I'll conjecture that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gay Union Ruling has established the key issue of the '04 election.
As pointed out in a Pew Research poll cited in this
MSNBC article, general public sentiment is negative to the proposition, and while naturally opposition is strongest among Republicans, Democrats are split 46% For, 48% Against.
Quote: A new national survey of 1,515 Americans, released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center, found that opposition to marriage between gay people has risen from 53 percent in July to 59 percent in Pew's current survey. The poll was conducted from Oct. 15 to Oct. 19.
The survey also found that nearly four out of five voters who favor re-electing President Bush oppose marriage between gays.
But voters who want a Democrat elected in 2004 are split, with 46 percent favoring legal recognition of marriages between gays and 48 percent opposed.
This well may pose significant difficulty for the Democrats; the issue is one of deep personal conviction. Significant opportunity is offered the Republicans. Skillfully exploited, this could be the dealmaker. Of course, it could be bungled too. Politics is full of surprises and unmet expectations.
Scrat wrote:PDiddie wrote:You went wrong first with 'precincts', or rather "3 cherry-picked precincts".
Try as I might, I could not find anything that clarified what you meant by this (so perhaps you will clarify)...
Perhaps you would understand if you
bothered to read the LAW. And no, your attempt at understanding failed. I did not mean the four counties you mentioned, I meant the three
PRECINCTS chosen for recount by Gore's team.
I can't tell whether you are committed to being wrong, or simply wrong, but in either case, you are wrong. The law CLEARLY reads that the
ONLY way to proceed to a full manual recount is if the first 3 precinct recount indicates
an error in vote tabulation which could effect the outcome of the election. IT DID NOT. (If you think you can prove that it did, please hang me out to dry. Otherwise you are simply clinging to a fantasy and choosing to be ignorant.)
Please educate yourself better about the facts and get back to us. We'll wait.
Your link contains nothing about precincts or margin of error.
Nothing.
Precincts are subdivisions of counties. Gore commissioned recounts of
counties, not of precincts. I am beginning to understand that you don't know the difference.
It is
you who is gravely in error here, Scrat.
The proof is in the pudding: if you were even close to correct, then you would be absolutely right; the recount would not have proceeded.
Of course, thousands of legal scholars and Florida election law experts are probably also wrong, because only
you are right in your world...
PDiddie wrote:Scrat wrote:PDiddie wrote:You went wrong first with 'precincts', or rather "3 cherry-picked precincts".
Try as I might, I could not find anything that clarified what you meant by this (so perhaps you will clarify)...
Perhaps you would understand if you
bothered to read the LAW. And no, your attempt at understanding failed. I did not mean the four counties you mentioned, I meant the three
PRECINCTS chosen for recount by Gore's team.
I can't tell whether you are committed to being wrong, or simply wrong, but in either case, you are wrong. The law CLEARLY reads that the
ONLY way to proceed to a full manual recount is if the first 3 precinct recount indicates
an error in vote tabulation which could effect the outcome of the election. IT DID NOT. (If you think you can prove that it did, please hang me out to dry. Otherwise you are simply clinging to a fantasy and choosing to be ignorant.)
Please educate yourself better about the facts and get back to us. We'll wait.
Your link contains nothing about precincts or margin of error.
Nothing.
Precincts are subdivisions of counties. Gore commissioned recounts of
counties, not of precincts. I am beginning to understand that you don't know the difference.
It is
you who is gravely in error here, Scrat.
The proof is in the pudding: if you were even close to correct, then you would be absolutely right; the recount would not have proceeded.
Of course, thousands of legal scholars and Florida election law experts are probably also wrong, because only
you are right in your world...
PD - Don't blame me if you can't read. The law reads
explicitly of
PRECINCTS, not counties. Your bias and willful ignorance is staggering! I expected more of you, but I suppose that was my error. In the end, you're just Tartarin with different plumbing.
Are you arguing that the initial recount of Gore's cherry-picked three PRECINCTS revealed an "error likely to effect the outcome"? If you are, then show me the numbers. If not, then suck it up and admit you were wrong, because THAT IS THE STANDARD THE LAW SETS FOR ALLOWING A FULL STATE-WIDE MANUAL RECOUNT.
Timber,
You have your dreamin hat on tonight.
Lola, And don't forget his "I'm a uniter, not a divider" statement.
Yeah, but we didn't believe it when he said it, did we, c.i.? He's a mouther of Roveisms...and that's about it.
When this president talks about the "sanctity of marriage," what the f.... is he talking about? Is he trying to imply that "marriage" is free from cheating, rape, murder, incest, etc., etc., etc.......?
Definition for "sanctity is holiness, sacredness, saintliness, godliness, inviolability, spirituality, righteousness, piety, and purity." How many marriages between a man and a woman fits this description? My guess is almost none or very few. Isn't the love between two people more important during our short life on this planet rather than trying to impose our misguided beliefs on others?
God instructs GW personally.
If one bears this in mind it will be easy to discount anything that comes out his mouth or shows up in print.
c.i.,
Yes, I think love is the more important...........but it may be less important to those of us who find discomfort with maintaining an awareness that other's beliefs may differ from our own........and I understand that this is difficult for most of us, but for some of us.........arguing is a way of life. So many of us are tempted to trade security for living........but it's a mistake.
cicerone imposter wrote:When this president talks about the "sanctity of marriage," what the f.... is he talking about? Is he trying to imply that "marriage" is free from cheating, rape, murder, incest, etc., etc., etc.......?
Definition for "sanctity is holiness, sacredness, saintliness, godliness, inviolability, spirituality, righteousness, piety, and purity." How many marriages between a man and a woman fits this description? My guess is almost none or very few. Isn't the love between two people more important during our short life on this planet rather than trying to impose our misguided beliefs on others?
