PeterDavid.net

I agree 100% that it's a cynical ploy and, judging from the almost universally negative reactions from the blogosphere, most pundits right and left see right through it. Voters don't seem to be jumping all over it either (Has anyone ever proved that the whole Gay Marriage issue was as much of a deciding factor in 2004 as some think? Keep in mind that Kerry was ALSO against gay marriage.)

Where you go wrong, of course, is the assumption that if voters hold their nose and vote Republican despite their seeing throuh this ploy they are demonstrting stupidity. That would be like claiming that if Rhode Island voters re-elect Patrick "I hope I'm treated like a black man and not like a rich white guy from a family taht seems to have a congenital forgetfullness syndrome in regards to auto accidents" Kennedy they MUST be so stupid as to fall for his breathtaking hubris.

You only have the choices you have.

I will say this though--if the Democrats avoid jumping whole hog into the Dailykos mudpit they should CLEAN UP in 2006--big, big gains. Very possibly take over the Senate AND House. If they nominate idiots--like the one who just lost in California in a special election for a district that lost its Republican Rep when he went to jail--they will only have themselves to blame.

1. Are people just that stupid to fall for that diversionary tactic? Probably. People are still driving around with "Bush '04" and "W '04" stickers on their cars. Incredible! On a different note, concerning one of your book trilogies, some of the Babylon 5 "Legions of Fire" books have become very hard, if not impossible to find. There's a guy on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated right now whose looking for Book III - "Out of the Darkness" Isbn: 0-345-42720-3, Copyright: November 2000, Publisher: DelRey. See "Legions of Fire Book 3 for sale?." Do you have any copies of the books that you'd be willing to sell to the fans? The reason I ask is that Jeanne Cavelos said Del Rey gave her a box of each of her books, and she's offered to sell copies to the fans who can't find the books. Your "Out of the Darkness" and Jeanne's "Summoning Light" are almost impossible to find.

People will definitely fall for this bulldookey.

I know a married couple who, by any objective sign, should never vote for Bush. They are African-American, have an income somewhere between poverty and upper-lower class, have a disabled child that requires government assistance, are not veterans, think the occupation of Iraq is unneeded, and above all else, have gay friends and family members, are democrats and have always voted for democrats. Yet, they back Bush on the "protect marriage" platform, because they attend a hard-line Baptist church where the pastor rails regularly against the sins of homosexuality.

The couple wanted to vote for Bush in the previous election, but couldn't actually go through with it, so they didn't vote at all in order to not give Gore a vote. If enough people did that, especially in Florida, who's to say that didn't have an effect on the election? Who's to say that similar voting trends won't similarly affect the next election?

People can be very stupid. So stupid it sometimes diminishes my faith in humanity.

"Has anyone ever proved that the whole Gay Marriage issue was as much of a deciding factor in 2004 as some think?"

The issue was intended to alienate Kerry from his liberal base,and it was intended to provide additional incentives for the conservative base to go to the polls in order to vote on the state-based gay-hate initiatives (because, let's face it, that's what they were. It was the country's very first state-wide hate crimes.) How much impact that may have had on the bottom line, I couldn't say.

"Where you go wrong, of course, is the assumption that if voters hold their nose and vote Republican despite their seeing throuh this ploy they are demonstrting stupidity."

Why is it that people think inserting the words "of course" into a specious argument somehow lends it weight? Are you THAT desperate to disagree with me that you have to fabricate something that completely? I never said that. I never said anything CLOSE to that. I said that conservatives...hell, why should I repeat it just because you chose to ignore it and insert your own version because apparently you couldn't argue with what I said, so you had to argue with what I didn't say.

PAD

Whatever one thinks of gay amrriage, the bottom line is that it never did exist in this country, so anything restricting it is not taking away a freedom, but strongly codifying 200 years plus of law.

I would have more respect for your opinion if you didn't constantly harp on one side and not the other every single time. When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues.

As for gay marriage, I am in favor of it. But i am also not in favor of the methods used to secure it so far. Using the courts to read things clearly not there in order to get this declared a right that never has existed is wrong. Before we get to the "but what about Brown, but what about laws against interracial marrying" there were 3 amendments past to the U.S. Consitution that secured rights that were not being enforced, by courts, state and federal governments. Hardly the same thing. In this case, seeing something seem closer, and believing, wrongly, that enough people had changed their mind, people overreached. When you have mayors giving out marriage licenses clearly in violation of state law, the whole process is a joke. Gay marriage will come when enough people have no problem with it, and think of it as a top agenda item. That will be (at least in many states) eventually, but it will take even more time.

For what it is worth, despite your blinders for anything regarding Bush, it is pretty clear (unlike Cheney) that he does believe this is a threat to marriage and truly does not want it. He reminds me of many, probably most, people who never even considered it as a possibility. They can;t articulate a reason to be against it per se, they just can't even believe the concept exists.

Personally, I have no "buyer's remorse" because I have not voted Republican since I was a naive 18 year old fresh out of high school in 1980 faced with the choice of Carter versus Reagan, a decision I have long since regretted.

Meanwhile Peter, etal; when do you think the GOP "jumped the shark"?

and not to nitpick, but considering 2,500 allied troops died and 10,000 total casualties on D-Day 62 years ago yesterday, it is somewhat overblown to say soldiers in Iraq are dying at a "stunning" rate. The rate is one of the lowest we've had for any war. For thos who think the war not worth it, 1 death is too much. But it is ridiculous to say a "stunning" rate.

Gas prices are high. They are not "through the roof" and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.

The "historic" power grabs? Not so historic compared to the other presidents engaged in war, and the troika of JFK, LBJ, and RN. More like "typical for presidents at war, especially when a domestic menace may exist." It may still be wrong, but hardly unprecedented,except to the extent that technology makes it easier.

Spying? Well to the extent the phone companies voluntarily turned over data that they own to the government, and some of that data is routinely turned over to marketing companies with little outcry, I am not sure that itself is spying. They own data, and they voluntarily turned it over. The fact that people assumed it was private does not make it so. However, the extent of the program, and the legalities are still to come out in the wash, so I'll give that one a push.

Since most of the conservatives supported the war, if not all of the tactics, it is unlikely that they will consider the "assault" they are under needless. As apparently, most of the soldiers do not think, jdging by polls (albeit slighlty out of date. But they overwhelmingly appeared to have voted for Bush in Nov. 2004). Other s may be having buyers remorse for many different reasons, but conservatives had buyers remorse for a different reason-not conservative enough. To much of a "compassionate consrrvatice" on immigration, Harriet Myers, not pushing gay marriage ban, spending, etc. Too liberal in effect. That's why they have been upset, though his poll numbers are slightly up lately.

When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues.

Hmmmm...sound like a description of any "Dubya" we might know of?

Well, since his job is in politics, and he has to lay it out there, it is a little different (if i am reading you right). Though I don't think "Dubya" is particularly predictable, ala a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh (or the opposite). His education, spending, prescription drugs, immigration plans are not doctrinaire conservative. On the other hand, his tax cuts, environmental policies, and social positions are more so.

As a conservative, I think the marriage amendment is bunk. Shouldn't be an issue. We've got a lot of things liberals (I like to think of liberals in the classical sense, JFK & RFK liberals) and conservatives can agree on. Why not work on that? Things like getting spending under control. Conservatives and liberals all focus on the tax side of things lets focus on the spending things first. Freeze taxes the way they are and lets start looking at how we spend money. There are a lot of places to save a lot of money and pay for some things like health insurance.

It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers' remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they'd been hosed.

Actually, I'd say the buyer's remorse goes all the way back to the 2000 election.

Admittedly, that may have been more of a bait-and-switch. :)

If Bush had been President during the Vietnam War we would have heard about these attacks on the American Way of Life in order to distract the American people from his mistakes.

"Black men sleeping with our white women, this is the #1 issue that is a danger to our country"

"Your parents could be commies, this is a #1 danger to our country"

"Hippies and their long hair and smelly bodies are the #1 danger to our country."

My mother a life long Republican said it best" I stopped listening to Bush when his issues started sounding more like Jerry Springer topics".

That doesn't even make any sense. Besides gay marriage, the other issues have been Supreme Court nominations, immigration, social security, Iraq, War on Terror. None of the other issues he has raised since then have even touched on "Jerry Springer" like topics. and it is really chicken and the egg anyway. It isn't just Republicans who decided to use gay marriage to get conservative voters out, but leaders in that community going to them and saying "You haven;t been doing anything about gay marriage, I am angry, and will be telling my people not to vote at all in protest if you dont do something about it."

and while many democrats don't favor an amendment, few big names have come out in support of gay marriage, or even "gasp" the alternative-an amendment securing gay marriage, the only way to guarantee in all 50 states marriage for gay americans, as opposed to piecemeal decisions in states or parts of states, or supreme court verdicts which will be fought over for 100 years. Why? They don't care that much, they don't believe in it themselved or they know they no way have support for it.

and it isn;t just conservative Americans-most black Americans are fairly liberal, but are the most conservative on gay marriage, as conservative as Evangelical Christians (admittedly some overlap)

and of course it was Howard Dean who said, falsely, on a national tv show that the Democratic Platform said marriage is between a man and a woman. Some could call that pandering or just a brain freeze or just didn't know the platform. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt-people make mistakes on national tv when they talk a lot.

