I expect you will see more and more of this:
In the end, I couldn’t do it. My California ballot arrived in the mail today, and I opened it fully intending to vote for John McCain. I filled out the state propositions first — yes on 8, no on everything proposing a new bond or new spending — then the local offices, straight Republican excepting Kevin Johnson for (nonpartisan) Sacramento mayor. Finally, the vote for President of the United States: an academic exercise in California, where Barack Obama will surely win by a crushing margin. But good citizenship demands voting as if it matters. Do I believe in John McCain? Not as much as I used to. Do I believe in Sarah Palin? Despite my early enthusiasm for her, now not at all. Do I believe in the national Republican Party? Not in the slightest — even though I see no meaningful alternative to it. So, my choice for President in 2008, scrawled in my ballot as an act of futile protest, is Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. If nothing else, I am confident this is the first of several votes I will cast for him in years to come.
Josh Trevino, co-founder of Red State.
calipygian
Jindal? Really? He may have demonstrated some minimum competence for a Republican office holder, but he still conducted an exorcism for Christ’s sake.
DFD
Ouch…
But Jindal in higher office? puhhhhh-lease.
dewberry
Exorcists 2012!
Michael Demmons
And Josh is a complete asshole for having voted Yes on 8. Scum.
Comrade Stuck
"Futile protest" votes count the same as enthusiastic ones. From a Red Sate guy no less. The worm is turning belly up for the GOP. :-) Somebody should whistle taps as we anticipate the funeral and burial –in a hole of least 25 feet below the surface, just in case that deep down, it’s not such a bad party.
thereisnorule6
so Jindal is their kind of funny named nonwhite guy.
Punchy
Wait a sec. Isn’t Jindal of Indian descent? And they think the base is upset about a black man?
Of course, he did win elections in LA, which means he passed the Deep South Redneck Test.
When you’ve lost RudeState, you’ve officially lost the election. Can’t wait to read the comments.
Perry Como
With supporters like these…
John Cole
@Michael Demmons: Josh is first and foremost a social con, and while you and I disagree with his interpretation of what marriage should be, it doesn’t make him an asshole.
The Grand Panjandrum
The Palin Effect: The Right Wing way of saying "even I’m not THAT gosh darn crazy, dontcha know."
thereisnorule6
@John Cole: voting to take away another person’s rights pretty much makes you an asshole.
Tara the antisocial social worker
The White House could probably use an exorcism right about now.
And Josh is trying to take my marriage away from me. His "disagreeing" is harming me in a very real way. "Asshole" works just fine.
Michael Demmons
I believe that, if I cast a vote to nullify yours and others’ marriages, it would make me an asshole.
Tim in SF
@John Cole: Well, I think he’s an asshole. Him, the Mormons who contributed 10 million to the campaign, and the voters dimwitted enough to be swayed by commercials; assholes, every one of them.
Casting a vote to take away rights from their fellow citizens ? I’m really happy a ban on miscegenation isn’t on the ballot. The same people would probably vote for that, too.
Michael Demmons
Josh Treviño and people like him work their evil little hearts out to make sure that me and millions of others won’t be treated fairly.
While he may come off as a nice person on the outside (I don’t know him) his work, and the work of those he supports, is mean-spirited, doesn’t accomplish anything positive for the country, and is meant to marginalize one and only one segment of the population.
Asshole. And even worse, it makes him a bad person of bad character.
For me and millions of others, we feel the same way that the Lovings did. Some may not see the resemblance, but we do. For us, opposing the Loving decision and supporting Proposition 8 are the same thing.
Assholes – and genuinely bad people. Every one of them.
Tara the antisocial social worker
I have no problem with him DISAPPROVING of my marriage, or his church (if he has one) not recognizing it.
But he’s actively trying to change the law to take my marriage away. That’s not an opinion, it’s an action that has real consequences for my life.
charles
Yeah, what’s up with the *mormons* defending traditional marriage all of a sudden? Shouldn’t they be the most accepting of "alternative" family arrangements?
Paddy O'Shea
Josh should be expecting a big soggy cowpie to the face from Jesus very soon.
TheFountainHead
Not sure if this has been linked in a previous thread, and it appears to be utterly OT, but this McClatchy article takes a 2×4 to the notion that the financial crisis was caused by Fannie and Freddie being forced to lend to scary brown people under the Clinton administration.
h/t: Yglesias
Karmakin
There’s really two reasons why one would vote Yes on Prop 8.
First, you believe that marriage is a symbolic gesture, and doesn’t really mean anything. Limiting the ability to get married, in this case, is a futile stance against social change, but one that doesn’t really hurt anybody.
Second, you understand the multitude of rights and responsibilities that are NOT reproducible under contract law (as a lot of them would require third parties to recognize and follow the contract when they’re not a party to it in the first place), and you just want to deny them to people you find "icky".
You’re either ignorant (and I really don’t mean that as badly as it sounds. I think most people don’t really think about the effects of the status quo all that much), or you’re an asshole. Unfortunately in Josh’s case, I’d say most of us don’t think he’s ignorant of these things. He’s too smart to be.
Prematurely Grey
@charles
Kind of like Cindy saying Obama has run the dirtiest campaign in history? Apparently, there’s some new "every day is opposite day" fad sweeping the nation.
Punchy
@John Cole: It makes him a fucking bigot. Better?
Michael Demmons
Exactly. Asshole. Bad person.
Paddy O'Shea
F-Head – Don’t be too harsh on McClatchy. They also published this article today …
Obama, Democrats on track to landslide victory
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchu/20081012/pl_mcclatchy/3069268;_ylt=Aqx.ss.YjFO3P.8R8vqzys1snwcF
ATinNM
Proposition 8 is titled "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."
Here are the Propositions Trevino voted against:
Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.
Proposition 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act.
Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds.
Proposition 12: Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008.
Says it all, don’t it?
Paddy O'Shea
I for one will be voting NO on Prop 8. I see no reason why Gay people should be legally sheltered from the hateful so-called institution of marriage.
jcricket
Welcome to the Republican party.
Seriously – the people who stood up in favor of segregation were assholes. And the people standing up now in favor of unequal rights for gays & lesbians are the same.
Especially people like Josh, who can’t claim ignorance (i.e. he’s not a "low information voter" who’s just struggling to deal with his minimum wage job).
There’s no excuse for voting yes on prop 8.
Ed Marshall
Have you watched any of the other republicans ad buys? Incumbent candidates that have barnacles on their ass from how long they have sat in those seats are running on "change".
It wouldn’t surprise me to see them in blackface out of desperation.
r€nato
thanks for that link FountainHead. That will come in handy to help explain to certain wingnuttish-folks to whom I am related, why "Barney Fag" and Clinton are not at fault for the current mortgage mess.
jrg
John’s right… "Social con" is a far more descriptive and correct term than "asshole". Social Cons are a type of asshole, just as trout is a type of fish.
malraux
Not to pile on or anything, but there’s nothing about being gay that makes it ok for society to actively screw them over. Voting against gay marriage is a bigoted vote. It is a vote for wishing harm on your fellow citizens. There’s no way it can’t be considered being an asshole.
cyntax
Yes on 8 and no 1A. Wow, what a douche.
