FMA is DOA

[Texas Lynn]

From Daily Kos:

For the first time in a while, Colorado Sen. Allard and his...House colleague Rep. Marylin Musgrave have decided to pass on the amendment banning gay marriage. This is the same Amendment that lost votes last year despite GOP gains in 2004. With the Dems taking over, it was clear the amendment was destined for even weaker support.

Aravosis (blogger) says: Allard and Musgrave aren't introducing the legislation because the Republicans are scared to death that the religious right, and conservative Republican, agenda will be the death of them. Their colleagues must have told them to stay away from the hate issues that have proven to be toxic to the GOP.

Kos says: This is a dramatic victory for the country. Such divisive and hateful legislation has become so toxic for the GOP that they have been forced to retreat from even symbolic efforts to rally their...base.
Musgrave almost lost in 2004, and she came even closer to losing in 2006. Her own constituents had obviously grown tired of her single-minded obsession over the gays. We'll finish her off in 2008,

 

[RealDeal]

Great news for America, there's hope for you guys yet

 

[chalice_thunder]

It looks like it's morning in America.
Spread a little joy for another victory against hate!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Hmm... a blogger source for soliciting support?
Since it is a State issue and there is DOMA, the fact remains that each state is clarifying what model they are willing to grant incentives - one man and one woman.
I don't see FMA being tabled as a victory for one or defeat for another.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I don't see FMA being tabled as a victory for one or defeat for another.

Nice spin. After Dobson and the whole religious right apparatus threw their weight behind FMA insisting it was necessary, then, one would have to conclude if the position is now this is no biggie, were they lying then when they said it was necessary, or now?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Nice spin. After Dobson and the whole religious right apparatus threw their weight behind FMA insisting it was necessary, then, one would have to conclude if the position is now this is no biggie, were they lying then when they said it was necessary, or now?

I don't know what to tell you, Texas Lynn, other than I'm not Dr. Dobson. And as far as lying, your reasoning is equally flawed in that Dr. Dobson was not one of the representatives named in that... uh, blog. However, the propensity to try and spit venom at an opposition was consistent with the blog's use of the flavored (favored) words of hate, obsession, etc.

 

[ImaginaryVoyager]

Good. Another step in the right direction.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I don't know what to tell you, Texas Lynn, other than I'm not Dr. Dobson. And as far as lying, your reasoning is equally flawed in that Dr. Dobson was not one of the representatives named in that... uh, blog.

Dobson has repeatedly bragged and brayed about his role as a kingmaker; moreover, Allard and Musgrave represent his state of residence in which he remains a power broker. I only used him as an example. Countless right wing operatives consistently referred to the FMA as "necessary" when it had support of the President and legislative leadership.

However, the propensity to try and spit venom at an opposition was consistent with the blog's use of the flavored (favored) words of hate, obsession, etc.

Kos and his associates do not mince words, that is true. I edited out some in the excerpts I posted lest I be accused of miscreance by proxy. However, at least where Musgrave et al are concerned "hatred" is certainly accurate. Obsession may be a little strong. Now that hatred against LGBTs is not resonating as it did a recently as two years ago with the electorate, no doubt they will move on to other tactics.

 

[Savage78]

I feel that it would be easier if people did away with the term "marriage" and called it something else. I know that gays have every right to call it a marriage....but isnt a rose by any other name supposed to smell just as sweet and if it helps to get the legislation in faster then it is an option to at least consider.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Dobson has repeatedly bragged and brayed about his role as a kingmaker; moreover, Allard and Musgrave represent his state of residence in which he remains a power broker. I only used him as an example. Countless right wing operatives consistently referred to the FMA as "necessary" when it had support of the President and legislative leadership.

A FMA would be easier and be another shore against an attempt to force an ideology on the citizen, but it is not "the" solution.

Kos and his associates do not mince words, that is true. I edited out some in the excerpts I posted lest I be accused of miscreance by proxy. However, at least where Musgrave et al are concerned "hatred" is certainly accurate. Obsession may be a little strong. Now that hatred against LGBTs is not resonating as it did a recently as two years ago with the electorate, no doubt they will move on to other tactics.

I do not support same-gender marriage and I have the civil right to affirm what marriage model I will support - just like the rest of my countrymen:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm

Your source and those of like mind simply attempt to besmirch everyone with petty name-calling and grandiose claims about what the "enemy" emotionally feels. That is old school propaganda and transparent. So while the gay advocacy thirsts for slandering the opposition, their demonstration in doing just this type of thing is subject, even perhaps self-revealing, to where a hatred might actually lay.
Out of the mouth, the heart speaks.
As for tactics, sure both sides have tactics - one is offensive and one is defensive.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Hmm... a blogger source for soliciting support?
Since it is a State issue and there is DOMA, the fact remains that each state is clarifying what model they are willing to grant incentives - one man and one woman.
I don't see FMA being tabled as a victory for one or defeat for another.

It is certainly a victory for equality and a defeat for bigotry, and when the DOMA goes down that will also be a victory for equality. It was largely symbolic, a piece of legislation with the weight of the president and the majority party behind it. For it to die is a win for us, definitively.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Nice spin. After Dobson and the whole religious right apparatus threw their weight behind FMA insisting it was necessary, then, one would have to conclude if the position is now this is no biggie, were they lying then when they said it was necessary, or now?

Speaking of spin? Did you read the first sentence of that article? It talks about "the religious rights toxic agenda".

Can we say "theophobia"?

 

[Ramona]

Speaking of spin? Did you read the first sentence of that article? It talks about "the religious rights toxic agenda".

