« side note | Main | how i helped my daughter with her studies in a roundabout way »

retraction of a comment

You know what? I take it back. I was speaking while I was in an emotionally explosive state. I still am a one issue voter. While I am a big supporter of gay rights, defending this country is still my number one priority. What good are our rights if we're dead? Yes, the president has "better things to do than jerk around with the Constitution." We'll all be in Stephen King land if he doesn't pay attention. Defend first. Offend later. That's my motto and I'm sticking to it. And by offend, I mean offend those who think I'm some kind of heretic for supporting gay marriage I'm still with Ed Koch.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference retraction of a comment:

» Gay Marriage Round-Up II from PoliBlog
As I continue to peruse the Blogosphere on the topic of the day, I would note these posts to go along with the list I posted earlier. McGehee of blogoSFERICS isn't impressed by pro-gay marriage advocates who argue for gay... [Read More]

» I'll Need to Pick a Single Issue from Interrobang?!
Michele makes a good point: defending the country is still the top priority. But then I read articles like this, and this, and see how... [Read More]


Bush dosnt say he is against civil union's but gay marriage. I think that Marriage is and always should be between a man and woman.

And I think the majority of American's agree.

I'm with you that being dead is worse than not having marriage rights. Bush is good at getting us fighting when we need to fight, and I'm grateful to him for that. I've been a big supporter of both wars, and continue to be. And certainly the broader war is not over, and likely will not be in my lifetime.

Still, I'm starting to think that, well, maybe Bush really has done enough, at least for this decade. Saddam's gone, al Qaeda's pretty broken, and the Nutjobs in general appear to be, well, scared. Which is good. Kerry may be a bit of a wuss, but I don't think he's enough of a wuss to appease overly much in the future, especially with the public so generally belligerent.

I'm not entirely convinced. But given Bush's overall record on everything not Nutjob-related, especially his fiscal incontience and now this FMA, I'm looking at the presidental cojones with respect to the WoT as an issue these days, not so much the issue.

On the other hand, I do have a personal stake in this particular debate. YMMV.

George Bush is a man who openly and publicly expressed today a position on gay rights that seemingly you almost totally disagree with. Yet this assault on your values pales in comparison to the idea of Bush being replaced by someone who doesn't support 100% of your position on foreign policy.

John Kerry opposed the war, but he doesn't want to be allies with Saddam Hussein. George Bush supports the war, and wants to outlaw gays being married. To say that your disagreement with Kerry on the war is remotely near your disagreement with Bush on gay rights is a stretch, and yet while the former remains speculative, the latter is blatant courtesy of today's news. You think John Kerry might make America less safe. You KNOW what Bush will do to gays.

You can be a single-issue voter, but I'll never understand how you've come to this logic. The suggestion that a Democrat "won't defend this country" is an opinion. George Bush has just stated his opposition to your views on gay rights as a fact.

I have always seen what many refer to as "the 9/12 mentality" as one of possible irrationality, but for it to make someone support a fear over opposing what they know amazes me as to how irrational it truly can be.

As Steven at Poliblog pointed out, Bush has no say whatsoever in the constitutional amendment process, so whether you disagree with him or not on the issue, he can't actually do anything other than speak his mind, which he's doing.


On the other hand, the president is the commander in chief.

So you're voting against Bush, then, who's done nothing to defend his country besides scatter Al Queda among several supportive countries and invade Iraw, a country that was no threat, while doing nothing about Iran, Pakistan and North Korea? Good.

Bryan -- I'm aware that the American president has no formal authority when it comes to amending the constitution. Still, he's got the "bully pulpit", as it were, and more than a little bit of influence over his party.

Patience, Joseph. Morocco wasn't a threat either, but that didn't stop us from invading it, did it?

