Election 2009: Hope and Change....

[HVH]

I agree with you PAGuy but not because of the death of bigotry. The reasons are much more complex than that.
I will have to wait for a larger sample size before drawing any conclusions about the aforementioned elections. My gut instinct tells me that there will be a backlash by independents, mostly, but this will be enough to get more republicans in office. If the republicans become conservative, I will be glad for the change. If we get many more like McCain, Specter, Snow, Lindsey Graham, and Collins, it really doesn't matter much.

[JPK]

Originally Posted by Gene Weitzel

The Maine gay marriage law was struck down by the voters.

Here's an observation.

Several State legislatures POLITICIANS (All Dem) have recently passed Gay Marriage Bills (IE they followed party line).

When this issue has been put to a vote/referendum before the CITIZENS of the 2 most liberal states in the Union it was soundly defeated (Kali and Maine).

Its worth noting that people have made it clear that a clear majority are NOT in favor of their States endorsing Gay Marriage.

[JPK]

Originally Posted by magnet-man

Per Cnn, "the victories were tempered by the loss of a congressional seat in upstate New York held by the GOP since the Civil War."

The Republicans lost this seat because of the tea baggers. A moderate incumbent Republican isn't good enough for them. It will be interesting to see what the mid term elections hold.

MM are you being serious or sarcastic?

The GOP Leadership spent almost 1 Million bucks endorsing a Liberal to run as a Republican....who withdrew a few days before the election causing and THEN endorsed the Democrat causing voter confusion.

In the end the Conservative lost by 3 points with the Liberal GOP candidates getting 6 points due to the confusion.

I think its pretty clear that had the GOP used their brains and put forth the Conservative from day 1 they would have won a clear victory.

The lesson for the GOP is that they're not going to get anywhere endorsing Liberals to run as Republicans....

[Barry Digman]

Gay marriage is the one issue that really separates libertarians from the neo-cons. Those opposed to gay marriage on the basis of "morality" or "tradition" clearly do not fully grasp the fundamentals of individual liberty and freedom from government intrusion into private lives.

[luigee]

Originally Posted by JPK

Here's an observation.

Several State legislatures POLITICIANS (All Dem) have recently passed Gay Marriage Bills (IE they followed party line).

When this issue has been put to a vote/referendum before the CITIZENS of the 2 most liberal states in the Union it was soundly defeated (Kali and Maine).

Its worth noting that people have made it clear that a clear majority are NOT in favor of their States endorsing Gay Marriage.

Well..that's not exactly true. In California the Mormon Church (and to some degree the Catholic Church) spent Millions spreading fear and misinformation to "scare" people into voting against gay marriage. Before these groups got involved polls showed gay marriage passing in california by well over 60%.

Lies like teachers will be forced to teach homosexuality to kids or that priests would be forced to marry gay people against their religious beliefs are a few examples of what caused gay marriage in california to fail. The gay marriage bill in california didn't do any of these things. These Church groups counted on the fact that most people base their decisions on what they see on Television rather than taking the time to research or read the actual legislation/law/bill/whatever for themselves and see what it actually will do - and it worked!!

From what I hear similar tactics were used in Maine.

If left to reason, facts, and people's common sense of fairness (with fear out of the way) gay marriage would have passed in California and Maine. And I suspect it eventually will pass - it's only a matter of time.

To be honest (and in my opinion)...this is an issue that wastes time and money that should be used for more important things. Let the gays marry already and let's move on and use all that campagning for things that will get this country back on track....if two people of the same sex getting married really affects your personal life so much, then the problem is with you, not the gays (this was a general statement..not meant directly at you personally).

[luigee]

Originally Posted by HVH

I will have to wait for a larger sample size before drawing any conclusions about the aforementioned elections. My gut instinct tells me that there will be a backlash by independents, mostly, but this will be enough to get more republicans in office. If the republicans become conservative, I will be glad for the change. If we get many more like McCain, Specter, Snow, Lindsey Graham, and Collins, it really doesn't matter much.

Hi HVH,

I think the media is overplaying these GOP wins. The democratic opponents were weak to begin with, so anybody opposing the democrats could have won. That being said, there are many factors at play. As an Independent myself, I have voted for both sides and even third party candidates (in local races). I personally don't think that Independents will vote for Bush-Cheney era thinking Republicans - that's what got them in trouble to begin with.

In my opinion, for the Republicans to really have a chance, they need to think about what they really stand for and distance themselves from the "Christian fundamentalists" (something that usually turns off most Independents) especially in more liberal or moderate parts of the country. Until that happens, a victory here and there doesn't mean anything.

[HVH]

Originally Posted by Barry Digman

Those opposed to gay marriage on the basis of "morality" or "tradition" clearly do not fully grasp the fundamentals of individual liberty and freedom from government intrusion into private lives.

I think you have it backwards. If you are libertarian you should be fighting to get the state out of the business of marriage altogether. The homosexual marriage issue would go away if marriage was strictly a private matter and laws were removed from the books that treated marriage as a state interest. Then all of us would have to fill out our legal documents accordingly.

[HVH]

Originally Posted by luigee

Hi HVH,

I personally don't think that Independents will vote for Bush-Cheney era thinking Republicans - that's what got them in trouble to begin with.

In my opinion, for the Republicans to really have a chance, they need to think about what they really stand for and distance themselves from the "Christian fundamentalists" (something that usually turns off most Independents) especially in more liberal or moderate parts of the country.

You might be right but I don't think voters really think that deeply. If someone with ZERO experience can get elected on shallow slogans then we have become an electorate that votes for personality and not the resume. I've given up trying to understand such things because they are irrational. Actually we have been voting for TV personalities for a long time now and it is only getting worse. I wish we had to vote based on written speaches, voting records and job experience.

[HVH]

One more thing. I don't think reducing the argument to - you're a bigot if you don't support homosexual marriages - is very fruitful. Many of us have struggled for years with the arguments on both sides and don't like to be insulted by such reductionism. Ad hominem attacks and the use of pejoratives are telltale signs of a weak argument.

[Gene Weitzel]

Originally Posted by HVH

I think you have it backwards. If you are libertarian you should be fighting to get the state out of the business of marriage altogether. The homosexual marriage issue would go away if marriage was strictly a private matter and laws were removed from the books that treated marriage as a state interest. Then all of us would have to fill out our legal documents accordingly.

That is probably the best argument there is. Marriage is nothing more than a legally binding contract between two adult people. Any two adult persons should have the right to enter into a legally binding contract, as long as the terms are legal and acceptable to both parties (equal protection means that the race, gender, religious preference or any other personal preference of the parties cannot preclude them from entering into a legal contract). What the parties involved call the contract is not relevant. Whether or not certain religious organizations choose to endorse the contract is also not relevant. Employers, and any other entities with whom the parties may engage in business would be required to accept the legality of the contract, but again what they call the contract is not relevant. When the contract is dissolved, the terms of the contract should prevail and the state should not be allowed to unilaterally and unconditionally modify those terms (since the terms were required to pass legal muster in the first place, there is no justification for the state to step in after the fact). I certainly can see no justification for the state to require a "license" to authorize two adults to enter into such a contract. It is an unwarranted intrusion into our private lives. Some folks may be surprised at my attitude as I don't personally consider a same sex relationship to be a marriage. But, really what I choose to call it is not relevant, and quite frankly I don't have a problem recognizing the legality of the contract between two such individuals if that's what they want to do, just don't try to force me to refer to it as a "marriage". Conversely, I don't really care if someone else does not want to refer to my contract as a "marriage" since it is a private matter between me and my spouse and what others think of it or choose to call it is not really relevant.