As the election gets near...

[AAAhmed46]

Nailin Palin.

[IJ]

Bill, most of your posts could have been discussed in 60 seconds. Many of the issues discussed in the debates--abortion, economy, foreign affairs, all that stuff--is also complex. I still fail to see why a republican nominee could not have simply said, "Democrat's policies forced banks to make risky loans--and when the housing bubble popped, and those loans defaulted, the result was our current crisis. Refer to x and y."

JR: so some people want to boycott Sundance. Ok.... so what? The rest of your post is the same old stuff. I do want to point out a few things:

1) I said the comparison to the entire black civil rights struggle was inappropriate because gays weren't sold into slavery. The comparison with the struggle against discriminatory laws w.r.t. marriage and military service is wholly appropriate. Nothing I said was inconsistent. And yes, the objections about blacks had nothing to do with sex, just about unit cohesion, and they are analogous. Gay people CAN get through a day without groping a fellow soldier. The "threat" to cohesion is merely the response of the straight (or white) to the gay (or black).

2) You want to know how I would handle quarters for LGB's? Whatever is happening now is working, because there are tons of active duty LGBs. But as for my plan? I'd model it on whatever has worked in happily integrated miiltaries elsewhere.

3) If you want to try to split hairs and say that my rights and not me personally were under attack by 8, well, that's your business. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if your religion were restricted. You wouldn't view that as an attack on you/your identity, naw, those are just your rights. But for your sake, let's change the wording and say it was my rights that were under attack. What does that change? I feel the same way about that.

4) You missed the point on the Catholic Church's position.

5) You need to do some background work on this issue. Most people know CA already HAS civil unions. Alos, that's been made perfectly clear in this thread several times, such as when I said I wasn't TOO worked up about this because mostly the campaign just took away a word and was an expensive effort for a small majority of Californians to tell us they don't fully accept us. It was a bit like name-calling on the playground.

6) Where did you support 8? I didn't say you did; I don't think there IS a way to support it, although platitudes on signs seemed to have worked ("support families!"). I just find it curious how much energy you're willing to expend to lash out at anti-8 arguments and feelings if you truly have no feelings about it. Would you have written these lengthy posts with provocative language if we were talking about a boring Prop on property taxes or redistricting or bonds for highways?

As for the vocal gay nuts in drag on parade floats, they're out there. Bill posted something on a biased anti-gun ad that's worth looking at--the most vocal gun advocates (and McCain advocates, you name it) are odd. But they don't seem to get lectures about how ALL gun advocates are not going to succeed while they insist on "fighting the mainstream" and being so weird. Even if ALL gay people were flamboyant and pro-debauchery, the protections of the law are for the weirdos; the average person doesn't need their marriage rights or free speech or religious rights protected because they're not under attack.

Lastly: I am no obsessed with all things gay. C'mon. The first time I went to ANY club in years was 15 days ago, I know because I got a sore throat from shouting and smokers on the patio and have had bronchitis since. I hate the stereotypical gay nightlife and the bars and what is called "the scene." HERE, I post comments only when something egregious occurs. I haven't done anything "community" or activist" for 7 years, because in Boston and San Diego, no one made it a point to come after me. Only when they did, did I start donating and putting up signs. I think you're applying that "obsessed" label a bit too freely because you associate not hiding with making an issue of it. Far from it... and I don't think all your long posts indicate your obsession, either

[Bill Glasheen]

Bill, most of your posts could have been discussed in 60 seconds. Many of the issues discussed in the debates--abortion, economy, foreign affairs, all that stuff--is also complex. I still fail to see why a republican nominee could not have simply said, "Democrat's policies forced banks to make risky loans--and when the housing bubble popped, and those loans defaulted, the result was our current crisis. Refer to x and y."

Any message communicated by McCain was drowned out with Obama's $700 million war chest of money to spend on advertisements. "The Bush economy did this to you, blah, blah, blah..."

The message was made, and I got it early. Most missed it amidst the noise. I just happen to have a very good signal-to-noise ratio filter for the truth on subjects I understand. Healthcare is a good example. I can often get the truth from a propaganda ad given by the opposition, because I have inside information and can put the pieces together.

