O'Connor Resigns; Ugliness To Come

I just posted the below comments at my blog at www.davidcorn.com. I am happy to share these first-reaction thoughts here.

I was not happy to see the flood of mails with similar subject headings: "O'Connor resigning." From a parochial point of view, a titanic fight over a Supreme Court nomination can really ruin a summer in Washington. (Actually, despite the heat, summers in Washington tend to be quite pleasant; the town slows down, Congress is gone for a good spell, traffic eases, there's plenty of parking, and I can catch up on a year's worth of filing.) But, worse, the expected war over the nominee (whoever it is) will be ugly. It should be ugly. There will be much at stake. But ugly is ugly--and the Democrats are hardly in a strong position to block George Bush if he makes a not-dumb choice. So the pessimist in me--which is usually, though not always, right when it comes to predicting the success rate (or lack thereof) rate for the Dems--fears that after all the ugliness transpires Bush will win out, and the court will veer further to the right. The operative question may be, How much?

Let's be clear about this. During the nuclear option fight, the Democrats were not able to court enough Republicans to prevent Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist from killing the judicial filibuster in an up-or-down vote. It took a tilted-to-the-GOP compromise fashioned by so-called moderates in both parties to thwart (perhaps temporarily) Frist's desire to eliminate the judicial filibuster. Any fight over a Bush nominee to the Supreme Court will eventually have to come down to a with-us-or-against-us vote. That means if Bush nominates someone who the Democrats believe warrants a filibuster, there will be a replay of the nuclear option drama. Only this time it will be more dramatic. The Democrats will threaten a filibuster; Frist will threaten the nuclear option. And those same six or so Republicans whom the Democrats tried (and failed) to win over as a bloc on the nuclear option fight will again be the targets for the Democratic leaders. But what would make these GOPers side with the Democrats this time, especially when the stakes are higher? And, unlike the last episode, these Republicans will not be saved by the bell of a compromise that kicks the can down the road (to mix metaphors). There will be more pressure on them to stick to the party line when a Supreme Court nomination is at stake.

The above analysis is based on the assumption--or presumption--that Bush will nominate a jurist whom the Democrats can sell as filibuster-material. If he does not do so, then what will the Dems and the progressive outfits do?

Of course, they will correctly note that replacing O'Connor--often the key swing vote on the court on crucial matters (such as abortion rights)--will change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court. Bush's social conservative supporters have been demanding he select someone who will clearly shove the court toward the right. Much has been written and pundited on this topic. Will he go with proven conservative jurist and please the Dobson crowd? Or will he reward Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a Bush loyalist who conservatives suspect (for whatever paranoid reasons they have) might turn out to be another David Souter? Is Bush planning a surprise for everyone? (Orrin Hatch?)

In any event, the Democrats and progressives may be placed in the position of having to oppose an experienced jurist whose opinions they do not like on policy grounds. They should fight such a nominee vigorously, and they should be upfront about their reasons. Rather than label that person an "extremist," they ought to argue that the Senate ought not to confirm a nominee who is likely to vote to curtail or eliminate abortion rights, to favor corporate polluters over consumers, or to restrict the federal government's ability to advance social justice. The "extremist" strategy, I fear, is worn out and ineffective. It worked for Robert Bork, thanks to his too-honest writings and wacky beard. But most of the far-right jurists on the list of potential nominees will be able to appear before a Senate committee, not drool, answer questions about their opinions politely, and come across as intelligent and somewhat reasonable people, not extremist monsters plotting to lead America into a Time of Darkness. So progressives, beware, the E-word is probably not your friend.

And there's this to think of: Bush will probably get another Supreme Court pick soon. Perhaps real soon. Chief Justice William Rehnquist may not be there much longer--by choice or not. One smart move for Bush would be to nominate for the O'Connor vacancy a decidedly conservative person but one who is well-equipped to beat back the expected charges of extremism from the left and who goes on to be confirmed. (Does Gonzales fit this bill?) Next--for the Rehnquist opening--Bush could nominate a true conservative whacko, a Bork II. The Democrats and the left would have a tough time redeploying the extremist attack, even if it were warranted this time. Once more--from a political perspective--Democrats and progressives ought to think carefully about how and when they use the charge of extremism. They can only cry "wolf" so many times--even if Bush unleashes a pack of wolverines.

Will any good come out of this? It may be entertaining, for a while, to watch the tussle that ensues between social conservatives and the White House if Bush does not nominate a person to their liking. That would certainly have reverberations for the Republican presidential race, perhaps causing a more divisive primary contest. Then again, if Bush does decide to elevate Gonzales--a fellow who has protected Bush's legal backside numerous times during Bush's political career--and nominate the first Hispanic-American to the highest court of the land, the Democrats might find it more difficult to stop the drift of Hispanic-American voters toward the GOP.

All in all, this battle is Bush's to lose. A clever move or two on his part could place the Democrats and progressives at serious political disadvantage. They must now devise a damn smart and sophisticated campaign of opposition designed for more than the vacancy of the moment.

Comments (155)

1. You're absolutely right to caution against the overuse of the "E" word. Nonetheless, I pretty much expect Democrats to invoke it almost immediately.

   Vigorous but reasoned and calm opposition to Bush's picks would be the best strategy. Unfortunately, hot heads in the party like Dean are likely to run their mouths off in the most unfortunate of ways, much to the delight of Conservatives.

   I agree that it will get ugly. Humble prediction: Bush nominates a conservative Hispanic male to replace O'Connor and a female social conservative to replace Rehnquist. Both will be confirmed.

   We all knew what was at stake in this past election. To the victor, the spoils.

   Posted by Beausoleil at 07/01/2005 @ 12:26pm

2. I don't see how the Democrats have much hope here. Two nominees is like winning the lottery for this administration (and they will have two nominees for sure, at least soon). Conservatives must be dancing in the isles at this point. This court may very well finish the job of repealing the last 100 years of social and environmental progress that consevatives have been chipping away at for the last thirty years. Their biggest obstacle in the coming years will be themselves. If conservatives can maintain an illusion of being moderate and not seem to arogant, they will have total control for a long time.

   Posted by elfrijole at 07/01/2005 @ 12:26pm

3. "Conservatives must be dancing in the isles at this point."

   Yep, we are...

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 12:39pm

4. Bush and the rightwing taking over the courts is merely icing on the cake. When Democrats elect a 270 seat GOP House of Representatives and a 62 seat GOP United States Senate, taking over the Supreme Court will look like child's play.

   Posted by POSEIDON at 07/01/2005 @ 1:04pm

5. Poseidon, That is the perfect point that people on the left cannot get clear. That the majority or the voting is towards the right, but the left used the court to get their way. I was alwasy taught that a majority rules and if you want to win or make change, you have to get the majority in your favor. Why can't people live by the rules and use the Courts to go against the constitution or try to re write it with things that were never intended to be in the consitution.

   Do you think our founding fathers would have agreed on a partial birth abortion? GIVE ME A BREAK!

   Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 1:16pm

6. Does Bush have the guts for a recess appointment to the Court? Kennedy did that with Thurgood Marshall, so that there would be time for all the agitation against the nomintion (from Southern senators) to die out before Marshall's nomination had to go to the Senate for approval.

   Posted by lockerc18 at 07/01/2005 @ 1:30pm

7. Good article David Corn. What about those of us that do not believe there is such a thing as "abortion rights" but favor consumers over corporate polluters? Why the left (THE NATION) has allowed itself to be hijacked by feminists is an enigma to me. Will there ever be room at The Nation for those that are far to the left on economic issues, but are moderate to right on social issues?

   Posted by faulkenberg at 07/01/2005 @ 1:33pm

8. For Zero

   For You and ME not For You and I

   Posted by Bieco at 07/01/2005 @ 1:39pm

9. It's going to be just another step in the steady demise of the great democracy we have enjoyed all these years. First we had a sham presidential election. Followed by a perpetual state of fear and an illegal war. Then another sham election. Now the people are so out of power that this will be the last step in the process of converting the United States into a fascist dictatorship controlled by the Republican Party.

   I can't say how fearfull this makes me.

   Posted by bryan.lucas at 07/01/2005 @ 1:43pm

10. Dancall:

    One great thing about the Constitution is that it is a living document. It transforms itself to fit the times. Do we really need to invoke the desires of the founding fathers in determining whether partial birth abortion should be legal? Can't we decide that the constitution means something different today than it did then? When you say "things that were never intended to be in the Constitution" you miss the adaptability of the document. The Constitution doesn't self-define the terms "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We define those terms. I think women should have the liberty to be able to determine for themselves whether they have children. This will ensure that both children and their mothers have the best possible lives. I am glad that our Supreme Court agrees.

    And as to being taught that majority rules: aren't you missing the point of checks and balances? The whole idea is to keep the tyranny of the majority in check, so that one party cannot radically restructure things with a simple majority.

    But one thing is true: if the Democrats want to shape this country to their liking, they have to focus on winning back seats of government rather than challenging every ruling in court. While Supreme Court rulings are a temporary fix, the true solution is to establish the rightness of our ideals. Point out the injustices imposed by the right-wingers who currently control things. Communicate with your neighbors, and condemn the politicians who vapidly spout the rhetoric of hate.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/01/2005 @ 1:50pm

11. To continue the thinking of American conservatives, as DANCALL so eloquently put it, "Do you think our founding fathers would have agreed on a partial birth abortion? GIVE ME A BREAK!....[and DANCALL could have added if they were a true conservative .........."Do you think our founding fathers would have agreed on women, renters, and minorities voting, state-imposed religion, a press that is corporate-controlled, and (you fill in the blank). GIVE ME LOTS OF BREAKS!"

    Posted by ScienceWriter at 07/01/2005 @ 1:52pm

12. Taking a big step back from the specific question of the next Supreme Court Justice, we can see that the left has lost its momentum in the contest of ideas playing out in the public discourse. A left/liberal/progressive agenda carries little weight in the three branches of government and the mass media in its many forms. Until the left can articulate a compelling vision of the future, this is unlikely to change.

    Stepping back in, the left should think strategically about how to handle the nomination process for the next Supreme Court Justice. It won't win in a contest of political ideas, unless a miraculous change of heart takes place within the diverse interest groups that influence Democratic party policy. It will also fail if it tries to challenge an extremist right wing nomination in a head-butting competition with Bush and Frist.

    A successful Democratic strategy is possible, but it first requires that party to recognize the depth of disillusionment in its ranks and to clean house. Having recognized this need, a rearguard strategy is appropriate. This would involve posturing against an extremist, advocating for a moderate who will respect the legal traditions of this nation, and ultimately compromising in favor of a less radical judge.

    This strategy will further weaken the party base, but we're already sick, so what else is new. It does however prepare a silver lining (a judge who respects the law over ideology) for 2012, the next presidential election that the Dems have a chance of winning, as it will take the party at least that long to rebuild itself from within.

    Assuming that the party recognizes that it has a problem now. If not, then I expect that I will enjoy watching Election '12 from London, Amsterdam or Paris. I'm not a citizen, so I have that luxury.

    Posted by gaving at 07/01/2005 @ 2:03pm

13. The "flagship" issue for the left is abortion. The left's obsession with abortion is troubling. All of the cliches about a woman's right to control her body etc. etc. are worn out. Like "faulkenberg" says, there is no room for you on the left unless you toe the line on abortion. The reason the elitists at The Nation are not as keen on economic injustice is because they can't identify. They are as privileged and materially comfortable as the upper crust on the right. As a matter of fact, if you are a white male and struggling to make ends meet, Katha Pollit takes devious and sadistic satisfaction in it. For the left to genuinely take up the cause of economic injustice would require of them to associate with a large number of "uneducated" white men that work in factories. This is not an attractive prospect for the elitists at The Nation

    Posted by mulvey_67 at 07/01/2005 @ 2:15pm

14. "One great thing about the Constitution is that it is a living document. It transforms itself to fit the times. "

    It is absolutely not a "living document" that "transforms" itself to fit the times. The constitution is the same today as it was 200 years ago. Rights, rules and laws are either IN the constitution such as the 1st amendment, or they are NOT in the constitution such as the notion that there is some guaranteed "right to privacy" that the case for Roe v. Wade was based on.

    There is no "right to privacy" stated or written anywhere IN the constitution, I have read it many times.

    Hopefully if Bush can nominate a Judge that will base law on WHAT the constitution SAYS instead of what the progressive leaning judge THINKS it should say, we can at least make it illegal for women to kill babies because for what ever reason they "choose" not to be pregnant.

    Just for the record, I do believe abortion should be legal only in the case such as the life of the mother is in danger unless the baby is terminated. I think this judgment call should only be in the hands of a qualified doctor, not the mother, and the doctors should be carefully monitored to make sure ethically challenged Doctors aren't performing under the counter abortions in exchange for cash.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 2:16pm

15. Mulvey: I think it's funny how you so casually dismiss a woman's right to control her body. Like it doesn't mean a thing to you. Maybe you can't identify with that idea, but it has significant power. It a "flagship issue" of both sides, Republican and Democratic, because America is staunchly divided over it. But just because a majority of god-fearing Americans support one side in the debate does not mean that the ideas of the other side are meaningless.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/01/2005 @ 2:25pm

16. For BEAUSOLEIL: Thanks for reminding me of an old saying that I just made up.

    To the victor, the spoils; to the spoilers the victory.

