Anti-gay protesters at military funerals

[wvrevy]

Who said the candidates I supported were those who pushed those amendments? Not all Republican candidates push a religious agenda.

Umm...nobody did, so kindly leggo of that red herring. I did say, "IF" you voted for those people. As for your last sentence, they may not all "push" that agenda, but darn few of them are willing to buck the party and do anything other than stand aside while the ones that do want to push it get whatever they want. The party leadership has thrown down that gauntlet, and I've yet to see any Republican really step up and say that what they were doing was wrong. (and far too few Democrats with the guts to do so either, by the way)

 

[Bob Slydell]

Easy...if you voted Republican, it places you in the group that is to blame for them being denied their rights. What's so difficult about that?

So much for the whole "vote for the candidate, not the party" theory.

 

[wvrevy]

So much for the whole "vote for the candidate, not the party" theory.

Bob - Do you deny that it is the Republican party that is pushing anti-gay legislation? It certainly isn't the Democrats doing so. Sorry, but unless you can show me where some Republican has stood up against this kind of bigotry, then yes, one Republican is much like any other in this respect.

Again, I'm not giving the Dems a get-out-of-jail-free card on this, either, as too few of them have shown the guts to stand up and say that what the extreme right is pulling is nothing more than bigotry. But at least some of them have done so. If you want to claim the Republicans aren't all marching goosestep along with this agenda, then by all means, point out those that are fighting against it.

 

[cardaway]

If you voted for the people that pushed those amendments, then you ended up supporting them, regardless of how you cast your vote on the amendment itself. As the old joke says, "We've already established that...now we're just dickering over the price."

I have to agree that you are off base this time. Not only are there still a few true conservative GOP's out there, it's also too much to include all the simple local folks in with the crooks at the top.

 

[wvrevy]

I have to agree that you are off base this time. Not only are there still a few true conservative GOP's out there, it's also too much to include all the simple local folks in with the crooks at the top.

I don't think so, cardaway. I mean, seriously, can you think of a single Republican that has spoken out against the religious right's agenda? Even John McCain has stood aside at critical times, and I thought (at least, until his sucking up to Bush during the last election) that he, at least, had some integrity. Same goes for those on the local level. Bob mentioned the Ohio elections...I didn't notice any Ohio Republicans on television (yes, we do see some ads for Ohio here in the Western part of WV) condemning the amendment, and it did pass, largely on the support of the Republican vote.

 

[Bob Slydell]

I also didn't see every Democratic candidate openly fighting against the religious right's agenda, so, by your logic, wvrevy, that must mean that those Democrats support bills against gay rights and against abortion?

That's the problem with being moderate -- few candidates match all your opinions all all political issues. The best you can do is research a candidate's position on a number of issues and pick the one that best matches your position.

 

[wvrevy]

I also didn't see every Democratic candidate openly fighting against the religious right's agenda, so, by your logic, wvrevy, that must mean that those Democrats support bills against gay rights and against abortion?

And I have openly admitted that not all Democrats have done anywhere near enough. In many ways, silence does equal consent in politics, Bob. Is it easy to stand up against something that it appears the majority may want? Of course not. It can't be for anyone in an elected position. But that doesn't excuse them for their silence, regardless which side of the aisle they may sit on.

 

[Deb in IA]

Sorry, but if you support the GOP's ongoing efforts, you are different from Phelps and his band of "lunatices" (sic) only in degree, not in principle. Either you support equal rights for all people, or you don't. This isn't one of those issues where there is a lot of grey area.

If you really don't see any difference between Republicans and Fred Phelps, then I pity you.

Even more than I pity the pathetic Phelps gang.

 

[cardaway]

I don't think so, cardaway. I mean, seriously, can you think of a single Republican that has spoken out against the religious right's agenda?

At the top, no, and that's why I think for those people Phelps is "right message, wrong place" in their eyes. They don't say much about what he is saying, only where he is saying it.

There are plenty of GOP's in the lower ranks who have nothing in common with those at the top. Usually true conservatives who want to lower local taxes and stay out of our private lives.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

You are correct sir, I do apologize for leaving out everyone. I know that if this group picketed at my Grandmother's funeral there would have been trouble.

This is exactly what the Phelps clan wants -- some sort of physical confrontation so they can file a lawsuit against anyone and everyone -- the cemetary, the family, the police, the city, etc. -- claiming their precious civil liberties were violated and only huge sums of money will compensate them for their anguish.

Short of that "achievement", they will settle for publicity which, sadly, the media seems prepared to give them despite the fact that they've worn out whatever welcome ever existed long, long ago. I wish the media would wise up to these (and other) attention hounds and stop feeding them. I doubt it would happen immediately, but if they were ignored repeatedly, after time they might realize no one is listening or caring about their so-called message.

 

[wvrevy]

If you really don't see any difference between Republicans and Fred Phelps, then I pity you.

Even more than I pity the pathetic Phelps gang.

Of course I know that not all Republicans are of the Phelps mentality. I have friends that are Republicans - true conservatives - and I would certainly never consider being friends with someone who thought this way. My point is simply that the anti-gay environment that has been created by the current people in Washington - and I would not classify them as "conservatives" of the usual stripe - is conducive to just this sort of bigotry. So, if you voted for the current excuse for leadership in Washington, then you are, in a way, supporting just this kind of lunatic fringe.

At the top, no, and that's why I think for those people Phelps is "right message, wrong place" in their eyes. They don't say much about what he is saying, only where he is saying it.

There are plenty of GOP's in the lower ranks who have nothing in common with those at the top. Usually true conservatives who want to lower local taxes and stay out of our private lives.

Believe it or not, I think we're actually saying the same thing, just approaching it differently. Their attitude of "right message, wrong time" is just what I mean by their only differing from these people in degree. If they differ from them only in when the message is "appropriate", then I truly do not see much difference at all...only one of degree.