McCain missed a lot of opportunities in the debates to drive a coherent message home. As Newt Gingrich said on one Sunday morning talk show (ABC News: This Week with George Stephanopoulos), "McCain had the opening with the mention of taxes, and blew it."

Frankly neither candidate impressed me as understanding the economy. But McCain had the Bush ball and chain to fight in a downwardly-spiraling economy. Obama stepped in and used the Reagan line of "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"

Simple works for votes - even if it's intentionally misleading or otherwise misses the point. Ask George Stephanopoulos. "It's the economy, stupid!" was the behind-the-scenes mantra of the Clinton campaign that helped get Willie elected.

- Bill

[IJ]

"Simple works for votes - even if it's intentionally misleading or otherwise misses the point. Ask George Stephanopoulos. "It's the economy, stupid!" was the behind-the-scenes mantra of the Clinton campaign that helped get Willie elected."

Now THAT is definitely true! I still wonder how there was never time for "Democratic policies generated all this bad debt and caused this crisis" during any of the times I heard McCain and Palin speak. Obama's war chest wasn't quite big enough to have scripted their speeches.

[TSDguy]

And if it's sexist to say she's easy on the eyes, well... SUE ME!

[Jason Rees]

The "threat" to cohesion is merely the response of the straight (or white) to the gay (or black).

Another knee-jerk dismissal of the concerns of a military that already has to make rediculous exceptions for the sake of cohesion. A military that already has to deal with straight rapes, co-ed sex, and inappropriate relations between officers and enlisted.

Open the box, Ian, and admit you don't know what's inside. Admit, too, that you don't have to deal with it. Pretty easy to say 'Let my people in,' when you don't have to worry about cleaning up afterward.

5) You need to do some background work on this issue. Most people know CA already HAS civil unions.

I figured that was the case. Which is why I'm flabbergasted. You guys got what you wanted. But you want more. And you think you have a right to it. And to hell with everyone else. Why act so surprised, when they said, 'hell with you.'

6) Where did you support 8? I didn't say you did; I don't think there IS a way to support it, although platitudes on signs seemed to have worked ("support families!"). I just find it curious how much energy you're willing to expend to lash out at anti-8 arguments and feelings if you truly have no feelings about it. Would you have written these lengthy posts with provocative language if we were talking about a boring Prop on property taxes or redistricting or bonds for highways?

Provocative language? Hell, I probably would have left your obsessive ranting alone if I weren't in such a bad mood about the election. I know you'll carry on on this topic for a long time, as long as someone keeps biting. I didn't support 8. I didn't oppose it. I don't really care. As I said, I wrote off the Left Coast a long time ago. I just want you to admit that if all you really want is the rights to civil unions, you wouldn't have spent good money after bad to force Californians to give you that word, 'marriage.'

Lastly: I am no obsessed with all things gay.

Ian. It doesn't matter WHAT topic is being discussed on these boards, I've seen you bring it back to gay time and again. I've even commented on that before. That's obsessive, even if it is a small thing in most respects.

Far from it... and I don't think all your long posts indicate your obsession, either

I'm not certain I have an obsession. I don't think my ADHD would allow me to focus on one enough to keep it.

[TSDguy]

But you want more. And you think you have a right to it. And to hell with everyone else.

This made me laugh out loud. I picture a bunch of queens saying "Well we got what we wanted, but let's really ##### them over by saying we want to get married. Goddam we'll get them then!"

[mhosea]

I haven't followed the Prop. 8 thing, but just in researching it briefly, it looks to me like a backlash against legislation from the bench, the moreso since CA already has marriage-strength domestic partnerships. I won't be the least bit surprised to see a plebiscite overturn it in the future and establish its opposite, once that issue (legislation from the bench) is no longer a factor.

[IJ]

Sounds like Jason would like to get rid of the female soldiers too Or maybe just have them serve as long as they can appear to be male? Don't ask, don't tell? I don't work in the military, true.* Have you truly studied it, or do you just have an opinion on it? I didn't just make up my opinion because I want equality at any cost. I've followed a lot of news on it and read "Conduct Unbecoming" and have heard the stories of a lot of gay or lesbian soldiers who served honorably and sometimes with the knowledge of many of their peers without incident. I do know there are happily integrated services with openly gay and lesbian members, including the IDF, which serves a Jewish state, which is closer to the Levitican rules than are largely Christian country. They're fine. It's not the apocalypse it's made out to be.

