Are gay marriage and gay rights abominations unto the Lord or inevitable steps in the march of human liberation?
Are gays just hedonists who want public and civic validation to fuck in their unnatural way?
Or is a homosexual population always present in humanity, and just a segment of normal human behavior in the broad spectrum of human behaviors?
Do gays want too much? get too much? Will they shut up once they get what they want?
Do heterosexuals react violently or hysterically or nervously to gay issues because they're afraid of their normal homosexual feelings?
How will you and your family be harmed if gays are allowed full marriage and other civil rights?
Will you sign Tim Eyman's initiative to reverse the gay rights bill passed by the legislature?
Is Tim Eyman gay?
I think all human beings that aren't breaking laws are entitled to equal rights. There aren't any laws against someone prefering the company of the same sex or engaging in private sexual behavior with same sex people. So, the government shouldn't take anyone's rights away.
That being said, is there a "right" for someone to be employed by a private business? Is there a "right" to get insurance from a private company? Personally, I don't think these things fall into the realm of rights. But, I'm willing to live by what the state and courts decide in those areas.
But I don't feel there is any compelling reason why the government should have any interest in same sex marriage. I can understand the rational for providing some privileges to heterosexual marriages (e.g., lower tax rates, certain legal privileges about transfer of property, etc.). - nations have traditionally seen a benefit in encouraging its citizens to bear children and raise them in a stable home. Government has not seen a real benefit in having two college aged men sharing an apartment, or a same sex couple, or even an heterosexual couple living together. I don't want our government forcing employers to grant benefits to the non-married (meaning marriage license granted by the state) partners/friends/roommates of their employees. And I don't want the government bypassing revenue (taxes) from those same people either.
If an employer wants to give benefits to the live in lover (whether gay or heterosexual), then that's their decision. No one should prevent that. But, I don't want public employees having those kind of benefits and I don't want tax collections reduced for non-married folks. I just don't see tangible benefits to the government in those types of relationships, so why should the government reward or promote them?
Posted by: ExDem | February 06, 2006 at 07:01 AM
Why ExDem wouldn't you give gay and lesbians and everyone else for that matter the same "privileges" you'd expect for yourself?
Posted by: joanie | February 06, 2006 at 08:12 AM
I would only expect those privileges if the government chooses to grant them. And the government has historically granted priveleges to married couples because the state/nation saw some compelling reason to promote/reward that behavior. I can see that it makes sense for a nation to want to grow its population, or at least sustain its population to remain viable. And I can see that the desire for the family unit to be the building block for the foundation of the nation is legitimate.
So I can see a rational for why the government granted privileges to married couples in the first place. When those couple broke apart through divorce, then the state took away those privileges. Divorced couples cannot file income taxes under "Married Filing Jointly" and pay lower taxes. Divorced couples aren't granted health and dental coverage for the divorced spouse. I can see a good reason for not granting those privileges for persons that have broken the family unit, because they were no longer committed to that unit. There has to be some way for the government to determine which family units fall into the realm that they want to encourage, protect and promote. The way they do it is through the marriage licenses they grant, and through the legal declarations that couples file when they divorce, or one dies. If I'm running a program, I need mechanisms in place to manage it. These are the mechanisms the government uses and they make sense to me.
I'm not in favor of granting privileges to other types of relationships - the government probably sees no compelling reason to promote them. If others want everyone to be treated the same, then I'd favor the government removing the privileges granted to married couples. It wouldn't stop me from being married or having lots of kids. But, then our government would have to be ready to live with the effects of not promoting marriages that traditionally have led to births and future citizens raised by their parents. If the government treats everyone the same in this regard, then we all have to be ready for the consequences.
Either
a) it will cost government/businesses more to pay for the privileges that 100% of the population is now entitled to
and/or
b) the societal norm/goal for stable, committed marriages and families will be a thing of the past and our society will deal with the probable increase of more non-committed relationships.
Is every marriage and family Ozzie and Harriet Nelson? No. But, I'd rather work for a world where every family was the Nelsons instead of disparaging that ideal and giving up on it. I believe we would have a very messy, sad society if we lose our traditional family structure and the values that it represents.
Posted by: ExDem | February 06, 2006 at 10:10 AM
Ex Dem, I agree with some of what you say. If I am living with a boyfriend, I would not expect my employer to pay any benefits for him. If I married him, then I would,
If a gay couple is not in a married relationship, then I dont think they should qualify for benefits. However, the difference there is that the state wont allow them to GET married, so they are in a Catch-22 situation. That is the part that is discriminatory.
