Must...vote...sexuality...

[muckefuck]

Andrew Sullivan blogs:

Attacking the amendment is now an applause line in John Kerry's election speech - and he will get every gay vote and every vote from their families and friends.

Um, no he won't, Sully, for the simple reason that not all gays and lesbians (let alone their "families and friends") are one-issue voters. You, of all people, should know this, Mr Gay Conservative! Quite a few people--Dem, GOP, and GDI--have figured out that the "national debate" on gay marriage is a smokescreen to distract voters from the really critical issues of campaign, like, er, um, wasn't there a little war recently that you wholeheartedly supported?

Or maybe I'm wrong. Tell me, friends, are we queers as ovine as the Religious Right we loathe? We will all run out to vote for someone simply because he makes the right noises about gay rights?

Comments

The Ovine Right of Kings

[febrile.livejournal.com]

I really, really wish there were viable third, fourth, and fifth parties in America. I'm annoyed at the two-party system. If the 'Pubs would get out of bed with the Religious Right, I'd vote for them. If the Dems would get out of bed with "organized labor" (by which I'm referring to the union bosses themselves and not the people who actually hold union cards) and get their heads out of their asses about the government's ability to guarantee unlimited prosperity and blissful happiness for every citizen, I'd send 'em my money.

I haven't looked at the Libertarian party's website in too long. And of course I won't vote Libertarian this year, but I'd love to be able to do so in good conscience.

Re: The Ovine Right of Kings

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

You're far from the first of my acquaintances to wish that "capital 'l' Libertarians" weren't all monster raving loonies.

[bunj.livejournal.com]

It's not like Kerry's a tremendous supporter of homosexuals, either. All he has to do is stay just to the left of Bush, which is what he's doing. If I thought the proposed constitutional amendment had a snowball's chance, I might let this issue affect my voting.

My plan is to prioritize my issues and see which candidate is strongest for/weakest against my chosen issues. The "national debate" would have to get a lot hotter to affect my vote.

[alfaboy.livejournal.com]

sullivan has been driving me crazy lately... bad as the religious right may be, the islamo-fascists would have gays and every other kind of american dead in as many numbers as they can manage. And kerry would return us to the days of treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem for the FBI to work on between catastrophic terrorist attacks on our home soil.

Even if you tell yourself that bush is betting on the amendment having a snowball's chance... his endorsing it may fuel anti-gay sentiments among the turn-back-the-clock folks.

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

[This is a tangent.]

Well, considering that 25% or whatever of queers voted for Bush last time...
Granted, I can see their reasoning then.

Given what he's done in almost every aspect of the presidency, I would be rather confused if anybody voted for him this time.

Which is why I was very happy to take a stupid "how did you vote in the CA primary and why" poll this morning. I even left out gay marriage as a "significant issue". And filled in the BBC as my primary internet news source. It was kind of fun.

Is Bush fiscally responsible? Somebody here was making noises that way.
Can you give me reasons as to why you actually think he is?
(Maybe somebody could tell me how it is fiscally responsible to spend lots of money on wars with little oversight for how well it is spent? Or does it always end up like that?)

Is there any other reason to vote for Bush?
He's drop-kicked our civil rights, so much for the Republican line there. So really, is there any appeal to this guy?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Is Bush fiscally responsible? Somebody here was making noises that way.

Are you sure? That doesn't sound like something that would come from the mouth of one of my usual contributors. I think it's pretty clear that he's not--and not because of the war issue, either. He's vastly increased federal entitlements, which is bad; but most Democratic congresscritters wanted to increase them even more, which is worse.

As usual, the candidate I want isn't running. It's a choice between Known Evil #1 and Lesser Known Evil #2. So let me throw the question back atcha and ask, "What makes you think Kerry would be more fiscally responsible than Bush?"

Is there any other reason to vote for Bush?

I may have mentioned above that there was this little war thingy. I know that you, like many people, thought it wrong-headed and opposed it. However, more people in this country (including me) thought it a good idea and supported it. At least one of my friends considers that reason enough to vote for Bush right there.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

It's certainly my only reason. He is making it so goddam hard, though.

[prilicla.livejournal.com]

Yes, he certainly is. When it comes right down to it, I don't know if I'll be able to punch that chad. But the alternative is Kerry. Thanks a lot, Democratic primary voters!

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

So, um, could you explain it some?

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

lhn covered this some already. I think another 2 or 3 9/11-size events on U.S. soil would produce a sheet of glass where the Middle East used to be and a police state at home. I think treating the prevention of terrorism as a policing matter to be handled by controlling borders and immigration and putting diplomatic pressure on its countries of origin is likely to be as successful over the long term as the "War on Drugs" has been, i.e., not at all. John Kerry has not show the smallest sign of understanding what is at stake or what needs to be done. It's all a series of carefully calibrated sound bites and talking points to him. The Bush doctrine may succeed or fail, but it does at least address the problem at its origin (which I believe to be the complete lack of political freedom within a context of poverty and hopelessness). I would love to turn it over to someone more competent, but in the absence of a candidate who either understands and is committed to this approach or has a better idea, I'm stuck with Dubya. Obviously for me foreign policy trumps every other possible issue at this time.

fiscal / war

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'll find the original post. I don't know if that was the reason, but it was the only one I could come up with.

