Wednesday, September 28, 2005

“Wagner’s music is better than it sounds” syndrome

Ballon Juice is generally an enjoyable blog but today John Cole writes something that just makes me mad.

I am not so sure about the end of the ‘revolution,’ considering I don’t think [Tom Delay and other Republicans] have been behaving like Republicans for a while now.

Isn’t that great? To Cole, the definition of “Republicans behavior” is divorced from “the behavior that Republicans exhibit”. I think that’s pretty much sums up the standard line I keep hearing from Republicans: Don’t judge us by what we do, Judge us by our slogans.

Hopefully, this kind of denial is a stage in long trip to accepting that the conservative god has failed. A commenter on the post above made the parallel between communism and American Conservatism thusly: It looks good on paper, but it doesn’t account for actual human nature.

Sure, you can make a coalition between the Social Security haters and the tax dues haters and the fag haters and the worker’s rights haters and the diplomacy haters and the any-government-unlesss-its-usefull-to-me haters but you know what? When they get their guy elected it turns out that there’s nothing the conservative coalition can do without destroying itself. You can’t cut Social Security without upsetting the bigots, you can’t cut Medicare without upsetting the grannies (in fact you have to make it bigger though in the least efficient way possible!), you can’t cut farm subsidies without upsetting big business, you can’t actually pass a anti-gay-family bill without making the libertarians nervous that they may have to lift a finger to protect the rights of people who aren’t rich.

This isn’t something that’s going to be hashed out in some back room somewhere: Major parts of the coalition are going to have to be cut lose for the other ones to get what they want and that would cause them to lose elections. The Republicans were able to buy time with massive deficit spending but unsustainable borrowing can’t be sustained, nor can they fix it without destroying their coalition.

You know, we Democrats can be feckless at times, but damn, the Republicans bring new meaning to “ineffective”. This isn't a broken party: it's a party that never worked in the first place and can't be fixed.

Let me add that the whole idea of basing your coalition ideology on “government should be small” is silly. I might as well form a coalition to further the ideology of “the economy should be good”. If you don't have an agreement on how to achieve it, it means absolutley nothing. Both liberals and conservatives want to make government smaller, all things being equal. Both have government programs that they love and can’t live without. It’s just that conservatives have been duped by people like DeLay into thinking there’s a party that can provide what they want.

Just don’t get into the specifics.

Update: Matt Yglesias has a post with much the same theme. The Republicans are a party permenetly without an agenda... besides complaining about liberals that is.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 4:17 PM

Comments:

You know, conservatives call "blue America" dumb all the time. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh has built up a whole career talking about how "costal" americans are decadent and immoral. It's just good old fashioned class warfare. It doesn't matter if it's Kansas or "Taxachusettes".

I'm not saying that to excuse it: it's just as inapropriate when liberals do it as when conservatives do it. Of course, conservatives can get away with it.

As for the libertarians, you may be right. I guess it's better to observe that they just don't like sticking up for rights of the non-property variety.

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 7:51 PM

 

I tend to think that both sides are correct. Republicans in middle America are poor, dumb hicks guided by their sense of moral values characterized by some small town in Arkansas and Democrats on the coasts are decadent, immoral and have their own set of moral values, characterized by Marin County. Of course, not all Democrats and Republicans fit these characteristics.

You can't have it both ways; stereotypes come from some vague notion of the state of things as they are.

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:23 PM

 

You have to be blind if you think that the left-wing coalition is less dysfunctional than the right-wing one. You guys have a bunch of internal conflicts, though you are currently united in your hatred of the right. The majority of the left is anti-war, yet the Democrats in power overwhelmingly supported taking action. Blacks make up a large amount of the Democratic base, yet they are more socially conservative and religious than the rest of the party. Go down to a black church and try to sell them your views on gay marriage, for instance. Some on the left prefer liberal immigration policies, while others (union members, etc.) want tighten it up in order to "protect" their jobs. The list goes on. The only reason the left isn't in shambles right now is because they share one goal: Anyone but Bush.

