• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Hi god, it’s us. Thanks a heap, you’re having a great week and it’s only Thursday!

In short, I come down firmly on all sides of the issue.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Republicans don’t trust women.

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

If you are in line to indict donald trump, stay in line.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

The revolution will be supervised.

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

When do the post office & the dmv weigh in on the wuhan virus?

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Everybody saw this coming.

Don’t expect peaches from an apple tree.

Let’s finish the job.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable VA House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / A different kind of culture war

A different kind of culture war

by DougJ|  April 17, 20093:13 pm| 184 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Walking through campus yesterday, I saw what looked to be a very annoying sorority girl — the sort I would normally assume to be right-leaning politically — explaining to two boys why they should help out with her sorority’s fundraising efforts. It turned out that the sorority was trying to raise five thousand dollars to give to a stem cell research fund.

Later that day, I brought up the high speed rail plan (which would go through Rochester) with two Republican graduate students here. They were very excited about it, much more than I am. One mentioned that he thought it was crazy that Americans have to spend so long in their cars and wondered why our transportation system can’t be more like Europe’s. I didn’t have the heart to tell them they’re supposed to hate Europe as conservatives.

I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but seeing things like this makes me believe that cultural politics is very different among young people than among older people. I doubt that the sorority girl knew much about stem cell research or that the students I talked to knew much about rail travel. Culturally, though, they identified with things like scientific research and public transportation.

I have a feeling this kind of thing runs pretty deep. And that it’s going to be pretty damn hard for a party consisting primarily of older southern people to get on the right side of this cultural divide. This from McCain’s campaign manager, Steve Schmidt (via TPM), may be a harbinger of things to come, though:

Former top McCain adviser Steve Schmidt is planning to use a Friday speech to the Log Cabin Republicans to urge the GOP to drop its opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I’m confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it,” Schmidt plans to say according to excerpts provided to ABC News.

Schmidt’s push for Republicans to endorse same-sex marriage comes as his party is grappling with a string of gay rights victories in Iowa, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.

I’m not a fan of the politics of cultural identification. I think it tends to blur the detail out of policy and often involves issues that aren’t even the government’s domain in the first place (I agree with John that the government should only issue civil unions, not marriages, for all people). But it does seem like the era of God, gays, and guns may be drawing to a close, at least outside of Appalachia and the Deep South.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Afternoon Open Thread
Next Post: The Newest Line of Bullshit »

Reader Interactions

184Comments

  1. 1.

    The Dangerman

    April 17, 2009 at 3:18 pm

    100% agreed on the Civil Unions thing; such an easy solution to such a complex problem (well, not THAT complex, but you get the idea).

    With or without the Culture Wars, Bush has fucked the Right for a generation (see Carter, Jimmy, and he wasn’t THAT bad of a President in comparison to Bush).

    A question on Joe (hey, it’s Friday); anyone tasted that coffee that is "treated" by civets (google civet and coffee if you know not what I am talking about)?

  2. 2.

    Paul L.

    April 17, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    to give to a stem cell research fund.

    Embryonic or Adult?
    Adult stem cell research needs the funds since Obama cut Federal funding for it.

  3. 3.

    DougJ

    April 17, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    Embryonic or Adult?

    Isn’t even asking that question an admission of defeat?

  4. 4.

    Captain Haddock

    April 17, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Sad to say I know many conservatives with similar views who still thought Palin was the best choice last election.

  5. 5.

    Linkmeister

    April 17, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    The NYT’s Caucus Blog points out that Mr. Schmidt "has a sister who is a lesbian."

    It’s different when it affects your own family or friends. Understandable.

  6. 6.

    Bill Teefy

    April 17, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    You had me till civil unions.

    Why do you or anybody get the rights to a word? Why can’t anybody call their union marriage. In our society, whether you like it or not, marraige has a connotation for social and legal reasons that goes way beyond a simple contract.

    Homosexuals may be gay but I have never not been allowed to call my state of happy "gay" if I feel like it.

    The world is only 6,000 years old and 95% of the time any union was not called marriage. Before the Bible was translated into English no Christian was ever married. Most Catholic services did not use the word for the Sacrament until the Priests started dropping Latin for sacred rights.

    I am sure some Biblical scholar can find you the "Christian" word or the Biblicist word for the union that they make. And I would be happy if they wanted to use that word. I am sure in Pakistan or the Amazon jungle there are other words you could find that work too. But I don’t want to call what my partner and I have a civil union.

  7. 7.

    jrg

    April 17, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    I find it amusing that Steve Schmidt went to the Log Cabin Republicans to urge the GOP to drop its opposition to same-sex marriage.

    "Hey guys. Enough with the gay bashing stuff. Seriously."

  8. 8.

    flounder

    April 17, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Living in Prescott, AZ, I got to see McCain’s very last campaign rally. The one thing I noticed about the teabagging I went to the other day was that it was even older and whiter than the very white and old McCain rally.
    The only young group (i.e. not kids with parents) were part of some Dominionist group (and one of them had a sign with some small lettered rant about 666 and ‘Mark of the Beast’ and whatnot). Basically, out of 2,000 protesters (local right-wing paper estimate–mine is 1,000 people), there was one group of 5 or so 20-30 year olds.
    Culture Wars are a mugs game for the GOP. Most of us younger than their 40’s aren’t fighting these fights. I understand why they have to fight them all though. They are the last vestiges of the GOP revival that ran from Nixon/Atwater’s ‘silent majority’ to Reagan to Karl Rove and his unwitting puppet. They lose on gay marriage and it is basically over.
    P.S. I agree that getting rid of any mention of marriage at the Federal Level is the way to go.

  9. 9.

    jibeaux

    April 17, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Logically speaking, I think probably Democrats, like, you know, the president, should (and will) support same-sex marriage before Republicans will. Steve Schmidt is right about public opinion, but I would put the Republican party catching up to it more on the "later" end of the "sooner or later" spectrum..

    O/T who is this chick with the bazongas advertising "Civony"?

  10. 10.

    NickM

    April 17, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    Good post, Doug. One of the reasons I like the Republicans running with Rush as their spokespig is that I cannot imagine anyone under, say, 25 or 30 looking at that guy and thinking, "That is one cool mofo." The more out of touch they become with people who are going to the voting for the next 50 years, the happier I am.

  11. 11.

    NutellaonToast

    April 17, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    I was talking to a Florida raised lab mate of mine. He told me that he was moderate. Conservative on spending and liberal on social issues. When I asked him how he voted he said that he split between the parties.

    I kind of, almost, get fiscal conservatism. I don’t get why anyone would ever prioritize that over EQUAL FUCKING RIGHTS. You know, the tenant that this country was allegedly founded on. Our history of fiscal liberalism has yet to produce a single moment of shame or disaster for the country, and yet social conservatism has given us such black eyes as slavery, segregation, discrimination against homosexuals and torture (to name a few). Why would you ever prioritize fiscal policy over social policy? It baffles me.

  12. 12.

    Scruffy McSnufflepuss

    April 17, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Who’s going to represent the crazies if the GOP doesn’t do it?

    The crazies have a death-grip on the party; if it loses them, it has about as much political clout left as the Libertarian Party does. Ergo, the insane pandering to the insane.

    I don’t see the Democrats overreaching and alienating their conservative wing any time soon. Those voters won’t be going back to join the crazies. For viable two-party politics to return to America, I’m expecting the Democrats to splinter and form two parties. After the Republican Party is well and truly dead, of course. The crazies will flock to the more conservative of the Democratic splinter-parties, or form a third party of some kind.

  13. 13.

    jibeaux

    April 17, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    @NutellaonToast:

    This is a good point. Make it stronger by using "tenet" instead of a word meaning "renter or occupant", though. :)

  14. 14.

    Calouste

    April 17, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    One reason why America’s transport system can’t be more like Europe’s is that Europe is far more densely populated. The US has a population density of 80/sq mile, France 300, Germany 600, Britain 700. England (Britain without the lesser populated part of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) has a population of more than 45 million and a population density of more than 1000/sq mile. In comparison, there are only two states that have a population density over 1000, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

  15. 15.

    gbear

    April 17, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    I find it amusing that Steve Schmidt went to the Log Cabin Republicans to urge the GOP to drop its opposition to same-sex marriage.

    ‘Why Mr. Schmidt, Ah DO declare…". I can almost see the fans fluttering.

  16. 16.

    My Prius rolls on dubs

    April 17, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    I think the blinders the GOP top brass have are amazing and overall very hurtful to their cause, which is fine by me. When this younger generation comes to power, both Dems and Repubs are going to be fucking AMAZED at the changes that will happen in just a few.

    The old white Pat Buchanan types will go to their graves crying into their soft, doughy palms.

    Schadenfraude is a beautiful, beautiful thing.

  17. 17.

    Paul L.

    April 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    @DougJ:

    Isn’t even asking that question an admission of defeat?

    It is the admission that thanks to demagoguery people do not know there are two kinds of stem cell research:
    One that provided a number or cures.
    and one that gives cancer.
    ESC advocates paint the advances in ASC research as advances in ESC research.

  18. 18.

    Krista

    April 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    100% agreed on the Civil Unions thing; such an easy solution to such a complex problem

    What’s even easier: the way Canada does it. Marriage licenses are issued by the government, and then, whether you get married in a church, a courthouse, a hayfield, or a McDonald’s restroom, you’re married. Full stop. No such thing as civil unions. Married is married is married, regardless of the nature of your actual ceremony or the gender of the participants involved.

    To me, that’s the only TRUE way for it to be equal, instead of this civil union vs. marriage stuff. And it’s much less complicated, as a bonus.

  19. 19.

    SpotWeld

    April 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    20, 30 years ago proponents of any American industry. (Especially sciencetific reseach with highly marketable potential) would have found a home squarely within the right wing of politics. The crazies would have been there too, but they would have fit within the "big tent".

    Times have changed, neh?

  20. 20.

    LD50

    April 17, 2009 at 3:34 pm

    The world is only 6,000 years old

    Come again?

  21. 21.

    flounder

    April 17, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    @Bill Teefy
    The way civil union works is you get a civil union license no matter whether you are marrying a man or a woman. Then you go get your civil union. If you go to a Catholic Church with a preist and stuff they might call it a marriage. If you are gay, they might even say they aren’t going to be party to it. Big whoop…you have your cousin get an online priesthood certificate and he does the ceremony, and you call it a marriage. If you want to call it a joining, or globbob, that is fine too.
    However, when you file your taxes, the 1040 asks how you are filing, single or jointly, nothing about marriage, and that is that.

  22. 22.

    dmsilev

    April 17, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    @jibeaux:

    O/T who is this chick with the bazongas advertising "Civony"?

