Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Jun 7, 2006 8:47:09 GMT -5
The Democrats were accused of being out of touch with the average voter, which cost them the last election. Now, the Republicans Senators are moving ahead with the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages (despite near certainty that is will not get through), and one Senator is quoted a saying "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one." www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.htmlHow absurd. I am an independent, so I have no agenda here. But, however you come out on the issue, is it really so important to a majority of the population? It is not to me and most people I know. Are we out of touch with the rest of the nation, or are these clowns in Congress? Also, nice to see the concept of reducing the federal government's role so clearly in action
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,434
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jun 7, 2006 13:41:54 GMT -5
I happen to believe that both parties are out of touch, but I wouldn't belittle the heat that this issue will generate among Bush's supporters.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 7, 2006 13:56:04 GMT -5
I happen to believe that both parties are out of touch, but I wouldn't belittle the heat that this issue will generate among Bush's supporters. I agree. I have been advocating a Constitutional Amendment banning Bon Jovi for years and what do I get? Nothing from either Democrats OR Republicans. Where are the politicians who will speak to MY needs, huh? But rooter is right. Are Republicans speaking to all of America with this issue? No. Are they speaking to those who will help them win elections? Yes. And Democrats do the very same thing, whenever it suits them. Individual politicians may have goals more noble than acquiring/staying in power, but political parties exist for that reason above all else.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 7, 2006 14:52:24 GMT -5
I too think both parties are out of touch. I think both parties are in total chaos. The democrats are lead predominantly by a bunch of yahoos and nutcases. Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and the rest do not speak for anything remotely close to their democratic backers. By the same token there are not very many quality leaders from the right either. I think that the left needs more leadership from the likes of Barack Obama and Joe Lieberman while the right needs more input from quality individuals like Rudy Giulianni and Mark Rocicot (sp?). The radical kooks on both sides are ruining the parties and don't speak for the bulk of Americans.
That being said, opposition to gay marriage is one of the most unigying platforms. All of the polls I have seen put public opinion opposing gay marriage at around 80%. There are very few topics with such wide support.
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 7, 2006 15:08:53 GMT -5
Chalk me up for the Bon Jovi amendment. Can we add Michael Bolton in a supplemental clause? Or wait, if you added one supplement, I could list 1,000 others. Would be bad music "pork", tho I like the taste of this pig!
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Jun 7, 2006 15:18:46 GMT -5
80%? Yeah, maybe when polling members of the Moral Majority. Even a quick Google search shows that the polls are pretty much all over the place. For example: www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htmAlso - there is a big difference between Joe Schmoe saying he is against gay marriage when someone calls him at his home and asks whether he agrees with, disagrees with or is indifferent to gay marriage and Joe Schmoe wanting the federal government to expend limited time and resources on an amendment to the constitution. But I completely agree with the sentiment expressed that both parties are out of touch. I am a bit more ambivalent on Bon Jovi, though.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Jun 7, 2006 15:19:55 GMT -5
to include on said Amendment:
-Yanni -Kenny G
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 7, 2006 15:24:37 GMT -5
Excellent. Those 2 are strokes of brilliance. Pork barreling in action on HoyaTalk. I guess this is how it works in Congress too. Let's do retro-active supplementals: pull the back-catalogs of all boy groups.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 7, 2006 16:09:37 GMT -5
80%? Yeah, maybe when polling members of the Moral Majority. Even a quick Google search shows that the polls are pretty much all over the place. For example: www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htmAlso - there is a big difference between Joe Schmoe saying he is against gay marriage when someone calls him at his home and asks whether he agrees with, disagrees with or is indifferent to gay marriage and Joe Schmoe wanting the federal government to expend limited time and resources on an amendment to the constitution. But I completely agree with the sentiment expressed that both parties are out of touch. I am a bit more ambivalent on Bon Jovi, though. I agree with you. Some of my liberal friends and I were discussing this yesterday and they very accurately predicted that I thought it was at best a waste of time. But don't lump opposition to gay marriage in with creationism, abortion, anti-drugs, etc.. and the other causes trumpeted by the religious right. There is a consistent consensus oppposed to gay marriage. You are correct when you say that there is a difference between being opposed to something and supporting an ammendment banning it however. I agree.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 7, 2006 20:47:07 GMT -5
That being said, opposition to gay marriage is one of the most unigying platforms. All of the polls I have seen put public opinion opposing gay marriage at around 80%. There are very few topics with such wide support.