About the only issue that unites the right is tax cuts. At least we got a little bit of that. What would an "Anyone but Bush" coalition have to offer if it comes into power?

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:38 AM

 

You know, I expect the right to tar the left as "Anybody but Bush" but I didn't really expect them to believe it. It reminds me of how the government of Burma refuses to call the opposition leader by her last name because it reminds people of her father's pro-democracy victory. I expect Republicans to down-play our common goals and positions, I didn't think they'd be stupid enough to believe their own spin.

I think you're a couple years out of date. Black church's oppose gay marriage, that's why they don't perform any. But they recognize that Universal Healthcare and worker's rights will help them more than anything. The Unions have gotten over their anti-economic immigration position; the new Change to Win Coalition represents a large Hispanic population. And while there is a slight disconnect over the war it's *not* between liberal coalition members. It's between overly cautious politicians and their constituents.

Liberals want to keep America safe by not putting our troops in harms way for optional wars and deploying them only where it’s necessary. We want Universal Healthcare. We want to protect the rights of women. We want to preserve our environmental assets and move to alternative fuels before we’re forced to be by volatile gas prices. We want to protect Human rights including the rights to organize when corporations use their collective bargaining power to unfairly lower wages. We want to support science in our schools and not using government money to push certain religious beliefs.

The thing that ties this all together is “Investment”. While conservatives have been telling people that they didn’t need to invest taxes, or make sacrifices for our troops, or respect the scientific ideas that lead to our great wealth, Liberals have recognized that Freedom isn’t free: You have to pay taxes, you have to protect the environment, you have to preserve the cultural openness that made America America in the first place. Yes, it’s easier to borrow, but liberals understand the rewards are worth the investment.

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 6:49 AM

 

Also, "We can agree on tax cuts". Yeah, that's really awesome. You know, me and my friends can't agree on what new furniture to get or how to pay for it. But at least we can agree to chop up the old furniture and burn it in the living room. Yeah, great plan.

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 9:57 AM

 

Though there are many disagreements about the best way to reform the American Healthcare system, liberals generally agree that just about anything would be better than the current system. Some people prefer Kucinich’s plan, some people prefer Dean’s, but just about every liberal would be happier under either. This type of disagreement in a coalition is just a sign of a healthy debate, not indicate diametrically opposed interests.

It’s always great when conservatives tell me what liberals believe. Here’s a hint: Cesar Chavez is dead. He’s been dead for over 10 years. It’s a common belief amongst conservatives that Unions want no immigration and “real” liberals are for throwing the borders wide open but the truth is that both just want responsible immigration reform that recognizes that immigration is necessary for a healthy economy.

The newer unions (especially the newly formed Change to Win Coalition) have don’t even have a consensus on the subject. Even the AFL-CIO has official taken no stance on immigration. After all, most new union members are the very working class immigrants who understand the problems with America’s current immigration policies.

As to the war: Again, you are pointing out a disagreement between liberal groups and *politicians*. And it’s not an ideological disagreement either. It’s a disagreement over whether the facts on the ground in Iraq mean staying is what’s best for America. There is no big pro-Iraq-Invasion constituency in the liberal coalition, just a few high profile Democratic politicians who honestly think that staying is better for America than going. To me this is mostly the politics of saving face (no one wants to admit that they were duped) and partly because liberal politicians were burned before even though they were right about Vietnam.

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 10:44 AM

 

Of course many liberals supported the invasion of Iraq. Hell, Al Franken supported it for a little while. The point is that on the whole, liberal constituent groups are on the same page: It was a mistake to go in the way we did. Those liberals disagree over whether setting a short time table or a long one is not ideological, it's just practical. This isn't like arguing whether Social Security is moral, it's tactical.

Further, don't embarrass yourself by confusing anti-this-war-now liberals with pacifists. To understand the different compare the number of anti-Afghanistan protesters (all 6 of them) to the anti Iraq war ones.

