Anguished voices have a way of echoing beyond the grave. And at times in Washington the spirits of bygone politicians are suddenly recalled to life. Like ghosts in Dickens, such figures bear witness to the causes of their downfall in a tone that should make their mortal counterparts take heed. So it is this summer as Republicans try to bludgeon… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (21)Page 1 of 1 pagesYes, it’s true, there’s no hiding it. The Republican agenda is to round up all homosexuals and gas them. Have you heard about the gay gas camps in the remote backwoods of Montana. Thousands have been fooled into going there. They’re dead now.
What are you doing about it.
Probably nothing.
The brutal, agonizing, prolonged end is near. Don’t let the sky hit you on the head on your way out.
Posted by Riley on Aug 14, 2004 at 8:06 PM Riley,
You joke as though the anti-gay amendment was never proposed, let alone voted on.
This pResident has us fearing the wrong things, if you will: the killer arab, the hateful liberal and the “family values-killing gay”. I say fear Bush, if anyone or thing, and his self-serving agenda.But, no, it’s the conservatives who are playing the fear card and seem to be filled with it themselves. They use it to control the stupid in this nation, and that’s an almost endless resource. The stupid vote out of fear.
What two gay people do does not affect my marriage in any way. If things did change, it would be because of something else.
As far as future marriages are concerned, to say the “sanctity of marriage” is eroded by allowing gays to marry is crazy. Over half the marriages in this country end in divorce, divorces filed by some of the same people who are protesting this.
Posted by Ammonia D on Aug 15, 2004 at 7:57 AM What has perplexed me during this debate is why the government, the State, etc, etc… has granted privileges, rights, benefits and preferences to what is essentially a religious ceremony, specifically a specific & narrow religious intepretation of “marriage”.
Yes, the answer is buried in our history and culture. But as a firm believer in the separation of church & state, it may be time to end the government’s involvment in what is a religious ceremony.
Sincerely,
nerdus_maximus
Posted by nerdus_maximus on Aug 15, 2004 at 9:18 AM While it is absurd that the government would condone any private sexual relationship by conferring special benefits to those who engage in them, the reality is that these benefits are very great and very important. The people who are in private sexual relationships which the government has decided not to bless with this special recognition are denied SSN survivor benefits, special tax rates, automatic survivorship rights, etc even if they have been partners for decades. In contrast, Anna Nicole Smith, for example, automatically qualifies for these benefits. When it comes to protecting the ‘institution’ of marriage, we must first recognize that any institution in which the only qualification is to be straight (serial killers and child molestors included), is bound to have problems.
Posted by do'no on Aug 15, 2004 at 4:00 PM Serial killers…
They look just like everyone else.
Don’t we?
Posted by Ammonia D on Aug 15, 2004 at 8:10 PM No, Riley, the Reublicans don’t need death camps. They just incite fear and loathing that drive some drunken idiots to tie a gay man to a post and beat him to death. Such comments as yours only serve to keep people’s head in the sand while some of the same atrocities visited upon blacks during the civil rights era are allowed to happen now to gays.
Posted by Brian on Aug 16, 2004 at 1:44 PM I was surprised not to see the author rounding his article with the obvious hypocracy of Dick Cheney and his daughter Mary and how it reflects the Lester Hunt story, as well as changing attitudes in America. There is this dark shadowy side to me that seems to think I might be able to associate with the Republican ideas if they weren’t trammeled by zealots and bigots. American politics is a bummer.
Posted by s.e.t.h. on Aug 16, 2004 at 7:26 PM Fear, hypocrisy, intimidation, lies, smears, and chest-thumping Biblemongering pinheads who have as much in common with Christ as they do with a tube worm--that, folks, is a profile of the Republican Party as it exists today. The attacks on gays and lesbians is no different in effect than the police raids going on even as I write this, in Florida, where under Governor Jebbie, cops are intimdating blacks to keep them from registering, voting, or pretty much setting foot out of their houses.
It is, finally, not a gay rights or voting rights issue--it is a question of decency, compassion, and fairness (that silly old stuff about treating others as we would be treated that the *real* Christian suggested) versus fascistic, fearmongering GOP intimidation (hello, Tom DeLay, you human pustule) and lies.