    Posted by RRussell at 07/01/2005 @ 2:27pm

17. Todd,

    You are sorely mistaken. First, the document incorporates the idea that the people are free to amend it if they can come to a reasonable agreement. Second, the document was founded in the common-law history of England, where the prevailing view was that there was some shared higher law imposed on the world from above that judges were supposed to discern. This law was flexible and rational, and open to new interpretations. Thus a justice on the Supreme Court can argue that within the concept of "liberty" enshrined in the constitution is some fundamental notion that we should respect the private lives of citizens and not interfere with their intimate relationships. Your conception that anything not specifically written in the document is fair game gives great reign to totalitarian dictatorships to impose linguistic fixes on policies in order to avoid the "words" in the COnstitution and eviscerate the policies it stands for.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/01/2005 @ 2:32pm

18. You reap what you sow. As Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler put it back on May 19, 2005:

    After all, why is George Bush in the White House at all? Here's the garbage vanden Heuvel [editor of The Nation] was printing three weeks before the 2000 election--three weeks before the close election which transformed American politics. The Nation's Alexander Cockburn did the honors. Prepare to avert your gaze in embarrassment:

    COCKBURN (10/16/00): "What an odd presidential race! So long as George W. Bush keeps his mouth shut and remains in seclusion he floats up in the polls. His best strategy would be to bag the debates, take Laura on an extended vacation and come back a couple of days before the election. Meanwhile, Gore reinvents himself on an almost daily basis. Nothing has been more comical than his "populist" posturings about the Republicans being the ticket of Big Oil and himself and Lieberman being the champions of the little people...

    "Gore's "populism" is comical, yet one more facet of a larger mendacity. What suppressed psychic tumult drives him to those stretchers that litter his career, the lies large and small about his life and achievements? You'd think that a man exposed to as much public derision as was Gore after claiming he and Tipper were the model for the couple in Love Story, or after saying he'd invented the Internet, would by now be more prudent in his vauntings. But no. Just as a klepto's fingers inevitably stray toward the cash register, so too does Gore persist in his fabrications.

    "Recently he's claimed to have been at the center of the action when the strategic oil reserve, in Texas and Louisiana, was established. In fact, the reserve's tanks were filling in 1977, when Gore was barely in Congress, a very junior member of the relevant energy committee. The legislation creating the reserve had been passed in 1975. At around the same time as this pretense, the VP claimed to have heard his mother crooning "Look for the union label" over his cradle. It rapidly emerged that this jingle was made up by an ad man in the seventies, when Al was in his late 20s.

    "As a clue to why Al misremembers and exaggerates, the lullaby story has its relevance as a sad little essay in wish fulfillment. Gore's mother, Pauline, was a tough character, far more interested in advancing Albert Sr.'s career than in warbling over Gore's cot. Both parents were demanding. Gore is brittle, often the mark of the overly well-behaved, perfect child. Who can forget the panicked performance when his image of moral rectitude shattered at the impact of the fundraising scandals associated with the Buddhist temple in Los Angeles?"

    As most of our readers understand by now, there's a term for work like this: Cockburn's piece was political pornography. And by now, everyone surely understands the fact that dare not say its name; everyone knows that the two-year War Against Gore which Cockburn channeled actually put George Bush in the White House. In short, everything against which our flower now rails was put into play by that twenty-month onslaught. And it wasn't enough that vanden Heuvel failed to fight it in her journal; weeks before Americans voted, she was actively pimping the porn which changed every one of our lives!

    By the way, here's the final paragraph of Cockburn's piece. Does anyone on earth still believe this?

    COCKBURN: "Gore's a fibber through and through, just like Bill. A sad experience in the closing weeks of the campaign is to encounter liberals desperately trying delude themselves that there is some political decency or promise in the Democratic ticket. There isn't. Why talk about the lesser of two evils, when Gore is easily as bad as Bush and in many ways worse? The "lesser of two evils" is by definition a matter of restricted choice, like a man on a raft facing the decision of whether to drink seawater or his own urine. But in this election there are other choices, starting with Nader and the Greens. It isn't just a matter of facing seawater or piss."

    Was Gore "easily as bad as Bush?" That is a matter of judgment, of course. But Cockburn found his way to this conclusion by reciting a litany of fake, phony tales--lies the mainstream press corps dreamed up during its two-year War Against Gore. "Gore's a liar, just like Clinton!" The press corps said it again and again--and they invented phony misstatements to "prove" it.

    FOR HISTORY-LOVERS ONLY! THE NATION, PIMPING FOR BUSH: To state the obvious, Cockburn was rattling Bush campaign spin in that remarkable column. IT WAS THE MAINSTREAM, NOT THE CONSERVATIVE: For the record, it was the mainstream press corps, not the conservative, which invented the long string of tales about Gore. Who came up with the "union lullaby" nonsense? Walter Shapiro, USA Today. Who came up with the doggy-pill clowning? Walter Robinson, of the great Boston Globe. (Earlier, who had invented the Love Story nonsense? You hate this, but it was Frank Rich and Mo Dowd.) Readers, all good scribes were in a tizzy to think that Clinton had gotten those bl*w jobs. The natural reaction? Invent a string of crackpot tales to punish the gentleman's next-in-line, Gore. And yes, this actually is what happened--this is what put George Bush in the White House.

    Posted by unionlawyer at 07/01/2005 @ 2:34pm

19. Like FAULKENBERG ("Will there ever be room at The Nation for those that are far to the left on economic issues, but are moderate to right on social issues?") The arguments and Court decisions cited by the Nation on the Court nominees place heavy emphasis on social issues (abortion, gays, religion etc.) that are an absolute loser with most of the American public, and practically no emphasis on economic (worker rights, "free" trade, health care, etc.) on which most people track to the left.

    This continued emphasis by the left on divisive social issues is a recipe for political suicide and extinction, and ensures that all laws enacted within past 100 years that protect worker rights, consumer rights, the environment and civil liberties will be eliminated. It's time the left gots its priorities straight.

    Posted by wgilwood at 07/01/2005 @ 2:46pm

20. You said:

    "You are sorely mistaken. First, the document incorporates the idea that the people are free to amend it if they can come to a reasonable agreement."

    Right, only through an amendment process including ratification by one third of the states, which would be 17 currently. Such as If Bush would really do what he said he would and push congress to amend the constitution to specify marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

    But one cannot take the idea that the Constitution can be amended and simply make the constitution say what the person thinks it should say, such as the case with Roe Vs. Wade and the "right to privacy"

    You also said: "Second, the document was founded in the common-law history of England,"

    No it wasn't, that was the point of the constitution, doing away with the government of England, taxation without representation etc. and declaring the U.S. a new country with a new form of government.

    Do you think that since I go to church and did not attend Harvard, I don't understand our government or the constitution?

    JUST SHOW ME exactly where in the constitution is there a guaranteed "right to privacy" ?

    The constitution is the constitution, not what you or progressive judges want it to "become"

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 2:49pm

21. Bryan Lucas writes that we had two "sham" elections and an "illegal" war and now we are headed to a "fascist dictatorship." Sounds like Mr. Lucas does not like representative democracy if the people (particularly military absentee voters in Florida who provided President his margin of victory in 2000) do not vote the way he wants. That sounds more like a fascist dictatorship to me. The people have to vote a certain way or Mr. Lucas doesn't think it should count. Saddam Hussein would agree. Things can be illegal in Mr. Lucas' mind but even Senator Kerry voted for the Iraq War resolution.

    Posted by Childrex at 07/01/2005 @ 2:53pm

22. MULVEY_67 "For the left to genuinely take up the cause of economic injustice would require of them to associate with a large number of "uneducated" white men that work in factories. This is not an attractive prospect for the elitists at The Nation"

    Definitely agree/well put! If the writers at the Nation truly want to win over Bush voters (mostly "uneducated" white men), then I suggest they practice by getting down off their pedestals and actually talking to these people in person. They'd very quickly learn what flys with these people and what doesn't.

    Posted by wgilwood at 07/01/2005 @ 2:55pm

23. Sorry meant 2/3's states not 1/3's for ratification.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 2:56pm

24. Zero:

    I get your point, but I don't think the posts are quite as interesting when its simply one liberal after another shouting invective at the administration. I am more interested in convincing those who don't agree with me already.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/01/2005 @ 2:59pm

25. Another dottering dullard on the Supine Court? Not to worry, someone will lower themselves to the occasion without a doubt. This bunch, we must remember, brought us the wild-ass concept of the Unique Law, granted only to one man for only "his" election at only one point in time. The idea didn't last long, though, as Congress and the President then decided they could make another Unique Law for just the particular parents of a brain-dead woman whose comatose body helped the Republicans make fools of themselves and our country.

    Then again, this bunch also claimed that a civil suit filed against a sitting president would not give his political enemies a priceless tool to use against him and would -- as they speculated -- not cause him any more distraction than having to miss a weekend golf game.

    So much for the dumbass "deliberations" of America's Supine Court: a bigger bunch of wackos you could not hope to find.

    Hamilton said that laws the people disregard render them little more than "parchment provisions." I remember the days of illegal abortions. The rich sent their pregnant daughters to Swiss "health spas" for "refinement" and "culture" while poor girls got their abortions in Mexico or just did a coat-hanger job on themselves wherever they could find a dark corner. All the "anti-abortion" laws in the universe will never amount to anything more than a pile of parchment provisions, not worth the paper or the ink -- just more "cultured" and "healthy" rich girls back from Europe with a tan and bleeding, dying poor ones out back in the alley with the garbage and the rats.

    America: what a barbaric, medieval monstrosity.

    Posted by mrmurry at 07/01/2005 @ 3:02pm

26. Todd says: Just for the record, I do believe abortion should be legal only in the case such as the life of the mother is in danger unless the baby is terminated. I think this judgment call should only be in the hands of a qualified doctor, not the mother, and the doctors should be carefully monitored to make sure ethically challenged Doctors aren't performing under the counter abortions in exchange for cash.

    Todd

    DemWoman here:

    I often tire of hearing men debate whether or not women should be able to do this or do that. This is not meant as a slam to you, Todd, as I'm sure one of your arguments would be that a pregnancy is the result of both a male and a female. However, early in Christianity, it used to be thought that the woman was merely the carrier of the pregnancy--that the male contributed everything else and the woman simply carried the pregnancy to term. Sometimes I get the feeling from attitudes that a lot of men still think along those terms.

    I used to be avidly pro-life. However, I am a nurse and worked my entire working life in maternal/child nursing, and soon realized that abortion is not always--in fact, is rarely--a flip decision because a pregnancy or another child is inconvenient at a specific time. Perhaps early on it was more often this way, but soon women realized that there is a great deal of angst in deciding to having an abortion. I really know of no one who has recently entered into an abortion without a huge amount of consideration, thought, and weighing the consequences.

    I truly wish that men *could* carry children--perhaps then the issue of abortion might be better understood. Men can sleep around without evoking problems--it is the woman who faces the consequences. What about the woman who is in an abusive relationship? Often the man impregnates her to keep her home, without support. Or a woman who must work outside the home and whose husband will not allow her to utilize birth control--each succeeding child she births creates more of a time/financial/exhaustion hardship on her. Even when employing birth control 100% of the time, the best methods are not 100% successful. And, now we're hearing murmurings of pharmacists who are unwilling to fill prescriptions for simple birth control--that surely will produce more unwanted pregnancies and possibly raise the abortion rate. The answer to lowering the abortion rate is to make safe, effective birth control available to all women, but it seems some in the public are backing away from that to a point where women will have to fight for birth control.

    Instead of using resources to fight for/against abortion rights, perhaps we should put our financial assets and energies into embryo transfer. Surely if this could be performed, most all could be happy--the zygote could possibly be transplanted into someone wishing to become pregnant, and then that person could carry and birth the child.

    Posted by demwoman at 07/01/2005 @ 3:26pm

27. To: CHILDREX You make a false assumption that the people actually elected Bush. The vote in Florida was fixed in 2000. The vote in 2004 was fixed again only by computer. I very much want an elected govornment that represents the people but I haven't had one in quite a while.

    As for the war, a lot of people voted for it, I was initially for it. But I was LIED to by Bush who misrepresented the evidence for war. That makes it wrong.

    I can live with a govornment that is FAIRLY elected by the PEOPLE. However, I can not accept a govornment that is elected by trickery and deceit and does not represent the true vote of the people.

    Posted by bryan.lucas at 07/01/2005 @ 3:37pm

28. Demwoman,

    I enjoyed reading your post, we actually agree on several points on this issue.

    You said:

    "I am a nurse and worked my entire working life in maternal/child nursing, and soon realized that abortion is not always--in fact, is rarely--a flip decision because a pregnancy or another child is inconvenient at a specific time."

    I agree; you see my wife is a labor and delivery nurse at a hospital here in Tulsa, OK. She sees many women come through that are in abusive relationships, addicted to drugs, etc. that are giving birth. I have always wondered how many more of them she does not see because they had an abortion.

    The issues you brought up are definitely issues that need to be addressed. Including the one you bring up about men with opinions on abortions even though it's not our bodies involved.

    I have one question for you however, in your opinion do the issues, situations, circumstances that the woman finds herself in (and I agree women NEVER "deserve" to be in abusive relationships) trump the right of the innocent baby inside the woman to live?

    Just a thought…

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 3:43pm

29. Todd- the ratification of Constitional Amendments requires three-quarters of the states (38 of 'em).

    Posted by agathezol at 07/01/2005 @ 3:48pm

30. Who is "pro-abortion"? It's about having the freedom to choose. Those in opposition are not "pro-life" (how many executions did Jr. sign off on as governor of Texas?), they are anti-choice. And that is un-American.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 3:54pm

31. Todd. Correct me if i'm wrong, but the 1st Amendment is in the Bill Of Rights..The Bill of Rights have amendments...Amendments to the Constitution...The Amendments are what make the Constitution a fluid document that does change with the times as well as with interpretation, henceforth the Courts

    Posted by pizzmoe at 07/01/2005 @ 4:14pm

32. Pizzmoe- Amendments are inserted into the Constitution by the Congress and the states, not by the Courts. Further, "The Bill of Rights" is simply a catch phrase for the first ten amendments, just as amendments 13-15 are "The Civil War Amendments" and amendments 16-19 are "The Progressive Amendments."

    Posted by agathezol at 07/01/2005 @ 4:20pm

33. "Amendments to the Constitution...The Amendments are what make the Constitution a fluid document that does change with the times as well as with interpretation, henceforth the Courts"

    Well if that's really your view, then conservatives need to simply ensure Bush nominates conservative judges (which he most certainly will) that will "interpret" the constitution in a more conservative style.