I also disagree that "values" are something that a traditional family is the only representation of values. Families come in all assortments, from single parent, to kids living with grandparents, to siblings living together, and all other possible combinations. They are families. They feel love. They are committed to being together and caring for each other. They want the kids to grow up to be honest and healthy and happy.
I dont believe traditional marriage will ever go away. The more people who want to live in a committed married relationship, the better, I say. And that goes for all couples who want to be married, gay or straight.
Posted by: sparky | February 06, 2006 at 11:00 AM
I think we need to define what a family is for the purpose of benefits.
If a company offers benefits to a spouse on the assumption the spouse is busy raising kids then why can't the same be true if a gay half of a couple is busy raising their adopted child?
Posted by: Andrew | February 06, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Sorry I meant to say half of a gay couple.
Posted by: Andrew | February 06, 2006 at 11:05 AM
ExDem, what, explicitly, are the privileges of marriage other than (quickly evaporating) spousal insurance benefits? Transfer of property in WA and several other states is determined, upon death, by wills or intestate succession, or upon divorce, by equitable distribution of comingled assets. These laws apply equally to unmarried persons living together as well as married people. What are the privileges that you believe the government is granting to married people that must be witheld from others?
Posted by: Fremont | February 06, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Significant privileges granted for marriage from the government:
Married Filing Jointly on Federal Income Tax forms results in lower tax rates for the couple.
Social Security benefits given to surviving spouses and their dependent families.
I haven't researched the law, but I'm guessing that if I die, my wife automatically retains ownership of all of our property. If I'm not married, I'm guessing that I would need a will that explicitly states who gets ownership if I want insure that my girlfriend/roommate/cousin/etc. retains "our" property. I'm sure it costs money to get a will that would be unquestioned by the courts (even if it is only $25 to buy Quicken Wills, or whatever).
I'm not claiming that only Ozzie and Harriet families provide loving homes to kids growing up. I just believe that this traditional family structure does it best - and is the one I favor government and our society endorsing. If gays want to live together or marry in their church, that is an option for them. And I believe the government should take no interest in that relationship in regards to endorsing it or promoting it - the government should basically leave it alone. So, if the government is going to be in the business of granting marriage licenses to people as a way of codifying a special place for a relationship in our society, then I still favor sticking to the original approach (for achieving the original goals) - limit it to a single man marrying a single woman. And if those 2 people divorce, then the government would basically "revoke" the license that had previously been granted.
Posted by: ExDem | February 06, 2006 at 02:46 PM
You're saying that because a straight family "does it best", the govt should "take no interest" in gay families.
Why do you conclude that the goverment should show exclusivity towards one option even though more than one option is effective?
That's like saying because cars get the best miles-per-gallon that the government should outlaw SUVs.
If gay parents can raise a normal child the government should not show preference one way or another.
Posted by: Andrew | February 06, 2006 at 03:03 PM
ExDem, if you die tomorrow, your wife can get EITHER her Social Security earnings, or yours, not both. Someone's earnings are not going to the earner, correct? If you and your partner were divorced, or never married, your spawn would be entitled to benefits upon your death. And does married, filing jointly, give you a better tax break than if you were not married, filing singly? Not always. The privileges you impute to marriage are more moral than legal. Your affinity for traditional marriage is not supported by state laws. BTW, you can write your own will for free, it must be witnessed by two uninvolved people. And the courts could care less about your will....it's your family who will question it.
Posted by: Fremont | February 06, 2006 at 03:14 PM
Wives that have no Social Security earnings get the benefits of their spouse. If I had a roommate that I provided for my whole life, they wouldn't be entitled to benefits when I die.
Married filing jointly is a better option for the vast majority of filers.
If you have a beef with the privileges the government has chosen to provide couples, argue the morality of it with them.
Gay parents can and do raise children. But so do unmarried heterosexual people living together. Neither arrangement is better than a loving mom and dad married to each other. You can disagree - we all have our opinion. I don't think the government needs to have a part of those other family arrangements, other than having an interest in the child and insuring that each child has a guardian. In a married couple, those guardians are the mom and dad. In other arrangements, well, I guess it can get complicated but I'm sure the state provides for clear determination of guardianship. And the parent/guardian and child relationship is one that the state has a compelling interest in. But, the state doesn't need to be involved in the parent/guardian and "other" (partner, boyfriend, roommate, etc.) relationship.