As to the second part of your comment, I agree completely. In fact, were I a true conservative - someone against government intrusion into private life and such things as excessive social programs, particularly the inherent corruption and abuse in some - I would detest the current leadership in Washington, as they seem to be a completely different breed...the "neocon". How anyone that is a true conservative could countenance the rampant corruption, big brother attitude, and unprecedented government waste under this administration just baffles me.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

wvrevy -- I understand where you are coming from, however, trying to link the Phelps clan to the Republican Party is going to take a lot more than the normal 7 degrees of separation. As disillusioned as I am with both this administration and both major political parties in general, I am not seeing anything more than a major chasm between Phelps and the Republicans. To assert that Republicans in general hate gays with the same intensity that the Phelps clan does is as absurd as the assertion that all Democrats are philanders just because Bill Clinton was.

(And yes... ding, ding, ding -- I win!)

 

[wvrevy]

wvrevy -- I understand where you are coming from, however, trying to link the Phelps clan to the Republican Party is going to take a lot more than the normal 7 degrees of separation. As disillusioned as I am with both this administration and both major political parties in general, I am not seeing anything more than a major chasm between Phelps and the Republicans. To assert that Republicans in general hate gays with the same intensity that the Phelps clan does is as absurd as the assertion that all Democrats are philanders just because Bill Clinton was.

(And yes... ding, ding, ding -- I win!)

Oh, I agree completely that it's absurd to claim that all Republicans hate gays with the same fervor as the Phelps clan...which is exactly why I've never made such a claim. But the Republican Party - as a whole - has gone out of it's way to target gay rights over the past few years. I don't think anyone can seriously deny that with a straight face. Gay marriage was the hot topic during the last election, and it appears that they are targeting gay adoption for this year and beyond. They are the ones that have created the environment in which Phelps and sick people like him can flourish.

Or, to borrow your analogy, it would be similar to the Democrats passing laws that made it impossible for someone to get a divorce - or receive any kind of post-marital aide such as alimony - merely on the grounds of infidelity. The people passing the laws might not be the ones doing the philandering, but they are creating an environment where such a thing is much more permissable.

 

[beckmrk04]

Oh, I agree completely that it's absurd to claim that all Republicans hate gays with the same fervor as the Phelps clan...which is exactly why I've never made such a claim. But the Republican Party - as a whole - has gone out of it's way to target gay rights over the past few years. I don't think anyone can seriously deny that with a straight face. Gay marriage was the hot topic during the last election, and it appears that they are targeting gay adoption for this year and beyond. They are the ones that have created the environment in which Phelps and sick people like him can flourish.
QUOTE]

I agree with you 100%. I think that when you have a two-party system, like our country lamentably has, you have to look at the parties' group characteristics. And, as a whole, the Republican party is the one who is putting gay rights on the chopping blocks, and making darn sure to try to take more away. 16 "red" states have pending legislation so that gay and lesbian couples will not be able to adopt children. They are the ones who have put an outright BAN on gay marriage. They are just feeding Phelp's notion that this is "sick" and "wrong" and "immoral." The GOVERNMENT says so. I'm NOT equating Republicans with Phelps, by any means, because MOST people are NEVER this hateful, and certainly no one who is truely Christian. But, nevertheless, the message is the same- Phelps just has a sick and disgusting way of spreading it.

Yes, I do accept that Democrats have not done enough. Neither party is perfect. And, I do look at candidates individually before I vote. BUT- I know that when I vote democratic, generally I will get a few things: less cutting of humanitarian programs, funding for family planning, and more support of gay rights. Not a whole lot of Republican candidates who support those things. That said- if those things aren't important to YOU, then by all means, you get to choose who you vote for too.... Just know that usually, even if you elect someone based on their individual stance, many times they cave under partisan pressure- just like Gov. Shwarzenegger did when he was elected: he was all for gay rights and marriage. But he sure vetoed a measure to allow it, didn't he?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Politicians follow the money and they also know (mostly by wetting their index finger and holding it into the air) the way the wind blows on most issues. They are not going to do something that will alienate the majority of their base.

Those 16 "red" states that have pending legislation prohibiting gay/lesbian couples from adopting only do so because a majority of people in those states support such legislation. States that passed laws banning gay marriage did so only because a majority of people in those states supported such laws. Same applies to Arnold... he knows who has buttered his bread and he's not going to drop it on the floor.

We can complain and moan about politicians and bash them until they are a bloody pulp, but that's not going to change anything. It will require building a new majority at the grassroots level -- one that truly supports full equality for all Americans. It requires winning the hearts and minds of individuals and then getting them to go to the polls and vote.

Politicians listen to two things: money and votes. Everything else is just static.

 

[beckmrk04]

We can complain and moan about politicians and bash them until they are a bloody pulp, but that's not going to change anything. It will require building a new majority at the grassroots level -- one that truly supports full equality for all Americans. It requires winning the hearts and minds of individuals and then getting them to go to the polls and vote.

I agree completely. I truely do believe that we, as a country, will get there. I'm ashamed that so many people in my age group have not voted. Or that they don't care. BUT- I think people are making progress towards open minds and open hearts. Slowly, maybe, but surely.

And I must say, I think Dick Durbin and Barrack Obama just LOVE my letters, e-mails, and phone calls. That's why I keep on sending them!

 

[Tigger_Magic]

And I must say, I think Dick Durbin and Barrack Obama just LOVE my letters, e-mails, and phone calls. That's why I keep on sending them!

I know what you mean. There are probably several politicians who open my letter or e-mail and think -- "good grief, there's that fool writing me again! Wonder what it is this time?" (I'm pretty sure our mayor has said that aloud more than once!)