This guys are more concerned with whether teh gays are getting married than with building a high speed rail system to connect northern and southern California. No need for new jobs out here in Cali, nuh-uh.
Republican policy: we’ll wallow in economic crapulence but at least we’ve got "morality." These people need to be as far from offices of power as possible.
Tim in SF
@ATinNM:
Seriously. How can you say no to sick kids?
Assholes!
jcricket
Welcome to the Republican party’s new meme. It’s liberals who are out of touch with the mainstream. Bush is popular. We are winning in Iraq. Bush will be judged as a genius. Tax cuts increase revenue. The economy is strong. Government intervention caused the financial meltdown. Obama is running the dirty campaign. It’s the Democrats who are saying shocking things during this elections. Voter fraud is committed primarily by Democrats.
There is nothing Republicans are right on any more, and judging by Josh’s votes above, they are really trying to latch on to the wrong side of every issue (transit, environment, government spending, rights for gays). I expect the Republican party’s impending spectacular meltdown as they oppose necessary steps to protect the economy through government intervention and better regulation, followed by opposition to something like single-payer, will doom them for 40-50 years to stay the party of Sarah Palin types.
liberal
@John Cole:
Wasn’t he behind some effort to "improve" the tenor of conversations in the blogosphere, and which made him ultimately look like a slimy hypocrite? A short google search makes it look like it was called "online integrity" or something.
So…are you just pointing out that Michael D.’s claim is false, or are you making the broader claim that J. T. isn’t a douchebag?
r€nato
I’d say it’s evidence he’s against all taxes, no matter what they are meant for.
I’m not about to call him an asshole for that. You can be against taxes across the board without hating children/the environment/veterans, just like you can be against Obama without being a racist.
(I regularly vote against school bond overrides. Why? Because the schools where I live should have enough money as far as I am concerned. Until recently at least, property values kept increasing here. The school district should, therefore, have all the money it needs, I live in a fairly upper middle-class area. Does this mean I hate kids? I happily pay my property taxes as it is, even though I have no children so I will never use the public schools here, nor will I ever use the community colleges for which I also pay taxes assessed on my home. If they proposed a 10% increase in property taxes to provide homes for all abandoned pets and I voted against it, does that mean I hate puppies???)
His vote on 8, OTOH, makes him a borderline-asshole to me. I’m still willing to grant him a modicum of the benefit of the doubt; there’s a lot of sincere, well-meaning folks who still cannot wrap their heads around the idea of gay marriage.
Of course, on the other hand there were people 50 years ago who were adamantly against miscegenation and today we would undoubtedly consider that an asshole-ish opinion.
being part of RedState, however… that definitely makes one 100% asshole to me.
liberal
@Tim in SF:
Well…just because a cause is good, doesn’t mean a particular bond or budget item in nominal support of that cause is good.
Maybe it is, in this case. Maybe it isn’t.
jcricket
The same way Bush can veto S-CHIP, and the right-wing blogs can hammer Graeme Frost.
If we give kids better health care it’ll create a moral hazard, and more kids will get cancer just so they can get hospital ice cream and skip school. And besides, if kids really cared about themselves they wouldn’t be born to poor or middle class parents.
/libertarian-wingnut
cyntax
I’ll say that at least in the case of Prop 1A he’s demonstrating knee-jerk decision making.
I wouldn’t expect anyone outside California to know this, or unfortunately many of the voters here either, but someone like him should know that 1A will get funding from the feds and the private sector and if it doesn’t, then it’s not implemented. The idea that you can have functional state in the 21st Century without spending on infrastructure is moronic.
Tim in SF
@liberal: You should click on the "sick kids" link before you respond to my comment.
TheFountainHead
Nominated for PotD.
Comrade Warren Terra
What I’d really like to see is the state getting out of defining the word "marriage," and offer civil partnerships to any and all consenting adults. If they want to be married as well as civilly partnered, they can make arrangements with their religious authorities, and so gay folks (or, for that matter, mixed-religion couples, divorced people, or Cohenim with certain proscribed partners, all of whose marriages are denied religious sanction by some religious authorities) can, if they wish, acquire the adjective "married" by arranging a cermony presided over by some figure who doesn’t disrespect their union.
The fact that you so rarely see people on the right pushing the notion that the state shouldn’t get to use, let alone define, the word "marriage" is highly revealing: it suggests that what they really want to do is use state power to express disapproval of some unions, not to "prevent the state from redefining marriage".
But in any case, with respect to Trevino’s spoiling his presidential ballot, I’m glad for any people on the right who feel the need to repudiate McCain, even if they refuse to support Obama, because I think it is very necessary that the country repudiate the Republicans as fundamentally unqualified for federal executive office after what they’ve done in the executive branch for the last eight years. The fact that Trevino chose to express his decision by voting for a Christianist nutjob is hardly to my taste, but I didn’t expect him to make me even this happy with his Presidential vote, so I’ll take what I can get.
Notorious P.A.T.
So, you voted for a party in which you have no confidence? Smart guy.
Tiparillo
I look forward to Jindal/Palin 2012 finally making American safe from Demons and Witches
Comrade Stuck
Maybe an asshole, maybe not. If he declares to go against the wingnut tide of bullshit and shows some common sense, along with a willingness to actually vote against the dangerous Mccain/ Palin ticket, he deserves a break imo. At least until after the election. It always impresses me when a person challenges their own veracity and publicly states they were mistaken. Even if it’s someone I can’t stand.
Who among us here at BJ are not assholes a significant part of the time. It is a permanent non partisan condition for some of us. Thinking that we’re right on the issues doesn’t change that fact.
And now it’s time for Sunday Services at the Funhouse. The ghost of FDR will explain how we’ve fucked things up so bad, and what we need to do now.
Notorious P.A.T.
One of those kids might have really nice countertops. Ergo, they don’t deserve any help whatsoever.
I hear ya. It’s the same way in my home town. But sick kids?
Tim in SF
@Comrade Stuck: Hey, Comrade, my marriage is not a fucking "issue." It’s part of my LIFE.
Ted
Yes it most certainly fucking does. He chose to invalidate already legitimately issued marriage licenses to people just trying to get a fair shake in their lives and partnership affairs. Yes, he’s a major asshole, and a bigot.
Notorious P.A.T.
Oh, come on. Saying most people are assholes is like saying most people are shorter than average.
Bob In Pacifica
Regarding Trevino:
My grandfather, who raised my mother down in the Mississippi delta, was, according to my mother, a member of the Klan. She described it as a social organization, like the Catholics have their Knights of Columbus.
Now this was a long time ago that my grandfather was in the Klan. We visited him a few times when I was a child, he seemed like a wonderful, kind man. He was to me. He’s been dead for decades. I can forgive him for his associations seventy years ago. But that doesn’t make what he may have done back then moral. Trevino may be conservative but he’s not moral and he’s damned well not Christian if his Christianity has anything to do with the man with the thorny crown.
