Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws

Subject: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:32 AM

Same-sex couples line up as D.C. gay marriage law takes effect

Gay marriage dawns in D.C.

Couples lined up beginning at 6 a.m. at the D.C. district courthouse, vying to be among the first same-sex couples in Washington, D.C., to apply for marriage licenses. About 10 couples waiting in the freezing temperatures and rain for the doors to open at 7 a.m.
...D.C. Superior Court began accepting marriage license applications from same-sex couples Wednesday morning, a historic milestone for gay couples and activists that was made possible by the city's new gay marriage law.
      

About 45 couples with their coffee, newspapers and blackberries -- many dressed in blazers and slacks as they planned to go to work after filing an application -- were waiting in line when the court's marriage bureau opened its doors at 8:30 a.m. Employees allowed 10 couples to enter at a time, and had extra personnel on hand to accept the applications.

There were congratulatory hugs, commemorative pens and cupcakes to mark the moment. But it was also a somewhat subdued scene of quiet anticipation as the nation's capital joined five states that allow same-sex marriage.

"I didn't want to get married anywhere else. This is my city standing up for marriage equality," said Rocky Galloway of the District's Chevy Chase neighborhood, who was second in line with his partner of six years, Reggie Stanley.

There were couples from Maryland and Virginia, some who brought their children for the event.

"It means she gets a whole family, so she doesn't feel different from everybody else," said Karinne Providence of Severn, who was joined by her partner Shanic Davidson and the couple's 3-year-old daughter, Pahris Davidson. ...(Washington Post)

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: IanC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:50 AM

BS (unless you've got a song about it)

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:57 AM

and they wonder about my tangentally related but still related posts...
Actually I am more in favor of "Some Sex" marriages wherein some sex was required. I think that should be solved before we get into same sex.

Should two people play on the same "Sax" I guess it depends on how you "reed" it.

Conrad

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Artful Codger
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:29 PM

Don't quit your day job.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:07 PM

"Early Wednesday morning, State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Calif.) was pulled over and arrested for drunk driving. Sources report that Ashburn -- a fierce opponent of gay rights -- was driving drunk after leaving a gay nightclub; when the officer stopped the state-issued vehicle, there was an unidentified man in the passenger seat of the car.

Ashburn has issued an apology for the incident:

    "I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me - my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate."

---

Wonder how that stranger got into his car. Maybe he was going to take him home and reform him?


A

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Smedley
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:09 PM

They were probably heading home to log on & read GuestFromSanity's collected posts......

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 02:33 PM

Also yesterday:

Mexico City enters gay marriage fray

Capital takes lead in Latin America despite outcry from church, president

By Anne-Marie O'Connor
The Washington Post
updated 1:18 a.m. CT, Wed., March. 3, 2010

MEXICO CITY - The Mexican wedding may never be the same.
On Thursday, this sprawling megalopolis will catapult to the front lines of gay rights in Latin America when a city law legalizing same-sex marriage and adoption goes into effect. ...

John

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: bubblyrat
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:10 PM

Same-sex civil partnerships,in these enlightened times,OK,I suppose (reluctantly) but MARRIAGE ?? It is utterly disgusting----no wonder the Muslim nations HATE us !! Support this travesty of God's Law and Nature at your peril !!

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:33 PM

Same-sex civil partnerships,in these enlightened times,OK,I suppose (reluctantly) but MARRIAGE ?? It is utterly disgusting----no wonder the Muslim nations HATE us !! Support this travesty of God's Law and Nature at your peril !!

Why would you consider marriage so much worse? What do you think will happen in a marriage that would not happen in a civil partnership?

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM

Jeeze, BR, what exactly are you afraid of seeing?


A

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 02:10 PM

I'd hope BR's post was meant to be humorous, but it doesn't read that way.