Now let's take your comments on seeking marriage equality to a hypothetical proposition in the south during the 60s:

"Blacks already had fountains? I figured that was the case. I'm flabbergasted. You got what you wanted, but you want more. And you think you have a right to drink out of OUR fountains. To hell with the white people. Why act surprised when they said, "hell with you."

See Jason, I'm not freaked out by Prop 8; prejudice is dying out, pretty quickly, and this is going to be one step back and two steps forward. I've been crystal clear several times now that I think this was mostly just like name calling on the playground and its not the major rights setback some are saying it is. But that doesn't mean I want a separate fountain. And you've got a major issue dead wrong here. I didn't spend a penny to "force californians to give [me] that word." I spent money to combat a meanspirited, at times deliberately dishonest, effort to "eliminate [my] rights." Again, those are THEIR words. Marriage WAS equal and the sky didn't fall; the obsessions that brought this back into the spotlight were not ours. Now that 8 has passed, forums on the local paper, and here, are filled with calls to accept it and move on. I don't remember any from the Yeson8 set after the court ruling and doubt they would be as excited about the idea if they lost. Nor have I ever heard such a reply to the people who have put parental notification for minors seeking abortions on the ballot FOUR times (and 4x it failed). Funny how that works.

And why are LGB's the provocateurs in the Prop 8 matter when we resist a campaign that claimed we destroy families, are harmful to children, and so on? I was supposed to just nod and say, "Yep, I harm families, let's just turn the other cheek because, gosh, I don't want Jason to think I'm obsessed." Whatever the outcome, did you think a sane person would allow that kind of prejudice to go unanswered? Or did you think about what was being said about us? I wonder if you just felt a flash of exasperation with the noisy gays again. The real outcome of interest for me in this matter was that so many more people voted with us this time than just 8 years ago, and how many supportive people I met at the polls and through the No on 8 campaigns. In a few decades most people will wonder why anyone resisted marriage equality--provided we don't start hiding or letting discriminatory propositions go unchallenged just to suit occasional forum attendees who don't want people to challenge their second class citizen status if it means raising the issue occasionally.

*did it bug you cxt had no experience in healthcare during the 100 year illegal immigrant medical care debate?

[IJ]

Mike, I think that's part of the story and the Yeson8 ads did push that message (among others more insidious). However, 8 years ago Prop 22 which defined marriage as between a man and woman passed with a much larger margin and wasn't an immediate response to a court ruling like this one was. Two factors there: time, and I think just as with polling questions, wording matters a lot. Defining someone out of a definition seems a lot more benign to voters than checking a box which says it eliminates a constitutional right. I wouldn't have pursued the right to marry in the court or in a ballot measure. I'd just get the state out of marriage. As I alluded to earlier.... Ron Paul:

John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ron Paul: Sure.

Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?

Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function. I think it's a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don't agree with that.

[Stryke]

Sounds like Jason would like to get rid of the female soldiers too Or maybe just have them serve as long as they can appear to be male? Don't ask, don't tell?

why dont you read his posts and address thegenuine concerns .

he posted this .

Here we go. Sex. Lovely thing, lust. Makes people go half-crazy when they're deployed. Or alone in a group of people they're attracted to. Even married people go off the deep end regularly. But women live and sleep in seperate quarters from men, Ian. Shall we set up seperate quarters for gays? How would that work, exactly?

this is all about sex and relationships , should a militray unit be distracted by such things ? , I personally do not see men and women fighting side by side and not having some detrimental risk , I know I for one would take greater risk to save a women I was involved with than a fellow soldier taking a calculated risk , one would be war , the other unacceptable .

I think there are more issues here than just straight prejudice .

I do not think being banned is necessarilly the answer , but there is a lot to be considered in how it could and would work .

the housing issue is a valid one .

maybe it shouldnt matter , maybe we should fight as tribes as days gone by with lovers friends familys etc ..... , but they are legitimate thoughts .