    No idea, but she’s all over the liberal blogosphere. I googled ‘Civony’, and it appears to be some sort of mass online game along the lines of Age of Empires or some other "build a civilization and conquer your neighbors" type game. What the well-endowed woman has to do with that is less clear, unless it’s some marketer playing to the stereotypical gamer demographic.

    -dms

  23. 23.

    Dennis-SGMM

    April 17, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    "This isn’t your father’s grandfather’s great-grandfather’s GOP! We’re old, we’re white, and we’re ready to fight!"

  24. 24.

    Brachiator

    April 17, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but seeing things like this makes me believe that cultural politics is very different among young people than among older people.

    I suspect that most people, especially most Americans, don’t give a rat’s ass about the politics of culture, although I’ll allow that among some older people, a particular ideological stance may be important.

    Americans tend to be pragmatic. A case in point here is the Terry Schiavo case. A lot of conservatives and fundamentalists simply assumed that the majority would go along with the government’s attempt to prevent the removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube. But apart from the sympathy that many felt for everyone involved in the case, there was a smoldering resentment at the idea that either the federal or state government would impose their will on a private family matter.

    I know people whose hard personal experience led them to conclude that these decisions were best made by relatives and doctors, not courts and Congress.

    Similarly, I hear people (not just the young) note that even though they may believe that marriage is by definition a relationship between one man and one woman, they aren’t interested in "defending" society from a supposed gay menace, or in policing anyone’s lives.

    Another case in point: I didn’t notice much in the way of protests or even hot blogging over the gay couples who brought their children to the White House Easter Egg Hunt. Maybe there was a controversy, but most folks had other issues on their minds.

  25. 25.

    LD50

    April 17, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    I find it amusing that Steve Schmidt went to the Log Cabin Republicans to urge the GOP to drop its opposition to same-sex marriage.

    Perhaps Schmidt is trying to refurbish his image after his big appearance in ’08 as McCain’s low-rent Karl Rove.

  26. 26.

    Bill H

    April 17, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    The government already does "only issue civil unions" today, they just use the word "marriage" for it.

    This whole arguement is bizarre. The only thing that the legality of "marriage" confers is things like property rights, inheritance, taxes, power of attorney and the like. The legality, repeat legality, of "marriage" does not mean that I have to have sex with my partner, or that I cannot do so. It does not mean that I have to have children with my partner, or that I cannot do so. It is not about procreation, or about love, or about sanctity.

    When I got married we did a thing in the church with a priest, with music and all that. Afterward we retired to a little room with the priest, and the two witnesses, and he said, "We have some business to take care of." We signed some papers. Those papers conferred upon me and my wife the legal "marriage" that everybody is having the vapors about. We could have called it a "civil union" or a "grand whistle." The "holy marriage" that religious people want to freal out about happened in the church prior to that.

    We are, for God’s sake freaking out and having marches and coming to blows over a word.

  27. 27.

    Shibby

    April 17, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    But it does seem like the era of God, gays, and guns may be drawing to a close, at least outside of Appalachia and the Deep South.

    I’ve been cautiously optimistic about this too. The whole movement just seems tired and irrelevant. As you stated, demographically speaking, there is no future for the Republican party in its current form. What I’ve been wondering is, how will it all end? Does the conservative movement reform itself? Does it continue its slow decline to extinction? Or will there be some lucky modern Joseph Welch who history will recognize as saying enough is enough? Or perhaps (best Kevin Spacey impression) "And like that… [poof] he’s gone. …"

  28. 28.

    Seebach

    April 17, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    But it does seem like the era of God, gays, and guns may be drawing to a close, at least outside of Appalachia and the Deep South.

    The scary question is, what does it mean for those of us trapped in those areas? The distillation of pure insanity in this region is going to be a very bad thing.

  29. 29.

    jibeaux

    April 17, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    and one that gives cancer

    I don’t really even know where to start with this, but mentally I have started with a picture kind of like a show too cute and quirky to stay on the air, "Pushing Daisies". A lab-coated scientist pulls out a microscope slide of embryos, and somewhere in the same basic vicinity, someone "is given" cancer as a result.

    It’s not as visually arresting as the show where people keel over dead because the Pie Maker touched a different dead person once instead of twice, but I think just as scientifically sound.

  30. 30.

    JM

    April 17, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    This is why the right is so regional. It has identified itself with issues that don’t appeal much beyond an old culture that only survives in the south because it’s died out everywhere else. It would be different if things were fine, but it’s getting hard to argue about impractical/superstitious crap when there are burning problems to address.

    Look at the Palin rallies/tea baggers. The only stuff they get excited about any more is a bunch of goofy crap.

  31. 31.

    liberal

    April 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    @Linkmeister:

    It’s different when it affects your own family or friends.

    There was a pretty prominent discussion in the blogosphere in the last year or two about how right-wingers can’t understand these things unless they have personal experience with it.

  32. 32.

    The Moar You Know

    April 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    I’m confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it

    The GOP will be unrecognizable in 20 years.

    The Democrats, in my lifetime, changed from the last holdouts of the racist South into what the party is today – which is more or less what the Republicans of my 70s childhood were.

    I can’t wait until the regional South has its own third party, one that, because of our two-party system, has no influence over national politics whatsoever – and then the two main parties can get back to the business of governing this country.

  33. 33.

    SpotWeld

    April 17, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    The right-wing definition of "one of us" seems to be getting narrower and narrower. (Or, they are willing to let a smaller and smaller group in power define it for them.)

    The left can be prone to this, but is less so since they seem to work from a "goal first, membership follows"

    Anti-war protests were pretty straght forward, "End the war in Iraq"

    The Tea partyt protests were… anti-goverment debt? Anti-goverment spending? Pro flat-tax? Pro fair-tax? Pro national sales tax? Anti-Obama ? Very muddled

  34. 34.

    Shawn in Showme

    April 17, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    One reason why America’s transport system can’t be more like Europe’s is that Europe is far more densely populated. The US has a population density of 80/sq mile, France 300, Germany 600,

    You’re actually making the case for high speed rail. The only high-speed rail proposals that have any momentum in the public square are in California, which has already been approved in principle at the ballot box, and the northeast corridor. The density in those areas is very Europe-like.

  35. 35.

    jibeaux

    April 17, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    What the well-endowed woman has to do with that is less clear, unless it’s some marketer playing to the stereotypical gamer demographic.

    "Start your journey NOW, my lord."

    Hey! You just might be onto something there! :)

  36. 36.

    liberal

    April 17, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    @Calouste:

    One reason why America’s transport system can’t be more like Europe’s is that Europe is far more densely populated.

    Yep. And I say that as someone who despises our automobile culture.

  37. 37.

    Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist

    April 17, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    @Scruffy McSnufflepuss: The crazies will flock to the more conservative of the Democratic splinter-parties, or form a third party of some kind.

    Or, more likely, several thousand third parties.

    @My Prius rolls on dubs: When this younger generation comes to power, both Dems and Repubs are going to be fucking AMAZED at the changes that will happen in just a few.

    I sure hope you’re right. One possible case in point is President Obama; even if he is the corporatist I believe he is, he’s a very different kind of Democrat than the DLC sorts who believe being a Democrat is some kind of original sin.

    I feel sort of sorry for the Boomers that the two presidents they got to have were Clinton, who was pretty decent, and Bush, who was the worst one ever (so far, knock wood). Obama is making Gen X’s shot at a good leadership legacy pretty strong, as far as I can tell.

  38. 38.

    BDeevDad

    April 17, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    The culture divide was summed up by Iowa Senate Majority leader Michael Gronstal:

    One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country.

    Any my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost. My generation doesn’t care.

  39. 39.

    Zifnab

    April 17, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    One reason why America’s transport system can’t be more like Europe’s is that Europe is far more densely populated.

    That doesn’t strike me as very convincing at all. So the population density is lower. So how do we need less rail? That doesn’t make cars more efficient than trains, or planes less expensive. Population density makes individual vehicles LESS desirable – as anyone that drives into New York or LA can tell you – but that doesn’t explain why we don’t have high speed rail from Houston to Dallas or from Seattle to San Diego. Does the decreased population density in the center of the route make a 4 to 8 hour car / truck ride more affordable or practical? Cause I’m not seeing it.

  40. 40.

    Shygetz

    April 17, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    I don’t really even know where to start with this…

    The proper place to start is:

    "Anyone who trusts scientific ‘facts’ coming from Paul L. deserves to be misinformed."

  41. 41.

    SpotWeld

    April 17, 2009 at 4:06 pm

    @BDeevDad

    You know, that’s probably it in a nutshell.
    The "x generation" that, by many, had been dismissed and "not caring" were in fact poised to become both motivated and effective agentes of change.

    They just never cared about the outdated "important" stuff the older generations still clung to.

  42. 42.

    Legalize

    April 17, 2009 at 4:06 pm

    Even Dobson knows it’s over.

    It’s over.

  43. 43.

    Shawn in Showme

    April 17, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    What’s even easier: the way Canada does it. Marriage licenses are issued by the government, and then, whether you get married in a church, a courthouse, a hayfield, or a McDonald’s restroom, you’re married.

    This romantic view of the world where something simply doesn’t exist if it’s not created by America is slowing killing us. Whether it’s universal health care, high speed rail, recognizing the rights of homosexuals and a host of other issues our more enlightened counterparts are moving on.

    If the wingnuts had their way, Jackie Robinson would have broken into the league with the Yomiuri Giants.

  44. 44.

    jibeaux

    April 17, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    @Shygetz:

    Well, sure, but that’s neither funny nor mentions Duke lacrosse, so….

  45. 45.

    Cat Lady

    April 17, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    It just seems like getting worked up about stuff other people do that has no impact on your own life is just pointless, and a luxury not too many people have in this economic environment. Worrying about your and your children’s future has trumped everything else. The twenty somethings now mostly get their news from Jon Stewart and Colbert, and they all know gays and minorities, and LIKE them! Are FRIENDS with them, even! Republicans are just old, white, tired, intolerant, irrational and mean. Good luck selling that.

  46. 46.

    Punchy

    April 17, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    but seeing things like this makes me believe that cultural politics is very different among young people than among older people.

    In other news, dog bites man.

  47. 47.

    NutellaonToast

    April 17, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    @jibeaux: See, this is how spell check is running the younger generation.

    And before someone calls me a moran, yes, it was on porpoise.

  48. 48.

    NutellaonToast

    April 17, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    @Calouste: That doesn’t make sense because America has plenty of areas that ARE densely populated. People don’t need local stops across Arizona, but an LA to SF line would be awesome.

    Remember, New Jersey is more densely populated than Japan.

  49. 49.

    BDeevDad

    April 17, 2009 at 4:15 pm

    One that provided a number or cures.
    and one that gives cancer.
    ESC advocates paint the advances in ASC research as advances in ESC research.

    There are so many things wrong with this I’m having trouble figuring out where to start.

