These Log Cabin folk have their act together... (watch it - more politics)

[joeclarke]

There's been a lot of talk about the growing polarization of the political landscape of America. The hardening of the right with what seems to be a growing emphasis on social/cultural rather than fiscal conservatism and the outrage of the left fueled by the apparent criminal purpose and result of the Iraq invasion.

Even within the GOP it seems like there more than a "normal" amount of polarization - particularily on this issue of gay marriage.

This plank promoting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage (and even gay civil unions) sounds like it coulld go a long way to being fatal to GOP hopes for success in November.

I like those Log Cabin guys - I can march to their drummer these days. They want to steer the GOP back to the conservative middle ground - where it should be. I caught an interview with a rep from the the Log Cabin Republicans this morning (didn't catch his name) in which the guy refers to the gay rights plank as being "mean-spirited".

Right on, my man!

How and when did the lunatic fringe get ahold of the republican party? How did we let this happen?

It's important to put Kerry in the whitehouse - for the good of the GOP; and what's good for the republican party is good for America.

[cowtown]

How does replacing the lunatic fringe of the GOP with the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party help matters?

PS- I'm still waiting for Kerry to talk about his Senate record. Not that it's important or anything.

[Overpaid Slacker]

jc -
I'm not convinced that the extreme right wing holds the Republicans hostage. That canard has been used since Nixon to scare middle-of-the-roaders (and unsophisticated Lefties {insert joke here}) into distrust of anything Republican.

This is the same ol' stuff we've been fed for years. Lib's have the means to have their positions portrayed as "mainstream" and, more insidiously, to have most anything Republican decried as "conservative" as though it's necessarily wrong if it is.

As far as the gay marriage issue, I personally couldn't care less, pro or con. So I'll say w/o a dog in this particular fight, that most of the polling I've seen indicates that 55+% of Americans are against gay marriage. Now, is this (or should it be) a poll-driven initiative by Republicans? I don't think it is -- I think it's a matter of principle.

But the point is that it's not some radically "conservative" idea if a huge percentage (or even let's say a third) of the American people support the notion. The discussion of the topic has been largely hijacked by the inaccurate characterization of the issue as "conservative".

JP

[Purrybonker]

You are absolutely right, JP. This whole gay rights/marriage/adoption/what-have-you issue is not that important to most people (on scale) - because most people aren't gay.

But it's because it isn't important to most people that it has to be important to our legislators. This is the epitomy of why America was built on the entrenchment of individual rights and freedoms in it's constitution. Minorities and individuals must be protected from the whims of legislators from time-to-time for exactly the reason that you have stated.

Because it isn't important and it would be too easy for a right leaning, socially conservative government to (on a right-wing governmental blip) legislate against individuals or a minority group for actions that have no physical consequence to their fellow citizens.

And it is a conservative vs. liberal issue, JP - it's only the extreme conservatives that propose to interpose government into the bedrooms and relationships of private citizens. The difference between being a conservative and a liberal implicitly means that, even though a liberal and a conservative may feel the same way about a certain issue, the conservative will tend to err on the side of legislating in the face of said issue rather than being tolerant of it.

[joeclarke]

Yep = I took a poll. 67% of Americans couldn't care less if Eskimos were prohibited from owning yellow dogs west of the Missippi.

Lets amend the constitution to make it so...

Who cares if it's mean-spirited. I'm sure there's a reference in the bible somewhere about eskimos and yellow dogs.

Separation of church and state? Hold it... maybe those French are on to something after all.

[joeclarke]

Sorry JP - It seems there's a bit of unsophisticated petard hoisting going on here today. But you're a big boy and can take it. In any event, you will probably take the high ground and deny the existance of said petard let alone acknowledge that you are dangling from it...

But seriously - what do you think of these Log Cabin guys?

[lendaddy]

Man you guys get all jacked up over nothing. Please name for me one piece of religious legislation in the last 25 years. The deeply religious side of my party does indeed try to push their agenda, that is inevitable. They have been and will continue to be wholly unsuccessful.

So you guys can spread the brainwashing or be brainwashed into the thinking that Republicans want to glue a bible to your person or something. It just aint gonna happen. It does make for a good battle cry for the left, which is all it is. If I thought for a second that Republicans were going to legislate any type of religion onto me I would be a Libertarian.

[Overpaid Slacker]

jc -
As I said, the Rep's didn't invent this issue b/c polls tell them to; nor did they do it (IMHO) out of some adolescent mean-spiritedness. You've conflated two things into cause/effect for purposes of "winning" an argument. I think it's safe to say that as a rule W doesn't allow his agendas to be pushed around by polls. And he didn't do (and doesn't support) this b/c he's "mean" or "hates gays". Though that flippancy will attract moths not quite out of intellectual elementary school.