Posted by Jack D. Ripper on Aug 17, 2004 at 12:46 PM To respect marrage, one must respect the relationships of those who wish to be married. Even if you wouldn’t marry them yourself.
Posted by rapbonelou on Aug 18, 2004 at 6:59 PM Government should get out of the marriage business,but they won’t,greed thru licences & fees is what drives them.Government can not discreminate,therefor any agent of the government,justice of the peace ect.,must marry anyone who can afford the fees imposed.Leave marriage to the church & allow God,thru the church to determine who & what are sanctified.Determining sanctity is not a function of government,nor are they the arbitor between the governed & God,this is as it should be.
Posted by BILL on Aug 18, 2004 at 9:45 PM I am 52, married, and have been consorting with single and married people since I was 16 years old. Marriage, an institution I love, is threatened, nearly defunct in it’s original intentions. And what’s doing all the damamge? As I have seen it:
1) Cohabitation is socially acceptable, even lauded.
2) Adultery, with no consequences.
3) Divorce, again with no sanctions which prevent serial marriages.
Gay people did not do these things. And having heterosexuals for examples makes me wonder why they would even want to embark on such a losing proposition as marriage. Are straights just scared they might show us up at our own game?
Posted by Mooser on Aug 19, 2004 at 10:18 AM And Gosh, I left out domestic violence! Again, with no significant societal sanctions. Heck, with any rhetorical skill you could pass it off as “her fault”.
Posted by Mooser on Aug 19, 2004 at 10:24 AM As a Canadian who lives on the border with the state of Michigan I am appalled at what I see every day from the American news media.
You have a deserter/coward/bully/drunk/bigot running your nation with a band of conniving profiteers who would, and apparently can, do whatever they want no matter the human or moral costs as long as they line their pockets.
The info you people get scares the rest of the world because we all get to see what a liar and neo-criminal imbecile you have for a president. What’s almost as scary is that there are so many people who believe in this idiot.
To put not too fine a point on it, Bush is a bigot and a moron, Cheney os just a slightly more successful albeit less human equal. Gay rights to these people mean nothing. They don’t care. That’s what I see as the entire crux of the issues the people of the USA are having with their “leadership” (it’s almost funny if it weren’t so frightening) is that the people in charge of your nation couldn’t care less about it.
What CNN, Fox and the rest of the media outlets don’t show you as almost all of the news you get from them is censored is what the rest of the world see and it makes us wonder how a country of so much promise and abi8lity has allowed itself to become not much more that a enormous resource to be exploited filled with people who are either too afraid, too gullible ore too lazy to get rid of the ones who are causing so much irreparable harm.
Bill Clinton was impeached and censured for lying about a sexual affair he had. Lying to a nation about WMDs, terrorists and the like thus resulting in the deaths of over 1000 of your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, the deaths of an estimated 10,000 Iraqi people fighting an army who has no business in their nation doesn’t deserve a whole lot worse????
Do you blame the Iraqi people for fighting back? If an army invaded your nation based of false pretenses and lies and began bombing the hell out of your cities and towns would YOU as Americans do any less?
Imagine if the Iraqi nation was based on liberal ideologies instead of ancient Islamic priniples. Would the reason be for “weapons of mass intoxication”? How about a nation of fags led by a figurehead of homosexuality? I know, I’m off on a tangent but, I can’t understand why you people are taking this. The gaybashing and attempted constitutional amendment against gay marriage is just the first step. If you people don’t get rid of that idiot and his gang of thugs and thieves then you have no one to blame but yourselves.
Stop just complaining. Do something, the rest of the world is tired of waiting and watching.
We want our neighbour to the south back. The rest of the world is sick watching Dubya crap on your people and seeing the American people just take it. It doesn’t matter if you’re gay, straight, white or black, big or small or even rich or poor. You people are the ones who need to do the work otherwise, well, the alternative is just not imaginable.
Posted by WireHedd on Aug 19, 2004 at 10:38 AM This is in response to WireHedd. Your observations are right on target.
