1

I have to confess that I don't understand about same sex marriage. I mean, what is the problem with it?

It's not as though homosexuality is catching - you either are or you aren't. And what if people don't believe in God? Or believe in a God where homosexuality is not considered a sin?

Why can't they have the right to decide for themselves what they want to do?

How can gay marriage undermine marriage, when heterosexuals seem to be doing a perfectly good job of doing that themselves?

I just can't believe that God would condemn people who really love each other.

Enlighten me.

Stogy

2

You're kidding, right? It's not a question of whether something is "catching" or not. Heck, bestiality is by no means contagious, and yet there are some pretty severe laws against bestiality -- laws which are supported by both conservatives and liberals alike.

You ask, "Why can't they have the right to decide for themselves what they want to do?" They have every right to do so -- but that does not mean that the law will grant them free reign to act on those desires. If it did, then people would have every right to drive at 120 MPH or sell liquor to minors, if they decided FOR THEMSELVES that this is what was right.

No civilized person thinks that everyone should be free to act on their own judgment of what is right or wrong. If we did, then O.J. Simpson should never have gone to trial.

3

Cy's points above are excellent, but let me take up one other issue....

"It's not as though homosexuality is catching - you either are or you aren't."

How do you know that? Studies on the causes of same-sex preference have been either inconclusive or so tainted with obvious bias as to be worthless. No researcher has found the elusive "gay gene" yet. So how do you know that same-sex preference is an inborn trait?

(As an aside, if they ever do find a "gay gene", I would expect a lot of gay-rights activists to become pro-life in a hurry....)

Even if same-sex preference is an inborn trait, that still doesn't mean that we have to redefine marriage to accomodate it. Most men have an inborn tendency toward polygamy, but our model for marriage is still one man and one woman.

Modern people see marriage as a matter of love. It isn't. Marriage is about establishing the basis of the family, which will then produce the next generation of society. In other words, marriage is inextricably linked to raising children. Sure, it's great when married couples love each other. I love my wife, and she loves me, and we work hard to maintain that love. But without our children, there wouldn't be any point to our marriage.

Same-sex marriage is another step toward reducing marriage to nothing more than a socially-approved way of "going steady". You are correct that marriage has suffered from a variety of injuries, most notably the advent of no-fault divorce. However, just because something is already injured does not make it acceptable to add further injury. Instead, we should refuse same-sex marriage and then start undoing the other things that have weakened our marriages.

4

Imagine the reaction if a modern evangelical leader were to boldly claim that Christians expect Bush to put the “whole weight of his office” behind ending abortion or opposing same-sex marriage.

They already have; perhaps they haven't used those specific words. Is that what you mean? That there'd be an outcry if an evangelical specificaly alluded to King?

This should serve as a reminder to Democrats that the expectations of “payback” for the President’s supporters are not out of the ordinary.

Has that been much disputed? A hyperlink at that point would've been appropriate; without it, it just kind of looks like you're constructing some alternate-universe democrat and then demolishing it.

5

Why does every discussion about the election turn into a discussion of gay marriage? Gay marriage was an explicit issue on the ballot in 11(?) states and was not only rejected, but trounced. Thrashed. Smashed. Get over it.

Clearly, evangelicals are not the only people who reject gay marriage. By a long shot. Even if evangelicals had voted en masse against gay marriage (which, on its face, is an absurd assumption), they would have still been a minority within a much larger voting bloc who see themselves, for whatever reason, as having a moral stake in this issue.

So either come up with a better argument or fold your tents and hope for a friendly judge before your state puts the issue on the ballot. Repeating the same arguments over and over again simply does nothing to convince the unconvinced. It's merely tiresome.

Now, to the issue raised in Joe's post...

It's difficult to see the reasoning behind voting for a candidate (whose platform is clear) unless one believes that, post-election and given a win, that candidate will do his/her best to deliver said platform. Do evangelicals expect Bush to deliver on parts of their agenda? Of course. Just as Kerry's supporters would have been aghast had he been elected and didn't at least attempt to raise taxes on the "rich".

I'm amused by the arguments of the left that, having been elected, Bush should now move left. Does anyone really think that Kerry would have moved right had he won? Look at his record in the Senate. For example, 20 years of gun control votes suggest to me that as President he would have occupied the gun control bully pulpit in exactly the same way Clinton did.