    Is that really what you want? Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 4:20pm

34. Thank you, David Corn, for an excellent article. I fear that you won't be heeded and that the Dems will leap in, guns ablazing only to be out-maneuvered on Rehnquist's replacement. They may also kill filibuster in their fervor. I fear for the rights of all Americans.

    Happy Canada Day.

    Posted by pixxelpuss at 07/01/2005 @ 4:54pm

35. Todd,

    The Constitution is written broadly and cannot simply be applied as it is written. The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Can you tell me what "unreasonable" means? Would the Founders have considered it "unreasonable" for the police to fly over your land with a helicopter to see what you're up to? Yes or no? The Fourth Amendment goes on to state: "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." I challenge you to find where in the Constitution probable cause is defined. Because the Constitution itself defines neither "unreasonable" nor "probable cause," someone must interpret the Constitution to give these terms meaning. In the system of government the Founders established, the people charged with that task are federal judges. Now, Scalia interprets the Constitution in one way and Brennan interprets it quite differently, but they are both interpreting the words on the page. Scalia himself doesn't pretend otherwise. I didn't go to Harvard either, so you can't hold that against me when I question your implication that only progressive judges interpret the Constitution. But perhaps I'm wrong. Looking over the Constitution, I notice in buried deep in Article III a prohibition against government laws providing basic rights for homosexuals. I had always wondered why conservatives in favor of applying the Constitution as it is written have no problem with states denying homosexuals "the equal protection of the laws," despite the "clear" language of the 14th Amendment.

    Jeff

    Posted by Jlee at 07/01/2005 @ 5:07pm

36. The important thing here is for Bush and Congress to agree on a nominee who will represent the American people. We need to have someone replace O'Connor who has the best interests of the people - not the corporations, at heart.

    Taking Bush's history of nominations as a cue, the voices of reason in our congress are going to have a hard time fulfilling this objective.

    Posted by rob.olywa at 07/01/2005 @ 5:10pm

37. Why would they care about the "people"? It's the corporations paying for the elections of Democrats and Republicans; it's the corporations spending billions a year on lobbying; it is the corporations that many politicians have or will work for. Why should they care about the "people"?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 5:18pm

38. As usual, David is exactly right. The Dem's will have to be thoughtful, organized and effective which is something that the Democratic Party has not been able to do for over 10 years. Bush may of 2 or 3 Supremes to nominate before the mid-term elections (which have to be won). I'm afraid that we are in for some very dark times.

    Posted by ecthompson at 07/01/2005 @ 5:19pm

39. Because it's the right thing to do. Even if their systems of conscience are dysfunctional now, despite claims of spiritual do-gooder-ship, I believe that upon death, their actions toward and treatment of others will come back to greet them two-fold.

    Now, that would be an unpleasant reality to face.

    Posted by rob.olywa at 07/01/2005 @ 5:21pm

40. Jeff,

    You bring up some valid points.

    So what exactly do you make of our State here in Oklahoma amending our state constitution to clarify that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman, and passing by 78% of the Oklahoman electorate?

    I guess we are just a state full of Christian bigots huh?

    Todd =)

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 5:23pm

41. What is it that the right fails to understand about majority rule, minority rights? I don't care if 99% of the electorate votes for something, if it violates the rights of only 1% of the population, it is unconstitutional! Why is that so hard to comprehend?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 5:28pm

42. This would be a good gig for John Bolton if he doesn't get the UN job.

    Posted by jazzfan at 07/01/2005 @ 5:32pm

43. Nattie and Science

    Not sure if you can compare voting rights to a 8 month baby being aborted. As far as a living document. To change the consitution you must make ammendments. Our judical system is simply changing the law to fit into their own community, which is the problem. The left follows their own rules and the right does the same. There are way too many lawyers making money off the system which does no of us any good.

    That is the basic issue the left does not understand about the red stated and the Right about the blue. What works in NYC may not be the best fit for Oklahoma. However, both the hard left and hard right are jamming their idealistic views onto our neighbors. Majorty of voting should dictate who you want in office. You are voting for the people who have the same platform you seek to have instituted.

    Yes, Checks and balances are needed. however, again, with your mindless understanding of what majority rules means...which is what the country has voted into the "Checks and Balance" system, heavily favors the right. People are sick and tired of paying too many taxes (which we never part of the system...well until the 40's) and people are tired of the lack of accountability on both sides. Someone has to stand up and say, look, we messed up, we need to fix it, how do we do it. I am not a Bush fan, but with the Social Security issue, he simply gave a proposal. The left only trashed it with NO counter proposal. People must get their heads out from under the sand and realize our population is not going to sustain the social security system. It is math 101 and people need to look at the simple numbers. If you are under the age of 38 you will not be getting anything back from social security when it is your time to retire. Just look at the numbers.

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 5:38pm

44. MT, Because if that 1% wants to kill 50%, do you let them do it?

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 5:38pm

45. Of course you don't! What kind of absurd argument is that? No one person or group has the right to violate the rights of others.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 5:41pm

46. Jeff, Does it mention homosexual marriage? I am a libertarian and believe that if we just left everyone alone then we would be a much better place. The basic principals are you do your thing and I do mine. If you inflect damage or infringe upon my rights, then we have problems

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 5:43pm

47. "it is unconstitutional! Why is that so hard to comprehend?"

    Well….

    Keep trying; our new amendment to our State Constitution hasn't been struck down yet; although it probably will. It is rather pointless even though I voted for it. You can't legislate morality, as we saw with prohibition in the 20's and 30's. You can only hope to change men's hearts, by telling them the truth. You can't force people to live a Godly lifestyle. I certainly teach my children being gay is wrong, and won't lead one to heaven. But then again, I'm just a bigoted Christian right? Oh I'm sorry that was a rhetorical question.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 5:44pm

48. While you're at it, why not teach them that greed is wrong, along with killing?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 5:47pm

49. Than you can't use your arguement: "What is it that the right fails to understand about majority rule, minority rights? I don't care if 99% of the electorate votes for something, if it violates the rights of only 1% of the population, it is unconstitutional! Why is that so hard to comprehend?"

    If a person wants to live in the dark ages and take over land by raping and pilaging, does it not viloate their right?

    There are many controversial issues that will cause great heart ache. it is not as simple as saying that if 1% believes one way, and no one understands that, that we are all idiots. That is the problem with dealing with Hard liners on both sides...

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 5:47pm

50. As long as your behavior and actions are lawful and do not violate the rights of others, then no one has the right to violate your rights. It is that simple.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 5:52pm

51. And by "lawful" I mean they are not infringing on the rights of others.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 5:52pm

52. killing is actually defended in all religions around the world...it is the right of self preservation. If you want to get nifty, it is also part of food chain...while people do not believe that we shouldn't be going into space, then your kin stay on earth when it fries from the sun, while my kin is off on another planet. Dude, it is all about competition and winning. It is a mindset and the left thinkers don't have the ball sack to go all the way and always get stomped on.

    Look at all great societies that have failed...greece and rome are two great examples...why did they crumble? They over extended their governement, lost their own identity and lost the moral conviction of the people. Their gods were thrown out the window for a godless society...it doesn;'t work...

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 5:53pm

53. but rights of others is a interperation, correct? Then you will agree that an eye for an eye should be part of our legal system...if your family kills one of my family members with full intent, why does your family deserve protection from legal system when your family fully took away my family members RIGHT TO LIVE? That also includes a 8 month year old...babies that are born at 5 months can survive outside the womb...8 months they certainly can...

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 5:56pm

54. Keep your religion out of my government. We have a constitution to work with and it is clear as far as the rights of others. It obviously is too much for you to wrap your small mind around. You sound more like a facist than a Christian. That eye for an eye thing, that's old testament. Doesn't what your boy Jesus say trump everything else? Or do you simply pick and choose the scripture that fits your agenda? A true, good Christian should not fear death. You die, you go to heaven, right? You start attempting to justify killing and before long you're smoking a hot turd in hell. Just go willingly like the Christians to the lions.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 6:02pm

55. I don't support the abortion of eight month fetuses. (Is fetus even the right word?) Five months? Not without modern medicine. Nonetheless, I don't know that I support the abortion of a five month old; at the same time, I'm reluctant to tell a woman what she has to do with her body.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 6:06pm

56. The rights of others are spelled out clearly in the Constitution.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 6:07pm

57. Todd,

    My only point is that we can disagree about how the Constitution should be interpreted, but that we should at least not pretend that it's only one side who is interpreting it to favor their particular policies. If the voters in your state think their time is being productively spent by banning gay marriage, that's up to them. I happen to believe such amendments flatly violate the plain language of the 14th Amendment, but others can make up their own minds. You can bet that whoever Bush nominates certainly will!

    Jeff

    Posted by Jlee at 07/01/2005 @ 6:08pm

58. Dude, chill out. I never said to mix religion with government...just making historical comparisions. But you must understand that the majority of the founding fathers were christian...BOTTOM LINE. The eye for an eye thing is again a comparison of your 1% dillusion.

    Typical lefty...slinging mud and you should be the one looking into the facist mirror.

    Dude, if a terrorist, or a robber with a gun enters my house and comes close to my family I will send them your way. I will certainly take them out before they hurt my family. so yes killing is justified in that case, correct? Or do you let that person kill your family?

    Dude, you are so freakin out there...you need some weed to chill out!

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 6:09pm

59. People think differently, so we must all adjust to that. No one is every 100% correct. Time only tells and if you study history and all the dynamics that caused that history, we would all be in a better place. The problem today is we have too many half baked goons slinging mud without having all the facts laid out in front of the parties in the debate. I hate this analogy, but it makes sense...One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. That underlying principle behind that analogy can be used throughout every argument and I believe it is now being engrained into our society because we are being run by government officals on all sides that are lying to us every day. Gone are the days of the news only reaching 10% of the population...the "average joe" now has the resources to check on facts and challange leaders like no one before. However, this is dangerous because emotional people only read or want to hear what their idealistic issues surround and make good for them. It is not a matter of left, right or center. It is about compromise...like the ying yang...it can;t go too far left and too far right. But those on those opposite ends must understand but lack the non partisan judgement to do so.

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 6:19pm

60. First- an embryo is not a baby so please, all of you who live in a world without science drop the nonsense- yes, abortions entail destroying embryos, which one day would become a baby, but they don't have sentience and to try to put a massive guilt trip on the millions of women faced with these difficult choices is cruel and gutless- second, if we woke up tomorrow and everything in the world was the same except that men had wombs and women did not, we wouldn't be having this discussion- can you imagine a woman telling a man he didn't have a right to choose whether to go through pregnancy and deliver a child?, third- for those who want to make abortion 100% illegal I think you will find yourselves welcome in many of the religious fundamentalist countries in the world, most notably in the Middle East.

    J.S.

    Posted by J.S. at 07/01/2005 @ 6:23pm

61. Do you know anything about facism? Social Darwinism plays a large role in the rationalizations. And that's what the right is all about, reducing civilization to a jungle, survival of the fittest. Why, because their corporate sponsors are in position to make the most of a free for all. I have no problem with protecting my family from an attacker. I just don't understand why Christians fear death if it's a heaven awaiting them. The majority of the Founding Fathers were Christian? Jefferson, Madison, Washington and others were deists, not Christian, and no where in the Constitution is Christianity mentioned. You don't like homosexuality? Fine, then don't engage in homosexual sex. But who are you or anyone else to tell someone that they cannot marry and enjoy the same rights and priviledges as heterosexual couples. Maybe you should lay off the Ganga (and read a few decent history books yourself, rather than regurgitate the trite crap some high school history teacher told you about Rome and Greece).

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 6:23pm

62. Yeah, you're right, zero. Pearls before swine. Why bother?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 6:26pm

63. MT, Again, you are blinded by your own rage. I never said I didn;t like homosexuals. Get over it. Touchy subject!

    All christians do not like each other. Irish Catholics and English Protestants do not think kindly of each other. Stop generalizing!

    Darwin? Just because I or some of my friends have a competitive nature makes it wrong that we are successful?

    BTW, Jefferson was more Libertarian than anything else. And MT, this is just for you...--"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,"

    It is not me that is ruling on homosexuals...it is the community. The same community that can take your house for "public use" for taxes.

    MT, Every great society at some point will fall. the only ones that have had the longest survial are ones that keep to themselves...must like the fall of Japan...they over extened themselves trying to colonize asia and it failed. Their thousand year culture is now blue jeans and rock and roll. it is evolution!

    China is self contained and looked like america 200 years ago..cheap labor (eurpean view point) and abundant resources. Their is a book you should read...The Art of War. The premise is not to engage in physical war, but win through intelligence...not the intelligence you are thinking...knowing your enemy better then they know themselves.

    You may want to start learning this philosophy when trying to deal with the hard right. They are a machine and beat down the dems because they beat themselves. They are not organized and are self defeating..(competition). Again, you are in a philospohical war with your enemies. To win, you must know them inside and out. Your logic and arguments are exactly the banter they want from you. It is all about the presentation. Too many left issues are flying around and confusing the people. People want to led. The right has that ability to get the "troops" marching and people jump on board.

    We probably agree on a lot of issues, but you automatically assume that I am a hard right Christian because I presented different view points. I rattled your cage...think clearly and read what I am saying...not literally...stop the emotion!!!

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 6:39pm

64. BTW, anyone that disagrees with you while trying to debate is a facist? "Yeah, you're right, zero. Pearls before swine. Why bother?" MT, I hope some day you become happy and stop flinging mud at people who don't agree with you.

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 6:47pm

65. I'm still trying to figure out exactly where the Constitution gives instruction on how it should be read, and where the Constitution says interpretation of the Constitution is a judicial no-no.

    I just can't figure that one out.

    Could it be that strict constructionists are 'interpreting'?