Posted by: ExDem | February 06, 2006 at 03:52 PM
I don't want to argue complicated legalities with you, XD, BUT I do want you to know that despite the current administration's playbill for family values, the laws are not (yet) on your side! Your wife would get SS benefits upon your death IF she was supporting your child under 16, OR if she was disabled at 50 or retired early at 62. Otherwise, she's outta luck...Guardianship is challenged all the time in the courts! An unfit parent is an unfit parent. Marriage doesn't vitiate that! The state has a compelling interest in protecting the children, not the people who spawn them. The holiness of marriage is in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing substantially different about two people living together or living in a marital union in the eyes of the law. It is your unsubstantiated OPINION that a loving mom and dad are better (parents?) than a loving combination of any other beings, but the welfare of the children of ANY union should be the compelling interest of the state. Unfortunately, Bush's agenda has no respect....
Posted by: Fremont | February 06, 2006 at 04:59 PM
Freemont,
Here is what I wrote:
"And the parent/guardian and child relationship is one that the state has a compelling interest in. But, the state doesn't need to be involved in the parent/guardian and "other" (partner, boyfriend, roommate, etc.) relationship."
Anyway, I'm fine if you feel:
"There is nothing substantially different about two people living together or living in a marital union in the eyes of the law."
You probably wonder why gays raise the issue of legalizing marriage for gay couples. There's nothing for them to gain according to you. I'd be fine if the whole issue went away also. I agree with you on that point - the status quo is fine.
Posted by: ExDem | February 06, 2006 at 05:41 PM
You know, I read all this and it is mindboggling! But, I don't even care about all the rules because they keep changing according to who is lobbying for whom. That's a fact.
You seem to want to spin it in such a way that you keep people excluded. That's the part I don't get. Why exclude anyone?
THE GOVERNMENT - THIS BIG DADDY that you seem not to be a part of decides for all of us what's best. I don't think so. I think they do what that interest group with the best lobbyist tells them to do. And, it can't be BIG DADDY or else Tim Eyman wouldn't be out there collecting signatures from people like you.
Finally, I keep getting back to why should people be excluded from the same privileges that you and I get? I don't think you answered that question. And reciting laws that are made by mostly men who represent special interests doesn't do it for me. With that kind of thinking, I still wouldn't be able to vote!
Posted by: joanie | February 06, 2006 at 06:06 PM
Yes, Joanie, why exclude anyone from the right to choose marriage? XD, the state has a compelling interest in the WELFARE OF THE CHILD, not the parent/child relationship. That's a HUGE difference. I don't agree that the status quo is okay...all persons should have the right to spend their lives with whomever they choose...under the auspices of marriage, if that's where their commitment takes them. People who choose not to marry or to marry someone of the same sex should not be penalized by the IRS, SSA, or the religious right, and the laws of the land should favor freedom. Freedom is the status quo I support!
Posted by: Fremont | February 06, 2006 at 06:57 PM
First of all, women have the vote because a whole bunch of men in government decided that women should be granted the vote last century. Our form of government works.
In reading what Freemont posts, marriage doesn't amount to any special benefits. So Freemont, what exactly are gay people being "excluded" from? And why should they care if the government grants them a marriage license or not? People are already free to "...spend their lives with whomever they choose..." Help me understand what the big deal is for you. You sound agitated that gays aren't granted the same nothing that married couples get.
Joanie, you ask why exclude anyone? Since our government makes decisions on behalf of our society, they make decisions about incusion or exclusion in programs all the time. Why can't a boy play on the girl's basketball team in high school? How come people with jobs don't get food stamps? Why do people earning $21,000 a year only pay 10% income tax rate instead of 28%? Why should government provided housing be a benefit limited to military personnel and their families? Government becomes even bigger if you want to give financial benefits to everyone.
Why not understand why government decisions were made originally before seeking to change them? And when I think about why marriage licenses from the state are reserved for a single man married to a single woman, I see a good rationale for it.
So now people on the other side of the issue can explain their rationale for wanting to change the laws regarding marriage and why it's a good idea to expand government reach and expense. I think I already know that it would make you feel good if no one was "excluded" - now I'm curious to understand what you think is so compelling to the government about giving all the same privileges of legally married couples to roommates, gay couples, friends that live together, etc.
Posted by: ExDem | February 06, 2006 at 09:08 PM
If gays could be married legally, they could have the same "priviledges" as hetero marrieds, and you could still exclude roomates and friends who live together. Government would not be paying out the benefits to married people to just anyone. But, if you are not legally allowed to be in a marriage then you are in a no-win situation in this particular case. Mass. appears to have worked it out.