    1. You know what else causes cancer, RADIATION and radioactive materials. Like we use in radiology and nuclear medicine. That’s why research is necessary.
    2. ASC have been in use at least since the 1960’s if not earlier. ESC were first isolated in 1998 and that process led to advances in ASC research.
    3. The number of cures claimed by the only ASC crowd is overblown. They include Parkinson’s which I assure you is not cured. See number 49.

  50. 50.

    jibeaux

    April 17, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    You know, in addition to the obvious generational divide in thinking about gay marriage, I also think that as gay people have lived more in the open, that some even older generation people have gotten used to the idea. Obviously, not all of them are going to change, but some people can adapt to newer ideas, it just takes people living outside of the closet for the ideas to be seen.

  51. 51.

    Shibby

    April 17, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    @BDeevDad: I was going to jump in on this but you already gave an excellent summary. If you don’t fully fund research in one area how can you expect to produce results?

  52. 52.

    John Cole

    April 17, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    Even Dobson knows it’s over.

    No doubt. And he couldn’t even admit Schiavo was dead.

    This is over.

  53. 53.

    b-psycho

    April 17, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    @jibeaux: Dammit, now you have me refreshing the page to try to see WTF you’re talking about. I’ve never seen that ad on here, just the not all that good looking IMO "virtualgirl".

  54. 54.

    John Cole

    April 17, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    Count me as one of those who is just dying to learn how embryonic stem cell research causes cancer.

  55. 55.

    Zifnab

    April 17, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    @John Cole: Every dollar we spend killing babies is a dollar that could be spent on the far superior adult stem cell research, thus depriving cancer patients of treatments that we would have invented if we hadn’t been chasing after the embryonic folly.

    Also, God will hate on us and send floods and hurricanes and AIDS and cancer.

  56. 56.

    Shawn in Showme

    April 17, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    Population density makes individual vehicles LESS desirable – as anyone that drives into New York or LA can tell you – but that doesn’t explain why we don’t have high speed rail from Houston to Dallas or from Seattle to San Diego.

    High-speed rail is one issue where the myth of American exceptionalism should play in our favor. Once California gets theirs off the ground and out-of-staters passing through get a chance to ride it, it will have the American seal of approval. Finally, 40+ years after the bullet trains debuted in Japan, America will have "invented" high speed rail.

    Extending the service to your home state will simply be the patriotic thing to do. Of course Japan and France may have personal rapid transit by then, but the commitment to a sensible transportation policy has to start somewhere.

  57. 57.

    DougJ

    April 17, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    Why can’t anybody call their union marriage.

    They can. But why does the state have to get involved? It’s a legal arrangement for the state. Why muck things up with religious imagery?

  58. 58.

    Calouste

    April 17, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    @Zifnab:

    That doesn’t strike me as very convincing at all. So the population density is lower. So how do we need less rail? That doesn’t make cars more efficient than trains, or planes less expensive. Population density makes individual vehicles LESS desirable – as anyone that drives into New York or LA can tell you – but that doesn’t explain why we don’t have high speed rail from Houston to Dallas or from Seattle to San Diego. Does the decreased population density in the center of the route make a 4 to 8 hour car / truck ride more affordable or practical? Cause I’m not seeing it.

    The infrastructure costs per passenger mile are going to be higher if the market you serve with your line has few people living there. That has to be reflected in ticket prices somehow. And considering the gas price in the US is about 1/3 of what it is in Europe, that makes it even harder to compete on price.

    Second problem you have is the lack of a feeder network. It all nice and well building a high-speed link between Dallas and Houston, but how are people going to get to the station and then from the station to their destination? It’s not much use doing the 240 miles between Dallas and Houston in an hour and a half when to get to your actual destination you have to take two buses that go once or twice an hour.

  59. 59.

    BDeevDad

    April 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    @John Cole: They cured PD in mice with ESC but tumors started to form in some of the mice.

    EDIT: rereading, haha, I’m a moran

  60. 60.

    Zifnab

    April 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    @jibeaux:

    You know, in addition to the obvious generational divide in thinking about gay marriage, I also think that as gay people have lived more in the open, that some even older generation people have gotten used to the idea.

    People were open about it ages ago. People were open about being Jewish and Irish and Episcopalian and Freemasons too, a long time back. But then you’d get the flash flood of fascism or xenophobia that would inevitably grip a nation, and all the "out" folks got fired, displaced, and marched off to the gas chambers.

    Next time a hurricane rolls through or the stock market plunges another 6000 points, expect to see people bleating around the edges about how the minority group du jour is to blame. And we get to play the same old game anew.

  61. 61.

    gbear

    April 17, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    I feel sort of sorry for the Boomers that the two presidents they got to have were Clinton, who was pretty decent, and Bush, who was the worst one ever

    Don’t waste time feeling sorry for us. This boomer is incredibly happy to see the end of boomer rule. We as a generation just basked in the glow of everything accomplished before we came along, and then all started grabbing ‘our’ pieces of the spoils as things started falling apart due to neglect.

    Watching how Obama handles (most aspects of) the presidency has been a joy to behold for this aging fart. He’s leaving us in the dust and I’m happy for the change.

  62. 62.

    John Cole

    April 17, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    @BDeevDad: So then don’t use that on humans. Isn’t that the point of “research?”

  63. 63.

    jibeaux

    April 17, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    @b-psycho:

    She looks like kind of like what the women who go to SCA events are aiming for. Medieval, tarty, yet somehow wholesome all at the same time.

  64. 64.

    jenniebee

    April 17, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but seeing things like this makes me believe that cultural politics is very different among young people than among older people.

    It generally is. As Grampa Simpson said, "I used to be with it, and then they changed what ‘it’ was." La plus ca change…

  65. 65.

    b-psycho

    April 17, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    Never mind, I did a search.

    Don’t really see what the fuss is about w/ the ad (the way jibeaux described it I thought it was some chick w/ double-Ds basically falling out of her top), and the game looks lame anyway.

  66. 66.

    BDeevDad

    April 17, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    @John Cole: Caught the word research too late

  67. 67.

    bvac

    April 17, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    I’m convinced that the right hates everything that would benefit them most. They hate too much federal spending, but most of it goes to red states. They don’t like highspeed rail, but it would bring great benefits to conservative areas where industry has collapsed. They hate abortion, but if it were outlawed I bet they would be more affected than most other demographics. They hate gay marriage, but by their own admission it would eventually allow them to marry their guns. Or box turtles. Or whatever.

  68. 68.

    asiangrrlMN

    April 17, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    @Krista:

    Yes, this! For some reason, the word marriage is important to people. Fine. I believe that no religion ‘owns’ the word, so let everyone be married, and then you can have a religious ceremony if you wish.

    I think the semantics came about when LGBT folk decided it would be easier to fight for civil unions than marriages precisely because so many people are attached to the word. Give us the same benefits, and we’ll just call it something different. The problem with this, as most of us realize, is that if it’s not called marriage, it won’t be considered equal to marriage.

    Again, I am not a huge proponent of marriage, so to me, this all seems like much ado about nothing.

    As for the Civony ad, I thought it was for some kind of game, too. I would never click on it because it’s so dang sexist.

    P.S. I still don’t get how using stem cells (embryonic) is baby-killing as the cells would just be thrown away, anyway.

  69. 69.

    Zifnab

    April 17, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    @Calouste:

    It’s not much use doing the 240 miles between Dallas and Houston in an hour and a half when to get to your actual destination you have to take two buses that go once or twice an hour.

    You could say the same thing about air travel and yet we have a robust and profitable (most of the time) airline service.

    Besides, if you build it, they will solve your problem. You think maybe bus stations that saw a sudden massive uptick in ridership would increase their bus routes and rates? It’s not like train stations get built in a vacuum. The free market will provide.

  70. 70.

    Cris

    April 17, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    All this talk about ASC and ESC, and no mention of iPSC yet.

  71. 71.

    jenniebee

    April 17, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    @Zifnab:

    Also, God will hate on us and send floods and hurricanes and AIDS and cancer.

    You forgot the plagues of Gypsy Moths and Pine Bark Beetles.

  72. 72.

    jibeaux

    April 17, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Personally, I think a lot of people get married because otherwise the nomenclature’s just awful. Saying "boyfriend" when you’re 47 sounds dumb, and partner, civil unionee, significant other, they’re all so ugh. Then you have to get into extended families…partner’s sister’s daughter instead of "niece". Who needs the hassle?

  73. 73.

    Woody

    April 17, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    can’t wait until the regional South has its own third party, one that, because of our two-party system, has no influence over national politics whatsoever – and then the two main parties can get back to the business of governing this country.

    Indeed, it would make a certain amount of sense to simply accede to the desires of the former confederacy for its independence., and let ’em ALL go…

    One problem in 1861 was there weren’t as many states then as now. There were 13 Confederate States, iirc: VA, KY, TN, MO, AR, TX, LA, MS, AL, NC, SC, GA, FL…We can spare ’em now, much better…

  74. 74.

    Shawn in Showme

    April 17, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    Second problem you have is the lack of a feeder network. It all nice and well building a high-speed link between Dallas and Houston, but how are people going to get to the station and then from the station to their destination?

    The same way that Europe does it. Frequent buses that run on time.

  75. 75.

    PaulB

    April 17, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    @jibeaux:

    I don’t really even know where to start with this,

    Well, you could pretty much start, and end, with the fact that every assertion Paul L made in that post is unequivocally false.

  76. 76.

    Woody

    April 17, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    Man, I’ve been married three times, and I don’t get the charm.

    Call it what you like.

    You can have it.

  77. 77.

    jibeaux

    April 17, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    NC voted for Obama AND we won the national championship and we aren’t going anydamnwhere, especially not anywhere Mississippi is going.

  78. 78.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    April 17, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    @NutellaonToast: Yep. I am anti-tax and think the Democrats rely to heavily on taxing so the government can "fix" things. But I never really concern myself with that stuff too much because I know I can always make more money. But I can’t get more rights. If the governments encroaches on my personal life or that of my neighbor where do I go? That’s why I vote for the Democrats. A hand in my wallet is annoying. Snooping around in people’s personal lives and erecting a police state based on theocratic prinicals is an entirely different matter.

  79. 79.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    April 17, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    @NutellaonToast: Yep. I am anti-tax and think the Democrats rely to heavily on taxing so the government can "fix" things. But I never really concern myself with that stuff too much because I know I can always make more money. But I can’t get more rights. If the governments encroaches on my personal life or that of my neighbor where do I go? That’s why I vote for the Democrats. A hand in my wallet is annoying. Snooping around in people’s personal lives and erecting a police state based on theocratic prinicals is an entirely different matter.

  80. 80.

    jibeaux

    April 17, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    @PaulB:

    I like how you limited it to "that post", leaving the door open for Paul L. to at some point say something accurate. Very half-full of you.