    Posted by Hellion at 07/01/2005 @ 7:07pm

66. Pondering minds want to know. But like a bending tree in the wind, interpreting the law with the wind bags we have running this country, it has the potential to snap in half! A Palm tree is made to withstand gail force winds, so putting a northern pine in Miami may not be the best idea.

    Posted by dancall at 07/01/2005 @ 7:19pm

67. Oksportsguy wrote: "Hopefully if Bush can nominate a Judge that will base law on WHAT the constitution SAYS instead of what the progressive leaning judge THINKS it should say, we can at least make it illegal for women to kill babies because for what ever reason they "choose" not to be pregnant."

    The way rape survivors choose to be pregnant, too. Well it's their fault for belonging to the child-bearing bloc.

    Spare me your outrage.

    Posted by Lesly at 07/01/2005 @ 10:22pm

68. Sperm and eggs, although they are "unborn," are not fetuses , and fetuses are not a babies. Thinking, means making significant distinctions. All official documents have your birth date, and for good reason. No one sings "Happy Conception Day to You," and you don't add 9 months to your age when you turn anti-choice.

    Calling the issue "abortion" is a suicidal concession to the fundamentalists. This is why Pro-Choicers too often get battered by the likes our friend Socrates above. No one could defend the position of "pro-abortion," and existentially aware progressives wobble, and end up saying things like "Well, I respect the morality behind the Pro-lifers, but ..." Conceive, then, of Reproductive Rights as essential to bodily freedom and civil right in general. Pro- and anti- should be applied to Reproductive Rights, and this is the language we need to take to the upcoming national debate.

    Posted by overeven at 07/02/2005 @ 01:53am

69. WGILWOOD wrote [...] on social issues (abortion, gays, religion etc.) that are an absolute loser with most of the American public, and practically no emphasis on economic (worker rights, "free" trade, health care, etc.) on which most people track to the left.

    As they say, the irony is priceless. Abortion is part of health care. Being able to keep your job if you're gay or the 'wrong' religion are workers' rights.

    Posted by REP at 07/02/2005 @ 02:39am

70. Hoo boy...reading some of the above posts from the assorted soreheads that decided to prowl here makes me only guess what's being said on conservative blogs and boards.

    As a progressive Democrat, all I can say in reference to the Supreme Court now (expecting Requinhist to pack it up as well) is THIS is what all the fuss was about. For every knock on Gore and Kerry, even those that were deserved, THIS is what was in the balance. THIS is why all those Senate elections matter. There are plenty of people on the Left that have always gotten this. However, there are those that were always more fixated on some small stuff (idedological purity, some of the fringier issues in the Left's galaxy) that had them go for Nader or sit at home.

    Well, welcome to the reverberations of 2000, the midterm elections of 2002, and 11/2/04. This is the long shadow of those outcomes. Now watch as the Supreme Court turns into a time machine, taking us back to 1930 and perhaps beyond. To the delight of that absurd contstitunecy of America that still sees the world akin to the Great Oklahoma Land Rush or something. They would be comic if only they didn't get their way so often (and by being powerful more than being popular).

    I'm trying not to be crass, but I'd laugh at some of the arguments presented here (yeah I'm talking to you, DANCALL and OKSPORTSGUY) if not for the fact that they do represent (unfortunately for us) a large number of people in this country. Views that have helped put the US in the wrong political direction for over a quarter century now. As concisely as I can, I say to them this:

    -The Constitution has to be a living document. In 1776 just letting white guys who owned property vote was a radical idea. The notion of letting women and non-whites do so as well was beyond the pale. Yes, we've corrected that. Point being, fixating on what exactly was written at that time (gee, nothing on gays and abortion:too bad) at the expense of the broad idea (democracy with majority rule, individual/minority rights) just doesn't wash with some of us.

    -BTW, it's not as if we woke up one morning and said "Women still can't vote? Oops!". Securing those rights were a long struggle, forcing the side doing the fighting (um, liberals pretty much) to be "elitist", "self righetous", and being a noisy minority fighting all those "community standards." I suppose that might have been considered just a "social issue" at the time as well.

    -As insufferable as it might be issuing decrees to the rest of the country from Berkley and the Upper East Side, I have to throw back the notion of "community standards" prevailing over everything. Sure, I don't expect a cosmopolitan attitude over every inch of this country. But I'm not going to let reactionary views win out just because a substantial number of people in a bunch of communities may subscribe to them. That will have you apologizing for Jim Crow laws, wouldn't it?

    -And if the war on homosexuality from the Right is basically a form of bigotry, how can you be peeved when it is called as such?

    -And finally abortion. I don't hear those on the "pro-life" side apologizing for their views, so I don't apologize for mine. Though I also realize this will probably be a battle now and forever. Point one:if you are against abortion but not against the death penalty, and haven't done anything about the millions wasting away in Africa and the rest of the Third World (children who are here and wanted), then please correctly label yourself "anti abortion" and not "pro life." Point two:those of us who are pro choice for the most part value a woman's health and "rights" over the child's. This is obviously the inconvertible difference in our worldviews. It does not mean we do not "care" for the child or are "indulging" the mother with nary a thought. Quite obviously, we are putting women's concerns and conditions first. Point three:the endless fixation of exactly when a fetus can survive outside the mother's womb is simply a nonstarter. I'll concede that with the best available technology that you can probably help a child survive fairly early, somewhere in the 2nd trimester perhaps. But in a nation where we are sliding towards half of the people not having basic health care, this means as much as us using seawater to fuel our cars:something that may be technically possible but totally unworkable.

    Okay, that was a lot. Fire away boys.

    Posted by Manhunter at 07/02/2005 @ 08:15am

71. Man, That is great, but it is still your opinion. Until there are clear and precise ideas coming from the left to counter what is coming from the right, people will ultimately side with the people who have ideas.

    What have I said that makes you believe that what I am saying has taken us back 25 years? 25 years ago, we weren't teaching 3rd graders how to put condoms on. 25 years ago, we could run through the streets without sexual predators running wild. 25 years ago, our country had common sense. All I am saying is that the left has been over taken by the radicals, much like the right. In times of confusion, which our country is facing, they will subconsciously side with the stronger side, which again is the right. It may not be the correct side and they are a bit tweaked, but there are some things that they do say that make sense. We have been overrun by left wingers trying to tell our boys that they can't be boys (fight, compete, be rowdy)...that is going to cause a backlash when these kids get older. It is called repression, and it very dangerous.

    I agree that we can't cover every inch of the same community values...but that is what the red states see the blue states trying to do. The Red states don;t care what you do, they just don;t want it in their community.

    It is all about compromise, which is sad because we have two side so far apart.

    Posted by dancall at 07/02/2005 @ 10:16am

72. I believe in a lot of the left's ideas. The problem is how it is "presented". Red States like organization and leadership. The left has too many wild cards shooting their mouths off without thinking. The reason why the right is so right is becasue the mass media is sooo one sided, which has driven people to listen to Fox News and Right wing talk radio.

    It is clear and simple, but listening to the agruments presented here, it all sounds like the same old stuff.

    Posted by dancall at 07/02/2005 @ 10:23am

73. Abortion. If a woman is murdered with a child in the womb and wanted that child, is that a child or not? Does that "fetus" have rights?

    Posted by dancall at 07/02/2005 @ 10:25am

74. Manhunter, you said:

    "-And if the war on homosexuality from the Right is basically a form of bigotry, how can you be peeved when it is called as such? " Personally, I'm not. I'll happily claim my "Bigoted, narrow-minded, Christian" term of endearment that liberals label me with. As a matter of fact I wear it as a badge of honor. Christ called us to be a separate people and to not blend in and live as the secularists do. It's actually rather disappointing when people who claim their "Christianity" do. That is how you get watered down Christianity where you can't tell the difference between people of Christ and secularists.

    So call me bigoted all you want, I'm extremely proud of my state here in Oklahoma and our amendment to our state constitution defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. We took it a step farther as well as this amendment also states that our state WILL NOT recognize unions of two men or two women as marriages if they were "married" in another state.

    How unethical and narrow-minded of us huh?

    In the end though, I wish nothing but the best for you and all of the people here, we all have different beliefs and we are all certainly able and should communicate those beliefs in the form of free speech. We also should communicate our beliefs in the WAY WE VOTE; which is what the Christians did in Oklahoma last November. May God bless you!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/02/2005 @ 11:25am

75. Maybe we can now get rid of the idea that it's good for 9 unelected lawyers changing what the constitution says instead of just reading the constitution and following what is says.

    Because the constitution does not say a woman has the right to murder her baby, or it does not say the government can seize your property because Walmart want's to build a shopping center. Most important the establishment clause does not say you can not have prayer on government property or as long as any religion is allowed to display there holy artifacts the ten commandments are allowed on public land.

    If you want to change the constitution then do it the legal way and propose an amendment. But if the people reject it then live with it. the supreme court is not the place to dictate what you liberal commies want.

    We need to go back to being a constitutional Republic not a democracy, Democracies always fail. just look at the last 200 years every were Democracy has been tried no country has survived. As long as America is not a Democracy it has a chance to thrive.

    We are represented by Democratically elected representatives. the Supreme court justices are not elected they have no right to make law. The sooner we get back to the way it is supposed to be the better the chance to save this country from people like you.

    Posted by repairourrblc at 07/02/2005 @ 11:36am

76. DANCALL,

    Yes, you have forgotten about checks and balances, haven't you? The tyranny of the majority must be kept in check at all times, othwerwise, human rights would never exist in our great nation. Remember segregation, laws against interracial marriage and so forth? My post was not meant to give you comfort in the fantasy of someday the far right of the GOP ruling the world, it was rather to prove a point, that if no vibrant opposition develops, then America will be ruled by the tyranny of the majority. Something I do not care to have.

    All,

    The U.S. Constitution, although not literally a "living, breathing document", never-the-less must be reinterpreted on a regular basis. And why some of you may ask? Because as technology and people and social norms evolve, so must the conflicts that inevitably arise due to those evolutions be resolved. There are thousands upon thousands of things that government does or regulates that the Constitution "literally" does not mention. Do you far righties want to eliminate trash collection, sewage and waste disposal, public libraries, public parks and swimming pools, gov't sponosored and funded public clinics, NASA and the space program, The G.I. Bill along with the VA home loan program, etc., etc., etc.? Get a grip, ladies and gentlemen of the far right, there is more to it than just "strict constructionist" lunacy at stake here.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/02/2005 @ 11:50am

77. Dancall wrote: "Abortion. If a woman is murdered with a child in the womb and wanted that child, is that a child or not? Does that ‘fetus' have rights?"

    Depends on who you ask. A long-time friend is back from Iraq after doing a year there. He was supposed to go back in November with the Army, but will be discharged with chronic PDSD. He recently found out an ex girlfriend was pregnant but lost the "child" in a car accident. He called her. It was important for him to find out if he had been a father at some point. When I asked him how he felt about it, he replied, "She was two weeks past her due date when she lost it. What do I care?"

    I don't blame him. I can't get that excited about a 1.5 month-old or even a 3-month old fetus, let alone a zygote. This outlook is what makes me "uncaring" or "inhuman" when siding with judges and doctors in the Schiavo case. As a practical matter in the law, I wouldn't want foreign women with a visa or vacationing in the states to file for immigration based on the idea that her baby could claim citizenship because it was conceived in the States even though she gave birth in another country. When/if science can determine that Blackmun was off we can move the dates for legalized abortion, if conservatives don't completely do away with it. Regardless of the outcome of O'Connor's exit and the pro-"life's" desire to frame public opinion into a single consensus to thwart access to legal abortion under any circumstance, I won't compare a cell dividing with potential life to you and will be content with being uncaring and inhuman.

    Posted by Lesly at 07/02/2005 @ 12:00pm

78. This all leaves me with many things to say to many people: zero et al. I, too, dislike having to stop a productive discussion of "what are we going to do to prevent the people in power from taking our fundamental rights while shilling comparatively narrow social issues to drum up support from a large portion of their prosepctive victims" to argue those points over and over again with people we will not sway. Especially seeing a number of them repeat themselves ctrl c / ctrl v style. It is counterproductive and irritating. Still, we live with these people, including the woman who hissed "traitor" at me in line at the Credit Union this morning because the W on my car has a red line through it and hers has an '08 next to it. I don't think ignoring them is going to save the country, considering what they've already done when we've not been looking. Perhaps a better strategy would be to ignore thier rhetoric on killing terrorists/not killing fetuses and talk to them about the lies, about the upward motion of capital, about the things that will shake their support for their would-be dictator. I wish, also, that we could put a moratorium on the use of the f word in this forum, since to their side, fascism means the government forces them to accept things they do not like (abortion, gay marriage in some states, etc) and to us it means corporate control of the government and media and all resources consolidated in the hands of a very narrow ruling class.

    To those of you who call our conservative friends and colleagues bigots, fascists, etc, I'd ask if you haven't noticed how they feed off of that. Also, notice how, with minimum effort, they lay out the flaming hoops and we jump through them every day.

    Dancall et al: I have done what you are doing now on conservative forums, each time I lasted a week before the moderators threw me off. I'd make a post or two and count the death threats and speculation into the Middle Eastern nature of my heritage (I'm not). You guys on the other side have a pretty sweet ride. Just remember that while you're cracking up at how we scramble to answer your posts.

    Finally Todd, I never got a chance to thank you for answering my question the other day. As you identify yourself as a conservative Christian, I am going to infer that you are of an evangelical denomination. Unless I misunderstand evangelicals, the free expression of your religion involves the active witnessing of your faith through any and all channels. Do you believe that this is somehow encouraged/enshrined/encoded into the Constitution? Many of your fellow conserative Christians seem to, and, again, I have only found one mention of religion in general and none of Christianity. Would you favor a Christian theocracy, as at least a vocal minority have? What would be the fate of non-Christians in your preferred American order? We could debate whether or not the Constitution was based on Christian or Deist principles, but I suspect neither of us will sway the other.