(BTW. I like how you confuse not supporting a particular war with not supporting the war's aims. Hey, I have a plan to get a free pony for every American: We'll nuke Europe and steal theirs. You don't support me? Huh?! Why do you want to deprive Americans of ponies?!)

We’re suffering from bad language on UHC. Just because it’s subsidized doesn’t mean it’s not universal. Clinton’s plan was called Universal Health Care and consisted of using vouchers and keeping insurance companies in the loop. Kucinich favors a Medicare for all policy which would be cheaper than the current one and provide a higher level of satisfaction. Dean’s plan wasn’t called UHC but wasn’t terribly different from Clinton’s plan expect on a smaller scale. Health care reform isn’t going to happen all at once and most liberals are, like myself, willing to accept any plan that gets us closer to the goal of more efficient healthcare.

Dems are split on women’s rights? Hey look, we may not agree on all the particulars about porn – although the prudish stereotype of anti-porn feminists are way overblown – but these are minor issues compared to the women’s rights we do agree on: support for the right to privacy, sex education, and an understanding that a two week old clump of cells does not a human being make. Hell, support for Roe vs. Wade is stronger than ever (over 60%!), even though Republicans are on the wrong side of it.

Again, liberals don’t agree on everything – we have more ideas than we know what to do with – but the our agreement gives us a stable governing philosophy whereas the conservative philosophy “make government smaller” just doesn’t apply to governing at all.

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 1:12 PM

 

Ah, a strict constructionist: a person who believes that the 9th amendment is there for decoration. Well, we all have things we believe for no good reason: I for example think “A Knight’s Tale” is a good movie. What do I know?

Also, I agree. There is nothing wrong with the philosophy that “Smaller government is better”, the problem is that this is vacuously true. “Free ponies are good” is also true, but it doesn’t really help someone go about governing. When Republicans get elected, they find that “small government” doesn’t really help them choose priorities: Which programs get funding and which don’t. Is it any wonder they make decisions based on personal interest alone?

Also, let me know when anyone starts pushing for mandatory gay marraige at the federal level. I haven't seen anyone do it.

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 2:15 PM

 

But what if a state takes away one of the unenumerated rights talked about in the 9th amendment? They are real rights, yet they are not named in the constitution. Do you support protecting those rights?

From my understanding, strict constructionalists take the position that even if those rights do exist, no one has the right to recognize and protect them. Again, basically the 9th amendment is decoration.

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 4:06 PM

 

DTI wrote, "Why should Barbara Lee have say over what happens in Texas; why should Tom DeLay have any say over what happens in California?"

Because we live in one nation, that developing commerce and communications is binding more tightly year by year.

Let's go back to the marriage issue for a moment. Marriage has been, and continues to be the province of individual states. However, all states recognize marriages that are certified in the other states. The issue of homosexual marriage is testing that at the moment, as did the issue of interracial marriage 40 years ago.

It took a Supreme Court decision ( Lovings v. Virginia, 1967) to settle the issue of interracial marriage. Are you saying that decision should be reversed? How about Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the decision that legalized the use of contraceptives?

By your logic, these and other decisions should be reversed and the rights they bestowed could only gained through constitutional amendment. If you really want to reopen the battles that led to these sorts of decisions (and those in so many other areas of the law and society), then it seems to me you really want to tear the nation apart, not bind it together.

Our history shows that national power and sovereignty is what strenghtens and sustains us as a nation. All moves in the other direction have torn us apart. The Constitution was written and adopted after a several year experiment with absolute states rights nearly destroyed us. Civil War resulted from states attempting to assert their rights under the original Constitution, and the 14th amendment was written to keep that from happening again.

I seem to recall that the national motto (E Pluribus Unum) states "From many, one", not the other way round.

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:35 PM

 

9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

DTI:

If rights are "real" rights, then why are they not named, or why doesn't a state then grant these rights?