  81. 81.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 17, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    @Zifnab:

    Phoenix – San Diego by car: Door to door, you can do it in 5 hours, or 6 if you relax. Or 7 if you are really just laid back and don’t care.

    Phoenix – San Diego by plane: Door to door, you can do it in about 3 – 3.25 hours if you are lucky, almost 4 hours if you run into any delays. You can trim the time slightly if you get yourself dropped off at the airport and picked up at the other end, but that takes more people and more arranging.

    My times are based on a 30-minute drive to the airport and from the airport at each end, with parking. One hour on the ground at each end, airport security and gate times, taxi time, flight time, etc.

    When you consider the cost of the infrastructure (airports, air traffic control systems, equipment) and tickets, to save 2-3 hours out of a 5-6 hour trip, it looks pretty awful as a cost benefit thing. In the car, you can take what you want, you can take several people, you can control all the elements of your trip, you can eat and use a restroom and walk around and change your route all on the fly as desired, leave when you want, return when you want.

    Perfect candidate for rail as an alternative. When can we haz it? A comfortable high speed rail line for this route sold as a vacation package for Phoenecians at a reasonable price ….. might be booked solid in the summertime.

    If the thing stops in Yuma, and El Centro, then those towns become San Diego suburbs. Yuma can be a Phoenix suburb in that model. I’d live in Yuma and rail to SD in July and to PHX on occasion.

    The point here is that a rail line doesn’t just drop into a transportation chart, it can change the way people live along the route.

    Oh, and the cultural ID thing? The culture is changing under the current political model. That doesn’t mean that new demagogues won’t try to figure out how to manipulate the new culture down the road. The remedy, of course, is for people to stay focussed on what their real interests are, and get a variety of information sources available to them, and know how to understand them. My first rule is that people are responsible for what they eat, whether it’s food or information. McDonalds doesn’t control your diet, and CNN doesn’t control your info stream.

    Meanwhile, beware the corporations and the lobbyists. They have vast resources and money to push events in their direction at our expense.

    This message brought to you by Harry and Louise(tm).

  82. 82.

    Woody

    April 17, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    Grand P: Somebody wise once said "Freedom Ain’t Free,

    so shut and pay your taxes."

  83. 83.

    John T

    April 17, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    They hate gay marriage, but by their own admission it would eventually allow them to marry their guns.

    Brilliant idea, let’s offer a deal to conservatives: let them have the right to marry their guns if they’ll let us have gay marriage.

  84. 84.

    zzyzx

    April 17, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    "why we don’t have high speed rail from Houston to Dallas or from Seattle to San Diego."

    I can answer the second one – northern CA/Southern OR. The mountains would lead to the trains being canceled a lot in the winter. Even the coastal route to SF – while better – wouldn’t be immune from delays. That’s why the routes being suggested are Eugene ->Vancouver and SF->SD.

  85. 85.

    Adrienne

    April 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    @Zifnab:

    Also, God will hate on us and send floods and hurricanes and AIDS and cancer.

    Dude. He already has. Hurricane Katrina? Huh? Amirite?

    /snark

  86. 86.

    BDeevDad

    April 17, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    A hand in my wallet is annoying. Snooping around in people’s personal lives and erecting a police state based on theocratic prinicals is an entirely different matter.

    And that is the difference between sanity and Libertarians/Glenn Reynolds.

  87. 87.

    Krista

    April 17, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    They can. But why does the state have to get involved? It’s a legal arrangement for the state. Why muck things up with religious imagery?

    Because like it or not, having civil unions for me and marriage for thee will create a bit of a "separate but equal" situation. Like it or not, there is something about the term "marriage" that just isn’t present in the term "civil union". Marriage has a rich cultural, financial, sociological and yes, romantic history. It is imbued with so much depth and meaning, for so many people. Fairy tales don’t result in civil unions, Doug. And I’m going to be unabashedly girly, but why should only the religious have access to the happy ending of the fairy tale?

    It doesn’t have to be mucked up or complicated. Let the state issue the marriage license and regulate who is legally allowed to perform ceremonies. That’s all they have to do. Everybody can then get married however they want, in whatever type of ceremony they want, and they’ll be married. And no one couple will be any less married than any other couple. I don’t know why this solution keeps being ignored — it’s simple, it results in true equality, and churches aren’t forced to marry anybody they don’t want to marry.

  88. 88.

    Woody

    April 17, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    There’s good reason to have a hi-speed up and down the front range of the Rockies, El Paso to Calgary.

    We’ve got a little piece of it in place now. Not hi-speed, but quick enough: about an hour from Albuquerque to Santa Fe, 90 minutes between Belen and SFe…

    I’d love to see it reach Denver, at least…

  89. 89.

    gwangung

    April 17, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    @John Cole:

    @BDeevDad: So then don’t use that on humans. Isn’t that the point of “research?”

    Research, scientific or otherwise, seems to be an allergen to the right wing these days. ("Um, of course we can’t guarantee cures from embyronic stem cells…that’s why we need to do research in the first place.").

  90. 90.

    neff

    April 17, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    Transportation networks and population density work both ways. If we’d spent the past 50 years building a transportation system like Europe’s instead of focusing mainly on highways, the population would have been densified more like Europe’s anyway, no matter how things started. Sure there’d be wide open spaces, but we’re talking here about the places where the people are, just like when people talk about Europe’s high population density they aren’t talking about northern Norway or the rural mountains of Bulgaria.

  91. 91.

    Carnacki

    April 17, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    You know John lives in Appalachia as do many of us working for equality for gays and where in West Virginia where we came closer to passing an ENDA style bill than most other states and the Congress.

  92. 92.

    Legalize

    April 17, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Second problem you have is the lack of a feeder network. It all nice and well building a high-speed link between Dallas and Houston, but how are people going to get to the station and then from the station to their destination?

    Seriously, when I land at Newark, Laguardia, or JFK it’s nearly impossible to get into the City. If only there were buses, cabs, light rail or subway to get me there.

  93. 93.

    Shawn in Showme

    April 17, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    I can answer the second one – northern CA/Southern OR. The mountains would lead to the trains being canceled a lot in the winter.

    If Spain can build a tunnel for their route through the Pyrenees, The Greatest Country in the World™ oughtta be able to figure something out.

  94. 94.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 17, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    having civil unions for me and marriage for thee will create a bit of a "separate but equal" situation

    I almost never disagree with you, and almost never say so when I do …. but I do here.

    Only because, "Separate but equal" has a physical and tangible component to it. A separate school from the one the white kids go to, but supposedly equal. Whereas, in the case of marriage vs civil union, the only difference is labeling. There doesn’t have to be any actual difference other than the label. It is not the same kind of thing.

    Of course, I’ve ranted extensively on the whole subject of that label thing and the politics of it, and the matter of control over what marriage is, and what the labels are, and who should own them. I’m not out to open that can of biting worms here. Just saying, I have never like the SBE moniker in this context, it just strikes me as a very inapt comparison to something that is not comparable.

    The whole idea of Separate But Equal was to keep the negroes away from the whites, physically. Out of sight, out of mind. That’s why it was so evil.

  95. 95.

    Johnny Pez

    April 17, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Civony: conquer the world and meet hot babes.

  96. 96.

    jake 4 that 1

    April 17, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    @jrg: I had to read the sentence a couple of times to make sure ye olde lysdexia wasn’t acting up.

    Then my WTF? meter started ringing.

  97. 97.

    gwangung

    April 17, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    @Johnny Pez: Um, isn’t that the point?

  98. 98.

    Nancy Darling

    April 17, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    @legalize

    You can take a shuttle bus from JFK to the Howard Beach subway station (I think that was its name) and catch the A-train which I believe is the longest subway line in the system. From the A-train, it is easy to make the changes to get where you are going. It was fast and cheap. The shuttle is free. The last time I did this was ’03, but I am sure it is still available.

  99. 99.

    NonWonderDog

    April 17, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    @Krista:

    What’s even easier: the way Canada does it. Marriage licenses are issued by the government, and then, whether you get married in a church, a courthouse, a hayfield, or a McDonald’s restroom, you’re married. Full stop. No such thing as civil unions. Married is married is married, regardless of the nature of your actual ceremony or the gender of the participants involved.

    Am I missing something in this? Unless I have been very much deluded, that’s exactly how it works in the states that allow gay marriage. In the other states, that’s exactly how it works except that the two people must be of opposite gender. You have to get a marriage license from the state, and then you can be married by a justice of the peace, a minister (who has been specifically endowed with the power to marry people by the state), or a drive-through attendant dressed as Elvis (with the same allowance). Most states let a priest do the paperwork for you, and Nevada lets drive-through Elvis file the paperwork retroactively or something, but you still have to get a state marriage license.

    There is no requirement that anyone be married in a church, and this attempt to add one and make the gays and atheists get "civil unioned" instead strikes me more as a last-ditch effort by the religious right to keep themselves established as special people in the eyes of the law than a serious policy proposal. I have no idea why it’s been glommed onto by so many liberals.

    The French word "marier" (from which "marriage" is descended) precedes the Catholic sacrament of marriage by at least a century, anyway, and the Latin "maritus" precedes it by a millennium or so. The idea that "marriage" is a specifically religious word for a religious tradition is absurd.

  100. 100.

    Bill H

    April 17, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    @Krista:

    It doesn’t have to be mucked up or complicated. Let the state issue the marriage license and regulate who is legally allowed to perform ceremonies. That’s all they have to do. Everybody can then get married however they want, in whatever type of ceremony they want, and they’ll be married. And no one couple will be any less married than any other couple. I don’t know why this solution keeps being ignored—it’s simple, it results in true equality, and churches aren’t forced to marry anybody they don’t want to marry.

    That is exactly the current state of affairs. Exactly what we have now.

    You can get married by a justice of the peace and not involve any church at all. You can get married in any church you want. If you do the latter you can also perform a civil documentation or not as you choose. It is merely a cooincinence that both are called marriage.

    Well, not entirely cooincidence, it’s leftover from English law where the Church of England was the established religion and the two things were not separate, but…

    The religious nuts want to deny the civil status to gays because it has the same name as the religious union. Not because it the same thing, merely because it has the same name.

  101. 101.

    toujoursdan

    April 17, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    Civil unions have been tried, and they don’t work.

    It’s all well and good for a state, like New Jersey, to call a civil union equivalent to marriage, but that is no guarantee that a non-state government agency: from an insurance company, to a gym who gives discounts for married couples, to a state contracted agency to a local city entity to recognize it.

    The fact is that there hundreds of years of legislative, jurisprudence and corporate policy built around marriage in the U.S. There is nothing built around civil unions. All of that would have to be created out of scratch and that would take several decades.

    Civil unions are a second rate policy, which only keeps the squeamish about teh gays from being squeamish. Those who advocate it are either unaware of the complications it causes for gay couples, or they don’t care.

