Religions > Atheism > Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part of Republican Platform?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MarkA" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2004 06:39:10 AM |
| Object: |
Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part of Republican Platform? |
I saw a news item in my local paper to the effect that the Republicans
want to make the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage part of the
official party platform. Apparently they didn't learn from their narrow
defeat in 2000 that taking the party in the direction of religious
extremism is going to alienate many of their core voters (like me).
I think that Kerry is way more electable than Gore was, and GW has been
working hard to alienate all but the most fervent nationalists and Xtian
fundies. I really really really hope that it is enough to cause the
backlash that will start sweeping the Xtian taliban out of office this
November.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part of Republican Platform? |
27 Aug 2004 09:15:42 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.27.11.37.27.119653@stopspam.net...
I saw a news item in my local paper to the effect that the Republicans
want to make the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage part of the
official party platform. Apparently they didn't learn from their narrow
defeat in 2000 that taking the party in the direction of religious
extremism is going to alienate many of their core voters (like me).
I think that Kerry is way more electable than Gore was, and GW has been
working hard to alienate all but the most fervent nationalists and Xtian
fundies. I really really really hope that it is enough to cause the
backlash that will start sweeping the Xtian taliban out of office this
November.
It would be nice if moderate Republicans could get control of the party.
Maybe it was just because I was a kid who didn't know better, but until
Reagan came to power, I thought that having the Democrats and Republicans
made for some balance in US politics. Nowadays I don't much like the
Democratic Party, but I like the Republican Party even less.
Neither party has anything to say about ending the drug war, neither party
cares much for the Constitution, both parties want to spend more money and
give more power to the Federal government, both sides voted to go into Iraq,
both sides voted for the PATRIOT Act. But the Democrats at least claim to
care about the environment and the do act on that claim from time to time,
and there aren't any xtian taliban in the Democratic Party as far as I can
tell, and I find it highly unlikely that John Kerry could do as poorly in
foreign relations as George Bush, so I think the balance has to go to the
Democrats.
I think George Bush should never be forgiven for squandering the huge
political windfall that came as a result of the attacks on 9/11. That should
be his enduring legacy, that he had such tremendous opportunity, and spent
it all and more in return for less than nothing in just a few short years. I
will always remember his father as being the one who wanted to take a wait
and see attitude about the fall of the Soviet Bloc in 1989, and I will
always remember Bush (43) as the President who took time to read a
kindergarten book and then went to a photo op while three thousand Americans
were losing their lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part ofRepublican Platform? |
27 Aug 2004 02:53:50 PM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.27.11.37.27.119653@stopspam.net...
I saw a news item in my local paper to the effect that the Republicans
want to make the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage part of the
official party platform. Apparently they didn't learn from their narrow
defeat in 2000 that taking the party in the direction of religious
extremism is going to alienate many of their core voters (like me).
I think that Kerry is way more electable than Gore was, and GW has been
working hard to alienate all but the most fervent nationalists and Xtian
fundies. I really really really hope that it is enough to cause the
backlash that will start sweeping the Xtian taliban out of office this
November.
It would be nice if moderate Republicans could get control of the party.
Maybe it was just because I was a kid who didn't know better, but until
Reagan came to power, I thought that having the Democrats and Republicans
made for some balance in US politics. Nowadays I don't much like the
Democratic Party, but I like the Republican Party even less.
Personally, I think the moderate Republicans should do what the moderate Whigs
did 150 years ago: break off and form a new party. Curiously enough, that new
party was the Republicans.
/me looks hopefully at John McCain.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part of Republican Platform? |
27 Aug 2004 07:59:03 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:412F914E.618AD7E5@serv.net...
Dale wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.27.11.37.27.119653@stopspam.net...
I saw a news item in my local paper to the effect that the Republicans
want to make the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage part of
the
official party platform. Apparently they didn't learn from their
narrow
defeat in 2000 that taking the party in the direction of religious
extremism is going to alienate many of their core voters (like me).
I think that Kerry is way more electable than Gore was, and GW has
been
working hard to alienate all but the most fervent nationalists and
Xtian
fundies. I really really really hope that it is enough to cause the
backlash that will start sweeping the Xtian taliban out of office this
November.
It would be nice if moderate Republicans could get control of the party.
Maybe it was just because I was a kid who didn't know better, but until
Reagan came to power, I thought that having the Democrats and
Republicans
made for some balance in US politics. Nowadays I don't much like the
Democratic Party, but I like the Republican Party even less.
Personally, I think the moderate Republicans should do what the moderate
Whigs
did 150 years ago: break off and form a new party. Curiously enough, that
new
party was the Republicans.
They could call themselves the Whags. Not that funny? Oh, well.
