Take Three: Unite the USA or Not?

He just might do that if he HAD an 'abortion is murder' coalition. I have seen no evidence that he has any desire or intention to attempt to overturn Roe v Wade, much less criminalize abortions.

To me the fastest road to a more unified, or at least a more cooperative effort, would be for each side to stop trying to demonize the other, use honest information instead of inflammatory campaign rhetoric, and look for the common ground we can build on.

In my opinion, whenever either side takes an all or nothing, my way or the highway, I want what I want and to hell with you, attitude, it makes it extremely difficult to get much positive accomplished. And when one side promises cooperation and then reneges, it makes it damn near impossible.

too me unity would be great but impossible. especially for me since the elections prooved to be an attack on my lifestyle since i am bisexual.

As am I. However several questions have been raised not only by 9/11, but with regards to Iraq about: (a) the ability of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA to communicate without a common head; and (b) the propriety and efficacy of having the president as that "common head." We need unity between these agencies, but direct presidential control (without a firewall) allows the possibility that policy and intelligence could mix to an unseemly point.

bm

Kasey writes


But here is one of those defining issues in this campaign in which compromise could make the whole thing go away. Enough of the conservaties who oppose gay marriage on religious and/or practical grounds would probably compromise if the other side would just compromise on the use of one word: 'marriage'. But this fell into one of those "I want what I want and to hell with what you want' categories. When no compromise was deemed acceptable to the gay marriage supporters, the result was defensive legislation such as those states who passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Tolerance, understanding, and acceptance has to be a two way street before the best solutions can be found.

but it was not just gay marriage ammendments that passed- in kentucky which is my home state ( though i dont like to claim it) they banned common law marriages. this does not only hurt homosexuasl individuals but also citizens living with partners for 10 or more years. But the legislation was a direct attack on the gay community- too isolate us from the rest of society furthur. Also the polls indicated that the number on reason for electing bush were moral reasons, also indicating a response to the gay community

Like I said, defensive legislation against a perceived attack on traditional values Kasey. I still think respect and sensitivity to those traditional values would have allowed for a compromise and less retaliatory legislation. Society is usually slow to adjust to changes in its culture and I don't think that war is lost for the gays. But finding a "win win" solution is usually the least painful way to win one.

And 'moral values' encompass a broad spectrum of issues, not the least of which is the current Hollywood culture with its constant attack on those very traditional values cherished by many Americans, including many gays. The Dems do themselves no favors, I think, by enlisting the endorsement of Hollywood.

You'll find a very accepting environment here on A2K and stick around. We may not agree on a lot of sociopolitical issues, but I bet we can find some things to agree on.

yes but to me it is not that rights were not granted its that rights were taken away

That is unfortunately usually the result of defensive legislation. That is why the best policy is to look for 'win win' solutions rather than keeping an 'all or nothing' mindset.

But, Foxfyre, the result of what you propose -heteros get marriages-same sexes get unions- sets up the same kind of separate but equal class system already adjudged in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have equal protection under the law here not a wink-wink here's something just as yummy just not the same.


It took a hundred years before the work to dismantle separate but equal laws regarding race could even begin. Let's not set up laws that we will later have to take down. (oops. too late in eleven states) There is nothing in the US Constitution that precludes saying that a marriage is between two humans, nor should there be.

(Full disclosure: My sister, who is the head of Psychiatric Research Facility, and her partner, an independent building contractor, of over thirty years want you to know that they seek equality under the law which is their right.)

Joe

kasey-- I happen to agree with you on this point--that you deserve the right to marry or cohabitate with benefits...

But, you need to realize Bush didn't cause your problems. A pretty overwhelming number of Americans believe strongly that you shouldn't be allowed to marry....including John Kerry. Its them you should address.

bush, or more accurately rove, grabbed the gay marriage issue like a rat with a terrier and whipped the electorate into a frenzy over it on purpose
in order to help win the election, convincing people that the fabric of our society would decay and rot if this were allowed to happen. This was done in a cold and calculating manner to put up a smokescreen to hide the real issues. The strategy worked in the heartland of america, called so because the brain isn't there.

So please spare us the don't address bush and the bush team about it. Kerry may have disagreed with it, but it would not have become a major political issue by Kerry's hand. bush and his attack dogs put it out there. I'm betting that in the real world, in their hearts, assuming of course that they have hearts, they could care less about gay marriage one way or the other.

Interesting take on "moral values" I see above, well at least interesting to me in that the current "moral values" is the direct result of a capitalist motive called PROFIT. What you see in the media, on your t.v. and virtually everywhere else is nothing more than what sells, it's not a philosophy and it's not liberal.

well put dys....

Why does it sell?

Do you think Bush, Rove or any other evil minion changed the minds of these people? That they formerly were neutral on gay issues?

Or could it be that Bush, Kerry and a majority of voting Americans are just against gay marriage?

Massachusetts took this issue and crammed it in the collective Amercan face right before the election. If they hadn't, Kerry might be President.

I'll agree that the gay marriage issue in Mass. was ill timed politically but I maintain it's an issue that was in the back of peoples consciousness, and rightly so with all the important things to think about, and that rove and co. seized on it and dragged it to the front of peoples consciousness. In order for the gay marriage issue to move to the front of peoples consciousness (sorry to keep using that word) another issue had to move to the back to make room for it...like say the economy, the enviroment, the war, the deficit or something like that. If you're whipped into a frenzy about "them filthy queers" your attention can be diverted from that filthy war.

So to answer your question lash, what's being sold
is bush. And the profit in that is astronomical. To bush anyway.

<puts on pimp voice> There is huge profits to be made selling bush.

or could it be that Kerry, Bush and the majority of voting americans are just plain wrong?

I'm with dyslexia on this one, but because I'm a clown, nobody takes my political position seriously.

and because the biggest profit advantage in bush is that it can sold and resold, loook for them to f*#k with the 22nd. amendment soon enough.....