Horsecrap.
You're just making stats up.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 7, 2006 20:50:07 GMT -5
But rooter is right. Are Republicans speaking to all of America with this issue? No. Are they speaking to those who will help them win elections? Yes. And Democrats do the very same thing, whenever it suits them.
No, Democrats WOULD do it were they competent enough.
Out in California we have what should have been a lame duck governor. People actually voted down his entire slate of special election propositions -- some of which made sense -- just to smack him down.
And what does the Democratic party do? Put out Phil Angelides, a complete scumbag from most accounts, and Steve Westly, who has some real world experience but enough skeletons to open a medical supplies business...
I have no idea who to vote for.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 7, 2006 23:13:59 GMT -5
That being said, opposition to gay marriage is one of the most unigying platforms. All of the polls I have seen put public opinion opposing gay marriage at around 80%. There are very few topics with such wide support. Horsecrap. You're just making stats up. Certainly this stat is innacurate when speaking about America as a whole. However, when Texas amended its constitution to ban gay marriage last fall, every county in the state but Travis County (Austin) voted for it (for the record I voted against it). The average level of support in rural counties was probably around 90%. In some counties in East Texas, numbers were often over 90%. In urban areas, even in midly Democratic cities like Dallas and Houston, the amendment got 60-70% support, if I remember correctly. If hifi lives in a rural area of the Florida panhandle, 80% support for a ban might be about right. I would guess you could flip-flop the numbers for the Bay Area.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 8, 2006 8:44:50 GMT -5
No, Democrats WOULD do it were they competent enough. Out in California we have what should have been a lame duck governor. People actually voted down his entire slate of special election propositions -- some of which made sense -- just to smack him down. And what does the Democratic party do? Put out Phil Angelides, a complete scumbag from most accounts, and Steve Westly, who has some real world experience but enough skeletons to open a medical supplies business... I have no idea who to vote for. Is Gary Coleman still an option?
|
|
VelvetElvis
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
pka MrPathetic
Posts: 934
|
Post by VelvetElvis on Jun 8, 2006 8:50:25 GMT -5
bring back the porn star!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 8, 2006 9:04:32 GMT -5
No, Democrats WOULD do it were they competent enough. Out in California we have what should have been a lame duck governor. People actually voted down his entire slate of special election propositions -- some of which made sense -- just to smack him down. And what does the Democratic party do? Put out Phil Angelides, a complete scumbag from most accounts, and Steve Westly, who has some real world experience but enough skeletons to open a medical supplies business... I have no idea who to vote for. Is Gary Coleman still an option? No, that was last time, but I'm getting a petition together for Emmanuel Lewis.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 8, 2006 15:53:44 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't believe gay marriage is an issue in mid-America doesn't know mid-America. It's huge and the reason why it's huge is that most of mid-America thinks it's immoral. And that's not homophobia, it's a belief based on the faith that most adhere to. You may not agree with that but it's a fact and you will find it plays a big part in coming elections. McCain, Hillary, others who effectively cast their votes against the amendment will see it raised again and again in the coming presidential election, not to mention in Congressional elections for those who also voted against it. As long as Democrats (and McCain and others) continue to back gay marriages (or "leave it to the states" knowing some court will declare it unconstitutional), and abortion on demand they will make no headway with very large numbers of religious people.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Jun 8, 2006 19:44:22 GMT -5
easyed is right, this is a big issue in "mid-America."
And 50 years ago (and today still in some communities), it was big in "mid-America" to legislate against and condemn miscegenation. Politicians used it as a wedge issue then, too. They stoked fear and quoted scripture.
In about 20 years we could have another Loving v. Virginia. Maybe sooner.