As for marriage , it is between a man and women and a sacred thing , Homosexuals have a right to commitment if they want , but it is something else , equally important and sacred to them , but it is not hetrosexual marriage , to have to argue that is ridiculous .

I dont see why groups would even wish to be the same , equal but different IMHO .

this all the same stuff is societys biggest hurdle in many aspects , we need to celebrate differences .

[fivedragons]

Stryke: "we need to celebrate differences."

Have you ever seen the old black and white Twilight Zone episode where the protagonist is sinking into despair at the boorish behavior of the people around him, he is feeling more and more the victim of his surroundings, until someone gives him a book about "the power of the mind".

Well, he reads it, and learns that he has this untapped mental power to change reality.

The first thing he does, is to make everyone exactly like himself. That morning on the way to work he finds that everyone has his face, and complains about everyone and everything just exactly like he has, his whole life.

He gets sick of himself very quickly, and decides that everyone has got to go.

After living in a world with no one to talk to, and nothing to do, he flips out and manages to bring things back to the way they were before he read that neat book about "the power of the mind".

Now he's in paradise.

Rod Serling was an enlightened being, and the Twilight Zone was hands down the best and most psychedelic television series ever.

[Valkenar]

As for marriage , it is between a man and women and a sacred thing , Homosexuals have a right to commitment if they want , but it is something else , equally important and sacred to them , but it is not hetrosexual marriage , to have to argue that is ridiculous .

Fine, you can think that. Nobody says you have to change your own or your religion's definition. If chefs started calling cooking marrying ingredients, would that freak everyone out so badly? Would people draft resolutions to prevent people from using the word that way in an official context? To pretend that this issue isn't about people's feelings specifically about homosexuality is kind of ridiculous. But now I'm just repeating myself. I just find it amazing people are both refusing to explain why the definition is important but want to pretend that it's not about discomfort or disgust with homosexuality.

[Stryke]

thats very valid your just anti homosexual , Justin WTF ?

If people started calling a truck a car Id find it equally absurd , even though there both forms of transport .

to insinuate it has anything to do with some sort of anti homosexual bent is weak at best , and its clear theres no point discusing it if one cant see others have different points of veiw that arent always framed from prejudice .

I can see why some would see it in persecuted mode , it cannot be easy . Just thought another perspective may bring a little clarity , enjoy your discussion .

[IJ]

The military housing issue is a valid one and instead of hypothesizing about what would happen, I would suggest we ask how integrated militaries are housing their soldiers and how that is working. If it unworkable, I would drop the request for LGBs to serve openly immediately. Incidentally, we already know what happens when same sex people are married, too--the experiment has been done in CA, MA, and more importantly, elsewhere like Canada and Catholic Spain. Things are fine.

As for the "marriage is sacred" thing, sure some people believe that. But the essence of freedom in the United States is a hands off freedom. All religious people who enjoy their freedom OF religion experience it because they also have freedom FROM (others') religions and their rules, and they ought to extend this to others. We have a freedom from interference, not a freedom to impose our thoughts on others. This is why we don't have men imprisoned until their beards regrow, a la Taliban; why we don't have enforced days of rest and dietary codes, a la Judaism.

This thread is pretty much beat to death so unless there's some new twist on things I'm moving on (somehow I hear people cheering) after sharing one key observation: when people discuss 8 in public, the yes people speak vaguely of supporting families, of freedom from judicial legislation, and so on. But I also read the forums at the Union Tribune, SD's biggest paper, and that's not what all the Yeson8 people say from behind anonymous screen names. The same stuff comes out over and over on every article about 8 or its protests, in hundreds of posts:

1) Bible says its wrong
2) Next they'll want to marry dogs and children / perversions / mental illness
3) They can't have kids so its invalid / unnatural
4) Sore losers / stop whining (motivated by 1-3)
5) are mixed "other" like we're shoving it in their faces if we don't hide

It's been helpful for me... as I've said before I don't think we should be claiming marriage but rather separating it from the state, and the rights are the same, as far as I know. That stuff is what this argument is about... the average person who voted for 8, at least as far as those forums indicate, was speaking from a position of imposing their religious ideals on others or from tired prejudices. Those are on their way out, provided we keep speaking up, so that's why I have: end.