    If you look at modern western history, marriage wasn’t initially a religious institution. The first Christian Roman emperors allowed marriage to be governed by Roman law, as the church had embraced celibacy as God’s highest calling and looked down on marriage and family life. The church didn’t perform marriages until the fall of the Roman Empire was well underway and there wasn’t any other entity to do it. Even then, most people shacked up (common law marriages) until the 9th century AD. The Council of Trent in the 16th Century finally declared that marriages should be performed in the presence of a priest.

    There is no reason why the State can’t change civil marriage to include gays. That is the trend around the world: here in Canada, in Spain, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and South Africa already, and none of those countries have had any ill effects.

  102. 102.

    TenguPhule

    April 17, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    One that provided a number or cures.
    and one that gives cancer.

    So Paul L is the result of stem cell research to cause brain cancer?

    Explains a lot.

  103. 103.

    Yukoner

    April 17, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    Woody:

    Man, I’ve been married three times, and I don’t get the charm.

    I have a freind who, after his third marriage broke down, told me that he wasn’t going to get married anymore. He was just going to wait a few years, go out and find a women he loathed and buy her a house.

    I’m pretty sure that’s not original but I don’t know the source.

  104. 104.

    MikeJ

    April 17, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    He told me that he was moderate. Conservative on spending and liberal on social issues. When I asked him how he voted he said that he split between the parties.

    If he’s a fiscal conservative why on earth would he ever vote for a republican? They spend more money than dems and all you get for it is dead brown people. At least when Dems spend money society ends up with something useful.

  105. 105.

    Krista

    April 17, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    Whereas, in the case of marriage vs civil union, the only difference is labeling.

    I see your point. And if labeling existed in a vacuum, I’d completely agree with you. And I’m hoping that I’ll be able to express my thoughts clearly here, so my apologies if I seem to ramble a bit.

    In the U.S., there exists amongst many a very strong sentiment that Judeo-Christianity is superior. By allowing the religious sole domain over a term that has so much cultural history and meaning, while relegating the rest of us to the cold-sounding (and culturally void) "civil union", I cannot help but feel that this distinction will be wielded as a weapon by those who would deny rights.

    By using the term "marriage" for all wedlock ceremonies, regardless of their nature, it sends a very clear message. To those who seek the right to marry, it says "You are equal. In all ways." To those who would seek to deny the former the right to marry, it says, "You are married, and they are just as married as you are. Deal with it."

    Mollifying the zealots by allowing them to hijack the term "marriage" away from everybody else…I just don’t see why that is considered by so many to be an ideal solution.

  106. 106.

    Cris

    April 17, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    @Nancy Darling: catch the A-train

    That’s also the quickest way to get to Harlem.

  107. 107.

    Krista

    April 17, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    This:

    this attempt to add one and make the gays and atheists get "civil unioned" instead strikes me more as a last-ditch effort by the religious right to keep themselves established as special people in the eyes of the law than a serious policy proposal. I have no idea why it’s been glommed onto by so many liberals.

    And this, too:

    The religious nuts want to deny the civil status to gays because it has the same name as the religious union. Not because it the same thing, merely because it has the same name.

  108. 108.

    JGabriel

    April 17, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    @DougJ:

    But why does the state have to get involved? It’s a legal arrangement for the state. Why muck things up with religious imagery?

    What Krista said, but also because marriage started as, and was always, a state function. It only became co-opted by the church and sacramentalized later – much later.

    So it’s actually the church that mucked up marriage with religious imagery, not the state getting into the church’s business. It’s kind of weird how we all assume it’s the other way around (and, yeah, I assumed it too until recently learning otherwise).

    Updated: Oops, looks like toujoursdan got there ahead of me.

    .

  109. 109.

    Bill Teefy

    April 17, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    @BDeevDad:
    @ SpotWeld

    One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country. And my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost. My generation doesn’t care.

    They just never cared about the outdated "important" stuff the older generations still clung to.

    We have a bingo. See column by George Will titled, These jeans DO make my ass look fat.

  110. 110.

    Zifnab

    April 17, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:

    Only because, "Separate but equal" has a physical and tangible component to it. A separate school from the one the white kids go to, but supposedly equal. Whereas, in the case of marriage vs civil union, the only difference is labeling. There doesn’t have to be any actual difference other than the label. It is not the same kind of thing.

    That just doesn’t work in practice. Inevitably, people want the right to treat you differently because you’re Adam and Steve rather than Adam and Eve. It’ll be a crack in the door for future discrimination. "Oh, we’re not discriminating against gays, it’s just not economical for us to extend the same benefits to civies as we do married people. Free market, what what." And from there you’ve got a flood of exceptions and special rules and addendums and quid pro quos that turn marriage and civil union into two very separate doctrines.

    If you want to make the two indistinguishable in law, your best bet is to make them indistinguishable in name. Then, you’re just married. And there’s nothing different from you and the Jeffersons down the road, except for the buttsex (and not even then, depending on how kinky they get).

  111. 111.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 17, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    @Zifnab:

    Sorry, but I find that argument just silly. It’s a proof by assertion thing, for one. The word "marriage" is so loaded with baggage that there is no way to decide who is going to have which reaction to it.

    Trying to line people up into neat little columns of names and labels and expectations and rules is what the scolds and the righty idiots are all about. That’s their game board and they own the pieces. We don’t have to play on their game board. Contrary to what they think, it’s not the only playing surface available. Obsessing over "marriage" just gives them that power …. for nothing, nothing in return.

  112. 112.

    MikeJ

    April 17, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    . By allowing the religious sole domain over a term that has so much cultural history and meaning, while relegating the rest of us to the cold-sounding (and culturally void) "civil union", I cannot help but feel that this distinction will be wielded as a weapon by those who would deny rights.

    But the church wouldn’t have *sole* say over who is married and who isn’t. If you’re divorced and remarried, the Catholic church *right now* doesn’t consider you married unless you paid them a bribe. Most other churches do.

    If "civil union" was the only legal option, marriage wouldn’t be solely decided by religion. Anybody could call themselves married and it wouldn’t matter what a guy in a dress, either the pope or RuPaul, thought about it.

  113. 113.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 17, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    By using the term "marriage" for all wedlock ceremonies, regardless of their nature, it sends a very clear message.

    I get your point, and it’s a good one. I am just suggesting that a model in which we use that term for "none of" the ceremonies, instead of "all of" them, everybody wins.

    The law is about rights and boundaries. The m-word is about a church sanction, church approval. We take away the power of the scolds by just saying, you can have your pagan m-word thing, but in the law, we call it a union, and everybody gets equal treatment. Their bullshit is cut off at the knees, and everybody wins.

    Alas, the people who think that their lives are actually changed by calling their attachment M instead of U are going to fight it like rats.

    Bottom line for me? Marriage has a 65-75% failure rate in this country, depending on how you light up the stats. Marriage is a collossal failure as a social institution in the US, and why anyone would want to "defend" it — or get it for themselves — is way beyond me.

  114. 114.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 17, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    the Catholic church right now doesn’t consider you married unless you paid them a bribe. Most other churches do.

    True, one of many reasons why if I were made king just for a short time, I would outlaw the Catholic church.

    And also Nutella.

    Okay, maybe you can keep the Nutella, but the Pope-a-ria has to go.

  115. 115.

    TenguPhule

    April 17, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    The m-word is about a church sanction, church approval. We take away the power of the scolds by just saying, you can have your pagan m-word thing, but in the law, we call it a union, and everybody gets equal treatment. Their bullshit is cut off at the knees, and everybody wins.

    And conceed marriage to the Ultraorthodox Christian Scolds? Never.

    It wasn’t theirs to begin with.

  116. 116.

    TenguPhule

    April 17, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    True, one of many reasons why if I were made king just for a short time, I would outlaw the Catholic church.

    I’d settle for carpetbombing Rome until they surrender.

  117. 117.

    TenguPhule

    April 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    Marriage is a collossal failure as a social institution in the US, and why anyone would want to "defend" it—or get it for themselves—is way beyond me.

    Your mileage may vary of course.

    I’ve seen both good and bad marriages.

    It works for some people willing to make an effort, that’s good enough for me.

  118. 118.

    Krista

    April 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    Anyhoodle, I’ve said my piece, and am not up to trying to change minds on a Friday evening when most of you are looking forward to (or already drinking) a cold beer. :) And as you’re probably aware, I’m not gay, so I have no particular dog in this fight. In fact, there could very well be a lot of gay people reading my arguments and saying "Shut the fuck up, lady…you don’t get it!"

    So, I’ll just enjoy the snark, and a cold non-alcoholic beer, and be damn happy that it’s the weekend, and that my friends (who have been together for 47 years now), were finally able to get married back in October of 2004, and that in the eyes of my country, they are no less married than I and my husband are. And if the churches don’t like it, they can piss up a stump.

    Cheers!

  119. 119.

    Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist

    April 17, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    @gbear: We [Boomers] as a generation just basked in the glow of everything accomplished before we came along, and then all started grabbing ‘our’ pieces of the spoils as things started falling apart due to neglect.

    I can’t believe nobody’s yelled at you for writing this (unless, by the time I hit "submit", they have).

    Not that I’m inclined to disagree too strongly – while I think a lot of my fellow Gen Xers overstate the damage the Boomers have done, it’s hard not to get feeling like we’re the guys right behind the horses in the parade.

  120. 120.

    Zifnab

    April 17, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:

    That’s their game board and they own the pieces. We don’t have to play on their game board.

    So long as there are bigots and assholes in offices and behind desks of authority, yes we do. If you could just "Go Galt" on the entire Republican social framework, I’d have done it years ago. And I’d be happily married to my box turtle, smoking a blunt in between prayers to the FSM, typing this post over my government wi-fi, enjoying my universal health care, and generally being a liberally liberaling liberal while my electric car recharged in the garage.

    But it’s a national board, the rules apply to all of us. We can change the rules of the game, but we can’t just not play.

  121. 121.

    Tim on Wisconsin

    April 17, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    @Calouste: Shall we actually compare some numbers? I’m sure everyone agrees with the idea that high speed rail works in France. Let’s compare France to the Midwest United States. Below, you’ll see several of the French TGV routes followed by proposed high speed rail lines in the Midwest. I’ve included the distance from the center city of the hub to the line end, as well as the population of the destination city.

    Population figures are for metro areas, either U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas, or French Aire Urbaines. Distances are from the central city to the city listed along existing rail lines as reported by the Amtrak timetable or Wikipedia.

