Legal in Mass.
Richard Jasper
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56384-2003Nov18.html
I'm incredibly pleased -- and quite sure that the 2004 presidential
election isn't going to be about the foul up in Iraq, the tanking of
the economy, the assault on civil liberties, blatant corporate
cronyism, or egregious tax cuts for the rich.
Fasten your seatbelts!
rpj
DRS
1f2e76f2.03111...@posting.google.com
Great, just what the Rabid Right wanted - a *fabulous* distraction.
--
"But then again, I have experiences which are lies, so be careful."
Net.psychotic Michael Thomas al-Sahaf
JTEM
"DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote
> Great, just what the Rabid Right wanted - a *fabulous*
> distraction.
Kerry was already toast, so I guess this makes him burnt
toast.
He's no longer the "Massachusetts liberal," he's the "Marriage
destroying Massachusetts liberal."
That'll play well down south, now won't it?
COTTP
ric...@domani.net says...
I suspect that Rhode Island will be the next domino to fall. Wouldn't
surprise me that during the 180 days if the RI Legislature changes the
civil marriage laws in the state.
At that point half of New England will have some form of civil unions.
And so it will spread from there.
I'm waiting for the first DOMA challenge though. We'll hear the same
shrill arguments, etc. but in the end the USSC has no choice but to
strike it down. Precedent has already been set.
Dennis Lewis
wrote:
>
>Great, just what the Rabid Right wanted - a *fabulous* distraction.
This is the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket for Focus on the
Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America,
et.al -- the money will come pouring in by all the poor souls who
believe that heterosexual marriage is the only glue holding
civilization together.
The alternative, of course, is to pull a "Dean financing strategy" --
make a contribution, even if it's small, to the Human Rights Campaign
or other gay rights organization. In fact, I just went through the
stack of accumulated mail in order to get the last mailling from the
HRC so I can get a check in the mail. [Whine] But I really wanted to
spend the money on Steve-O's new DVD, "Don't Try This At Home 3 -- Out
On Bail." [/Whine]
http://www.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=2896356
Koffee Perkolator
Bess.
Present listening: Attila
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/unsung/reviews/index.php?review_id=804
Robert S. Coren
Dennis Lewis <d...@spry-net.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 03:02:20 +1100, "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au>
>wrote:
>>
>>Great, just what the Rabid Right wanted - a *fabulous* distraction.
>
>This is the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket for Focus on the
>Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America,
>et.al -- the money will come pouring in by all the poor souls who
>believe that heterosexual marriage is the only glue holding
>civilization together.
It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but I
really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going to
turn on this question.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg
cackles as if she had laid an asteroid." -- Mark Twain
Kathryn Burlingham
>
> The alternative, of course, is to pull a "Dean financing strategy" --
> make a contribution, even if it's small, to the Human Rights Campaign
> or other gay rights organization. In fact, I just went through the
> stack of accumulated mail in order to get the last mailling from the
> HRC so I can get a check in the mail. [Whine] But I really wanted to
> spend the money on Steve-O's new DVD, "Don't Try This At Home 3 -- Out
> On Bail." [/Whine]
There, there.
Bake sales, everybody!
Michael Thomas
> >This is the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket for Focus on the
> >Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America,
> >et.al -- the money will come pouring in by all the poor souls who
> >believe that heterosexual marriage is the only glue holding
> >civilization together.
>
> It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but I
> really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going to
> turn on this question.
I hope you're right, but I have a lot of trepidation that
that's what both the right and their lackeys in the media
will turn this into. That is, the Dems will be seen as the
"gay" party -- constantly defending themselves -- while
the repubs piously tout the status quo and paint
themselves as the ones who get the stuff that people
actually care about done. Maybe people will be bored of
this by next November, but remember we'll get another dose
of agitation in 6 months which isn't that far from
November's memory.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
A thrombosis after a sphincterotomy -- DRS explaining what colors his worldview
C.L. Lassiter
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote
I don't see any of the Dems playing well down south. Even in John
Edwards' home state Bush is leading him by 12% currently.
cl
C.L. Lassiter
> It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but I
> really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going to
> turn on this question.
