David Tyree is a moron

[Dexter Morgan]

Just delaying the inevitable. Whether you like it or not, the legalization of gay marriage is going to happen in this country. Ask anymore under 35. They don't understand this issue.

Exactly.

Where I say the majority of Americans will be eventually, they are already there. The only question is how many gay couples will have to be denied their rights until the power structure catches up with the people.

They may be able to slow it down, they may be able to put some obstacles in front of it, but that train is coming, and they can't stop it.

20 years from now, probably less, kids will look back just like we do when it comes to Jim Crow in the 50's and 60's. As an American I'm ashamed of my fellow Americans during that time, same will be said about today's civil rights fight.

[infrared41]

Wow Tyree is serious about this

Tyree would trade The Catch to block same-sex marriage

Ive let my feeling be known about this subject but either way to give up the one thing that makes you famous is a tad bit odd.

Just... wow. Does he even realize that without that catch, nobody would even listen to his opinion, or know he exists for that matter?

Even with "the catch", I'm still trying to figure out why people are listening to him.

[thespleenenator]

I still think the notion of a party split is severely overblown. Blacks are reportedly less in favor of marriage equality, but what are they going to do? Stay at home, and let the sometimes-openly racist wing of the Republican Party clean up? Same with Hispanics - if the GOP base wasn't so dead-set against immigration reform, if Hispanics hadn't become a scapegoat for everything from rising crime rates to the Arizona wildfires (seriously, John?), then they might be willing to defect or at least not vote.

But the GOP has caught teh crazy, and that tends to motivate the opposing party's voters even if they don't their own entire platform.

Plus, I would argue that all civil rights have been advanced by coalitions, often loose or possibly fragile ones. Think LBJ, an unlikely proponent of civil rights.

Because the majority of blacks and hispanics (especially hispanics) are Christian. For them, it's a religious issue, not a civil rights issue.

[Dexter Morgan]

Because the majority of blacks and hispanics (especially hispanics) are Christian. For them, it's a religious issue, not a civil rights issue.

This infuriates me like nothing else. When a black man wanted to marry a white women, what if they were told no, because we don't see it as a civil rights issue, we see is a preserving our culture issue.

HYPOCRISY. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

..and people wonder why some are hostile towards religion.

[Gothamite]

I still don't see this one issue as being so important to blacks and Hispanics, even Christian ones, to drive them from the Democratic Party to a party that is at times openly racist and hostile to them.

[IceCap]

Well, white catholics are liberal..but are Hispanic Catholics? [EDIT...ooops Gothamite already chimed in. I meant as it pertains to gay marriage are they liberal? But you're right..the alternative seems worse politically.]Many African Americans also vehemently oppose gay marriage (or so it would seem...open to being proven wrong).

Democrats like always are playing a waiting game. For either a second term, an economic rebound or for a disasterous overstep by Republicans to galvanize and pounce upon...like Scott Walker but on the marriage issue.

I find the waiting game to advantageous when you're in a position where you have to compromise with the opposition. The Dems playing the waiting game from 2008-2010, however, is inexcusable. They had both houses of Congress, a super majority in the Senate up until Ted Kennedy dropped dead, and the Presidency. They could have pushed for greater healthcare reform. They could have pushed for civil rights for homosexuals. They had the political momentum and they had the votes in Congress to push for real change. They didn't though. They tried to compromise with the Republicans when they didn't have to, and the GOP used that good will to stall until the Dems lost their super majority in the Senate. They had a chance to push for real change, and they dropped the ball. If Obama loses in his bid for re-election it's because he and the Dems decided to cool their heels and play the waiting game when they had the means to push the platform they had been elected on.

_Cap...glad we're square. (Yay! We're still pals!!) It's funny what you say about discussing and how it can turn into a quote-fest just repeating other people's pigeon-holed points. I agree. But I also sometimes feel pressure to cite sources so as to validate or avoid being later called on appropriating others thoughts as my own. It's tough either way.

I hear ya. I'm just in a "slippery slope" mindset at the moment (damn it Tyree!) and I don't want to see things devolve into us listing off talking points of other people.

