambi:

"Going off half-cocked and proposing a Constitutional Ammendment banning it before it had been addressed at the local and state levels."

Proposing a constitutional amendment *forces* the issue to be addressed at the local and state levels...and will result in *exactly* what its opponents want: no federal law against same-sex marriage, and the forcing of state and local legislatures to deal with the issue on their own.

Posted by: stumbley at August 31, 2004 1:55 PM

Michael Moore's USA Today column asks a random Republican about these things and finds that Republican is "too liberal for the GOP".

Who Moore proposes as the real GOP is apparently defined as "all the people who I don't like in the GOP".

Roger, remember I suggested you get around and talk to the actual delegates? You might try asking some of these same questions. My own impression is that opposition to gay marriage is about as widespread, or as limited, as it is in the population as a whole: something like 65 percent.

We may not like it, but it's a category error to then say it's the Republicans.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 31, 2004 1:56 PM

"So we're screwed if we vote D, screwed if we vote R. This is not an acceptable choice."

Thiabaud -

I'm declaring a punk'd in action.

The Democrats refuse to recognise that we are involved in a clash of civilizations.

The Republicans won't acquiesce in the destruction of an institution that is without a doubt one of the key foundation blocks upon which our entire culture stands.

And you think the level of spending on the part of the Republicans the last four years stands as proof of some sort of abdication of sense?

How about a short term strategy to ensure solid support of existing constituencies, with an eye to picking up more seats the next election, instigated by a recognition that without substantially increasing the number of their seats they would continue to be hamstrung by the monolithic obstruction of the Democratic minority?

Why, that would be spending other peoples' money to achieve a political goal, wouldn't it? I like the reaction of Democrats whenever they see Republicans resort to classic left parliamentary shenanigans; they look like they've been savaged by a duck. Politics is about staying true to priniciples but sometimes you have to win right now in order to make it possible to further those prinicples. The Republicans are playing by the rules of the arena they are in. Distasteful? I suppose so, but the last fistfight I was ever in left me tired, bloody, and bruised but still conscious. That is the arena of our congress right now, make no mistake about it.

I'm much, MUCH less concerned about the current level of spending in congress than I am about keeping a strong majority that supports fighting this war. What excesses the Reps are party to now can be partly attributed to early efforts to reach across the aisle, and for their efforts they got kicked right in the teeth. As a function of GDP our deficits are high but nothing remotely unsustainable...especially in light of the fact that a Republican administration and majority will likely foster continued economic growth as well as effectively address Social Security and litigation reform.

There's the opposition, and then there's the enemy. It's essential that one be able to make the distinction when it matters. I say that for BOTH sides of an argument, too - and encourage that the participants in our national debate that hold office or positions of power work very, very hard to remember the job is to protect and defend the country FIRST and their agenda second.

I don't support the part of the Republican plank that attempts to rule out civil unions or legal protections for same-sex relationships. Sue me..but I'm still a Republican in spite of disagreeing . There will NEVER be a constitutional amendment passed that contains such prohibitions.

On the other hand, there is no such guarantee that some court may remove the debate from the public forum entirely, with who knows what consequences?

You can pass a law redefining a zebra as a horse...but there's never going to be a zebra standing in the winner circle at the Derby because even if it has four legs, a tail, and a mane, it can't compete in a competition that horses were bred for. Water flows downhill. DOWNhill. And there's no court or law that can change that. Hubris.

We live in interesting times.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 31, 2004 1:59 PM

Ambi,

Going off half-cocked and proposing a Constitutional Ammendment banning it before it had been addressed at the local and state levels.

That's a fat load of twaddle (and you are well aware of that). Judges, mayors, ministers and JoPs were going off half-cocked and marrying homosexuals before it had been addressed at the local and state levels. A small minority segment of society tried for force this on the entire nation as a fait accompli. The proponents, with full forethought and, perhaps, malice, decided it was time to force the hand of a Republican administration and congress. No politician would have touched this with a fifty foot poll if the issue hadn't been forced by opportunistic activists who were at least as much interested ins starting a national catfight and blaming it on "The Meanspirited Bigotted Republicans".

Now, go here and read about the proposed amendment and the onerous process of amending the constitution. The Federal Marriage Amendment is not going to happen unless SSM proponents refuse to climb down off their moralistic hobby horses and go through legislature the way they should. Activists pushed this issue and found out the majority of the nation aren't ready to be pushed around about this. Get to work convincing people rather than shoving this down their throats.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 2:01 PM

ambis

"Going off half-cocked and proposing a Constitutional Ammendment banning it before it had been addressed at the local and state levels."

This is disingenuous. The whole strategy of the gay marriage proponents is to bypass the state and local levels entirely. Once gay marriage is "legalized" in a couple of states by one group of rogue judges, the issue will be kicked up to the SCOTUS. Based on their language recently, there is every indication that they will decide to strike down laws banning gay marriage.

Taking the issue out of the hands of the courts, and putting it back where it belongs, is the correct answer. That is, if the question is anything other than "How do we guarantee that gay marriage becomes the law of the land?"

Question for you. Why are you so opposed to letting the people, through their elected representatives, make the decision as to what constitutes marriage? Don't you think that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?

Posted by: flenser at August 31, 2004 2:06 PM

Whether or not you approve of gay marriage, the comment above expressing incredulity that 38 states would pass such an amendment is off the mark. The required number of states (including many "blue" states) already have enacted defense of marriage acts or state constitutional amendments preventing gay marriage. While that may not indicate that they would all support a federal constitutional amendment, if a court decision came down forcing them to recognize out of state gay marriages, the federal constitutional amendment is likely to pass.

