[Industrialblog,
July 16, 2004]
OK, maybe a little...
... tendentious. I admit it. And a little partisan. More than a little unfair. I was venting.
Funny thing is, I still have a strong affinity for the former ideals of the Democratic Party, that is, the ideals of New Deal and the New Frontier. When the Dems were a party of strong national defense, of helping everyone have equal opportunities to succeed, of fighting against real discrimination and of putting the fear of God into the rich, that was one thing.
But that's not the current Democratic Party, and hasn't been for nearly 30 years. It's not enough to have your heart in the right place. You have to learn from your mistakes. You have to know when you've extended your logic far enough. You have to know when you've won (or lost) a battle and it's time to move on. And most of all, you can't forget the fear of God.
Funny thing is, I still have a strong affinity for the former ideals of the Democratic Party, that is, the ideals of New Deal and the New Frontier. When the Dems were a party of strong national defense, of helping everyone have equal opportunities to succeed, of fighting against real discrimination and of putting the fear of God into the rich, that was one thing.
But that's not the current Democratic Party, and hasn't been for nearly 30 years. It's not enough to have your heart in the right place. You have to learn from your mistakes. You have to know when you've extended your logic far enough. You have to know when you've won (or lost) a battle and it's time to move on. And most of all, you can't forget the fear of God.
this same line could easily apply to the sincere supporters FMA - and, the deep, dark, ugly truth is - you won't find that many of them on either side of the aisle in the Senate.
Or maybe the better line would be "knowing where to pick your battlefield" -because -not to put the lid on your righteous fire and brimstone - but you guys are already winning this battle where it matters. Many states have sucessfuly passed similiar amendments to their constitutions. I think within a couple of years, a large majority of states will have done this.
And the GOP knows this. The FMA was election year political grandstanding; a PR stunt. Just like the flag-burning amendment in the 90s.
They've known (and admitted privately) for months that there wasn't any way this would pass. If there had been a real chance of this passing, you would have seen Republicans crossing the aisle and voting against it. Mainly for the states rights issue - which is near and dear to the hearts of enough old-school Republicans that they could never really get consensus on the FMA - even within their own party.
We're BOTH convinced we're going to lose. Don't you think it's likely that the Supreme Court will eventually rule, and overturn the state constitutional amendments, particularly in light of Lawrence? If not next term, then the one after that?
And once gay marriage is imposed, Americans really won't care enough to amend the constitution. Most Americans don't care enough about it ... whereas the gay community feels it's very important. Eventually, I think people will just shrug and say, whatever, knock yourself out.
That little anti-gay-marriage bill was just a typical bit of Republican self-righteous political posturing, Bush trying to force people to take a stand fer him or again' him. Tack on riders outlawing DIVORCE and quickie Las Vegas ceremonies conducted by Elvis impersonators, and I'll take it as a serious attempt to defend the institution of marriage.
Yeah, I'm still a registered Democrat ... just an oversight.
Proofreading is my friend ...
Gay marriage must just be like fingernails on a blackboard to you. I hope you've gotten it out of your system and can have a more relaxed weekend.
SG
PS I'll throw you a bone to make you feel better. I'm a liberal thats worried about the cost of Kerry's health care plan and lack of real plan to cut the deficit. ;)
I hope you have a good weekend, too.
>We're BOTH convinced we're going to lose. Don't you >think it's likely that the Supreme Court will eventually >rule, and overturn the state constitutional amendments, >particularly in light of Lawrence? If not next term, >then >the one after that?
I think it's far from a sure thing - especially given that some judges are likely to retire between now and then. It depends on who gets appointed. We could get 2 or 3 more Anton Scalias, for instance.
Isn't that properly fer or agin' Bush?
Or maybe we'd need an umlaut over the g. :-)
But I could be wrong...in this respect, anyway.