(On some browsers you'll need to refresh this page in order to see the comment you just left.)
Greg - 2006-06-07 20:32:51
There was some interesting debate leading up to this vote. Parties on both sides of the fence were working hard to avoid having to vote on this Amendment during an election year. I'm glad that they went forward and struck it down. It's saddening that some of the votes against the amendment came from conservative senators who only voted against it because they know they can pass similar bills on a state level with less opposition--hence they want to keep it out of federal jurisdiction in case opinion swings the other way nationally.
-------------------------------
Greg - 2006-06-07 20:38:30
I did get a form e-mail back from Hillary Clinton after firing off a missive on this issue. Her stance is that she opposes it because it's divisive but the letter fell far short of a clear statement defining her stance on what is purely a civil rights issue. The form on her website, by the way, makes a subtle distinction between gay rights and civil rights when you have to choose a topic to write to her about... kind of weird if you ask me. Anyway for anybody who wants to write to their senators you can get e-mail addresses here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
-------------------------------
chris - 2006-06-08 12:45:03
I am honestly split on this one. Its a classic sand the eyes tactic that I am glad to see the Democrats are not falling for. The greater the focus on Iraq, incompetence, etc the better the chances for the Democrats. I hope this time that the cynacisam of the Republics is so apparent that it back-fires. The reality is that over the course of the last 15 years gays have found greater acceptance in the US as a whole. I understand the frustration that those wishing for equal rights under the law must feel, however I think in the grand scheme of things there are much more important issues that need to be addressed.
-------------------------------
amatt - 2006-06-08 12:52:29
Hillary. What's her stance on anything?
-------------------------------
chris - 2006-06-08 13:08:33
Oh be nice to Hillary. Not sure why the liberal backlash against her. Shes simply trying to get elected....
-------------------------------
amatt - 2006-06-08 13:24:18
That's the problem with politics.
No one is man/woman enough to say what they mean. How are we to know who to elect?
-------------------------------
Greg - 2006-06-08 13:28:34
Chris: I think that equality and equal rights is where we start--the cornerstone of all our other domestic and foreign policy. It's self-defeating and immoral to marginalize this as a "special interest." And it wouldn't end with a Constitutional Amendment anyway. That's just the beginning of the agenda.
Amatt & Chris: Bill Clinton was one of the more moderate Republicans (no matter what he and his supporters call themselves) that we ever had in office. Hillary is the sequel. I understand that Hillary and Chuck Schumer have to balance their representation between the two New Yorks, Upstate and NYC, and that can't be easy--but they're pretty wishy-washy--and both voted for the Iraq invasion, which they should not be forgiven for.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2006-06-08 13:42:27
I think that equality and equal rights is where we start--the cornerstone of all our other domestic and foreign policy.
Yes, well said. There needn't be a hierarchy of issues, they are all important and reflect our shared values.
As for Hillary, I agree that she is wishy-washy and a classic politician, but...who isn't? She comes with a lot of baggage.
Apropos of nothing, I wish Wesley Clark would run for president again.
-------------------------------
greg - 2006-06-08 13:58:28
I dont disagree with you. Its about tactics. Do you beleive Gays are worst or better of than they were 10 years ago?
-------------------------------
chris - 2006-06-08 14:09:27
That was supposed to be my post.
Here about the atheist with Dyslexia?
Doesnt believe in Dogs....
-------------------------------
Greg - 2006-06-08 14:11:14
Heh--I'll assume you're Chris and I'm not talking with myself. I believe there is greater public acceptance but with that there are more loathesome, judgemental rednecks trying to pass discriminatory legislation that goes beyond marital rights. Gaybashing is also on the rise. I just don't believe that we can move forward while we're compartmentalizing issues as only applicable to this or that person. And the popularity of shows like Will and Grace, at least to me, doesn't mean that anybody is better off.
-------------------------------
Chris - 2006-06-08 14:15:39
Sorry about stealing your name. My point is with greater public acceptance comes a pushback. The rednecks feel cornered. I think with time this issue will be settled to the Democrates favor. Until then best to lay low to keep the rednecks demoralized. To me Health Care, Foreign policy, etc are much more pressing issues.
-------------------------------
Greg - 2006-06-08 15:38:03
The Ebert review should not be neglected: Haven't seen Al Gore's film yet but I intend to. If Al goes hardcore GREEN from now through 2008, he might just convince me to vote Democrat. There has to be a strong Green rally across the board though. from all levels of government.
-------------------------------
2fs - 2006-06-08 23:45:58
Re wishy-washy politicians: "but...who isn't?"
Russ Feingold. Even when I disagree with him, he offers thoughtful reasons for his positions.
-------------------------------
add your comment:
back to the entry - Diaryland