This issue is one of the reasons that I don't think Ohio or Louisiana are seiously in play in this election, and why Michigan will probably go for Bush. All of these states will most likely have anti-gay marriage proposals on the ballot, and as we saw in the bellweather state of Missouri, these proposals are wildly popular (70% voted in favor of a constitutional amendment in Missouri last month).

The liberal Mass Supreme Court thought it was throwing Bush a curve by forcing this issue in an electin year, but it badly miscalculated.

Posted by: Thom at August 31, 2004 2:09 PM

ambisinistral,

The Rs didn't start it (Hello MA judges! Hello Gavin Newsom!). They're just going to finish it. Talking about it is a winning issue, here's why...

all,

There seems to be a popular notion in these quarters that the majority of the country supports SSM, and if the social conservatives/religious right would just get out of the way the "rest of us" could all live in harmony. Wrong, wrong, wrong. DOMA passed in 1996 by greater than 75% (if I recall). 38 states have mini-DOMAs. Missouri (the bellwether) just passed a state constitutional ban by 70%. Oregon recently got a ballot initiative added which will put a ban into their state constitution which garnered more signatures than any other in OR state history (it's gonna pass, folks). Eleven other states have similar measures on the ballot in November. California passed Prop 22 in 2000 by 61.4%.

If even California and Oregon are passing these measures by such large margins, I'd say that the RNC is on solid footing in putting this in the platform. (BTW, ambisinistral and thibaud, I highly doubt that these large majorities of people across the country are all bible-thumping, religious right fanatics who are out to usurp all happiness and fun from society. Just a guess).

An amendment banning SSM is a distinct possibility. Should DOMA be struck down as unconstitutional (rightly, I might add), an amendment will be a near-certainty.

thibaud,

Equivocating a near-treasonous stance on national defense with irresponsible fiscal policy isn't realistic. One gets you less rich (notice I didn't say "poor"). The other gets you dead.

On the need for a new party:

This party is already in existence. It is called the Democratic Party. It has been hijacked by the Commies and needs to reform desperately. When the Democratic Party rejects socialism, embraces nationalism, and spurns elitism/racism/class warfare, people will flock to it again and American politics will return to normalcy. Until then, I'm afraid that those who have a vested interest in self-preservation are stuck with the Good Ol' GOP.

Posted by: bdog57 at August 31, 2004 2:14 PM

Hmmm....

Looks like a few people already made some of my points (Sigh). I take too long to write.

Posted by: bdog57 at August 31, 2004 2:15 PM

Tmj,

The Republicans won't acquiesce in the destruction of an institution that is without a doubt one of the key foundation blocks upon which our entire culture stands

I agree on much of what you say as regards foreign policy but the above statement, in a society in which 63% of all marriages end in divorce, is nonsense. Obviously, the demise of marriage as a serious lifelong commitment has not subverted "the foundation of our civilization."

The vast majority of Americans, like most western Europeans, consider marriage to be a contract between two willing parties who can dissolve it at will at any time. Since it's happening in equal numbers in both religious America and secular Europe, it has nothing to do with one's religiousity or commitment to "moral values." Most Christian marriages end in divorce, most Republican marriages end in divorce, most marriages period in 2004 in the western democracies end in divorce.

To me this is a stupid and bizarre trend that makes a mockery of the right's commitment to "family values." I don't believe in god and wasn't married in a church, but my wife and I are committed that only death will part us. My wife strongly opposes gay marriage but frankly, given the appalling track record of most straight marriages, could the gays really do worse?

btw, the Church into which I was baptized and which educated me does not permit divorce. Why should I believe that core Republican denominations such as the Baptists and Methodists that permit divorce are somehow more stalwart champions of "family values" than liberal Catholics who do not divorce?

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 2:18 PM

There seems to be a popular notion in these quarters that the majority of the country supports SSM

I don't think anyone believe that all-out same-sex marriage is the majority position in America.

However, I think (and I am pretty sure polls bear this out) that the majority of the country supports some type of accomodation for gay couples short of marriage -- such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Indeed, if you look at recent years, several state legislatures have passed domestic partnership laws on their own volition, without the courts being involved.

This is where the raw line of difference is within the body politic. There are a lot of people who are squeamish about marriage who nonetheless support domestic partnerships or civil unions. Yet the "true believers" oppose those limited accomodations (even if they are passed legislatively).

Posted by: Mike Silverman at August 31, 2004 2:21 PM

Roger:

I ususally agree with you, but here we part ways.

In a recent election in Mo. 70% of the people who went to the polls voted against legalizing gay marriage. All they are homophobic? Do you know them? Do you have the right to make that determination based on that vote? And Kerry supported it. The Dems are not exactly getting behind this. To hear people tell it you would think that gay marriae was the law of the land and the Republicans were taking a right away from someone. Not so.

People say the states should decide it, so what if the states do what Missouri did? For that matter California passed a referendum against gay marriage the Mayor San Francisco just ignored it.

So is it fair to say the state legislatures should decide it and then ignore the law when they do or bypass them altogether?

I think gay marriage might have been a far more acceptable institution in some future time and I think if gay activists had been more patient this would not be an issue now.

I don't think the amendment will pass, but I do think a debate will take place and hopefully we will come to an agreement that the majority of us can live with.

Posted by: Terrye at August 31, 2004 2:22 PM

There is a very big elephant in the SSM living room that can be summed up in a single word: children. That which diferentiates homosexual couples from heterosexual couples is the ability to, independently of external forces, create new life. This is a biological fact and while there have been many advances in medical practices that can assist non-conventionally conceived pregnancies, the norm is still that a child is born to a man and woman. As such, the only compelling interest I can see for the State in marriage is the effect that particular institution has on the creation, development and growth of the next generation. When you remove the issue of children it makes no sense for the government to impart any significance upon any personal relationship based solely upon the emotions of the parties. In this regard, on what basis should the government confer special status upon two people but not upon another two based upon the presence or absence of sexual activity? It is absurd to use this as the basis of legal standing. In the case of a heterosexual couple, however, while it is not required it is reasonable for the State to assume that children are a likely outcome of the partnership and therefore recognize it as having distinct legal standing.