The Knights of Columbus are one of the sponsors of those rotten, lying commercials pimping Proposition 8.
I am not at all sure that Prop. 8 will be defeated, but I wonder how people could legislate discrimination against a segment of the population and get it past the state supreme court. What’s next? Propositions against miscegenation? Against marrying across religions? On the other hand, considering this country started out with "all men are created equal" we still have a lot of inequality a couple hundred years later.
Notorious P.A.T.
Thank you.
If a person votes against a clean energy program because they don’t want to pay more taxes, at least there’s a shred of real-world reasoning there (of course, in the long run a 21st century energy plan will likely save more money than we pay for it, but still).
But voting against marriage for homosexuals? What is that about? There’s nothing there but prejudice and discrimination. There’s no reason to do that except bigotry. Banning gay marriage won’t put money in your pocket, it won’t make you safer, and it darn sure won’t make your own marriage better. That’s why it’s a disgusting thing to do.
kommrade jakevich
No on Prop. 8, yes to Jindal?
See, I think it is unfair to say JT is an asshole when it is clear that he’s a delusional fucking asshole.
I thought it also demands not fucking with people who aren’t bothering you. Silly me.
Darkness
So, his reason for is that they have proven themselves utterly incompetent at running the country, or is it because they haven’t arrested Obama simply on the basis of his middle name?
Tim Fuller
Breaking Story: Grandpa Jailed for having a bad lawn.
I bet the prison industrial complex feels immune from the fiscal calamity that is coming to pass. But in the final analysis, folks who have many other bills to pay are going to get tired of paying to keep Grampa in jail for not cutting his grass and their friends and neigbors for smoking it.
Enjoy.
http://digg.com/people/Florida_man_in_jail_because_he_can_t_afford_to_sod_his_lawn
Nylund
I was going to vote no on prop 8 anyway, but now I will do so with the motivation that my vote specifically cancels his.
Comrade Stuck
There are many issues that are part of all our lives, and therefore quite personal. I understand that and agree that marriage should be afforded all committed couples, regardless of gender. In the political arena which is what we do here at BJ, and someone can correct me if I’m wrong about that, gay marriage is an issue among many others.
gbear
I, for one, am qualmless about piling on. More piling, please. Here’s my two bits.
Fail. Deep fried fail-on-a-stick.
Win.
My best friend in the 70’s and 80’s just got married to a wonderful, loving, caring man in San Francisco two weeks ago. That asshole just voted to annul their marriage and make sure that they can never have the same rights that he takes for granted. Fuck him. Fuck him again. He’s a total 120% asshole.
Deborah
Jindal is an appropriate choice, because everything directed at Obama could be directed at him–a dangerous other, parents not from here, doesn’t look like us, claims to be a Christian but by his blood is obviously some other religion, and so on. The ugly atmosphere conjured up by McCain and Palin this week could be directed at any minority–Jew, Morman, Latino, gay, doctorate holder–with equal venom.
So good on you, Mr. Trevino. My MA vote won’t make a difference except in the popular margin, but it still matters that I cast it and cast it for someone I believe in.
Comrade Stuck
That’s not what I said. My comment was concerning the commenters on Balloon Juice, and clearly stated part of the time. Maybe your one of the exceptions. If that’s the case, then good for you.
@Notorious P.A.T.:
Conservatively Liberal
Only if the "alternative" is lots of women married to one horny zealot who won’t remove his magic underwear.
Dennis - SGMM
I’m fairly liberal and I’m a Californian. I vote "No" on about nine out of ten bond issues. I vote for school bonds and not much else. Why? Because we don’t have the fucking money. This year’s state budget has smoking holes in it that were papered-over with accounting gimmicks that would make any Wall Street banker green with envy. Yes, a lot of the issues are for good and worthy things, needful things – if only we could pay for them. Voting for these bonds is being just like the homeowners who borrowed against their homes to buy an RV because it would be a good thing to have.
Krista
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating.
I have no idea why America has made the marriage thing so fucking complicated. It’s absurd.
Up here, marriage is marriage is marriage. My friend got married in a cathedral by a priest, with 200 guests in attendance. She’s married. I got married in Central Park by a humanist minister, with only 5 people present (including the groom and myself). We’re married. My mom and stepdad got married at a courthouse by a Justice of the Peace. They’re married. And my stepmom’s friends, the first gay couple to get married in our province, got married in their home by a J.P., with all their friends in attendance. They’re married.
There’s none of this "civil union" vs. "marriage" bullshit. If your officiant is legally authorized to perform marriages, then you have a marriage, not a civil union. Why should "marriage" only be restricted to the religious (or those who are willing to find religion long enough to get married in a pretty church?) Fuck that.
I just don’t know why America can’t do it the same way, and why people are so keen to jealously hoard the term "marriage" only for themselves and people exactly like them.
gbear
And also because you can easily ignore living in a neighborhood filled with under-educated, bored kids?
I don’t even have kids but I usually vote to give the schools what they need. These kids are going to be providing the money for your social security payments when they get older. You want them to be smart and productive.
Comrade Incertus
Bobby Jindal? Look, I really hope our country gets to the point where a person of color can get the nomination of either major party–much as I like Obama, I wasn’t convinced until he went on that winning streak in February and March that he could win the Democratic nomination, and even then, it was a razor-close win. I’d like to see a Jindal nomination happen, but I don’t see it happening soon.
Tsulagi
@calipygian:
Really? That’s funny. No wonder he’s such a fan favorite with The Base. That’s a huge plus on the resume. Haggard was going to get a three-year exorcism from Dobson to expel his ghey demons until Dob discovered he had other priorities. So poor Haggard only got the stripped down three-week hooked-on-exorcism version so he could then watch a Super Bowl and claim he didn’t drool over tight ends.
Then there’s Palin who stood up in her church seeking to have witchcraft cast away from her presence.
Oooookay, now I see even more why many of the serious adults on RedState are already calling for Palin/Jindal ’12. They can’t quite verbalize it, but they sense they haven’t quite reached their fully retarded potential. What’s better than one Bush in a dress? Two! They see the big picture.
El Cid
Maybe we can just make sure the law recognizes a distinction between "Secular Liberal Satan-Approved Marriages" and "100% Full Evangelical God-Based Old-Testament Crazy-4-Jesus You’re All Going To Burn In Hell Marriages," to be clear.
On topic, though, I heartily endorse the notion of Republicans writing in protest votes.
cyntax
Please consider reading this before voting no on 1A [link].
Comrade Warren Terra
Krista, in principle I agree with you – but I note that in my formulation you’d still be able to get "married" in Central Park with two witnesses and a Humanist minister. The problem is that what the state confers isn’t a spiritual union, it’s a financial arrangement, and when the state uses a term meant to convey a spiritual union things get all muddled, and people’s preconceptions about appropriate spiritual unions get involved – and that’s a topic where many folks tend to have rather inflexible, unreasonable, and ungenerous opinions.