Nature has many entities which indulge in same-sex behavior at various times.....'God' has nothing to do with any of it.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:44 PM

Anybody care to do a bit of research as to just when "marriage" became the norm. How about you Bubblyrat?

A long time after the birth of Christianity would be my bet.

God's Law indeed! And who went and spoke to him to get that piece of information?

A huge proportion of legitimate marriages don't involve any religious input at all...can you say "Registry Office"?

But, there will always be those, completely unharmed by the change, who want to control how others are allowed to live.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself, unless he's doing, or saying, or being, something you don't like"!!

I don't recall any gospel quoting that as Jesus' message..........DO YOU?

Don T.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Monique
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 05:21 PM

Wiki article about marriage. The word itself is based on Latin "mas/maris" meaning "male" -the word replaced the word "vir" (man) when meaning "spouse"- and women were "given in marriage" meaning their father would give them to a man (though probably "sell" would be more accurate since it was an actual transaction).

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 05:58 PM

Same-sex civil partnerships,in these enlightened times,OK,I suppose (reluctantly) but MARRIAGE ?? It is utterly disgusting

What BR means is that he wants the government to uphold his religious sacraments and to exclude those of all others.

Since the government is prohibited from advancing or interfering with sacraments of any religion, a license can only be required or issued for a civil union, which coincidentally is also called a "marriage."

Of course, if one were to be so truly concerned about it, the objection should be to the requirement for a license from the government to enter into a sacred rite; but "true believers" gave up on that one several decades ago by recognizing the difference between what was sacred and what the marriage license is for.

John

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:11 PM

Why so few?

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: skipy
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:28 PM

I'm with bubblyrat ALL the way on this one!

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:49 PM

SACRAMENTO, Calif. Ñ Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn said Monday he is gay, ending days of speculation that began after his arrest last week for investigation of driving under the influence.
Ashburn, who consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in the state Legislature, came out in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield, the area he represents.
Ashburn said he felt compelled to address rumors that he had visited a gay nightclub near the Capitol before his DUI arrest.
"I am gay ... those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long," Ashburn told conservative talk show host Inga Barks.
The 55-year-old father of four said he had tried to keep his personal life separate from his professional life until his March 3 arrest.
"When I crossed the line and broke the law and put people at risk, that's different, and I do owe people an explanation," he said.
Ashburn was arrested after he was spotted driving erratically near the Capitol, according to the California Highway Patrol. Shelly Orio, a spokeswoman from the Sacramento County district attorney's office, said a breath test showed the senator's blood-alcohol level was .14 percent, or .06 points above the legal limit.
The next day, reports surfaced that Ashburn had left Faces, a gay nightclub, with an unidentified man in the passenger seat of his Senate-owned vehicle.
"The best way to handle that is to be truthful and to say to my constituents and all who care that I am gay," he said. "But I don't think it's something that has affected, nor will it affect, how I do my job."

Ashburn had been on personal leave since his arrest, but attended Monday's brief Senate session, where he avoided the media. Fellow lawmakers greeted him warmly, and he received pats on the back and hugs from some Republicans and Democrats.

Ashburn has voted against a number of gay rights measures, including efforts to expand anti-discrimination laws and recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Last year, he opposed a bill to establish a day of recognition to honor slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk.
Equality California, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights and other issues, has consistently given Ashburn a zero rating on its scorecard.

The group's executive director, Geoff Kors, said Monday that he hopes the senator's revelation will lead him to change his voting patterns.

"He's still the same person, only living more honestly," Kors said. "I hope his own self-awareness will result in him no longer voting to deny people the most basic rights."

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Smedley
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 05:47 AM

What a sad & self-hating life he has been living.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 07:14 AM

Pushing same-sex marriage in the US is still a disaster politically, no matter how many Mudcatters stand up and say it's a basic human right. Such Mudcatters may be in the majority--here.   Not on the outside, And it's the surest way to strengthen Sarah and her true believers.