Personally, I agree with most of what you say. In practice I'm mostly a pragmatic federalist: Things should be decided at a state level unless there is a good reason to do so at the federal level. And "I can get my way at a federal level" isn't a good reason.

As for commerce clause, well, I think you'll forgive me if I side with the supreme court precedent and the vast majority of the American public when I say I like my commerce clause the way it is now, not the way it was 80 years ago.

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 8:48 PM

 

DTI wrote, "By trying to make all the states look like one nation, what we're doing is destroying the great diversity that our country enjoys."

It is technology and commerce that is unifying the look and sound of the country, not one political party or another; and this has been a trend for at least 150 years. History chronicles change, it is not possible to stop it; but it is possible to guide it, to preserve as much of the best as possible while eliminating as much injustice as one can.

DTI wrote, "The constitution was meant to be a living and breathing document, not one that the federal government should take advantage of."

I agree with the first part of that statement, the constitution was meant to be (and is) a living, breathing document. However, its purpose was to define the government, and therefore it makes no sense to say that government takes advantage of it.

DTI wrote, "Tiems have changed, and states have updated their laws."

States may have updated their laws, but many times only because of decisions that you seem to want to reverse.

DTI wrote, "The 14th amendment doesn't prevent any states leaving the union."

Perhaps not, but how exactly would a state go about seceding from the Union? It seems to me that the only time states attempted to do so, they were forcibly brought back.

# posted by  Anonymous : 9:23 PM

 

14th amendment to the US Constitution, "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; " ....

DTI, how could a state secede without abridging "the privileges or immunities" of its citizens who are also US citizens?

# posted by  Anonymous : 9:42 PM

 

Sorry, the link in my last message was supposed to be to the 14th amendment.

# posted by  Anonymous : 9:45 PM

 

States could not secede from the union before the 14th amendment. Of course it doesn't remove the ability to secede from the union, because that ability was never there.

What was the "good reason" for the federal government to legalize contraceptives?

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 10:11 PM

 

Beetle wrote, "States could not secede from the union before the 14th amendment."

I don't think that was settled prior to the Civil War. See this article from Slate.

Beetle wrote, "What was the "good reason" for the federal government to legalize contraceptives?"

Read Justice Douglas' decision in Grisold. In case you don't want to do that, it appears that the Court found that the fundamental right to privacy in marriage was protected as one of the unenumerated rights protected by the ninth amendment.

Douglas' decision ends with the following paragraph:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:31 PM

 

And none of that explains why the states shouldn't have done it.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 11:11 PM

 

Beetle wrote, "And none of that explains why the states shouldn't have done it."

But the states didn't do it, at least not all of them. With regard to Loving, I believe 17 states still had interracial marriage bans at the time it was decided. And it wasn't as though this was a new issue. Why should citizens of the US be denied fundamental rights in one state but not another? They should not, and the 14th amendment was written to ensure that they would not.

DTI wrote at one point in this thread, "the 14th amendment was not written to suppress states' rights."

Let me quote from section one of the 14th amendment again, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;". I don't think it is possible to supress states' rights more directly than that.

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:32 AM

 

DTI wrote, "I think marriage should have nothing to do with the state."

That may be what you think, but you clearly don't know much about marriage law. In fact, marriage in the US is primarily a civil, not a religious, event.

A religious marriage ceremony is not officially recognized without also securing a civil marriage license. However, one doesn't need to marry in a religious ceremony. All one needs to be officially married in the US is that civil marriage license signed by a judge, justice of the peace, or rabbi/minister/priest.

I don't know the proportion of US marriages that are civil only (no religious ceremony), but my guess is that most are.

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:59 AM

 

Thinker, I realize that it wasn't happening locally. I was actually directing my question to TS who said that ""I can get my way at a federal level" isn't a good reason."

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 11:07 AM

 

Beetle and DTI,

Do you two really want to refight the Civil War? Do you have any idea of the real life consequences of regressing to the state you're proposing? I think not. I think that if you had to live for a month or two in the conditions to which you would so easily condemn others, your tune would change pretty fast.