Posted by: sparky | February 06, 2006 at 09:14 PM
No, women have the vote because they did what gays and lesbians are doing - got out and made a ruckus until those men gave it to them.
Wouldn't it have been nice if we had just been included from the beginning?
Wouldn't it be nice if we could learn from history that if we would just include all people in all privileges, we could all save ourselves a lot of grief?
But, we never learn, do we?
Posted by: joanie | February 06, 2006 at 09:15 PM
And all this horsepuckey about benefits. The City of Seattle does pay benefits - health anyway - to partners regardless of gender. I am proud of us!
Posted by: joanie | February 06, 2006 at 09:17 PM
"now I'm curious to understand what you think is so compelling to the government about giving all the same privileges of legally married couples to roommates, gay couples, friends that live together, etc."
Because they vote and pay the same taxes that married people do but recieve no "special tax" breaks that married couples are entitled to. Seems like the conservatives are holding up the economy here.
Posted by: chris | February 06, 2006 at 09:22 PM
OK, feel good crowd. So everyone should get the benefits because you want them treated equally.
Again, why did government give those benefits in the first place? And what does the government gain by expanding marriage to gays? Would the country be well served if 100% of people were gay? How long would our country exist if that were true? An interesting thought to ponder.
It sounds like people want a socialist government. So why not give every person free food, not just the poor. After all, the working people pay the taxes, so why not let them take some of the benefits too. Why limit free housing to military and government employees? Give it to everyone - we all pay taxes. Why have poor people pay a different tax rate - we should all be treated equally, shouldn't we? Why not go back to the 70% tax rates we had before Reagan took office. Why make Wal-Mart provide health care coverage for their employees when the government can provide it?
If you're looking for a socialist state, there are other countries that offer that. All of your "good feelings" carry a price tag - who do you expect to pay the freight for all of this? What incentive would people have to work harder, or work at all, if the government gives them stuff for free or simply demands increasing taxes on every dollar earned? In the USA, our system based on capitalism seems to work well. The vast majority of citizens prefer what we have. People around the world prefer what we have - that's why so many want to come here every year.
But, maybe the big thinkers in this blog know better. I'm guessing there's loads of experience from people on this blog in making payroll for their employees each week, building companies that contribute value-added goods and services to our growing economy, and establishing systems of governance that a majority of people will actually vote "YES" for. I'm just one man offering his opinions.
Posted by: ExDem | February 06, 2006 at 10:00 PM
Health benefits and equal opportunities are not free food but the freedom to earn food and live as you wish.
ExDem, you spend so many words and spin so many tops trying to justify the exclusion of people. Keeping it complicated doesn't change the story: you are for excluding people from equality. That's a shame.
The economy doesn't depend on keeping gays and lesbians down, excluded, or controlled. That's a silly idea. :)
Posted by: joanie | February 06, 2006 at 10:19 PM
"Since our government makes decisions on behalf of our society, they make decisions about incusion or exclusion in programs all the time. Why can't a boy play on the girl's basketball team in high school? How come people with jobs don't get food stamps? Why do people earning $21,000 a year only pay 10% income tax rate instead of 28%? Why should government provided housing be a benefit limited to military personnel and their families? Government becomes even bigger if you want to give financial benefits to everyone."
XD, WHAT WORLD ARE YOU LIVING IN? Boys CAN play on girls' basketball teams, people with jobs DO get food stamps, 10% of $21,000 is a much greater burden than 28% of $500,000, and government-subsidized housing programs are NOT limited to military personnel. I do not get your point about marriage serving the country....is that in the consitution? I agree that capitalism works well for the capitalists..the rich get richer. I am SO SICK of hearing about working white males being deprived of their hard-earned entitlements by members of any class other than theirs...poor babies!
Posted by: Fremont | February 06, 2006 at 11:03 PM
Do you wonder why your ideas keep losing at the ballot box? Probably not.............
Posted by: ExDem | February 06, 2006 at 11:13 PM
There you go with you Ad Populum shit again.
Posted by: Andrew | February 06, 2006 at 11:14 PM
Amend my last post to wrking, white, straght men...
Which of my ideas is losing at the ballot box...gay rights? You place far too much credence is the righteousness of majority opinion, ExDem...it's the creative thinkers and unorthodox ideas that make the significant changes in a society.