"For what it is worth, despite your blinders for anything regarding Bush, it is pretty clear (unlike Cheney) that he does believe this is a threat to marriage and truly does not want it. "

Newsweek just quoted one of hi close freinds who said "Bush doesn't give a shit about Gay marriage."

Is their a name? Because given shoddy reporting that seems typical these days, unidentified sources do not impress me. Especially from supposedly "close friends" which I always wonder just how close when they give these inside dirt scoops.

That said, I don't think Bush hates anyone, and I don't think gay marriage is his top agenda. But I do think he sincerely doesn't believe in it, but given his druthers it wouldn't even be an issue during his presidency. Karl Rove? Sure, he loves that it is an issue. But then, they weren't the ones who made it an issue at this time period either.

What's sadder is that after the anti-gay marriage amendment fails -- and no one is expecting it to pass -- the Republicans are pushing for a bill banning flag burning. I guess if you don't talk about the quagmire of Iraq or the illegality of spying on U.S. citizens without a court order, you can tell yourself they're not so bad.

I am in favor of gay marriage -- I support gay rights up to marriage and no job discrimination based on sexual orientation; after that, they're on the same playing field as the rest of us. Alas, Bill Maher had it pegged when he wrote that while Republicans oppose same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs, Democrats oppose it because it polls poorly. Heck, in an interview Hillary Clinton (the current frontrunner for the 2008 election) said she supports same-sex unions but doesn't want gay marriages.

Incidentally, I've yet to hear from any straight married couples that would get divorced because gay people can marry. How about it, people? Whose marriages are ending because you have to share the institution?

In 2004 gay marraige was an issue, thanks to a California mayor and a few court decisions. Now, those very well may have been politically motivated as well but at least the discussion during the campaigns could be justified. After the campaigns the issue fell off the radar completely.

There are two questions to ask. The first is why is this becoming an issue again NOW? If it was really a big deal why has it not been discussed for two years, and why is it being brought up again now when there have really been no big issues recently? The second is why are the Republicans wasting their time with something that most people agree will not pass? The answer to both questions is to try and pull in votes come November.

While I would like to think that the American people are smarter than this, I'm a cynic and think this ploy will help the Republicans... but that's partially because the Democrats are having problems finding a unifying message and sticking to it other than "we aren't Bush", which isn't enough.

I think the only way gay marriage would threaten heterosexual marriage would be if one partner was not heterosexual and wanted the gay mnarriage option for the various reasons legal wedlock covers them and their "partner".JMHO

"Hillary Clinton (the current frontrunner for the 2008 election) said she supports same-sex unions but doesn't want gay marriages."

So why don't she propose a new type of union? Something that is basically marriage but it is not called that? Something where people tax their incomes together and have erreditary rights and other responsabilities and benefits. A kind of "marriage light" or "diet marriege" that either gay or straight people can be a part off.

Heck, why stop there. Maybe more that two people can participate in this union.

Do this this sound too farfetch?
Just thinking out loud.

"For what it is worth, despite your blinders for anything regarding Bush, it is pretty clear (unlike Cheney) that he does believe this is a threat to marriage and truly does not want it. He reminds me of many, probably most, people who never even considered it as a possibility. They can;t articulate a reason to be against it per se, they just can't even believe the concept exists. "

Yes, and during the Crusdades and the Inquisition christians believed they were right too, but they were still dead wrong then too.

There is a Washington court case that when decided could be devastaing to the anti-gay marriage movement because Washington, unlike Massaschussettes, has no residency statute for marriage

Plus 3 courts have overturned the "will of the people" by striking down referendums specifically banning gay marriage. So the issue has not been off the radar completely since 2004

I believe Hillary Clinton has said she supports the flag burning amendment

Part of the reason they bring this up now is issues, go away, and come back again. There are theoretically 7 more senators in support of the marriage ban now than before. one amendment took 200 years to pass. This will fail and in a year or two or months it will come up again, hoping to gain traction. so even when something fails, it can be good to discuss because later you may gain support

also, if it fails, which it will, you can say "See, Senator X voted for/against it. Vote him out and replace him with Candidate Y and we'll do better next time." and sometimes it is just ebcause you believe in it

I believe several groups 6 weeks ago said "You've done very little on this. Better move on it if you want our vote or we'll stay home."

Most democrats and Americans. support same sex unions but not marriage. That's not limited to Hillary.

Which amendments made interracial marriages legal?

Yes, and during the Crusdades and the Inquisition christians believed they were right too, but they were still dead wrong then too.
****
You always know you have a great argument when you have to go back centuries for examples. Good job. Next time, bring up the renaissance as an argument for or against separation of church and state.

Anyway, back to this century, or at least the 20th/21st century, or heck, even this country at least, I do believe gay marriage is inevitable more and more, but will take time. and if done the wrong way, will be a divisive issue like abortion forever.

Which amendments made interracial marriages legal?
*****

How about the 13th (ends slavery but court says also applies to "badges" of slavery")in theory, 14th (equal protection clause).

Now in theory, equal protection could apply in this situation, but the courts have given no special consideration to sexual orientation. They have interpreted the amendment to apply, as intended, most specifically to race, holding there would be almost no need to ever discriminate on racial grounds. Sex grounds, sometimes. doesn't apply very heavily at all to age or other discrimination. All laws treat people unequally in some way, so it depends on what the clasiffication used and the basis for doing so.

This is what the Supreme Court actually said "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. "

Like I said, they look much more carefully at racial distinctions than anything else. Its conceivable they could do the same with sexual orientation, but it so, it won't be for awhile, and it will wind up being Roe v. Wade-i.e. inflaming rather than solving anything.

Or are you arguing the supreme court was wrong, and that states should have had the right to have anti-miscegenation statutes, however distasteful and used an amendment beyond what it was meant to be used for, caught up in the movement of the times and simply because it was the right thing to do???

Just joshing with ya. Yeah, that is basically the reasons-the 14th amendment.

It failed, 49-48. Though supposedly that represents an increase in support. Either way, it would almost certainly never get the 2.3 of the senate, house, and states needed. Unless there was a tremendous backlash.

What gets me is the religions get into this like its going to change their world if same sex marriage is legalized by the state.

The only thing this even affects is legalities performed by a Justice of the Peace.

This doesn't change what a particular church or faith recognizes.

This is like Divorce. The Catholic Church has never recognized a legal divorce. If you are married in the church you have to have a church sanctioned annulment to have your marriage ended in the faith even if you have been legally divorced.
Same thing with same sex marriage. Just because the state allows it the Catholic Church (or any other faith) doesn't have to sanction it among their believers.

Same as abortion. Just because its allowed doesn't mean you have to do it.

I never thought about it that way... making it hard to impossible to get divorced. It's reminiscent of the old Chris Rock joke where he said "don't take guns off the streets, make bullets rediculously expensive."

I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Same as abortion. Just because its allowed doesn't mean you have to do it.
****
Just like slavery. Just because it is allowed, doesn't mean you have to have a slave (to bring up an old example like my friend above).

I am a conservative, but I am not insulted. I just roll my eyes because it is obvious that this is a move to gain support. I generally don't get insulted when politicians treat their voters like sheep, I just accept it as doing everything they can to get into office.

"I would have more respect for your opinion if you didn't constantly harp on one side and not the other every single time. When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues."

Equally predictable is the response of posters who are oblivious to the many times I've expressed disgust with the Democratic party, including stating six months before the 2004 election that Kerry's approach was so inept that he was definitely going to lose.

Currently I'm busy spitting tacks over the fact that Hillary is SUPPORTING a flag-burning amendment, for the luvva God.

PAD

Yes, people are that stupid. Anyone who still thought the Iraq war was a good idea in 2004 is going to fall for this load of hooey.

That said, this reminds me of the old chestnut about advice given to law students:

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law's on your side, argue the law.
If neither the facts nor the law are on your side ... argue like hell.

In modern Republican terms, it means drown the other side out by dragging up wedge issues and through use of loud-mouthed banshees like Ann Coulter and the =bullshit factory called Fox News.

Marriage = A Religious Institution

America = Separation of Church & State

Therefore, the Government should not meddle in Religous affairs.

Homosexual Marriage should be accepted/rejected by the head of your religious institution.

including stating six months before the 2004 election that Kerry's approach was so inept that he was definitely going to lose.

***
Frustrating that your candidate is performing ineptly, or even fishing for votes is not quite the same thing I don't think, as routinely seeing the worst in the actions, thoughts, motives, policies of the other side.

Trust me, Pete. The conservatives are insulted and are VERY restless--and have been for a while (even the guys and gals at National Review aren't entirely pleased.) Instead of addressing real problems they have no real solutions for, the current republicans in office keep retreating back to simple "problems" they think they can fix--just to look like they're getting anything done. (Even though both parties can be guilty of this at times, I have NEVER seen it so blatant before.) I may be conservative, but by God, next election I'm giving the blue side a fair shot at this mess.

America = Separation of Church & State
***
Find it in the Constitution and I'll agree with you.

That said, marriage is a legal, religious (often( and cultural institution. Therefore, what forms of marriage will be allowed is legitimate for public officals to debate, since marriage comes with it a host of legal (and social) benefits.