CI perhaps he was referring to the fact that marriages (= lasting monogamous relationships between a man and a woman) appear to be the best systematic approach we have come up with for the protection and rearing of children. The tribe or society has a legitimate interest in the rearing of its next generation. There are many who are concerned abut the declining effectiveness of the traditional protections society offered for those who undertook to raise children, and who are reluctant to see them trivialized or reduced to something quite different.
Young women today are confronted with difficult choices between career and motherhood. The protections and support we offered them too often came packaged with restrictions on their freedom and individuality. Now, instead of removing only the undesirable parts we appear to be throwing out the whole package. When the day care generation reaches maturity we may find we have made a bad trade.
I will be the first one on this venue to remind Lola when the Congress passes the defense of marriage legislation. It is obvious that Lola has not learned that most people will not answer questions in any poll which may brand them as "intolerant" in any way shape or form. But they will back the defense of marriage legislation.
Why?
It's a political winner.
I don't see this as a zero sum problem in that "conventional marriage" is somehow lessened by also allowing "alternative marriage". Actually I see this as an attempt at inclusion of the vagaries of human relationships that could give credence and validity to as many as possible without any negative consequences. Unless, of course, those prefering a more conventional descriptor feel threatened by what they consider offensive whether or not it effects their lifestyle. Giving crediblity to others does not seem, to me, to detract from the more commonplace.
When Dyslexia talks about "alternative marriage" is he speaking about one man married to many women?
If not, why not?
Just because the NAGS would object what would be the harm? If a man can support more than one wife why couldn't he have more than one wife?
And, if one really thinks about it, why couldn't a father or mother marry one of their children.
What would be the harm?
They know each other well and there is already a great deal of affection present.
And, why can't a person show affection for an animal.
Some animals are more loyal than people.
I don't know if Dyslexia knows about Albee's great play, Who is Sylvia? in which the wife, in a fit of jealousy, kills her husband's love of his life- his paramour- the very cute goat- Sylvia.
What is wrong with a little beastiality now and then.
Gee, people are so up tight. Imagine being against Polygamy, Incest and Bestiality. How old fashioned.
Dys,
I am referring to the economic effects. A generation ago most families could live fairly well on one income. Now two are almost always required just to maintain a middle class lifestyle. While mom may have left something to be desired, I doubt that day care is even nearly as good. Public schools in most areas operate at standards well below those that prevailed a few decades ago. Except for a few choice school districts, parents must plan on private schools for their children if they desire a good education for them. Those who advocate alternate forms of 'marriage' are generally quick to claim spousal benefits from their employers and the few remaining government sponsored benefits as well.
It isn't just about giving some form of recognition or legitimacy to alternate unions of people.
George -- Your last two posts startle me because of their social management content. Even the most flaming lefty socialist of my acquaintance wouldn't go so far as to want to manage other people's lives through prescribed forms of marriage.
"...appear to be the best systematic approach we have come up with for the protection and rearing of children. The tribe or society has a legitimate interest in the rearing of its next generation." That means to sound so reasonable, but its Soviet-think really turns me off.
I'll say that I have no personal objection to gay unions, whether or not they are codified, and whether or not they are termed "Civil Unions" or "Marriages", or "Porky the Pig". Its really a matter of civil rights, as far as I'm concerned, and those who wish to enter into a governmentally-sanctioned two-person legal union, regardless of gender or orientation, to facillitate tax, benefit, insurance, credit, inheritance, and property ownership issues should be entitled to do so, and, of course, be required to meet all of the qualifications and abide by any thereby rendered decision in the matter of divorce, including as applicable, division of property, separate maintenance and/or support payments. Gay rights, Mens Rights, Womens Rights, Minority Rights ... all of that is fine-point ethico-moral bullshit. There should be across-the-board civil rights, nobody special, nobody lesser. But thats just what should be, not what is, or what is likely.
On the otherhand, its political dynamite. I suspect The Election will turn on this issue, and I just don't see any upside for The Democrats. Support for Gay Rights in general is weakest in The South and in The Midwest ... "The Bible Belt", "The Grainbasket", and "The Rust Belt". Religionists are going to have a field day; this likely is the best thing thats happened for them since abortion.
Timber is correct. Lola has completely misread the evidence. The Gay marriage issue is a big loser for the Left wing Democrats as Timber has said.
However, I note a complete silence from Dyslexia.
He is in favor of license but he is opposed to Polygamy, Incest and Beastiality.
How Victorian of him.
I knew he would not attempt to rebut.
When he is faced with points in a debate that he can't handle he just cisappears.
No matter. My points stand unrebutted.
But then again, george, we may not find that trade to have been a bad one. For some people, I believe they find a lot of comfort in the belief in a specific set of rules, or an unquestioned way of thinking that is true for everyone. However, this belief or need is not comforting for me. The question of whether it would have been best for me to stay at home with my children and not worked at all (well, I didn't work too much) and been all the nasty things I would have been had I stayed at home or to find my own balance between my needs and my family's, is mute. In my opinion, self sacrifice is rarely intended for the benefit of anyone other than the person doing the "sacrificing." For many women, of course, whether to work or not is not optional.
And this is true for many more women who must work to survive than is true for those to whom, like me, don't need the money. Women and people of all kinds deserve to have a freedom of choice about how they construct their lives. Instead of spending so much time worrying about same sex marriage, as if this threatened the fabric of our country and government, we could turn our attention to questions about crime.........what causes it, and in what way might we as a society be able to influence a reduction in this symptom. And if we could focus on the important things........we could stop fighting over questions which have no threat attached to them.