I hope we've learned something from 2004.   Sometimes it seems doubtful.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 10:58 AM

From: skipy
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:28 PM

I'm with bubblyrat ALL the way on this one!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you two have fun together.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 11:50 AM

I feel sorry for the many good honest people living in the USA.

I really do.

Same sex marriage. What the "hell" has religion got to do with it????

It is sad that in underdeveloped backward countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, USA, Uganda etc., every bit of social policy has to be considered against a superstitious angle, ie religion.

Has it not occured to anybody that unless a gay dude is religious, there is no point in showing how ignorant and medievel you are by rattling on about God's law, as for the people getting married, it has nothing to do with them. there is no God, unless he is your imaginary friend. if he is, then please keep in in your head until safely in your communal outpouring of imaginary friends, or church as you call it.

Amazing how superstitious people can offend rational people all day but don't like it back.

Weirdos...

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:21 PM

Pushing same-sex marriage in the US is still a disaster politically, no matter how many Mudcatters stand up and say it's a basic human right. Such Mudcatters may be in the majority--here.   Not on the outside, And it's the surest way to strengthen Sarah and her true believers.

Here in Iowa (where it is now legal) the republicans have been pushing for any kind of debate in the legislature on any bill that could possibly contain language related to the issue. The dems (who control both branches) have side-stepped this. I am of the opinion that the repubs are pushing for it so they will have quotes and voting records to throw at the dems in November. The dems aren't giving them this opportunity.

This may not matter as much as some think. Recently there was a poll in which 62 percent of respondents said gay marriage does not deserve the legislature's time, while only 36 percent said it does. In addition, in an earlier poll, 92 percent of respondents said marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples had led to "no real change" in their own lives.

Iowa has a lengthy process for amending the constitution. Assuming the state legislature does not pass a marriage amendment this year, the soonest a same-sex marriage ban could appear on a statewide ballot would be 2014 (only if the legislature elected in 2010 passed an amendment in either 2011 or 2012, and the legislature elected in 2012 passed an amendment in 2013 or 2014). By then it may not matter any more.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM

BTW Ron, in my previous post I did not mean to make it sound like I thought you were wrong. I think you are mostly correct but events here do not seem to be following that pattern.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:12 PM

On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's quite informative. For your amusement and amazement:

Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:17 PM

That piece is still as piercing and funny as it was when I first read it.

Sanctimony is the real abomination.


A

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:29 PM

"There were yellow roses, champagne toasts and tiered white-frosted cakes to celebrate the District's first same-sex marriages Tuesday morning.

In a joint ceremony at the downtown headquarters of the Human Rights Campaign, three of the first gay couples to marry under the city's new law said their vows and exchanged rings in services that underscored the historic significance of the day.

"Today the love that you have recognized all along is recognized by the District of Columbia," the Rev. Dwayne Johnson of the Metropolitan Community Church of Washington said as he declared Darlene Garner and Candy Holmes of Laurel "legally married."

With the issuing of the first marriage licenses to same-sex couples Tuesday, the District follows five states -- from Iowa to Massachusetts -- in allowing gay couples to marry. Same-sex couples were first able to apply for licenses in the District last Wednesday but, like all couples, had to follow the city's three-day waiting period before getting hitched. ..."

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: bubblyrat
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:09 PM

But they'll still split up,get "divorced",be unfaithful,like everyone else, so what's the point ?? And,think of the effect on the CHILDREN that they are allowed to adopt. OK,so two ladies might not pose that big a threat (although they could),but what about two Gay guys being allowed to adopt ,say, three young boys ?? Are you telling me that those young lads are going to be safe from harm ?? NO WAY !!! It's a licence to abuse !

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Paul Burke
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:11 PM

Parade your prejudices. There's no evidence that gay people are any more or less likely to be child abusers or rapists than any other section of the community.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:19 PM

But they'll still split up,get "divorced",be unfaithful,like everyone else, so what's the point ??