Bill H
There was an episode on West Wing where the subject had to do with gays serving in the military. The African American admiral (CNO as I recall) listened silently for some time, and then very quietly made an absolutely devastating statement about those arguements being exactly the same ones that were used to prevent the likes of him from serving forty years ago. The discussion ended and everyone slunk from the room with tails between their legs.
You get the idea I might be voting "no" on eight? If there was a box for "Oh hell no" I would check it.
Joey Maloney
"Fundamentally un-American" is more precise, but "asshole" has pithiness and familiarity going for it; it’ll do.
r€nato
we don’t have that here. As I stated, it’s an upper-middle-class area. Our schools are doing fine.
I also made it quite clear I don’t mind paying property taxes for schools which I will never use because I am childless by choice.
I care about our kids and I do not ignore them. But I’m too smart to allow myself to be mau-mau’d into voting for a tax because if I don’t, then obviously I must hate the children/the cops/the firemen/city parks and libraries.
If there is a good reason to vote for a school bond override (again, it is an OVERRIDE over the increases in their budget which they are automatically allowed by the state), I’ll vote for it. But goddamn, they come to us every single fucking year with an override. WTF? We have very comfortable, very good schools here.
And if I must prove to you that I don’t hate kids, you know what I *would* vote for? A tax which would go to fund schools which really are falling apart in poor districts to bring them up to par with the schools in higher-income neighborhoods. That would not only take money out of my pocket to educate kids I’ll never have, it would be for kids who don’t even live anywhere near me.
Now, have I satisfied you that I am not a heartless, fuck-you-I-got-mine conservative?
malraux
@Comrade Stuck:
But to treat the votes on the issue as an abstract issue does a great disservice to the actual issue. Its an issue because it affects people’s lives. Its a direct statement that gays shouldn’t be able to visit their loved one in the hospital, or that their children should have their insurance pulled. This is not about just a definition in a dictionary, its about how we treat other people. You can’t hide the personal behind the political.
Ted
And I am eternally grateful, though it doesn’t affect me. I just can’t believe John could defend that crap as non-asshole motivation. I guess he sees it as no different than the prudent screening for driver’s licenses. The gay part being akin to being blind, or something.
Krista
But that’s the problem. They do not seem to be satisfied with being able to have their own spiritual/financial/hot-swinging-from-the-chandelier sex union. Instead, too many people are in effect saying, "You are not doing things the way that I would do them. Therefore, it is wrong for you to use the same terminology that I use. Get your own!"
It is wrong, and it is nonsensical. It would be as though most of the country built Cape Cod-style homes, and when their neighbour builds a Tudor, they get pissy and say, "Well, that’s not really a house. But we’ll let you call it a dwelling, if you like. "
Martin
Fuck. That’s another No on 8 vote I need to round up.
FWIW, I regularly vote against all ballot measures. I’m sneaking in one yes this year (on animal cruelty, I can’t resist) but I fundamentally oppose direct democratic efforts in representative governments. The public has absolutely no idea what the overall effect will be of bond measures and the like. That’s what we have representatives for – to keep track of this stuff (in theory, yadda yadda). If we’re going to bond measure everything, we might as well get rid of the reps, and vote on the budget directly.
kommrade jakevich
Here’s the thing. You have to get a marriage license from a government body to get married. My sister was planning a huge wedding avec priest and church and God knows what. They wound up just doing the quicky thing at the county courthouse. They were married. If they’d stood before the priest without the marriage license, they wouldn’t be married. What the TalEvan wants everyone to forget is religion no longer has anything to do with marriage and it hasn’t for a very long time.
Of course they don’t really want to change that either because they know the U.U.s would just hang up huge banners reading "Get Hitched Here!" ;-)
gbear
Yep. It’s just that in my urban & barely middle class neighborhood, we’re always on the verge of shorter library hours, closed recreation centers and fewer after-school activities. My neighborhood doesn’t need more bored kids. Peace.
Dennis - SGMM
@cyntax:
Prop 1A will get my vote. Sure wish that they hadn’t mentioned Prop. 13 though. That son-of-a-bitch still makes my blood boil 21 years on. It was with that one bold stroke that many Californians were convinced that they didn’t have to pay for state and local services. Combine that with a clown car State Legislature (Neither side will budge an inch, thus our state budget being 87 days late this year) and you have the ideal conditions for fiscal chaos.
Schwartzenegger has floated a plan to sell off the state lottery for 10bn to get us out of the hole this year. I’m guessing that next year they’ll have to sell off a couple of State Parks to balance the budget.
Comrade Stuck
If you want to parse to death what is an abstract versus an actual issue, I will just say that I don’t know WTF you are talking about. Your comment makes no sense to me and therefore I don’t have clue as how to answer it. If your saying that Civil Rights Issues have special weight and are quite personal, then I agree, but it is still an issue, ever how you want to define that. I also think that society not providing insurance to children is a civil rights issue and so is sending soldiers off to die for lies and distortions, and both quite personal to those directly affected..
Barbara
I still don’t understand why McCain did not choose Jindal. Oh, I know WHY in the affirmative sense — but Jindal would have been a game changer AND he would have taken race off the table in a good way — a way that would have allowed McCain to highlight issue differences with Obama. He keeps telling us that’s what he wants, and Jindal would have forced his Rovian boobs to be a lot more substantive in their campaign.
Of course, it might have caused people in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania to take race off the table and just vote their interests, but eventually, if it wants to survive, the Republican party has to stop mainlining the "othering" drug. Jindal would have been like stopping cold turkey. So even if he lost, McCain would have seriously moved the discussion forward. Whereas, Palin is like crack cocaine or methamphetamine or some other drug that makes you crash and burn really hard but still come back for more.
SamFromUtah
Do I believe in John McCain? Not as much as I used to. Do I believe in Sarah Palin? Despite my early enthusiasm for her, now not at all.
So, does this sign ol’ Josh up for a torrent of death threats like K-Pax got?
Dennis - SGMM
@Barbara:
"…Rovian boobs…"
That’s a slap in the face to Sarah Palin!
Michael Demmons
John:
Please tell us how Josh Treviño’s vote does not mean he is an asshole. Please. You said he is not. Most people here disagree with you. I’d like to know how you can defend what you said. I believe he IS an ass, and his vote is indicative of that.
This is my life we’re talking about here. And let me get a bit personal here. I was married to Robert – my best friend in the world. He still is. But our marriage could not survive the political climate created by people like Treviño. We realized that, because our marriage was so villified and because it created so much uncertainty for both of us, we couldn’t stay together. I needed to let him go on with his life and find someone who was a citizen of this country who he could be with without the threat that his new partner would be kicked out of the country. We realized we couldn’t build a life together with that uncertainty – uncertainty created by people like Josh Treviño – hanging over our heads. So we broke up. We had to. It wasn’t fair to either of us.
How is Josh Treviño not a jerk, asshole, bad human being, etc.??
Doug H. (Comrade Fausto no more)
Ah yes, Jindal. The Great Brown Hope. I don’t worry too much about the Exorcist, not when the base did such a bang-up job of getting Giuliani and Thompson nominated.