    Paris: 11.6 million
    Chicago: 9.5 million

    Tours
    97 mi
    0.4 million

    Le Mans
    140 mi
    0.3 million

    Lille
    206 mi
    1.9 million

    Strasbourg
    252 mi
    0.9 million

    Lyon
    264 mi
    1.6 million

    Marseilles (extension of Lyon line)
    465 mi
    1.5 million

    * * * *

    Milwaukee
    86 mi
    1.5 million

    Indianapolis
    196 mi
    1.7 million

    Detroit
    281 mi
    4.4 million

    St. Louis
    284 mi
    2.8 million

    Minneapolis/St. Paul (extension of Milwaukee line)
    417 mi
    3.2 million

    Both the distances and the populations are comparable between the two networks. Therefore, arguments about density don’t really hold up. After all, no one is suggesting we build through South Dakota or Alaska which certainly helps drag our overall density down.

  122. 122.

    KG

    April 17, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    @11: I’m pretty much the same way as your lab mate, though I consider myself more libertarian than moderate, but that’s neither here nor there. My prioritizing fiscal matters over social issues, which is often the case, but not always, has to do with my belief that social freedom can’t exist without economic freedom. That economic liberty leads to social liberty. As far as the issue of equality goes, well, I’m not a big believer in equal outcome. I believe in equal protection (something, in my opinion, that both parties screw up) and equal opportunity (again, something that both parties screw up). Also, I once believed that I could help change the conservative movement from the inside (that was, alas, a mistake).

    Linkmeister: are you the same guy from DT?

  123. 123.

    Roq

    April 17, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    It’s a cultural identification thing. Republicans keep hammering all the hot buttons that’ve worked for them in the past, even though they’ve long since forgotten what the argument behind the button originally was. They’ve soundbitten all coherence out of themselves. The buttons themselves just doesn’t resonate with anyone under 40, since they’ve never had the argument laid out for them before, and even the 40-50 age range is pretty iffy.

    That’s why I love it when they hammer "socialism." The over-60s are pretty much their only demographic, and they’re also the biggest receivers of social services. Yes, Republicans… please keep hammering Social Security and Medicare. Please.

    For the rest… I think younger folks hear supposed scare-words like gay marriage, Europe, stems cells and go…

    "Uh… those are bad?"

  124. 124.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 17, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    There is nothing built around civil unions.

    That’s a good point, but the Civil Rights Act proves that people and institutions will adapt to new paradigms.

    A Domestic Rights Act would have that kind of power. Once and for all, just say that any two people who meet reasonable tests (age, whatever) who want to form a legal union with its accompanying rights and constraints, may do so essentially by declaration.

    They can have any ceremony they want. And the law treats all legacy attachments exactly the same way. Liberation of the family. End of manipulation by religious and "moral" authorities. Happily ever after.

  125. 125.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 17, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    So long as there are bigots and assholes in offices and behind desks of authority, yes we do.

    You have to think out of the box. Put the assholes on reservations.

  126. 126.

    Carnacki

    April 17, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    @Shibby:

    SB238 in WV passed the state senate overwhelmingly. Even the Republican opposition tended to be that gays would already be covered in existing antidiscrimination laws, which seems like the Overton window, a phrase I hate by the way, has really shifted. Unfortunately a few cowards in the House of Delegates helped stall it in committee.

  127. 127.

    Brachiator

    April 17, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    @NutellaonToast:

    People don’t need local stops across Arizona, but an LA to SF line would be awesome.

    The California high-speed rail project may be a boondoggle. The ridership projections are a fantasy.

    And there is no direct LA to SF line. A key component of the line goes through Central California (Bakersfield to Fresno to Sacramento), which is understandable in terms of getting political support, but is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to relieving congestion in higher-traffic corridors.

    So they sell it on the idea of express travel between LA and SF, but fail to mention all the local stops in between. And the total travel time is not a significant improvement over air travel.

    I use commuter rail and buses for my daily commute. But I continue to be amazed that people look to a worn-out 19th century mode of transportation as the solution to contemporary transportation issues.

  128. 128.

    asiangrrlMN

    April 17, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    Well, I am queer, and I don’t give a rat’s ass about marriage, civil unions, or anything of the sort. Again, this is the reason why the LGBT folk got behind this particular cause pisses me off. I believe that society gives benefits to married people that single–oh, hell. I’m not doing this again.

    As long as straights enjoy benefits from being married bequeathed to them by the government, then queers should have the right to enjoy said benefits as well.

    Now I’m cranky (crankier). Can we talk about baseball for awhile?

  129. 129.

    KG

    April 17, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    @126: not only that, but because of geography/topography, there are very few spots between LA and SF that allow for the train to actually go "high speed". I use Amtrak occasionally to go from Orange County to San Diego, takes about the same amount of time as if I were to drive. Cost, given that I drive a pick up, is about the same (the train probably wins if I factor in the cost of parking down town). The difference is that I’m usually relaxed and not cramped when the train ride ends. The other downside is I actually have to plan a little bit a head to use the train.

  130. 130.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 17, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    @Krista:

    And as you’re probably aware, I’m not gay, so I have no particular dog in this fight.

    Sure, but you’re a nice person. Those of us who are Type A personalities aren’t okay unless we are telling somebody out there how to live their goddam lives.

    :)

  131. 131.

    jake 4 that 1

    April 17, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    Am I missing something in this?

    Nope. That’s why any who says we should call something X instead of Y to keep the religious folk happy has either been distracted or is trying to be clever.

    I’ll say again, anyone who thinks there’s a way to extend the rights currently available to a heterosexual couple without setting off the religious right is … well, they’re really optimistic is the nice way to say it. See for example Virginia’s 2004 amendment to the Affirmation of Marriage Act:

    A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

    It isn’t the idea of gay couples getting married that upsets these loons, it’s the idea of gay people existing, at all, in pairs or singly.

  132. 132.

    DFH no.6

    April 17, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    @Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist:

    Hey, Xecky (I can call you Xecky, can’t I?) you are putting President Obama in the Gen X camp, but I don’t think that’s right.

    Generational labels are fairly rough and only minimally useful, but as far as that goes Hussein X. Messiah is actually more of a Boomer Generation person than Gen X, if among the very youngest of that cohort (most commonly-drawn birth years for us Boomers — I am one — are from ’46 – ’64. That’s what the Census Bureau says, anyway).

    The cut-off for stuff like this is as arbitrary as it comes, of course, which is why the label "Generation Jones" was recently invented to fill in a buffer zone between Boomers and X-ers. So maybe we could say Mr. Obama is Generation Jones. For what it’s worth I’ll still claim him as a fellow Boomer.

    I had a younger brother (sadly no longer with us) who was born within a few weeks of Barack back in ’61 (if you believe the so-called "birth certificate" — I mean my brother’s), and my brother always considered himself a Boomer. Especially as we grew older, my brother and I understood each other to be basically of the same generation.

    My daughter (born in ’78) is Gen X. Our current (thank God!) President grew up in times much more like my brother’s (and mine, even) than like my daughter’s.

    And, anyway, Generation Jones does not enjoy a particularly wide parlance. People have a pretty good general idea on who Boomers and X-ers are (Boomers more or less came of age in the 60s and 70s, X-ers in the 80s and 90s) but saying someone is "Generation Jones" would leave most people scratching their head.

    So, as I said, I think I’m on solid ground claiming Barack Obama as our third-time’s-a-charm Baby Boomer president. You can call him Generation Jones, if you want to. But not Gen X. That’ll be the next president, whoever she is.

  133. 133.

    MikeJ

    April 17, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    Now I’m cranky (crankier). Can we talk about baseball for awhile?

    Or we could talk about whatever it is the Red Sox are trying to play this year. It sure ain’t baseball.

  134. 134.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 17, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    people who say we should call something X instead of Y to keep the religious folk happy has either been distracted

    Wow, completely backwards. Not to "keep them happy."

    To completely disempower them. Take away their perceived ownership of the problem space.

    In short, to fuck them very much.

  135. 135.

    Krista

    April 17, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    Sure, but you’re a nice person. Those of us who are Type A personalities aren’t okay unless we are telling somebody out there how to live their goddam lives.

    LOL. I’m agnostic, but isn’t there some sort of saying about eyes, motes and beams? ;)

    Besides, life’s just too goddamn short to expend so much mental energy freaking out about what other people are doing, if nobody’s getting hurt and it has no tangible effect on me. IMHO, people who spend so much time on that kind of stuff really need to find a hobby (or get laid).

  136. 136.

    Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist

    April 17, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    @DFH no.6: You can call him Generation Jones, if you want to. But not Gen X. That’ll be the next president, whoever she is.

    Fair enough. Unless she’s Hillary Clinton, of course. :)

    The generational lines do blur quite a bit. I consider myself fairly solid X, having been born in 1967, though I know there are those who think I’m too young for Gen X.

    Shrug

    I’m just happy that the image of Gen X as slacker-whiners is no longer in vogue. Or if it is, that I don’t hear about it all the goddam time like I did in the 1990s.

  137. 137.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 17, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    IMHO, people who spend so much time on that kind of stuff really need to find a hobby (or get laid).

    Your point is well taken.

  138. 138.

    Cris

    April 17, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    @DFH no.6: I agree. Generation X were raised by muppets. A guy born in August ’61was just a little bit too old to be in the target audience when Sesame Street premiered.

  139. 139.

    canuckistani

    April 17, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    Now I’m cranky (crankier). Can we talk about baseball for awhile?

    If MN means Minnesota, I’m guessing that talking about baseball will make you crankier still. The Jays *crushed* the Twins this week.

  140. 140.

    Cris

    April 17, 2009 at 6:16 pm

    @Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist: I consider myself fairly solid X, having been born in 1967, though I know there are those who think I’m too young for Gen X.

    I’m pretty sure those who think you’re too young for Gen X are a minority. If anything, you’re on the old end of the X-spectrum.

  141. 141.

    Adrienne

    April 17, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but seeing things like this makes me believe that cultural politics is very different among young people than among older people.

    Yeah, umm, I’m 24 and we just DON’T FUCKING CARE. Honestly, I’m female and straight and last night I partied the night away in a male gay dance party/club. LOVED IT. We don’t care. We just want everybody to shut up and move on. We are mostly disgusted that this is even a fucking issue.

  142. 142.

    DFH no.6

    April 17, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    Oh, and MARRIAGE for gay and lesbian people, no different — legally or semantically — than my own hetero marriage of lo these many years.

    So says this old white dude. Along with his children, their friends, and all my nieces and nephews. On this the younger people have my precious fellow Boomers (well, about half of us) beat all to hell. Good on ’em.

    The opposition to this is in its death throes, and I believe most of the hidebound know it, too.

    Check out the video clip on The Poor Man that intersperses lolcat stuff with that ridiculous 4M2M "the gays ‘re takin’ our freedoms!" commercial (all in "scary" gray tones).

    Mockery (as with the stupid "teabaggers") is good.

  143. 143.

    Martin

    April 17, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    Stop trying to make sense of this stuff in broad national terms. The GOP is playing an exclusively southern strategy here. Check out the regional polling by R2K/Kos:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/13/719435/-Poll:-Americans-love-France,-San-Francisco,-Europe,-and-NYC

    Compare the GOP responses to the southern responses.

