Pandering Democrats Can Suck My Butt
And the committee then UNANIMOUSLY votes to extend domestic partnership benefits to the township's employees. Do you see what I'm saying? The change is coming. In some segments of the population (especially among young people) it's already here. Most people in America do not give a shit that people are gay and they support extending legal protections to gay couples. Here's a Republican talking about gay people and civil rights and HOW GAY PEOPLE NEED THOSE CIVIL RIGHTS. Democrats, if I could blast a siren right now to get your attention, I would. Because here's what's happening, right now, in the country you seem determined to continue to grow irrelevant in, Republicans are coming around. Folks like Seda realize that people they care about and admire are gay and want to act in a caring and loving manner towards them. That's trouble enough for you. But now Republicans who want to do right by gays aren't ashamed to say so. Not only that, they're meeting no resistance. If you can't scare gays into staying in the party for fear of being forced back in the closet, you'd damn well better start caring about them more than the Republicans do. You're pandering to a middle that doesn't exist. Stop it. *If this link does not make you cry, you have no soul.Like many other people around the world, I've been learning a great deal recently about the issue of Domestic Partner rights that has placed Ocean County front and center on the world's stage through the incredibly courageous story of Ocean County's own hometown hero, Lt. Laurel Hester of the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office.
From what I can see, I'm only one of millions who's been touched in a very big way by Lt. Hester's story. If it weren't for Lt Hester's heart-wrenching story, I would probably not have paid much attention to this issue. Her dignity and the incredible bravery she's displayed at the end of her life in wanting to change the world has inspired me to realize that as an elected official I should be standing by her side.
I've been approached by a lot of people in Jackson and elsewhere about this issue. I was very pleased to learn that the overwhelming majority of them agree with me that this is an important civil rights issue; an issue that as Americans we all have to address. To me, it seems like it's nothing other than a very simple matter of fundamental fairness and Equal Rights for All Americans. If it weren't for Lt Hester's heart-wrenching story, I would probably not have paid much attention to this issue. But now I have, and I'm alarmed to learn of the loop holes New Jersey law dealing with Domestic Partnership Rights. I've found there are a lot of gaps in existing state laws that have been created in recent years and quite frankly in my estimation need to be closed.
posted by Aunt B at 1/24/2006 04:26:00 PM
24 Comments:
I sold my soul to Milhouse for five dollars.
I traded my soul for a John Rocker rookie card. It's increased in value dramatically, but I now have an emotional hole that can't fill.
It does make shoplifting a lot less guilt intensive, however.
It's amazing that, even without a soul, some folks cannot help but have big soft hearts.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
Hooooooray!
Aunt B for ... well, what would you like to be nominated for? Queen of the World? Not only would all the cute courtier boys be fighting for your attention, but everything you decree, like no more bigoted dumbassery, would have to be done. Right quick. Otherwise, *swick* *thud*.
You could be the 21st Century's Good Queen Bess. You could even mess around with a Dudley in the privy chamber, if there are any of them left in Nashville young enough to mess around with. (Yes, they are *those* Dudleys.)
Aunt B for Queen! And pandering anybodies (unless, of course, they're cute courtier boys who are simply telling the truth) can suck her royal butt!
Huzzah!
I don't think that the democrats have a clue what is going on in the world. They are too busy with their heads stuck in the New York Times to know what is really going on in the country. When the party looks to Hillary for leadership, it looks like there is a major problem to me.
This really has me worried. Who is going to be our next president. Since it is so cool to hate Bush and all Republicans right now, I think it will be a Dem...but who...Hillary? Aren't there term limits. I thought you can only serve two terms, and she already had two while her hubby was busy with his girly under the desk.
I have to ask though, while I respect the rights of gays and lesbians, or whatever, and think that sexual orientation shouldn't be a reason to cull someone out and away from our national freedoms, I do wonder how many people in this country really care about the "Gay Rights" issue. I mean really, between the minoritys, the gays, the illegal aliens, and anyone else who can't afford a lexus complaining about equal rights, at some point it just becomes a dull roar in my ears. It's getting hard to tell who is whining about what, and what is a real issue, and what is simply selfish laziness.
It's getting hard to tell who is whining about what, and what is a real issue, and what is simply selfish laziness.
