Okay, the Dems have taken the House of Representatives and the majority of Godless Americans Political Action Committee endorsements won election. We endorsed Jim McDermott (WA-7), Pete Stark (CA-13), and Rush Holt (NJ-12) all won their elections, as well as Sen. Feinstein in CA that Godless Americans endorsed.
The best news of course is the loss of Sen. Rick Santorum, but I am even more enthralled over the loss of John Hostettler (IN-8). He is the Congressman who introduced H.R. 2679, Public Expression of Religion Act that passed the House. A very good night all around.Now the bad news: Pot went down to defeat in Nevada and Colorado. Even more worrisome to me though was the successful passage of anti-gay-marriage laws in seven out of eights states yesterday. The bans passed in Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado and South Dakato. It narrowly loss in Arizona.Today we have 27 states, or just over half the nation that decided bronze-age laws are still valid for today’s world. Even though 280 clergy in Virginia publicly came out opposed to the state’s constitutional amendment, it was, by and far, the Catholics and Evangelicals who successfully passed this measure. So, those 27 states can now proclaim that Christianity is the officially established religion in those states and that religion stands firmly committed to the principles of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance.”[Tolerance is a] kind of watchword of those who reject the concept of right and wrong. It’s a kind of a desensitization to evil of all varieties. Everything has become acceptable to those who are tolerant.” — James Dobson, Focus On The Family radio broadcast, Nov. 4, 1996Peter Nuhn
I find the language on these gay marriage ban amendments very confusing. “Yes on marriage” seems to mean a yes vote is a vote for the ban? Correct?
Also I agree with Alexatheist that affirmative action (or positive discrimination as we call it here) is a bad thing. All hiring should be based on merit. Affirmative action just lets the bigots say “she only got the job because she is a woman and we have to hire some women” or similar.
I’ve heard that old people getting religious is kind of like cramming for finals. Ha ha.
Re: Affirmative Action
While I agree, at least on merit, that ideally we should be striving for a color/gender/oriantation blind society when it comes to education and hiring, it seems to me that the usual motivation for rolling back Affirmative Action (the motivation of those writing the measure, not necessarily those voting it in) is quite simply that they seek to reserve a ‘right’ to discriminate against whomever they wish to.
I don’t know the specifics of the Michigan case so I’ll just leave it at that.
It’s a documented fact that people tend to become more ’set in their ways’ – more traditional, perhaps even more stubborn- as they grow older, but what I was really referring to is the arc of progress itself; the way that those traditions are eventually and inevitably altered and the classical prejudices of the past are eventually done away with.
For instance, your father is probably going to be less racist than your grandfather (hypothetical – not calling anybody’s actual dad or granddad a racist). As the culture changes, the same rule of thumb will work in the case of homophobia. It has already happened, for it was only 40 – 50 years ago that homosexuality was officially classified as a mental disorder. This rule of thumb may also apply to the acceptance of atheists and perhaps even atheism itself. The arc has its ups and downs of course. But so long as freedom of expression remains a part of our society and we continue to take advantage of that freedom, the general trend will probably continue towards greater civil liberty.
The battle against unreason is long term.
Yes – probably true unfortunately. However I think the answer is to work towards the ideal not try to turn their bigotry against them. Hiring someone just because they are black is just as racist as not hiring someone because they are black.
I’ll allow this view is pretty idealistic.
Mexico freaking City just approved gay civil unions! America, Land of the Free my lilly white gimpy arse:
http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=2219&eeid=5072780&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt
Monika,
Yeah I think what it comes down to is that we have to be very careful with measures like that even if we agree with the principle that the measure is sold on. Often these kinds of measures come with trojan horses.
Honestly, I don’t really know what to do about Affirmative Action. Ideally, I would rather scholarship and enrollment opportunities were based on merit and income and that hiring were based entirely on ability. But the simple fact is that this is still a highly race conscious society and there is still discrimination in hiring.
Even in New York City – we have a friend there who is an awesome motion graphics artist and who also happens to be black, and he keeps getting rejected by all the animation houses there. None of these firms will give him a reason why they won’t hire him (they can’t just say his work’s no good because chances are he blows away anybody they have in-house), and he’s definitely not the only one – there’s actually a class action lawsuit in the works over this. And this is friggin’ New York we’re talking about!
I don’t know all the ins and outs and I definitely don’t know what the solution is, but I’m certainly skeptical of claims that tearing down Affirmative Action will actually result in more equality.
Man it was a good nite. Stayed up until 3:30 in the morning to see if there was going to be a favourable result in the couple of senate races that were left.
I particually loved the Rick Santorum defeat and the kids choking back the tears. Guess they didn’t pray hard enough now daddy’s gonna get the belt out. I hope that blew their little minds and they start questioning what they really believe in.
Ha HA HA HA aha ha.
