I mean it that way- this election was Martha Coakley’s to lose. She was running for a seat that was held by a Democrat since 1962. She couldn’t have gotten a better chance if the ghost of Ted Kennedy had anointed her himself. Yet, she blew it. Scott Brown did not win as much as Martha Coakley lost, and the reason is because Coakley simply didn’t believe that any Republican could pose a serious challenge to her. Arrogance and pride have been the downfall of many people, and will continue to be so as long as we’re human.
Let me put one thing out there right now- I don’t like Scott Brown. I would not have voted for him if I were a resident of Massachusetts. Scott Brown is a man who posed as a moderate while having the National Organization for Marriage run his anti-gay stealth campaign by placing robocalls urging voters to “defeat “radical” Martha Coakley because of her support of same-sex marriage.” Scott Brown was not happy that same-sex marriage became the law in Massachusetts and voted for a state amendment to ban gays & lesbians from marrying their partners. The damage he can do in the Senate to the pursuit of true LGBT equality is palpable.
However, I tend to take a less fearful look at this, because Scott Brown does not have a full term coming up, he’s got three years. When he runs for re-election he will also be running during a presidential election year. The Democrats will regroup in Massachusetts and put forth a serious candidate- possibly even another Kennedy- in opposition, so Brown shouldn’t feel too comfortable with that prospect. It’s a shame, really, that he has such good positions on other issues that I completely agree with, such as his support for Second Amendment rights, sensible environment policies, and how we treat our veterans , but his support of anti-gay marriage amendments and his hobnobbing with the NOM is something I find personally offensive. This isn’t politics to me, Scott, this is my life, and my relationship that you’re saying should be held up and judged by mob rule. Martha Coakley, meanwhile, is fighting as the Massachusetts state attorney general against the Defense of Marriage Act that forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages that are legitimate in any given state. You know, the case that the Obama administration is vigorously defending against even though it doesn’t really have to, but I digress.
The one thing I will say is that Scott Brown does know what the Obama healthcare plan will do to the country, because it’s very similar to the plan that Scott Brown voted for in 2006 while he was a Massachusetts state senator. Brown claims that the two programs are completely different, but both plans have at their core a giant giveaway to private insurance companies. Both plans force people without insurance to purchase it and penalize those who the government deems “able” to afford it with fines and higher taxes. To me, Brown’s semantics fall flat. He voted for the bill in Massachusetts because he’s a party-line guy. Regardless, he is right that Obama’s plan is a bad one, but I have the feeling that if McCain had been elected and he was pushing the same thing, we’d see a different song coming from Scott Brown.
I’ll also give the guy credit for running a campaign. Clearly he is a hard worker who was effective in communicating with voters and getting his message out. If you read his website he actually sounds reasonable. He wouldn’t be a bad candidate if he wasn’t such a homophobe and hypocrite, and he certainly looks better naked than Martha Coakley.
~Matt Frost
I was a little shocked. It IS Massachusetts.
But I’m happy.
Michael W. Dean
Ted Kennedy took that seat in 1962 (special election), not 1972.
Oops, that’s what I get for posting while half asleep.
Michael, I wish Brown well, and I hope he does help to scuttle this awful healthcare bill. I’d just be a lot more enthusiastic about him if he weren’t so anti-gay.
Does anyone know how the Mass. healthcare system came about? Was this done with the ballot box or was it Mass. politicos forcing it upon the peeps much like Obama is trying to do to the nation?
Well he’s better than Kennedy, I’ll give him that. And hey, that’s something is it not?
I was estatic when Ted finally kicked off… Maybe Mass. can start headed back in the direction of liberty now. Maybe.
I think we all breathed a sigh of relief when that bastard kicked the bucket.
interesting sidenote: when I found out he died I was listening to “California Uber-Alles” by The Dead Kennedys. Maybe it shoulda been “Massachusetts Uber-Alles”
I’m never happy when anyone dies- well, there are maybe a few people I wouldn’t mind seeing shuffle off this mortal coil. However, I never let my disagreements with Ted Kennedy embitter me to the point that when he died, I was thankful. I’d rather he retired, or perhaps been politically finished after killing Mary Jo Kopechne in a drunk driving crash.
I think its pretty fucked up that some people were happy when Ted Kennedy passed away. The only time I would breath a sigh of relief of someone’s death is if they were hatebreeders, like the Westboro church members or if they were truly evil and disturbed, like some sick fuck who rapes women or children. You may have politically disagreed with Ted Kennedy but his passing is not something that deserves to be celebrated.
On a different note, I don’t see how Brown winning the senate chair means a return to liberty. I’m not saying that Coakley was a better candidate. However, this man clearly has an agenda against same-sex marriage. Anyone who fights to deny people rights that other have is NOT one who is fighting for liberty.