Now if Huckabee studies Obama and Paul’s campaigns…
malraux
@Comrade Stuck:
The point being that voting in a way that specifically harms people is clear proof that someone is an asshole. Upthread you seemed to be saying that a vote for prop 8 might not make someone an asshole. I don’t see any way you can vote for it and not be an asshole.
Jess
@Krista:
Remember, many of these people are coming from a religious tradition that argues that sex is a sin except when sanctified by the sacrament of marriage. A sacrament ‘makes sacred’ in the eyes of god, and in their view there’s no way a gay union can be other than sinful. So viewed from this angle, gay marriage does indeed redefine marriage. Who are we to try to change their religious beliefs? The best we can do is separate their religious beliefs from our civil rights.
Therefore, I do think it makes sense to have as much of a separation of church and state as possible, and separating legal civil unions from marriage would be a good step in that direction. Everybody wins, except the fans of theocracy.
JGabriel
Bob in Pacifica:
I keep wondering about that too, specifically how it was even allowed to be on the ballot in the first place.
This is about eliminating the rights of a class of people. A ballot proposition to eliminate voting rights for black people or women certainly wouldn’t be permitted.
But it’s OK to eliminate the right to marry the person of your own choosing if that person is of the same sex?
Unbelievable.
And, John Cole? Yes, Trevino is a bigot, at the very least, for voting to eliminate the right of some people to marry.
Frankly, putting him in the category of asshole is doing a disservice to garden variety non-bigoted obnoxious assholes everywhere. I’d certainly rather be called an ‘asshole’ than a ‘bigot’, and I think we can all agree that Trevino’s attitude towards gay marriage meets the definition of bigotry.
.
Ted
Oh, it’s really quite simple. This will never affect him or his life, so it’s just another "issue" on the political table. One he supports tacitly, of course, but no different than taxes or Medicare spending or anything else. It’s something "good people can disagree on". A bit like thinking in 1951 that ending segregation was a good and just idea, but just lovely lovely wonderful people could disagree and still deserve respect and attention to their opinions on the matter.
Fuck that. Let him tell me I wouldn’t be an asshole for advocating the revocation of his now or future marriage.
John Cole
@Michael Demmons: Because I think there is a profound difference between people like Josh who deeply, truly, and honestly believe, due to their religious background, that marriage truly should be reserved for a man and a woman, and folks who are just bigots and are in the ‘God hates fags’ group or who are just unrepentant homophobes. While they may end up voting the same way on said initiative, there is a difference between the two. The first group are, in my opinion, wrong. The second group are wrong and assholes.
Worst of all are Republicans like Karl Rove and Rick Santorum and other jackasses who are surrounded by homosexuals in Washington on their staffs (the so called lavender bund, if you will), but who push this sort of legislation for pure political reasons.
If you all want to call everyone who disagrees with you an asshole, go for it. I think you are wrong.
ATinNM
I’m NOT accusing anyone of "heartlessness." I am accusing Mr. Trevino of ignorance.
The cap on Property taxes has resulted in the rate of cost increases to be below the rate of income increase. I note that cost increase includes inflation plus the necessary profit from the suppliers to the school districts.
Concurrently, the net decline in Real Income for most people over the last 30 years has shrunk Disposable Income resulting in an increasing inability to pay additional property tax, for most people.
Together these trends have brought about a situation where school districts have been forced to shift monies from Long Term expenses – such as ongoing building repair – to Current Operating Expenditures.
State money is not (effectively) available due to voter mandated budget expenditures of state funds.
At some point, either the buildings are going to fall over XOR mucho bucks have to be spent in one fell swoop to keep them standing. That means a tax increase IOR the local community gets its act together and finds a means of raising the required money.
The past 30 years has shown the latter is an ineffective means of raising the required money.
As the economy slips into Recession/Depression the ability to pay increased – or ANY – Property Tax decreases.
The longer the buildings deteriorate the more money will have to be spent to bring them up to snuff.
Bottom Line: Either bag Public Education or pay the money to keep it going.
Reflexively voting against all bond propositions does nothing to address the situation.
gbear
I’m with you that marriage should be a non-discriminatory institution, but isn’t blaming the breakup of your marriage on social pressures kind of the same thing as using the argument that allowing gay marriage will destroy straight marriages? Do you really want to say you left each other because society disapproved? Please excuse my curiosity about so personal an issue.
JGabriel
Barbara:
Because Jindal is a Catholic. That doesn’t play quite as well with the base as being an End of Day Dominionist type Evangelical/Fundamentalist.
.
malraux
@John Cole: So those who opposed black civil rights because its in the bible are not assholes? Even if its part of religion, it shouldn’t get a pass on standards of decency.
Ted
Flat-out BS. "Deeply, truly, and honestly believe, due to their religious backrground"??! Are you serious? How does voting to nullify other people’s marriages on the basis of some lines in an ancient book make them less than an asshole and a selfish prick? And this coming from you who clearly doesn’t have any religious hangups about what other people do harmlessly with their lives. Amazing. Did Ace O. Spades hack this blog today and start posting under your name?
Jess
@John Cole:
Well, if they don’t want to be lumped in with the assholes, then they need to find a way to provide equal civil rights outside of the ‘marriage’ tag. Anyone who supports equal rights, whatever their personal prejudices, gets a pass from me.
Joey Maloney
But that’s not what he thinks, John, or at least it’s not the important part of what he thinks. He thinks he should be able to enshrine his religious beliefs in law, even though he knows those religious beliefs aren’t universally shared and just tough noogies for those who feel differently.
Asshole.
Comrade Stuck
I think every wingnut (though not all republicans) is an asshole, as am I sometimes. To me, asshole is a matter of demeaner and personal presentation. To you and most others on this thread, it’s a matter on how you vote, Chicken egg Tomato Tamato. But that is beside the point I made. Even a wingnut asshole/vermin/toadfucker/shit for brains will get at a thumbs up acknowledgment from me of doing something right for a change, regardless of the crap they’ve done before. At least for that one action. And voting against (the GOP) something they’ve supported all their life qualifies. I get angry, and sometimes hateful towards the right wing, but I try extra hard to not be a full time hater like many of them are. And this Red State guy has made at least one decision that he’s not going to be one either , at least for this election. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
John Cole
Unless I am mistaken, there are quite a few Democratic politicians who are on record as opposing gay marriage. Haters and assholes like, say, Joe Biden. You might want to check out Obama’s stated views.
Um, no. The actual conservatives I know would tell you that it is not the job of conservatives to propose laws, their job is to preserve and defend the status quo. In fact, when we got into the most trouble the last decade is when we had a bunch of reactionary Republicans in power proposing laws. Better to have them standing athwart history shouting stop, if you ask me.
What on earth are you ranting about. I personally support gay marriage, where in years past I had the leave marriage to the religious and give people civil unions. I have moved decidedly to the left on the issue. All I am stating is that just because someone opposes gay marriage does not make them an asshole.