Anadrol I love your attitude and I have just one thing to say to the republican religious right losers on their defeat to the progressive Democrats: Oh, snap bitch!
Rainbows4dinosaurs,
I know where you are coming from. The very tricky thing is it is hard to discover the reason behind someone not being hired. Unless the labour market is very tight there could be a multitude of reasons. Plus sometimes it is not conscious bigotry. I remember hearing about studies that have shown people often feel more of a connection with people who look, sound and think like they do (sorry I don?t have a citation). So you have several qualified candidates and it comes down to who you clicked best with at the interview you don?t even realise what lies behind the decision.
I don?t know the answer either.
I am not trying to claim that tearing down affirmative action will result in more equality just that I am skeptical that having affirmative action creates equality.
Good luck with your friend?s class action. I guess that is the way to combat discrimination ? fight it when you can, where ever you see it.
Are there Affirmative Action laws for hiring anywhere? Or is it just against the law to discriminate? Sounds like a job for Wikipedia!
Oh, government positions. Of course. Dummy.
well the reps got what they deserved. and if the dems get complacent they will get the same in a few years.
let’s hope that the dems can chip away at all the in roads religion made in government and legislation during the past 6 years. maybe gays won’t be second-class citizens in the eyes of the law by the end of shrub’s reign. maybe the government will fund more good science and less religious based initiatives.
and maybe the dems will find a way to get us the hell out of iraq and save face too. those are 4 wishes on my christmas list. [note: i consider christmas a commercial event with no religious connection, the only purpose of which is enjoyment of family and friends and keeping the economy cranking]
flanonblvr, you forgot BEER!!! Christmas is for drinking beer, man!!!
well as one who voted for 1man/1woman marriage i can see many of you gays just don’t get it.this was a vote against judges not gays.against judges who would let you marry a child your dog,sister or twenty women.you gays go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan we can conservatives can accept.
*sigh*
Head, meet brick wall.
Brick wall, meet head.
sigh…. reason….
marrying a child wasn’t at issue as children are not old enough to consent to marriage. Marrying an animal was not at issue as animals cannot participate in a legal agreement. Incest wasn’t an issue as we have legitimate health reasons for keeping relatives from marrying .
I can see the argument coming that we have legitimate health reasons for keeping homosexuals from getting married, but all evidence I have seen does not show that homosexual couples produce genetically compromised children, which leads to the marriage is about procreation, which I disagree with… it could be argued two brothers may want to get married, which according to my logic should be allowed… however, I don’t see this situation coming up much and is one of the few times I would have to put the parameter of no relatives getting married.
Multiple partners wasn’t at issue as what was at issue was what two consenting adults can agree to.
Your argument is that this is a slippery slope to legalize anything. The reality is that what is proposed is very narrow in scope and simply wants to extend the same rights to couples who are the same sex as heterosexual couples. I don’t see a slippery slope here. What I see is creating more freedom and more rights. I see is an opportunity to allow more stable couples to be legally recognized.
spanders i have to disagree if it was simply a matter of letting gays marry most people would not oppose.
all i and other conservatives are saying is present a plan that will restrict marriage to two consenting adults.saying there is no slippery slope is not a plan.karen you are a nice lady but when you imply we conservatives are stupid or our fears unfounded it only confirms our view that you trust judges too much.
reason
First you said,
then you said
Then you bring in the slippery slope argument, which I’m glad spanders addressed, cos I was still sputtering, and tell gays to come up with a plan you’ll accept.
Well, if you’re going to vote for a 1 man/ 1 woman marriage, you aren’t going to accept any plan drawn up by gays, or liberals. You are transparent.
I am not familiar with the proposed amendments’ wording. My understanding is that they were very misleading, and took careful thought to comprehend. Are you sure they were worded to allow for the slippery slope you imply? Do you have any examples?
the gay angle was played up by the media but these ballots measures are really directed at heterosexuals.i say that because gay marriage is already illegal.just look at the way judges let off heterosexual pedophiles.i’m telling you,you guys are placing way to much trust in the courts.
Damn, Screwed up the blockquotes AGAIN!!
I know. It’s those lavender leprechauns who mete out the blockquote quota. They must have argued with the faeries who live in the clover around my mailbox post and are taking it out on me. I’m going to catch them all and put them all on the short bus to Europa.
karen sorry to make you sputter i have alot of respect for you and spanders.i have a hard time though trusting our gov’t even if it is the best you can buy.
reason
I’m all too familiar with dealing with
the courts and judges, whom I have a general distrust for. They can’t keep their Christian biases out of the courtroom, especially here in the buybull belt.
I don’t see how anything you just said has anything to do with the rights of gays to marry.
reason,
You do understand that it’s pairs of consenting adults that are asking for the right to marry, don’t you? Do you also realize that it’s legislative bodies that draft the laws – not homosexual groups or judges?