I only even referenced Hitch cause that comment about Nazi Germany was like, LITERALLY out of 'God is not Great'...and I wanted to be specific since I'm not a historian. Otherwise I would have been unlikely to reference him at all. But you are also right in that these folks can help codify and shape our opinions; or at least give us their better words to use in a pinch. Specifically for me the term Anti-theist. Atheist to many is a dirty word in this culture. Seriously. The faithful might feel under attack by *us but in reality it's a pathetic minority at least where polling is concerned. But by my understanding of the definition an atheist is still open to the "hope" or "wish" that there might indeed by a G-d. And I don't MEAN to sidetrack (but I'm gonna) this is an important distinction to me. Far be it for me to define other people's beliefs but I think using that definition you could almost call 3/4 of all self-described believers atheists if you were so inclined. Cause many people admit having doubts. Most of my friends (when I have the courage to discuss it) bring them up willingly..how the scriptures really don't make any sense and aren't applicable. But these people (my friends I mean) seem unwilling or unable to break the last thread of hope that it is all true afterall. And it wasn't until I read Hitch that I was finally free of that "need"...whatever it is...the parent factor or greater purpose factor or....cosmic playbook if you will. To refuse the notion that you would even WANT a G-d if given the choice...to be an Anti-Theist and reject the premise outright on its face. Well, that is a weight off lemme tell ya. And I do owe that all to Hitchens...not as an indoctrination or a quote verbatim; but just as in a stirring of debate within myself. >>> "If my truest self is how I act when no one is watching...how am I ever to know the true measure of myself if this construct tells me someone is ALWAYS watching?" Talk about hedges...under this understanding God is a curfew you assign yourself and then curse when you miss it. To wish for a G-d is to wish that someone somewhere will guide you to make the proper decisions when your parents, friends, and mentors are not there. It's terrifying but liberating to think about it the other way; to know that the sum of who you are is nothing but the sum of how you treated those around you. Terrifying but very simple too. [EDIT - It's like this..if you believe someone IS always watching (G-d) how can you ever be a purely good person? Seems the best you could achieve is being called 'Obedient' which doesn't past muster for me any longer. I'll be judged (by only my peers I suspect) but by whomever on my own merits. And if I'm wrong? If that happens to be a diety doing the judging? Then I'd have to face what I did or didn't do on my own. If you think about it, it's almost the Yin to the Pascal Wager Yang. Only I get to make my own rules. ]But I digress....that's just where I'm at. And I won't bother you fine folks with it any more tonight. - PS I want it on record I'm willing to give up having ever done the Moose logo if only we had marriage equality in this great land. What? St. Johns doesn't wanna use it!?!?! There goes my leverage. Back to the drawing board.

I don't see atheist as a dirty word at all. If you don't believe in G-d, if the believe that there is no divine power is what makes the most sense to you, then you're an atheist. It's no more a dirty label then Christian is to describe someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of G-d. It's just an appropriate label.

My understanding has been that "atheist" refers to someone who ultimately doesn't believe G-d exists. Agnostic is the term applied to someone who claims not to know, someone who accepts that all points of view might be valid because there's no way to know who's right. So if you believe that there might be a divine entity but you're not sure you're an agnostic, if you reject the divine then you're an atheist.

Anti-theist as a term is one I find redundant, though I see why it's come about. Unfortunately atheist has become a dirty word, so you need something else. I guess that's the evolution of language for you. It's hard for me to say what my mindset would be if I held a belief system different from the one I do hold, but I would like to think that if I were an atheist I'd just say "I'm an atheist."

I donno. Hopefully we'll all reach the point where we all recognize faith, or lack of faith, is a personal matter, and labels to describe one's convictions won't be seen as dirty.

And I see where you're coming from with Hitchens. I felt the same way reading Edmund Burke, Thomas Hobbes, and Alexander Hamilton. These men and their works aren't crutches for us, but rather they help us expand on our own understanding of the world and the universe. And though Hitchens can induce a state in which I'm prone to harming infants, I would group him with the classic great thinkers.