As medical and societal practices change, this norm may be challenged, perhaps even rendering the traditional concept of marriage moot. That, however, is not the landscape in which we find ourselves today. (more here)

Posted by: submandave at August 31, 2004 2:22 PM

"I agree on much of what you say as regards foreign policy but the above statement, in a society in which 63% of all marriages end in divorce, is nonsense."

And maybe this isn't good. Maybe this is something that needs to be changed. Maybe we shouldn't do things that might exacerbate an already tenuous situation. And I'm sure you're more than aware that there's a ton of research which basically states this situation has not been particularly good for children or women.

Posted by: lindenen at August 31, 2004 2:23 PM

I think gay marriage might have been a far more acceptable institution in some future time and I think if gay activists had been more patient this would not be an issue now.

What about civil unions or domestic partnerships?

I think (and I am pretty sure polls bear this out) that the majority of the country supports some type of accomodation for gay couples short of marriage -- such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, even if they are opposed to full marriage rights.

Posted by: Mike Silverman at August 31, 2004 2:27 PM

To everyone:

Third parties are a fantasy. Study the history of third parties in this country.They have failed EVERY time.The Republican party replaced the Whigs after that party collapsed. The reform, the libertarian,the communist, the green, the dixiecrats, the bull moose. They failed, failed,failed failed, failed, failed. You can have some success on a city or possibly even on a state election but as far as national elections they are a constant historical failure. Even that boob Michael Moore figured this out after the failed Nader-Green flop.
Third parties are fun to discuss at cocktail parties and they go well in college classrooms.But if you study the history of third parties and examine the structural rules of our political system you can come to only one conclusion, they don't work. And the two parties are not going to change the rules to let third parties flourish. If there is one thing I can guarantee will unite the Dems and the pubs this is it. You have a better chance of changing a party from within the party. There have been historical examples of this, for instance the change of the republican party from the party of Rockefeller to the party of Reagan. it takes decades of hard work and sweat but it has and can be done. Give me one example of a third party working, in this country, and I might change my mind

Posted by: Kevin P at August 31, 2004 2:30 PM

"I take too long to write."

au contraire bdog57, you're assessment was well worth waiting for. The facts that you laid out concerning DOMA and the favorable percentages (I've never seen the subject poll less than 60% favorable) would lead anyone with political acumen to be a bit puzzled by the responses appearing here. Is the Republican party supposed to commit hari kiri with its base in order to satisfy the desires of what amounts to a fringe? As if the DNC would allow a plank opposing the proposed amendment into their platform.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 31, 2004 2:34 PM

I don't think the amendment will pass, but I do think a debate will take place and hopefully we will come to an agreement that the majority of us can live with.

I am curious what "the majority of us can live with" would be.

There are both anti-gay and pro-gay folks posting here...I am actually curious as to what a real compromise woul dbe.

I am a gay person who believes marriage is a civil right and that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is morally wrong. I am hopeful that the majority of Americans will one day see things as I do, but that day may be years or decades away.

I am willing to compromise, and live with a separate but equal (or even a separate but unequal) status of civil union or domestic partnership on a state by state level.

I guess what I would ask social conservatives is that if a state passes a civil union or domestic partnership law, will you guys agree to leave it alone and not try to overturn it at the Federal level?

As far as I can see things, the only compromise that will work is state by state --- if either side tries to force a uniform nationwide policy at the federal level, that will not fly....and that goes for pro-gay marriage folks of course, too.

Posted by: Mike Silverman at August 31, 2004 2:34 PM

bdog,

ambisinistral and thibaud, I highly doubt that these large majorities of people across the country are all bible-thumping, religious right fanatics who are out to usurp all happiness and fun from society. Just a guess

I agree with you totally that most people in this country are against gay marriage, just as most are against outlawing abortion. I didn't raise the issue and would defer to the people on it.

If the people wish to keep gays out of this sacred institution, which for 63% of those who enter into it has all the binding force of a dog license, then so be it. In my proposed party it would not be treated as a constitutional issue.

As to the fiscal disaster, here's the problem. As a nation we do not save nearly enough to fund our deficits. Given this negative savings rate and our $450B deficit, US interest rates and mortgage rates remain low only because the central banks of three asian nations-- Japan, China and So Korea-- have decided to buy up something like 2/3rds of the US Treasuries outstanding.

There is no fundamental economic reason why they should continue to do so. Europe has low inflation, the euro is very stable, and teh risk-return profile of euro fixed-income investments, as bond gurus like Bill Gross of PIMCO and longtime policy gurus like Peter G. Peterson have pointed out, are much more favorable than Treasuries.

So if the asians decide to switch over to euros, then demand for Treasuries will quickly tank, causing either pressure from the Fed for US investors to swap out of other investments (like equities) into Treasuries or else, far more likely, a very sharp fall in bond prices = sharp rise in interest rates. In either case, the two sources of savings that are sustaining 90% of the middle-clas households in this economy-- equities and home equity-- will come under great pressure. And of course, with high interest rates economic growth will not exceed 1-2%, meaning higher unemployment. This is a very real danger.

In other words, your economic future and mine depends on the good graces of a few men in Tokyo, Beijing and Seoul. That scares the s*** out of me and should scare the s*** out of every American.