"start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y'know, worked out so well) "

Except that it's not the first amendment since Prohibition. G'won... look it up

Why is it that people think inserting the words "of course" into a specious argument somehow lends it weight? Are you THAT desperate to disagree with me that you have to fabricate something that completely? I never said that. I never said anything CLOSE to that. I said that conservatives...hell, why should I repeat it just because you chose to ignore it and insert your own version because apparently you couldn't argue with what I said, so you had to argue with what I didn't say.

I apologize for misreading what you said but I think you grossly underestimate how easily that assumption was to make.

But they're clinging to the notion that conservatives are Just That Stupid that they'll fall for this crap a second time.

The question is, will they?

See now, I read that as saying that IF conservatives "fall" for it--by which I thought you meant voting for Republicans--then yes, they really ARE that stupid.

How else would you propose we measure whether or not the ploy is successful?

The thing is, many may dislike the FMA and all the other anti-gay initiatives--which, by the way, puts us in the minority, it's regrettably safe to say--and still vote for people who are less than supportive or even actively hostile to gay marriage. It isn't even as though there is really much choice--most of the big shots in the Democratic party like Hillary and Dean have hardly been progressive on this issue.

It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers' remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they'd been hosed.

Interestingly, one recent poll had Bush losing in a hypothetical matchup with virtually every Democrat thrown against him...except for...wait for it...Kerry.

Egon, you raise an interesting point, but right now there is NOTHING to stop gays from getting married. It's just that such marriages are not legally recognized so none of the legal benefits apply.

So one solution would be to get the government completely out of the marriage business--no tax breaks, etc. Private companies could choose to define couples (or triples or whatever) as they wish for purposes of insurance policies and such.

There's a good argument to be made there but I can also see a good one being made that it would open a muy grande can-o-worms and end up being one of those "greater equality by making all miserable" things that good intentions often create.

The issue was intended to alienate Kerry from his liberal base, and it was intended to provide additional incentives for the conservative base to go to the polls in order to vote on the state-based gay-hate initiatives (because, let's face it, that's what they were. It was the country's very first state-wide hate crimes.)

Hmm, it just occurred to me--would Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act have been the first National Hate crime? (the answer to both is almost certainly no, given the many many hate filled laws that ruled before the civil rights era. But the greater point stands; we should be better than this.)

These discussions, I think, are ignoring the main thrust of Republican politics. They aren't trying to convince people to vote for them. They're trying to convince as many people NOT to vote.

Leaving aside the Diebold stolen votes for the moment, by making political issues and talk so revolting, they are making many Americans simply disgusted with politics. The fewer total people that vote, the easier it is to swing the election one way or another.

I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying "it only encourates them." This, of course, is stupid - "they" will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure "they" will be in charge. But by making politics stupid and disgusting - and by the Democrats not really attempting to win elections by raising issues or their voices - the Republicans are maintaining a lock on their power.

spiderrob8: Whatever one thinks of gay amrriage, the bottom line is that it never did exist in this country, so anything restricting it is not taking away a freedom, but strongly codifying 200 years plus of law.
Luigi Novi: It does take away a freedom. The freedom to live your own life as you please, which includes marrying the person you fell in love with, without undue interference by Big Daddy government.

spiderrob8: I would have more respect for your opinion if you didn't constantly harp on one side and not the other every single time. When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues.

Peter David: Equally predictable is the response of posters who are oblivious to the many times I've expressed disgust with the Democratic party, including stating six months before the 2004 election that Kerry's approach was so inept that he was definitely going to lose.

spiderrob8: Frustrating that your candidate is performing ineptly, or even fishing for votes is not quite the same thing I don't think, as routinely seeing the worst in the actions, thoughts, motives, policies of the other side.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps the fact that some routinely see this on one side is precisely why such people have decided that that’s not the side they want to be on. Your statement implies that Peter makes these statements on an a priori basis, but like most people who do so, you haven’t bothered to illustrate this with any pattern, because of course, that would take a lot of work, and we can’t have that now, can we? The fact of the matter that Peter does give kudos to Republicans and criticizes Democrats when he feels it is warranted. One example I remember is at: http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/003704.html.

Egon: America = Separation of Church & State

spiderrob8: Find it in the Constitution and I'll agree with you.
Luigi Novi: Not every American principle has to be in the Constitution in order to be a fundamentally correct one. Separation of Church and State is indeed a valid and vital American principle that the Founding Fathers correctly felt we needed.

There are a lot of people who have no problem with gays having the rights and privileges of marriage but are a bit squeamish about calling it 'marriage'. Where do they stand in this?

Jon Stewart took on Bill Bennett on this issue last night, and sideswiped him by Going Serious over the whole kit'n'kaboodle. (The interview continues tonight.) By far the best, calmest rationale that I've seen put up:

Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart:I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

*shrug*
Don't trip over my hero worship. ;)

These discussions, I think, are ignoring the main thrust of Republican politics. They aren't trying to convince people to vote for them. They're trying to convince as many people NOT to vote.

Leaving aside the Diebold stolen votes for the moment, by making political issues and talk so revolting, they are making many Americans simply disgusted with politics. The fewer total people that vote, the easier it is to swing the election one way or another.

I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying "it only encourates them." This, of course, is stupid - "they" will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure "they" will be in charge. But by making politics stupid and disgusting - and by the Democrats not really attempting to win elections by raising issues or their voices - the Republicans are maintaining a lock on their power.

I question if this tactic (if it is a tactic is succeeding). My SO works as a counselor at the local community college and recently, she has been inundated with questions of registering to vote.

Religions are legalinstitutions too with regard to taxes.

Doesn't the first amendment deal with seperation of Church and State?

"Now in theory, equal protection could apply in this situation, but the courts have given no special consideration to sexual orientation. They have interpreted the amendment to apply, as intended, most specifically to race, holding there would be almost no need to ever discriminate on racial grounds."

That's because race discrimination was a major issue in the US at the time.

"Like I said, they look much more carefully at racial distinctions than anything else. Its conceivable they could do the same with sexual orientation, but it so, it won't be for awhile."

Segregation laws were eliminated because people were willing to challenge them. People did not sit around and wait.
Ironically, in this case it is the conservatives who are using the federal government to prevent liberal states from allowing gays the freedom to marry.

"it will wind up being Roe v. Wade-i.e. inflaming rather than solving anything."

I think the women who use abortion legally will disagree with you on that. In may inflame but it also solves the problem of other people. It is not nothing.

Ignore what I just posted above - Sasha

These discussions, I think, are ignoring the main thrust of Republican politics. They aren't trying to convince people to vote for them. They're trying to convince as many people NOT to vote.

Leaving aside the Diebold stolen votes for the moment, by making political issues and talk so revolting, they are making many Americans simply disgusted with politics. The fewer total people that vote, the easier it is to swing the election one way or another.

I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying "it only encourates them." This, of course, is stupid - "they" will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure "they" will be in charge. But by making politics stupid and disgusting - and by the Democrats not really attempting to win elections by raising issues or their voices - the Republicans are maintaining a lock on their power.

I question if this tactic (if it is a tactic) is succeeding. My SO works as a counselor at the local community college and recently, she has been inundated with questions of registering to vote.

"That said, marriage is a legal, religious (often( and cultural institution. Therefore, what forms of marriage will be allowed is legitimate for public officals to debate, since marriage comes with it a host of legal (and social) benefits."

Religions are legal cultural institutions too in the US.

Gay marriage has been legal in my country for some time now. Of course, consevatives claimed the world was going to end. Guess what... not only it didn't, but gay conservatives started getting married as well.

And life went on.

I honestly don't get it. People desperately want to make their relationships official and yet there are people who have no problem trying to stop that -- even though it doesn't concern them at all -- and somehow they sleep well with this knowledge. It's just crummy. Even if you think homosexuality is icky, where's the justification for opposing this? Who's getting hurt? It's ludicrous to state that this will damage your own marriage. How? I'm a reasonable guy. Give me a reason. Gay couples are already living together and raising children.

I have two problems with this
either
1- It will work
or
2- Democrats are going to go out of their way to show how anti-gay they can be since, as Bart Simpson says, "The only way to be cooler than him is to do exactly what he does".

You got me, man. And despite what sopme may think, it isn't just conservatives who are against it. I've been amazed that some folks who otherwise are usually way to the left of me are so threatened by this.

But anti-gay feelings seems to be a cultural as much as political thing. Many of my African American students, whose opinions of Bush make PAD look like Condi Rice, are INCREDIBLY homophobic, and I don't use that term as loosely as most. If this is a common feeling among many African Americans it may explain why the Democrats are so mealy mouthed on the issue.

On the other hand, all 3 of my kids are very tolerant on the issue, as are some of their friends, so maybe th enext generation will see a shift...I don't know. Anybody have a good poll that indicates how young people feel on the issue?

Posted by Bea O'Problem:

"start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y'know, worked out so well) "

Except that it's not the first amendment since Prohibition. G'won... look it up

An important nitpick, here:

PAD's full statement was "..start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y'know, worked out so well) that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them."