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/02/2005 @ 12:03pm

79. To clarify, my first question to Todd is more accurately stated "Do you believe the Constitution contains means by which the majority - in this case Christians - can actively witness and seek conversion of non-believers through official and government supported channels?" Should the government legislate reverence? Should it encode overt Christian morality (rather than people shouldn't kill one another or steal what their neighbor earns honest sort of morality to which all faiths I know of can lay equal claim)into our laws as it attempts to and has in many states and localities?

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/02/2005 @ 12:11pm

80. Lesly, I see your point on your individual right to beleive that. But considering that some of these festuses have a heart beat and are responsive to the sound of the mother's voice or other close to her, you still beleive that that growing organism has no feelings? Dooes that baby have the right to survive or at least try to survive without someone taking their right away?

    To compare the argument to a guy who probably just saw his friends die and is battle hardened, is not the best example. Give the guy two to three months to adapt to regular society and see how he responds then. War turns off some emotional buttons...

    The problem I see (maybe you are not in this) is that some people who are pro choice have more concern about unborn animals then they do human life. If one is to say that "science" is the ruler of all, then one should also know that science is not always correct. What we are being taught about space in grammer school 20 years ago, is now changing. Some science is positive, but one should no relie on science 100%. The spiritual world is another tpoic...

    Posted by dancall at 07/02/2005 @ 12:12pm

81. Ugh, this is what I get for taking so long to type my posts. I have one last question for you Todd, before I let you go and go back to trying to figure out what I need to do about this whole situation, but, at the risk of doing what I just asked everyone else not to do, I have a question about your last post that is too good to leave alone:

    Christ called us to be a separate people and to not blend in and live as the secularists do... I'm extremely proud of my state here in Oklahoma and our amendment to our state constitution defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. We took it a step farther as well as this amendment also states that our state WILL NOT recognize unions of two men or two women as marriages if they were "married" in another state. If you are called to live apart to not mix with the secularists, why involve yourself in secular politics? Do you hope to drive homosexuals out of Oklahoma? Do you wish to make Oklahoma a separate, Christian state? What would happen to me, a non-believer, if for some reason I had to go and live or work in your state?

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/02/2005 @ 12:22pm

82. I've gotten it out of my system, apologies to all on that. Who do you think the Great White Father in Crawfo... Washington is going to nominate for O'Connor's vacancy? I suspect David Corn is right about the strategy, though I think he might be discounting the administration's "Power is for rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies" philosophy and their love of an immediate payoff (even at their future expense) as motivating facotrs in a nomination. My money is on Gonzales, with the promise to the social conservatives that someone really far right is next.

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/02/2005 @ 12:27pm

83. Sandalphon, you asked:

    ""Do you believe the Constitution contains means by which the majority - in this case Christians - can actively witness and seek conversion of non-believers through official and government supported channels?""

    That's a great question, which has yet to be answered. There are currently two or three challenges to our state constitution since we amended it last November. None of these challenges has yet to be answered by the Supreme Court.

    My guess is that at some point that portion of our state constitution will be shot down.

    More specifically however, from talking to most of my friends and family, which grew up in the same socially conservative Christian values homes like I did, it's not about trying to "convert" non-believers to Christianity through official government processes.

    It's about making sure our marriages to our wives remain Holy in God's eyes. As soon as a couple of men in our state have their "marriages" recognized it de-sanctifies our marriages and makes them look filthy in God's eyes.

    Additionally the concern for conservative Christians and another huge factor in why so many turned out and voted for this ballot initiative is the fact that Christians teach their children that we should certainly love all people including Gays, however to never accept the sin. Love the person, hate the sin is what God's word teaches us.

    If marriage in the state is allowed between Gays, it sends a very bad message to our kids and this message is direct conflict with the message compared to what they are taught in their homes and churches on Sundays, based on the book in the bible of Leviticus. Allowing gays to marry legally in essence says that being gay is "o.k." and a normal alternative lifestyle. And this is absolutely not the message conservatives, particularly conservative Christians want being delivered to their kids.

    Heavens gates are very narrow; the road to hell is wide and full of branches.

    Anyway, there's my two cents worth. It what the majority did here legal based on our state constitution? Absolutely. We have a process in place whereby a certain number of signatures are needed on a petition to put a ballot initiative on the ballot and we overwhelmingly received the number of signatures needed. The ballot initiative was then voted on in November and passed by an overwhelming 78% of Oklahomans.

    Is our amendment constitutional when looked at from the view of the United States Constitution? Debatable. And it is currently in debate as I said with several challenges too it being conducted currently.

    Anyway, great debating and talking with you!

    Todd "The narrow-minded, bigoted Christian"

    p.s. I thought I would go ahead and put that quote in there to save you the time of writing it for yourself.

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/02/2005 @ 12:35pm

84. Lesly, I see your point on your individual right to believe that. But considering that some of these fetuses have a heart beat and are responsive to the sound of the mother's voice or other close to her, you still believe that that growing organism has no feelings? Does that baby have the right to survive or at least try to survive without someone taking their right away? - Dancall

    I would need examples, D. As it is, science has rolled back the date at which it can keep a fetus alive. Like I said, I don't have a problem rolling back the date on legalized abortion, but it would have to be based on an accepted norm, not an anomaly. After all, we can keep zygotes "alive" in frozen Petri dishes. On the other hand I'm indefinitely at odds with your position for wanting Plan B to be available OTC.

    To compare the argument to a guy, who probably just saw his friends die and is battle hardened, is not the best example. Give the guy two to three months to adapt to regular society and see how he responds then. War turns off some emotional buttons... - Dancall

    I can't speak for my Army friend, but in his defense although he voted for Bush (the lesser of two evils, as he put it), he is a social liberal and remarked that as much as he loves this country it is ass backwards compared to Europe. Sure, he doesn't regret killing insurgents and I don't blame him, but that's not to say he's frosty when it comes to the people he served with and life in general. Being in a situation where you have no choice but to kill someone can sharpen your appreciation for everything you ever wanted. In his case, being a father.

    The problem I see (maybe you are not in this) is that some people who are pro choice have more concern about unborn animals then they do human life. If one is to say that "science" is the ruler of all, then one should also know that science is not always correct. What we are being taught about space in grammar school 20 years ago, is now changing. Some science is positive, but one should no rely on science 100%. The spiritual world is another topic... - Dancall

    I don't know how much emphasis you place on spirituality, but as a Christian myself, when it comes to the question of life, I defer to science. Sure, science is not always correct but that doesn't mean I'll stick with prayers if I get cancer.

    Personally, I don't think it's even possible for God to tuck a soul into a newly formed zygote. Each zygote has a 10% chance to twin to begin with. Twinning may take as long as ten days (though if the embryo does twin this late, it will probably be a conjoined twin), and to each body, one soul, and no more. Finally, I can't accept the existence of a cosmic Saddam Hussein deity who arbitrarily punishes parents with (some experts say) a 20% miscarriage rate by the end of the first trimester because the wrong sperm or the wrong ovum was present. The icing on the cake being this capricious deity thinks nothing of wasting souls on lives that don't have a chance to finish gestation because they are unlucky enough to inhabit one of the genetically doomed bodies.

    It's about making sure our marriages to our wives remain Holy in God's eyes. As soon as a couple of men in our state have their "marriages" recognized it de-sanctifies our marriages and makes them look filthy in God's eyes. - Tom

    I could be wrong, but I thought God's invited/expected presence at a religious ceremony sanctified the union. Is God sanctifying Las Vegas weddings, or guiding a municipal clerk's hand?

    Posted by Lesly at 07/02/2005 @ 1:07pm

85. For those who have written here that the constitution is "exactly the same as it was 200 years ago" are absolutely incorrect. The constitution not only has been amended repeatedly, it also was essentially reinterpreted by President Lincoln and Congress during the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation directly challenged the Constitution when it declared an end to slavery. Our constitution originally endorsed slavery and when the founders met to ratify the document there was a provision in there placing a 20 year ban on debate of the slavery question. Our constitution also included a segment claiming that African Americans were 3/5 of a human being.

    We should disenthrall ourselves of the notion that our constitution is timeless and unchanging. The facts simply do not bear that out.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/02/2005 @ 1:19pm

86. One additional thought: Our constitution had to be amended to give women the right to vote. That certainly was a change from the original intention of the founders.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/02/2005 @ 1:22pm

87. It is impossible for a nation to remain frozen in its perception of the law because technology is constantly placing new dilemmas before the public. Daniel Boorstin (in his book The Americans) has quoted Charles Francis Adam's take on the introduction of the transcontinental railroad in 1869. This is an excellent example of a moment that transformed the relationship between Americans, their government and the land they inhabited.

    Adams remarked that the railroad changed American life forevermore. Conveniences, once thought impossible, had become actual and the landscape, once a vast and seemingly endless vista, could now be crossed in days rather than weeks. Adams noted that Americans could not understand how many changes were being foisted upon them; one day they would wake up with different perceptions that would render past paradigms obsolete.

    Our constitution can not be viewed as it was in 1789. We do not live in a world that looks or acts anything like it once did. While one can definetly argue that the struggle for good and evil is perpetual in man, the challenges we face today could only have been foreseen by the rarest of prophets. The mass of men, I think we can agree, are not prescient and are largely reactionary to their problems of their day. So, we have a choice: Do we think and act anew while mindful of past lessons? Or, should we stand before history and yell STOP!?

    Our constitution is not the Bible; it was not written to be a moral guide for all time. It is a governmental charter designed to guide a fledgling nation to maturity and prosperity and can not, by defintion, be infallible. Perhaps those who speak so reverentially about its infallibility and timeless perfection ought to consider why so many states were willing (repeatedly) to abandon it in order to pursue their own interests?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/02/2005 @ 1:49pm

88. Todd, again, thanks for answering my questions thoughtfully. Sadly, the reward for answering questions is being asked further questions, so here are a few: You say that allowing recognition of gay marriage in your state would send a message to your children that such a practice is/should be tolerated which is in direct opposition to your beliefs. In Connecticut, we have recently enforced our longstanding death penalty, executing Michael Ross. I believe, much like you, that killing another peson is wrong. I recognize that you may not share my belief that killing a person for what they have done can never be justice, only vengeance. I recognize also that we are straying into territory bordering the abortion issue, and we can sit here and I can say you'll fight like hell for a life up to the point where it's born and you can say that I value the life of a serial murderer over that of a baby That the state allows it sends a bad message to my sister (21 years younger than I am and lives with me)that it is/should be tolerated. I can and have taught her that it is the law, but that does not mean it is right. There are many groups over time that have taught such things. The Quakers believe that war for any reason is wrong, but they do not try to change the government so that we cannot declare or wage war. A single state passing a ban is one thing, and I suspect that many states are founded on very different principles than those of the country as a whole. That is their/your right, much as I may not like it. My concern is the conservative Christians who attempted to ammend the US Constitution with a law specifically banning gay marriage throughout the country, even in states where the majority is against such a ban. Or the supreme court ruling that congress should be able to prosecute for medical marijuana use in California even though it is legal by state law. Using the federal government to force individual states to overturn laws that may not square with what other people in other states want is something conservatives accuse liberals of doing all the time, when it seems very much that we both do it these days.

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/02/2005 @ 3:49pm

89. I am really disapointed to see that so many here who seem otherwise very intelligent cant resist rising to the bait that is presented by these right wing religious zealots! I do not enjoy wading through their hateful crap while trying to follow the discussion. Afterall this is the Nation right? Please, have some discipline.

    Posted by Rosalinda at 07/02/2005 @ 3:59pm

90. Can anyone recommend any other good forums or blogs out there with a variety of political opinions communicated more or less respectfully? Thanks, Megan

    Posted by barcelona at 07/02/2005 @ 4:57pm

91. ROSALINDA, Please forgive the right wing religious zealots for they know not what they say. Half of them still believe Iraq had WMD and tied to 9/11. They wear their religion on their sleeve to help them remember they are suppose to be christian, they just forget how to be christiean. I don't believe any of them who start talking about the bible, they are only using it as a crutch. If they were truely a moral christian they would not accept the lies from their president.

    Posted by Friscodog at 07/02/2005 @ 5:21pm

92. I'd love to, Rosalinda, I truly would. Ignoring them, though, only gives them free hand. Confronting them directly is what they would have us do, so they can dig in and watch us froth and betray ourselves. The only strategy I've ever found that works is to show them respect and listen to what they say, and maybe they will begin to respect me and what I have to say.

    It does not always work, but those who refuse to respect me afterwards betray themselves, and are safer to ignore.

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/02/2005 @ 5:21pm

93. Sandalphon you said:

    "It does not always work, but those who refuse to respect me afterwards betray themselves, and are safer to ignore."

    I respect everyone who does not agree with me, up until the point that the person who does not agree starts trying to kill me or my family because of our disagreement, such as is the case with terrorists.

    I certainly respect your opinion Sandalphon.

    I read your post about capital punishment in Connecticut. You made an incorrect assumption when you made the assumption that I support capital punishment.

    One of the fundamental beliefs that we are taught as Christians is forgiveness. We are all human and make mistakes, if a human makes a mistake and then is convicted in their heart and asks for forgiveness we as humans should most definitely forgive the person.

    In your state did the man you mentioned ask for mercy and forgiveness or did he go to the electric chair with no remorse for his crime?

    I do not support capital punishment. I do support the right of American soldiers to kill terrorists in a war to keep the terrorists from killing us.

    There is a huge difference between punishment for a crime and war. Let's take the gay marriage issue into context shall we?

    Most conservatives like me didn't get married for the "rights" afforded married couples by the federal government or the state government. I married my wife because God's word says that the morally correct thing to do before I had sexual relations with my wife is to marry her and become one. We were married in a Holy Church ceremony by our Pastor not a government courthouse with a Justice of the Peace.

    Most gay's that want to marry, want to marry for the "benefits" and "rights" that being married gives people, such as death benefits.