And I see absolutely no evidence that Rove or Bush gives a damn about this danger.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 2:35 PM

I tend to reject the notion that to oppose SSM is to be homophobic--I think it possible to oppose SSM on strictly Burkean conservative lines. I am generally in favor of SSM along the lines indicated in numerous comments above; to wit, Let the State recognize civil unions as marriage (with all the rights pertaining thereto) and let the churches have sole authority in determining if they will celebrate marriage according to their tenents. Having said that, it really is important HOW this change takes place in society. Somehow, it must take place through a process that reflects the will of the majority--either in the several states or through constitutional processes. It should not be imposed (IMHO) by judicial fiat nor unilateral action by civil authorities. The concept of marriage, it seems to me, is long standing across all civilizations, and not to be changed lightly.

Posted by: RogerA at August 31, 2004 2:35 PM

Regarding third parties, I echo what Kevin P said -- they will never work, and the best way to effect change is within a party. Historically, when third parties appear, they either rapidly take over as one of the two major parties, or they go kaput after a couple election cycles.

And if you are stuck at the razor's edge like Roger (or other socially liberal hawks) you don't claim allegiance to either party but vote each election on an contemporary issues basis. That means for Roger this year it is Bush because of terrorism, but in 4 years, maybe it will be the Democrat, and 4 years after that, the Republican again, all based on what you see as the most important issue of the day and the qualities of the candidate.

Posted by: Mike Silverman at August 31, 2004 2:39 PM

lindenen,

a society in which 63% of all marriages end in divorce...: Maybe this isn't good. Maybe this is something that needs to be changed. Maybe we shouldn't do things that might exacerbate an already tenuous situation. And I'm sure you're more than aware that there's a ton of research which basically states this situation has not been particularly good for children or women.

I oppose divorce, just as I oppose the absurd notion that the miserable record of heterosexuals justifies their refusal to allow gays to "subvert" this institution that's no more sacred than a dog license to them.

Let's suppose the state of, say, Missouri, suddenly allowed gay marriage and thousands of gays and lesbians who had been devoted to each other for ten years or more rushed to the altar.

What would be the effect of this on the overall divorce rate five years from now? Would it go up or down?

If the latter, as is likely, then it follows that gay marriage would actually STRENGTHEN marriage in this country, not the reverse.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's completely absurd to argue that gays are weakening heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals are doing a nice enough job of of destroying it by themselves, thank you.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 2:43 PM

thibaud (BTW, apologize for the misspelling above) -

Where did I make a moral or religious argument in favor of traditional marriage?

It's a matter of practicality to me.

So what if 63% of marriages end in divorce? What place in this argument can that statistic have any relevance? "See, the institution is a failure already, so we can't screw it up any worse?"

I could see you using that stat in another argument, though. Prior to the 1960's, when uncontested divorce became the norm, the leading edge of juvenile crime was...unruly classroom behaviour. That standard no longer pertains. Wonder why that is? Maybe if the contractural bonds of marriage were legally strengthened we might be able to knock back the incidence of monsters resulting from broken homes?

On-demand divorce is just one component of the 'no guilt' pop culture that has returned monstrous divedends after being enacted with the best of intentions. It takes WORK to make most marriages work...and removing the social and legal onus from that reality by a stroke of a pen was a horrible mistake.

Uncontested divorce allowed the participants in marriage to dissolve a contract without incurring personal penalty. Oh, there's child support and sometimes alimony, sure, but socially? Nah. You weren't happy so you got out. And that the kids will grow up lacking direct and daily input, guidance, and mentoring from both halves of the psychological universe that is family is never mentioned. There's an economist around here someplace. Maybe he'll weigh in with what effect contracts without enforceable obligations have on commerce. Just a guess.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 31, 2004 2:45 PM

Political parties live for votes and money. The The Democrats have become a shell for labor and the wealthy left who together pay almost all the bills, which is why that party's preoccupations seem almost quaint and must be hidden from view when voters are in the room. There aren't many voters out there for pro-labor, Hollywood-PC causes. The Republicans have almost the opposite problem. They raise money on the basis of their economic and defense positions, but they can't scare up a majority without votes from bigoted fundamentalists who would undoubtedly dump George W. Bush in a heartbeat if he ever spoke a word in favor of same sex marriage.

It's possible to imagine a scenario in which the Republican party collapses, and its funders try to create a new party designed to peel off moderate Democrats to join them in favor of economic sanity, social libertarianism, environmental sustainability and defense hawkishness. These are all majority-held positions that can be coherently argued together as well as separately. But that day seems a long way off.

The Democratic party will not change; it will only become more sclerotic as the obsessions of its primary funders become less and less relevant to today's world, while their checks correspondingly get larger.

Posted by: Vail Beach at August 31, 2004 2:45 PM

I disagree wholeheartedly with ambisinistral's statement of conventional wisdom. All the gay folks I know and know of are very successful people in monogamous relationships. Their inablility to obtain a marriage licence has not negatively affected their lifestyles. The entire gay-marriage issue was foisted upon our culture by liberal, unelected judges and the militant gay lobbies. To me, ambisinistral, the religious left are imposing its views on the rest of us. After thousands of years, where custom and practice of human existence has defined marriage as between one man and one woman, why did the religious left suddenly find a "right" to another definition in 2004?

This entire issue is fabricated to create a wedge to elect socialists that would do more to abolish economic and social freedom than any person that wants the traditional definition of marriage to stay traditional. Gay folks have the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that any other hetero has. Being unable to obtain a licence documenting a legally created fiction that codifies eons of custom and practice does NOTHING to diminish these inalienable rights.

Posted by: insatty at August 31, 2004 2:47 PM

Mike S.,

It is at least possible that you could sit down with evangelicals and gain their support for civil unions or domestic partnerships. There is no true theological impediment (that I am aware of) to developing laws covering contractual arrangements between individuals, without regard to sexual orientation, that would cover the vast majority of the status issues that are truly important.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 31, 2004 2:49 PM

Roger and Yehudit:

Did you know that Rick Santorum and, of course "the Derb" were both at that thing last night? Kooky huh. Now there's some ideological diversity.