No intelligent person could claim that there have been no Consitutional Amendments since Prohibition. Plenty of intelligent persons point out that no Constitutional Amendment since prohibition has involved minimizing citizen's freedoms; if anything, plenty of Amendments (before and after Prohibition) have involved preserving or expanding the rights of the citizen's.

It's a contentious enough issue wihtout misrepresenting folks' statements. We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument...

IMHO marriage/family values in America are not threatened by homosexuals, they are threatened by heterosexuals. I heard in a propaganda film that the number one household in America is unmarried couples with no children (which may or may not be true). There is a trend with heterosexuals to throw the marriage system away completely (which makes it interesting that so many homosexuals are fighting for it). I don't think passing a ban on same sex marriages will cause any change in the steady decline of marriage values in our culture, and I also don't think politicians can do a thing about it.

That being said, yes it's stupid that Bush is playing election year politics.

Posted by Alf! at June 7, 2006 01:42 PM

Gay marriage has been legal in my country for some time now. Of course, consevatives claimed the world was going to end. Guess what... not only it didn't, but gay conservatives started getting married as well.

And life went on.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What country are you in?

"Frustrating that your candidate is performing ineptly, or even fishing for votes is not quite the same thing I don't think, as routinely seeing the worst in the actions, thoughts, motives, policies of the other side."

Thank you for defining for me the way I should see the world and what constitutes being an independent thinker. Tragically, I had no concept of that for myself.

PAD

"See now, I read that as saying that IF conservatives "fall" for it--by which I thought you meant voting for Republicans--then yes, they really ARE that stupid. How else would you propose we measure whether or not the ploy is successful?"

If we see a repeat of states hurrying to slap a no-gay-marriage vote onto their ballots. Other than that, I'm not sure how it would be "measurable." Then again, I wasn't talking about it being measurable. Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.

PAD

(because, let's face it, that's what they were. It was the country's very first state-wide hate crimes.)

I disagree. Only because it wasn't the first. You neglect slavery and the slaughter of the Native Americans among other things.

Luigi Novi: Not every American principle has to be in the Constitution in order to be a fundamentally correct one. Separation of Church and State is indeed a valid and vital American principle that the Founding Fathers correctly felt we needed.
****

That's what you feel. But that doesn't make it so. the founding fathers were dozens of men. Some, notably Jefferson believed in Separation of Church and State. Others did not. Either way, they did not enshrine it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court first mentioned it in the 1920s (or thereabouts), and they have recently backed away from it.

It really isn't correct to say it is required by the Constitution. the Constitution requires no establishment of religion. It requires no religious test for office. and it allows the free exercise of religion. But that isn't a separation. (and a true separation would actually mean no fire, police, water, etc, services at any rate). Not a separation at all.

Maybe we should have a separation. But we don't, especially one required by the Constitution. Want to change it? Propose an amendment. "Church and state shall forever be separated in the United States, except for basic fire, police, and utility services henceforth."

"I disagree. Only because it wasn't the first. You neglect slavery and the slaughter of the Native Americans among other things."

Well, I was talking about since the term "hate crimes" was coined and given legal weight, but okay.

PAD

1Luigi Novi: It does take away a freedom. The freedom to live your own life as you please, which includes marrying the person you fell in love with, without undue interference by Big Daddy government.
****
As usual, you missed my point. The amendment does not take away freedom, because the freedom ahs never existed. No law except now by judicial fiat in Massachussetts allowed it to happen.

Of course gays not being allowed to marry is a lesser state of freedom. But it is a freedom they never had. Thus, the amendment takes away no freedom from them (other than the ability to change the law without an amendment). they never had the freedom to begin with.

So every post that says "it takes away freedom" is false. Every post that says "its a hate crime" is false-the "hate" is already there, i.e., the lack of the ability to marry one of the same gender.

Separation of church and state in this country is a joke. We have "In God We Trust" on the money. We have a government that shuts down on Christmas Day. The President is sworn in (as are witnesses in courts of law) with one hand on a bible.

PAD

Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
****
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?

Maybe the leaders really agree
or maybe the conservatives really have this at the top of the agenda even if it fails and is "tilting at windmills"
or maybe all the reasons you listed initially have nothing to do with why conservatives as a group are disappointed or angry at Bush
or maybe there are people besides conservatives (like say, most black Americans) who this issue is important to.

But of course not. They (and its only conservatives) are being manipulated and would be stupid to fall for that manipulation. Very black and white, and because it is, wrong.

Separation of church and state in this country is a joke. We have "In God We Trust" on the money. We have a government that shuts down on Christmas Day. The President is sworn in (as are witnesses in courts of law) with one hand on a bible.
****

That's because it doesn't exist.

In my opinion, if we truly were enforcing the establishment clause, "In God we Trust" would be gone-its an establishment of religion-particularly, momotheism. But if it is a separation, then it is simply de minimus. There's no entanglement there, need to monitor, freeing up of money for other uses.

Swearing the President in? Hmmm. I think he could choose to be, and it would be a free exercise thing, neither violating establishment or a separation.

Christmas? Effectively a free exercise thing. Most people by far celebrate Christmas either religiously as intended, or secularly as has developed.

The courts in New York also have "IN GOD WE TRUST" above the Judge. That to me would be an impermissible violation of establishment. But de minimus if the standard is separation.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If homosexuals are religious than they can claim that marriage is a free exercise of their religion.

Spiderrob please don't play games. When there is an attempt to change a document of the power and magnitude of the US Consititution in order to prevent chganging or challenging local laws in order to be allowed to marry, this is no small thing. It is an act reducing their freedom, and it is motivated by a certain attitude toward homosexuality which even if not hate is certainly not positive.

The equivalent would have been an attempt prior to 1920, trying to pass an amendment not allowing women to vote.

I wouldn't begrudge Americans there Christmas or the "I God We Trust."

I live in a country that has its own religious symbolism here and there. It is natural that national symbols will reflect the beliefs of the majority. The danger is when religions try to use the organs of the state to enforce their beliefs on others. This seems to be the case with an amendment against gay marriage.

This isn't an appeal to the general conservative base, this is an appeal to the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coultier or as I call them Bible Snorters. These are people with one track minds , who vote based only on one subject group abortion, gay marriage and religion in the schools. Religous fundalmentalists from which a taliban or bin ladden could easily arrise.

Someone asked if anyone had quantatively proved their voting impact and the answer is yes. The Wallstreet Journal shortly after 2004 elections did a massive write up on this group and how they put Bush over the top. Recent articles elsewhere have detailed their support for Bush stems from the fact they want to accelerate the end of days and believe Bush will do so for them. They have no interest in future impacts because for them there is no future, there is only the rapture, after which they don't have to worry about anything. They are riding the titanic to the bottom and enjoying it. Scary!

And Bush is cowtowing to them. They put him over the top in electoral votes in 2000 where he lost the popular votes and they were enough to give him the slight margin he won by in 2004.

I have said for a long time that his rating would not fall below 30% because there will always be 20% who vote Republican no matter what and they are the other 10% to give him his 30%. However he hasn't been appeasing them lately and this is his appeasement.

These are the same type of people who in 1890 considered the KKK a social club. This is just the latest target of their religious bigotry.

Brian

"Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
****
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?"

Soooo that would be "yes" then?

PAD

I just found this in another article:------------
The Vatican also added muscle to the argument Tuesday, naming gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before.
-----------------------------------------------

I've never really been able to figure it out, but what exactly does the vatican or any of their priests, bishops, archbishops or even pope know about marriage? These people never marry, are supposedly celibate and I use supposedly very strongly and a large chunk of them, in the states, have been proven to be pedophiles. Really what does the Pope know about anything marriage? I'm single and never married and I know I sure as heck can't advise my married friends about much of anything in marriage. Zeesh.

Brian

From an article detailing the amendment's defeat:

"Democrats said the debate was a divisive political ploy.

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

Anyone who remembers the "West Wing" episode "Celestial Navigation" would know that the response to this is, "If the shoe fits..."

PAD

I've yet to read the other 68 posts so far on this thread, but I wanted to get this comment out there first:

PAD -
It's genuinely insulting to conservative voters' intelligence, that their leaders think they're THAT easily manipulated.

And yet, apparently conservatives ARE that easily manipulated, unfortunately.

The equivalent would have been an attempt prior to 1920, trying to pass an amendment not allowing women to vote.
***
I believe a few legislatures had already allowed women to vote though by then. Otherwise it is pretty close.

I pretty much agree with what you say, except that the argument would be that "we have no choice. Despite the "will of the people" expressed in referendums, despite the will of the people expressed through the legislature, courts are determined to find a right that doesn't exist no matter what the majority, in some cases the far majority says. We aren't happy to do it, but the abuse of what the courts are doing necessitates it."

Anyone who remembers the "West Wing" episode "Celestial Navigation" would know that the response to this is, "If the shoe fits..."
***
It might fit, but it wouldn't be just the United States senate, it would be the majoprity of the country.

In fact the majority of democrats. They may not support an amendment banning it, but many have definitively stated that they donm't support gay marriage. I believe that includes Dean, clinton (both), Kerry etc.

Then even those who nominally support, how much have they really done to get it? most very little.