They could call themselves the New Whigs? Can you imagine, if
Bush does manage to steal this election, too, what would happen
if over half the Party did desert to form their own Party. The new
Party would probably join with the Democrats to defeat any dumb
bill the Repugs tried to pass. It would eventually lead to the end of the
Repugs altogether. I'll bet this idea would have the Repugs running
scared in no time at all and lead to some 'mysterious' assassinations'.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible thumper thumper
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we." George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part of Republican Platform? |
29 Aug 2004 02:40:48 AM |
|
|
In article <HuWdncCmo95ORbLcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:412F914E.618AD7E5@serv.net...
Dale wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.27.11.37.27.119653@stopspam.net...
I saw a news item in my local paper to the effect that the Republicans
want to make the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage part of
the
official party platform. Apparently they didn't learn from their
narrow
defeat in 2000 that taking the party in the direction of religious
extremism is going to alienate many of their core voters (like me).
I think that Kerry is way more electable than Gore was, and GW has
been
working hard to alienate all but the most fervent nationalists and
Xtian
fundies. I really really really hope that it is enough to cause the
backlash that will start sweeping the Xtian taliban out of office this
November.
It would be nice if moderate Republicans could get control of the party.
Maybe it was just because I was a kid who didn't know better, but until
Reagan came to power, I thought that having the Democrats and
Republicans
made for some balance in US politics. Nowadays I don't much like the
Democratic Party, but I like the Republican Party even less.
Personally, I think the moderate Republicans should do what the moderate
Whigs
did 150 years ago: break off and form a new party. Curiously enough, that
new
party was the Republicans.
They could call themselves the Whags. Not that funny?
If the party split again, would the new group be called the Whig-Whags?
Oh, well.
They could call themselves the New Whigs? Can you imagine, if
Bush does manage to steal this election, too, what would happen
if over half the Party did desert to form their own Party. The new
Party would probably join with the Democrats to defeat any dumb
bill the Repugs tried to pass. It would eventually lead to the end of the
Repugs altogether. I'll bet this idea would have the Repugs running
scared in no time at all and lead to some 'mysterious' assassinations'.
Some of the old line conservative Republicans who are tired of W's
deficit spending, big government, and foreign interventionism may
think of splitting then also. Maybe they could call themselves the
Paleocons (to distinguish themselves from the neocons).
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
-The ability to change one's mind, ideas, and opinions when confronted with
new facts is the sign of the rational and intelligent. The inability to do
so is the hallmark of the dimwitted and the fanatic. This applies not only
to science and philosophy, but also to politics.-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part of Republican Platform? |
29 Aug 2004 03:23:46 PM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-1DB6D7.00404829082004@news.giganews.com...
In article <HuWdncCmo95ORbLcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:412F914E.618AD7E5@serv.net...
Dale wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.27.11.37.27.119653@stopspam.net...
I saw a news item in my local paper to the effect that the
Republicans
want to make the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage part
of
the
official party platform. Apparently they didn't learn from their
narrow
defeat in 2000 that taking the party in the direction of religious
extremism is going to alienate many of their core voters (like
me).
I think that Kerry is way more electable than Gore was, and GW has
been
working hard to alienate all but the most fervent nationalists and
Xtian
fundies. I really really really hope that it is enough to cause
the
backlash that will start sweeping the Xtian taliban out of office
this
November.
It would be nice if moderate Republicans could get control of the
party.
Maybe it was just because I was a kid who didn't know better, but
until
Reagan came to power, I thought that having the Democrats and
Republicans
made for some balance in US politics. Nowadays I don't much like the
Democratic Party, but I like the Republican Party even less.
Personally, I think the moderate Republicans should do what the
moderate
Whigs
did 150 years ago: break off and form a new party. Curiously enough,
that
new
party was the Republicans.
They could call themselves the Whags. Not that funny?
If the party split again, would the new group be called the Whig-Whags?
Makes sense to me. ;-)
Oh, well.
They could call themselves the New Whigs? Can you imagine, if
Bush does manage to steal this election, too, what would happen
if over half the Party did desert to form their own Party. The new
Party would probably join with the Democrats to defeat any dumb
bill the Repugs tried to pass. It would eventually lead to the end of
the
Repugs altogether. I'll bet this idea would have the Repugs running
scared in no time at all and lead to some 'mysterious' assassinations'.
Some of the old line conservative Republicans who are tired of W's
deficit spending, big government, and foreign interventionism may
think of splitting then also. Maybe they could call themselves the
Paleocons (to distinguish themselves from the neocons).
Wow! Three different Republican Parties. Then, Bush's faction could
call itself by its true name - The American Nazi Party.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
-The ability to change one's mind, ideas, and opinions when confronted
with
new facts is the sign of the rational and intelligent. The inability to do
so is the hallmark of the dimwitted and the fanatic. This applies not only
to science and philosophy, but also to politics.-
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part of Republican Platform? |
29 Aug 2004 11:16:12 PM |
|
|
In article <qKmdnS3lK53Xpq_cRVn-hg@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-1DB6D7.00404829082004@news.giganews.com...