Wow. The real laziness is eveident by that post. If you don't know what they "whining about", go find out. It ought to make you ashamed that you are so blissfully uninformed. Though those groups you mentioned have diverse complaints, the common thread is that they simply want some basic human rights. The author's point is well made, and I was angered by the Dem's unwillingness to fully embrace this issue last election cycle. However, with the demise of the fairness doctrine, and the fact that there are but a few Progressive media outlets, I think it's unfair to fully blame the Dem leadership for not getting their message out unfiltered. Getting Democrats to line up behind a single talking point is like herding cats. That is both our strength as a Party and our biggest flaw. Note to Aunt B- glad to see you linking to Pandagon, it's been a favorite for awhile, though I miss Ezra.
Amongst all this liberal gladhanding, allow me to retort.
Domestic partnership benefits are a load of crap and should not be.
Now, I say that because I think benefits (a legal construct) should be limited to those who are legally bound. The problem is that gays can't marry. I think they should be allowed to, and that their spouse should get the full benefits of any spouse. That would be a legal committment.
This "oh, we're in a committed relationship" crap is just that, crap. I've been in "committed relationships" before. It's not the same thing as being married.
When their credit history gets combined, give them all the benefits everyone else has.
What a dishonest comment, David M. I say you *do* have a problem with Laurel Hester's rights being respected, and you're just too much of a chicken to say so outright.
So it's out with the Clenis and the fake concern about whether people really care about an issue you put in scare quotes.
All right, folks. Disagreements are fine. I like a good and lively argument as much as the next person, or I wouldn't go to such lengths to keep the libertarians around. But, as always, unhappy and insulted guests are an insult to your host and make her unhappy.
If you need to make it personal, take it to email.
Boy Scout, why should the state sanction marriage at all? Why should some folks get special rights just because they have the right kind of living arrangement?
Wow, I drew some interesting comments didn't I. I guess I should respond, but of course, no personal comments with be made.
Interesting comment Mack, that I may be uninformed. I don't consider myself uninformed, I just think people should work for what they get, and if your only real job is sitting around complaining about what you haven't got, than it doesn't seemed to me like you have earned anything at all.
I guess Thomas is correct to a point, I do have a problem with "gay rights". You see, I don't understand why we have to have "gay rights" or "african american rights" or "latino rights" I thought we were supposed to get "human rights" and as long as we get those, I don't see that anyone can complain. Marriage is not a constitutional right, nor should it be unless it says something like two people, over the age of 16 or so, who want to get married, can get married, and it will be accepted in any state of the union and they shall have all rights given unto them by that state. I don't think it should say anything about sex, or exceptions to the rules.
Aunt B. now you have an interesting comment? Why do we give special rights to people just because they have a certain living arrangement?
David,
In theory I like the "human rights" argument and, if we lived in a world where everyone could speak and be heard, I might buy it. But I think the problem is that you have circumstances like what happened with Laurel Hester, which seems like a triumph of humanity--she'll be able to leave her domestic partner her benefits, as she would have been able to leave a male spouse--but gay people have been getting screwed out of this right forever.
I mean, how are you supposed to know there's a problem if the people who are having the problem don't identify themselves as a group? Otherwise, people are lazy and they assume that, if things are working okay for them, they must be working okay for everyone.
As for marriage, I have to admit, I really just asked that to provoke Exador, because it's fun. I mean, there's be a certain amout of poetic justice to having an institution that used to be shunned by Christians left wholly to them to recognize and define while the state, which used to approve and enforce marriages as property transfers, got out of the business of acknowledging them at all. But I don't really care one way or the other.
First of all, make no illusions that the state has any moral authority or advanced knowledge. All the state is, is a popular opinion; that's why I can't buy beer on Sunday. (thanks, Baptists!)
So the state has decided that marriage is beneficial for society, based a few millenia of experience, and therefore, decides to reward such behavior and punish pot smokers.
Since the state is the embodiment of such legal matters, that's where the rewards come from.
My beef with unmarried benefits is twofold:
1) There's way too much room for fraud.
2) It is a classic failure of equal protection under the law, since only gays do not require the legal committment of marriage.