Though I'm hard pressed to think of any Republican initiative that would work to the detriment of one class of people being presented for considered debate w/o "mean-spirited" attached to it. It's "mean-spirited" to reform welfare and require people to work; it's "mean-spirited" to means test benefits; it's "mean-spirited" to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining drivers licences and medical benefits, etc.

"Mean-spirited" is intended to preclude debate by anathematizing the issue. Didn't work this time.

If you cannot accept that many people believe that gay marriage is inappropriate (for whatever reasons) and must marginalize them with epithets, then you've become what you despise. A bigot.

As someone who doesn't care about others' sexual preferences, I can see merit to the arguments against gay marriage; I'm not bigoted on this point, nor am I mean-spirited. Nor are all people who oppose gay marriage out on some political fringe.

Purry -
Every little issue that's important to some sub-section of our population cannot be seized upon by our legislators, nor can our legislators be asked to intervene on behalf of every group with a disgruntlement. This is a larger issue than most (and I didn't say, nor did I intend to imply it wasn't important -- only that I don't have a strong opinion), but your 2nd para scares me in that it seems to suggest that every group, no matter how small, and no matter what their issue, should be championed by legislators. And, by extension, championed to a liberal end.

If anyone who would support anti-gay marriage legislation you'll label an 'extreme conservative', then your last sentence will of course be tautological due to your own choice of label. However, many people who are against gay marriage are not in any "objective" sense extreme conservatives.

IMHO, it's a little hyperbolic to claim this interposes government into bedrooms and relationships. This doesn't ban homosexuality, nor punish it; but would limit treatment of marriage under the law to that definition that has been near-universally employed since before the beginning of recorded history. I certainly don't support dissolving civil unions or contractual arrangements approximating marriage. EDIT -- stranded two thoughts here that were wrong; fixed.

Personally, I'm inclined to say "hey, why not... let 'em get married", but then I listen to those who have reasons why not, and some of them are compelling. If you (not you, personally Purry, but anybody who's interested) haven't heard them out, maybe you should. I'm not going to be an anti-gay marriage champion, but there are points to be made on that side of the ledger -- and more articulately than the pro-side, which seem to amount to "it's not fair" or "it's mean spirited not to".

If you can have substantially the same rights, then it's really about getting self-righteous about the label. That's certainly not new in the US.

EDIT -- jc, I read your follow-up post after I'd written this, and re-read this realizing it sounds snarky at points. It wasn't (and isn't) personal, just about the tactic employed.

JP

[Overpaid Slacker]

The platform draft, “refusing to unite our party and refusing to recognize that people of good faith can disagree over contentious social issues, sends the wrong message to fair-minded voters,” said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans.

Well, refusing to unite a party is a bit dramatic, no? I mean, under the party umbrella are a bunch of people who disagree on a whole bevy of issues. Popular (media) opinion aside, Rep's aren't some Borg "hive-mind".

Also, I think it's a bit of a reach to say (w/o any specific facts...) that b/c the conservatives refused to stipulate that these issues were areas in which it was OK to disagree that they've foreclosed opportunity to disagree -- which it seems is what Mr. Guerriero is saying.

It's not how I'd have handled it, but I'm not a particularly "good" conservative.

Though I'm not pro (or anti-) gay marriage, attacking legitimacy of civil unions is uncalled for. If I take the G&M at its face value (and I don't) I'd say that element of the plank is pretty damned close to "mean spirited". Let's see what W does when he lays out the platform at the RNC.

[joeclarke]

Cool...

But why is that when a I pull a plank outta the Rep platform and toss it on the table for discussion...

I've...

"conflated two things into cause/effect for purposes of "winning" an argument"

and I have magically morphed and somehow...

"..you've become what you despise. A bigot."

and I am apparently guilty of...

"...brainwashing or be brainwashed into the thinking that Republicans want to glue a bible to your person or something."

These are all examples of sweet flowing rhetoric unto themselves (and who knows, maybe there's even some truth to them), but I certainly don't see in this thread where I have pushed anything into the realms contemplated in the foregoing statements.

I love you guys dearly - but you punish the left for being Pollyannas in the face of mssrs Hussien et al and scold them for hiding their heads in the sand about the virulent threats to health, wealth and nation lurking everywhere. Then with your next breath you attack a socially left-leaner (that's me) for playing Chicken Little for calmly observing and opining on a stated posture of the GOP.

Come on you guys - which way do you want it? (rhetorical question in case you're framing your response as you read this)

Oh and JP - (recognizing that I have invited further eloquent attack for playing mechanic with your profundities) - I really don't need to speak to:

"...your 2nd para scares me in that it seems to suggest that every group, no matter how small, and no matter what their issue, should be championed by legislators. And, by extension, championed to a liberal end."

...do I? Well what the heck, might as well be shot for a sheep as a lamb...