Why should anyone get married then? Are you opposed to the entire institution of marriage?

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:18 AM

I wish I was gay so I could upset some of these people just by existing!

Ok, I don't wish I was gay, it may make my eyes water.

Some great posts by the way, far more eloquent than my ranting.

I really have problems with people passing judgement on a lifestyle they don't comprehend. I don't understand it either. That is to say I don't understnad the attraction. However, I for one accept that many people do prefer a love match with someone of the same sex, live & let live.

To dig up a 2,000 year old script and use it as a moral guide is no different (and less current) than picking up a copy of Gay Times and using that as a guide to form an opinion. Except Gay Times is not disgusting, unlike the bible, as the quotes above show.

If I had to choose between getting laid by a bloke or selling my daughter into slavery, pass me the vaseline....

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 05:31 AM

I notice no comment to my link concerning the low takeup rates for homosexual marriage.

A reasonable study has been conducted in Scandinavia Showing very low takeup rates and even among those rates many "marriages" have been constructed to facilitate immigration of foreign nationals.

The driving force for marriage in many cases appears to be to get access to state benefits

Homosexuals it appears, often wish to practice a form of "open marriage" which contradicts the traditional definition of monogamy and family values.

This issue is not quite as simple as many here would like to believe.
It is NOT simply an "equality" issue.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Smedley
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 06:30 AM

Ake, does that old hobby horse of yours ever get a rest ?

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:29 AM

Don't underestimate Sarah and her rabble-rousing ability.   If "gay marriage does not deserve the legislature's time" (I assume that's the exact wording of the poll), that sure doesn't sound like an endorsement of it.

It's certainly reasonable that marriage rights for same-sex couples have led to no real change in the respondent's life--because in general people haven't thought about the issue. Sarah will do her best to change this.    Huckaby had pretty good luck with the topic, among others.

Also remember "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Above all remember Sarah's target audience.   I'm sure we'll all get lots of opportunity to hear her press their buttons.

Whatever it takes to avoid 2004, it's worth it--and it's not worth taking a chance.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:51 AM

Obviously Huckaby was in 2008, not 2004.   But it seems evident that "family values" played a large role in the Iowa Republican caucus both in 2004 and 2008.   What reason is there to think 2012 will be different?

Sarah already will be riding the abortion and gun rights issues for all she's worth--and harnessing all the anti-Washington sentiment she can find.   If the economy has not bounced way back--and people must feel personally that it has--why give her another issue?

And Iowa does matter-- a lot.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:48 AM

And Iowa does matter-- a lot.

Iowa mostly matters in the presidential race by weeding out the pretenders. Any state that went first would have this effect but Iowa is different in some ways than others would be. We do take it seriously (not that others don't) and a candidate needs to show up and have a lot of face time to do well. Just a name won't win much support. Also, as a caucus state, the organized core of a party has a lot of clout. The type of people who support Palin or supported Huckabee can get a bigger percentage of the folks at the caucus sites than they could to the polls. It will be very interesting (and a possibly little sickening) to see how it all plays out.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:00 AM

OK, Ake, I'll bite.

I notice no comment to my link concerning the low takeup rates for homosexual marriage.

First, so what? Even if only one couple (or none for that matter) took the plunge allowing it is the right thing to do. As it happens I personally know more than one couple who has taken advantage of the option to marry. I am very happy for them.

even among those rates many "marriages" have been constructed to facilitate immigration of foreign nationals.

Not good but hetero couples have been doing this for years and you know it. Again, I have been personally aquainted with some of them. I don't like the idea but there it is.

I don't intend to get into with you Ake as I know there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. Just didn't want you to feel left out.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:41 PM

Ake, the only conclusion I can come to after reading your above post is that you don't know diddly-squat about homosexuals and same-sex marriage. You're speaking from your own prejudices, not any actual knowledge.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:50 PM

So the sky hasn't fallen in Iowa since same-sex marriage was legalized.   Not exactly surprising.