I hope you're correct, but I fear you're not. Every political
talk show I've seen has both sides agreeing that the Repubs are going to
make this A Big Deal, and I don't believe there's any way the Dems can get
away with not discussing it.
BTW, while watching the talking heads this morning, someone was
interviewing the MA gov, and they asked him specifically if he approves
equal rights if it were called something other than marriage. Nope. His
basic stance was "you can call it whatever you want, but if it's the same
privileges as a man and a woman get when they marry, then it's marriage.
And we all know that we should recognize marriage as a special institution
between a man and a woman." How'd MA elect Ted Kennedy and him?
cl
Robert S. Coren
Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>co...@panix.com (Robert S. Coren) writes:
>>
>> It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but I
>> really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going to
>> turn on this question.
>
> I hope you're right, but I have a lot of trepidation that
> that's what both the right and their lackeys in the media
> will turn this into. That is, the Dems will be seen as the
> "gay" party -- constantly defending themselves -- while
> the repubs piously tout the status quo and paint
> themselves as the ones who get the stuff that people
> actually care about done.
Well, depending on what actually happens to the economy, this may not
be altogether to the Rs' advantage. People who can't find jobs, or are
really really scared about the possibility of losing the one they've
got, don't give a rat's ass who can marry whom.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Life is easy to chronicle, but bewildering to practice."
--E. M. Forster, _A Room With a View_
Robert S. Coren
>
> BTW, while watching the talking heads this morning, someone was
>interviewing the MA gov, and they asked him specifically if he approves
>equal rights if it were called something other than marriage. Nope. His
>basic stance was "you can call it whatever you want, but if it's the same
>privileges as a man and a woman get when they marry, then it's marriage.
>And we all know that we should recognize marriage as a special institution
>between a man and a woman." How'd MA elect Ted Kennedy and him?
Massachusetts politics are not as simple as they may appear from the
distance. Kennedy has been an institution in this state for decades,
but gubernatorial politics are always unpredictable. Our last four
governors have been Republicans -- partly, I suspect, because large
portions of the electorate like having the legislative and executive
branches in different hands (and no pwer on earth is going to make the
Legislature anything but overwhelmingly Democratic anytime soon).
Additionally, Romney's conservatism has become much more explicit
since he was elected. And that "all Democrats all the time" aspect
doesn't necessarily equate to "all liberal all the time".
As other have noted, it's going to be very interesting to see what the
Legislature does with this. The Speaker of the House (who is extremely
powerful in MA) is a Democrat in name only.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Trust me -- I'm fast when I know what I want."
--Will Parsons
DRS
bpeipu$kbt$1...@panix5.panix.com
> In article <3fbab238...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> Dennis Lewis <d...@spry-net.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 03:02:20 +1100, "DRS"
>> <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Great, just what the Rabid Right wanted - a *fabulous* distraction.
>>
>> This is the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket for Focus on the
>> Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America,
>> et.al -- the money will come pouring in by all the poor souls who
>> believe that heterosexual marriage is the only glue holding
>> civilization together.
>
> It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but I
> really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going to
> turn on this question.
The coming year is going to be all "about gay marriage," former Democratic
Sen. Max Cleland told Salon Tuesday. Cleland, a war hero who lost his seat
in the Senate to a Republican smear campaign that painted him soft on
terrorism, predicted that Republicans will use the gay marriage issue to
"trash" the Democrats running for president. "It'll be slime and defend, as
it always is," he said. "And it will be the ugliest political campaign,
aboveboard and below board, in the history of the country."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/19/marriage/index.html
Robert S. Coren
DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote in message
>bpeipu$kbt$1...@panix5.panix.com
>> In article <3fbab238...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
>> Dennis Lewis <d...@spry-net.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 03:02:20 +1100, "DRS"
>>> <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Great, just what the Rabid Right wanted - a *fabulous* distraction.