Yeah, the schism between social/religious conservatives Republican and social liberal Republicans is getting pretty bad. See Judith's link. These people do not want us defining the direction of the party whatsoever. They're pissed off that Giuliani/Schwarzeneggar/Pataki/McCain are even getting to speak in primte time. They actually think that Bush is not socially conservative enough, not anti-gay enough. It's amazing. If it wasn't for the war I think you might see the party splitting in two or the social liberals trying to take over the Democrats and make them reasonable (which might not be a bad idea even now come to think of it).

At that panel, Zell Miller seemed to me to say that the only reason for his political transformation was his opposition to gay marriage and conservative stance on other social issues. He didn't say word one about foreign policy. It's all the culture war for him.

The second panel was even more nuts. It was essentially composed of all these old school New York/Catholic/Conservative Party guys, who are darkly warning that if Bush doesn't gay bash enough, social conservatives will just take their ball and go home. In answer to the "Where will they go?" question, one guy said, "We'll go bowling, fishing, spend time with our families on election day." Is this true? And, if so, what the hell is wrong with these people? Are they really willing to turn the country's national security over to John Kerry simply over a few domestic issues? And people complain about Andrew Sullivan . . .

My question is what more could they possibly want from Bush? He's already said that he supports an Amendment to the constitution the wording of which prohibited states from allowing any gay civil marriage or even civil unions. He is strongly pro-life. He can't unilaterally outlaw abortion as president, but he appoints strongly pro-life judges, and probably would get to appoint a strongly pro-life Supreme Court Justice in his second term. To top it all off, he even supports an anti flag-burning Amendment. Yet, still these people are petulantly whining about having non culture-warriors speak and are threatening to stay home. I say we call their bluff.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at August 31, 2004 2:50 PM

Somebody give thibaud a nudge.

His needle is stuck.

thibaud, do you have more than one post? I mean, can't you at least change the wording a little, rather than doing these cut-and-paste jobs?

The Asians, and the Europeans, all have a vested interest in the US economy not going down the tubes. When America sneezes, the world catches a cold.

Have you checked out what the debt scenario is for the countries of Old Europe? If you have money in there, I recommend not leaving it too long.

Posted by: flenser at August 31, 2004 2:51 PM

I agree wholeheartedly that divorce causes major social problems. For middle-class people, divorce is a temprorary headache. For working-class people, divorce is an unmitigated financial disaster.

Children in families that stay together, that have two incomes and that benefit from significant economies in household costs, are far less likely to be poor than children in single-parent families. Remember when such families used to be called "broken homes"? They're the norm now, and it has absolutely zip to do with gays.

Which is one reason that I have no problem with the prospect of committed homosexual couples marrying. It's absurd to say that the self-centeredness and parental incompetence of so many heterosexuals is somehow a result of gays coming out of the closet. They should fix their own damn house instead of blaming innocent third parties like Roger's son and his friend.

A pox on both your parties.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 2:52 PM

Heh! fight! fight!

Look, Kerry's campaign is now about medals. Do you want Bush's to be about gay marriage? It's all about priorities folks. If the WOT is the big concern, then let us put aside differences until the job is well in hand. If not, hey, it's your funeral, and maybe mine too.

And WTF is this RINO bit. You show me who owns the Republican party, and I'll let them make the call. If, just on the off chance that you *do* own the Republican party, why don't you devote a part of the convention tomorrow to a formal excommunication of Giuliani, McCain, and Schwarzenegger. That way you can rest assured that you are among the chosen. After, dressed in white robes to advertize your purity, you can go forth and impress the people.

Posted by: chuck at August 31, 2004 2:57 PM

"A pox on both your parties."

Why do I think that he doesn't mean "I'm leaving and not coming back."?

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 31, 2004 2:57 PM

thibaud,

This set off my bovine excrement detector:
Obviously, the demise of marriage as a serious lifelong commitment has not subverted "the foundation of our civilization."

Plenty of studies to show that yes, indeed, divorce does all sorts of awful things materially and psychologically to all involved -including the children. This causes a drain on society which will cause it to break. It's interesting that you should make this argument after accusing the Rs of being fiscally irresponsible.

You have given the European definition of marriage. Google Stanley Kurtz for more on the consequences of SSM in the Netherlands ("Going Dutch?" is the name of one article, can't remember the name of the follow-up).

Mike,

The battle for "gay rights" was won a long time ago. Your side won! Everyone knows someone who is gay and no one wants to be the bad guy.

This might explain why polls taken right before the Missouri amendment vote showed 61% for and the exit polls showed 70% for. People don't want to be seen as bigoted.

I would submit that people don't confuse/conflate "gay rights" with "gay marriage". Rightly so. Frankly, this whole thing reminds me of the ERA. The Feminists had already won. The amendment would have just been icing on the cake.

When society embraces Ellen and Queer Eye, I would say that normalization has occurred.

You correctly note that in some states the proposition of civil unions will be accepted. Of course, you also assert that some "true believers" (ahh! scare quotes! loaded phrases! you might as well have said "moderate"!) will oppose this even if it is passed legislatively. If you mean that they will try to stop it in the legislature, you are correct. If you mean that they will try to overturn it afterwards -against a clear majority- you are probably incorrect. Needless to say, you didn't back up any of these assertions with data so...(shrug).

Of course, I also have yet to see any state legislatures proposing civil unions (VT has it already). The MA legislature, on the other hand...

Posted by: bdog57 at August 31, 2004 2:59 PM

And, if so, what the hell is wrong with these people? Are they really willing to turn the country's national security over to John Kerry simply over a few domestic issues?