But anybody who takes that as proof it can fly anywhere is making a serious strategic error.   As Sarah will show them.

Also, note the people in Iowa saying same sex-marriage is fine and shows Iowa tolerance. How many do you think will be Republican caucus voters?    Tolerance is not what caucuses and primaries are about. I say yet again: they are about passion--and on the Republican side that means Sarah.

And KB, I know Iowans are famous for modesty--though not just for that--:"Oh, there's nothing halfway about the Iowa way to treat you...." (How much of that song is true, by the way?). At any rate, you're selling yourself short to say Iowa just weeds out impossible dreams.

It's a lot more--especially these days.   "Big Mo" exists. In fact it seems to be magnified by the Net.

Consider on the Democratic side what Iowa did for Obama. Even a loss in New Hampshire did not derail him.

Iowa could do the same for Sarah. Especially with primaries in conservative states soon after.

Sooner or later Mudcatters will have to stop underestimating Sarah. And as I say, pushing same-sex marriage --anywhere in the US --- does nothing but strengthen her and her foaming supporters.

She will be looking for one incident like one in this area--where a male teacher had (undetermined, but he admitted it) sexual relations with a male student. It was considered news enough to be in the local paper. And she will trumpet this to the skies--and say this is what we are sanctioning with same-sex marriage.   And her audience will buy it. Logic plays no role.

If there ever was a window open for same-sex marriage in the US in this election cycle, that window is now closed.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:24 PM

Ron:

With all respect, I have to demur. While it may not be savvy to press it as the senior issue--and god knows there are more important ones about which the Palin camp is even dumber--it is not something to retreat into silence about, either.

As for underestimating Sarah, that's not the problem. It's OVER estimating the populaton at large. That's what reduced all to a silly state of shock when Bush wrangled the SCOTUS to hand him the laurels in 2000 and when he walked in again in '04. It was incredible that fifty per cent of the country would throw their votes into the pit that way.

A

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:50 PM

Amos, your own post says it. 50%.   They are still there.

Obviously same-sex marriage will not be the #1 issue. That will very likely be the economy. But if the economy has not bounced back very strongly from 9.8% unemployment--and more importantly, people don't feel their personal situation has improved--they will be looking for reasons to "throw the bums out".   Sarah could easily ride that into the White House.

In fact I'd say the recent decision to allow same-sex marriage in DC will give dear Sarah yet another club to beat Washington with.

We'll hear more about "real Americans" and with the DC angle and DC population, there will also be subtle-- or not so subtle-- racism.

And as I've noted earlier, in 2012 if Sarah is the Republican nominee, it will be charisma vs competence.   The President, like all sitting presidents, will be of necessity the candidate of competence.   In contests between competence and charisma who usually wins?

Sometimes I feel like Jeremiah warning people about Sarah.

Don't play into her hands.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:04 PM

Well, thanks for the warning. She is more of an airhead even than W was, but at the same time she has energy and color on her side. She--or at least she as catalyst--is definitely a nasty political accident waiting to happen.


A

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:21 PM

I would think what the Democrats should be doing--as soon as they've made the current down payment on health care reform and made another assault on unemployment, is trying to cement the burgeoning Hispanic population in their column--by passing a law leading to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Believe it or not, this is yet another reason to shy away from same-sex marriage, since many Hispanics are rather conservative on social issues.   It is possible that this very element made the difference in 2004.   A few more points of Hispanic vote in a few states would have put Kerry over the top. But Bush made a conscious push for patriotic, socially conservative Hispanics. And it worked.



So the Democrats may lose Rig's vote. They may never have had it in the first place.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Lox
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 05:36 AM

"I notice no comment to my link concerning the low takeup rates for homosexual marriage."

So in scandanavia there aren't that many Gay marriages, even though it is allowed.

Er ... ok ...