I will have you know, however, that there is a very large groundswell growing against Bush and his band of Neocon thugs, bandits and idiots. It might well be true that you do not see evidence of this in the mainstream media, but that is more a reflection of corporatism filtering the message.
From a grassroots standpoint, you have grannies and vets, hippies and suits working together to defeat the Not-So-Great-Selected-One. I am working with a group right now that is comprised of Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans and Greens, and we are very determined to Re-Defeat the Shrub. While I have been progressive all my adult life, I have never before this election donated large sums of money to campaigns, nor have I gotten involved in Voter Registration or Get Out The Vote efforts. Well, in this election year, I have taken a hiatus from my job, and my family will be traveling throughout the swing states to give Bush and company the ultimate vacation. My situation and commitment is not unique.
Please take heart WireHedd, you’ll have your old friend from the South back again in 2004/2005.
Posted by bushwacked on Aug 19, 2004 at 11:28 AM I think you canadians have gotten the right idea. The American news media has become an exclusive tool of corporatists and neo-fascists.
Please don’t blame the American people. The extremely brazen nature of the bushite crimes are such that it is beyond most citizens’ ability to comprehend. Only those of us who read the foreign press have any idea of the truth.
Posted by Big Bill on Aug 19, 2004 at 2:00 PM Has anyone thought of this:
Bush and his flunkies swore Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. They swore they had no doubt.
If you had nothing to lose and knew you were being invaded by a unstoppable
army, what would you do? Me, I would launch them. Who knows what range the fabled nukes of Iraq could have reached but they
could have taken out a few major cities in Iran (not Jerusalem--the Arab
world would string him up) or Israel, or maybe even Europe.SO THAT PIECE OF SHIT BUSH, BASED ON HIS ‘SWEARING THEY HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS”
ESSENTIALLY TOLD THE WORLD, HE DIDN’T CARE IF HE RISKED THE LIVES OF
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!!!!!!!!It’s why the US has never attacked N. Korea or Russia--Nukes are a deterrent.
The other side is they KNEW they did not have them.
Re-defeat Bush. Or make room for me Canada--I have great comedy writing skills.
Posted by Windex on Aug 19, 2004 at 3:17 PM I appreciate the passionate comments from people who obviously love this country. The following is intended to instigate an intelligent, respectful, debate.
I assume all of the posters accept the following, (if we are all patriotic Americans who believe in our Constitution)vthat:
1. The Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by the 10 Commandments, as God is referenced repeatedly. The founders also decreed there would be no national religion in deference to a largely Methodist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, etc, populice.
2. As a democracy, we should enact laws based on the majority, and this is the freedom the USA was based upon.Here are some thoughts to ponder/debate:
When the majority of Americans do not believe in same sex marriage, and prefer allowing legal Civil Unions in order for gays to receive the exact same legal benefits as heterosexuals, why must or should the will of the majority be subjugated by the interests of what is a minority of our citizens?
Secondly, why are channels like Foxnews so popular? Who is watching? Why are they not watching CNN so much?
Thirdly, if the majority of Americans prefer having “In God We Trust”, or “One Nation, Under God...” , on our coins and in our Pledge of Allegiance, should we forego these items because of the minority who feel otherwise? Is that democracy, or is it ok to have exceptional cases, and if so - who decides the exceptional cases?
(Would you agree to bring all of these hot issues to a national vote, and if the outcome was not to your liking - would you accept the result in the name of democracy?)
Lastly, while Kerry is a patriotic American, and I believe a solid war veteran, does anyone find his lineage to Winthrop(British colony governor of the 1600’s) and amnesia regarding his Judaism and “Irish” descent troubling for a candidate of the blue collar masses? (Is anyone surprised by his largely European schooling, and early personal connections to the Kennedys and the Skull and Bones like our President, and Mr.Clinton?)
Do we feel Kerry is our best challenger? Or do we wonder, where is Evan Bayt, Chris Dodd, whomever, and why don’t they run? Did we have a better guy?
PS Does anyone feel we are voting based on either, “the lesser of 2 evils” or “the devil you know is...” ?