These people never marry, are supposedly celibate and I use supposedly very strongly and a large chunk of them, in the states, have been proven to be pedophiles.
****
That's an exaggeraton. A small eprcentage have been shown to have sex with underage people. However, compared to the normal population, depending on the studfy, it does not seem that it is much more than any other group in the country (heck, now the new thing is teachers). Of the people who had sex with underage, there is a distinction between pedophilia, sex with non-developed children, and sex with developed, physically mature but legally underaged minors. The latter is not necessarily the result of a disorder, and in fact varies from state to state. Still wrong, but not the same kind of wrong

Which would have nothing really to do with the principles of the institution, even as it reflects on its members

-_-I'm worried about this New Generation..I am also concerned about your generation Mr.David,and the generation before your's.
You can almost smell it in the air that something Sad is about to befall us
,..all I think about are my Children when I think of this matter ((Bush)),I catch myself looking at them ..staring ..like if I need to remember all of this.. and appreciate the time we have together.
But I see in the near future alot of ppl waking up to reality..no T.V's no music ..nothing to Distract you from what's going on.I look at the generation before you Peter , these old Men of Yesterday , running things now.
I look at them..all the ppl around me. .literally living in the Matrix... There Are a Select few that take the red pill from what i see...the sad truth in all this is ..this won't stop w/ Bush..regardless of who's in Seat.. they are all cut from the same cloth, Peter. I myself am preparing mentally for what's to Come. Freedom is slowly Disappearing ..and I believe we waited to long to do something about it.
Understand what it is that's happening here ppl,
.Emperor Bush had to let 9-11 happen in order to get the Patriot act,
W/ that he can do anything he wants under the Guise of Terrorism...
why are we in Iraq you Ask?
We got paid to do a Job which was to take out Suddam el Seed,
Who paid and how much ?
Kuwait's//200 billion dollors worth of gold.
9-11 was nothing more then the BiGGEST HEIST IN U.S History.
there was 4 billion Dollors worth of gold in the world trade when the planes hit.
((There was only 200 million worth of gold recovered))....the kuwait's wanted Saddum the Seed Out and If you haven't noticed yet , U.S dollor is turning to Crud , it's really not what used to be.
The twin Towers was a money loser to the owners and The city of N.y anyway.
Trust me ,you couldn't demolition it due to the Asbestos Risk in the city and it's Ppl
...lol don't even get me started on Iran ..that one is a no brainer
..whats the quickest way from one point to another? ,
Yup, ..A Straight line.
...Basically the United states is on world Domination Mode , we are the new Nazi's of the 21st century,
United states has been Hijacked and that is the truth if I ever said it myself.
I honestly think thing's have to go this way thou.
History wouldn't seem right if it didn't.

So my question to you David is ..what do you see coming,(-_-....

Before our sex drive kicks in when we're young, and after it wanes when we're old, aren't we all at least a little bit faggy?

1"Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
****
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?"

Soooo that would be "yes" then?

PAD

*****
More like you done what is typical of the partisan-defined everything on your terms, and then said "Oh look the other side failed."

As I've said, there are many reasons why it is not manipulation but you'd rather say that so that if the Republicans win or do better than expected, you can satisfy yourself by saying "I was right, but these other people are just stupid, easily manipulated sheep" rather than "Wow reasonable, rational people had a choice to make, and they made a reasonable rationale choice based on their own needs, desires, and values which differs from mine, but which I can still respect." No matter who has Congress next year, they will have gotten the majority of people in their state or district on their side for a whole host of reasons. It isn't because they are stupid, or fooled, no matter who wins. Your view of politics, or history, is not definitive or anything.

Maybe they just interpret things different than you. Maybe they prioritize other things than you. Maybe they assign blame to other factors or people than you do, and credit to others as well. Your views are not so self-evident that anyone who disagrees must be getting fooled by a side issue. Perhaps Bush did get helped by gay marriage the last campaign. If so, he got helped by a host of other factors, including support by millions upon millions of people who were not voting based on gay marriage.

Egon -
Marriage = A Religious Institution

Last I checked, I was not married in a church, nor did any religious institution have a say in my marriage certificate.

I guess it was just a sham, huh?

I'm sorry, but if you think marriage is nothing more than a religious institution, you've got another thing coming - perferrably in the form of a history lesson.

PAD -
Separation of church and state in this country is a joke.

I guess it depends on how you look at things.

I'd like to believe that the stories about the Founding Fathers being Deists, and not Christians, is true. For one, it makes phrases such as "In God we trust" a little easier to swallow, because they're not focusing upon the Christian god.

Which ends up being the problem I have with this entire mess: for the Christians (note: generalization here), it's about getting THEIR god in government, not anybody elses. And that's where the problem starts.

The Bill of Rights says, among other things the Bush Administration has forgotten, that we have "freedom of religious worship".

I take it to mean that we not only have freedom of religion, we have freedom FROM religion.

Here's the exact words of the 1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's interesting how religion is mentioned before speech, considering most see the 1st Amendment as purely about free speech.

So, I guess to summarize: Yeah, "In God we Trust" is there, but I don't really see it being jammed down my throat; I'd prefer it not be there, but I can live with it.

What I can't live with is certain groups telling people they cannot marry because their religion says otherwise, and so forth.

we are the new Nazi's of the 21st century
*****
Oh man, the whackjobs are coming out now.

"The equivalent would have been an attempt prior to 1920, trying to pass an amendment not allowing women to vote.
***
I believe a few legislatures had already allowed women to vote though by then. Otherwise it is pretty close."

Which makes the comparison even more appropriate. The point of said amendments is to prevent liberal states from allowing gay marriages.

"I pretty much agree with what you say, except that the argument would be that "we have no choice. Despite the "will of the people" expressed in referendums, despite the will of the people expressed through the legislature, courts are determined to find a right that doesn't exist no matter what the majority, in some cases the far majority says. We aren't happy to do it, but the abuse of what the courts are doing necessitates it.""

You are refering to what is known as judicial activism. We have this debate inmy country too. Somewhere I have an article about it, maybe I'll find it.

Of course the classic example of judicial activism is Brown vs. The Topica Kansas board of education.

Depriving gays from equal rights is wrong even if the majority agrees to it. It should think that defending individual rights against the tyranny of the majority is what the courts and the constitution are for?

Then again, I wasn't talking about it being measurable. Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.

Glenn reynolds-- "THE ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT HAS DIED, and this AP lede shows why it was not only wrong, but stupid:

Captain's Quarters- "If Andrew Sullivan wants to marry his significant other, it has no affect on my relationship with the First Mate; if I was that insecure, I never would have gotten married in the first place."

Allahpundit- The president’s going to try to toss some red meat to the base today by, uh, coming out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Which doesn’t have a prayer of passing. (He also believes that the the Equal Protection Clause should/does protect their right to marry.)

La Shawn Barber- Politicians are so transparent. The midterm elections are quickly approaching (can you believe 2006 is half over?), and Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment. It’s an empty and meaningless gesture because the thing will never be ratified.

Patterico- "As I have said before, I don’t see the huge threat that gay marriage allegedly poses to the fabric of our society. And I oppose Bush’s support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

Political Pit Bull- "President Bush is preparing to throw his "political capital" behind the Federal Marriage Amendment--quite possibly the most blatant act of political pandering I have ever seen."

Confederate Yankee- "A rouge nation with budding nuclear weapons capabilities is being run by a cult obsessed with End Times eschatology, and threatens ten of millions of lives in southwest Asia. Sectarian violence continues in Iraq. We’re importing poverty in record amounts through a southern border that leaks like a sieve, and Patrick Kennedy is out of rehab and back on the road."

"Mr. President, if you really think I care about gay marriage right now, you’re out of your ever-lovin’ mind."

Professor Bainbridge-- "I see no reason why the MPA ought to energize the GOP base. If anything, it ought to make the base even more skeptical of the bona fides of the GOP Washington elite, whose sole remaining principle appears to be the will to cling to power."

Neal Boortz- "I think that it is perfectly fitting for us to use the United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain specific group of people what they cannot do, rather than tell the government what it cannot do.
We don't need tax reform. We don't need an end to earmark pork spending in Congress. We don't need smaller government and school choice. We don't need real reform that would put medical care back into the competitive marketplace. We need none of those things. All is fine! What we need is a Constitutional Amendment that will keep two people who love each other, but who we don't consider to be normal - not by our standards anyway - to marry.
I know I'll sleep better tonight."

Kathryn Jean Lopez(NRO)--"The Senate moves on (to their next bad move?)."

I don't know about the voters but the conservative bloggers seem pretty underwhelmed.

"we are the new Nazi's of the 21st century
*****
Oh man, the whackjobs are coming out now."

That post is weird. What's Saddam el Seed?

In case it isn't clear, BTW, Neal Boortz is being sarcastic.

1Of course the classic example of judicial activism is Brown vs. The Topica Kansas board of education.
****
I don't think so. In that case, you had constitutional amendments that were being flouted, the 13th (arguably) the 14th and 15th (for later decision after Brown. So the Judges were applying the law. I'd also argue things like the Privileges and Immunities clause were being flouted as well, but no one gives much thrift to that one. The Federal government also intervened on normal state functions using the interstate commerce clause, and some provisions of the 14th and 15th amendments allowing them to do so.