Can we say "theophobia"?

Suddenly, because we don't agree with you, we are theophobes? Well, given that the person you quoted in response IS A CHRISTIAN, I'd say no.

 

[Texas Lynn]

A FMA would be easier and be another shore against an attempt to force an ideology on the citizen...

...by forcing the opposite ideology.

...but it is not "the" solution.

...

I do not support same-gender marriage and I have the civil right to affirm what marriage model I will support - just like the rest of my countrymen

Exactly. If you don't believe in same gender marriages by all means do not enter into one. that should take care of the problem right there.

As for tactics, sure both sides have tactics - one is offensive and one is defensive.

Interesting reductio ad absurdium. Obviously in any ideological or tactical contest elements of defensive measures and initiatives are employed by both (or more) sides. To suggest one is entirely one aspect and the other entirely the other is patently absurd.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Speaking of spin? Did you read the first sentence of that article? It talks about "the religious rights toxic agenda".

Can we say "theophobia"?

The above is a great example of the fallacy of overgeneralization. One saying the religious right has a "toxic agenda" merely speaks of the speaker's opinion of the agenda of the religious right, not of all believers in diety. It would perhaps more correctly be labeled religious right -phobia. Your label is like saying if a person hates pit bulls who attack people they are canineophobic or even more analagous, quadropediphobic.

 

[Cerberus~]

<quote removed by staff>

Yea...against the wishes of a good many people on your side of the fence.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

...by forcing the opposite ideology.

Your choice of using the term force is in error.

That is, unless you are of the position that a marriage between a man and a woman should not be recognized and granted incentives by the shared government at all.

To claim that which can be agreed upon by the vast majority as agreeable is forced is an obviously false statement when considering the whole. The stumbling block before gay advocates is that which is not agreeable and in fact is perverse cannot be institutionalized except by force. That is to say, until such time as the vast majority finds perversion valued or agreeable.

...

Exactly. If you don't believe in same gender marriages by all means do not enter into one. that should take care of the problem right there.

If I were of a weak spirit and cherished the world's favor vs. honoring what is right, even to the extent of neglecting or despising Gods will, perhaps.
Otherwise, no. I do not willingly abstain or abandon my right as citizen or my fidelity to my Lord.

Interesting reductio ad absurdium. Obviously in any ideological or tactical contest elements of defensive measures and initiatives are employed by both (or more) sides. To suggest one is entirely one aspect and the other entirely the other is patently absurd.

The patently absurd would be to presume that governmental promotion of same-gender marriage was an alleged civil right that was mysteriously taken away at an equally mysterious point in time.
You made a bad call there, especially when considering what principles Conservative and Progressive ideologies entail. And to clarify the distinction between whether something should change, it is not found on the basis of antiquitatem or novum, but on whether it is right - in the Christian sense, if it is God's will or aligns with His judgment.

Yea...against the wishes of a good many people on your side of the fence.

Wrong appeal for me.
Your comment would be of value to someone coveting favor from a group as opposed to standing in principle or in truth.

But I suppose I should qualify my earlier statement. It would be irrelevant (not necessarily good or bad) if the government either punished an immorality or simply did not address private matters as long as they remained private and did not involve complex matters.

 

[Ramona]

<quote removed by staff>

Yes, I am aware of the removal of Sodomy Laws. What a great day it was for our country when the last state to hold them repealed them!

As for what it should mean to you...in the words of the Rolling Stones "You can't always get what you want." Praise the Lord for that!

America is on its way to becoming a free country for real! Glory be to God!

 

[Texas Lynn]

You should have heard the whining and gnashing of teeth in Focus on the Family Citizen and elsewhere about that.

 

[Texas Lynn]

To claim that which can be agreed upon by the vast majority as agreeable is forced is an obviously false statement when considering the whole.

The claim opposition to same gender marriage is "vast" is false. The opposition is weaking little by little most especially due to the dying off of our oldest generations and the younger folks not having been scarred by the homophobia and heterosexism which affected their elders.

The stumbling block before gay advocates is that which is not agreeable and in fact is perverse cannot be institutionalized except by force.

It is true lasting social change percolates up rather than being imposed from the top down. However, attention to all fronts is required.

At best the so-called "culture war" is essentially a rear guard action in which the forces of the religious right are firing scattered shots which mostly miss while they're in rapid retreat.

That is to say, until such time as the vast majority finds perversion valued or agreeable.

How sad that you feel compelled to engage in hate speech.

If I were of a weak spirit and cherished the world's favor vs. honoring what is right, even to the extent of neglecting or despising Gods will, perhaps.
Otherwise, no. I do not willingly abstain or abandon my right as citizen or my fidelity to my Lord.

Well then we appreciate your support and are heartened by the change of position within a single post.

The patently absurd would be to presume that governmental promotion of same-gender marriage was an alleged civil right that was mysteriously taken away at an equally mysterious point in time.

Advancement of human progress always begins with a spark; not necessarily with an overt act of oppression as you suggest. the concept of "government promotion" as used therein is patently absurd. As I've said, if you don't believe in same gender marriage then don't enter into one.

You made a bad call there, especially when considering what principles Conservative and Progressive ideologies entail. And to clarify the distinction between whether something should change, it is not found on the basis of antiquitatem or novum, but on whether it is right - in the Christian sense, if it is God's will or aligns with His judgment.

Well, then, again, thanks, because that confrims what I already know...same gender marriage is here and here to stay and will not be stopped. Thank you so much for the encouraging words.