    I will concede creating "civil unions" in federal or state courthouses for gays to be able to have death benefit rights etc. that they feel they are entitled too just like heterosexual couples.

    However please allow Christians to keep marriage in the Church under God's eyes Holy.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/02/2005 @ 5:48pm

94. Leslie, I beleive that is a rational response to the abortion "timing". But that is the compromise that I keep talking about. Rational people understand there is a middle ground. The far left and far right are saying it is my way or we are taking it to court. We are a sure happy nation being run by the opportunity to win money almost to the gun point. We have no more INDIVIDUAL accountability and that runs from current and past presidents (clinton included) to the average joe down the street.

    There is a reason for the Ying Yang. Think about it...if the left got everything they wanted, wouldn;t it destroy the balance and vice versa.

    While I am a Libertarian, I believe that some government programs are positive for the community, however, they should not be telling people how to run their lives.

    Posted by dancall at 07/02/2005 @ 6:00pm

95. Sandalphon you said:

    I meant to address this too, where you said: "Using the federal government to force individual states to overturn laws that may not square with what other people in other states want is something conservatives accuse liberals of doing all the time, when it seems very much that we both do it these days."

    You're absolutely right we both do. Where it not for progressives using the power of the United States Constitution to express their view on human equality, schools in Alabama, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia and many other southern states might still be segregated.

    Now please before I'm berated for being a bigot when it comes to race, know that I draw a distinct difference between race and sexual orientation.

    The Bible clearly talks about homosexuality being sin; it doesn't say anywhere that being non-white is sin.

    And actually, I'm a bit offended when gays try to compare their plight concerning their rights to marry with African Americans and their plight during the race wars of the ‘60's.

    I simply wanted to show that as an example of progressives using the federal court just like conservatives would like to use it to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

    Both sides have clearly tried to force their "moral views" on the rest of society when all society does not agree on exactly what those "moral views" should be.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/02/2005 @ 6:03pm

96. It is the pursuit of INDIVIDUAL liberty, but to fully comprehend liberty, that liberty must be respected through self accountability. We are letting too many unaccountable citizens and non citizens get away with stepping on liberty seeking individuals who are actually law abiding citizens. This is all being done with the help of the legal system.

    Abortion is a touchy subject and should only be debated with logical people. It is way to emotional and passionate to be discussed in forums like this. But that is my humble opinion.

    Posted by dancall at 07/02/2005 @ 6:04pm

97. OK, You are mixing religious beleifs into government. I see some of your points, but you cannot impose your beliefs onto someone else. America is based on the pursuit of happiness. If a gay couple is truly in love and want to committ to each other for the rest of their lives, then who are you to say no? Hell, over 50% of straight couples get divorced... Let it be and let god judge them, not our man made government who clearly states that each indiviudal has the right to pursue individual liberty.

    Posted by dancall at 07/02/2005 @ 6:28pm

98. "I see some of your points, but you cannot impose your beliefs onto someone else."

    I could say the same thing, and make the same argument, that by the Government sanctioning Gay "marriage" they are imposing worldy secular beliefs on my family. Because my children are taught that gays should not marry.

    The argument goes both ways my friend.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/02/2005 @ 7:26pm

99. If my children are taught that other people should not get divorced, does that mean another man's wife should not be allowed to leave her when he beats her?

    You are imposing your beliefs to limit the freedoms of others. SHouldn't you be minding your own business instead of trying to limit others' pursuit of happiness?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/02/2005 @ 7:48pm

100. "You are imposing your beliefs to limit the freedoms of others. SHouldn't you be minding your own business instead of trying to limit others' pursuit of happiness?"

     In your oppinion maybe; but not in the opinion of the 78% of Oklahomans that passed our ballot initiative defining marriage as one man and one woman.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/02/2005 @ 8:05pm

101. OK, Outside of the religion aspect, what bothers you about homosexuality?

     Using your 78% stat, 100 years ago, I am sure in Mississippi that the percentages would have been close to 99% against the freedom of the black man.

     If the state government wishes to recoginzing gay marriage, so be it. I see your point if people vote then it should go to the majority. But just think about the word liberty and what that actually means! It is the ulitmate freedom to do as YOU within the boundaries of the laws. If Missippi had their vote like you are staying about the gays in OK, then their would be no freedom for the black man in Mississippi.

     You are walking a very fine line from imposing your belief onto someone else.

     "I could say the same thing, and make the same argument, that by the Government sanctioning Gay "marriage" they are imposing worldy secular beliefs on my family. Because my children are taught that gays should not marry.

     The argument goes both ways my friend."

     To your point. It does go both ways, so there should be a compromise. Gays marriage should be recognized for the mere fact of receiving insurance benefits and not having to live life seeing liberty slapped in their faces.

     Posted by dancall at 07/02/2005 @ 10:29pm

102. Judging by the posts in this and past forums, I'm wondering why so many right-wing nut jobs read the Nation, makes for tiresome reading. Just curious.

     Posted by futuretense at 07/03/2005 @ 02:03am

103. OKSPORTSGUY, I'm getting rather tired of your posts. I have heard all this so many times! You are supposedly some sort of Christian and yet you espouse the hatred of gays. "Gays" are HUMAN BEINGS! They are not evil merely by the distinction of their sexual preferences. There is also a thing called "freedom of religion", which in actuality really does NOT exist in this country. Not Anymore. The only religion approved by the current administration is the "good little Christian brand." Why do you have to teach your children that gays should not marry?! You need to mature in your thinking and consider the fact that NO ONE is FORCING you to become gay, or FORCING your children to become gay,(god forbid, right?). If one of your children decides they really are "GAY", what will you do then?! Please do stay in your wonderful state of Oklahoma. I feel very fortunate that I was not raised in a bigoted state. I do apologize to any progressives in the state of Oklahoma. I was exposed to different people and ideas at a young age, spending my early years on Air Force bases in Japan and California, etc. Moving around helped me to understand other's ideas, even yours. Sadly, you do not get it. Unless you have to deal with one of these issues on a personal level, you never will.

     As Nattiebumpo stated: "I think women should have the liberty to be able to determine for themselves whether they have children. This will ensure that both children and their mothers have the best possible lives." Women have been having abortions since the first caveman decided it was okay to pillage and rape,etc. You can make abortion illegal again, as it was in the not so distant past in this country, however it WILL NOT STOP ABORTIONS FROM OCCURRING! Take a look at what is going on in Argentina. Women aren't even allowed legal access to birth control. Women there are STILL having abortions, and suffering complications.

     No court in existence can simply "put the genie back in the bottle". Technology has advanced to the point where I'm surprised scientists haven't marketed a "movable womb". Well, not yet anyway. Hey Mulvey, abortion is now a "cliche?!" "A woman's right to control her body, etc., is just old news and no one wants to hear about it anymore. Isn't it nice that you do not have to be bothered by such an unpleasant issue. All of the "Christian" and neocon posters I read NEVER want to talk about the life of the child AFTER he/she is born. Go take a look at the children born into abusive homes. Check out the hospitals with infants and young children who have nearly been beaten to death. My mother, a surgical nurse, has seen children with their faces kicked in, cigarette burns on their tiny bodies. Care about the QUALITY OF LIFE of the child AND the mother. They are both inextricably intertwined. How about some of those "deadbeat Dads", the ones that take off and leave their kids to grow up alone. I know a few women who were left alone to raise their kids with no financial or emotional support. It is always "pretty" to say you oppose abortion, the truth is, you have no idea what it's all about until you have to live it! There are as many different reasons for a woman to have an abortion as the women who are having them. Additionally, the wealthy will always be able to have abortions. Wealthy women in this country used to go to Japan to have them back in the sixties. Wealthy women can always do what they want, whatever the Supreme Court eventually decides will not matter to them. Women living in poverty are the women who will suffer the most. Women who cannot to travel to a "legal" state such as California will certainly be, to have an abortion.

     Rosalinda, yes, it does seem to be "rising to the bait" of their "religious crap". I have ignored it for so many years, but their beliefs are a threat to freedom and liberty, particularly for women. I have a three year old daughter. What will she inherit when her reproductive years begin? Some rightwing religious zealot telling her she MUST have a baby no matter what she wants? Younger women MUST get out there and start SCREAMING out loud: WE want abortion and access to birth control to remain legal and safe. Women's reproductive rights should not hinge on the whims of the Supreme Court or any particular justice of that court. I know one thing for certain; it is payback time for Bush's religious zealots, and they will not stop until they get what they want, and abortion is just one of many rights the religious right wants to eliminate.

     Posted by pupmunchkin at 07/03/2005 @ 03:04am

104. Interesting thread still running here. Two thoughts:

     -First, to address the topic at hand, what the article here is about. It occurred to me today that for all our good intentions and perhaps energy, the Left kinda has to own up to a cold, hard truth. We lost. We lost the last 2 presidential elections, we don't control the Senate or the House, we are not appointing most of the federal judges (or dare I say, any?).

     (Also, I am broadly identifying the Democratic Party as the Left here. Let's put aside just how progressive they are for the moment. I mean, compared to the current state of the GOP, who are we kidding?)

     So while the focus and determination is admirable, what exactly is going to be accomplished, other than perhaps sound and fury, and maybe some cathartic screaming in public? We haven't the ability to do much more than protest, and that's rather weak tea in the context of what's at stake.

     Few remember Ralph Nader's defense of perhaps helping to elect Bush by running in 2000 (this is something he said before the election). "Things will get so bad that the people will rise up and vote in people to change things." I still think Ralph should stick to inspecting Pintos, and I've never bought THAT as a political strategy. However, maybe it's going to take the knuckle sandwiches dished out over the next few months to get the Left to throw out the Abbie Hoffman playbook and Woodstock era strategies and figure out how to start throwing punches back. We didn't get here overnight, and we're not getting out of here that fast either.

     -Second, of the posts responding to what I wrote, I say this to the gay marriage bit, and OKSPORTSGUY, this is to you.

     Your "defense" of your stance on gay marriage is almost singularly based on your religious beliefs. Which is fine for YOUR life, YOUR home, YOUR domain. However it's simply not relevant to society at large, esp. a hetrogenous society where some people are (gasp!) NOT Christian.

     Brother, you seem to think that democracy is simply "majority rule." And I find the argument from your side often to go something like this "The majority should rule. Christians are the majority in this country. Therefore, if there is something that is offensive to their beliefs, it should be prohibited. If said imposition imposes on someone else's beliefs or rights, see the first sentence."

     Your argument about your concern about the effect that gay marriage would have on your children holds no water. If you want to run your house that way, it's up to you. But you've got it way backwards. In a democracy, you can't deny two guys from marrying each other-something that has no DIRECT effect on your life- because it's bothering you and against YOUR beliefs. YOU've got to live with it because that's the principle of an advanced society, as opposed to a theoracy.

     I'm not gay, but I have gay friends (do you?). They are "ok" with themselves because they are okay, and I'm okay with them. If the thrust of your point is homosexualty is counter to your religious beliefs, this is why there is seperation of church and state. And which is why I personally find that fundamentalist religions (Islamic and Christian) have an inherent problem with democracy and the concept of individual rights.

     Posted by Manhunter at 07/03/2005 @ 06:05am

105. I believe in a lot of the left's ideas. The problem is how it is "presented". Red States like organization and leadership. The left has too many wild cards shooting their mouths off without thinking. The reason why the right is so right is becasue the mass media is sooo one sided, which has driven people to listen to Fox News and Right wing talk radio.

     DANCALL, you have hit a bit of truth here, and we do share one point of view in common.

     I'm always slighty amused when I see someone from NY or your local college campus intone seriously about how some measure would inhibit protest or curtail activistism. I chuckle because this is always done through the vortex that gosh, all of us out here are constantly protesting and marching, and THEY are trying to stop us!!

     Because a cursory look at America will see that most people aren't doing that. Most people are too busy with their own lifes. Their kids, their jobs (2 for too many), the day to day stuff. Many others are enveloped by apathy. They just want to be left alone to their own amusements.

     A deeper look at the "Red States" shows something else, something I think those on the activist Left miss. These people LIKE authority. They LIKE the fact that someone's in charge, calling the shots. Remember, a bunch of people out there didn't just vote for Bush, they really like the guy. He's exactly what they want.

     I may be dealing in cliches here, but this has been a big factor in the Right's success. Imagine a grass roots campaign for the Right. A bunch of volunteers gladly take orders and do the grunt work as dictated by their Authority, Mr. Conservative Politico. Boy, he's the boss and he knows what he's doing! Yes sir!

     In contrast, imagine a Left grass roots campaign. As everyone struggles so no one's "the boss" and giving orders, and volunteers want assurances that they'll do something "fun and interesting" and not just make the coffee.

     Of course these characterizations are wildly inflated, and all of you can hold off on your personal andecotes to counter them. I know it's not just like that.

     But there is a condrum for those of us on the Left. Our critical thinking and sometimes reflexive anti-authoritianism may be a intellectual virture, but it's a organizational handicap. I'll be honest enough to say I don't have a complete answer on how we can resolve it, but I think it's there.

     Posted by Manhunter at 07/03/2005 @ 06:25am

106. The Bible is clear about a lot of things including how to punish adulterers, what constitutes "an eye for an eye" and when one should stone people to death. If we are going to take the Bible literally then perhaps we should debate the merits of EVERY ONE of its provisions.

     What is missing in all of these discussions about the Bible is an acknowledgement of the "problem of faith." Kierkegaard takes a very interesting look at this with the "problem" of Abraham. Did Abraham really hear God say to him that he should take Isaac up to the mountain and slay him? What might we say to someone who says this today? What are the implications of a God asking his people to sacrifice in his name? This is not a cynical question. Kierkegaard was a very devout Christian who was troubled by these types of issues. Biblical literalism is laziness. The problems of faith do not transcribe themselves well into a pluralist democracy intent upon setting laws for its people to live by. And that is precisely the point: they should not. All great moral questions deserve intense consideration and simply quoting the Bible chapter and verse is not analysis. Some questions do not have only one answer.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/03/2005 @ 08:45am

107. "Some questions do not have only one answer. "

     In your opinion. Not mine, nor the 78% of Oklahomans that defined marriage as one man and one woman.