I’d rather people see the error of their ways and change than die. I never danced around when Jerry Falwell died because in death, we’re all truly equal. We return to unconscious organic fodder. I think it would be cruel to mock someone in death when they have grieving families. Everyone has someone who loves them.
Now here’s what I don’t get about the Democrats. They still have more of a majority in the Senate than Bush did when the Republicans had majority, and they’re already caving in and running for the hills. They’re going to table the healthcare reform and treat Scott Brown like he has unlimited power. Really? Look, the Dems couldn’t get it done with a supermajority, it’s not Scott Brown that’s going to put a wrench in Obama’s agenda. Obama doesn’t take the lead on issues and doesn’t spend any political capital. He doesn’t strong-arm Congress like Bush did- say what you will about him but he got results with a lot less of a majority than Obama has now. Obama’s a good talker but he’s got a weak chin. Swat him once and he goes away. And to think people were comparing him to leftist idols that actually had balls like Mao, Che, and Stalin. Laughable.
Because someone doesn’t support gay ‘Marriage” does not make them anti-gay. It makes them anti-gay marriage. Scott Brown did support civil unions. This whole gay marriage dust-up is nothing more than affirmative action for cocksuckers…oh, is that insensitive? I eat pussy…that makes me a pussy eater. relax.
Ummm, yeah it does make someone anti-gay if they do not support same-sex marriage. It’s saying that you consider homosexuals as second-class citizens who are not worthy of having the same right to marry as do heterosexuals. Civil unions are a joke. It means just as a much as non-married couple. Legally, it is completely unconstitutional to deny rights to certain people that other already have. Outside of the brain-washing religious teachings, there is no reason to prevent same-sex marriages. Unless, of course, you are looking to replace the Constitution with the bible.
I don’t support term limits, does that make me anti-democratic? I don’t support state sponsored public schooling, does that make me anti-education? No, it does not, in either case.
The gay marriage issue is a shameful one. A control drama using guilt to apply force. If a group of people want to create their own tradition and institutions, then they should be unencumbered as they do so. Likewise, those who hold dear their institutions should not be forced to include anyone that they believe is disqualified by their terms.
Should a man should be able to “marry” three men? How about 3, 16 year old girls? A dog?. A tree? Why not, or why?
Personally, I couldn’t care less. However, marriage is an important institution to my neighbors, therefore I respect their right to it. Just like God, Peganism, Jesus, Buddha, Alla, and myriad other bullshit concepts that I find silly…but that’s just me.
Yes, we want marry three men, 3 and 16 year old girls, a dog and a tree. You forgot to include the goldfish, the car and the kitchen sink.
Ah, the typical ignorant argument spewed by those who are anti-gay marriage. I don’t think I will ever understand how two consulting adult men or women who want to spend the rest of their lives together seems to include five other people and three inanimate objects within that marriage. It is such an immature, ignorant statement and it is getting old.
I don’t think you understand the situation. Not supporting term limits and not supporting state sponsored public schools does not limit a person’s rights. The point here is homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. That is unconstitutional. Plain and simple.
And while I am still thinking about this, the gay marriage is shameful ONLY due to the fact that it is not yet legal. This is not about applying force via guilt. This is not a “new” tradition. This is not “forcing” to include others into anything new. In fact, it has NOTHING to do with them!!! This is two people who want to have a dedicated life-long relationship legalized as marriage. The ONLY difference is the two people in the marriage are the same sex.
You’re concerned about the “institution” of marriage? A guy and a girl meet hook up in at a club in Vegas. They have many drinks and pretty trashed. Intoxicated, they decide to get married. Within minutes, they are. So, a heterosexual can get married on the spot without really knowing each other. Yet, two men who have been in a committed relationship for over ten years can’t get married because….hmmm….just because….of the institution of marriage…ummm…it might be tarnished. Stop with the old, tired, immature, ignorant, leap-of-logic bullshit reasons.
Your response suffers from ‘argumentum ad hominem’. I gave you a reasonably logical argument. You didn’t answer it. If marriage does not mean a contract between a man and a woman, then why can’t it mean a contract between a man and his dog? Why? Because that is not the definition of marriage. It is a word that has a meaning.
For the most part, nobody really cares that anyone wants to fuck something similar. Find your own word…marriage has been taken for a long, long time. I say: Give em Civil Unions with extra rights…throw in some money and a time share. Good God, call it a day.
Sub groups & Special Interests! What a pain in the ass. There are men and there are women…all other types, races, creeds, proclivities, hair colors, religions, etc. are subordinate.
I did answer your argument. You just didn’t read it properly. And to be honest with you, I’m actually surprised that I have to break it down this way. I would have thought you to be a little more intelligent.