    The GOP is only pushing issues that play strongly in the south to the nation, and look at the people pushing them – virtually all from the south as well. If voters in the rest of the country simply step up and do what the majority (versus the loudest) think is right, every current GOP issue will simply up and blow away. They’re just using the support in the south to add volume to the arguments in the other parts of the nation, much as Utah was used to help push Prop 8 in Cali.

  144. 144.

    Shawn in Showme

    April 17, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    @TenguPhule

    It just seems to be that HWPK’s position of knocking marriage off the books is a smarter way to play this chess game. Certainly easier than trying to reassert the definition of marriage circa 800 AD.

    Kids growing up in a world where Rachel Maddow ascends to media superstardom and openly gay officials are appointed to office will do more to bring this backwards drama to a close than word games will.

  145. 145.

    asiangrrlMN

    April 17, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    Wait, wait, wait. Xecky (yeah, I’m going to call you that, too), I’ve always considered myself a Gen X’er, and I was born in 1971. What does that make me, then, if you say you’re too young to be a Gen. X’er? Did you mean too old? I’m confused.

    MikeJ, pardon me, but mwahahahahhahahahahaha!
    Sorry, but that’s schadenfreude for you. Heh. As a lover of a small-market team (The Twins), I do not feel your pain.

    Canuckistan, yeah, well, I don’t expect the Twins to win, so I’m ok with them losing. I still enjoy watching a game.

  146. 146.

    Zifnab

    April 17, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    @asiangrrlMN: Yeah, I’m a Houstonian. We’re not talking about the Astros until they stop with the sucking already. I’m going to personally bludgeon Moehler to death with every home run he’s given up in the last two weeks. Which will take me a while.

  147. 147.

    asiangrrlMN

    April 17, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    OK! How about spring then? I know most people are excited about that, amirite? I, myself, am mourning the loss of winter, but I know that most people like spring better.

  148. 148.

    Shawn in Showme

    April 17, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    I use commuter rail and buses for my daily commute. But I continue to be amazed that people look to a worn-out 19th century mode of transportation as the solution to contemporary transportation issues

    Well other than the fact that they’re both called trains, the 200 mile/hour low-emission, highly-synchronized mass transit systems in Europe and Japan bear very little resemblance to our 19th century, soot-belching chuggers.

    Kind of like saying Pixar is mired in Terrytoons production mode.

  149. 149.

    Krista

    April 17, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    Generation X were raised by muppets.

    I think that is the most concise, easily understood definition of Generation X that I have ever seen in my life.

  150. 150.

    Cat G

    April 17, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    The notion of civil unions is essentially a compromise between no rights for gay couples and marriage because so many people opposed marriage for gays. Well, the anti-gays have demonstrated that THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO COMPROMISE. Name ANY prominent foe of gay marriage who has been willing to support civil unions.

    If Church X or Group Y doesn’t want to solemnize a marriage that’s just fine. But they don’t have the right to say that because Couple A doesn’t qualify under their rules that they get to veto Couple A’s marriage.

    It’s that simple. The goal should be marriage.

    All the rest is camouflage and propaganda and a lot of what is said is outrageously deceptive…for example, that Biblical marriage is between one man and one woman. Tell that to Abraham. And the fear-mongering assertion that churches would be forced to solemnize gay marriages is, oh, I don’t know, bearing false witness…which my Bible says is a violation of one of the 10 Commandments.

    It’s time to stop the hedging and looking for "common ground." There isn’t common ground, because the other side will not compromise. In their lexicon compromise is a dirty word.

    Those of us who love our gay family members, friends and the values of tolerance should not settle for civil unions as the ultimate goal, because that will always be second class.

    The goal should be marriage.

  151. 151.

    DFH no.6

    April 17, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    @Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist:

    Yeah, the "Gen X are all slackers" thing was always bullshit. As was (is) the "Boomers are self-involved yuppie scum" and related memes.

    It’s just old people bagging on young people, and young people bagging back. ‘Twas always thus, I think. Although my generation didn’t do this too much to the older folks as I recall (other than the silly "trust no one over 30" thing that was neither widespread nor long-lasting).

    Maybe I’m just sensitive, but I’ve heard and read a whole lot more "Boomer-bashing" over the years than anything ever directed at the "Greatest Generation" (and that title tells ya something right there, doesn’t it?).

    And Gen X-ers have also taken a lot of moronic shit about the "slacker" and "whiner" thing. Always sounded like projection to me.

    Boomers and X-ers participating in such nonsense are just being assholes.

    Then there’s the execrable George Will and his recent rant against jeans. Fred Astaire!? WTF!? Was Georgie born in. like, 1903 or something and he just has a good plastic surgeon (or, more likely, some Faustian deal with Mephistopheles)? Damn that dude needs a punch in the nose, bad.

    Anyway, we we should be careful in dealing with people in their various "groupings", whether voluntary or no.

    Except modern movement conservatives, of course, and subsets of that tribe like the "teabaggers". Those fuckers need to be kicked in the jimmies, early and often.

  152. 152.

    LD50

    April 17, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    The California high-speed rail project may be a boondoggle. The ridership projections are a fantasy.
    And there is no direct LA to SF line. A key component of the line goes through Central California (Bakersfield to Fresno to Sacramento), which is understandable in terms of getting political support, but is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to relieving congestion in higher-traffic corridors.

    Well, there IS a train line from SF to LA in existence, which Amtrak uses, but it’s the slow, meandery coastal route, which parallels 101. To make the line fast enough to attract people, it’d probably have to go down the San Joaquin Valley and over the Grapevine (paralleling I-5), and I do believe such a track does not exist now. It’d have to be built from scratch.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that on a good day, a flight from the SFBay Area to LAX can take as little as an hour, and Southwest Airlines has some pretty cheap tickets for it. It’d be a big challenge for rail to compete with that.

    26: not only that, but because of geography/topography, there are very few spots between LA and SF that allow for the train to actually go "high speed".

    Most of the west side of San Joaquin Valley is empty, so trains *could* go "high speed" there. But if they try and make the tracks hug the much more populated highway 99 corridor, then you’re right, it’d be tougher to make it high speed.

  153. 153.

    gwangung

    April 17, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    I LIKE the Twins. If Seatle can’t win (and most years they can’t), I’m more than happy to see the Twinks run roughshod.

    Besides. You guys had Batgirl bloggin’ for you….

  154. 154.

    Tattoosydney

    April 17, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    @jibeaux:

    I also think that as gay people have lived more in the open, that some even older generation people have gotten used to the idea. Obviously, not all of them are going to change, but some people can adapt to newer ideas, it just takes people living outside of the closet for the ideas to be seen.

    This.

    I have been a "it’s not worth fighting over the term, so call them civil unions" believer for a long time. Then about six months ago, my husband and I decided that we would have a wedding reception, seeing as by operation of Australian law we would become "de facto" after living together for two years.

    At that point, I thought "fuck it" and started using the terms "wedding" and "husband" and "married" for what we were going to do.

    And you know what? No one (not my conservative catholic boss, not my conservative catholic mother) objected, no one questioned my right to call it what I damn well wanted. People have even (after some initial hesitation on some people’s part) started using my terminology to describe us.

    The wedding reception is still months away, but as far as I am concerned, he’s my husband, we’re married, and if anyone doesn’t like that, they can go to hell.

  155. 155.

    asiangrrlMN

    April 17, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    @gwangung: Oh, don’t misunderstand me. I love my Twins, but I just don’t expect them to win. Yes, Batgirl is teh awesome. I like the Mariners. You have Ichiro. However, you have been sucking even more than the Twins in the past several years. For you, I feel. You’re in a similar boat as I am.

  156. 156.

    Brachiator

    April 17, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    @Shawn in Showme:

    Well other than the fact that they’re both called trains, the 200 mile/hour low-emission, highly-synchronized mass transit systems in Europe and Japan bear very little resemblance to our 19th century, soot-belching chuggers

    Fixed track is 19th century. And there is a decided lack of consumer interest. And as I noted, the projected passenger loads are unrealistic.

    Low-emission is meaningless if you cannot attract sufficient ridership, especially given the costs of establishing and maintaining the system.

  157. 157.

    asiangrrlMN

    April 17, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    @Tattoosydney: Wait, so you haven’t actually hitched the knot yet? Yes, I am mixing my metaphors. Whatever.

    So we can actually fake multiple-marriage in real time? Awesome. I will buy the dress now. Hope you don’t mind black.

    Oh, and congratulations! When’s the big day?

  158. 158.

    ksmiami

    April 17, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    As a card-carrying member of the muppet generation, I pledge my allegiance to the Swedish Chef

  159. 159.

    LD50

    April 17, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    Generation X were raised by muppets. A guy born in August ‘61was just a little bit too old to be in the target audience when Sesame Street premiered.

    I was born in 1962. I was raised on Daffy Duck and Kimba the White Lion. Make of that what you will.

  160. 160.

    Tattoosydney

    April 17, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    @asiangrrlMN:

    We become defacto through the good graces of the Australian government some time in about June, and then the wedding is in November 2009 (we’re really doing it for the drug fueled piss-up and the presents, but don’t tell anyone), followed by a six week honeymoon in Europe.

    Woo hoo!

    (Does piss-up translate culturally in the US, or have I just given most of you a very disturbing image of our wedding reception?)

  161. 161.

    Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist

    April 17, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    @asiangrrlMN: What does that make me, then, if you say you’re too young to be a Gen. X’er?

    I didn’t say that, so I’m at a loss. I guess Gen Y? The sort of folks who I mentioned thinking I’m young to be an Xer are like, say Douglas Coupland, whose book "Generation X" was about people born in the early 60s.

    @DFH no.6: Boomers and X-ers participating in such nonsense are just being assholes.

    Agreed. I think tarring an entire generation – especially when they’re so ill-defined – with a single brush is dumb.

    Shit, I’m not prepared to go to bat for my generation when it includes Sarah Palin.

  162. 162.

    Tattoosydney

    April 17, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    Bork! Bork! Bork!

  163. 163.

    Tattoosydney

    April 17, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    The Three Tenners…

    Bork! Meep meep meep! ANIMAL!!

  164. 164.

    LD50

    April 17, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    Shit, I’m not prepared to go to bat for my generation when it includes Sarah Palin.

    Me neither. I’m the Alex Keaton generation for Crissake. More reactionary than the people who came before OR or after. Fuck ’em. Tho I am happy that the first POTUS of my generation turned out to be Obama rather than some loon like Palin.

  165. 165.

    Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist

    April 17, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    @LD50: Tho I am happy that the first POTUS of my generation turned out to be Obama rather than some loon like Palin.

    There you go – said it better than I could.

  166. 166.

    Martin

    April 17, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    Well, there IS a train line from SF to LA in existence, which Amtrak uses, but it’s the slow, meandery coastal route, which parallels 101.