     When will you people get the point. If you don't like how we "okies" do it around here, fine! Don't move here, but don't tell us what we can and can't put in our state constitution. Bigoted as it may be in your opinion. It's what we as the MAJORTY want.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/03/2005 @ 3:12pm

108. The majority of Oklahomans may want this but it is not clear the majority of the country does. So, don't tell us that we need to amend the U.S. Constitution. The law is not about taste; what is tasteful to one is not tasteful to all. It is a lot easier to leave laws off of the books that it is to place laws on them. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Federal Marriage Amendment, Civil Unions are all additions. Nothing in our federal laws and state laws ever said gays could not marry. If the constitution is fine as it is, why all of this need to pad it with superfluous laws? Some Christians may not accept gay marriage but many others do. Is this really what we need to be worried about? Keep gay marriage our of your church but not out of the public realm; there is a separation between the two.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/03/2005 @ 4:16pm

109. And you can claim "majority" status all you want. Our constitution is filled with provisions to block majoritarian rule. In fact, our bicameral legislature, executive branch and supreme court were designed to check majoritarian rule. You can have majorities for anything you like but in the end, private decisions and private living trump governmental fiat. It seems to me that conservatives know this.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/03/2005 @ 4:19pm

110. Of course if we want to live under an Evangelical interpretation of the Bible, that is something else entirely. Is that really what we are talking about here? If so, then it seems to me that it is not the "liberals" who are trying to make the country live their way, it is some Evangelical Protestants who are convinced they have found the "Truth." I thought the first Americans came here to flee the burden of another man's truth.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/03/2005 @ 4:21pm

111. "Protestants who are convinced they have found the "Truth.""

     We have...

     His name is Jesus Christ, and he is the truth, the life, and the way.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/03/2005 @ 5:37pm

112. "OKSPORTSGUY, I'm getting rather tired of your posts. "

     Then don't read them, however I absolutely have the right to speak my mind on these issues.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/03/2005 @ 6:33pm

113. HHEMWM wrote: "Protestants who are convinced they have found the 'Truth.'"

     Todd responded: "We have...

     His name is Jesus Christ, and he is the truth, the life, and the way."

     You evaded, have evaded several points in HHEMWM's recent posts, and haven't done it well. It's fairly apparent.

     Posted by Lesly at 07/03/2005 @ 6:47pm

114. "You evaded, have evaded several points in HHEMWM's recent posts, and haven't done it well. It's fairly apparent." HHEMWM has made some good points; there is no law that says I have to address them. What are you looking for Lesly, an admission from me that a law discriminating against homosexuals from being able to marry is "unethical" and "unjust" in terms of what the world considers "good ethics" and the U.S. Constitution considers being able to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Sure, you're right, it is unethical, and eventually that portion of the Oklahoma state constitution will probably be struck down because it goes against the constitution, YOUR NOT getting the point my dear.

     Some people like me just simply don't care. We will have this law written into our constitution as long as it will stand up in court. As I have said, we fully accept the terms "bigoted Christians" with pride. We will stand up for our religious beliefs because as far as I'm concerned my Bible holds much more weight than the U.S. constitution.

     I hope you can comprehend that. You should, you're the progressive established elite, I am merely the narrow minded Christian.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/03/2005 @ 8:22pm

115. We will stand up for our religious beliefs because as far as I'm concerned my Bible holds much more weight than the U.S. constitution.

     Well that was easy. You've completely undermined any argument you have for what you want in reference to our system of goverment and representative democracy in general. You realize you've just made all our criticisms of you and your viewpoint valid, don't you?

     Then again, maybe not.

     Posted by Manhunter at 07/03/2005 @ 8:31pm

116. Tom wrote: "I hope you can comprehend that. You should, you're the progressive established elite, I am merely the narrow-minded Christian."

     Self-martyrdom will get you no brownie points with me or anyone else.

     Sure, there've been a few posters, and I mean a few posters out of the whole bunch, that have made generalizations of those in favor of banning gay marriage. There have been "restrained" pleas for us elitists to stop responding to narrow-minded Christians like you. I'll take that advice when the poster making the request pays my internet bill. I'm new to The Nation. So far the give-and-take has been fairly courteous considering the topic and participants with opposing views. I think you can agree with that assessment. So, in the meantime I suggest you don't have much to worry about, or pine about… yet. This isn't RedState.org [redstate.org] and you won't be banned for disagreeing.

     Tom wrote: "We will stand up for our religious beliefs because as far as I'm concerned my Bible holds much more weight than the U.S. Constitution."

     I don't mean to single you out (though I know I am), but it's hard to skip the audacity of this statement. In fact, it would be wrong if I skipped it.

     The Bible, Koran, and even the older Avesta can hold more weight than the Constitution to individual practitioners. However, individuals must abide by the Constitution. This isn't a jab against Christianity, Tom. The Founding Fathers could have immigrated from Persia for all I care, and I would oppose Islamic dominionists all the same. Sometimes the clamor on the Right can be so loud they drown out your reasons for supporting gay marriage in your own head. Thank you, Todd, for assuring me that, despite being in the minority where gay marriage is concerned, I do, in fact, care more about America for it.

     Posted by Lesly at 07/03/2005 @ 9:04pm

117. Well, I guess the answer is we have to become Evangelical Protestants and all will be well. You'll forgive me if I choose not to do so.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/04/2005 @ 07:57am

118. Besides, my ancestors were kicked out of country after country because they were Jews and did not accept Christianity. This country was (and IS) different for accepting them. We have to rely on something other than religious texts to survive as a Democracy. Tom speaks at length about being part of the "Majority." Maybe a turn in the minority (a real minority, not a political one) would make him rethink his position on this.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/04/2005 @ 08:00am

119. I can proudly celebrate American independence today because I know that the United States is different and I, as a Jew, have nothing to fear. Somehow this has been forgotten by so many "defenders of freedom" who think God's way is their particular intepretation of a holy text so many of us share.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/04/2005 @ 08:02am

120. "You realize you've just made all our criticisms of you and your viewpoint valid, don't you?"

     You can criticize my viewpoint all you want LOL, I'm not concerned with your criticisms. My challenge to you my friend is this; if you are so right, get our state constitution changed, because as of right now Gays can not marry legally in the state of Oklahoma. Your criticism of me or the other 78% of Oklahomans like me in terms of our arguments for exclusion of Gays from marrying is a moot point, as of right now it's our arguments, (which were made by our voting on the ballot initiative to define marriage as one man and one woman) which really matter.

     Criticize all you want my friend, that does not change the facts of the matter.

     God Bless!

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/04/2005 @ 11:18am

121. Lesly,

     You said: "However, individuals must abide by the Constitution."

     Obviously you're wrong, we instituted a ban on Gay marriage in our state constitution which, in your view, should not be allowed based on the fact that we are supposed to follow the U.S. Constitution.

     I guess then in your opinion 78% of Oklahomans "didn't follow the constitution" but instead followed our religious beliefs.

     Just putting all into context for you. You can say and think what you want about us and how wrong we are, however that doesn't change the facts of the situation. It is done.

     God Bless!

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/04/2005 @ 11:24am

122. "Well, I guess the answer is we have to become Evangelical Protestants and all will be well. You'll forgive me if I choose not to do so."

     Absolutely, you certainly do not have to become one, just don't try to marry a gay partner in our state.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/04/2005 @ 11:25am

123. Then please don't push for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/04/2005 @ 11:46am

124. I am not going to argue about morals here, that seems fruitless. And Tom, you do have a point. Oklahoma can do whatever it likes and I am not going to try and tell you otherwise.

     What I am hearing from you is that it does not stop in Oklahoma. You want this to happen across the country and of course you do because your faith tells you that it must. History is filled with groups who felt that God told them that they must do this and they must do that. I am not going to argue the veracity of your faith because faith is not about veracity. I only caution you: You can not tell people like me that we can not tell you how to live in Oklahoma and then try to tell us how to live in our respective communities. If there is no deviating from the truth of "the word" then you will need to take to the streets to fight for your moral nation. But where will this take us? Is our union worth anything if it is a union forged in sin? This is a practical world we live in, filled with necessary and even venal compromises. If you are diligent in your quest, how far will you go?

     On a more venal level: The states can do what they like but can also be "compelled" to change their ways. In 1984 the state of South Dakota was told that if it proceeded to make the legal drinking age 18 instead of 21 then it could . . . but it would lose all federal funding for its interstate system. South Dakota, recognizing that it could not afford to fund its own interstate system on its own, relented. Now that may not be as a much of a moral dilemma as say gay marriage, but there are always plenty of moral dilemmas lying in wait. After all, drinking was quite a dilemma in the 1920's and we can see how successful Prohibition was.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/04/2005 @ 12:17pm

125. "On a more venal level: The states can do what they like but can also be "compelled" to change their ways. In 1984 the state of South Dakota was told that if it proceeded to make the legal drinking age 18 instead of 21 then it could . . . but it would lose all federal funding for its interstate system."

     Great point. This has happened in more cases than just the one you mentioned.

     This brings up another great moral ethics question then. What differs the U.S. government (and the people that make up the government) in their "compelling" a state to do or not do something that differs from what the inhabitants of the state want to do, any different from all people in America that favor a ban on gay marriage trying to enforce their view on the nation by means of a U.S. constitutional amendment?

     The government is not an entity unto itself, the government is made up of people; so in the case of South Dakota although it was the federal government "compelling" the state to raise their drinking age, there were people in the government that wanted the law changed.

     Similarly there are people in the United States behind the government that would like to change the laws on marriage to define it between one man and one woman.

     Just some food for thought.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/04/2005 @ 12:53pm

126. Perhaps it would be best to first find out who (Rove) outed Valerie Palme, indict him (Rove), and make sure he (Rove) is not in the room when Bush picks a substitute for O'Connor. Didn't Bush swear he would find and deal with the culprit? Now that it's (probably) Rove, will he keep his promise?

     Posted by motamanx at 07/04/2005 @ 1:05pm

127. Rosalinda: The easiest and most effective way to quiet right wing and/or religious zealots is to ask the simple question: "What has Bush/Cheney done so far that is any good?" That will bring them up short, because there is nothing.

     Posted by motamanx at 07/04/2005 @ 1:12pm

128. "What has Bush/Cheney done so far that is any good?"

     Answer: They have sent in a coalition of the willing to kill terrorists in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and hopefully next will be Iran and Syria. They established tax breaks for middle class people like me. My family of six got back a little over $3,400.00 last year from the Feds, and I sincerely appreciate it. Bush said he would support a national amendment to the U.S. constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman, and although disappointing as it may be that now that he received the necessary votes to be re-elected and hasn't done anything else regarding his support of a national amendment, at least he's not calling for repeals of the amendments in the 18 or so states across America that amended their state constitutions to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. They have helped create a democracy in Iraq where by now the Iraq people have a say in their government which certainly they did not have before we took out Saddam and his regime. They are also strategically hoping that a more stable Iraq and a good relationship with the new government will give the United States access to the oil held in the oil rich country at a fair price. This will help me and my family fuel up my '99 Suburban and boat more affordably.

     Anyway, how's that for a start?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/04/2005 @ 2:13pm

129. "Anything he touches becomes completely worthless as any forum for communication."

     Then why do you guys keep responding instead of simply ignoring my opinions?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/04/2005 @ 3:31pm

130. The "E" word was a puzzler, I decided it must mean extremest, if it is I have another one "euphemism". It seems to me that we need to use the F word meaning Fascist for this administration. Nearly all of our liberals have helped pass the American version of the enabling acts--The Patriot Act. If they continue in this vein they will surely end up taking a shower in some American version of Buchenwald.

     Posted by Gramps at 07/04/2005 @ 3:51pm

131. To keep to the topic. Bush, or is it Cheney, has never been anything but an ideologue and he has been waiting for an opening as someone pointed out. Since the rightwing coups the machinery of the right has improved itself behind the scenes, in voter fraud and intimadation of Democratic congress etc. The law to these type people is their own will imposed on as many as possible. This keeps their money safe, and increases their take. So, of course, this will be used as another "protective device." The good news is that reality does exist, although not in their worlds. A brick wall can be avoided for only so long when you are headed in that direction. I mean global warming, population density, microbes and plague. All good Biblical topics, even down the Plague of Locusts. Don't expect good news coverage though.

     Posted by Sailor at 07/04/2005 @ 4:58pm

132. I nominate Kay Bailey Hutchison and Katherine Harris to be the nominees to replace Sandra Day O'Connor..............

     PSYCHE!!!

     Posted by POSEIDON at 07/04/2005 @ 8:22pm

133. "Kay Bailey Hutchison and Katherine Harris "

     Either of which would make a fine Supreme Court Justice. My hat goes off to you Poseidon for your nomination.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/04/2005 @ 11:41pm

134. My challenge to you my friend is this; if you are so right, get our state constitution changed, because as of right now Gays can not marry legally in the state of Oklahoma. Your criticism of me or the other 78% of Oklahomans like me in terms of our arguments for exclusion of Gays from marrying is a moot point, as of right now it's our arguments, (which were made by our voting on the ballot initiative to define marriage as one man and one woman) which really matter.

     Yes, as a matter of fact, I am right and you and your 78% of Oklahoma are wrong. You seem to think (incorrectly, as usual) that if you and your 78% vote a certain way, it implies a inherent quality in your position/argument. Obviously it actually reflects ignorance and intolerance in your stance, which 1) does matter and 2) is capable of residing in 78% of the population so don't keep using that figure to imply THAT many people can't be beyond the bounds of rational thought (clearly they can be).

     Your tactic keeps proving you have no legitmate argument, irregardles of your lame response that any "arguments and opinions" don't matter now because the vote has passed.