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,143
|
Post by RBHoya on Jun 8, 2006 23:13:30 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't believe gay marriage is an issue in mid-America doesn't know mid-America. It's huge and the reason why it's huge is that most of mid-America thinks it's immoral. And that's not homophobia, it's a belief based on the faith that most adhere to. The funny thing is that IMO most people don't even understand said aspect of their faith. People read the word "abomination" in Leviticus with a very modern connotation. It isn't necessarily the best translation. If you read the old testament cover to cover, there's such a huge emphasis on men preserving their "seed"... which to me, is what Leviticus 18 is about, hence the emphasis right around the same time on menstrual uncleanness and relations with animals... There's nothing moral intended, it's strictly a rule to be practical, and to maximize progeny... It's about that, and property, which is what women are considered to be, hence the emphasis also on not sleeping with your mother, sister, aunt (notice cousin isn't mentioned though). Anyway, that's just my reading, though I'm quite confident in it. There's a lot of other wacky stuff in Leviticus though, and throughout the old testament as a whole, stuff that we as a modern society pay no mind at all (to the objection of nobody), so it's something of a joke to me to see it invoked when it's convenient. But not surprising. And to answer the question, neither party really seems to be in line with how I feel. I don't know about others though. It makes sense that 2 parties wouldnt be able to please everybody, but it might not be so bad if every politician wasnt trying to win votes all the time, and actually doing what they thought was right.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Jun 9, 2006 3:09:32 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't believe gay marriage is an issue in mid-America doesn't know mid-America. It's huge and the reason why it's huge is that most of mid-America thinks it's immoral. And that's not homophobia, it's a belief based on the faith that most adhere to. You may not agree with that but it's a fact and you will find it plays a big part in coming elections. McCain, Hillary, others who effectively cast their votes against the amendment will see it raised again and again in the coming presidential election, not to mention in Congressional elections for those who also voted against it. As long as Democrats (and McCain and others) continue to back gay marriages (or "leave it to the states" knowing some court will declare it unconstitutional), and abortion on demand they will make no headway with very large numbers of religious people. OK, so maybe the prohibition of gay marriage is extremely important to people in the Midwest. I would like to see some sort of statistic as to where this issue actually ranks in their priorities. But with a war going on in Iraq and the American death toll in 4 figures and climbing (not to mention the Iraqi death toll), with genocide occurring in Darfur, with millions of people starving around the world and within our own country, and after the horrific attacks of 9/11, it boggles my mind how anyone can justify gay marriage belonging among the top ten most important political issues that we face. Republicans seem to have a monopoly on the religious vote at this point, this is true. But frustrated Democrats who consider themselves at least somewhat religious, such as myself, know that there are more religious issues out there than just abortion and gay marriage. I suggest taking a glance at God's Politics by Jim Wallis, who gave a lecture in my Religion and Politics class this past semester. While I have not read the whole book (and I plan to), he decries the fact that abortion and gay marriage seem to have become the only two religious issues in America. What about the poor, what about war? Since when was Jesus pro-rich and pro-war? These issues continue to throw me for a loop when it comes to the so-called "religious" in this country. The poor seems to be the single most important issue in the Bible, yet it seems to be often ignored as a religious issue these days. And RBHoya, it seems we might have taken the same Bib Lit class, because that's exactly the same interpretation that my professor gave for that passage in Leviticus, and the one that makes the most sense to me. People need to realize the context in which the Bible was written before throwing around its words as absolute truth. Apologies for the diatribe, but going back to the original topic of the thread: I think it's tough to tell which party is more out of touch, because the American people as a whole are so diverse. Someone is bound to be out of touch with someone. I again agree with RB that politicans should do what they feel is right instead of trying to win votes all the time, but that can be a difficult thing to do when there is such a fierce power struggle going on between the two competing groups.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Jun 9, 2006 8:54:39 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't believe gay marriage is an issue in mid-America doesn't know mid-America. It's huge and the reason why it's huge is that most of mid-America thinks it's immoral. And that's not homophobia, it's a belief based on the faith that most adhere to. You may not agree with that but it's a fact and you will find it plays a big part in coming elections. McCain, Hillary, others who effectively cast their votes against the amendment will see it raised again and again in the coming presidential election, not to mention in Congressional elections for those who also voted against it. As long as Democrats (and McCain and others) continue to back gay marriages (or "leave it to the states" knowing some court will declare it unconstitutional), and abortion on demand they will make no headway with very large numbers of religious people. OK, so maybe the prohibition of gay marriage is extremely important to people in the Midwest. I would like to see some sort of statistic as to where this issue actually ranks in their priorities. Ask and ye shall receive... corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDc2NGU0YmMzZTViZmRkMDJlYmI1NWYxMDdmNWY4YWQ=Of the priorities listed, try to find gay marriage. I mean anywhere. In fact, listening to the director of the gallup poll earlier this week, he stated that only 3 people (out of more than 1,000) mentioned gay marriage as a priority.
|
|