>>>
>>> This is the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket for Focus on the
>>> Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America,
>>> et.al -- the money will come pouring in by all the poor souls who
>>> believe that heterosexual marriage is the only glue holding
>>> civilization together.
>>
>> It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but I
>> really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going to
>> turn on this question.
>
>The coming year is going to be all "about gay marriage," former Democratic
>Sen. Max Cleland told Salon Tuesday.
Well, that settles it then.
Hint: Of course there's going to be alot of talk these next few
days/weeks to the effect that this issue is going to dominate the
election. It's fresh news, and it's what everyone wants to talk
about. Plenty of time for that to change.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Then roll in confectioner's sugar." -- Last instruction in the
_Settlement Cookbook_'s recipe for Rum Balls
DRS
> In article <bpg74e$adk$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>> Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> bpeipu$kbt$1...@panix5.panix.com
[...]
>>> It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but
>>> I really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going
>>> to turn on this question.
>>
>> The coming year is going to be all "about gay marriage," former
>> Democratic Sen. Max Cleland told Salon Tuesday.
>
> Well, that settles it then.
>
> Hint: Of course there's going to be alot of talk these next few
> days/weeks to the effect that this issue is going to dominate the
> election. It's fresh news, and it's what everyone wants to talk
> about. Plenty of time for that to change.
Perhaps. We'll see. I'm not convinced at this stage. If ever the
Religious Reich needed a gift from heaven to distract everybody from The
Idiot's manifest failures on every conceivable front this was it and I don't
think they're going to let it go away. Far from dying down I can see this
as becoming a defining moment, not least because the language of the
judgement is so strong, which in turn helps force the issue because the
loonies can't ignore it or its obvious consequences. Right now it's 180
days or gay *marriage*. Watch the hysteria mount.
Michael Thomas
> In article <v7d6box...@fasolt.mtcc.com>,
> Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> >co...@panix.com (Robert S. Coren) writes:
> >>
> >> It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but I
> >> really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going to
> >> turn on this question.
> >
> > I hope you're right, but I have a lot of trepidation that
> > that's what both the right and their lackeys in the media
> > will turn this into. That is, the Dems will be seen as the
> > "gay" party -- constantly defending themselves -- while
> > the repubs piously tout the status quo and paint
> > themselves as the ones who get the stuff that people
> > actually care about done.
>
> Well, depending on what actually happens to the economy, this may not
> be altogether to the Rs' advantage. People who can't find jobs, or are
> really really scared about the possibility of losing the one they've
> got, don't give a rat's ass who can marry whom.
Yes, but what I fear is that that message won't get out
because of the repubs calculation and the altogether
willing media's pandering to salacious-for-rating crap.
It's entirely believable to me that the republicans will
corner the dems by painting them as entirely defined by
their stand on gay marriage. Which is not coincidentally
their stated objective. Since this entire election is
likely to be extremely close, it may well be bullshit
small issues like this that tilts it one way or the other.
COTTP
And you trust polls? I don't put any faith in them as they play all
sorts of games with statistical sampling methods.
COTTP
Same way that RI elected Don Carcierri (R) as governor and then gave us
Jim Langevin (D) and Patrick Kennedy (D) in the house, and Lincoln
Chafee(R) and Jack Reed(D) in the senate.
Curiously Carcierri has been very quiet on the MA issue.
JTEM
"COTTP" <c.o....@c.o.x.net> wrote
> And you trust polls? I don't put any faith in them as they
> play all sorts of games with statistical sampling methods.
Polls -- if done right -- are a snapshot of today and not a
prediction.
The simple truth is that if Bush wins it'll be because the voters
are morons. Period.
[Eek! Horrible partisan sniping!]
Objectively speaking, if Bush wins it's because the voters are
morons.
The voters did not want a war. Every poll showed that. But,
they were fed every lie concerning Saddam an a nuclear
program/WMDs, involvement in Al Qaida and 9/11 & taking
away their daughter's virginity on prom night. They got a
war out of their own stupidity.