I am guessing there are some people who would rather see an American city go up in nuclear fire then live ina coutry where gay people are allowed to live openly as committed couples.

If you are asked the question which you prefer:

a) An American victory over the forces of Islamofacism.... and the eventuality of legal same-sex marriage

or

b) An american city lost to nuclear terrorism, but an amendment against gay marriage succeeds

and you have to think for more then one millisecond before choosing "A" then you have a serious mental problem.

Posted by: Mike Silverman at August 31, 2004 3:01 PM

Mike Silverman: "I am willing to compromise ... with a ... civil union or domestic partnership on a state by state level."

I, too, would have no problem with a government establishing a standard set of legally recognized conditions that individuals may freely enter into. In my eyes, this serves many societal purposes by simplifying the establishment of a domestic relationship, be it heterosexual, homosexual or completely non-sexual. In addition, it might allow attention to be focused on how the institute of marriage can be strengthened to better protect our future. I would envision the union or partnership to be a less tight "contract" than marriage, given that the responsibilities associated with the assumed child-raising role are naturally greater.

Posted by: submandave at August 31, 2004 3:03 PM

Mike S.---

I guess what I would ask social conservatives is that if a state passes a civil union or domestic partnership law, will you guys agree to leave it alone and not try to overturn it at the Federal level?

Yes.

The resolution of this issue is really quite simple. A few sentences attached to the DOMA as an ammendment that eliminate judicial review as a possiblity will return this issue to the states...for good. Which is where it should be. Anyone who is interested can read about it here.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 31, 2004 3:05 PM

mike:

I don't really care about gay marriage one way or the other. I think civil unions can accomplish much the same in regards to legal ststus but I realize that legal status may not be the point.

When I say something we can all live with I mean that someday I think attitudes will change and most people will feel comfortable with ssm. However, if this is pushed now the majority will have its way.

This is a departure from a long held tradition, to accuse anyone and everyone who questions its wisdom of homophobia is a cheap shot.

Posted by: Terrye at August 31, 2004 3:06 PM

Of course, I also have yet to see any state legislatures proposing civil unions

For reference, here is the state of civil unions and domestic partnership laws in America today:

California -- Very comprehensive domestic partner law (basically everything an individual state can do marriage-wise), passed legislatively., 1999 (initially) & 2001 (added on to)

Hawaii -- Domestic partnership law passed legislatively., 1997

Vermont -- Civil Union law passed legislatively, but after a court order., 1999

Mass. -- Full marriage, direct court order, 2004

New Jersey -- Domestic partnership law, passed legislatively, 2003

Maine -- Limited domestic partnership law, passed legislatively, 2004

Posted by: Mike Silverman at August 31, 2004 3:07 PM

flenser, how will you feel when the dollar sinks to its true level, ie about $0.60 to the euro? Do you think major oil producers like Russia and Norway will still price their oil in dollars? If not, then the dollar will fall still further and gasoline prices in this country will soar.

Read these articles before you parade more ignorance:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/markets/gross/

The U.S. dollar is overvalued by 20 percent, propped up by an inflow of foreign capital that can be reversed at any time

http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Late+Breaking+Commentary/IO/2004/IO_07_04.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83510/peter-g-peterson/riding-for-a-fall.html

Three long-term trends are threatening to bankrupt America: the burgeoning costs of waging the war on terrorism, the U.S. economy's increasing reliance on foreign capital, and rapid aging throughout the developed world. Washington must understand that committing the United States to a broader global role while ignoring the financial costs of doing so is deeply irresponsible

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 3:07 PM

Rick B.,

Thanks

Mike,

Yes.

Even though Clinton wasn't my choice for President, he was my President.

As a card-carrying member of the religious right, I assure you that there are many others on this side of things who believe sustaining due process (even if they disagree with the end result).

Frankly, I would wager that there are far more things upon which we agree than disagree.

Posted by: bdog57 at August 31, 2004 3:07 PM

The battle for "gay rights" was won a long time ago. Your side won!

I know you are being kind of sarcastic, but I see your point. Basically, you can live your life as openly gay in many (perhaps most?) places in America today.

Unless this trend is actually reversed, some form of national recognition of same-sex relationships (whatever it is called) seems to be inevitable at some point down the road. I mean, eventually, legislative accomplishment follows social acceptance...at least that has been the trend in American history.

Posted by: Mike Silverman at August 31, 2004 3:14 PM

Which party is this?

It's the party of democracy. The party that believes "the people" are soverign, not "the judges" or "the intelectuals".

Misouri just voted 70 - 30 against gay marriage. (And Kerry said in an inteview with a MO state paper that he would have voted with the 70.) Do you think there's ANY state in the country that would vote FOR it?

Nope? Neither does anyone else. Which is why dishonest people, and people who care about nothing but their own desires, are trying to get judges to ignore their oaths are create a "right" to gay marriage from nothing other than their desires.

The fact that the Republican Party opposes such evil behavior (that would be the judges) is a point in its favor.

Posted by: Greg D at August 31, 2004 3:16 PM

Wow! I just saw that Log Cabin ad. Very effective.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at August 31, 2004 3:18 PM

Kevin P,

You're absolutely right. A third party is simply not viable in the US system. As the rules are set up, it will favor two parties. (lots of resources for this on the net, anyone interested can try googling for "first past the post" for starters)

The current parties will only be replaced by another if they fail totally. It doesn't matter how big the center is, and how many potential votes there are there, with a two party system you will always have one "right" and one "left", fighting for the middle. If a "center" party should emerge, the other two will simply move their agendas towards the center and squeeze the C party.
And a C party will easily be projected as indecisive. As soon as they take a clear stand on any issue, the voters that think differently about that issue is lost. If they try to keep a middle opinion, they will be attacked with "but what do you really *stand* for?"
In countries with multi-party systems, the true "centrist" parties are small, the bigger parties are in either side of the center, but may also cover the center to some extent.

