Your worst nightmares are what Republicans are trying to raise- not issues.
When the warning, "Re-elect us or the terrorists will bomb your ass" didn't seem to work, the hoary but evergreen cry became, "Reelect us or the fags will grab your kid's ass."
(And your son will marry a florist in a tux in a Unitarian church, then spend your tax dollars on butt-sex education.)
In typical craven electioneering, Republicans, according to the New York Times reports are hoisting up the tattered banner of the nearly-forgotten issue so vital to the reelection of the bumbling President in 2004.
They're scaring the bejesus out of Christians about gay marriage, which, to our knowledge accounts for no deaths anywhere this month. (99 US soldiers, on the other hand, have been killed in the idiot's war this month).
Sex is their failsafe, fallback, when-all-else-has-failed tactic- and it almost always works. (when evangelicals use the word sin, what they're really talking about is sex).
Forget peace in our time. Or getting us out of Iraq. Or viable reforms of Social Security, education or health care. Or even their beloved permanent tax cuts.
They're hoping the fundamentalists will show up at he polls after they were reportedly going to stay away after all the prancing sturm und drang pulled by the Gay Republican Community in Congress.
Frank Shiers was especially obnoxious Thursday beating the "Judeo-Christian nation" drum. (those "values" words should drop to the floor like small turds from his mealy partisan mouth).
Republican moral guide Rush Limbaugh said the issue is "up-and-running" since the new middle of the road New Jersey Supreme court decision. Republican spokesman and Designated Liar Sean Hannity said the nation and our way of life is in "new danger."
The question is: will the Christians fall for it again? Will they be suckered into going to the polls in "Rove's-droves" like they did in 2004?
We'll find out next week: but we've talked to Christians who are sitting out this one- they say Bush and the R's need to learn a lesson for not listening.
Desperation is a word thrown around by conservatives to describe Democrats, these days. With the Pew Research poll out today; we can't imagine these tactics by Republicans can be inspired by anything else.
I think those of us who are not opposed to gay marriage are missing an obvious selling point to the Fundagelicals.....If you prohibit gays from marrying each other, that means they will just end up marrying your son or daughter!!! Which would you rather have?
Posted by: sparky | October 27, 2006 at 05:41 PM
I like that Sparky.
Personally, I think we have more to worry about than just the gay issue. I have no doubt that Republicans will run the dirtiest campaign they can summon up - no holds barred. It's already started. This election will tell me if we still have an electorate with any common sense, integrity and independence at all.
We may actually have become that brain-washed, propagandized herd that we tease about all the time.
Postman's commentary about Gore and his concerns spoke for me as well. I hope I haven't become as cynical as all that. But the 2002 election really did it to me. After two years of the Resident Idiot's leadership, I thought people would be ready to end it. But, they signed on for more . . . and look what they got. I was not surprised at 2004 after 2002.
Posted by: joanie | October 27, 2006 at 06:48 PM
Hmmmmmm. Let's see, gay's have been marrying in Massachusetts now for how long? And? What is the state of het marriage? Has it been destroyed in that state? Has the vengeful hand of God Almighty smitten all those who supported gay marriage in Mass?
I didn't think so.
Bible thumpers be gone! And take your filty Rovian political tactics with you on your way back into the gutter.
Posted by: adc | October 27, 2006 at 07:23 PM
Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for some time now, and nothing bad has happened to this country. I mean, other than Celine Dion, and she's your problem now.
Posted by: liz | October 27, 2006 at 08:02 PM
So would that mean they are still gay if they marry your son or daughter Sparky.
Posted by: Other Steve | October 27, 2006 at 09:17 PM
yep..they would still be gay. It isnt like a cold you "get over" in a couple of weeks.
Posted by: sparky | October 27, 2006 at 09:59 PM
So you mean they can actually enjoy all the benifits heterosexuals have.
Posted by: Other Steve | October 28, 2006 at 10:04 AM
No, it means that their marriage to a heterosexual is a sham and they are living a lie, and in the process destroying themselves and eventually their "spouse".
If they marry someone who they actually love, the government does not allow them to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals.
Thus is the case for discrimination.
Posted by: adc | October 28, 2006 at 10:53 AM
Yep, my point, exactly, adc. If conservatives want to protect the sanctity of marriage, they should outlaw divorce.
Posted by: sparky | October 28, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Sparky, are you saying you would support a law outlawing divorce?
Posted by: Other Steve | October 28, 2006 at 03:11 PM
ADC, So why would they marry someone they didn't love. I don't see any benefit in that.
Posted by: Other Steve | October 28, 2006 at 03:14 PM
Steve. define "benefit" - what do you mean?
Posted by: joanie | October 28, 2006 at 03:24 PM
Yes, divorce should be made quite difficult, anyway...in cases of abuse it should be allowed. But I work with young parents who divorce because they "don't want to be tied down anymore," or they "get bored" and it is destructive to the kids, regardless of age.
That is the true destruction of family...not because Bob and Steve down the street want to have all the legal benefits of marriage.
