U.S. Elections 2008

[urbanboom]

Thankfully Canada welcomes us with open arms.

Some more sad stats for you:

Arizona, ban on gay marriage -- Yes, 56%

Arkansas, ban on gay couples adopting children -- Yes, 57%

California, ban on gay marriage -- Yes, 52%

Florida, ban on gay marriage -- Yes, 62%

Nebraska, end Affirmative Action -- Yes, 58%

South Dakota, abortion limits (illegal except for rape and incest) -- Yes, 55%

Wow. What will they do next? Ban religion, too? Oh, wait. I'm sure there's some people on this forum who would vote against THAT civil right.

 

[Tewder]

How insidious of you to compare countries that offer the full rights of marriage under another name to the patchwork discrimination in US where in states like Virginia gays cannot legally be in contract with each other for anything. Where a majority of states have bans on any right of marriage to same sex couples.

Ahhhh, the old 'seperate but equal' sleight of hand... now that truly is insidious!

The opposite of love is hate and they certainly are not showing love to us by denying us the rights and privileges to protect our loved ones. Just because they present it into a pretty little religious bow does not dispute that is it hateful discrimination based on an innate characterstic, no different than denying equality based on race.

Nonesense. Your understanding of gender (in)equality/issues may be different than that of some people of some faiths or religious teachings but you cannot assume that those people are filled with 'hatred'. You also cannot assume that all Americans, or anyone for that matter, who is ideologically opposed to same-sex marriage is anti-gay or full of hatred for gay people, or even understanding of themselves as being discriminatory or hypocritical: Interestingly, the California exit polls show that Blacks and Hispanics voted against same-sex marriage far more than whites, who in California are less likely to be religious, even as Blacks themselves were making their own enormously significant civil rights gesture... This is a complicated issue. Minority issues surrounding race or male/female gender are so much easier for people to grasp. In the long run, however, a victory for one will be a victory for all. I was very happy to hear Obama's speach last night in which he made a point to mention gay people as being included in his vision for a new America. In the context of proposition 8 this is significant, and I don't think the issue has been put to bed yet.

Because we get killed in the Carribbean or Middle East we're supposed to accept second class citizenship here or in the US. that argument might fly from your perspective, but not from where I sit. [...]
Why don't you try accepting second class citizenship because you might be treated worse somewhere else and then come back with these dumb arguments.

You seriously need some perspective. Equating The USA with treatment in those places is simply absurd and unreasonable. Nobody ever made the claim the United States gets a perfect score in these issues, and I certainly didn't, but we do have rights in the US, as flawed and imbalanced as they may be, that will facilitate this civil rights debate, and many others I'm sure ... but if that is not completely and immediately satisfactory to you, why don't you try trading places with a gay person in Saudi Arabia or Jamaica for example. I'd love to hear your relativistic musings then...

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Wow. What will they do next? Ban religion, too? Oh, wait. I'm sure there's some people on this forum who would vote against THAT civil right.

how do you get to banning religion from these...

Arizona, ban on gay marriage

Arkansas, ban on gay couples adopting children

California, ban on gay marriage

Florida, ban on gay marriage

Nebraska, end Affirmative Action

South Dakota, abortion limits (illegal except for rape and incest)

5/6 of those initiatives are religiously motivated. quit thinking that religion is the victim. it's not. as much as i don't like religion, i wouldn't ban it. it would be counter productive to the cause of free thought. i'd support ending the government subsidization of religion and religious indoctrination and support the secularization of the nation and its public institutions. i'd also support making religious institutions financially responsible for any psychological trauma and damage they cause due to programming people with beliefs. if they can afford programming people, they can afford deprogramming people when they go nuts due to their product.

 

[Mot]

Ahhhh, the old 'seperate but equal' sleight of hand... now that truly is insidious!




Nonesense. Your understanding of gender (in)equality/issues may be different than that of some people of some faiths or religious teachings but you cannot assume that those people are filled with 'hatred'. You also cannot assume that all Americans, or anyone for that matter, who is ideologically opposed to same-sex marriage is anti-gay or full of hatred for gay people, or even understanding of themselves as being discriminatory or hypocritical: Interestingly, the California exit polls show that Blacks and Hispanics voted against same-sex marriage far more than whites, who in California are less likely to be religious, even as Blacks themselves were making their own enormously significant civil rights gesture... This is a complicated issue. Minority issues surrounding race or male/female gender are so much easier for people to grasp. In the long run, however, a victory for one will be a victory for all. I was very happy to hear Obama's speach last night in which he made a point to mention gay people as being included in his vision for a new America. In the context of proposition 8 this is significant, and I don't think the issue has been put to bed yet.