1. No one should be surprised.

2. If it's about a word, then 2 words, "civil union" is also ok.

3. W just put it where it is supposed to belong, the Peoples' House - Congress.
It is not for W to decide, it is for us.

4. We cannot have this continual end run around the law, this is going to lead to anarchy. Which people are forgetting, the SF mayor pushed. He willfully-and in our faces- violated the law. This is the 2nd time in 4 years that people who don't like the result have pushed the electorate.

Thanks Michele....exhale (I was turning blue:).
Dead people can't get married. Unless they're from England.

Sandy P:

1. I don't think many people are.
2. Agreed.
3. Bush didn't put in Congress -- it's always been there, after all. Bush suggested which way they should decide, which is a different kettle of fish.
4. Agreed. Still, if one, like me, favors gay marriage but thinks Newsom and the Massachusetts SC went over the line, favoring for the FMA is most certainly not "just about letting the people decide". Letting the people decide means obeying the FMA if it indeed gets passed (or obeying current law, if only they had done so).




ok, I don't know, my finger fell asleep on the enter key? Please edit me out of idiocy?

This makes me feel a little better. Not completely, a little.

OL - The people of CA decided and look where it got them and us.

These things take time. The president suggests a lot of things, doesn't mean he gets his way. Part of his job is to suggest and if a majority of the people think it's a good idea at this time, well, so be it. Prohibition was also overturned, after all. If the minority is willing to accept "civil union", maybe enough of the majority will, too.

We've had 30 years of divisiveness on abortion which was forced on us by attorneys. I for one am getting fed up w/attorneys forcing their ideas on me. If the minority isn't careful, the majority will dig in their heels.

However, I really wish the Pink Pistols would march up to SF and demand their 2nd Amendment rights. If we're going at culture wars, might as well go whole hog.

Besides, I am not looking forward to a Constitutional Convention. Once we open it up, I don't trust our "elected representatives."

Very little of which I disagree with, Sandy. I'm simply saying that the option of the FMA or an FMA-like amendment has always been on the table, it didn't need presidental approval.

Bush isn't simply for letting the people decide, you see. He's for letting them decide against same-sex marriage. Which is fine, a perfectly legitimate point of view, although it is one with which I disagree.

I'm for letting the people decide, as well, as I said, I dislike both the Mass SC and SF Mayoral decisions. However, speaking as one of the people, I will cast my vote, or at least, encourage my representatives to cast their votes, against the FMA. This is not consonant with Bush's suggestion.

Bush is well within his rights here, of course.

Don`t blame this on Bush. The courts are the ones who drew first blood by trying to legislate from the bench. What Bush did by his statement today was a flanking maneuver. Like Sandy P. said
Pro gay marriage people have been doing endruns around the legalities. Bush put it where it belongs. Decide the issue and get it over with.
For the record, I`m against gay marriages.
I live with laws I don`t like everyday. Once this is decided, learn to live with it.

I agree w/JOAT. We all have to live w/laws we don't like. At this point in time, this might be one you don't like. Robin Roberts posted this at Steve Verdon's and I agree.

"Consider the result if gay marriage is adopted nationwide by judicial fiat.

Our political process would be dominated by another Roe v. Wade. Every judicial nomination would become a partisan circus over whether or not the judicial nominee would defend / reverse the gay marriage decision. Perhaps the disaffected would bomb gay marriage chapels as a small hardcore of abortion opponents do.

Far better that the issue be one for resolution by ballot. If abortion had been handled this way, many people believe that the political furor would have gone away by now. Instead, judicial activism inflamed the issue."

We all have to make sacrifices. At this point in time, with what's coming ahead, the minority may have to make this sacrifice for the time being. We are about to send a message to the world and our enemies. And depending on which message that is, it's going to get rough or rougher, because I have no doubt if the dem is elected, he will be tested quite soon after.

Besides, it could die in Congress. They don't want this. Election's coming. Cash flow trumps all. AND - the Equal Rights Amendment never passed.

Sandy, Joat, I fully agree that we all have to live with unpleasant laws. In no way am I implying that the FMA is illegitimate or the MassSC was justified.