# posted by  Anonymous : 11:11 AM

 

"What was the "good reason" for the federal government to legalize contraceptives?"

Hmm, how about the right to privacy when what you are doing doesn't effet anybody else? I believe the founding fathers had an appreciation of that.

I realize you have a knee-jerk problem with anything supported by liberals but this should be right up your libertarian alley.

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 11:19 AM

 

DTI wrote, "I think marriage should have nothing to do with the state."

Some other questions here DTI.

If the state did not officially recognize marriage, does that mean all civil benefits that accrue to married couples would be taken away too? If not, who would determine who is or is not married? If you only recognize religiously sanctioned marriage, what about all of the non-religious people who want to be married? Also, what happens when my church/synagogue/mosque refuses to recognize you and your partner as married because your ceremony was in a different church/synagogue/mosque?

# posted by  Anonymous : 11:20 AM

 

TS, of course I support legalized contraceptives. But in the context of our discussion as to what the federal government should do and what it should leave to the states, the only reason I'm hearing is "because it couldn't be done locally," which you say is not a good reason.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 12:35 PM

 

Wait, are you saying the supreme court doesn't have the right to decide if a state law conflicts with the constitution? If you believe, like I do, that privacy is an unenumerated right, and you believe that due process mean respecting people's rights (as the supreme court does) then it's the supreme court's job to rule on the issue.

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 1:03 PM

 

Beetle wrote, "TS, of course I support legalized contraceptives. But in the context of our discussion as to what the federal government should do and what it should leave to the states, the only reason I'm hearing is "because it couldn't be done locally," which you say is not a good reason."

It seems to me you're ignoring the privacy argument, which both TS and I raised, and was the basis for the Griswold decision. However, what argument would you consider valid? From your perspective, what qualifies something for federal action?

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:04 PM

 

DTI wrote, "All people who enter into a civil contract should get equal benefits as marriage. Marriage should be replaced with civil unions under the law."

This is the current situation in the US. In order to be married in the US, you need a civil certificate, signed by a recognized authority - THAT IS ALL. A religious ceremony just won't do it unless the presiding official is qualified to sign, and does indeed sign the civil certificate.

If you don't believe me, read this web page. It specifies what one needs to do to get a marriage license in California.

The problem we are currently having is that not all people who currently want to can get a civil certificate (i.e. gay couples).

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:12 PM

 

DTI wrote, "Who acknowledges marriage? the church. Who acknowledges civil unions (between man, woman, men, women), the state."

I just reread my last post, and think I need to be a bit clearer.

You have it backwards. It is the state that controls marriage, not the church. If you look at the page I linked in the previous post, you'll see that to be married you need to apply for a license at a county clerk's office, have a ceremony presided over by one of any number of officials (of which a religious official is only one) who will sign the certificate then file it with the county clerk's office.

Does that really sound to you like marriage is controlled by the church? If so, which church? (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Buddhist, Jewish, etc., etc., etc.)

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:28 PM

 

If the federal government can say "Well, we're protecting a 9th amendment right" anytime it wants to do something, then the very concept of states' rights becomes scrap. I don't really mind an absolute supremacy of the federal government over state governments, but I think people should be honest about supporting it when they do.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 1:37 PM

 

DTI wrote, "I want to take all power of marriage away fromt he state and just allow them to conduct civil unions."

As far as I can tell, your proposal is to remove religious officials from the list of people who can conduct marriage ceremonies. Is that what you are proposing? Because again, we don't have religious marriage in the US unless a couple chooses a religious ceremony for their civilly licensed contract.

If you'll recall, Tommaso went to Italy this past summer to attend the wedding of his sister (I believe). I also seem to recall his recounting that she and her husband had to be remarried in a civil ceremony with a civil license when they returned to the US, because a church marriage (any church) does not create a legal marriage in the US. Please correct me if I'm misremembering Tommaso.