Your blatant context flipping where the learned Mr. Bonker held that a fundamental role of the constitution is to protect against the differentially prejudical acts of the legislature is lame. No championing needed here. We need not seek a constitional amendment banning constitutional amendments that would seek to ban yellow dog ownership by eskimos west of the Mississippi do we? Nor in the obverse, as you would have it; do we need to bother passing an amendment to enshrine the entitlement to such pooch (or is it poocha?) ownership in the constitution. As you would (and did) say - nice try.

Thanks again for the entertainment - I hope that you think about the application of your writing skills to the field of fiction at some point - (oops - I guess you already have).

[Overpaid Slacker]

jc

How and when did the lunatic fringe get ahold of the republican party? This is you "calmly observing" something? Compared to the hystrionics following my disagreement that the issue of precluding gay marriage is either "lunatic" or "fringe," I suppose that's relatively accurate... that statement was your calmest.

My comment about the 2nd para was to Purrybonker, not you; so the "do I" is mistaken, or the highest of Liberal dudgeon -- victimhood. Which, coincidentally is the currency every small interest group tries to use as the Coin of the Realm for influence in the legislature and the courts.

The federal legislature cannot be consumed by the interests of every single little group -- that's the tyranny of the minority (or special interest group) and that's definitely not a principle of the Constitution, or of federalism in general. Should the legislature listen to its constituents, large and small? Certainly. But it's fantasy to think it should (or could) tilt at every single windmill every single group (or individual!) complains of. If you believe so doing is a principle of the Constitution, please provide your sources -- I've got a set of the Federalist Papers in my office, so start there if you'd like.

You've again taken a conditional hypothesis and stated it as fact -- IF you cannot accept there is principled disagreement and engage in ad hominem attacks THEN you've become what you despise (that's what "conservatives" do, no? dismiss others' opinions and treat opposing political theories with contempt). You seek to mistreat me ad hominem for having disagreed with you, so MAYBE it's the case that you're a conservative (code word for "bigot"). Maybe you're just off your meds; who knows?

As far as cause/effect -- absolutely you got that wrong. My point is that Republicans are not doing this in response to a poll, but out of principle. In some logic-defying twist, you responded with "Well, we've conducted a poll that says X, so that's what we'll do" i.e., doing something in response to a poll. If you can't see the contradiction there, you're beyond my ability to assist. I suspect you see it, but it's inconvenient, so you elide over it; as though I or our fellow travelers won't notice. That's the crazy we're not buying here.

In any event, to recap - I have no strong opinion for or against gay marriage; and I believe that it is not a "conservative" position to be anti. Unless, of course, more than half of Americans are "conservative", which I doubt. It so happens that the polls indicate that disallowing gay marriage is not some "out-there" "meanspirited" fringe notion. But the polls haven't driven the conservative platform on this point -- some issues are broader than one party or one label; but branding it "conservative" is an attempt to deligitimize the issue and preclude debate.

Your prior post is further evidence of that -- nothing on the point of whether the issue truly is fundamentally or statistically "conservative" or "popular" or whether there are or may be merits to the anti-gay marriage side of the debate (which would involve conceding there was another "side"), but instead a bunch of "see how I've been wronged!" self indulgent, bilious retaliation.

All of that said, I do believe that any plank that involves dissolution of civil unions or erosion of rights between homosexuals is unconscionable.

As for the brainwashing/sticky bible stuff you mentioned, I didn't say that, nor do I believe it. Though if I were to stick something to your person at this moment, it might be a transdermal valium patch.

Relax, jc. I wouldn't post in your threads merely to torment you. I've got loads of people I can torment. I believe you've got worthy opinions (except for that "there's no media bias" crap) and you can be eloquent ... when you're David Banner. However, even those that would empathize/agree with your positions must cringe when you get all green and go off the rails for haphazard and gratuitous attacks, abandoning any attempt at presenting an argument for your case, on its merits in the context of and in response to others' opinions. It amounts to conceding the issue at hand.

JP

[joeclarke]

Good God man... I've got tears rolling down my cheeks!

In fairness (to me - I have no intention of being fair to you), I'm a few to the wind after a night of cruising gay/lesbian bars whilst in the midst of a business trip cum holiday. But that's another set of story(s) that I will likely post on in future a la Micheal Moore.

I'm in Canada you see and it appears that I'm gathering significant grist for certain liberal mills. My lady arrives on the weekend so I will have more time to compose my (somewhat less single malt pickled) thoughts and toss up some perspectives (and opinions of course) about differences between American and Canadian cities...

BTW - I will take it as a credit to the resilience of my masculinity that I end an eventful evening with JP rather than some pretty boy and/or drag queen. (crap - it never occured to me until just now - it's entirely possible that I've actually ended my evening with both or even all three... great, now I'll be tossing all night)

[Overpaid Slacker]

jc -
I hope you awaken today with that same wit undulled by revelry's after-effects.

FTR, I like women too much to wear their clothes ... though I'm definitely pretty. And mad sexy.

What, exactly, will you be "tossing" all night? Nevermind; I don't wanna' know.

Enjoy canuckland.

JP