Brian J
I don’t see how Jindal is so much better than Palin, except that he may be quicker on his feet. But whatever…
JGabriel
John Cole:
Sorry, John, that doesn’t wash.
Most bigots believe their bigotry is deeply, truly, and honestly justified. Any member of the KKK truly believes that racial minorities are genetically inferior.
I fail to see how this argument from religious background is any different than saying we should teach creationism in schools because fundamentalists deeply, truly, and honestly believe the universe was created in 7 days.
.
Ted
Shorter John Cole: There’s a difference between people who say "I don’t want no negroes in mah store!!" and people who say "I’m just not very comfortable with the coloreds and would prefer they not shop here" are very different. With the latter being much more morally acceptable.
burnspbesq
I can’t believe that of all the 80 or so commenters so far, no one has picked up on the ridiculous irony of this moron voting for Kevin Johnson for mayor of Sacto.
That’s Kevin Johnson the former NBA player. An African-American with no experience.
See it now?
cybergal619
Um, it’s NO on 8.
Michael Demmons
@John Cole: Not good enough. The end result is the same. Treviño is in the same bed with these people. The freely work together. He is a bigot. He is an asshole. He is a bad person. And no matter how rationally he comes by his position, his position is the same as the bigots he works with.
For what it’s worth, by the way, there is nothing in Treviño’s Bible that defines marriage as exclusively between a man ad woman. It is a social construct.
Defending him is unbecoming of you. I know you agree with me on marriage policy, and I appreciate that. I really, honestly do.
He is a bigot on account of his vote. He really is. He is no different than the “God hates fags”-types because he works for the same goal- and it has totally fucked up my family.
Let’s be clear – when it comes to marriage equality, Josh Treviño’s position is no different than the worst of bigots – and it is a bigotted position. No question about it.
burnspbesq
The Catholic bishops of California have instructed the faithful to vote "yes" on 8.
Guess I’d better plan to receive the sacrament of reconciliation on the Saturday after the election.
Ted
Then you’re incapable of understanding this in a way. You can’t comprehend how unbelievably assholish it seems to us that people would want to deny us marriage on the basis of a general "feeling" they get about us, or some damn lines in a multi-thousand year old book. Sorry, but I have no desire to legislate the terms of other people’s relationships differently than my own. And if they DO have that desire for my own relationships, while I’m causing no harm to them, then I think they’re a raging asshole.
So, never mind then.
whocoodanode
Of course Trevino is an asshole.
Having visited BJ regularly for some time, it is clear John Cole does not have a problem with Cons, only with some of their stupidity. They are his original peeps after all, and blood is thicker than a falling 401k. Cons can hate, pillage and lie but Cole still finds ways to defend them. They just don’t bother him.
Now, if you want to see Cole lose his "reasonableness" that is so often on display for the Cons, give him the chance to defend someone like Eliot Spitzer. THAT was an unmasking of our esteemed host: Spitzer was someone Cole really went after and cheered to see destroyed. Corporate-crime fighting is simply not a real, testable value for Cole, and it is still (yes, STILL) the most fun for him to watch "libruls" get their comeuppance.
Don’t trust Cole. He’s got a funny schtick, being a "reformed" Con an all, but once that koolaid is in your system it stays. If he had better smarts or instincts he would have never drank from the publican’s cup of corruption.
Jess
When the status quo goes against the spirit of Constitution and curtails the civil rights of citizens in a harmful way, conservatives with a moral conscience (such as yourself) will and must support necessary changes. People of any political or religious persuasion who allow ideology to trump humanity are well on their way to becoming assholes, if not outright evil dictators.
Michael Demmons
@gbear: We had a really tough time adjusting to the climate here. While we’re still legally married in Canada, we found it very tough to make financial decisions and others. It really got to be a problem. Every decision Robert and I made was predicated on me “being here.” Once we started making really big $$$$ decisions, it got very difficult. It was tough, and it stressed our relationship. Again, we’ve remained best friends, thankfully. We still have a financial relationship (we own houses together) but we’re better off as separate individuals, thanks to people like Josh Treviño…
Liberaltarian
I, for one, let my asshole-freak-flag fly here. It has been tremendously liberating.
But, there’s asshole, as in, being rude, and there’s asshole, as in being a bigot. Now, John may in fact feel that Josh T is not rude; but, it is hard to argue that he is not a bigot. The religious right could have moved to secularize domestic partnerships and make them all equal under the law, but move marriage to a strictly religious practice, like a sacrament or baptism. That is not what they did.
Fundamentalist religions have no business messing with my health decision, my bedroom, or my civil rights. Yet, they think they are COMMANDED BY GOD to legally prescribe to me my private behavior. Anybody who thinks they would not impose criminality on these things if they could (like they used to), is just being intentionally obtuse. I am not talking about genuine criminality–like murder or theft–I am talking about personal values.
The proposed gay marriage ban is Schiavo-esque, except about sexual preference. It is just like those people that tried to interfere with that personal family matter.
I am sick to death of the religious right. I am sick to death of hearing about little old men shooting their little old wives to death because the religious right does not believe in death with dignity. The religious right has attacked Oregon’s assisted suicide law repeatedly–not because the law is faulty, but because of their personal beliefs.
Fuck it. I am more than happy to shame the talibaptists when I can, and shun them when I cannot. I am voting NO on 8, with vigor.
Ed Marshall
I don’t have a conservative bone in my body, and I wasn’t donning sackcloth and ashes when Spitzer got caught up.
I didn’t like his enemies, but he was a vindictive guy and sort of a Jewish version of Giuliani.
Comrade Stuck
What we are having today is an ideological flame fest based on, we must hate them no matter what and forever. I reject that and see it as the flip side of the same hateful coin. And
whocoodanode, you are being an asshole and a ratfucking
troll.
TheFountainHead
Religion is no shield to hide behind when your bigotry is out in the open. It’s one thing to oppose a gay marriage ammendment on a federal level because you believe it’s a states’ issue. It’s another thing to be a proponent of making it constitutionally illegal on the state level.
Brachiator
@ATinNM:
Not at all. A few weeks after the Governator and the state legislature finally cobbled together a state budget, they found that they were $7 to $15 billion in the hole, having guessed wrong about revenue projections and the impact of the national financial crisis. And since California law mandates a balanced budget, they have to find the money somewhere. So even as credit markets dry up, Gov Arnold has appeared in radio commercials asking the people to buy $4 billion in short term notes so that the state can meet its obligations.
Some of these bond issues are pure pork, some are the typical California Initiative BS of special interests pretending that they are trying to help someone (e.g., sick kids) in order to direct state money to crooks and liars. But the bottom line is that there is practically no money to fund even worthy new projects because existing state obligations are busting the budget.
It is very easy to be in favor of gay marriage and also to be against fiscal irresponsibility.
By the way, even though Prop 8 is vile, even if it passed, it is unlikely that existing gay marriages would be invalidated.
Also, since Proposition 8 deals very narrowly with the definition of marriage, even if it passes, the prior California laws concerning registered domestic partners could be used to protect the legal rights of gay couples.