Generally, Judges in the United States are not supposed to make law, that's what legilstures are for, especially if there is no gap in the law, or it is not part of the common law tradition. Courts are not there to prohibit tyranny of the majority-unless it is already protected in the constitution or a statute based on same.

It would prevent liberal states, but so far, even liberal states have not allowed it. Primarily, its to prevent liberal judges.

The 22nd amendment, passed well after prohibition, restricted my freedoms. In particular, my pre-existing freedom to run for a third term as president. Admittedly, the chances of my exercising that particular right were vanishingly small either way, but one could say the same of the issue under discussion...

I don't know about the voters but the conservative bloggers seem pretty underwhelmed.

Well, your first mistake, Bill, was confusing conservative bloggers with conservative voters in general. :)

That's it...I'm done with this blog.

I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website.

Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?

C'ya!

(and yes, I DO support the Marriage Amendment. Yes, I am a conservative. And, yes, I voted for G. W. Bush both times.)

Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being "conservative" isn't as homogenous as it once was. You've got your conservatives, your neocons, your lip-service conservatives, and a heck of a lot of conservative people that I know personally(granted, it may just be a Philly thing) who are arguing amongst themselves about just what it IS to be a conservative. You know, kind of like what They have always accused the liberals of being. Not united! Not standing for a single goal! Not anchored behind a View! With or without Meredith Viera! (Sorry, had to) It just looks to me like the conservatives out there think they can appeal to their base, be they TV personality, politician, author, what have you, just by voicing Traditional Values! The Way Things Have Always Been! I find it kind of hopeful that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, that the country has had it with all these extremes and may be going back toward moderation.

I just really hope the sunglasses of mine ain't rose-colored. But seriously, it's not a crime to be either liberal or conservative. Maybe the country is finally waking up and realizing that being so polarized about, well, everything, doesn't help anyone.

Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?

C'ya!
--------------------------------------------------

Another blog suicide. Should we start the bets as to when the republican will be back?

And Republican, read the title of this blog, it says Peter David.net Writer of stuff. I don't see where it says, writer of only comics and comic diatribs. A comment about the ability of conservatives to comprehend, comes to mind, but then many liberals can't comprehend either...

Although I have to admit that I'm surprised that I haven't seen any of the comedians or more strident liberal outlets talk about pruning the White House once and for all.

Come on, you get it. His name's BUSH, for gosh sakes.

Or is that just one of those things that's funny just in MY head?

Sean Scullion: Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being "conservative" isn't as homogenous as it once was. You've got your conservatives, your neocons, your lip-service conservatives, and a heck of a lot of conservative people ... who are arguing amongst themselves about just what it IS to be a conservative.

So why bother with the label?

Lemme see... I believe taxes should be higher on the rich, and that taxes overall should be lower. I believe the death penalty is wrong, and that some acts are so bad the perpetrator should be killed. I believe less money should be spent on prisons, more on schools, and that schools should perform or the parents get vouchers. (Hmm, that one kinda suprised me.) I support a "woman's right to choose", and that life begins well before "birth".

So what am I? And why do I have to care? I'll vote for the person I most agree with and believe can do the best job. Could be from either party, often from neither.

Will conservatives be stoopid enough to fall for this most recent bull from Bush? Why not just ask "Will people be stoopid enough.. " and leave the us vs. them stereotyping out of it?

Sorry for the three posts, but I start one before I finish reading all the posts, but then I get other thoughts as I go down the list and I get new ones.
Anyhoo, spiderrob--Peter is a writer. A damn good writer, in my opinion, but a writer none the less. To my knowledge, he has no political position or appointment, so if the opinions he expresses occasionally go along with a particular party, well, that's his right. It's not partisan, it's opinion. The only time I see "partisan" being a problem is when it is in fact expressed by those elected officials who look more to their party than their constituents. Woefully, that's happening more and more, but maybe it'll start to change. I don't know.

But one thing to remember. Opinions are very personal. They need to at least, the very least, be respected. Not told that they're wrong, especially in terms of politics. There are very few "facts" in politics.

"Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?"

This site isn't a comic and doesn't claim to be one. I believe PAD owns this site and can say and do on it pretty much whatever he wants.

1But one thing to remember. Opinions are very personal. They need to at least, the very least, be respected. Not told that they're wrong, especially in terms of politics.
****

My opinion is you are wrong. He can have any opinion, he wants, but so can I. It works both ways. Please respect it. :)

Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being "conservative" isn't as homogenous as it once was.

Er, I think it's always been that way...you may not be old enough to remember the fights between the Goldwater Republicans and the Rockerfeller Republicans.

Indeed, part of the appeal to me of conservatism is that it allows for more freedom of differences of opinion than liberalism has shown (in my experiences. You mileage may vary.) Peruse the National review's blog The Corner and compare it to, say, the Huffington Post. Lots more variety at the Corner, IMHO.

Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?

Not a comic, not your blog. Crybaby.

I believe less money should be spent on prisons

Not to pick on you, but this leapt out at me. How? Decriminalize drugs (ok by me)? Make the prisons little more than Cool Hand Luke hellholes? Reduce sentences overall?

I like prisons. I like that there are many criminals in them. I'm always amazed when people are amazed that crime has gone down while the prison population has gone up. Um...isn't that sort of what one should expect?

"That's it...I'm done with this blog."

So?

"I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website."

And for comic book related discussions you can go to any comic book related site (Newsarama, comicon.com, comicbookresources, etc.) So your point remains elusive. But really, it's pretty odd to act as this blog has done you a disservice simply because it isn't what you expect it to be. Such behavior would require a monumentally intolerant attitude that insists upon foisting your beliefs upon others and make them live by your standards.

"Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?"

Beeeecause it's not a comic...?

"C'ya!"

Wouldn't wanna be ya.

"(and yes, I DO support the Marriage Amendment. Yes, I am a conservative. And, yes, I voted for G. W. Bush both times.)"

Ah. Well, that explains the monumentally intolerant attidue...

PAD

Brian Peter asked (snipped): "I've never really been able to figure it out, but what exactly does the vatican or any of their priests, bishops, archbishops or even pope know about marriage? These people never marry, are supposedly celibate... Really what does the Pope know about anything marriage?"

While clergy in the Catholic church are required to be celibate once they take their vows, that does not necessarily mean they always have been. A widower, for example, could enter the priesthood after his wife died, if he'd felt he'd been called. So, too could a man whose marriage had been annuled (the Catholic church doesn't recognize divorce; but an annulment essentially rewinds everything back to before the marriage took place.)

Likewise, a married clergyman from another faith could convert to Catholicism, go through the various requirements to become a Catholic priest, and then be a priest. I've met once such person. And yes, someone in that situation is exempted from the celibacy rule.

So, to reiterate, a priest, bishop, even the Pope could, in theory, have been in a relationship before deciding to go into religious life.

Rick

P.S., with regard to the issue of the amendment Bush would tack onto the Constitution, it is narrow-minded, bigoted, and will ultimately be harmful to this country. We don't need it. And I could care less whether John and Sue get married, or Bob and Marry, or John and Bob, or Sue and Mary.

Get a life, Mr. President. Worry about something that matters. Like the mess in Iraq. Like finding Osama Bin Laden. Remember him?

If I had to choose between a third term with George W. and bringing Nixon back from the dead and putting him in the White House again, I'd take Nixon.

C'ya!

Don't let the disconnect door hit your ass on the way out!

(I always loved that line.)

If I had to choose between a third term with George W. and bringing Nixon back from the dead and putting him in the White House again, I'd take Nixon.

Zombies in the White House. Cool. (it's also the plot of the next Reanimator movie. I am so there.)

Sorry about the length, but i began taking notes at the top:

Posted by spiderrob8

and not to nitpick, but considering 2,500 allied troops died and 10,000 total casualties on D-Day 62 years ago yesterday, it is somewhat overblown to say soldiers in Iraq are dying at a "stunning" rate. The rate is one of the lowest we've had for any war. For thos who think the war not worth it, 1 death is too much. But it is ridiculous to say a "stunning" rate.

Ummm -- and how many personnel were engaged in the fighting on D-Day? What percentage of them were killed? Direct frontal amphibious assaults into fixed and hardened positions carry disporprotionately high butcher's bills. Besides - how many WW2 casualties were due to conflict between uniformed regular troops, compare to how many were due to irregulars? (Most of the type of casualties similar to those we're seeing in Iraq happened to the Germans...)

The majority of US casualties in WW2 were due to fighting a recogniseable enemy who, more or less, fought by the rules.

In Iraq, one is as likely to be killed by a thirteen-year-old wearing a C4 undershirt as by any sort of organised enmey action.

Might i ask if you have ever served in the military?

That doesn't even make any sense. Besides gay marriage, the other issues have been Supreme Court nominations, immigration, social security, Iraq, War on Terror. None of the other issues he has raised since then have even touched on "Jerry Springer" like topics. and it is really chicken and the egg anyway.

