What is it really about? (marriage)

[Zerbie]

Just read a local piece about the importance of a federal marriage ban. Every politician supporting such a ban stresses the importance of giving the public the power to decide the issue. How come, all of a sudden, politicians want decision-making power to lie with the public?

The article references Senator Jon Kyl several times. He, along with McCain who has suddenly completely capitulated to the party line (he used to be an independent leader), is my senator from Arizona. Kyl is a co-sponsor of the federal marriage amendment. :tdown:

Hope this link works:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0404marriage-amend0404.html

[Daniel]

Just read a local piece about the importance of a federal marriage ban. Every politician supporting such a ban stresses the importance of giving the public the power to decide the issue. How come, all of a sudden, politicians want decision-making power to lie with the public?

(The link works!)

Why? It's and easy kill and gets out the vote. I don't think there's much logic to it: when they think the courts are the way they can get what they want it's the courts that must decide, when it's the 'people' it must be the 'people'.

McCain: saw him on John Steward tonight. He's taking a lot of heat these days- and- I think- rightfully so. Crawling into bed with Falwell after appearing to be open-minded, well, that says something, doesn't it?

Pandering and more pandering.

Local news here in NYC: I've copied three paragraphs from Paul Krugman's op-ed "John and Jerry" in yesterday's paper (April 3). The last paragraph hits the nail on the head.

"Senator John McCain obviously believes that he can't get the Republican presidential nomination without Mr. Falwell's approval. During the 2000 campaign, Mr. McCain denounced Mr. Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." But next month Mr. McCain will be a commencement speaker at Liberty University, which Mr. Falwell founded.

On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Mr. McCain was asked to explain his apparent flip-flop. "I believe," he replied, "that the Christian right has a major role to play in the Republican Party. One reason is because they're so active and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be a part of our party."

"But if you choose to make common cause with religious extremists, you are accepting some responsibility for their extremism. By welcoming Mr. Falwell and people like him as members of their party, Republicans are saying that it's O.K. — not necessarily correct, but O.K. — to declare that 9/11 was America's punishment for its tolerance of abortion and homosexuality, that Islam is a terrorist religion, and that Jews can't go to heaven. And voters should judge the Republican Party accordingly."

[Zerbie]

Thanks Daniel. You said pretty much what I was thinking.

I had MISSED that HORRIFYING quote from McCain! :eek: :eek:

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Considering what happened a few years ago (the whole, McCain has a love-child, accusation) it seems clear that he probably CAN'T get the republican nomination without pandering to the extreme right. At least he has the honesty to flat-out admit that's what he's doing. But it is so incredibly horrifying that our country has come to this, and that leaders are so willing to capitulate to stay in power/grab for higher positions.

I am now unhappy that I voted for McCain last election. :mad: It will never happen again. If only we had better choices to vote for. :(

I'm reading a fascinating book right now called "Inequality Matters: The growing economic divide in America and its poisonous consequences." A collection of essays by various writers. The more I study these essays, the more I become convinced the whole "the people have a right to vote on marriage" and anti-gay thing is a smokescreen.

[Daniel]

If I am not mistaken, Matt Forman, a gay rights leader made this remark last year:

"Civil rights should never be put up to a vote."

And I agree with him. If civil rights for blacks would have put up to a vote in the south during the 60's...well...it doesn't take a genius to get that answer to that.

And we might also remember here the oft quoted words by Alex de Tocqeuville (1805–1859: He wrote Democracy in America, a widely influential study of American institutions) who warned of the "tryanny of the majority".

[Zerbie]

I feel like a broken record - when McCain first announced he supported the AZ amendment I wrote as much in a letter to him. 6 months later I get a response telling me why he supports the amendment: because state residents have a right to define marriage as residents see fit. IE: it's a voter's *right* to put his/her neighbors' civil rights up to a popularity vote and deny them if they see fit. So I wrote another letter saying the same thing.

I don't know why I bothered but I also made a similar complaint to Kyl (a co-sponsor of the federal amendment) and got back a reply to the effect that he is proud to be a co-sponsor.