Michael Demmons
Josh Treviño is a bigot. He is.
Josh Treviño is an asshole. He is.
Josh Treviño is a bad person. He is.
People who agree with Josh Treviño are part of the same pack. Bigots. Assholes. Bad people.
They are un-American. UN-AMERICAN.
Steve
How is that better?
Ted
The trouble here is many people, including John Cole, think that this is a more noble, legitimate, and moral basis for fucking people over. As long as the motivation is bible verses and religious belief, it’s somehow different than the Fred Phelps style hate. Which is based on … bible verses and religious belief.
It’s terribly confusing, but somehow he sees a difference. I guess if their prejudice is expressed in more polite terms, it’s less assholish of them.
John Cole
Now you are just flat out making shit up. My response to Spitzer was that prostitution laws are stupid, but for a guy who RELISHED going after people and savaging their reputations, something he did with gusto, it was completely and totally idiotic for him to do what he did. I challenge you to find people who disagree with that assessment.
And Spitzer did enjoy destroying people- there are any number of people he went after who were never convicted of anything. There is quite a difference between the myth of Spitzer’s accomplishments and his actual accomplishments. Additionally, I think that using those tactics are wrong regardless of who they are prosecuting.
Here is about the most concise version of my take on things:
It is beyond me how anyone could disagree with that.
Some of you purists and ideologues are just as fucking annoying as Michelle Malking and those lunatics.
trollhattan
Yup, and a closetfull of so many skeletons he has a locksmith pretty much fulltime employed keeping the door shut. But hey, he’s a jock, not a boring female bureaucrat like the current mayor.
Interestingly, red also didn’t vote for the proposition to alter the redistricting process in a fashion that would reduce incumbents’ influence. I can only conclude that he’s not very bright, in additon to being a loon and an asshat. The Jindal gambit is clear evidence of an unstable mind.
In conclusion your honor, I hereby declare him not worth another second of my time. Can I have the last ten minutes back?
John Cole
Exactly.
gbear
Hey John, These guys have deeply held religious beliefs about homosexuality. I guess it means that they’re not assholes.
****
Assholes.
malraux
Also, wouldn’t the conservative position (conservative being defined as that which preserves the status quo) on Prop 8 be against it?
Michael Demmons
John: I love ya man. And on most issues recently, we agree with you…
You are wrong about Josh.
He is bigot.
He is an asshole.
He is a bad person.
Just calling it like it is. Voting yes on 8 is bigotry. Josh voted yes. He is wrong. He is an asshole. He is a bigot.
There is no other explanation. There is no rational explanation for doing so.
JGabriel
New thread above.
Cole can’t read this one anymore because he’s getting the: (da-da-dun) Black Screen of Death.
.
Polish the Guillotines
(Posting from IE7, since the Black Screen reared up early — post 118)
I don’t know Josh Trevino, but in my opinion voting to outlaw Sulu’s marriage doesn’t just make one an asshole. It makes one a Klingon as well.
A dirty, fucking Klingon.
The Moar You Know
6/10 – obvious troll is obvious. Drop the Eliot Spitzer angle next time.
Martin
Jumping in, not at all. There in nothing about gay marriage that invalidates straight marriage. It doesn’t make it illegal, suggest that it is immoral, or infer any negative sense on it at all. Those that oppose gay marriage ultimately oppose the special exclusivity that they enjoy. It’s no different than White Power with a bow on it. They surely don’t see it that way, but ultimately that’s all it is, and the arguments in opposition of it are the same as they were when interracial marriage was under attack and by the same forces, no less.
There is nothing about gay marriage that dilutes straight marriage in any way. Churches will always be free to marry who they want. The Catholic church has refused ceremonies to any and all for ages and continue to this day. That is their right and it will continue to be so. If straight marriage is sacred under your God, it can continue to be so. If gay marriage is equally sacred under some other God, this allows that to be so as well. Nothing more.
I’ll state here that I have a number of longtime gay friends – some of whom are now married, and it’s obvious that social pressures have always played a role in their relationships. They may not be aware of that in all cases, and they certainly would be resistant to admitting to it, but it’s obvious to friends all around them that it’s true.
I’m still confident that 8 will go down. We’ve voted it down twice before, but this being the last gasp requires more work to turn out the NO votes.
Punchy
Please spare us the "he thinks it says this in the Bible, therefore we cannot criticize his ass". Gimmie a fucking break. So "religous beliefs" are some fucking unpenetrable shield from Being A Bigot? Some get-out-of-jail-free card from being painted with supporting such bigotry? No offense, but that’s the most retarding fucking thing I’ve heard from you in some time.
Just Some Fuckhead
@El Cid: lmao
Cornelius
@Michael Demmons:
Michael D has it exactly right about Trevino and Prop. 8.
I’d call Trevino a wanker, but that’s an insult to wankers everywhere who have higher personal standards than Trevino has.
Only religious fundies should be voting for Prop. 8. Self-described libertarian-leaning Republicans shouldn’t and should take a long, hard look at the cognitive dissonance going on in their positions.
Oh and yeah, Jindal’s a freak. If Trevino expects to see Jindal on the national ticket in 2012 or 2016, then he’s more delusional than he sounds. No way, no how Jindal gets one of the top two spots, not with the all the racists the GOP has to cater to for the foreseeable future (unless, of course, they’re desperate and pull a Palin).
Ming
Wow. I find this exchange incredibly interesting. As a minority, I’d like to offer a few thoughts. When I was in a restaurant and some asshat bigot started talking trash to me for being a "Jap" (which I’m not, but whatever), and all the nice liberal college-town whites sat there and said nothing, I knew many of them were embarrassed and did not approve of Mr. Asshat, but the overall effect was nonetheless one of tacit support. So yeah, you may have less bad (or neutral) motives for your actions (or non-actions), but if your actions have bad effects, it still matters. Really matters, and should be addressed.
At the same time, I’m loathe to call someone a bad person if they are operating out of sincere moral convictions, even if they are "interfering" with stuff that’s "none of their business." To a sincere social con, you are saying, "look, it’s none of your business that these folks over here are doing something deeply wrong." They haven’t considered the possibility, or can’t wrap their heads around the idea, that "maybe X is not deeply wrong, maybe that’s just something I believe, and other people are entitled to their beliefs." It doesn’t feel like that to them — it just feels like the wrongness is self-evident, it’s out there in objective reality. It doesn’t feel like, "I like ice cream, other people like cake, why should I insist that everyone eat ice cream" to them. It’s not about personal preference to them, it’s about what’s right and wrong — a set of principles that trump individual preference.
The problem, of course, is that it’s hard to say just what (and whose) set of principles is "right." My take on social cons is that they haven’t seen enough to have more humility in their beliefs. So yeah, I do think they’re wrong in opposing gay marriage. But I don’t think they’re bad people, any more than I am a bad person for unquestioningly believing all the things my limited experience has not yet led me to question. And given the choice, I would prefer a world in which people didn’t look the other way quite so much when they saw (apparent) wrongs being perpetrated.