Save your typing fingers, all you gay advocates. Failure to allow gays to marry each other is not a violation of the equal protection clause. Gays can marry just like everyone else. There is a universal constraint on marriage that it be between a man and a woman, which applies to everyone. That's equal protection.
If you want to march to legalize gay marriage, I'll be right there with you, unless there's something good on cable.
"Universal constraint." Please.
Such reasoning, that everyone can get straight married if they want, thus no equal protection problem, clearly sets the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence against each other. Or do only some people have the right to the pursuit of happiness?
Why would you do that? Do you hate America?
Anyway "Universal." In which direction? Laterally--because there are still places where you can have more than one spouse at a time. Or horizontally--because, again, 10,000 years ago, you could have had yourself a shit ton of wives, if you had enough cattle to trade for them.
I guess you have to define "Pursuit of happiness". You see, to some, happiness is a wife, 2.3 kids, a dog, a house in the burbs, and an SUV to suck up as much fossil fuels as humanly possible. To others, happiness is their long time partner, a cat, an apartment in the city, a great bike, and as much latte as they can drink....but still there are others who define happiness as the ability to do what they want, when they want, how they want, even if that includes 10,000 wives, or murdering people just for the "fun" of it. That is why our government is based on the Constitution, and not the D of I. It is hard to base a country and a government on a document so filled with ideals. But then again, I don't understand why we spend so much time, energy, and money in our government trying to understand the meaning of the writers of the constitution. It seems to me that it is written in English, a language most of us speak and read. It isn't like the Bible which is written in a foreign tongue. What it says, should be what it says...but that never seems to matter.
And exador, The State sucks, and you can buy beer on Sundays, you just have to do it at a bar, not a Circle K, doesn't that make sense. You can't buy it at the store, bring it home, and drink it in the comfort of your own home, you have to go to a bar, drink, and then go home presumably in a car....something isn't right about this law.
Sorry B, the wording is "Pursuit of happiness", not "happiness".
Those damn lawyers and their wording!
There's no where in the country where polygamy is legal. You're just being silly.
Legal as in "not against the law" or legal as in "laws hardly ever enforced?"
Because the good folks of Colorado City, Utah and Hildale, Arizona practice polygamy.
Anyway, my point was that, if we have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, telling people who they can marry violates that right.
Say, for instance, I have the right to attempt to go to Atlanta. No one's going to guarantee that, if I get on I-24, I'll ever make it to Atlanta, but they can't stop me from getting on I-24, which is the way to go.
Insisting that gay people marry straight people is like insisting that I can only go to Atlanta via I-40.
But call me silly all you want, I find it charming. Not charming enough to vacation with you in Colorado City, but charming enough.
That's where you get into the squishy part of that statement that makes it essentially meaningless.
By following that logic, it's a license to do anything, then claim "it is essential to my pursuit of happiness."
(How has it come to this? I'm advancing a libertarian argument against a libertarian? Strange days.)
If it's not infringing on anyone else's rights, why can't we do anything we want?
The sticky wicket in the "not infringing on someone else's rights" is that you are expecting more benefits that cost more money, that someone else is paying more for.
That's where the Libertarian end comes in.
Ya don't want any extra benefits that cost other people money? Call your self Domestically Partnered all you want.
But how doesn't that also apply to straight married folks? Don't y'all get tax breaks and stuff that I end up paying for?
Why can't y'all just call yourselves domestically partnered and stop milking off of the public teat?
Generally, benefits are something that a company agrees to provide in order to attract workers. It is a mutual agreement. What you are proposing is that the government THEN comes in, guns in hand, and force that company to extend those benefits further, costing them more money.
As for the tax break, see above about the state.
Find a man already. I hear you're a good cook.
(Plus the ping pong thing.)
Fine, I will go with you to Colorado City. All I ask is that before you make me your polygamist second wife, that you give my family a proper bride-price for me--maybe a car for the Butcher.
You can give the Butcher your car. You won't need it, as you will be continuously barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.
Woo hoo! Can we name our first daughter Medbh? And can we get you a cute third wife to keep me "entertained" while you're at work, who also likes to clean? Because as much as I like to make messes, I don't really like to pick them up.
You get that arranged and I'll even take your last name.
Post a Comment
<< Home