It sounds like you are voting against something that is a figment of your imagination.
If you’re representitive of the people who voted to deny gay people marriage rights, then I don’t see things changing soon. There is a HUGE need for education on even defining the issue at hand.
well karen i think this is bigger than just gay marriage.i guess that is why it is so hard for us to find common ground your side doesn’t see a slippery slope and so wants to move fast on gay marriage.my side see’s a slope and wants to move slowly.
reason
But it’s not. The issue before us is simply extending marriage rights to same sex couples. In other words changing the existing wording of “one man, one woman” to “one man or woman, one man or woman”. You must decide on the issue at hand not what you think might follow in the future.
i guess this goes to your complaint about judges. They are also bound to rule on the case before them, not on a possible subsequent case that may never even come about.
HeatheNZ it was not my imagination that mass.court created a right to marriage that had never existed in the history of that state.you want the courts to impose gay marriage no problem i’m not against gay marriage but don’t come bitching when the courts let a 50 yr old marry a 13 yr old.
reason
How would you vote on an amendment that allowed any two consenting unrelated adult human beings to wed?
HeatheNZ i am suprised that someone of your intellect would take a bull in a china shop approach to law making.
reason
Where have you been?
That already happens under the existing law. Has nada to do with gay marriage slippery slopism.
karen i would vote in favor of such an amendment.
reason
Glad to hear it. So how far off that was the amendment you did have the opportunity to vote on? What differences were there?
i have to go now but would like to say i do respect the people on here.
karen i will make a conservative out
of you yet.talk to you guys later.
reason,
Thanks for the compliment, but I’m just a poor slob who reads a little too much at times.
I’m trying to understand where you are coming from and I think I might have something. Perhaps you were voting for something called the “protection of marriage amendment” and view that wording to mean that this protects marriage from any weird and wonderful changes that may be envisioned?
I’m not sure of the wording, but if it is even close to that then it’s just horribly drafted legislation.
reason
As I get older, I become more conservative about fiscal issues, but I will go to my ash pot being liberal about human rights issues. Except for the death penalty. I’m kinda quirky there. ☺
Talk to ya later.
The Cathlolics and Christians are nothing more then the Roman Empire in disguise and all the Pope is another power hungry Sauron that wants the whole world to fall under the Roman Empire’s laws and rule so as the Pope can sit back in luxury while those under them stoke the fires to warm their bath water.
Oh..so good to find you..during this holiday season! Help! I live in the bowels of the Bible belt. I work with born agains, who have sculptures of fetus’ on their desks.
I am considered a radical here….I got them to stop sending out Jesus emails and to stop having fetus’ sculptures on their desks. Now, I am a piranha. I am from New York…how I got here, is a blur. Fell for some guy who said he would support me..to find out, he didn’t have a penny to his name. So here I am. I am in 12 programs…where higher power is the norm. Plus down here…they say the lord’s prayer at the end of the meetings…there is nothing I can do…I have raised my objection..but these people need to believe in something..so I just join in…I get to think of certain words in the prayer…that I take to heart. So that gets me through it. Help! Need to hear from others. I also have said that I am Jewish to get these born agains off my back. My father was Jewish..but I was not raised Jewish..he hated his religion, because of the discrimination he experienced in the posh private clubs of NYC. Whoosh…that is all for now. For freedom of expression. I can tell you this much…I am a democrat down here, with bumper stickers for Howard Dean..if I come out as an atheist..I can guarantee that my house will be blown up and/or I will lose my job. Anyone out there who lives in the South? And can give me some advice?
Thanks,
Ellen
Oh..so good to find you..during this holiday season! Help! I live in the bowels of the Bible belt. I work with born agains, who have sculptures of fetus’ on their desks.
I am considered a radical here….I got them to stop sending out Jesus emails and to stop having fetus’ sculptures on their desks. Now, I am a piranha. I am from New York…how I got here, is a blur. Fell for some guy who said he would support me..to find out, he didn’t have a penny to his name. So here I am. I am in 12 programs…where higher power is the norm. Plus down here…they say the lord’s prayer at the end of the meetings…there is nothing I can do…I have raised my objection..but these people need to believe in something..so I just join in…I get to think of certain words in the prayer…that I take to heart. So that gets me through it. Help! Need to hear from others. I also have said that I am Jewish to get these born agains off my back. My father was Jewish..but I was not raised Jewish..he hated his religion, because of the discrimination he experienced in the posh private clubs of NYC. Whoosh…that is all for now. For freedom of expression. I can tell you this much…I am a democrat down here, with bumper stickers for Howard Dean..if I come out as an atheist..I can guarantee that my house will be blown up and/or I will lose my job. Anyone out there who lives in the South? And can give me some advice?
Thanks,
Ellen