Can we who want [adults of the same sex who love each other and want to be married to able to do so] work toward that end vigorously and persistently, while leaving room for the possibility that *some* of the people getting in our way are acting in good faith?
On a practical level, I think it’s precisely those people whom we have the best chance of reaching. (And by the way, I think that’s the fundamental respect Obama shows toward his opponents on any given issue.)
cyntax
@Dennis – SGMM:
Glad to hear it, and yeah good ole Prop 13. That was back when the Repubs knew strategy. Our state’s been financially screwed ever since, forcing every little thing we need to pay for out onto the ballot every time and pissing people off to the point where nothing gets funded anymore. And now we’re nearly broke.
Preach it, brother…Amen!
Just Some Fuckhead
I think Cole is just saying "asshole" doesn’t need to be broadened in definition to include about one hundred and fifty million Americans, including a fuckton of Democrats. If we don’t take a stand against redefining "asshole", marriage could be next.
Oh, and you *cough* childless folks who keep voting against school funding, fuckyouverymuch. You aren’t too far fucking removed from your asshole marriage tormentors.
cain
Maybe the rest of you should save your hyperbole and instead give money for fighting prop 8?
I gave 25 bucks.
cain
Tim in SF
It is different, actually. It’s just not different enough for him to not be an asshole.
Krista
@ #86
And that is everybody else’s problem because….?
It does not, however, make their OWN marriage sinful. Why are they so damn concerned with the sins of total strangers?
I disagree. Many religious people used to view interracial marriage as sinful. If we had followed the "civil union for thee and marriage for me" solution for the question of interracial marriage, is there anybody here who honestly thinks that it would have been a fair and good solution? It’s not about trying to change someone’s religious beliefs. It’s about equality under the law. Religion should not be a factor at all.
Wrong. "Separate but equal" is not a win. Instead, you should stop pandering to the religious, and tell them to mind their own beeswax. And you should call it "marriage" across the board, regardless of the gender of the participants and the location of the ceremony.
Hob
Just in case this thread needed any extra
assholesopinions–1. On marriage: Warren, you have a point and it’s one I hear a lot these days, but it’s still a point based on a mistake. Marriage is not a religious construct that government is meddling with; it’s a human behavior that various legal constructs grew up around, and that most religions also made up some rules about, like they will do about any basic human behavior. And from what I’ve read, it’s pretty clear that the notion of "you’re my squeeze and I live with you and share all your stuff" was around long before any of the current flavors of organized worship-based program activities. In Christian tradition, the clergy were involved early on at the most local level, because they were often doing double duty as general keeper-tracker-of-stuff in places that didn’t have a lot of government; the organized church(es) stepped in later with rules to make sure the clergy were doing it right, and some theory to make it clear what their official position was. This would be the place for me to provide some references on this interesting subject, if I weren’t real lazy. Anyway, you could say much the same about burial — people have always had a habit of putting dead bodies somewhere, and there are various legal regulations about that, and many religions have strong opinions about that too, but that doesn’t mean we should rewrite the law to use some new word other than "burial". (By the way, I speak as a believer, and I do think it makes sense that any philosophical/mystical system that purports to address the human condition in general can include a point of view on what marriage, sex, etc. are supposed to be about. But that doesn’t mean it owns those words.)
2. On Trevino: I thought there was already a national, global, and universal consensus that that guy was an asshole. He writes like an asshole, he argues like an asshole, and he can be counted upon to support assholish policies. Whether his position on one particular (highly assholular) ballot measure is based on some other set of qualia in his immense mind, rather than on the general assholitude that provides that mind with its structure and function, may be an interesting question but not a consequential one.
Xenos
This gets it completely backward. Marriage is purely a state-sponsored legal status, to which some religions, for reasons of their own, attach some significance. I will leave it at that.
r€nato
so I am obligated to vote for every single school bond override, regardless of the merits, or otherwise I hate children? Even though I cheerfully pay the rest of my property taxes which pay for schools I will never directly use???
and I’m nearly morally equivalent to the anti-gay-marriage crowd?
Well, it’s fantastic that we’re forming the circular firing squad before we’ve even had the election.
liberal
@Tim in SF:
That’s a YouTube link. I don’t have the time to watch video; please use print citations when trying to support claims regarding public policy.
Blue Raven
(FYI, Firefox for Mac doesn’t have this black screen of death bug.)
The Prop 8 issue may not invalidate the marriages currently being made in CA, but it’s still a restriction of individual rights with no valid secular reason for doing so. The state’s ability to issue marriage contracts should not be held accountable to any religion’s proscriptions on its followers. Period. I’m heterosexually paired, and being bisexual I know damn well that if I survive my husband, I could wind up remarrying within my own gender. Or wanting to. If the law forbids it, the law will be an ass and anyone who supports that restriction is a hair on the ass’s hindquarters.
And please, as someone who is childfree and votes school bonds on their merits, please, please do NOT equate bond votes with civil rights laws. They are not in the same arena. You have the civil right to breed. You do not have the civil right to insult people for disagreeing with how the state finds the means to educate your child.
Brachiator
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Bullshit. Especially in California. Californians happily voted in the California lottery, which was supposed to create a bunch of money to maintain schools (it didn’t), happily voted for Proposition 48 to fund before and after school programs (it didn’t), and happily voted for Proposition 98, which guaranteed minimum funding for schools and annual increases (which happened, even though regular funding has been screwed with due to various budget crises). In addition, local school bond issues have regularly passed, even when inept or corrupt administrations and teacher union groups squander or misuse the money that they get.
What you have is one group of infantile citizens (so-called progressives) insisting that infinite amounts of money should be spent on education with no oversight or results and another group of infantile citizens (libertarian conservatives) who insist that if you abolish public education altogether, the right people will magically find a way to get educated, and those who don’t will become happily illiterate day laborers.
This is somewhat true, but ignores the fact that over time religious authorities were granted monopoly power over marriage, and religious influence still influences how we view state-sponsored civil marriage. In any event, all of of this is trumped by the Constitution, whcih sets the standard of edqaul protection. Opponents of gay marriage have to make the case that there is a compelling state interest to prohibit gays from marrying. And they can’t. Which is why the opposition centers on religious objections, and phony claims about the centrality of religious marriage to civilization.
Jeff
I agree with Tim in SF at #135—it’s a difference without a distinction and doesn’t keep Trevino from being an asshole.
People can believe whatever they want, "deeply, truly, and honestly." The problem comes when they insist that the state legislate on the basis of those beliefs—beliefs which have no rational basis; if legislated, obviously adversely affect others who in no way share their beliefs; and if not, have no discernible adverse impact on themselves, other than being "offended."
Further I think that statement misstates the issue. The "deeply, truly, and honestly" held belief is not that "marriage truly should be reserved for a man and a woman" but that marriage for same-sex couples cannot and should not be normative. It is not a positive view of the "sacredness" of marriage (about which the state should say nothing, really) as is commonly stated, but a negative (and, I’d say, intolerant) view of what (and who) is excluded.