How does this help us to work out whether it should be allowed or not in other countries?

Is FW saying it shouldn't be allowed because not enough Gays in scandanavia seem to want it?

Who knows and who cares.


Lets have a look at what this information actually tells us.

Has Gay marriage changed scandanavia in any significant way?

No - not even for many Gays.


Well thanks for that FW.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 11:11 AM

I love 'The Music Man' Ron. Given that it was written over 50 years ago, and set some 40 years before that, there is still a lot of truth in it. Meredith Willson may have moved away from Iowa for his career but he never left.

As for Palin and her ilk and the caucuses, whew. There is a lot to consider. The social conservative base can rally folks like no other as Huckabee showed. That didn't translate into any real weight elsewhere though. He did better later than he would have but he still didn't last that long as a serious contender. He was starting from zero though and Palin would not be.

Palin is hard to get a handle on. I am not even convinced she will run. I don't think she really wants to govern. She wants to have power but you don't need to be president to have that. If fact she already has quite a bit. She would also have to take a cut in pay. She has very little knowledge about a great many things and wears this as a badge of honor. Her fans seem to love it. How that will translate to the more mainstream Republicans has yet to be seen. If she shows herself informed enough to gain a more broad appeal she may lose some of her more rabid supporters. I don't know how that would play out.

I don't think the same-sex marriage issue will have much traction here in 2012 no matter who does or does not run. It will have been legal for over two years by then. The folks who would rally to a Palin or Huckabee will do so anyway. I expect it will be mentioned but won't materially change things. In other places it could very well bring out enough folks to alter outcomes.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 03:25 AM

Thanks KB   :0)

At least you did address(in a perfunctory manner), one of the issues
There are many in the article.

You have a kind heart, it must have taken quite an effort   :0)

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 07:40 AM

KB, I wish I were as sanguine as you on Palin.   I would dearly like to be wrong.   But though I see Palin as a huge threat to virtually everything any sensible person would want, I believe that she seems to strike a chord with many people discontented with the US now.

First and foremost is the economy.   As I've said, if there is not a drastic improvement between now and 2012--and I've read the actual unemployment is about 17%--when you factor in people who have stopped looking for work--the President will be vulnerable to any Republican opponent.

You believe she doesn't want the presidency.   She is already a multimillionaire thanks to her book and speaking tours.   I think she has a lot more ambition than many people give her credit for.

Since money now is no object, what would be the focus of her ambition? If you don't think being the first female President of the US is an attraction for her, I think you misjudge her.

And as I've also said before, she is now unquestionably in the catbird seat for the Republican primaries.   I'm sure you know more about the political situation in Iowa for same-sex marriage.   But it appears to be still a live topic.   Do you think the Democrats will maintain their majority in state government?

In the Iowa caucus I would think she only would need to mention "family values" and her audience will know what she is talking about--no doubt she will also hit abortion and the gun issue hard.   And as we all agree, in caucuses even more than primaries, passion rules. Who would bring more passionate supporters to the Iowa caucus?

Finally, consider all the people who identify with her personally--including no doubt lots of non-liberal women.   Some already say:   "I have Sarah Palin values."   How many times have you heard of anybody saying, for instance: "I have Mitt Romney values."?

Same-sex marriage is a topic which calls forth visceral reactions--as we've seen even on this thread.   With Sarah in such a strong position already, why chance a situation similar to 2004?

One of the ironies of the situation is that opponents can easily just take the tack that it is just not a burning concern compared to virtually any other issue in the US. So if people outside states which already allow it try to bring it to the fore, the opponents will use this argument--and it will resonate.

The topic should just be dropped.

Subject: RE: Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Laws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 07:53 AM

Obviously I'm not suggesting that it will likely be overturned in Iowa anytime soon.   I'm sure you're right that it's a done deal there--and most people have moved on.   But success there should not be taken as a model for the rest of the country--it's too easy to imagine a 2004-like situation.