Posted by: Fremont | February 06, 2006 at 11:21 PM
Oh the tyranny of the uninformed and prejudiced majority . . . and with that, I bid you all a good night.:)
Posted by: joanie | February 06, 2006 at 11:34 PM
Why would granting gays the right to get married mean that 100% of the population would suddenly become gay??? huh???? What does the government LOSE by granting marriage rights to gays? Your logic eludes me.
Posted by: sparky | February 07, 2006 at 06:05 AM
"If you're looking for a socialist state, there are other countries that offer that."
What kind of 'socialism' are you complaining about. The one for Haliburton and all those nice contracts related to invasions or the kind we are suppossed to recieve as a social contract that has been the hallmark of paying taxes and having a middle class opportunity. The gays and lesbians who do vote and pay taxes are also, for the most part, highly educated. (and a fair number of them are republicans) I don't think the progressive ideas "lose" at the ballot box any more than Tim Eyeman loses on the west side of the state and therefore has to branch out. If Seattle and environs are too left for you, then so be it--people are free to leave.
Posted by: chris | February 07, 2006 at 06:13 AM
Yes, we are all free to leave. But I stay in Seattle because I love this area. And I accept the politics that happens here. I don't cry about it. I don't claim that Democrats stole elections. I don't promote the idea that since my candidate didn't win that the opponent's victory is illegitimate and that we don't have to respect the wishes of the people. I try to be an adult about it all and I try to honor the system. I vote, my candidates often lose in this area, and I move on. And I also realize that this area of the country is out of step with the majority of America.
Like I said, there are a lot of big thinkers on this blog. How many of them have run a business that actually employed other people? How many of them have ever created the utopian organizations they so long for? Why don't those utopian organizations and societies exist in America? Since they don't seem to exist to the satisfaction of the far left, then it appears that it's always time to claim that majorities shouldn't rule. I'm not clear how the world works in a place where the will of the people, reflected by the majority and expressed through the ballot box would actually work. The "let's treat everyone equally" position is a wonderfully simple idea that avoids all of the tough decisions that accompany it. So, hold on to your idealism and convince yourselves that you probably know better than the Founding Fathers and the people that have sustained our Republic throughout the years. It would be an interesting experiment to put some of the big thinkers in charge and watch what happens when they have to figure out how to spend the public money and accomodate the wishes of a diverse set of people.
Meanwhile, I will continue to read the many enlightened ideas of people that sound like they have never led anything of consequence. Perhaps there is some wisdom in their thinking that the rest of the evil, stupid, sexist, bigoted, exlusionary majority is missing. It's a wonder our country made it this far........
Posted by: ExDem | February 07, 2006 at 06:35 AM
Okay, XDum, I concede....you are certainly the ONLY big thinker who has ever led a business. And BTW, the Founding Fathers and their foundling mothers are dead and the world has moved on....
Posted by: Fremont | February 07, 2006 at 08:30 AM
"The "let's treat everyone equally" position is a wonderfully simple idea. . . "
Yes, it is. We should try it some day.
". . . that avoids all of the tough decisions that accompany it."
What tough decisions? You haven't come up with any so far. A lot of words with spin, but no concrete "tough decisions."
"So, hold on to your idealism and convince yourselves that you probably know better than the Founding Fathers"
I will and the Founding Fathers were our first idealists because they tried to do something that hadn't been done before. They took risks, why can't you?
". . . and the people that have sustained our Republic throughout the years."
Like Jefferson Davis, The Dred Scott Decision, women not being able to vote, the lack of civil rights for Blacks, people with disabilities, children before work laws, working people before unions, . . I could go on and on. Our BIG DADDY wouldn't have changed a thing without activism from some group.
It wasn't the people in charge who sustained our Union, it was people like you and me that took a risk and demanded equality and protection.
You have a very rosy picture of some very kind father figure that created the America you know. I think you should read some history books.
Also, it wasn't the ballot box that gave us the Civil Rights Act, the American Disabilties Act, women's right to vote and now rights for gays and lesbians. It was Congress - both Federal and state. People who became convinced through citizen action that it was the right thing to do.
Posted by: joanie | February 07, 2006 at 08:38 AM
Who put the Congress into office? The voters did. And those Representatives are intended to reflect and act upon the will of the people. WE put those people in charge by voting for them. That's our representative democracy in action. The reason the "world has moved on" was because of the greatness of our Founders and this system they established. We should never lose sight of their greatness. Compare America to other powerful nations in the past 200 years. We didn't endure a bloody, pointless revolution like France. We didn't put a Hitler or Tojo or Stalin or Mao into power. We don't sponsor shadowy figures that hatch plots to kill thousands of civilians going to work at the World Trade Center one peaceful day.