Kerry: No clue. I'd prefer to have gridlock, myself.

As to the war-thingy. I deliberately avoided mentioning it above... a) We shouldn't have started it. b) We did, now its our job to do some sort of effective reconstruction.

And, I think I'm knee-jerk anti-war[*]. I suppose I'm probably even a pacifist. Just don't ever try to mug me on the street though.
Given that, I would find that an odd reason to vote for him.
[*] Seriously. I was thinking about this while I tried to take a shower (it, the shower, didn't work). I think I have too many relatives who have been in war zones to wish it on anyone. Add to that the pastor thing, the German thing, a vivid imagination and I'm a hard sell when it comes to war.

Re: fiscal / war

[lhn.livejournal.com]

And, I think I'm knee-jerk anti-war[*]. I suppose I'm probably even a pacifist. Just don't ever try to mug me on the street though.
Given that, I would find that an odd reason to vote for him.

My inclination is to think that the war should be the deciding issue for the election, given the circumstances. Both candidates want expanded government, and neither wants to pay for it all. (Kerry wants to roll back some tax cuts, though not all, and implement increased spending. That's not math that makes for a surplus-- though gridlock might, as before.) Kerry hasn't staked out any major civil rights issues in opposition to Bush (opposing an amendment that looks ever less likely to pass without coming out in favor of actual gay marriage isn't exactly a bold stand). Neither is particularly strong on free trade, but neither seems likely to run on Gephardt-style mercantilism either (though if either does, it looks likely to be Kerry). Foreign policy seems to be the key division on which the election ought to swing.

On the other hand, if most Democrats thought the election was a referendum on the war, they'd presumably have nominated Dean (who has a reasonably consistent view on the war) rather than Kerry (for whom a consistent narrative on the war-- other than maximizing his poll numbers among the relevant voters-- seems almost impossible to tease out of his actions). It seems to me that what with this last Presidential term containing an attack that killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor and our conquest and occupation of a country halfway around the world, the Democrats should be running someone with some sort of strong, clear views on the matter of how to handle it-- be they Dean's or Lieberman's. Instead, it seems as if they're running on the idea that this stuff is all a petty distraction from domestic issues, except insofar as they can score points wrt alleged administration screwups.

Maybe they're right to do so-- it's not as if my acquaintanceship is particularly representative. But I find that idea so unimaginable that I really can't comprehend it. I mean, sure, they can count on the anti-war vote anyway, simply by not being Bush. But how can some policy regarding the war and terrorism not be front and center for any candidate in 2004?

[*] Seriously. I was thinking about this while I tried to take a shower (it, the shower, didn't work). I think I have too many relatives who have been in war zones to wish it on anyone. Add to that the pastor thing, the German thing, a vivid imagination and I'm a hard sell when it comes to war.

Anyone who's casual about going to war is either nuts or plain evil. On the other hand, there are worse things than war in terms of straightforward human cost, and murderous totalitarianism is high on the list. Whether or not it was in our interest to go to war in Iraq, millions of Iraqis are safer (terrorist attacks notwithstanding-- they could and did kill more Shiites more quickly when they were the government), better fed, and freer to speak their minds without being imprisoned, tortured, or killed as a direct result of our having done so. And regardless of the merits of this particular war, there are too many wars where our choosing not to fight would have led to a worse outcome (with WWII the most obvious case) for me to ever imagine being a pacifist.

Re: fiscal / war

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

My inclination is to think that the war should be the deciding issue for the election,

That would be sensible. It would put foriegn policy front and center. But I don't think Americans care much for that stuff.

if most Democrats thought the election was a referendum on the war, they'd presumably have nominated Dean

Or someone else or something. I don't know. Dean was given a Bad TV Moment and people are stupid?

Anyone who's casual about going to war is either nuts or plain evil. Or just doesn't know any better.

[gopower.livejournal.com]

Andrew Sullivan has shredded his credibility over this issue, both because of his rhetorical excesses and because of his blatent dishonesty on the subject. He argues against a constitutional amendment because it's unnecessary because of the DOMA act, yet he also argues that DOMA is unconstitutional. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment by falsely claiming that it would ban civil unions.

I wonder how he'll respond to Orrin Hatch's version of the Marriage Amendment unveiled today, so to speak:

"Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman."

My guess is a lot of tap-dancing even though months ago he insisted this was the law of the land.

And BTW, to the extent this is a conspiracy to cover up the "real issues," it must have been hatched by Kerry's pet Massachusetts Supreme Court justices and catspaw San Francisco mayor to cover up his abysmal record on the war against terrorism and the rest of his equally sad tenure in the Senate.