You ask how if a marriage is not a contract between only a man and a woman then why can’t also be between a man and a dog. I answered that same-sex marriage is between two consulting adults. This is two adult people who have discussed their relationship with each other and want to make plans to spend the rest of their lives together. You can’t have this situation with a dog. Your dog will not give an understandable reply if you ask it for its paw in marriage. And if you do understand what your dog is saying, then you should seek professional help.
Civil unions are shit. They’re a farce. They mean nothing. It is not really legally recognized by the government, state nor federal, and therefore, does not protect the two people in the union as it does with marriage.
So, homosexuals should find another word different from “marriage” because its been around a long, long time? Specifically for heterosexuals? Hmmm. Are any other words that are to be used strictly for heterosexuals? “Earth” has been around a long time. Maybe gays should stop using that word. Or “humans”? That’s been around for awhile too? Seriously, though, who the hell are you or anyone else to tell a group of human beings who are taxing-paying citizens of the United States that they can not have the same rights as others! Sub groups and special interests are subordinate? Really? It doesn’t sound like you just have a problem with gay people. Sounds like you have a problem with anyone who is different from you. No one, and I mean NO ONE is less important than the next in this country. Like you said, there are men, women, races, creed, proclivities, hair colors, religions, etc. But they are not sub-groups. They are not special interests. And they are most definitely not subordinate. They are American and ALL AMERICANS ARE EQUAL and have the same rights as everyone else!!!
How can you call yourself a libertarian if you do not support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or is that only just for you?
And now for the egg on my face…I have misused a word. When I have said “consulting” adults, I meant to say “consenting” adults. Sorry.
No. The argument was: Marriage has a definition and a meaning. A minority wants to change that definition. The group that gays are trying to join, reject the premise. I asked you to justify the definition change and the consequences of doing so. You didn’t. Wanting isn’t a sound justification. It isn’t rights that you want, because the rights could be honored. Your cause is a phony one.
The reason that folks like me don’t support your position, is because all you are trying to do is normalize gayness by “joining the club”. The club members, reject your premise. The don’t reject your gayness, they reject your trying to make them a part and parcel of a new group.
Again, gays should find their own word, leave folks alone.
I demand that everyone be allowed to become “African American” to enjoy affirmative action benefits… by virtue of all humanity originating in Africa.
I demand that everyone be allowed to become “Blind” to enjoy ADA benefits… by virtue of all humanity being unable to see in the dark.
I demand that everyone be allowed to become “Handicapped” to enjoy special parking privileges… by virtue of all humanity having some type of genetic defect.
I demand that everyone be allowed to become “Immigrated” to enjoy special social security privileges… by virtue of all humanity having different origins.
etc., etc., etc.
Christopher, when I have time, I’d like to respond and show you where I think you’re mistaken, but for now, I will state that marriage is a civil rights issue, and that Scott Brown voted not once, but twice to revoke people’s civil rights in Massachussets after they had already been recognized. Like I said in my original post, I tend to take that rather personally.
Thank you Matt. I look forward to seeing your argument.
Thanks for all of your responses, Christopher, because you admitted why you are against gay marriage.
You said “The reason that folks like me don’t support your position, is because all you are trying to do is normalize gayness by “joining the club”. The club members, reject your premise. The don’t reject your gayness, they reject your trying to make them a part and parcel of a new group.” You are wrong for a couple reasons.
Homosexuality is normal. Just because it is different does not mean it is not normal. Regardless of all the brainwashing you’ve experienced, it is NOT A CHOICE!
I don’t understand this fear of “joining the club”. No one is asking for other to be gay. There are no membership applications nor club meetings. Same-sex marriage does not, in any way, shape or form, effect other marriages. Let’s say there is a married heterosexual couple and next door lives a married homosexual couple. So, what happens? Nothing. There are two couples that live next door to each other. That’s all. I don’t understand this “fear”. It’s coming across like a child afraid of the boogie man. This “fear” you guys have is nothing more than a lack of understanding something that is different from you.
Based on your other posts, are you really that angry at those who are less fortunate than you? I find it amazing that you are annoyed that blind and handicapped people exist and therefore get benefits to help them through life. Wow. Really petty, man. Really petty.
you can lead horse to water but you can’t make them think.
So you’ll just stand in the dessert of ignorance. Very sad.
Obviously, one can’t reason with a donkey either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l693NzVcPyg
The donkey video is funny. But not relevant. Let’s do it this way: state the premise for your argument. I’ll make a counterpoint, then you can respond. Just remember, I recommend we only tackle your premise. If concise, doing so can be accomplished in 1 or 2 sentences, as will my counterpoint.
