Why the Maine people's veto attempt on gay marriage will fail

[Kulindahr]

All I can say is this when S. Africa gets same sex unions before the States it is something for grave concern. I am very happy for them, and I am extremely worried for us. Yes, my way doesn't have a lot of victories, but in the States at least the "marriage" crowd doesn't either. They have challenges in every state on this very issue. Brazil was rather ingenious. "Stable Civil Union", but hey they did it so it can't possibly be right for the United States.

Part of our problem is that we've sliced the country into special interest groups, and no one grasps that the American Dream isn't supposed to be about getting stuff for one's self or group, but for increasing liberty for all. South Africa, being a little closer in time to the knocking down of special interests in power, is more flexible than we are with a couple of centuries of vested interests built up into a system that is more interested in perpetuating itself than in doing its job.

Thomas Jefferson was quite right when he said that a revolution every twenty-five years would be a good things. I'd love to see a libertarian revolution happen, and throw out all the laws governing what consenting adults can do among themselves, along with enshrining things like freedom of association, the right to privacy, the right to self defense, exclusion of religiously-motivated laws, and such things, along with reaffirming that the existing items in the Bill of Rights pertain to individuals and are to be interpreted in the way most favorable to the liberty of individuals.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah and Ben Franklin said that a republic is a fine form of government if you can keep it... I think what he alludes too is the problems we are seeing now... Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry has spent 3/4 of a billion to prevent health care reform that was as of 6 weeks ago, I am sure now it is well over a billion. The anti marriage crowd has spend untold amounts of money, time, and resources that cannot be traced because of loop holes... And it is a contradiction of the worst kind to what Jesus actually taught. Of all that money spent on just this one issue how many teaching hospitals, schools, people could they have feed, out houses they could have built, or whatever in the United States or the greater world. WWJD? I very much doubt this.

It will happen, and the road is a long one, and we are seeing just maybe their extinction burst on this issue... but with any extinction burst it has to get really ugly, before change takes place...

Right here is why corporations should not be allowed to donate to political causes, or even comment on them: they don't care about liberty, but only about profit.

Where did they get those collars they've spent on this? From customers. Did they tell the customers up front that they intend to keep health care costs high? Did any of us spend our money in order to have them used to keep health care costs high? Does every last stockholder support keeping health care costs high?


The money spent on the health care issue could have built two new medical schools.

 

[Zingerific]

Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry has spent 3/4 of a billion to prevent health care reform that was as of 6 weeks ago, I am sure now it is well over a billion.

Yeah, when the economy turns around, they'll claim it was their massive spending that did the trick.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is no way you would be able to prove that it didn't

But of course it couldn't possibly be if you are a conservative or Republican.

At least it was actually spent to DO something for PEOPLE, rather than bail out banks "too big to fail".
You know what you're supposed to do with banks that are "too big to fail"? Bust them into smaller banks so there aren't any that are too big to fail.

 

[Zingerific]

You know what you're supposed to do with banks that are "too big to fail"? Bust them into smaller banks so there aren't any that are too big to fail.

I thought you were to much of a libertarian to go for old-fashioned, TR style trust-busting, Kulindahr.

 

[NickCole]

Yeah, when the economy turns around, they'll claim it was their massive spending that did the trick.

Our economy will not turn around. Obama's policies are not setting our economy in a healthy direction. In fact Obama's policies are making it worse and in a few years, more or less, it will come crashing down again. But this time it'll crash harder and our government's resources to deal with it will be severely diminished from what Obama had to work with.

 

[Kulindahr]

I thought you were to much of a libertarian to go for old-fashioned, TR style trust-busting, Kulindahr.

Such banks have only been able to thrive because the government has aided and abetted their massive growth and size. Besides that, such massive institutions are a danger to liberty.

Personally, I'd just let them fail. But the traditional approach, what the phrase "too big to fail" meant, was that when they get that big, you trim them -- because when something that's too big to [allow to] fail does fail, it takes a lot down with it. The phrase was never meant to allow giant institutions to suck the lifeblood of the country through corporate welfare.

 

[Zingerific]

This referendum could make or break the momentum for gay marriage rights

I appreciate your enthusiasm, JockBoy87, but I think this rhetoric is a bit overheated. Nothing will be made nor broken -- especially since Maine isn't the only state with something on the ballot, and marriage isn't the only issue.

 

[Kulindahr]

The loop holes of all loopholes who knows just what they are exactly doing or how much they have exactly spent. Especially that Catholic Church are we honestly sure that money came from the United States or how much of it was pooled in from overseas.

Heh -- the wealth of the Roman Catholic church flows from this country to the Vatican, not the other way around.

The great news is that an ever increasing number of people both gay and straight are calling to end the tax exempt status of the political action committees that do it for Jesus, G-D, or whatever person that is found in the really old books. When are they going to start looking into these churches that are such great pros at sending a message of hate like they would a Muslim one. ....

One part of Pumpkin's solution to shore up some of the wholes in the budget is to tax the Church's that are acting like Political Action Committees rather than churches. If it is currently legal then it seems that is goes against the Constitution.

To do that you'd have to tax all PACs, and that gets into free speech issues. It would be much simpler to take Kulindahr's approach: if it can't walk into a booth and vote, it can't donate.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ I can already see the right wingers dismissing Maine as "practically part of Canada" or some such if there's a victory.

Though when I look at this, I don't see a victory for me in it, even if it's a massive win.

 

[Kulindahr]

States aren't in bubbles you know. Most don't enact progressive laws unless someone else does it first. Lawmakers are reluctant to be radical. When you see a majority of voters go one way in a state, it's a huge encouragement boost for every other state in the nation, and then some. We are seeing a massive paradigm shift and every single victory counts for everyone else's rights. I have given $50 I could barely afford to this campaign because one day it will significantly help Maryland move in the same direction. Though I could get married in Connecticut, and move to Israel and have my relationship recognized. But I consider myself to be a patriotic American.

