Burnt Orange Report

Because I don't understand what you mean by the following statement, I'm not sure what response I should give:

"For folks, such as myself, who don't have a strong personal commitment to change feel the earth move under their feet..."

The sentence doesn't make sense to me. Am I correct in assuming that you mean you are someone who does not have a personal commitment to change, who, as you feel the earth move under your feet, chooses to react with a knee-jerk?

If, being a gay American, as I'm almost positive you have recently stated, you have no personal commitment to change, then why are you asking others, who are not gay, to have that commitment? And even if you are not gay, but have no commitment to change, why do you expect others to assume that commitment?

I think you forget, or more importantly, ignore what we are dealing with here. We are currently at the beginning of a major political campaign. And like it or not, Democrats as well as Republicans (those running for office, that is) are politicians. And, like it or not, Democrats (and progressives) like to have power just as much as anyone. And people like to have power to do what they want, or, to put a greater altruistic slant on things, to do what is right (or, more probably, better) for "all"--or at least their backers and constituents.

Are you really willing to sacrifice the legal incidents (or the possibility of them) of civil unions merely because they are not called marriages? You want to risk a presidency and a hope because you want your candidate to embrace what you consider to be "responsible," (when polls show that the majority of Americans don't agree with you) rather than what is politically expedient?

That phrase is disgusting, I will admit, but that is the world that we live in. And I do understand and empathize with (being the youngest in a family, I can empathize--trust me) the "second class citizen" theory, and you are right. But this is life, not some utopia we liberals all dream of.

You are less than second class citizens now. Do you want that, or worse, to continue for another four years (and longer, if the current crew is left in office)?

I really don't get this all or nothing mentality. Please explain it to me.

Also, explain how your British experience during WWII experience advances or supports whatever previously muddled thoughts you were referring to. I don't get that either.

And I forgot this, which I have learned thru almost fifty years of experience:

Fight for everything you believe in, but take as much as you can get, whenever and as often as you can get it.

That was supposed to be:

"British experience during WWII EXAMPLE..."

Sorry.

Whereas I commend your most recent post, I still think you have some issues. I thought your war analogy was clever, yet I hardly see GAY MARRIAGE as some kind of life-threatening attack on society threatening to blow us all to hell. That is the thinking of those pushing the Hate Amendment. Gay marriage means that the government accepts the value of gay relationships as much as it accepts straight ones. Any hesitancy about legal gay marriage means you don't equally value homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. That's your perogative, but don't beat around the bush; come out and say it. Your past post (which read, "The last time I checked, there were substantial differences between men and women, what they're capable of doing, and surely that's got to have some bearing on things. It seems to me that there is a good chance that - from a legal standpoint - there is a case for different institutions for gay and straight couples simply because each faces a separate set of needs and challenges") reeks of the old marriage-is-for-procreation arguement. That arguement is not only offensive to gays like myself (btw, in a 5-year relationship) but also to senior citizens, cancer victims, population control advocates, low-income families... anyone in a loving relationship that, for whatever reason, doesn't have kids, or plans to.

Kerry came out today for an amendment to the Mass. state constitution forver banning gay marriage in that state. Is he now a hate candidate like Bush is? Is Rosie O'Donnell going to blast Kerry now?

I do think you're on to something here.

So many people have been trying to find a middle position, and there really isn't any. I remember the civil rights struggles during the 60s, and I see people who are for the Hate Amendment as being basically on the same side as Lester Maddox, George Wallace, and the like. They wanted Black people dead or "in their place", and their arguments for doing so were nearly identical to those used now to support this amendment. I see people who are for gay marriage as being on the same side as, say; Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and LBJ, who stood for and finally led the nation to a higher understanding of what it meant to be an American. We eventually (after an incredible amount of pain, suffering, and even death) learned to accept the then radical idea that Black people should be able to have the chance to live just like anyone else. If you care about this country and where it is going, you can't really back down from supporting gay marriage. It is going to happen anyway, because that is what America stands for - equality under our Constitution for everyone - regardless. Despite domination of political discourse by demagogues and liars, we really aren't ready, nor will we ever be, to write bias toward any group back into the Constitution. This fight is the same as the one we had in the 60s, and I really do believe it will end the same way.

It's time to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Actually Kerry said he would support such an amendment to the MA constitution only if it also created civil unions, and that the civil unions be equal to marriage. So, no, he is not a hate candidate. Quite the opposite. He supports putting gay rights into the MA constitution.

He supports keeping marriage from gays in his state forever. Mass. is one of the states that gay marriage has the best chance of happening, and Kerry wants to end that chance.

Let's be blunt: Kerry doesn't "want" anything about gay marriage. What he "wants" is to be President. To borrow from Abe Lincoln, if Kerry thought he could win the election by giving equal rights to every gay couple, he'd do it; if he could win by giving equal rights to some couples, he'd do it; and if he thought he'd win by giving equal rights to no couples, he'd do it.

You're right Brady. But let's not just confine that to Kerry. Bush would do the same thing. Because he has nothing else to run on, his handlers decided that he should take a "compassionate conservative" look at gay marriage.

Kerry's not the only sinner in this whole deal.

"In thinking about that faux pas, I was reminded of some people's accounts of the London blitz during World War II:"

I don't see how gay marriages can be compared to deadly force. Is there another analogy that you could use? I see your point (sort of--first a widespread panic and then a sort of apathy), but I fail to understand how gay marriage can even come close to being compared to planes dropping bombs and destroying cities and lives and killing people. Just a thought......

Has anyone seen this? Don't know how credible it is but looks like a gay marriage ban won't be happening.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1163292

Doug... Jim is not gay. There are four posters on this website. Two of us (Karl-Thomas and I - Byron) are gay. Two are straight (Andrew and Jim). The post was by Jim, and he was legitimately on the fence about gay marriage and now supports it. Don't get carried away...