As for how good can you be if G-d is always watching, well I would refer you to my grade 6 Judaic Studies teacher (G-d I hated Sunday school). She told us that G-d loves the person who gives to charity, doesn't lie, and doesn't steal but doesn't follow every law in the Torah more then He loves the person who follows all the rituals but steals, lies, and is greedy. I've expanded that idea as my own belief system as evolved, but fundamentally that's the basis of the answer I would give to your question on obedience.

I try to live a good life. I don't steal, I'm honest, I treat my neighbour as I would like to be treated, all of that good stuff. I trust that me being an all around good person will mean more to G-d then the fact that I have a weakness for prawns and Philly cheese steak pizzas and thus have violated Kosher dietary laws.

[crashcarson15]

Because the majority of blacks and hispanics (especially hispanics) are Christian. For them, it's a religious issue, not a civil rights issue.

And the majority of white people are Christian. Your point?

[Gothamite]

It's a non-sequitur. Implies that Christians and Christian churches can't be in favor marriage equality, which is absurd on its face.

Ice_Cap, I couldn't agree more with you about a wasted opportunity. Speaks to a fundamental difference between the two parties at the moment - Democrats can win handily and then look to compromise with Republicans. Republicans win a squeaker, claim a mandate, and ram through legislation.

It's because at this moment the Democrats are the party of the middle, and Republicans are the party of their fringe.

[Lights Out]

The Democrats are the party of the middle? Really? Please explain, then, why wackjobs like Pelosi and Reid get a ton of media love while the "Blue Dog" Democrats are ignored.

Just because you identify with one party doesn't mean that party is somehow more enlightened than other parties.

[Gothamite]

The Democrats are the party of the middle? Really? Please explain, then, why wackjobs like Pelosi and Reid get a ton of media love while the "Blue Dog" Democrats are ignored.

Just because you identify with one party doesn't mean that party is somehow more enlightened than other parties.

I never said that I identify with the party, or that they are more enlightened (actually, I said just about the opposite upthread when it was first raised that they could have enacted marriage equality years ago).

But at the moment (and please note that qualifier), the GOP is in thrall to the hard-line Tea Partiers, who are very much on the fringes of American politics. There's a real need for ideological purity coming from the base, as seen in the vitriol they lob at Mitt Romney. Entertainers like Rush Limbaugh run the GOP in ways that Michael Moore could only dream of running the Democrats.

There have been many times when the Democrats have been run by the left fringe, but this isn't one of those times. The Democrats decided years ago to move to the center, pull in as many of the middle as possible, as a path to victory.

No value judgments here, just saying. This is the way it is right now, but could very well change in a couple years.

[Lights Out]

I don't see the DNC going towards the center one iota. Unfortunately, many Democrats have abandoned their Bush-era concerns for civil liberties (remember that?) in favor of more nanny-state liberalism and big, bloated government.

Granted, as a conservative, I loathe the GOP as well. Stupidity is apparently celebrated, and intrusive big government policies and nation-building have been accepted by far too many so-called conservatives, while they preach small-government values in their speeches. Meanwhile, actual conservatives such as Ron Paul are written off as "radical" and "unelectable".

This discussion might be better suited for Obama Nation, but I figured I'd say my piece.

[Gothamite]

Fair enough, but I think you and I are closer than we think.

The Dems have adopted neocon foreign policies. Much of the health care bill came out of conservative think tanks (lefties hate it for its halfway measures). On the other side, Republicans are going harder to the right than ever. Just watch Huntsman get shredded by the GOP base for being insufficiently pure.

[illwauk]

The Democrats are the party of the middle? Really? Please explain, then, why wackjobs like Pelosi and Reid get a ton of media love while the "Blue Dog" Democrats are ignored.

Huh? I couldn't even tell you the last time I heard Pelosi's name mentioned in a positive light or Reid's name mentioned at all.

[IceCap]

Ice_Cap, I couldn't agree more with you about a wasted opportunity. Speaks to a fundamental difference between the two parties at the moment - Democrats can win handily and then look to compromise with Republicans. Republicans win a squeaker, claim a mandate, and ram through legislation.

It's because at this moment the Democrats are the party of the middle, and Republicans are the party of their fringe.