In article <HuWdncCmo95ORbLcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:412F914E.618AD7E5@serv.net...
Dale wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.27.11.37.27.119653@stopspam.net...
I saw a news item in my local paper to the effect that the
Republicans
want to make the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage part
of
the
official party platform. Apparently they didn't learn from their
narrow
defeat in 2000 that taking the party in the direction of religious
extremism is going to alienate many of their core voters (like
me).
I think that Kerry is way more electable than Gore was, and GW has
been
working hard to alienate all but the most fervent nationalists and
Xtian
fundies. I really really really hope that it is enough to cause
the
backlash that will start sweeping the Xtian taliban out of office
this
November.
It would be nice if moderate Republicans could get control of the
party.
Maybe it was just because I was a kid who didn't know better, but
until
Reagan came to power, I thought that having the Democrats and
Republicans
made for some balance in US politics. Nowadays I don't much like the
Democratic Party, but I like the Republican Party even less.
Personally, I think the moderate Republicans should do what the
moderate
Whigs
did 150 years ago: break off and form a new party. Curiously enough,
that
new
party was the Republicans.
They could call themselves the Whags. Not that funny?
If the party split again, would the new group be called the Whig-Whags?
Makes sense to me. ;-)
Oh, well.
They could call themselves the New Whigs? Can you imagine, if
Bush does manage to steal this election, too, what would happen
if over half the Party did desert to form their own Party. The new
Party would probably join with the Democrats to defeat any dumb
bill the Repugs tried to pass. It would eventually lead to the end of
the
Repugs altogether. I'll bet this idea would have the Repugs running
scared in no time at all and lead to some 'mysterious' assassinations'.
Some of the old line conservative Republicans who are tired of W's
deficit spending, big government, and foreign interventionism may
think of splitting then also. Maybe they could call themselves the
Paleocons (to distinguish themselves from the neocons).
Wow! Three different Republican Parties. Then, Bush's faction could
call itself by its true name - The American Nazi Party.
I thought that there already was one, but I'm sure that they would
happy to welcome Bush and his camp followers.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
-The ability to change one's mind, ideas, and opinions when confronted with
new facts is the sign of the rational and intelligent. The inability to do
so is the hallmark of the dimwitted and the fanatic. This applies not only
to science and philosophy, but also to politics.-
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part of Republican Platform? |
27 Aug 2004 04:08:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:53:50 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
Dale wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.27.11.37.27.119653@stopspam.net...
I saw a news item in my local paper to the effect that the Republicans
want to make the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage part of the
official party platform. Apparently they didn't learn from their narrow
defeat in 2000 that taking the party in the direction of religious
extremism is going to alienate many of their core voters (like me).
I think that Kerry is way more electable than Gore was, and GW has been
working hard to alienate all but the most fervent nationalists and Xtian
fundies. I really really really hope that it is enough to cause the
backlash that will start sweeping the Xtian taliban out of office this
November.
It would be nice if moderate Republicans could get control of the party.
Maybe it was just because I was a kid who didn't know better, but until
Reagan came to power, I thought that having the Democrats and Republicans
made for some balance in US politics. Nowadays I don't much like the
Democratic Party, but I like the Republican Party even less.
Personally, I think the moderate Republicans should do what the moderate Whigs
did 150 years ago: break off and form a new party. Curiously enough, that new
party was the Republicans.
/me looks hopefully at John McCain.
Talk about 'moderate' Republicans is a symptom of having not noticed that it is
no longer 1970. If 'twere otherwise, 2000 would not have happened. You can't
sell me on the idea that the great throngs of 'moderates' all bought the idea that
Monica splashed some on Gore, *and* that that was an important enough matter
to justify putting a life-long failure in the most powerful political office on
Earth.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part of Republican Platform? |
27 Aug 2004 05:50:22 PM |
|
|
Personally, I think the moderate Republicans should do what the moderate
Whigs
did 150 years ago: break off and form a new party. Curiously enough, that
new
party was the Republicans.
/me looks hopefully at John McCain.
Talk about 'moderate' Republicans is a symptom of having not noticed
that it
is
no longer 1970. If 'twere otherwise, 2000 would not have happened.
Remember that it was the transformed GOP which threw out Barry Goldwater
shortly before his death because he had become "too liberal." If the man who
was the personification of extremist right-wing demagoguery for three decades
is now considered too liberal for the modern GOP, what makes you think that
there are ANY moderate Republicans left anywhere? The ones that are left are
either leaving the Party (like Jeffords and Ventura) or are shunted aside and
treated like pariahs (like Houghton).
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