No, I’m done. And apparently, you are too. Anyone who replies with “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them think.” is clearly not interested in being educated. You want to remain an ignorant child. Have fun in your small-minded world,
uh, ok…thank you for your pithy commentary.
Christopher, thanks for waiting… I’ll respond point by point for now:
In your initial rebuttal, you said, “Because someone doesn’t support gay ‘Marriage” does not make them anti-gay. It makes them anti-gay marriage. Scott Brown did support civil unions.”
To this, I say, there is a difference between saying you don’t agree with same-sex marriage, and voting twice to enshrine it in a state constitution. Civil unions are simply not a workable alternative, as it creates two different sets of laws which do the same thing, but which are regarded and enforced unequally. Separate but equal doesn’t work. You can say it’s affirmative action for cocksuckers, but you’re mistaken. Affirmative action was using the force of law to mandate that a business hire a certain percentage of minorities to foment diversity, sometimes at the expense of hiring white prospects with better qualifications. Same-sex couples are simply asking for the same legal standing that heterosexuals have. No heterosexual couple needs to be bumped from the institution of marriage to make room for a gay or lesbian couple.
You then said: “I don’t support term limits, does that make me anti-democratic? I don’t support state sponsored public schooling, does that make me anti-education? No, it does not, in either case.”
Of course, not having term limits or even public education doesn’t strip anyone of their civil rights (although education is considered a right, the way it’s treated is more like an obligation, it’s compulsory).
Continuing, you state: “The gay marriage issue is a shameful one. A control drama using guilt to apply force. If a group of people want to create their own tradition and institutions, then they should be unencumbered as they do so. Likewise, those who hold dear their institutions should not be forced to include anyone that they believe is disqualified by their terms.”
If that’s how you feel, then you should support the government getting out of the marriage business entirely. However, as long as marriage remains a state-sanctioned institution, no rational basis exists to deny same-sex couples the right to have them recognized. If I marry my partner, Christopher, it doesn’t mean that the Catholic couple down the street has to like it or accept it. If my sister marries a bum, I don’t have to like or accept that either, but as long as we’re all consenting adults and we enter into a marriage of our own free will, it should be just as valid and binding no matter what the gender of the participants.
Now you go into hyperbole overdrive: “Should a man should be able to “marry” three men? How about 3, 16 year old girls? A dog?. A tree? Why not, or why?”
1. Three wives? Hey, good luck. If you can support them, go for it. It’s not my business, as long as they are consenting adults.
2. Three sixteen year old girls? Depends on the state but no, I would say they have to be of legal age of adulthood. 18 to sign contracts.
3. A dog? No. Dogs cannot give consent or sign a contract. Same with a tree.
Moving on, “Personally, I couldn’t care less. However, marriage is an important institution to my neighbors, therefore I respect their right to it.”
As long as your neighbors aren’t gay or lesbian couples looking to marry?
Back to the point: “The argument was: Marriage has a definition and a meaning. A minority wants to change that definition. The group that gays are trying to join, reject the premise. I asked you to justify the definition change and the consequences of doing so. You didn’t. Wanting isn’t a sound justification. It isn’t rights that you want, because the rights could be honored. Your cause is a phony one.”
This is more than just the definition of a word at stake here. There are thousands of benefits and rights and responsibilities that are conferred upon married couples that same-sex couples are excluded from. Civil unions do not come close, because they are A. Not federally recognized, B. Different from state to state, and C. Not respected in the states they are valid in. Furthermore, in situations where a same-sex couple is in a civil union and an emergency arises, they may have to explain and justify to someone else what a civil union is rather than just say that their husband or wife was in that wrecked car and I want to know if they’re OK, what hospital they’re in, and so on. Janice Langbehn lost her partner to a stroke in Florida, and the whole time her partner lay dying, the hospital would not allow Langbehn to be by her side despite being registered domestic partners AND having a valid medical power of attorney from the state they lived in. Flordia… the same state where marriage law is so strong that Terry Schiavo’s parents could not get her husband Michael’s spousal rights terminated even though it meant that Terri was going to die. If that was a man and woman on vacation and one of them had a stroke, there would be no issue of barring the spouse from seeing the other. Separate is not equal.
“all you are trying to do is normalize gayness by “joining the club”. The club members, reject your premise. The don’t reject your gayness, they reject your trying to make them a part and parcel of a new group.”
Tough. As long as one group has standing and status in law, that cannot be withheld from everyone unless there’s a compelling state interest in doing so.
“gays should find their own word, leave folks alone.”
Those folks should stop exalting their marriages in law, and get government out if that’s what they want. If they’re not willing to do that then they have to open the door to gay couples because to not do so violates our right to equal protection under the law.