Lessee -- handing over US ports to Arab-owned companies at the same time he's busily ensuring that the entire Arab world at least distrusts the US. Advocating illegal-immigration policies that nobody likes. Declaring a War on Terror -- you might as well declare a war on flanking maneuvers or on the right cross. Gutting FEMA and appointing incompetents to run what's left. Attempting to appoint a totally unqualified political crony to the Supreme Court. Invading Iraq based on lies (his own, among others) and taking the advice of total incompetents (whome he has yet to remove) whose incompetence resulted in unnecessarily heavy casualties, and whose methods of prosecution of the war turned Iraq from a country with a near-First World economy and an oil exporter to a net oil importer where the electricity may be on a few hours every day, and Uncle Dick's cronies at Halliburton and other companies get no-bid contracts which seem mainly designed to allow them to steal the most money for the least useful work...

Posted by CCR

I never thought about it that way... making it hard to impossible to get divorced. It's reminiscent of the old Chris Rock joke where he said "don't take guns off the streets, make bullets rediculously expensive."

The last time gay marriage was looking like an issue, Neal Boortz, conservative talk jock, was saying he didn't see anything wrong with it; certainly it took nothing away from married straights (except for possibly putting a little more burden on health insurance plans and so on), and his producer, Royal Marshall (pretty much a black yuppie) said "Bad idea. Three words -- 'gay divorce court'."

Posted by Egon

Marriage = A Religious Institution

America = Separation of Church & State

Therefore, the Government should not meddle in Religous affairs.

Wrong. Marriage is very much a secular institution, controlled and regul;ated by the State, not by the Church -- otherwise atheists could never marry.

Posted by spiderrob8

America = Separation of Church & State
***
Find it in the Constitution and I'll agree with you.

Hmm... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... "

Posted by Bea O'Problem

"start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y'know, worked out so well) "

Except that it's not the first amendment since Prohibition. G'won... look it up

In your haste to make someone look dumb and score points, you apparently overlooked (or ignored) the words "that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them" -- PAD didn't that it's the Very First amendment since Prohibition, that it's the first since then that attempts to limit the rights of the people.

Posted by Thomas E. Reed

I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying "it only encourates them." This, of course, is stupid - "they" will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure "they" will be in charge.

As the Bonzo Dog (doo dah) Band said, "No matter who you voite for, the Government always get in."

Posted by Aladdin

Native Americans

Grrr. I hate to digress, but the American Indian is no more a "Native American" than i am; no less either.

My ancestors came on ships, theirs walked -- but neither evolved here.

The Canadian term "First American" is a lot more accurate and simply sounds better.

Posted by Spiderrob8

Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?

Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, and obtuse and pretty much politically ignorant,do you?

They (and its only conservatives) are being manipulated and would be stupid to fall for that manipulation. Very black and white, and because it is, wrong.

No, it's anyone who's stupid to vote the way Bush wants based on his scare tactics, lies and manipulation.

(The more i see od Dubya, the more i miss RMN and LBJ -- they were cynical manipulative and probably crooked lying bastards, too, but they were good at it, and LBJ, particularly, often actually left you feeling good about it after he lubed you up and did you...)

Posted by Bill Mulligan

In case it isn't clear, BTW, Neal Boortz is being sarcastic.

See my account of Neal's exchange with Royal, above.

Posted by A Republican

That's it...I'm done with this blog.

I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website.

Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?

C'ya!

(and yes, I DO support the Marriage Amendment. Yes, I am a conservative. And, yes, I voted for G. W. Bush both times.)

Cool, Republican. Nothing to worry about, we're all just stirring up trouble here, George W. Bush Is Your Friend, We are Winning the War on Terror, Everybody in the World Loves Us...

Now go back to sleep till Election Day.

"ev'rything's safe, ev'rything's cool..." (Frank Zappa)

It's okay if you practise saying "Baaahh!"

Posted by Brian Peter

"Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?

C'ya!"

Another blog suicide. Should we start the bets as to when the republican will be back?

Tomorrow. Under his real name.

Posted by Sean Scullion

Although I have to admit that I'm surprised that I haven't seen any of the comedians or more strident liberal outlets talk about pruning the White House once and for all.

Come on, you get it. His name's BUSH, for gosh sakes.

Or is that just one of those things that's funny just in MY head?

Nah -- but we wore it out back about 2001. I still prefer "Bush Minor".

Egon: America = Separation of Church & State

spiderrob8: Find it in the Constitution and I'll agree with you.

First Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The line about a Wall is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, but to say the Constitution doesn't talk about separating the government from religion ignores the words in the First Amendment.

Gas prices are high. They are not "through the roof" and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.

Only because they are in the pockets of the oil concerns and wont set up a Project Manhattan-style all-out research effort to develop a viable alternative to oil as an energy source.

Gas prices are high. They are not "through the roof" and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.

Only because they are in the pockets of the oil concerns and wont set up a Project Manhattan-style all-out research effort to develop a viable alternative to oil as an energy source.

Gas prices are high. They are not "through the roof" and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.

Only because they are in the pockets of the oil concerns and wont set up a Project Manhattan-style all-out research effort to develop a viable alternative to oil as an energy source.

Posted by Kevin T. Brown at June 7, 2006 02:55 PM

What country are you in?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Spain. I´m afraid the Church has seen better times in terms of influence over society around here.

"The Canadian term "First American" is a lot more accurate and simply sounds better."

Except that it's speciest. There were plenty of American buffallo, American deer, American Mastodons, etc., before Man showed up. "First Americans"! Indeed.

Historically speaking, marriage is a religious ritual. Up until the last 200 years it could only have been done by religious officials, and the records were kept by religious institutions. In the last 200 years two changes have occured:
Secularism and the strengthening of governments, which meant that there was a demand for non religious marriages, and that the government took over aspects of our lives that used to be handled by religious institutions, as well as havin more interest in monitoring marriages. Nevertheless, even for atheists, marriage is an act of personal, social, and ritualistic meaning.
The people promoting this amendment are trying to restrict a ritualistic aspect of the lives of gays, and are doing it in order to promote a certain moral or religious view about homosexuality. It is being used as an educational tool. In that sense it is like prohibition. (The constitution does have educational messages, but to the best of my knowledge the focus so far was about equality).

"It would prevent liberal states, but so far, even liberal states have not allowed it. Primarily, its to prevent liberal judges."

Were there any cases where homosexuals went to courts demanding the right to marry based on equal rights? The only incidents I'm aware of involved local government. It would be an interesting case if it did go to court. It seems as much or even less of a leep to say that gays have an equal right to get married than that blacks have the right to go to unsegregated schools. After all gays are not trying to force institutions that don't like gays like the catholic church to marry them, only that governments recognize the bureaucratic aspects of such a marriage.

Well, I hate to use these two words, but, 'of course' now with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the republicans probably won't need the marriage amendment for a long while now :-/
(Don't get me wrong, I think its good the guy is gone, but now comes the Spin Doctors who will use it to raise the Prez's falling poll numbers; in my opinion anyway).

Let's just be happy that he's made his last video. I've thought that Zarqawi was the major target for some time now, though Bin Laden has more emotional value.

The real good news is not just his death but the fact that it was locals who had such an instrumental role in his death. Zarqawi thought he would be a heroic figure of liberation against the American aggressor but in the end he was just an embittered butcher who was killed by the people he imagined would flock to his cause.

Expect Al Qaeda to immediately launch a few random killings of civilians just so the media can report that Zarqawi's death had no effect.

1The majority of US casualties in WW2 were due to fighting a recogniseable enemy who, more or less, fought by the rules.

****
Right which is why I always thought the War in Iraq, and the War on Terror would be monumentally hard, harder than WWII. The fact remains casualties in this war while terribly tragic, are still fairly low compared to virtually every other war we have been in. No comfort if you don't believe it should ever have taken place, but some comfort to those who believe it was needed (both wars).

The far majority of the military as of Nov 2004 supprted the war. Whether they do now, not sure, but I believe so from what i've seen and heard.

Hmm... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
***

Right they can't establish an offical church of the united states, or take steps along that line. That was not interpreted to mean separation of church and state until 1920s (or 40s I forget) and has since been backed off by the Supreme Court, the majority anyway.

In fact, originally did not even apply to the states, and there were official state churches I believe until the 1820s.

Either way, that phrase does not mean separation. It does mean no offical religion. There's a huge difference. and the Supreme Court has struggled mightily with the differnece. (If there is a separation, you can't give any money say to religious schools even for books because you are helping them, and thus freeing them up to use the money for other religious things. On the other hand, if there is just no offical religion, you can give money to the religious schools for math textbooks on the same basis you give to any other school because your not creating an official anything). Its extremely complicated, but slogans that are mistatken don't help.

Posted by: mike weber Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, and obtuse and pretty much politically ignorant,do you?
******

Very good. I disagree with you politically, and therefore, I must be dumb and uninformed because I can't possibly be as informed, or more, than you, a good person, smart, and just came to different conclusions then you.

But name calling is fun. I know that you believe you are such a super genius that anyone who disagrees must be either dumb, or ill informed, or evil.

Good way to live life in a democracy, so that compromise, which is essential for democracy, cannot happen.

I am informed, I am smart, I am tuse (ha ha) and guess what, I disagree. and that is ok.

The line about a Wall is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, but to say the Constitution doesn't talk about separating the government from religion ignores the words in the First Amendment.
***
No it doesn't, as I explained above and the Supreme COurt has long struggled with. If it was so easy, it would, be easy. Instead, the jurisprudence in this aresa is a mess beause it isn't easy.

