Saturday, November 06, 2004

"Kill me now" update

Odds and ends from the people that want to stick a fork in their head to stop the pain of George Bush's America:

* Come for the maple butter, stay for the political asylum -- Apparently, some of the disgruntled are considering moving to Canada -- famous for geese, bacon and William Shatner. As this article notes, Canada isn't going to do anything particular to speed their entry, but considers itself underpopulated and might benefit from the influx of new people. Though I'm not happy about it, a mass egress from the urban centers to the Land of Bears and Beers would mean two things: (1) I might finally be able to find a parking space in front of Crate and Barrel, and (2) a couple totally hysterical "Green Acres"-style reality shows. (On a side note: need someone to watch your cat, Ms. Sarandon? Can I get those bags for you, Barbra?)

* Confound those Red State homophobes! -- This article from David Brooks provides all the help you'll ever need in combatting the myth that Bush won because religious people turned out in higher numbers to vote down gay marriage. It was really a pretty stupid idea, when you think about it. There were only 11 states that had those measures, and Bush's margin of victory in those states wasn't markedly higher than in the others. The idiocy of thinking that a concern for "moral values" in exit polls must have meant a concern about gay marriage just shows that the left is a little out of touch.

* Scariest quote of the Day After -- Matt Foreman, director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, after noting that activists remain "on the offense" after the election setbacks, added:
What this really demonstrates above anything else is that basic rights should never be put up for a popular vote. That's why we have a Bill of Rights.
Well, since marriage is a cultural institution and not a "basic right," there's absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights that would apply here. But I doubt if that's the point for Mr. Foreman. What is the point is that what fails with the public can be forced on people through the courts and that, obviously, is the next step.


Blogger Alexios said...

Indeed. But it makes you wonder, what will be the next thing to make it into the courts? The real symptom of this nations problems is the fact that we need amendments in the first place to define as an institution that exists between only one man and one woman, something which has only ever existed between man and woman throughout the course of history. A custom (marrage) which itself is a part of RELIGIONS, which themselves (untill lately) universally condemn homosexuality. Given that the practice comes from the idea of there being a God to unite two people in a spiritual way, the fact that the question is posed at all is....absurd. But then we have a different perspective.

::shrug:: it's where we are now. One less depressing way of looking at it is to aknowledge that homosexuality has always been alive and well, and this, for all it's badness, probably isn't going to influence into homosexual practice, anyone who isn't already there.

At least I hope.

Nice Blog by the way.

November 6, 2004 at 4:48 PM  
Blogger Grace said...


I think the first volley has already been launched into the courts. I read somewhere that two women are suing to say that the ban in their state is unconstitutional. (How I'm coming to hate that word! It's starting to have as much connotative baggage attached to it as the word 'counter-revolutionary' did in the old USSR.)

I have wondered a little if the emphasis on ONE man and ONE woman means that someone thought that there would be an effort to legalize polygamy.

But the bigger point you make goes right to the heart of it. The institution of marriage should never have been reduced to the world of amendments and court definitions. It is one of those places where the gay agenda and religious beliefs finally had to face off. We won this one, but a generation ago it never even would've had to come up. A generation from now, it may be a lost cause. The appetite of social "progressives" seems voracious.

(Do you have a blog? I don't have a list of links right now, but I should be launching a new version of the blog shortly and I want to do the link-list thing big time.)

November 7, 2004 at 4:19 PM  
Blogger Bill Peschel said...

While I understand the objection to expanding the definition of marriage (which I would consider a religious ceremony plus a civil contract) to homosexuals, I have not heard an effective argument against allowing the government to contract civil unions between two men or two women. Despite what you believe, they are forming families, adopting or giving birth to children and combining finances and generally getting in harness for the long haul. This, they are willing to do, despite the possibility of losing everything due to intolerent or hateful relatives and court rulings over custody. A willingness to deny them this protection -- in effect applying your religious belief onto those who do not share them -- is a form of intolerence that would make Jesus cock an eyebrow.

November 13, 2004 at 1:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home