The end of slavery, women's suffrage, Civil Rights, Americans with Disabilities Act, etc. all happened because a majority of our elected representatives made them happen. And yes, they are prompted by the people who express their will in a variety of ways - they demonstrate, they write letters, they go to Town Hall meetings, they work on the campaigns, they sign petitions, etc. That's our American system and it works well. We're all for progress but we need to do it together. And unfortunately for some people/groups, the change may be slower than they like. But, until they can convince enough of their fellow citizens to support their cause, they must be patient. If they are impatient, and trying to make a point, then they also need to deal with the effects that follow from civil disobedience, angry protest, words/actions that go against the majority, etc.
I would love for everyone to be treated equally. But, my hope for getting there is not through government. The best example of the type of world I'd like to see can be found in Acts of the Apostles 2:40 - 45. Trying to force socialism on everyone against their own will gets rejected every time. Why are the Eastern European cities now emerging, energetic, capitalist economies after spending 2 generations under communism?
I guess I have to be more explicit regarding the tough decisions. I don't have the figures in front of me, but letting people in civil unions or gay marriages pay lower taxes because they get the same benefit as "Married Filing Jointly" will reduce the federal revenues (actually, that's a good thing as long as spending gets reduced as well). That decision would cost money. Once it is decided that gay marriages get that benefit because we need to treat them equally (because they love each other just as much as heterosexuals, they are just as committed, they can be terrific parents too, etc.), that will set the stage for a bunch of other groups to demand the same "equal treatment". The couple shacking up will claim all of the same things. The two roommates sharing an apartment will claim the same things. The widowed aunt and her niece living in the same house will claim it. And there won't be any valid reason to exclude them, since we all want equal treatment for these other groups of people that are so capable of providing a loving home for a child, of caring for each other, of being committed to each other, etc.
I'm fine with people that are on the other side of the issue from me. And if they can convince the majority to see things their way, then I have to go along with that as well. But I won't cry about how misguided or mean-spirited or uncaring those people are that disagree with me. I'll just continue to represent what I believe is true and right and, if I'm convincing enough, it will encourage others. If I'm not convincing enough, then I'm mature enough to look at actual results in the real world and recalibrate myself, if needed. I may be a big thinker also, but I don't have the misguided perception that I'm right on every single issue, especially when I'm clearly in the minority - is the majority so wrong about so much? Hmmmmm - if so, again I ask, how did we get so far in America when the country is governed by the majority. I'm willing to factor in reality when I draw my conclusions. And part of that reality is the humility to assume some collective wisdom of the majority, until proven otherwise.
Posted by: ExDem | February 07, 2006 at 10:53 AM
Somehow I feel you argue in circles . . .
Does this mean that you respect representational decision-making and will not sign Eyman's initiative? That you accept and respect the decision of the legislature?
Posted by: joanie | February 07, 2006 at 10:57 PM
Yes, I do respect the Constitution. At the Federal level, it is strictly representative decision making. At the state level, we have a legislature and we also have the initiative and referendum processes. I believe in Washington, the initiative process actually holds a preferred position over the legislature. I'm guessing it's probably assumed to be the ultimate way to reflect the will of the people, through a democratic vote on a single issue.
I haven't read Eyman's latest initiative. If it's something I support, I might sign it. At the end of the day, I'll respect the process. If there is some initiative that trumps something the legislature passed, well, I guess as citizens of the state of Washington, we have to accept that.
Posted by: ExDem | February 07, 2006 at 11:17 PM
You amaze me! You will simply fit the facts to your whim. You will respect the process that gives you what you want. Good thing there's no initiative process at the Federal level. I like being able to vote! And I'm awful glad kids have work laws! And I even like those disabled people.
I think I have less respect for you than I did because in the end, you want everybody you don't agree with to be excluded. I just don't understand that need.
Posted by: joanie | February 07, 2006 at 11:51 PM
It sounds like you want a country where people don't come together, unless it's on their own terms 100% of the time. That approach makes governing a society impossible and chaotic. You want a socialist or communist form of government. That's not America - that's Cuba, China and North Korea.
Don't you understand the initiative process? When an initiative is put on the ballot, citizens vote on it. So why do you say "I like being able to vote"???? There are good reasons why the federal government doesn't have such a process, but at the state level, it can make a lot of sense.