As far as I can tell, the difference between a civil marriage certificate and a civil union certificate is only that one is for heterosexual couples while the other is for homosexual couples.

What you are calling civil unions is what we already have in CA, except we call it civil marriage.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:43 PM

 

Beetle wrote, "I don't really mind an absolute supremacy of the federal government over state governments, but I think people should be honest about supporting it when they do."

That essentially is what the framers of the 14th amendment did, and they were honest about it. Hell, they'd just fought the bloodiest war in US history (then or since) to enforce it. What more do you want?

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:45 PM

 

DTI wrote, "I just think the only practical way to give gays equal rights is to disallow calling them marriages."

Au contraire! The recently signed Civil Union bill in CA gives gay couples the same rights as civilly married couples. That is why there is now an initiative petition circulating that would outlaw such unions.

DTI wrote, "Marriage has such a religious connotation and people automatically point to the Bible as a marriage being between a man and a women."

Not the people I know!

DTI wrote, "most Republicans today would be fine with civil unions for gays but not marriage."

I think you need to re-examine the polls. Also take a look at who is signing that initiative petition I referred to above.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:58 PM

 

DTI wrote, "A pocket of religious conservatives are not necessarily representative of the Republican popualtion in California, 44%, many of whom support civil unions."

I think you need a better source for your statistics. The best information I can find (the Annenberg Public Policy Center) shows only 31% of Californians are Republican, not 44%.

DTI wrote, "Let's not kid ourselves: "marriage" has ntohign to do with love; it has everything to do with a contract with the state that allows privileges and benefits."

I think you need to do a representative survey of people getting married. If you do, you'll find this statement to be completely backwards.


DTI wrote, "If we award these exact same privileges and benefits to couples/groups as a civil union, the issue of marriage woudl not even be relevant."

Since this is what the Civil Union law does, it is clear that your conclusion is wrong.

Try thinking about this. Suppose the powers that be, upon your graduation from CAL, decide to award you a certificate a bit different from your classmates. Instead of Bachelor of Arts (or science), it says Certificate of Arts (or science). And, it has a very bold black border around it where the others do not. Despite the fact that the powers assure you it really confers the same rights as the other BAs, how would you feel? Remember, you'll have to explain to your family, potential employers, etc. why your piece of paper is different. Or worse yet, they'll probably know.

Marriage has to do with social acceptance and recognition. Bigots need a way to separate themselves from "the others". Trying to redefine marriage as Civil Unions for everyone will not solve the problem.

# posted by  Anonymous : 9:54 AM

 

DTI,

I just checked the California vote in last year's presidential election. That may be where you got the 44% figure for Republicans in CA. It is true that 44% of CA voters cast their votes for Bush, but that includes crossover Democrats and registered Independents (Decline to State).

Anyway, here is the breakdown from David Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections:

Presidential
Candidate Vice Presidential
Candidate Political
Party Popular Vote Electoral Vote
John Kerry John Edwards Democratic 6,745,485 54.31% 55
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 5,509,826 44.36% 0
Michael Badnarik Richard Campagna Libertarian 50,165 0.40% 0
David Cobb Patricia LaMarche Green 40,771 0.33% 0
Other (+) - - 73,610 0.59% 0

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:56 AM

 

That vote summary table could be a bit more clear:

Kerry Democratic 6,745,485 54.31%
Bush Republican 5,509,826 44.36%
Badnarik Libertarian 50,165 0.40%
Cobb Green 40,771 0.33%
Other 73,610 0.59%

# posted by  Anonymous : 11:05 AM

 

DTI wrote, "Sorry, I meant the vote totals in the last election: 44% of the people voted Republican in California."

44% of Californians voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2004, but only 37.8% voted for the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, and he ran against Barbara Boxer, arguably more liberal than John Kerry.