So, what if the "right" party (R) should disappear, could that be an opening for a C party? I doubt it. The "left" party will simply move it's positions more to the center to attract voters. C will be forced to move right, or face a new R-party emerging, and be squeezed in the middle. Either way, there will be two parties.

I believe this is self adjusting. Any party that moves too far from the center will loose the voters there, and thus loose the election.
And the fact that there is elections for the representatives in congress seems to balance things out nicely. If the middle think the president is too far out, they are likely to turn to the other party for congress, and that will balance out the power.

To have a third party in the US, the electoral college need to be dropped. Then the president will probably be elected the same way as in France, one national election when the two front runners are selected, and one election (if noone has more then 50% in the first round) to pick the winner.

Expect the losing parties to come up with great slogans. Chiraq was endorsed with a poster that went something like "Vote for the crook, not the idiot!" :-)

Posted by: Erik at August 31, 2004 3:18 PM

As a card-carrying member of the religious right, I assure you that there are many others on this side of things who believe sustaining due process (even if they disagree with the end result).

As a card-carrying member of the "gay rights lobby" I would like to assure you that the same thing is true over here. If the FMA passes, then it is part of the Constitution and that is that; the people have spoken. I will still treasure this wonderful country where I have freedom of speech and religion and I can organize and petition for redress of grievances...a country I will always believe is the best hope of our world.

Posted by: Mike Silverman at August 31, 2004 3:20 PM

homophobe n, used to demean anyone with any objection to any part of the "gay agenda."

Original meaning based on old fashioned psychology: homophobes are afraid of their own latent homosexuality, so thet react against gays.

The term is offensive. It is meant to be offensive. I don't like hearing it applied to me (as it has been here) because I'm not afraid of homosexuals, and I dislike sloppy speaking - especially using offensive code words.

I say again, the term is offensive. Within itself it contains two falsehoods about the motives of those it is applied to - it is a dishonest epithet defined to end rational discourse and allow the person using it a moral triumph.

It does not require religious belief to understand the dangers of SSM. Let's start with children - adopted, created with modern reproductive technology. Then lets move on to the confusion in the young about what this thing called marriage is. We can mention the other forms of relationships that be awarded a "right" to marriage - such as the quasi-Mormons (denounced by the church I believe) in Colorado City who already practice polygamy. I can see polygamous groups spreading due to demographic advantage. Has anyone noticed how the Hutterites (who do none of this) have taken over big chunks of midwest farms? Imagine instead some Koresh style folks.

One could go on, but the fact is that SSM is a change in an ancient tradition.

Republicans still have a lot of conservatism, and that includes respecting tradition until that tradition is shown to be wrong (racism, for example).

Simple prudence says that changing an age old institution suddenly is dangerous.

The thing that amazes me is those willing to violate a tradition so ancient and change the meaning entirely (and that is what SSM does). And on top of that, to call opponents offensive names and imply that they are thoughtless neanderthals.

There are many varied people in the country. Some groups organize to get something from government. Gays have gotten a whole lot, some of it deserved. This is the place to draw the line.

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at August 31, 2004 3:27 PM

John Moore:

Didn't some of the Indian tribes have squaw men? I seem to recall such from Andrew Garcia's memoir, "Tough Trip Through Paradise." Much recommended, by the way, for a view of living among the Indians in the 1870's.

Posted by: chuck at August 31, 2004 3:31 PM

Some groups organize to get something from government.

...another phrase for that is "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Everyone can do that -- everyone SHOULD do that. That is what our country is about.

Gays have gotten a whole lot, some of it deserved. This is the place to draw the line.

What a perfectly nonsensical statement.

What is "it" and why does anyone "deserve" anything?

Posted by: Mike Silverman at August 31, 2004 3:34 PM

Mike,

Your side won!

Not being saracastic. I'd say that stopping attacks against homosexuals just for being homosexual is a very, very good thing. Societies that sanction this don't go very far.

You ignored all of Mr. Moore's arguments leading up to the sentence which you criticized. He believes that the institution of SSM will lead to the dissolution of marriage, and subsequently the family.

I argue that this will be the case because marriage and child-bearing will become mutually exclusive activities. They are headed in this direction already, and the institution of SSM will sanction that message. Kurtz has discussed this in his articles.

Unfortunately, I must go. I will return to the discussion tomorrow (sorry, no home PC).

Posted by: bdog57 at August 31, 2004 3:47 PM

I don't like the term "homphobe" because it implies that whole fear/latency thing. I prefer "anti-gay bigot", (though John Derbyshire refers to himself as a "mild homophobe). So, can someone be opposed to gay civil marriage and not be bigoted towards gays?

Well, first of all to claim that there's no overlap between opposition to gay civil marriage and anti-gay bigotry is absurd. The fight against gay civil marriage is hugely supported by Falwell, Robertson and all the usual suspects. The first umpteen threads on gay marriage here primarily consisted of bdog57 and jerry and others digging up various Bible passages on the aberrance of homosexuality. The FMA which so many here so supported was drafted by Marilyn Musgrave, whose entire career has been based on anti-gay measures, most of which had nothing to do with marriage. Many of those who oppose gay civil marriage also opposed the Supreme Court striking down Texas's sodomy law, and used the same arugments ("Activist Judges" etc.) With all these connections it's sometimes hard to tease out the opposition to gay civil marriage from the simple anti-gay bigotry.