You sound like you just don't like the idea that someone other than you might actually be in charge. And if they don't see things your way 100% of the time, then you don't have to go along with things. What I'm saying is that I respect the process and the system that has been established. And in our system, majorities make laws. And through our history, the majority has protected the minority and their rights. And sometimes, the minority has to be patient as the majority progresses. But our founders were geniuses - they established a form of government ruled by the majority but that preserved rights of the minority. That's because they understood that rights were given by the Creator, not by government.
You keep saying things like "if American traditions were always followed, women wouldn't have the vote or blacks would still be slaves". Somehow you fail to acknowledge the actual history of our country where all those things you like to say "would never have happened" ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN.
Help me understand your experience in creating and leading something. From what I read from you, I get an impression in my mind that you've never had to lead a diverse group of people and figure out how the rules would work and how scarce resources might be allocated to them. So, perhaps it would help me and others to understand your background a bit. Maybe you've created some wonderful organizations in your past where the answer was always "yes" to every request, everyone was perfectly happy with the way things were running, everyone got along swimingly, no one was ever unhappy that scarce resources went to others but not to them, etc. If you have such experience, please share that with us - maybe you have a model that could work on a broader scale. If not, maybe it would be OK to acknowledge something that would sound like this - "I'm idealistic and I dream of a better America. But since I've never had to lead a big organization or be a representative in government, maybe I don't understand all of the things that might make it difficult to realize those dreams as quickly as I'd like."
Posted by: ExDem | February 08, 2006 at 06:39 AM
Quickly, because i don't think it matters:
I worked inside the justice system for thirty years and have taught for 16 years. I'm not ancient; actually, the last 14 years in the court system was part time while I taught.
Also, I'm an old drama major - so I know lots of diverse people!
I think it is an easy out to blame other people for what they haven't done or don't know. You will always find a way to say that someone you don't agree with doesn't know what they are talking about. I prefer to speak to issues.
Some of us think we know what's best for everybody according to our own rules. Others of us think we should give everybody the benefit of the doubt and allow them to make their own decisions.
"You sound like you just don't like the idea that someone other than you might actually be in charge."
The person who should be in charge is the person whose life it is. Not you and not me.
I've said that over and over.
If you read your posts, you'll find so much hypocrisy, nit-picking and spinning to try to make your points make sense. "The American System works well" . . . but, you're going to change it when it doesn't give you want you want.
It is time to stop.
Posted by: joanie | February 08, 2006 at 08:21 AM
It appears to be too difficult to discuss a topic like this in this forum. I think if we were sitting in a room together, and could see each other and ask clarifying questions, we would probably understand each other better. Something is getting lost in the translation.
Posted by: ExDem | February 08, 2006 at 08:54 AM
You want to convince me and that won't happen. But, I respect your opinions.
Posted by: joanie | February 08, 2006 at 09:25 AM
I DON'T respect XD"s opinion....I respect his right to have it. (Sorry to carry this on, but I was gone yesterday.) You, XDum. seen to believe that "creating and leading" something are the paramount challenges of life. I am the voice of those who are lead, the worker in the small business you run, the disabled person you won't hire, the minority who is silenced by your majority rule. I am here and I am strong, and your self-righteousness and piety is transitory power. It was you who oppressed me as a Native-American, an African slave, a woman, an immigrant and now as a gay person. Your majority is ebbing....your global power as a white, straight, Christian, American male is failing. The bubble is bursting, Ex-Dum, and the more you flail and spin around around in it, the sooner it will fail to cover you. What are YOU doing to reinforce the safety net when you fall? Do you think your married-filing-jointly tax break will save you? What is there that we would "understand" if we could talk together in a room? Majority rules, the minority must have patience and you are currently in the majority. Deep, very deep...And the clock ticks on, XDum, your time is up!
Posted by: Fremont | February 08, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Freemont,
You sound like a very unique person. I'd like to meet you some time - I've never met someone who was all of these things at the same time:
1. Native American
2. African Slave
3. Woman
4. Immigrant
5. Gay
At any rate, it is easy to make commentary on what others have established. It would be interesting, albeit improbable, if all of the people who felt what you are expressing were given their own land to create their own society. It would be interesting to see what you would establish and then let others start providing commentary on all of the parts of it that they disagreed with.
