March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Euro 2012 | Main | Greensburghers »

Jun 18, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

SAL LEONE

The issue is easier said then done because people don't vote. The Amendment one issue should of been in the general election and not the primary. This would mean dems get to vote but I think this was the plan all along, keep as many dems away from voting.

God Bless America

bubba

"This would mean dems get to vote but I think this was the plan all along, keep as many dems away from voting."

And just how were Dems kept away from voting in the primary election, Sal?

Did Billy Graham scare them away, barring the door at every polling place by threatening to call the wrath of God down on those Dems who dared to show up?

justcorbly

Nothing in particularkeeps Democrats from voting, but the amendment was offered up on a primary ballot for a reason.

Not that the government has any business telling us who we can and cannot live with, raise kids with, inherit from, or visit in the hospital.

Leave that kind of stuff to busybodies like the Graham family.

sittinginthemiddle.

There was no stipend offered to the Demonrats to come out and vote in the primary. Rest assured that won't be the case in November.

Ed Cone

If I recall correctly, the Democrats wanted it on the primary ballot because they assumed it would lose and they didn't want it to weigh them down in November. Paladins of principle are our elected officials.

prell

This should only come as a surprise to the Usual Suspects over here at the Peanut Gallery who advance false memes. Abraham and the NC Dems are the forces of darkness. They are the ones who advance the gay sociopolitical agenda. They are the real bigots. They are not The Remnants.

Sean

prell, you just made me wistful for the evil dr. guarino.

Spag

What does it mean to support "marriage equality" and why didn't the Democrats repeal the statutes banning same-sex marriage when they controlled both houses and the governors mansion for the past century?

It's really easy to say they support "marriage equality" now, isn't it, when the power has been taken away from legislators ?

Just an observation.

Bill Yaner

Kind of like the "I support my troops" bumper stickers, eh, Spag? Easy to say when absolutely nothing is being asked of you.

bubba

"Leave that kind of stuff to busybodies like the Graham family."

As opposed, say, to the busybodies in the White House, who want to tell us what to eat, who gets to pay more tax, who gets to have their religious beliefs trumped by the Agenda, what's "fair".......

Andrew Brod

Except that the White House isn't telling us what to eat or believe. Perhaps a minor point to you, but it needed to be said.

As for taxes, government always tells us who gets to pay more tax. That's what government does, regardless of which party's in power.

SAL LEONE

Hi Bubba
The way the rep kept dems away is simple, give them no reason to come out, nonthing or no one to vote for. I like to look at examples, there was no dem primary in my race for state senate, only one dem so no dems needed to come out, dist 59 easy race, only a primary of 3 rep, the reps fixed the districts to make them rep friendly. The reult was that mant dems decided not to run. I talked to many dems who didn't vote because they had no one to vote for so they got disgusted.

sittinginthemiddle

"I talked to many dems who didn't vote because they had no one to vote for so they got disgusted."-Sal

Translation: There was no one running who promised any entitlements so there was no reason to vote.

formerly gt

"What does it mean to support "marriage equality" "...

Obviously it doesn't mean supporting plural marriage. libs find that type of marriage "unhealthy", hard to administer (legally) and just "icky". plus the plural marriage crowd isn't trendy and they aren't big donors.

Sean

funny, i don't see or hear threesomes pining about equal rights. i also know that the vast majority of conservatives, along with liberals, feel those relationships don't warrant "marriage equality" status -- legally or morally. so if we can all agree that this is a strawman, it would help focus the conversation.

the whole "why didn't the dems change the laws when they held power?" position has both merit and flaws. sure, ethically and morally, i agree with that position. that said, the climate wasn't as ripe as it is today. same sex couples, while not exactly happy with their limited status, weren't as fired up as they are now (thanks to the republican state legislators). so you're right, spag, this is a politically motivated move by the dems and you can thank the republicans for making the issue so damn hot.

Spag

"i also know that the vast majority of conservatives, along with liberals, feel those relationships don't warrant "marriage equality" status -- legally or morally. so if we can all agree that this is a strawman, it would help focus the conversation."

Nope. That kind of popular subjectivity falls by the wayside as soon as you establish something as a right. Further, that very same argument can be applied to the opposition to same-sex marriage- what the "vast majority" believes.

As I wrote when this debate started several months ago, the issue is complex and many proponents of same-sex marriage have no problem drawing the line to avoid invasion of their own comfort zone, but lambast others as bigots, etc. for not drawing the line in the same place.

Sean

the "vast majority" of people in this country aren't against same sex marriage, spag. numerous polls show that there is a slight majority in favor, actually. go state by state and yes, results vary by population.

no one lambasts "others" as "bigots" for not drawing a line between same sex couples and polygamists, insestuous couples and/or pedophiles -- such people are labeled as slippery slopers. point me to active conversations of polygamists pining for their rights, comparing *themselves* to straight or even same sex couples, for me to even take that position into consideration. i need to hear those stories. otherwise, it's a nice talking point by those afraid to allow all *couples* to marry.

remember, same sex couples are already viewed as acceptable environments for adopting children. that's not the case for polygamists and others. the bar has moved.

The comments to this entry are closed.