Second, many of the anti gay civil marriage arguments are so weak but they are made with such vehemence and such emotion that it makes you wonder about the motivation. We're told over and over again that marriage is all about procreation (despite the fact that infertile couples are allowed civil marriage) that gay men are licentious and immoral and would ruin marriage (when allowing them into the stabilizing, conservative tradition of marriage would help counteract negative behavior) that Stanley Kurtz has done yet another ground-breaking, epoch-making study on the effects of gay civil unions (not marriage) in a small, Scandinavian country with a completely different culture than ours and we should accept that as prima facie evidence that gay civil marriage wouldn't work in America etc. etc.

Third, opponents of gay civil marriage never answer Andrew Sullivan's basic question of what sort of life they envision for gay people. They are against gay promiscuity, yet are also against gay's entering an institution that promotes and celebrates monogamy. So, what are they to do? The answer, I'm afraid, is that a lot of them believe that you can choose to be gay and can choose not to be gay through some kind of "reparative therapy" or something, or that homosexuality truly is an aberration which is obviously a bigoted attitude. Or they don't even think about such questions, which is also a sort of bigotry IMO.

The strongest argument against gay civil marriage, IMO, is John Moore's argument of "whoa, let's slow down a minute," The basic, conservative argument in the most basic sense of conservatism. It's a big change and it should be taken slowly, which is why it should be left up to the states. The Republicans, however, want to nationalize marrige law.

But I'll also submit that marriage isn't being changed "suddenly". It's been undergoing changes continually for years, most especially with the introduciton of no-fault divorce laws (based on the California law that Ronald Reagan signed). This is but a small part of that long, gradual change.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at August 31, 2004 4:05 PM

Has anyone else ever thought the expression "gay marriage" was odd? If you consider procreation an innate aspect of marriage, as I do, then the two are mutually exclusive. It's like arguing to legislate the existence of "dry rain". Does this count as "double think"?

Posted by: lindenen at August 31, 2004 4:06 PM

He believes that the institution of SSM will lead to the dissolution of marriage, and subsequently the family.

I guess I have greater confidence in the family then he does!
Unless the human species changes on a deep biological level, the primacy of opposite-sex pair-bonding and the raising of children by such couples will continue into the distant future.

Gay couples are a very small percentage of the total number of couples that will come together naturally, and as such will have no effect on marriage or child-rearing as institutions unless those institutions unless human nature has changed (and I don't think it has for thousands of years).

I argue that this will be the case because marriage and child-bearing will become mutually exclusive activities

I disagree, because most people are

a) heterosexual

b) desire to pair-bond (that is, marry)

c) desire to reproduce (that is have a family)

Sorry to sound like a textbook, but the notion that same-sex couples in an advanced post-industrial society have the ability to somehow change what is hard-wired into the vast majority of our species seems ridiculous to me.

Same-sex marriage (or whatever you call it) is something that I think we can afford, easily, as a society. It is not going to change what most people do. It is not going tochange the nature of the American family for the vast majority of people. I actually think it will strengthen the family as an institution by allowing for more stability and protection for those who are same-sex couples.

Unfortunately, I must go. I will return to the discussion tomorrow (sorry, no home PC).

As a liberal (ha), I am willing to support a wasteful government program to pay for a subsidized home PC for you! :-)

Posted by: Mike Silverman at August 31, 2004 4:07 PM

A lot of people think we should get rid of no-fault divorce laws as well.

Posted by: lindenen at August 31, 2004 4:08 PM

I guess I really can't figure out why someones sexual preference matters to anyone not involved in that relationship. While I am heterosexual, I don't want my "potentially" scandalous escapades in the bedroom subject to the political whims of whomever. Neither Ashcroft nor Reno.

Exactly how does my sexuality and ability to create a monogomous, lifelong relationship (marriage... male or female) effect those who perhaps... are not quite confident in their own sexuality?

Posted by: Hugh Jorgan at August 31, 2004 4:11 PM

60+% of marriages end in divorce?!?! Whoever made that claim is going to have to back it up.

The divorce rate peaked in the late 70's and showed a slow decline though most of the 90's. Through the '90's there were roughly two marriages each year for each divorce in the same year. But those two numbers don't correlate in any meaningful way. The pool of marriages available to end in divorce in any given year consists of all marriages in all previous years - not just the given year's marriages.

Here are some stats, NCHS, and link.

Please don't throw around bogus numbers - it fails to make whatever point you were after.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 4:12 PM

Thibaud,

43-50% of marriages end in divorce, not 63%.

http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html

Posted by: Matthew Cromer at August 31, 2004 4:19 PM

Mike

With all due respect, I don't particularly want to open up that can of worms. So let me just say that I have a big problem with the tactics of too many of the gay rights movement.

As a conservative, I am not fond of government mandates, and that includes a lot of anti-discrimination rules. That is one area I am referring to (but that's because I believe in freedom of association, and don't like any anti-discrimination rules outside of government itself).

As to the lifestyle of gays, that is up to them. And I believe that there should be available suitable protections, such as medical decision making, inheritance and the advantage of other rules that allow people to have a life and handle emergencies. I do not believe gay couples should have the right to raise children, except in those cases where a child is already bonded to one of the people.

Now you may not remember, but the gay revolution of the '70s, which ignored lots of traditions, was directly responsible for the explosion of AIDS and the delay in controlling the epidemic. I don't say this to condemn gays, but to show the unexpected consequences that can result from tossing tradition aside with wild abandon.

You say "or that homosexuality truly is an aberration which is obviously a bigoted attitude. "

No, that is not an obviously bigoted attitude. How do you define aberration? I consider homosexuality to be an aberration. That doesn't mean I dislike homosexuals. Tell me, what adjectives would you use for bipolar disorder?

It is too easy to throw around the language of civil rights inappropriately. You use bigotted where it does not necessarily apply. While the APA in their political correctness does not consider homosexuality to be a psychological disorder, I disagre