    The plan appears to be to go Bakersfield – Palmsdale – Sylmar – LA, so looks like they’d resurrect the Tehachapi line for passenger, scoot along the 14 and then drop south.

    And if they can make it work even remotely as they propose, it’ll get the passenger volume. They’re thinking 3 hours from OC to Sacramento, which is realistically about the same as air travel when you factor in all the airport bullshit. The line would hit 6 UC campuses, which alone would probably generate the minimum needed traffic with students going home for breaks and whatnot, plus another dozen or so universities.

    And if they can run the hours acceptably well, they’ll beat the airlines for service. You can’t leave OC before 7AM, so there’s no way in hell you can make an early meeting in SF or Sac. Get a train out at 5:30 and you’d pick up people just by having a possible means to get there.

  167. 167.

    asiangrrlMN

    April 17, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    @Tattoosydney: Um, piss-up is not a common term in America, but I can gather that it means a time to get drunk given that the Brits call getting drunk getting pissed. Am I even close? Actually, the prezzies are one reason I would think about getting married–and the money. In Asian families, it’s traditional to give money at the wedding. The trip through Europe sounds wonderful, too.

    @Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist: That’s what I meant. Sorry. I was unclear. I think of myself as a Gen X’er, so to hear you say that some think you are too young to be one is odd.

    As for me and the Muppets, I mostly identify with Oscar the Grouch.

  168. 168.

    Panurge

    April 17, 2009 at 8:28 pm

    The Right can always fight hippies if the liberals are willing to let them (which they’ve been doing for thirty years. Stop it, already). What "outdated ‘important’ stuff" are Boomers still "clinging" to?

    "Going Galt on the entire Republican social framework" is called elsewhere in the world "a general strike". The USA would do well to pick up on it.

    From what I can tell, it’s economic SECURITY that leads to social liberty. Put people on edge about their economic security and they’ll be less likely to test the limits of social and cultural liberty; the time since the ’60s has borne this out in spades. A certain amount of ecomonic liberty can create economic security, but too much, I think, can work to social liberty’s detriment, especially if "economic liberty" means "Social Darwinism".

    I wear jeans a lot, but I’m sad that conservatives’ insistence on preserving "Fred Astaire" has meant that new dress-up clothes and grooming for men (and let’s face it, this is about men and who gets to decide what’s "manly") can’t evolve, at least not without serious resistance. They would’ve evolved out of the ’60s and ’70s, but again, that was cut off (except for the Armani suit). Eventually I decided I was gonna do something about it myself, and after years I did. Not that I expect it to become popular, but it’s just my own little contribution. Plainly this sort of thing is important in establishing a sort of social mindspace; make people look conservative and soon enough there’ll be enough of an increase in the Republican vote to make a difference. Not everyone–just enough.

  169. 169.

    TenguPhule

    April 17, 2009 at 8:52 pm

    As for me and the Muppets, I mostly identify with Oscar the Grouch.

    And who is still more competent then the entire GOP political lineup.

  170. 170.

    DougJ

    April 17, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    To completely disempower them. Take away their perceived ownership of the problem space.

    Yes, exactly.

  171. 171.

    Church Lady

    April 17, 2009 at 11:27 pm

    @DougJ:

    "…what looked to be a very annoying sorority girl."

    Wow, Doug, stereotype much? Why would you describe someone you had never met and didn’t know as "annoying"? I have to assume that she was wearing her letters, in order for you to so quickly identify her as a "sorority girl". Why do you find girls that belong to sororities to be so annoying? Wouldn’t the sorority girls have anything to do with you in your undergrad years? Did some sorority girl make you feel you weren’t good enough?

    Glad you’re not teaching my daughter. Yeah, she’s the sorority girl carrying the almost four point average. God, she must annoy the crap out of her professors.

    Jesus, man, grow up and get over it.

  172. 172.

    DougJ

    April 17, 2009 at 11:48 pm

    Glad you’re not teaching my daughter.

    I’m glad too if she’s anything like you.

    I have to assume that she was wearing her letters, in order for you to so quickly identify her as a “sorority girl”.

    If you read the post, you would notice that I said she was talking about a fundraiser for her sorority. I’ve given you chances, but I’m afraid I agree with everyone else here about you: you’re an idiot.

  173. 173.

    LD50

    April 17, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    I have to assume that she was wearing her letters, in order for you to so quickly identify her as a "sorority girl". Why do you find girls that belong to sororities to be so annoying? Wouldn’t the sorority girls have anything to do with you in your undergrad years?

    Well, now we know that CL either (a) never went to college or (b) was an annoying sorority girl.

  174. 174.

    AhabTRuler

    April 18, 2009 at 12:14 am

    Wait, wait, wait!
    Are we talking about marriage for gay, high-speed trains?

  175. 175.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 18, 2009 at 12:41 am

  176. 176.

    Church Lady

    April 18, 2009 at 12:46 am

    @DougJ – "Walking through campus yesterday, I SAW what looked to be…"

    First you SAW someone who LOOKED TO BE, then overheard. Your words, not mine.

    My question was why you assumed that, because she was a sorority girl, she should be assigned her the adjective "annoying". Do you always stereotype groups? Isn’t sterotyping one of the things you are so against? Do you really think all girls in all sororities are exactly the same and that they are all annoying? Why do you seem to have something against girls in sororities? Do you also hate all guys in fraternities? Are they also annoying? Do you just dislike the Greek system in general? If you do, why?

    You’re damn lucky if you have students like my daughter in your class. Never skips, always prepared for class, completes all assignments in a timely manner and makes very good grades. Just happens to be in a sorority, which is just one facet of her life. Also does volunteer work, tutoring kids in reading, and works part time. She’s also bright enough, and ambitious enough, to have been selected for an internship in Washington this summer, working on the Hill.

    And, yes, I (a) went to college (BBA in Finance) and then on to law school and (b) was a sorority girl. To the best of my knowledge, my professors and TAs didn’t find me annoying, just attentive, well prepared for class and a good student.

  177. 177.

    LD50

    April 18, 2009 at 12:48 am

    And, yes, I (a) went to college (BBA in Finance) and then on to law school and (b) was a sorority girl. To the best of my knowledge, my professors and TAs didn’t find me annoying,

    I have serious doubts about that.

  178. 178.

    jrg

    April 18, 2009 at 9:16 am

    but I’m afraid I agree with everyone else here about you: you’re an idiot.

    Shorter Dougj: "Just because I started the post with …’I saw what looked to be a very annoying sorority girl—the sort I would normally assume to be right-leaning politically’, does not mean that I was making any assumptions."

    Preach on, Church Lady. Dougj is stereotyping and he knows it.

  179. 179.

    Shawn in ShowMe

    April 18, 2009 at 11:14 am

    What we have here is a lack of communication. When I read, "very annoying sorority girl", I didn’t read that as "DougJ thinks all girls in sororities are annoying", it seemed obvious to me that he was referring to a particular kind of sorority girl. See the Pi Delta Pis in Revenge of the Nerds.

    Of course if you already have a prior beef with DougJ, you probably wouldn’t read it that way.

  180. 180.

    Comrade grumpy realist

    April 18, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Heh. I had two labeled sorority girls in one of the physics classes I TA’ed and kept mixing them up, which pissed them off considerably. As I told a friend: "They both invariably wear sweatsuits in pastel colors with greek letters plastered on their asses, have long blond hair, are made-up to the hilt, and talk like Valley Girls. And they’re surprised when I switch their names?!"

    Sorry, Church Lady. My tiny experience with obvious sorority girls has lead me to believe Not Much Up There. There are probably lots of sorority girls who are intelligent and don’t conform to the stereotype–but they probably don’t go around making it so obvious that they’re a TriDelt or whatever.

  181. 181.

    Janefinch

    April 18, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    I think it’s not so much generational as that you read the usual polemicists and assume they represent "conservatives". Makes for great blog posts, but is pretty skewed as a general viewpoint.

    I wonder if American political bloggers ever give it a frickin rest and not treat every single thing as another battle….and that’s left AND right.

  182. 182.

    Brachiator

    April 18, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    @Martin:

    The plan appears to be to go Bakersfield – Palmsdale – Sylmar – LA, so looks like they’d resurrect the Tehachapi line for passenger, scoot along the 14 and then drop south.

    And this is the heart of the problem with the high speed rail proposal. It is sold as if the heart of it would be a direct LA to SF express. But by definition, and by design, it cannot offer non-stop service between major cities, and it would be prohibitively expensive to build a system of express and local high speed-tracks.

    And if they can make it work even remotely as they propose, it’ll get the passenger volume. They’re thinking 3 hours from OC to Sacramento, which is realistically about the same as air travel when you factor in all the airport bullshit. The line would hit 6 UC campuses, which alone would probably generate the minimum needed traffic with students going home for breaks and whatnot, plus another dozen or so universities.

    Nobody wants to go to Sacramento, unless it’s for a political meeting at the state capital. And you cannot have a viable transportation system based on college students traveling between home and school four or five times a year.

    There is just no great demand for the service being proffered, certainly not on the public dime.

  183. 183.

    hedn2058

    April 24, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    As some commenters note above, Obama is part of Generation Jones, born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Generation X. Google Generation Jones, and you’ll see it’s gotten a ton of media attention, and many top commentators from many top publications and networks (Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) specifically use this term to describe Obama.

    It is important to distinguish between the post-WWII demographic boom in births vs. the cultural generations born during that era. Generations are a function of the common formative experiences of its members, not the fertility rates of its parents. Many experts now believe it breaks down this way:

    DEMOGRAPHIC boom in babies: 1946-1964
    Baby Boom GENERATION: 1942-1953
    Generation Jones: 1954-1965
    Generation X: 1966-1978

    Here’s a 5 minute video with over 20 top political figures discussing the existence and importance of GenJones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ta_Du5K0jk

    Here is a recent op-ed about Obama as the first GenJones President in USA TODAY:
    http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090127/column27_st.art.htm

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Rattlers beat Longhorns in double-header - Clovis News Journal | Austin Meetups says:
    April 17, 2009 at 11:44 pm

    […] Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » A different kind of culture war […]

Primary Sidebar

VA Purple House Delegates

Donate

Political Action

Postcard Writing Information

Recent Comments

  • zhena gogolia on An Angel Match for Virginia! (Oct 1, 2023 @ 3:43pm)
  • wjca on An Angel Match for Virginia! (Oct 1, 2023 @ 3:41pm)
  • Another Scott on An Angel Match for Virginia! (Oct 1, 2023 @ 3:40pm)
  • Czar Chasm on An Angel Match for Virginia! (Oct 1, 2023 @ 3:36pm)
  • Another Scott on Sunday Morning Open Thread: Vacate the (Empty) Chair!… (Oct 1, 2023 @ 3:32pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!