You seriously need some perspective. Equating The USA with treatment in those places is simply absurd and unreasonable. Nobody ever made the claim the United States gets a perfect score in these issues, and I certainly didn't, but we do have rights in the US, as flawed and imbalanced as they may be, that will facilitate this civil rights debate, and many others I'm sure ... but if that is not completely and immediately satisfactory to you, why don't you try trading places with a gay person in Saudi Arabia or Jamaica for example. I'd love to hear your relativistic musings then...

You made the point about how we are treated elsewhere I just refusted your point because it's a false notion, we live here, we deserve to be treated with equality here and in the US.

"Relativistic"- Key word for you religionist types. You're not worth my time and effort to teach you something new. You're all full of the knowledge they taught you in Sunday School. No room for common sense and decency.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Lord almighty, Mot, are you going to jump to the simplistic conclusion that Tewder is a "religionist" because he refuses to jump to the quick conclusion that those who equate a marriage as a heterosexual union are full of 'hatred'?

I wonder if gay marriage would have even passed if it were put to a vote in Canada.

 

[unimaginative2]

First of all, it did pass overwhelmingly--twice--in a vote of our elected representatives. Secondly, I think it's a fundamental difference that we don't consider a rights issue to be suitable for determination by public plebiscite.

 

[kEiThZ]

Lord almighty, Mot, are you going to jump to the simplistic conclusion that Tewder is a "religionist" because he refuses to jump to the quick conclusion that those who equate a marriage as a heterosexual union are full of 'hatred'?

The path of every individual educated in the US political system....smear the other side and crush their voice as quickly as possible....

I wonder if gay marriage would have even passed if it were put to a vote in Canada.

Exactly. Had the NDP not had a whipped vote, it would have been even closer.....certainly many Dippers representing rural ridings would have had a tough time explaining that vote to their constituent. Certainly the 30 members (mostly Liberal) who abstained, had they voted on their conscience (they mostly opposed the bill) would probably have overturned the vote. The plus side about what happened, was that the decision got rammed through and the Canadian public has since moved on. We have managed to avoid the long drawn out divisive battles of our southern neighbour. I doubt that expedient a decision is possible in the US though.... I wonder if things had played out the other way (say through a referendum), if folks like Mot would be labelling Canadians as hateful....

First of all, it did pass overwhelmingly--twice--in a vote of our elected representatives. Secondly, I think it's a fundamental difference that we don't consider a rights issue to be suitable for determination by public plebiscite.

That we don't consider our electorate capable of making decisions on fundamental rights within our democracy says a lot and is not something to be proud of.....

 

[unimaginative2]

The whole point of a human right is the protection of minorities from the majority.

Had the NDP not had a whipped vote, it would have been even closer.....certainly many Dippers representing rural ridings would have had a tough time explaining that vote to their constituent.

Hardly. The only dipper who bucked the party line was not coincidentally the only dipper not re-elected. I might add that NDPers representing rural ridings, like Peter Stoffer, who voted for same-sex marriage saw their margins substantially increased at the next election.

Certainly the 30 members (mostly Liberal) who abstained, had they voted on their conscience (they mostly opposed the bill) would probably have overturned the vote.

Probably? Um, no. The margin was bigger than 30 members, so unless every single one came out and voted against SSM (a dubious prospect), they wouldn't have changed anything unless they had two or three votes apiece... The backbench vote was not whipped. If their "conscience" had told them to vote against it, they would have done so, as several did.

It's a fantasy in the minds of opponents of same-sex marriage that the somehow have the overwhelming majority of Canadians with them. In fact, most polls showed that a majority of Canadians supported SSM.

 

[adma]

Don't mind if I make this thread go "Free Republic" (or "Free Dominion", you Canuckistanis) for a moment
link
I laughed. Though that's the Julia Kristeva in me laughing...

[edit: voluntarily removed the image because I felt it was crossing the line a little *too* much--but the link's still there in case you want a queasy chuckle]

 

[Moonmoth]

that was a real thread killer adma - not funny at all

That's a beautiful thing.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

michelle obama for president in 2016!

 

[adma]

Hey, at least I qualified my image with the combined Free Republic/Dominion and Julia Kristeva references (how's that for a stretch)...

 

[ShonTron]

The whole point of a human right is the protection of minorities from the majority.

Exactly. Thank goodness for a depoliticized judicial system. Sometimes, there can be to much democracy - that leads to tyranny of the majority. I'm proud of our good (but certainly not spotless - see Aboriginal affairs and police abuses for examples) record on domestic human rights.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Yeah, politicizing social issues is terrible but there's some merit to ballot initiatives on major infrastructure projects. I can't help but envy Angelenos who got to vote for high speed trains and subway extensions. Meanwhile, we're getting streetcars to Malvern foisted upon us and a great big bill for it, too.

 

[ShonTron]

That's a bit different. I'd be open to see an option that capital expenditures or new government programs can be created outside the parliamentary/civic council system with enough interest. Though I fear that that could be used for fiscal plebiscites such as Proposition 13, not even going to social issues that should be left free of the tyranny of the majority.