see thats the thing I don't get, jlove. the left behind crowd includes myself.
who is it that gets really motivated to get up and get excited about this amendment? I have only one answer for you: the episcopal church.
The episcopal church is founded on the principle that politics and religion mix. The church of england (anglican church) was built because the wife of king henry felt the king of england needed to be the head of the church.
if anyone really wants to pursue this issue, why not pursue it in church. my guess about this is, that bush is not doing anything with his administration but instead reporting to the "anglican" read: episcopal fat cats behind the whole ralph reed for lieutenant governor campaign that its time to connect karl rove back into their message machine.
I will go one further: this announcement was in fact a secret code not to the "left behind" crowd as you so disingenuously put it: we could care less, its a settled issue.
This is a clear signal to everyone on the take from the bush company -and there are MANY - given that this evangelical liberal spends like a drunken sailor ( read: 1.5 billion in the past 6 years, campaigning and marketing his message - where does it really go?)
This is a signal to all those blogs and talk radio hosts and people who are writing those catholic and anglican and "the world" magazines to reconnect back to Karl Rove so he can dictate to them the message of the day...
This is, in fact, no different than an osama bin laden tape in my mind.
If this thing was a big deal to you, then you're on the side of the GOP that has filtered into the Democratic party to respond to it.
I think they did a dry run last week with the whole thing about trying to paint Kerry as if he's still trying to live down the scum boaters.
that didn't work.
So now Karl Rove is going back to his texas - flyer the parking lots of churches roots.
This is classic. The greatest traitor in our country is now out to destroy the work of our founding fathers separating church and state.
And anyone who stands up either for or against him, are working for him. Tell me that Karl Rove isn't a modern day josef goebbels..
Almost forgot, one key issue - come out in support of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
It deepens the field of candidates and makes it easier for a larger base of people to express their views - it will act directly on the problem of havin g to vote for tweedledum, or tweedledee- you will feel free to vote for whom you really want to win regardless of lamer "party" ties.
Partisans try to rig things like elections. They are the ones never to be trusted. There is no such thing as a democrat polling booth. Neither a republican.
Here's a list you can do, to keep your elections honest.
1. Bring a video camera to the polling place, and record as much as you can. Also record on your cellphone.
2. Check to make sure voting machines are being operated properly - and in a non partisan way. Elections are non partisan.
3. Do a straw poll at the end, stand around and poll people on how they voted. Remember the vote count - you may get a skewed result if you don't do too many people, but at least you'll have a rough idea
4. Have someone from your precinct do a full exit poll - just have someone get the lucky number to do it - and keep it on your community blog. this will verify things.
5. Ask the local elections board some key questions - esp. the protocols they use in their diebold machines. These things are notoriously unsecure. All procedures should be public info.
6. Write to your congressman if you feel things aren't kosher. Election problems hurt both parties.
I am sick of that argument that dems can not win red states - where do you think the theo cons are building their sick and twisted machines? They need soft, dark moist places.. they make them out of the hollow of our lives.
The red states are red, because theocons are making them bleed the blood of democrats who are the only people getting any work done. Democrats fight wars to win. They go all the way. They are honest decent folk.
Republicans are surface people who only understand the stupid bickering on their TV set - and only when they're standing right in front of it.
but identifying someone as a member of a minority group, by their invisible sexual orientation, that could change - is a mistake.
Case in point: bisexuals. There are many who, when they find the right girl, settle down and raise a family. Do they deserve to be included in the minority group, because at one time, they were gay?
Gay is a wonderful word. It connotes nothing of a minority group and everything of the joy of being identified with a group of men or women you feel comfortable identifying with.
But that identity is not a civil rights issue - gays are simply accepted, everywhere, equally, period.
I have never seen a case of a gay person ever being discriminated against. Ever.
In fact, where this gets really interesting is where a church in alabama, that began a little revolution - saying prayers for people with aids in their community - put a bee in the bonnet of the theocons who were already trying to build theocracy.
Fight this war in the churches. Thats where you are strongest. Gay priests are much less likely to be pedophiles or suppressed perverts like those guys up in the catholic church. its time the church come into the 21st century. The church is a social organization.
The group you speak of is not a discriminated minority - but a loose gathering of very professional, highly paid people who dominate the film, legal, media and arts communities and inhabit the upper echelon of society.
And the people in San Fran that advised them to go for it with this issue, were wrong.
See.. I was one of the people from san fran who spoke against the issue... and I was right.
first, for the record, I have been a part of the movement within the episcopal church to realize that gay union and gay priests are cool.
second, I oppose gay marriage as lobbied for by the HRC and you. Your idea that the gay marriage agenda is gaining ground is factually wrong.
Lets start where you start: the 90's. A decade of amazing strides for homosexuals. You went out of the closet and straight on to TV. You make the claim that its the republicans fault, right?
I didn't say it was anyone's fault. What I said was that the HRC used pressure to force the Democrats to +oppose+ the republicans. Here's why I think opposing a gay marriage ban is a bad idea: because every american inthe united states thinks its a bad idea, and this is a democracy.
I have no problem with gays. They are a wonderful people. You might have a problem with democracy. Your post here seems to defend special interests even when they go against the majority. You also seem to indicate here the laughable proposition that people would vote for gay marriage now, if given the chance. This is also wrong.
Here's the bottom line: gay marriage is a dog issue. The HRC backed it, tried to defend it, big mistake.
The lobby money has now arrived in our hallowed halls of government. The puppets are now dancing on strings.
The political party now falls prey to the corruption that has had its party leader heap praise "we support president bush's war" a-la-tom daschle and now, the biggest opponent of free internet - and immigration - hastert "nancy pelosi's butthole buddy" - so I guess that shows you where the money is flowing. Someone gave pelosi a call.
Obi Wan, why are you sad?
I just felt a great disruption - as if ... 10,000 anonymous riders just screamed out at once... and were packed into the next bill