     And for the rest of you on this board tired of the perpetual volley with this guy, forgive me, but I can't help but show him that his butt has been kicked endlessly here, whether he acknowledges it or not.

     Posted by Manhunter at 07/05/2005 @ 12:03am

135. TODD,

     Your $3400 tax break was borrowed from China, and will be paid back in triplicate, plus interest, by your four kids, who will also shoulder their own generation's tax burden on top of the one you have deferred.

     Jimmypete

     Posted by jimmypete at 07/05/2005 @ 12:04am

136. "Your $3400 tax break was borrowed from China, and will be paid back in triplicate, plus interest, by your four kids, who will also shoulder their own generation's tax burden on top of the one you have deferred. "

     LOL in your mind probably because I support the "evil" local Wal-Mart which forces their suppliers to purchase products and manpower from Chinese companies?

     Actually, I just got back from a WAL MART parking lot as they were kind enough to sponsor our local fireworks display for 4th of July. I spent part of my $3,400.00 tax return on hot dogs and cokes for the kids, "God bless Bush and our troops" bumper stickers, and American flags all the way around. We then sang along to the likes of Pat Green "I'm proud to be an American", and "Amazing Grace", saluted and said a public prayer of God's protection over our soldiers and for God's blessing of success in the war as we viewed pictures of all of our local soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq; all the while watching the professional fire works demonstration. Neither the master of ceremonies, nor any other single person in the estimated 3,000 attendees questioned why the poor terrorists feel they have no other means but to attack our civilians in buildings. Not one person said anything about the need to "understand" why the terrorists are attacking us. Not one person said anything about the need for tolerance or diversity. No, we simply watched fireworks, prayed and sang patriotic songs. It was an exceptionally inspiring evening here in Sapulpa OK. Just another 4th of July in the south.

     Sincerely,

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/05/2005 @ 12:47am

137. ahhh...

     "And for the rest of you on this board tired of the perpetual volley with this guy, forgive me, but I can't help but show him that his butt has been kicked endlessly here, whether he acknowledges it or not."

     I'm really starting to feel the love now. What happened to all that tolerance and diversity crap you always are spouting off about? Or does it not apply to me?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/05/2005 @ 12:51am

138. Todd, Why not let the government recognize gay marriage and your christian Okies not accept it your church? What would it hurt?

     As far as taxes; we are all paying way too much at both the State and Federal levels with waste from all political initiatives that have no accountabilty because people keep blindly voting. The real issue is that it is very difficult to get someone fired inside the goverment (both state and federal). There are plenty of governmnet agencies and programs that are failing and should be either revamped by people who know how to manage a budget (business minded folks vs ideologues who have no experience with money). Once we nip these issues, we will not need to keep increasing taxes. It will be the complete opposite...unless, of course you want to be dependent on the government...which is a whole other topic!!!

     Todd, are you sure it wasn;t 77% or 79%? Just wanted to make sure.

     Posted by dancall at 07/05/2005 @ 11:08am

139. Forgot to give the other option on the failing programs...flat out can the program, learn from the mistakes and possibly try again. One of the problems I see is that the people that know how to manage a business and the people who know how to help people think totally different. Much like all the banter that goes on in these blogs. It is not a matter of who wins, but total compromise for a solid community that works for EVERYONE! Todd, I once thought like you, but you have to take a step outside of your Okie World and see what is going on around you and realize that people that don't think or behave like you are not bad people. They just think differently and have that right. You seem to be a person that will argue that your favorite color is better than someone elses. Well when you have 50 different colors, you keep spinning yourself into the ground because no one will be able to please everyone. Unfortunately people will not all get along and that is a human nature thing. The idealogues will disagree with that, but the most important thing is to agree or disagree with understanding instead of anger. As much as idealogues say they are peaceful, there is a bit of anger in their tone as well.

     Todd, no one person is perfect. Is there one DIRECT Quote from Jesus and not an interperation from Luke, John, Mark or Matthew that says gays are not equal in the eyes of God? Just checking...

     Posted by dancall at 07/05/2005 @ 11:32am

140. Dancall,

     "Todd, no one person is perfect. Is there one DIRECT Quote from Jesus and not an interperation from Luke, John, Mark or Matthew that says gays are not equal in the eyes of God? Just checking..."

     They absolutely are equal in the site of God, in terms of God's love for them. That's not the question. The question deals with are they or should they be allowed to marry.

     A better question would be, can you give me any scripture from the Bible where God, or Jesus or any of the Apostles sanctioned the marriage of Gays? The only scripture I find that deals with Gays is Leviticus where God says it's an abomination and the story of city of Sodom where the wickedness within the city made it necessary for God to destroy it.

     By the way, regarding your paragraph on taxes, that's an area where I fully agree with you. So many government programs are failing or need to be revamped; particularly ones like social security, welfare etc. It sickens me how the federal government uses a system of social communism to redistribute my wealth to others that I may not want my money going too.

     If I want to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and give to the poor, I will tithe to my church. This way I can be assured that the money is being given to worthwhile causes. I don't trust the government with my money at all.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/05/2005 @ 11:56am

141. Todd,

     I know there are posters here who have a problem with you, but I think you add some life to the debate. Maybe I am responding to your liberal-baiting, but it's fun to rant at you and your closed-mindedness! Thanks for the spark.

     Why do you think it is that the Bible condemns homosexuals? After all, it is fairly clear that whatever created humankind decided that having some homosexuals around would be a good idea. Humans are made up of genes, and some of those genes combine with chemicals in our bodies to make some people aroused by members of the same sex. Most of them can't help it, nor do they want to. What's the problem with that?

     And gay marriage should be accepted by Americans because it is the right thing to do. We have a fundamental guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is an individual right rather than a group right, so individuals shouldn't have that right impinged because others don't like it. So if homosexuals want to be free to pursue their innate desires to have intercourse with other men, our Constitution guarantees them that right. This is one of the few conceptions of morals that I think is universally true: we should respect the choices of others as much as we can without infringing on our own freedoms.

     With that in mind, I believe that homosexuals should be given the freedom to marry. After all, the rest of us are free to seek out people we love, and unite our futures under the sanction of our government. People who nature has decided are homosexual should have the right to join together in love.

     Regardless of whatever you say, you have not proven that homosexual marriage would damage your freedom to get married in your own church. You have not proven that your church would be harmed if homosexuals were married outside your church. There used to be a lot of people who thought interracial marriage was just as unholy as you believe homosexual marriage is. Those people were granted the right to join with the ones they love under the sanction of government, so why shouldn't gays?

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/05/2005 @ 1:19pm

142. Todd:

     I just want to clarify my question: I asked why Christianity condemns homosexuals, not whether Christianity condemns homosexuals. Is there any rational reason for this doctrine?

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/05/2005 @ 1:26pm

143. NATTIEBUMPO,

     Thank you for the comment on adding some life to the debate. That's what forums like this are supposed to be about isn't it, different people communicating different points of views etc.

     I bet these blogs when only visited by progressives, are about as boring as the blogs on redstates.org or Rush's site, which are generally only filled with Bible thumping conservatives, like me.

     Anyway, on to some of your points:

     "After all, it is fairly clear that whatever created humankind decided that having some homosexuals around would be a good idea."

     Well actually if you take a fundamentals of religion class on Christian Bible interpretation, generally you will find that most teach that God created man with the concept of "free will". Eve was instructed what she could eat and not eat out of the Garden of Eden. She used her free will to go against God's command and in essence was the first person to "sin". God did not want to create robots, but wanted man to be free to worship God voluntarily instead of being programmed too.

     This explains why men do not always do what God wants them too. Lord knows I have sinned and made mistakes in my life, after which I have repented and asked for forgiveness. However I certainly do not strive to live in sin.

     So actually your statement above, based on what Christianity teaches is incorrect, God did not "create" some men to be homosexuals. They choose to be whether they were "born" that way or not.

     Just like people have the free will to try, smoking, alcohol or drugs, and if one becomes addicted it's very difficult to change the lifestyle, if the person has the willpower to change however, they will inevitably live a healthier lifestyle. This is the whole concept of sin. God designed it to help humans save themselves… from themselves. As humans we are prone to sins of the flesh due to our free will. I would always rather be considered a "narrow-minded" Christian because I have not "experienced" lifestyles that differ from mine. This also explains the symbolism of Christians painting the world in blacks and white, rights and wrongs instead of shades of gray. I could go try out smoking for a while, or drinking, or drugs, or gambling. I would rather look on them as sinful and thus not risk becoming addicted to a detrimental lifestyle. My dad died of lung cancer at 58. During his last days, he continually told us how he wished he never had started. He had the free will to do so, and his free will killed him in the end.

     Your next point:

     "And gay marriage should be accepted by Americans because it is the right thing to do."

     You must certainly be aware that this is your opinion not fact. Many people such as me do not think it's the "right" thing to do, and are willing to vote at the poles to create laws that will enforce this belief. Unethical in the world's view this may be, it doesn't change the fact that we did it. And for now, the law stands that marriage in OK is only one man and one woman.

     Your next point: "Those people were granted the right to join with the ones they love under the sanction of government, so why shouldn't gays?"

     Easy answer; the Bible never says anywhere that people of different races should not marry. As a matter of fact several of our favorite Bible heroes married people of other nationalities and God blessed those marriages and continued on their lineage. Homosexuality, on the other hand is specifically dealt with and mentioned as an abomination to God.

     God Bless!

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/05/2005 @ 2:21pm

144. Todd: you base all your beliefs on a "robotic" reading of the bible: bible says X, so I believe X. Why is homosexuality wrong?

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/05/2005 @ 2:47pm

145. Todd:

     Do you eat pork? That's clearly a "sin".

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/05/2005 @ 2:48pm

146. How about usery and riches? are these abominations that we should prevent from being sanctioned by society?

     Why not let homosexuals marry, and if your god is strong enough to convince them that they are wrong, let them invoke their own free will to come around to your side?

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/05/2005 @ 2:58pm

147. "Why is homosexuality wrong?"

     I thought I have answered that as clearly as posbible, perhaps I haven't. Let's try again.

     answer: Becuase God's word says so.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/05/2005 @ 3:20pm

148. "Do you eat pork? That's clearly a "sin". "

     Yes, becuase man evolved to the point that we can safely cook and prepare pork without getting the diseases you get from it eating it raw.

     When mankind developes cures for Aids, and the other diseases that affect overwhelmingly homosexual people, we we be less concerned. But for now, God is not mocked, you will reap what you sew. Gays die from aids overwhelming more often statisticly that heterosexuals.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/05/2005 @ 3:22pm

149. I guess poor raped women in Africa reap what they sew too. So it's not a sin to be gay if you don't die of AIDS, right? Then gay life will be just like eating pork: a "sin" that god condemns but man has "evolved" past...

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/05/2005 @ 4:07pm

150. What about dying a rich man? Do you advocate repealing the "death tax"?

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/05/2005 @ 4:08pm

151. Todd:

     no need to answer these questions. Your response invariably is "read the bible, that's where America's law comes from." Anyway, you mentioned on another post that you didn't agree wholeheartedly with Bush, but you couldn't find a better alternative. I haven't seen a single post that acknowledges any instances where liberals have better ideas than conservatives. What is it that you dislike about Bush?

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/05/2005 @ 4:14pm

152. I'm really starting to feel the love now. What happened to all that tolerance and diversity crap you always are spouting off about? Or does it not apply to me?

     Boy it must be tough to be you. Smugly touting how your beliefs are held by such a great majority of the people and mocking even arguing against them. Yet once you take heat here for your views here (as you knew you would), out come the slings and arrows of martyrdom. Yeesh..

     Fella, I don't care what you do. You can post the King James Bible here for all that it matters. I'm not bothered by you or your posts:apparently others are, and have no taste for the usual back-and-forth. I was addressing them.

     So far as I've seen, no one has said you can't post here or say this or that. In other words, you've seen a lot more tolerance here than I see on, oh, Fox News, so put that notion to rest.

     Irregardless of how you resspond, there's no getting around the fact that you continually duck the pointed criticisms leveled at you, diverting to asides of your beliefs or Bibical text (which simply answer what YOU think or feel but are no reply to the govermental issues, other than simply that's the way you want it). In fact your posts have been full of such colossal wrongheadness (towards taxes, goverment spending, and economics) that one could have a field day with them, knocking down your points blow by blow.

     But I have a life, so it won't be me....

     Posted by Manhunter at 07/05/2005 @ 5:20pm

153. One does not have to appeal to moral and religious sensibilities to determine that homosexuality is wrong. All one has to do is observe nature. Homosexual acts violate the integrity of the body.

     Posted by faulkenberg at 07/06/2005 @ 12:11am

154. "read the bible, that's where America's law comes from."

     In my opinion it should. That's a betterway of putting it. And in Oklahoma at least, we are in a way, creating the local law coming from the Bible by amending our state constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/06/2005 @ 07:55am

155. Todd:

     I guess you are an unpatriotic american, unfaithful to the values on which this nation was based. The constitution specifically does not mention the bible as a source of natural law, while mentioning many other important documents. You have said yourself that you cannot legislate morality, so why do you try? If your religion is the truth and the way, it should not need government to impose it from above. This will only turn people off from accepting your ideas freely. America is a nation founded on the idea that we should all be able to choose our own paths (so long as they don't hurt others) and it seems that you don't agree. You think people should be forced to agree with you, and damn whatever beliefs they might have in their heads. That's un-american.

     Faulkenberg: If you look at biology, you will see that humans are simply a collection of small organisms that have learne a great way to work together to make a coherent whole. Genes determine whether we mate with a man or a woman. Some of those genes obviously prefer that some men exclusively desire to mate with other men, and it may be the same for women. Throughout nature there are ready examples of males mating with other males, most tellingly in genetically similar species like monkeys. And you are clearly wrong about violating the "integrity of the body." This concept of "integrity of the body" is a made-up idea that has no basis in nature or biology, and is just a stand-in for your own religious beliefs based on faith.

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/06/2005 @ 1:35pm