I remember, after the Democrats won both Houses of Congress in 2006, some Democratic Party leader said "we can't use the power of the purse to reign in Bush on the Iraqi War." It's one of the few times I've gotten legitimately angry at something said on television. I get trying to appeal to the middle, and with the GOP taking the train to crazy down the appeal is there to try and and win over moderate conservatives, but when you state you're not going to do what people elected you to do it's enraging.

It's the same thing with 2008-2010. They had the means to do so much, and on the issue of gay rights they had the opportunity to at the very least get the ball rolling. I can't help but feel disappointed when they don't take advantage of the mandate the people have given them to enact the program they elected to enact.

[thespleenenator]

Because the majority of blacks and hispanics (especially hispanics) are Christian. For them, it's a religious issue, not a civil rights issue.

And the majority of white people are Christian. Your point?

There is a higher concentration of christians among Blacks and Hispanics, and many of them, especially blacks, tend to align with more extreme wings of the church. There are many white people who consider themselves "Christian" but don't really believe the dogma (and no Ice_Cap, I am not talking about you).

The Democrats are the party of the middle? Really? Please explain, then, why wackjobs like Pelosi and Reid get a ton of media love while the "Blue Dog" Democrats are ignored.

There is no such thing as a middle party in the United States. I'm almost an extreme liberal (at least that's what I learned in AP Government according to some weird "test") and even I can understand that. I don't think anybody who is in power got any success by being in the middle and trying to compromise. And why does everyone call Pelosi a wackjob? Reid is a wackjob because he got some. But Pelosi hasn't done anything extreme. She just had an annoying voice.

[IceCap]

Because the majority of blacks and hispanics (especially hispanics) are Christian. For them, it's a religious issue, not a civil rights issue.

And the majority of white people are Christian. Your point?

There is a higher concentration of christians among Blacks and Hispanics, and many of them, especially blacks, tend to align with more extreme wings of the church. There are many white people who consider themselves "Christian" but don't really believe the dogma (and no Ice_Cap, I am not talking about you).

If you're going to bring my name up please do so in a way that makes sense.

[thespleenenator]

Because the majority of blacks and hispanics (especially hispanics) are Christian. For them, it's a religious issue, not a civil rights issue.

And the majority of white people are Christian. Your point?

There is a higher concentration of christians among Blacks and Hispanics, and many of them, especially blacks, tend to align with more extreme wings of the church. There are many white people who consider themselves "Christian" but don't really believe the dogma (and no Ice_Cap, I am not talking about you).

If you're going to bring my name up please do so in a way that makes sense.

Wasn't there someone who called you un christian?

[IceCap]

I'm not Christian. I'm Jewish.

[thespleenenator]

I'm not Christian. I'm Jewish.

Oh... well then...Shabat Shalom?

[Sterling84]

The Democrats are the party of the middle? Really? Please explain, then, why wackjobs like Pelosi and Reid get a ton of media love while the "Blue Dog" Democrats are ignored.

Just because you identify with one party doesn't mean that party is somehow more enlightened than other parties.

Yeah. Sadly they are. When Conservatives say it's a "center-right" country they are mistaken. But in terms of our representation the they are correct. Saint Ronald Reagan himself would be a democrat today. And that's just the truth. He wanted nuclear disarmament, he never claimed tax cuts "paid for themselves" like every GOP candidate today does. He didn't want to privatize SS or defense or prisons or anything else (that I'm aware of).

In as much as we're here ranting against David Tyree's ignorance and there are dedicated volunteers and advocates all over the nation busting a** for marriage equality, there is NO...NONE....ZERO coordinated Democratic effort to do so. And it's because they (Dems) are fatalists or cowards or whatever. They don't trust the people enough to follow them into the light. When you substract out lame duck sessions, midterms and all the related campaign seasons there is really about only a few months, maybe weeks...to get anything done with momentum and that's unfortunate that they whiffed. Not that DADT wasn't huge...it was. But I suspect they're content to hope for re-election and then go for it. Fingers crossed.

But yeah, the "Liberals" are the center now. No doubt. In fact the most socially liberal person in this discussion right now...the only one advocating full 100% marriage equality i ® Ron Paul. And funny enough it's not because he is a closet liberal. No, he's the only one who kinda sorta even remembers what the conservative "hands off" movement is truly all about.