tvashtarkatena

I believe that's 'jukin', not 'diddling'.

1. Taking meth 2. Patronizing gay prostitutes 3. Diddling teenagers 4. Accepting bribes 5. Assaulting mistresses 6. Fixing contracts 7. Lying to the whole world Nope. Can't find 'em.

I think the nation might be less polarized than it has been in the past six years. There is finally a broad agreement on Iraq (that it was a bad idea, at least). A growing consensus on global warming. A broad dissatisfaction with political corruption. Widespread worries about globalization. Dissatisfaction with health care. There also seem to be more many independent voters now than before. We now have an opportunity. Now all we have to do is not blow it.

One can be idealistic and realistic. In rebuttal to KKubed's brand of across-the-board cynicism, they are not mutually exclusive. I would argue that it's a necessary condition for progress.

True. We atheists will welcome you with open arms.

The initiative process resembles a form of simplistic parlor politics that goes something like "if I were king for a day I'd..." Affected constituencies are not consulted, unintended consequences are not considered, and legal ramifications are ignored. These are all considerations that legislators must consider under public pressure. Big difference in outcome. We've just witnessed over the past six years what happens when the executive branch puts into affect a similarly insular and ill thought out agenda. How about an initiative to ban initiatives?

Agreed. There should be investigation, accountability, and reform. We need to keep the Dems from pulling the same type of crap as the GOP.

The hitch comes when they differ in their interpretation of the bible or do not believe in the bible at all.

I agree with all of this. The initiative process seems to be a form of uninformed, special interest democracy. Are there any states that do not have an initiative process?

The source of morality is arguable based on religious/non-religious beliefs. One thing I think we can all agree on is that internalizing a moral code and acting on it, regardless of the source of that code, is clearly man's choice.

I can't believe you have to gall to assault my painstakingly and lovingly constructed hatred of christianity. But seriously, the conversation is a bit richer when fewer 'fucktard's, 'asshat's, 'just like a damn liberal's, 'far right wingnut's are issued. Compare this discussion to the national political discussion on the same issue and weep. A certain good natured 'frankness' does provide some spice, though.

A moron weighs in with yet another unsupported sound bite.

thanks ...but maybe not as unique as you think. I know many, from yuppie Seattle liberals to a 72-year old rural Baptist minister's wife. they're out there. Praise the Lord....

I've violently agreed with you on this point so many times I've lost count. No, it would be more accurate for me to state my positions in exactly the way I've already stated them. Your failure to properly comprehend those statements is none of my concern.

After what I've been called so far, I'd consider "biatch" a term of endearment.

Better, perhaps, but not at all realistic.

If you laid off the post-modern language generator a bit, perhaps you wouldn't so readily confuse yourself. As I've clearly stated in a non post-modern fashion, I am not of the opinion you've outlined above at all. If the KKK, or any other group came out if favor of gay marriage, I would support that endorsement for the same reasons I support my own; it is in accord with the equal protection clause. I object to arguments against gay marriage, regardless of the proponent, because they violate the equal protection clause. I object to anti-gay marriage initiatives by many religious groups because they explicitly use biblical references to support their position. 'Ergo' they are proposing to violate the equal protection clause based on purely religious beliefs...a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

My wife and I are going to do our part by replacing the terms "my husband" and "my wife" with "the biatch".

Sideshow issue. No one here actually believes that the term 'marriage' is going to be purged from the lexicon, legal or otherwise. Perhaps we should discuss polygamy now.

What is group B's 'explicitly secular moral framework', exactly?

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush lied to take us into war. But... First, if you look at the history of nations after a period of strife, it seems that the way to reconciliation is through amnesty. South Africa is a classic example. Nicaragua today, with Ortega having a Contra running mate, may turn out to be another. Second, the Clinton era proved that impeachment proceedings can backfire politically on the proponents. The voters have clearly indicated that the last thing they want is another political sideshow when there are so many pressing problems facing the country. They are sick of heavy-handed partisanship that the GOP has engaged in. Impeachment would be both. Does Bush deserve impeachment? Absolutely. Should the Democrats try to impeach him? No.

That is a religious, not scientific conclusion. What we know scientifically to date is inconclusive, but certainly indicates that homosexuality has a significant genetic component, and thus is very analogous to race.

Agreed, but so far the arguments against public policy tolerant of homosexuality put forth by the religious right have been supported by their proponents quite directly by biblical, unambiguously religious references. Big difference. There are many basic moral tenets, that against murder, for example, that may have come into being during pre-history, long before the establishment of religion. It's not hard to imagine that, from the standpoint of natural selection, such morality was a good idea for survival, then later incorporated into various religions later on. Is the prohibition against murder religiously based or not? Both? Hard to say. What can be said is that it's healthy for society to codify this particular prohibition. I would argue that the prohibition against gay marriage is not healthy for society because it violates one of our most basic legal and moral principles; that of equal protection. Condoning it not only denies the right to pursue happinesss that the rest of us enjoy; it also diminishes the rest of us because we allow it to continue. IMHO, of course.

Don't confuse serious debate with irreverent humor, even if the latter is not to your particular taste. My signature does not preclude me from engaging in the former.

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The "separation of church and state" you refer to is Jefferson's position that there should not be neither state sanctioned religion nor restrictions on its practice. At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making. The constitution also guarantees equal protection under the law. I interpret this to mean that the right of secular marriage should be extended to all people, including gays. That is probably a more specific point of argument than where the morality embodied in our laws (including this one) comes from. The sources of that morality are historical, complex, and, if you go far enough back in time, probably unknowable.