I am simply saying that, as a supporter of gay marriage, I am most certainly not going to back a constitutional amendment that would ban it, just because the courts went over the line. I expect that opponents of gay marriage will tend to favor the FMA, which is fine, and they certainly have a right to try to get the FMA passed. I simply won't support them, and indeed, will actively oppose them in this matter. This counts against Bush in my book.

Should the FMA be ratified, it will be the law, of course, and I will expect people should follow it. However, I will still favor its repeal as soon as possible.

I should emphasize that this issue, in isolation, is not enough to make me vote against Bush. This is merely the straw on top of the camel's back of enormous governmental spending increases, silly welfare initiatives, educational debacles, and everything else. I don't expect any politican to be perfect, of course, but his endorsement of the FMA has caused by personal approval rating of him to drop from 55% to 45%, as it were.

Well, I guess we can disagree on those, OL, the medicare prescription bill is causing some interesting things to happen. Competition. Private plans are raising their prescription drug program options to entice seniors. And what's buried in some of those bills is interesting.

August, considering John Kerry is opposed to gay marriage, the only thing that separates him from Bush is the amendment.

And I don't want to hear about this 'civil union' crapola. That's a dodge. It's like people who are so opposed to abortion but aren't so in the case of rape or incest. It's inconsistent to go halfway, and that's what Kerry wants.

So not only is he not better on the issue of gay rights than Bush (at least Bush has the cojones to state his position without qualification), but he's also weak on national defense.

Jay, our opinions on how Kerry will differ from Bush in terms of safety are clearly speculative- I can give my case for Bush's failures as commander-in-chief as much as you can counter them. Any suggestion as to what the terrorists, or for that matter the president whomever it is, will do next year is speculative.

Bush's use of this amendment, his endorsing of the congressional filing, and his use of the bully pulpit to push it makes his intent clear: he wants to prevent gays from getting married. You don't know what Kerry will do if president with Iraq; you know exactly what Bush will with gays. Bush will be your alleged "better protector" for four years, while driving to enact a permanent law.

Considering that, Michele's back-track is putting speculation of temporary advantage for herself over a guarantee of permanent disadvantage for others. It's telling how you passed off Kerry and Bush as them "only" being different by Bush supporting a law that does this when Kerry doesn't. This amendment permamently prevents a group from having what they see as a personal right; that's one big damned "only."

But you can make the case for Bush as a better defender of the homeland as much as you want. That doesn't mean "Defend first, offend later," will never appear in my eyes as something highly irrational. Or for that matter, offensively selfish.

"Defend first, offend later" sounds a lot to me like "me first, you later." To put the hope of a "better" commander-in-chief for the next four years over rejecting someone who endorses the stripping of equal rights for gays sounds a lot like giving up essential liberty for temporary safety. Ben Franklin covered a long time ago what people who think that way deserve.

What good are our rights if we're dead?

What good is it to be alive if we have less and less rights?

It could go both ways, right?

To repurpose a bit of snark I posted elsewhere: voting Democratic to help gays in the current geopolitical environment is like opening a Korean restaurant to help cats. It doesn't matter if they're married when President Mohammed al-Kerry III starts building walls to knock over on them.

Also I liked this quote from Chicago Mayor Daley:

"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it," Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley

"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it," Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley


A lot of right wing christians want to tackle only a perceived problem with the sanctity of marriage (i.e., their perceived problem of homosexual marriages) but if we are really going to protect the sanctity of marriage shouldn't we also have an ammendment banning divorce, infidelity, dishonesty...heck maybe even porn that leads to so many problems in marriage? (not to give Bush any more ideas). In fact, the Bible says far more about keeping marriages sanctified in these ways than it ever does about being against homosexuality. But see then the Republicans/Christians would have to live under the same type of expectations they expect others to live up to.

Still, if enough of them wanted it, I suppose old "small government" Dubya would work to give it to them.