As for your proposal to replace marriage with civil unions for all, as far as I can discern, the only changes that would make to the current situation in California is that religious officials would be dropped from the list of people qualified to perform ceremonies, and you would swap the term "civil union" for "marriage" on official documents. I suspect that all you would succeed in doing is uniting most of the left and right against your position.

# posted by  Anonymous : 12:05 PM

 

Look DTI, I'm sure most gay rights lefties would be fine with this and I would be fine with your plan. I assume the religious right would hate it since they probably government adding legitimacy to their religious ceremonies. I'm sure they'd say that without government support, marriage would lose respect in people's eyes, the same way "under god" is necessary to ensure kids don’t start shooting each other or something.

However, let's get real: It's a lot less politically feasible than expanding marriage to gays since you'd have the homophobe right saying that the left wants to get rid of marriage.

I've heard this argument too many times from libertarians who don't want to appear like homophobes but need to keep coming up with ways of *not* supporting liberal efforts to secure equal rights for all. It’s pathetic.

But let me not assume you are a jerk without proof. I have no problem with your plan as long as you don’t use it as an excuse to not help other plans (like the bill passed here in CA recently).

# posted by  Tommaso Sciortino : 12:31 PM

 

DTI wrote, "The religious right should be the ones who are happy because the state is butting out of religion and they have complete interpretation of marriage."

But the religious right wants the state involved in marriage - supporting their position. What do you think the proposed marriage amendment is about?

DTI wrote, "The gay rights left should be happy because gay and straight couples have complete equality under the law."

In California (after the enactment of the recent Civil Union law) that is now the case. The fact that so many are still unsatisfied (and unhappy) results from the fact most adults still do not socially accept gay couples.

In Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare wrote, "What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;". Banishing the word marriage and replacing it with the phrase "civil union" will not change how people see the relationship between two people that we currently recognize as marriage.

# posted by  Anonymous : 12:35 PM

 

DTI wrote, "why not just call all marriages civil unions?"

Because that will change nothing. The problem is discrimination and bigotry against gay couples and families. That will not be done away with by a name change.

DTI wrote, "IF the civil union bill is passed is the key."

It was passed by the legislature and signed by Gray Davis in 2003, and went into effect on January 1, 2005. The California Appellate Court, Third District ruled it constitutional this spring.

DTI wrote, "Gay marriage will create a backlash"

Oh, and abolishing marriage won't?

DTI wrote, "We aren't a nation of religious laws, are we?"

No, and marriage law is not religious. Why do you keep asserting that it is?

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:03 PM

 

DTI wrote, "But change the word marriage and we will see opposition from moderates and even pro gay rights conservatives like myself who see the left as opportunists by forcing gay marriage down everyone's throats."

That sentence makes no sense. I'd try rewriting it.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:23 PM

 

DTI wrote, "Do you think that racists in the 1960's accepted blacks because of brown v. board?"

No, racists didn't, but Brown was a giant leap forward in a chain of events that has led to major advances in greater equality between the races in the US. Without Brown, and the courageous citizens, politicians and judges (Republican and Democrat) who fought to implement it, we would not today have a situation where a Black woman would be Secretary of State, and a Black man would be a sitting Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, not to mention the many other Black public officials in the country.

I'd say that there are many fewer racists today, and certainly fewer people mouthing racist views in public, than there would have been without Brown. It was a monumental step in race relations in the U.S. Did it eliminate race problems, certainly not; but without it we would most likely still look like the US of the 1940s, at least from a racial perspective. The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. prior to the integration tactics embodied in Brown had been relatively ineffective for nearly a century.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:33 PM

 

DTI wrote, "But in the end, am I not fighting for equality for gay couples and straight couples?"

Yes, you appear to be; and yes it is a noble goal. The question is will you waste your efforts in a quest that cannot make any progress (and indeed might cause regression); or participate in movement toward your goal?

# posted by  Anonymous : 5:47 PM

 

You guys might like the next op-ed int he Daily Cal

# posted by  Anonymous : 2:00 PM

 

Post a Comment