The voters didn't want the tax cuts. Every poll showed that.
They wanted Clinton-style "fiscal responsibility" and a
balanced budget. They got tax cuts, they got
bigger-than-ever-before deficits.
The voters don't want anybody to fuck with Social Security.
The Republicans have every intention of fucking with
Social Security.
The fact is, if Bush wins it'll be because people will not
vote their best interest. What they'll do is vote in the worst
interst of minorities. Bush will beat on the homos. That'll
play well in the bible belt.
Their kids will die in a war they never wanted, the Social
Security they're depending on will be handed over to corrupt
GOP insiders, interest rates & inflation will eat away all
the supposed economic "growth" they experience (assuming
they can find a job), but at least the homos will be hurting.
Edgar J. Lawrence
> In article <3fbab238...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> Dennis Lewis <d...@spry-net.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 03:02:20 +1100, "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>Great, just what the Rabid Right wanted - a *fabulous* distraction.
> >
> >This is the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket for Focus on the
> >Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America,
> >et.al -- the money will come pouring in by all the poor souls who
> >believe that heterosexual marriage is the only glue holding
> >civilization together.
>
> It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but I
> really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going to
> turn on this question.
Unfortunately, this isn't the only issue that will
send Militant Reactionary Christians into a frenzy. There
are also the "10 commandments" and "under God" issues to
get them all worked up and keep them there. I think it's
a safe bet that GeeDubya will be working these issues
as hard as he can, to distract the Amurrican Pee-pul
from what a disaster his reign is.
Edgar
JTEM
"the artist formerly known as rzepelaa" wrote
> President Defends Sanctity of Marriage
Bush is married to the only woman to serve as first lady who
is a known killer.
I've heard differing reports, but apparently she blew through
a stop sign and killed someone. It was a long time ago, but
her victim is still dead.
Lee Rudolph
C.L. Lassiter
>> days/weeks to the effect that this issue is going to dominate the
>> election. It's fresh news, and it's what everyone wants to talk
>> about. Plenty of time for that to change.
> Perhaps. We'll see. I'm not convinced at this stage. If ever the
> Religious Reich needed a gift from heaven to distract everybody from The
> Idiot's manifest failures on every conceivable front this was it and I don't
> think they're going to let it go away. Far from dying down I can see this
> as becoming a defining moment, not least because the language of the
> judgement is so strong, which in turn helps force the issue because the
> loonies can't ignore it or its obvious consequences. Right now it's 180
> days or gay *marriage*. Watch the hysteria mount.
This is precisely how I see it unfolding.
cl, the c stands for cassandra
Ann Burlingham
> Bake sales, everybody!
Splat
news:v74qx0x...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
There are only two ways Shrub will go down in, er, flames: we stay in Iraq
and continue to get ourselves blowed up so Halliburton can suck foul liquids
out of dirt; or, the recent spurt in hiring is in anticipation of the
holiday shopping season and next year it all goes fizzle again. If war and
money turn around for the President, he's going to be re-elected. That's
pretty much all there is to it. If war and money have not turned around for
the President, then he is not going to be re-elected. The South will vote
for the corrupt halfwit no matter what in hopes of hastening Revelations.
The rest of the country is not going to care if Adam and Steve are tying the
knot in Boston should they themselves be out of work, or should the country
be bankrupt because Shrub of Arabia doesn't want the Franco-Russian
Obstructionists to gobble up Iraqi oil contracts.
*X*
COTTP
says...
>
> "COTTP" <c.o....@c.o.x.net> wrote
>
> > And you trust polls? I don't put any faith in them as they
> > play all sorts of games with statistical sampling methods.
>
> Polls -- if done right -- are a snapshot of today and not a
> prediction.
I should have extended that statement. But you have made a good point
regarding it being a moment in time rather than a predictor. But people
base predictions on polls all the time.
> The simple truth is that if Bush wins it'll be because the voters
> are morons. Period.