Of course, in the original colonies, there were some "commonwealths" where everyone was expected to share everything. And they abandoned the idea because they found out there were able bodied people not pulling their weight who were living off the efforts of others. Human nature is such a tricky thing - perhaps there is some common sense and wisdom behind the way things are in this country. But, again, it would be fascinating to put you in charge of a bunch of people seeking to establish their own community/society and then watch what happens. I believe that it will probably never happen and that you will probably remain safe to criticize the majority without any real risk or consequence in the positions you take. You don't have to worry about being criticized yourself since your positions will largely not be implemented. That's just an opinion of mine based on reading your posts on this thread.
Posted by: ExDem | February 08, 2006 at 10:29 AM
I was in charge of my community until you stole my land and massarcred my Native people. I was in charge of my community until you stole my people to enslave them in your eommunity. I had no legal rights in my community until you saw fit to give them to women. Etc....And, what gives you the right to "put me in charge" of any community? I'm not the leader, I'm the lead...it's poetry, historical poetry, XDum.
Posted by: Fremont | February 08, 2006 at 11:13 AM
Joanie,
BTW, I respect your opinions as well. You are passionate but in a measured way. I truly would enjoy having a face to face dialogue with you.
Fremont,
I'm not sure I understand what you are telling me. Maybe it's because I'm XDum.
Posted by: ExDem | February 08, 2006 at 03:35 PM
I do want to comment on your comment about talking as opposed to writing.
I think writing is much more clarifying than talking. One has to read and respond. Oral communication provides the opportunity to interrupt, talk over, and not listen because one is too busy planning on the next one is going to say.
Writing makes you accountable for your words. They are there. The clearer you think, the clearer you write.
In college I had a very intersting conversation with a philosophy major. We were talking international politics and I was having trouble making a point and finally said, "Oh, I don't know how to say it." He responded, "Then you don't know what you mean. If you knew what you really mean to say, you could say it." I never forgot those words and it has made me a better thinker and writer. I'll be forever grateful to that person.
Again, I think the writing format is a much better tool for communicating than face-to-face conversation. We are forced to listen (read), be patient, and precise in our answers.
It also gives us the chance to go back and reevaluate our own words as well as the words of the responder.
Posted by: joanie | February 08, 2006 at 03:56 PM
I think these debates go nowhere for a few reasons:
1) They aren't structured.
The target is always moving and blurry so whenever someone commits a crime of logic or debate it goes unnoticed. There's no clear point at which someone wins because the finish line is also moving and blurry.
2) Most people never admit they are wrong. When cornered they simply don't post a follow up.
3) Allot of posters are too wordy. It's emotionaly and mentaly taxing to pick the argument out of the hay. Our brains actualy burn allot of calories. Thinking is literaly tiring. I need excersize but not like this.
Posted by: Andrew | February 08, 2006 at 04:12 PM
I agree with you, Andrew, about wordiness. It reflects fuzzy thinking.
Of course, we are all guilty of it from time to time. :)
I do not think someone always has to win, however.
Posted by: joanie | February 08, 2006 at 04:18 PM
Andrew,
I agree with you also. That's why I prefer an in-person dialogue. In that setting, the scope of the discussion can be set more clearly. This forum can be hard because there are so many voices chiming in and the topic can meander into places that convolute the original points. Those are the main reasons that posts get really wordy - you start by trying to say something narrowly focused, then 3 other people say something that you need to respond to, and then things expand and meander.
And sometimes, you give in to the urge to jab someone verbally and then any serious discussion breaks down.
Posted by: ExDem | February 08, 2006 at 05:04 PM
If you talk better then you write then you might need to work on having more concise wording.
Students in writing classes often include extra verbage in their essays because they write like they talk, and the teacher has to cross it all out and hand it back.
People also have a tendency to include trivial details around the point they are making without even realizing it.
For example, you could shorten this:
I agree with you also. That's why I prefer an in-person dialogue. In that setting, the scope of the discussion can be set more clearly. This forum can be hard because there are so many voices chiming in and the topic can meander into places that convolute the original points. Those are the main reasons that posts get really wordy - you start by trying to say something narrowly focused, then 3 other people say something that you need to respond to, and then things expand and meander.
to:
I agree. I prefer person to person dialogue because the scope of discussion can be made clear which prevents wandering from the subject.
The only time I can think of that you should include unnecessary verbage on purpose is when you need it for persuasive/rhetorical/emphatic effect, such as "Here's the kicker..." or "Interestingly enough...".
Posted by: Andrew | February 08, 2006 at 06:30 PM
Holly cow, andrew! This is a blog; not school! Must we edit people's posts? Haven't you ever heard saying:
Those who can't write...edit."
:-)
Posted by: Critter | February 08, 2006 at 07:13 PM