Powered by TypePad

« Phony Stats Squash My Charitable Impulse | Main | What Went Wrong In Iraq »

November 11, 2004




Why in Gawd's name are you not a Democrat? What is the essential difference that you're seeing, for example, between centrist Dems (Clinton) and centrist Republicans (GHWB)?



I'm a Massachusetts resident, and looking at the local election results, they say nothing, one way or the other, about gay marriage. The Legislature is entirely composed of cowards who initially feared a backlash if they supported gay marriage (or for that matter civil unions). After Goodrich, they feared a backlash if they opposed gay marriage. They are quite simply afraid to take responsibility for anything. In this case, they can blame the court, and avoid responsibility for gay marriage, so the biggest risk now is in being called a bigot and homophobe for opposing gay marriage. The left quickly framed this as a civl rights issue, as aided by the SJC.

Before Goodrich, civil union laws were proposed in Massachusetts and had no chance of passing in the legislature. There was no popular support. If put to a state wide referendum, Massachusetts would vote against gay marriage by roughly the same margin as liberal voters in Oregon. People should know that the Goodrich decision was corrupt and that this was orchestrated by gay rights groups from the start. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall is connected to Pinch Sulzberger, who runs not just the NY Times, but the Boston Globe. By any legitimate ethical standard she should have recused herself from hearing the case.


Civil unions, people. Democracy. Compromise. Give it a try.

If civil unions are tried and found wanting, gay activists can always come back and ask for more. If they change minds in the process, they will succeed.

Same-sex marriage isn't the ground on which I'd have preferred to fight the battle to force the judiciary to accept the legitimacy of popular sovereignty, but it will have to do.

Cecil Turner

"What is the essential difference . . ."

For me, it's the Dems' incompetence on national defense. And it's anecdotal, but everyone I know who's switched did so based on defense issues.

"Same-sex marriage isn't the ground on which I'd have preferred to fight the battle to force the judiciary to accept the legitimacy of popular sovereignty, but it will have to do."

Hear, hear. Though I'd be a lot more open to an "equal rights" argument--and judicial activism--if it ended with extending gay couples all the rights of married couples (without the certificate or changing the definition of "marriage").


Let's get the state out of the marriage business.
Register your civil union contract at town hall; if you want a religious marriage, go to a church and get one.
I think Germany works this way.


Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Its "for the children folks". Marriage incompasses lineage, aunts, uncles, Grandfathers, blood lines, who's the father. Marriage isn't about love. You don't need to be in love to be married.

There are some really nutty sex morons out there, yes there is! Homo guys are full of it. Unlike a woman, who naturally guards her sex through discriminations. A good thing, guys are very indiscriminate, Some will lay anything.

If you let any two males marry, some will, WILL, use that a pretext for child aquisition. Not PC to say so but not all GAY folks are straight shooters.

Lets stop being lazy about five thousands years of civilized thought and start questioning no boundaries lazy thought.

Eva Young

Many of us suspect that the Dems are pursuing a stealth strategy - do nothing, wait for a friendly ruling from an activist court, and then proclaim "our hands are tied, it's the law of the land (or state)". If the Dems were to target some appropriate states and pursue gay marriage through the legislative process, we might all be pleasantly surprised by the result.

To be fair to the Democrats, some are pushing this in the California legislature.

Steve L

Ok, two points on all this. First, homosexuals can marry in every state. That's right, my wife's gay hairdresser, and a friend to us both is gay, and divorced. Another hay couple we know includes a man who was engaged to woman and broke it off. So it isn't a right that is denied to anyone.

Second, why would a civil union inlcude "all the rights" of a marriage. Are there not some things that are peculiar to marriage? This has been the cux of debate in Massachusetts. While I support civil unions, I reject totally the idea that they must be "equal to" or as good as marriage. Sorry but no. Society sees benefits from marriage that it does not obtain from homosexual unions, and must be free to put forth traditional marriage as an ideal.

Thomas J. Jackson

Lets be straight (no pun intended) about civil unions. They are just another way to destroy marriage. One only need examine what happened when civil unions were instituted in Scandinava. The courts have sought to legislate by fiat and caused a revolt among the people in such rightwing strongholds like Oregon.

When someone can explain what queers gain through marriage that they don't all ready enjoy I'd be more than ready to listen. But the BS about inheritence, social security benefits, hospital visits is just the usual crap.


Much later, but...

As to how I resist the snatres of the Democratic Party, I attribute that tothe fact that I was in school during the Carter era. His "national malaise" speech put me on the path, and Reagan cemented me (well, it must have been rubber cement I abandoned Bush I for Wild Bill).

The appeal for me has been free markets, less regulation, and a strong defense, so, on a lot of issues near and dear to the social conservatives, I play the role of useful idiot.


A key issue in Massachusetts is that of judicial tyranny. The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court was legislating from the bench when they "found" a "basic right" in the Mass. Constitution to homosexual marriage.


The comments to this entry are closed.