It's hard to stop shuddering when I think of that.
> The voters did not want a war. Every poll showed that. But,
> they were fed every lie concerning Saddam an a nuclear
> program/WMDs, involvement in Al Qaida and 9/11 & taking
> away their daughter's virginity on prom night. They got a
> war out of their own stupidity.
Which makes me wonder why there hasn't been a serious call to impeach
Bush. As far as I can remember, the whole thing smelled like a poorly
conceived plan whose only real goals were to secure pumping and
distribution of oil, and to award contracts to his corporate friends.
> The voters didn't want the tax cuts. Every poll showed that.
> They wanted Clinton-style "fiscal responsibility" and a
> balanced budget. They got tax cuts, they got
> bigger-than-ever-before deficits.
How true. We're going to feel the effects of this poor fiscal policy for
decades.
> The voters don't want anybody to fuck with Social Security.
> The Republicans have every intention of fucking with
> Social Security.
Well - it is a massive Ponzi scheme and needs to be somewhat screwed
with.
> The fact is, if Bush wins it'll be because people will not
> vote their best interest. What they'll do is vote in the worst
> interst of minorities. Bush will beat on the homos. That'll
> play well in the bible belt.
> Their kids will die in a war they never wanted, the Social
> Security they're depending on will be handed over to corrupt
> GOP insiders, interest rates & inflation will eat away all
> the supposed economic "growth" they experience (assuming
> they can find a job), but at least the homos will be hurting.
So in essence, they get what they deserve.
COTTP
says...
Yes of course. But at least the sanctity of their marriage is preserved.
I still have a hard time accepting the argument that allowing
homosexuals to marry is an attack on marriage. What do they call
divorce, unpaid child support, infidelity, etc. ?
Tim McDaniel
bitty <bi...@spamwithmarinara.com> wrote:
> IDNVFH.
<http://www.acronymfinder.com/> no find.
I Do Not Vaginally Fuck Hamsters?
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Scott Safier
> Future is now:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031118-4.html
>
> President Defends Sanctity of Marriage
IN DEFENSE OF BIBLICAL MARRIAGE
The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the
President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition
of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical
principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of
marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by
our government."
Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by
action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a
proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on
biblical principles:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women.(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut
22:13-21)
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(Gen
24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does
not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be
otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10;
Deut 25:5-10) *
G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town,
it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even
if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and
old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule
applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
--
Scott http://www.pink-triangle.org/scott
AOL IM: CorwinScot YahooIM: CycleMuscle
"Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove
you wrong. Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The
truth and a lie are not sort of the same thing. And there's no aspect, no
facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with pizza." -- Daria
C.L. Lassiter
> In article <ka2dnUH-HvQ...@comcast.com>, jay...@yahoo.com
> says...
>>
>> "COTTP" <c.o....@c.o.x.net> wrote
>>
>> > And you trust polls? I don't put any faith in them as they
>> > play all sorts of games with statistical sampling methods.
>>
>> Polls -- if done right -- are a snapshot of today and not a
>> prediction.
> I should have extended that statement. But you have made a good point
> regarding it being a moment in time rather than a predictor. But people
> base predictions on polls all the time.
And people tend to be sheep and follow where led. That was my
point, i.e., if the trend continues, Bush has a lock on the south.
cl
Robert S. Coren
COTTP <c.o....@c.o.x.net> wrote:
>In article <ka2dnUH-HvQ...@comcast.com>, jay...@yahoo.com
>says...
>
>> they were fed every lie concerning Saddam an a nuclear
>> program/WMDs, involvement in Al Qaida and 9/11 & taking
>> away their daughter's virginity on prom night. They got a
>> war out of their own stupidity.
>
>Which makes me wonder why there hasn't been a serious call to impeach
>Bush.
That one is easy. Republican Congress. Republican President.