Just throwing a few things out there, and hope everyone will remain respectful of others opinions.
Posted by Joseph on Aug 22, 2004 at 8:44 AM The “if the majority doesn’t believe in it” is a tired, tired, tired, and weak argument from the conservative side. A group of states felt this way once and seceded from the Union. Civil rights would never have come about if this “true democracy” viewpoint was held onto. Much blood has been spilled for the rights of minorities and continues to today.
A true democracy doesn’t protect the minority of the people. But, because the US is a federal republic with a constitutional representative democracy, the wording of the amendments in the Constitution does protect the minority.
The Constitution protects people from religious persecution, but persecution of what religion? There are minority religions all throughout this nation to endorse one and forbade the others or any particular religion, while the majority may agree, would be unconstitutional.
Another argument is the Constitution was based on the 10 Commandments. There are many prohibitions such as coveting thy neighbor’s wife and possessions, having false gods, idolatry, taking God’s name in vain, keeping the Sabbath holy. None of these are mentioned nor is there any rule of law based on these in the Constitution. Crimes such as murder and stealing have been crimes since the earliest civilizations (and aren’t mentioned as well). Otherwise, humanity never would have lasted.
The framework was written after considering many forms and failures of governments throughout history. Greece and Rome and their ultimate failures strongly influenced the final draft. Ideas were borrowed from Indian nation laws, but to what extent no one is sure.
Our Constitution itself spelled out exactly what the rule of law was to be. In other words, the Constitution IS the rule of law, and thus is not BASED ON the rule of law.“In God We Trust” was nowhere to be found on US currency until just before or during the Civil War, I can’t remember which. And in limited capacity. It didn’t appear on the paper dollar until the 1930’s. Before that “Liberty” was standard. Also, it was the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, that petitioned the federal government in the 1950’s for a change in the wording of the pledge of allegiance to include “under God”. I disagree with it being placed in the pledge but this makes me no atheist. Nor a hater of God and the supposed “ideas this nation was based upon.”
Personally, money is filthy has caused endless suffering, murder, has spread disease and if you belive in the reverence of God, then it’s kind of an abomination to place it on such a thing. I’m not advocating its removal, but if it happened, I don’t think it would lead to this nation’s downfall as many religious people feel. I think our crimes in the international community, our bullying and near destruction of Haiti and past South American nations, our military build-up and support of murderous dictators in the pursuit of open markets and easy access to oil would do the trick.
Posted by Windex on Aug 22, 2004 at 11:03 AM Let’s just make this simple.
Religion + politics = stupid
There is no place for theology in the political arena. To expect it arrogant in the extreme and to try and mandate it to anyone is as moronic as it is arrogant.
If you are a christian and your faith in god is your way of getting by in the world then, that’s great for you.
That does NOT mean it is for everyone else and to expect it is just plain dumb.
The religious right needs a short, sharp kick in the face and they need to be told to keep their theocratic mentallity to themselves.
Everyone has a right to freedom of religion here in the free world but, your rights of religion end at the tip of your own nose and you do NOT have the right to try and force it down anyone’s throat. If people want it they will ask, otherwise, religion can stay in the churches where it belongs and out of the halls of government where decisions based on fact and reality and current state of society need to be made.
Religion has NO PLACE in those decisions at all other than as a consideration for the people who follow it and to ensure they are not prosecuted for their faith.
Nothing else.
Posted by WireHedd on Aug 25, 2004 at 7:43 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Hans Johnson
- California Rules!
A Defeat for Right-Wing Activism On and Off the Bench - Demolition Crew Butts In Where Deft Organizers Need To Tread
- The Next Gay Moment?
- Primary Importance
For leaders of interest groups and social movements, power comes from being able to show elected officials that you know who, where, and how numerous these hell-or-high-water voters are within your ranks, and within their districts, at all times - Running, With Scissors
The Republican drive to cut off voters is the sleeper issue of 2008 - God--And Progressives--Save This Honorable Court!
The Supreme Court's recent decisions further underscore the dire need to beat back the right's threats to basic fairness.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