Actually, like John Stewart said tonight, I think this is really just all about Cheney trying to insure that he will never have to pay for his lesbian daughters wedding.

Oh well...like I wrote before, at least our borders are safe even if it is becoming one nation under Bush.

Defend first, offend later. I like that. Heh. This isn't the first time that I've been angry at Bush for his policies--the other time was his proposal concerning illegal immigrants--but I still refuse to vote for the other side. What a waste! So distrustful am I of all the Democratic candidates that the thought of voting for one of them on account of either issue never occurred to me. As much as I hate to admit it, there are more important things to get passionate about right now besides than marriage laws.

Unfortunately I live in Massachusetts. Unfortunate on many levels, not the least of which is that I know just how bad our French-looking Junior Senator for life - who, by the way, in case you weren't aware, if you hadn't heard, served in Vietnam - is and could never in all good conscious vote for him.

Despite my support for the WOT, I'm starting to reach that point with President Bush as well.

Defend first, offend later? Uh-uh, we're going to offend first and defend maybe - begging the question of how much worth defending will be left before it's all said and done. There's only so much urinating all over libertarian principles to please reactionary cultural conservatives I'm willing to tolerate, sad to say but President Bush is getting very near my limits. I want to support the man because on so many big things he is so right, but on so many little things he couldn't possible be more wrong and those little things have been adding up rapidly. There's only so much "The other guy is worse" can buy you before you can't in good conscious support either.


It's a shame America has receded like this. Move to Canada.

There was a time when the majority of Americans thought blacks couldn't marry whites, women shoudln't vote, children should work 12 hours a day and it was acceptable to own slaves.

The majority were wrong, and the state recognized this.

America was a very cool place, once upon a time. Now, unfortunately, the inmates are in charge of the asylum and it's not very appealing.

Actually, like John Stewart said tonight, I think this is really just all about Cheney trying to insure that he will never have to pay for his lesbian daughters wedding.

Cheney's daughter is also against gay marriage. And , for this opinion, she is being slammed by the ultra-radicals as some kind of traitor to her orientation.

America was a very cool place, once upon a time. Now, unfortunately, the inmates are in charge of the asylum and it's not very appealing.

Uh, vince, I suggest you pull the blinders off and look at reality, bud. America has always had its problems. The civil rights movement was fought all over the country. Even today, there are areas of larger cities where people of different colors do not mix. Cool place? Ask the Indians about that "cool place." Ask blacks in any era prior to the 1970s. Ask women. Ask poor white trash who had to work in coal mining factories.

Don't give us this rose-colored, once-upon-a-time crapola.

When the hell was America this "cool place"? During the 1860s? 1920s? 1950s? 1960s? 1970s?

The inmates have always run the asylumn, man. That's what the democratic republic is for pete's sake.

I swear, these empty platitudes just drive me up the freakin' wall.

It's a shame that your Constitution, the document which supposedly defines America and spell's out her citizen's freedoms, would be used to discriminate against the same people.

Proud to be Canadian.

Hey, Vince...

Talked to any First Nations people lately up there?


Cheshirecat, be nice...most Canadians have nothing useful to be proud of except for the fact they aren't Americans (and their country is a haven for American cowards and traitors). When one of their cities is smoking crater thanks to the Islamo-kazi they allowed to live there, then who will look the fool. Just remember, most of the 9/11 terrorists came across the border from Canada into the US. If you really want to wind up a Canadian, ask if its embarrasing that one of the possible PMs for Canada has more ships than the Canadian Navy. (For more on this and other lame Canadian goings-on please visit Frozen in Montreal).

The idea of an amendment is idiotic, however I agree that is better to be alive and argueing about it, than dead while smug.

Hi people. Im Linda sweet teen This is very good site thank you. I've get all of im seek. I can help you if you wanna please email me to andy@yahoo.com . not sex Linda sweet teen but you can help me too. Thank you.