>> Their kids will die in a war they never wanted, the Social
>> Security they're depending on will be handed over to corrupt
>> GOP insiders, interest rates & inflation will eat away all
>> the supposed economic "growth" they experience (assuming
>> they can find a job), but at least the homos will be hurting.
>
>So in essence, they get what they deserve.
Unfortunately, so will the nearly (or over) half of us who don't vote
for him.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"People in small towns have beliefs the way caves have bats."
--Ursula LeGuin, _Always Coming Home_
David W. Fenton
<fc8f640c.03111...@posting.google.com>:
> Unfortunately, this isn't the only issue that will
>send Militant Reactionary Christians into a frenzy. There
>are also the "10 commandments" and "under God" issues to
>get them all worked up and keep them there.
Ya know, the 10 commandments issue is the one that demonstrates to
me that our educational system has completely failed.
If you look at the 10 commandments, only 3 of them have any place
in civil law. Most of them are about God, and a few of them are
good ideas (honor your parents), but hardly the kind of thing that
ought to be enforced in civil laws.
We live in a nation where people simply do not comprehend the basis
for their own system of government.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Clay Colwell
> > I hope you're right, but I have a lot of trepidation that
> > that's what both the right and their lackeys in the media
> > will turn this into. That is, the Dems will be seen as the
> > "gay" party -- constantly defending themselves -- while
> > the repubs piously tout the status quo and paint
> > themselves as the ones who get the stuff that people
> > actually care about done.
>
> Well, depending on what actually happens to the economy, this may not
> be altogether to the Rs' advantage. People who can't find jobs, or are
> really really scared about the possibility of losing the one they've
> got, don't give a rat's ass who can marry whom.
Playing Devil's Advocate, I can see where some fool idiots will try
to push the claim that Faggots'n'Dykes Are Only In It For The
Bennies That Come Out Of Your Tax Dollars. That sort of bogus
argument would resonate with clueless jobless folks, I bet.
Michael Sarris
>>>Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America,
>>>et.al -- the money will come pouring in by all the poor souls who
>>>believe that heterosexual marriage is the only glue holding
>>>civilization together.
>>
>>It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but I
>>really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going to
>>turn on this question.
>
>
> that's what both the right and their lackeys in the media
> will turn this into. That is, the Dems will be seen as the
> "gay" party -- constantly defending themselves -- while
> the repubs piously tout the status quo and paint
> themselves as the ones who get the stuff that people
> this by next November, but remember we'll get another dose
> of agitation in 6 months which isn't that far from
> November's memory.
Tuesday night's "news" on Los Angeles Channel 5 (which *used*
to at least pretend to be a reputable news station) consisted
of Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, Britney Spears (new album,
dontcha know), and gay marriage in that order.
Bored by next November? I don't think it will make it
through *this* November.
Michael, who wrote this yesterday, but ended up not posting
anything due to a nasty stomach bug
--
Michael Sarris -- mundumugu at hotmail dot com
"Kevin heard it on the radio, Hugh informed word of mouth
Carla read it in the news, caught it all just a touch"
-- R.E.M., "Just A Touch"
Duncan Mitchel
>
> It wouldn't be the very first time in my life that I was wrong, but I
> really don't believe that the next Presidential election is going to
> turn on this question.
> --
I'm not quite that definite about it, but I'm inclined to agree. People
are forgetting how much can change in a year. It might be interesting,
for those who log in from work and so have lots more time for such
things than I do, to google back and see what soc.motss folks were
forecasting about Bush and American politics in, say, summer of 2001.
The interval could work to Bush's advantage, or to America's and the
world's, but right now no one can say for sure.
John Whiteside
wrote:
> And people tend to be sheep and follow where led. That was my
> point, i.e., if the trend continues, Bush has a lock on the south.
I've heard some suggestions that the Dems should just forget about the
South - Gore very nearly won without it - and focus locking down the
coasts and midwestern swing states.
John Whiteside
<bi...@spamandcheese.com> wrote:
> Instead of reading a good book, Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Legislature does with this. The Speaker of the House (who is extremely
> > powerful in MA) is a Democrat in name only.