Do like they do in numerous countries in Europe--everyone gets a civil union sanctioned by the state, allowing for division of property, medical power of attorney, etc. Then if you want to get a marriage blessing in the church, you can, and the church can decide who they will and will not bless. People who get married at City Hall are just as married as those who go for the church ceremony.
Posted by: sparky | October 28, 2006 at 04:49 PM
marriage should be much more difficult and divorce much easier
Posted by: david | October 28, 2006 at 05:18 PM
when no children are involved..i dont have a problem with that either.
My point is not about divorce, particularly..just that the idea that gays getting married is not going to destroy the sanctity of marriage. We do that every day a million other ways.
Posted by: sparky | October 28, 2006 at 07:13 PM
Why would they marry someone they didn't love?! Are you kidding? You don't see any benefit in that?
How about economic security? There aren't very many openly gay or lesbian law partners, physicians, judges, or Fortune 500 senior executives. Why is that?
On top of this open employment discrimination, there is the run of the mill social ostracism that this "Christian" nation, piles on anyone they don't understand.
Many gays and bi-sexual people, male and female, lack the intestinal fortitude it takes to live in this society. So, they take the path of least resistance, and pretend to be someone they aren't.
They almost always end up living a far more miserable existence than if they had just been honest with themselves and others, about who they truly are.
Yes, gays and lesbians across this country are scorned, shunned, denied promotions, denied housing, denied employment, and often disowned by their own families. That's the price openly gay and lesbian people in this country pay for being honest about who we are.
For those who claim we are asking for "special rights", I have two words:
Fuck You.
Posted by: adc | October 28, 2006 at 07:14 PM
Liz....please take back Celine Dion....PLEASE.
Posted by: sparky | October 28, 2006 at 07:32 PM
ADC, should we have Affirmative Action for the Gay and Lesbian communities.
Posted by: Other Steve | October 28, 2006 at 08:52 PM
Sparky, I can agree with you on the divorce issue there. Make it harder is ok with me.
Posted by: Other Steve | October 28, 2006 at 08:58 PM
Joanie, depends on which benefit you are asking about.
If it's
Same Benefits as heterosexuals: IRS deductions, Employers Health and Dental Coverage, Wills, Power of Attorneys, etc...
If it's
"Not seeing the benefit": I mean the hardships that would surely follow a failed marriage. It would not be to advantageous or good.
Posted by: Other Steve | October 28, 2006 at 09:26 PM
Steve. you said you didn't see any benefit in marrying someone you didn't love. So, what do you consider a benefit?
ADC clearly articulates benefits s/he sees.
BTW, have you given up trying to fill that column you're advocating in Mess-o-potamia?
Posted by: joanie | October 29, 2006 at 12:47 AM
When I worked for a an airline, we used to receive amazing benefits (including travel). One of my closest friends there was a gay man, in his 50s who had been with his partner for 25 years. Had his partner been a woman, she would have received everything, because he was a man, he got nothing. (Even commonlaw hetero partners received benefits)
On the other hand, there were some guys on the ramp who had been married, divorced and remarried 3 times. Each "current" wife received benefits, and each litter of children retained their benefits.
About 2 years later, Canada's first openly gay MP, Svend Robinson, of Vancouver, became involved with a movement to extend benefits to same sex couples in the airlines.
Frankly, I was surprised at how quickly things changed. And within a couple of years, benefits were received.
There still isn't universal acceptance of "gay marriage" in Canada, but I believe there is a slight majority which does.
The Conservative government (right wing) is talking about re voting on the issue, as it is their belief that the Liberal government which was in power at the time, did not allow the members of parliament to vote their concious, rather, they had to follow party lines.
Posted by: Liz | October 29, 2006 at 05:28 AM
Sparky, are you saying you would support a law outlawing divorce?
Well not outlawing divorce, but definitely making it more difficult would be a start.
I would start by outlawing Paris Hilton/Britney Vegas marriages first. As a registered minister who has preformed marriages, I found out that all that is really needed for a legal marriage is M & F present.
In other words, GG Allin could do the officiating and the Feds would be cool with it so long as M & F appeared on the certificate.
And people are worried about 2 gay folks affecting their holy matrimony? Typical fundy ayatollah nosey meddling BS.
Posted by: mercifurious | October 29, 2006 at 06:15 AM
Note: I should also add that chief anti-gay marriage propagandist Limbaugh has been married 4 times & all performed with JOP's.
Posted by: mercifurious | October 29, 2006 at 06:17 AM
"Should we have Affirmative Action for gay and lesbian communities?"....
Absolutely not. AA does absolutely nothing to resolve the underlying problem of ignorance about, and animosity towards people who are "not like us".
Shining a bright light on individuals and organizations who intentionally and repeatedly spread disinformation and distortions about the GLBT communities, would go a whole lot further in achieving a higher level of fairness and equality in this country.
Posted by: adc | October 29, 2006 at 09:11 AM