The wall originally came from a preacher in the 1600s who thought government corrupted religion. Jefferson wrote about it in a private letter in the 1800s to a Baptist group. However, jefferson, while a genius, did not help write the Constitution,he was in France. The Supreme did not use it until the 1920s, and has backed away from it. Establishing religion and separation are two different things. It owuld be easier if there was a separation-cases would be easy-but there isn't which is why it is so difficult.

Isn't it interesting that it's only self-proclaimed conservatives that ever object to Peter making his blog too political? I wonder if there's a conservative writer out there who has liberal fans who announce that they're going to stop buying his books because his blog is too political.

As for the gay marriage ban:
I think everyone is now seeing this maneuver as the political pander than it is. Even social conservatives, who haven't forgotten that, after Bush campaigned heavily on the issue in 2004, his administration announced in January of 2005 that social security "reform" was a higher priority. It's an election year and everyone is in full pander-mode. Blah.

Al-Zarqawi:
Glad we got him, but I suspect his death will turn out to be more symbolic than substantive, much like bin Laden's capture would be, that is if we were still looking for him. I predict the insurgents will have a new leader stepping forward momentarily. And of course, the radical Islamic leaders will be declaring him a martyr and rallying their followers in his memory.

Separation of church and state:
While that phrase doesn't appear appear in the Constitution, it has become a shorthand way to (perhaps somewhat sloppily) explain the underlining principle of the establishment clause. The purpose of that clause was to prevent the government from not only establishing an official government religion, but to prevent government from granting favoritism to any particular religion. Of course, the raging debate ever since has been where do you draw the line between cultural expressions and favoritisim? Personally, I think posting a 5 ton lump of granite in a courthouse with the ten commendments carved on it does cross the line, while others feel that "Merry Christmas" should be the mandatory greeting in the month of December.

Finally, I should point out, that, despite what Clarence Thomas may think, the intent of the 14th amendment was to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well, so states can no longer establish an official religion either.

the radical Islamic leaders will be declaring him a martyr

The AP article through Yahoo that was up a little while ago (it's been updated to something else since) said that Al Qaeda had already declared him a martyr. So, I'm sure others won't be far behind.

It was also apparently Al Qaeda who first confirmed his death, which sort of surprises me.

In all of this, I think it's important to remember that nobody would know who the hell this guy was if it wasn't for our f*cked up invasion of Iraq.

1The purpose of that clause was to prevent the government from not only establishing an official government religion, but to prevent government from granting favoritism to any particular religion.
****
Right, so not a separation. A separation would mean when you give out money for textbooks, no religious schools. What you described would allow it, since all religious and nonreligious schools are being treated equally. So they continue to be and mean to different things.

In all of this, I think it's important to remember that nobody would know who the hell this guy was if it wasn't for our f*cked up invasion of Iraq.

****

Sure. No doubt he'd be a peaceful man, a monk if you will.

Oh wait, he's a "psycho" murderer fanatic who no doubt would have continued to be. Most did not know wjo Bin Laden was either for the many years he was laying the foundation for what came.

Isn't it interesting that it's only self-proclaimed conservatives that ever object to Peter making his blog too political?

****

Well it is who he insults and belittles, so, no not too interesting at that.

"Ah. Well, that explains the monumentally intolerant attidue...

PAD"

Luigi Novi: Not every American principle has to be in the Constitution in order to be a fundamentally correct one. Separation of Church and State is indeed a valid and vital American principle that the Founding Fathers correctly felt we needed.

spiderrob8: That's what you feel. But that doesn't make it so. the founding fathers were dozens of men. Some, notably Jefferson believed in Separation of Church and State. Others did not.
Luigi Novi: I’d say the fact that the Founding Father who popularized it was Jefferson is pretty significant, as is the fact that another proponent of it was Madison. Given that the author of the Declaration of Independence and the primary author of the Constitution were for such a separation, it goes a long way to discerning the intent behind those documents. The Tripoli Treaty of 1796 also makes it clear that the U.S. government is secular. The bottom line is that SOCAS remains a fundamental American principle that we recognize today.

But out of curiosity, do you have any figures as to how many of the Founding Fathers were for it or against it?

spiderrob8: Either way, they did not enshrine it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court first mentioned it in the 1920s (or thereabouts), and they have recently backed away from it.
Luigi Novi: They haven’t “backed away” from anything. The Supreme Court and federal courts in general regularly recognizes SOCAS in its rulings, as in the Dover, PA ruling on creationism last year, to name one example.

spiderrob8: It really isn't correct to say it is required by the Constitution. the Constitution requires no establishment of religion. It requires no religious test for office. and it allows the free exercise of religion. But that isn't a separation. (and a true separation would actually mean no fire, police, water, etc, services at any rate). Not a separation at all.
Luigi Novi: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to mean that no government — federal, state or local — can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over the others, or which favors belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief since the latter half of the nineteenth century. The first such mention of this was in Reynolds v. United States in 1878.

Not the 1920s.

Not the 1940s.

spiderrob8: As usual, you missed my point. The amendment does not take away freedom, because the freedom ahs never existed…Of course gays not being allowed to marry is a lesser state of freedom. But it is a freedom they never had. Thus, the amendment takes away no freedom from them (other than the ability to change the law without an amendment). they never had the freedom to begin with.
Luigi Novi: Semantics. The freedom to marry the consenting adult that you are in love with is a right that is inferred by the pursuit of happiness and basic civil freedoms. Because this right is recognized for heterosexuals, it follows that homosexuals feel it is their right too. By not recognizing this right, it is being taken away from them.

This argument of yours only works if you start with the assumption that each and every single thing that you have the legal right to do is explicitly enumerated by the Constitution, including the right of heterosexuals to marry, and that by extension, anything not on this “list” is not a right. Since this is obviously not the case, (because laws are made to make explicit what you can’t do, not every single thing that you can), this argument of yours is false.

Peter David: Separation of church and state in this country is a joke.

spiderrob8: That's because it doesn't exist.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s because it’s not being consistently enforced. Slight difference.

A Republican: That's it...I'm done with this blog. I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website.
Luigi Novi: And yet somehow, you clicked on the link for a blog entry that was clearly political, and scrolled all the way down through dozens of posts in order to post on it. You just couldn’t help yourself, could you?

A Republican: Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?
Luigi Novi: Um, because the guy who owns it, and whose name is on it, doesn’t want it to be, because it’s his blog, and he wants to be able to write about what he feels like? Why can’t you simply read the blog entries that you prefer, or go elsewhere? Did someone put a gun to your head and force you to read this blog entry?

spiderrob8: Either way, that phrase does not mean separation. It does mean no offical religion.
Luigi Novi: That's what you feel. But that doesn't make it so. :-)

The courts’ interpretation of the Clause have correctly noted that government and religion should be separate.

The courts’ interpretation of the Clause have correctly noted that government and religion should be separate.
****
The last couple of decades have seen other theories of interpretation gain hold over separation. It continues to be an area the court struggles with, and redefines.

But out of curiosity, do you have any figures as to how many of the Founding Fathers were for it or against it?
****

No. The "famous" founding fathers were mostly, not totally, deists or eventualy became deists-the big names. The less famous ones (of which there are dozens)were more likely to be Christians. However, I don't know what that means for separation of church and state and who supported it. It would not just be the intent of the author, but the intent of all the people who approved it-which would not just be the constitutional convention but even the states when they approved it. So I am not sure there was one intent anyway.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to mean that no government — federal, state or local — can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over the others, or which favors belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief since the latter half of the nineteenth century.
****

Right. No establishment. That has nothing to do with separation. That first came in vogue in the early 1900s
19476-Everson v. Board of Ed was when the Supreme Court first adopted Jefferson's letter calling for separation (worth noting that Jefferson opposed presidential proclamations of thanksgving, prayer, fasting, but Washington and Adams favored and used them).

Anyway, recent decisions allowing the government to give money to churches or religious institutions in certain situations have weakened the idea of separation of church and state strongly. They have begun to see strict separation as something a bit hostile to religion and not required. That has been happening for a good 20 years. As always, depends on whose on the Supreme Court

By not recognizing this right, it is being taken away from them.
*****
I'll phrase it a different way-anyone can be in a union with anyone. But states have never recognized these unions for homosexuals, and thus nothing new is now being taken away by laws or referendums making clear the law and custom for the past couple fo hundred years. The ones who want the change are the people in favor of gay marriage. To phrase it as if they had that recognition before and it is being taken away now is false. But it is a silly debate at this point regarding this point. The overall issue of gay marriage remains.

I wonder if there's a conservative writer out there who has liberal fans who announce that they're going to stop buying his books because his blog is too political.

I think Orson Scott Card has gotten some similar responses. But I'd take such claims with a grain of salt--there's no evidence that PAD's political leanings are hurting sales of his comics. Just as many new readers may have been created by this board as lost, if not more.

Right, so not a separation.

I think you're getting hung up on the semantics here. The first amendment mandates government neutrality towards all religions. Separation doesn't mean active hostility towards religion, just that it can't play favorites.

A separation would mean when you give out money for textbooks, no religious schools. What you described would allow it, since all religious and nonreligious schools