>
> that's 'cause running on the Fascist Party ticket doesn't look as
> good on the ol' resume.
I have to tell you, moving away from Massachusetts gives you some
perspective, because the worst of the local pols there are nothing
compared to some of the stellar individuals holding office in places
like Virginia.
John Whiteside
Duncan Mitchel <dmitche...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> I'm not quite that definite about it, but I'm inclined to agree. People
> are forgetting how much can change in a year. It might be interesting,
> for those who log in from work and so have lots more time for such
> things than I do, to google back and see what soc.motss folks were
> forecasting about Bush and American politics in, say, summer of 2001.
>
> The interval could work to Bush's advantage, or to America's and the
> world's, but right now no one can say for sure.
I think it's going to be far more important in some places than in
others.
Last week, while having dinner in the restaurant at the hotel I was
staying at in Houston, I listened to a group of people at the next
table talk about the Mass. ruling. Couldn't tell where they were from
though they sounded vaguely southern. The consensus of the group was
"who the hell cares?"
I think there's a huge group of people in this country who are not
really comfortable with the whole idea but not up in arms about it
either.
What the GOP will try to do is use it to bring out the insane fundie
faithful in larger numbers to vote for them. It's a safer way to do it
than going on about gay people in general; outright discrimination
doesn't play well, but marriage is something that enough people are
ambivalent or uncomfortable about that they can go on about the
sancitity of marriage without alienating reasonably fair minded people
who just don't want to think about it at all.
Michael Thomas
s/Dems/US
s/forget about/nuke
s/locking down/sawing off
Clay Colwell
> John Whiteside <logan_SKIPTHIS_john@mac_THISTOO_.com> writes:
> > In article <3fbbd...@news.unc.edu>, C.L. Lassiter <sea...@unc.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > And people tend to be sheep and follow where led. That was my
> > > point, i.e., if the trend continues, Bush has a lock on the south.
> >
> > I've heard some suggestions that the Dems should just forget about the
> > South - Gore very nearly won without it - and focus locking down the
> > coasts and midwestern swing states.
>
> s/Dems/US
> s/forget about/nuke
> s/locking down/sawing off
Should you not first send two angels to various Suth'n cities to
help withdraw the righteous fags'n'dykes before the fire'n'brimstoning?
Michael Thomas
For you, doll, anything. The Mountain, on the other hand,
can wait for Mohammed's crew.
Edgar J. Lawrence
But...but...what about the guys with Confederate flags
on their trucks/cars?! How can they ignore that vital
consituency?!
Anyway, I'm pretty much convinced that there won't be
an election next year (USA), there will be an "election".
Edgar
David W. Fenton
<f415da82.03112...@posting.google.com>:
Do the angels get to ask to have sex with the inhabitants first?
Edward Ricketts
> In article <bpgi7u$scr$2...@reader2.panix.com>, bitty
> <bi...@spamandcheese.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of reading a good book, Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > Legislature does with this. The Speaker of the House (who is extremely
> > > powerful in MA) is a Democrat in name only.
Last night, C-SPAN2 ran a book event of Al Franken pushing his book about
falsehoods. The broadcast was from the University of Missouri. I may buy
the book.
When he was done - 2 hours, including some Q&A - I switched to C-SPAN (or
maybe it just followed Franken on C-SPAN2) and they had Senator Zell
Miller shilling his book. Speaking of a Democrat in name only !
The apologetics for Bush seemed awfully close to meeting the standard for
burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno. "This introduction could only
have been written by one ignorant ass for the benefit of other equally
ignorant asses."
> > that's 'cause running on the Fascist Party ticket doesn't look as
> > good on the ol' resume.
>
> I have to tell you, moving away from Massachusetts gives you some
> perspective, because the worst of the local pols there are nothing
> compared to some of the stellar individuals holding office in places
> like Virginia.
Are you trying to say "The South will lose again," politely ?
sh...@radix.net Ed Ricketts