It still won't be a win for me; in fact it will more likely be a step backward.

But such is life.

 

[Zingerific]

I'd also appreciate if you wouldn't pour water over my fire.

Are you seriously suggesting that I shouldn't voice my views because it could dampen your enthusiasm? What kind of fair-weather activist are you? If you're serious about getting people to help, you've got a funny way of going about it. That's the sort of crap that's liable to make people pick up their marbles and go home.

 

[Kulindahr]

Pat Buchanan said the exact same thing on Fox the other day.

Well, Pat says it from the point of view of having what he wants and not wanting to extend it to others. I say it from the point of view of watching people duke it out and knowing that whichever side wins here... I don't.

 

[Zingerific]

pro-gay claims

Your claim is that Maine is make or break. Mine is that it's not. We have different views on the ramifications of the Maine result; there is absolutely nothing "pro-gay" or "anti-gay" about either claim.

It's pessimistic naysayers like you who slow down progress.

In what way have I said "nay?" I've only said that losing Maine is not the end of the world -- especially if the loss is mitigated by a victory in Washington. I have not said that Maine is unimportant; I have not said that no one should send money; I have not said that Maine is a waste of time. I have not said anything that would qualify me as a so-called "naysayer."

In fact, here's an argument for you: putting all your eggs in the Maine basket is irresponsible. If there is an unfavorable outcome in Maine, the dire consequences you predict are more likely due to your overheated rhetoric.

 

[Kulindahr]

Gay marriage is not a step backward for you Kulindahr, and I consider that comment to be a heinous insult. I hear those words from the likes of Pat Buchanan, Wendy Wright, Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, and others, we don't need to hear it from you.

So you think that gays getting in as a special interest group will actually help the cause of freedom for all?

That's about as likely as all blacks realizing they didn't finish the job with MLK, and turning out in droves to support gay issues. The truth of the matter is that once an interest group has what it wants, it's very few of them who ever bother to fight for the freedoms of anyone else.

That's why I've said all along that fighting for "gay marriage" is fighting against liberty for all.

 

[Zingerific]

You completely trashed my arguments

I did? Here's what I said:

I appreciate your enthusiasm, JockBoy87, but I think this rhetoric is a bit overheated. Nothing will be made nor broken -- especially since Maine isn't the only state with something on the ballot, and marriage isn't the only issue.

That's trashing your arguments? I never disagreed with your arguments; I took issue with your tone. I even complimented you on your zeal, for heaven's sake! If you think that's trashing, maybe you're a bit too thin-skinned for politics.

It was the last thing that those gay people in Maine needed

What? I shared my view on the ramifications of the Maine result. I doubt the people of Maine actually care about what I think, but if they do, I think they'd like my candor, and that I didn't tailor my comments based on what I think they needed to hear.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is just sick. Do you yourself even know what you're talking about?

Getting these equal rights to marriage does not hurt you in any way, shape, or form. If you are referring to polygamy, which is a shame to everyone who tries to commit to one person, it sure as hell won't happen until gay marriage becomes law first.

Yes, I know what I'm talking about -- it was explained in my post.

The whole "gay marriage" campaign is one of fighting as a special interest to get in on the privileges the government is bestowing on certain people in a discriminatory structure. The way to freedom lies not in adding more layers to the law, but to stripping them off and specifying what ALL the people may do, and what the government MUST do.

Freedom comes from reducing government's reach, not by extending it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Getting these equal rights to marriage does not hurt you in any way, shape, or form. If you are referring to polygamy, which is a shame to everyone who tries to commit to one person, it sure as hell won't happen until gay marriage becomes law first.

Why would other people freely choosing their own form of association be shame for anyone at all? That's the argument the religious right uses: that allowing gays to marry would hurt marriage. It's an argument from the belief that "my way is better", a belief that opposes freedom.

 

[Wtrain]

Yes, I know what I'm talking about -- it was explained in my post.

The whole "gay marriage" campaign is one of fighting as a special interest to get in on the privileges the government is bestowing on certain people in a discriminatory structure. The way to freedom lies not in adding more layers to the law, but to stripping them off and specifying what ALL the people may do, and what the government MUST do.

Freedom comes from reducing government's reach, not by extending it.

Do you honestly think that this has even a remote chance of happening?.... be honest

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you honestly think that this has even a remote chance of happening?.... be honest

Not really, because the American mindset has been twisted away from grasping that freedom means keeping the government out of the way, into believing that freedom is something the government serves up to you -- as exemplified by this:

Nice little theory, but, unfortunately wrong.

We have been taught, over the last couple of generations, to see America as a mass of competing interests, and we think in terms of getting stuff for our interest without even realizing it. America was founded on the concept that the way to freedom is to remove the restraints government has imposed, not to pile up new ones. The former position recognizes that all authority stems from sovereign individuals; the latter takes for granted that government is the source of everything. The truly American approach would be to tear down the walls that make some privileged, i.e. to eliminate all definition granting special privileges to some forms of relationships over others; that recognizes that rights are something we have, that government inhibits the exercise of by throwing up roadblocks. The "gay marriage" approach assumes that the government is legitimate in throwing up roadblocks, and seeks not to tear them down, but modify them in favor of getting their privileges, too -- and that just drives another nail into the ultimate roadblock to liberty, namely the notion that we have to go begging for our rights.

We should be getting government out of the privileged relationship business, by making it so that people define their relationships and inform the government, not having government say, "Have a relationship like thus-and-such, and you get goodies". Not race, not gender, not number should matter, only that the people involved have committed themselves to each other.