Bush knows who brought him to the dance. He's not going to jilt his voting bloc for Hillary. Just as Kerry would not have aligned with the right in the reverse circumstance.

It's nice that Joe appeals to authority by invoking King, but it's really just common sense.

6

JPE: They already have; perhaps they haven't used those specific words.

Who has done that? I sure missed it.

Has that been much disputed? A hyperlink at that point would've been appropriate; without it, it just kind of looks like you're constructing some alternate-universe democrat and then demolishing it.

Has it been disputed? The very idea that the “religious right” helped get Bush elected has been disputed. Look at all of the spin about “moral values” not being that significant of an issue.

George: Why does every discussion about the election turn into a discussion of gay marriage?

There’s an unwritten rule that at least 90% of the comments section must be on a completely unrelated topic to what my post was about. ; )

7

But I do blame the 7 out of 10 fundie knuckle heads for swallowing that BS and putting your personal feelings about your religion ahead of the security and welfare of the nation. I blame you for being so bone headed, so trained in denial of empirical evidence, so focused on your deities, you didn't give a hoot about healthcare or jobs or deficits or OBL running around.

You know, DS, there were secularists that voted for Bush, too. What's their problem?

My support for Bush had very little to do with gay marriage (which, like John Kerry, I oppose ... though I'm not completely sold on the need for a federal marriage amendment). It had much more to do with which candidate could more credibly address terrorism.

8

DS,

I suggest you read Roger L. Simon's blog. He is a Hollywood personality, writer, Academy voter (I think) and very much the social liberal one would expect.

I have read his blog for over a year, and the many, many comments of likeminded readers of his - those who are very socially liberal but (like Simon) were SOLID pro-Bush voters in 2004.

Many admit that this is the first time EVER they voted for a Republican.

So whereas the religious-right was all about turn-out (since they vote Republican usually anyway) what hurt Kerry this year as well is the post 9/11 lifelong Democrat who voted for Bush EXACTLY because of national security.

Ed Koch would be another example, but I doubt he blogs. Many, many Democrats see terrorism as the ONLY issue right now of importance - and they only saw one party who was serious about it.

You guys should have nominated Lieberman.

9

DS

I just thought of another, even better, example from someone in the spotlight in the last election.

Ron Silver.

I hope you saw him a few times on MSNBC during the election cycle. He is an intelligent man, a liberal activist on just about every issue one can imagine, and a solid Bush supporter who would have loved to vote for the Democrat if he thought they were serious about national security.

10

Has it been disputed? The very idea that the “religious right” helped get Bush elected has been disputed.

What I meant was that I don't think it's been disputed that the Religious Right would be well within the boundaries of acceptable political behavior in asking for a payback. The left has argued that it may not in our country's interests for the GOP to accede to this request, but I think the idea animating the downplaying of evangelical vote is that, if they were a major force behind Bush's victory, then they'd be right to demand repayment.

So, here's the proposition: 'If interest group X plays a significant role in electing candidate(s) Y, then they're justified in asking for political repayment.'

Contra your post, I don't think many on the left have questioned the validity of that proposition; what they've questioned is its factual predicate.

Like I said, I very well could've missed many on the left questioning the validity of the syllogism (work is busy, and law school finals are approaching fast), but I haven't seen any instances of it.

11

The issue of gay marriage should not be put on the same pedestal as abortion. While it is a "moral" issue, the comparison ends there. Abortion is about ending human life. Gay marriage is about two people publically committing their lives to one another (which is what secular marriage is, right?). If Christians are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, let's start by lower our own divorce rate (which hovers close to the national average). If gay marriage is banned, I certainly hope the lawmakers/president have laws banning pre-marital sex, adultery, and divorce in the hopper. We often forget that biblically, sin is sin is sin is sin -- no single sin is greater than the others in God's eyes.

12

newsflash: 51% of the vote is not a mandate. 49% didn't want bush or the christian right to take over the country.

to compare the christian right to a great man like MLK is inexcusable.

the christian right has a platform of hate and oppresion, MLK had one of love and human rights.

13

homosexuality...you either are or you aren't

Ann Heche?

14

newsflash: 51% of the vote is not a mandate.