Woo-hooo! Great news!! This takes the pain away from last night's debate.
I won't be satsfied though until there's a fairly wide-spread, mildly deeply entrenched hatred of gays amongst the American population. We in real America are doing our job, but you folks on the coasts just don't know how to hate (except for when you hate us real Americans). But, fortunately, we have people like Hastert and Delay.

Who would have thought -- gay marraige a successful Republican wedge issue?

Actually, I had faint hopes that some % of Republicans would have a gut feeling that 'defense of marraige' laws fundamentally are about limiting freedom/liberty.

Yeah, and George Bush was going to be a 'uniter, not a divider'...

Dan, this hardly comes as news. Why else would people be talking about denying Kerry communion?

What some of us wonder, is why old-style Republicans aren't punishing the party for this? If the only response is to sigh and wish for better days, you will continued to be taken for chumps.

excuse me... i'm a republican and i'm not against gay marriage... i hope the next republican president is more to the center on that issue... also, keep in mind the FMA will never pass, nor does bush expect it too... and also keep in mind that the only way it ever could pass is if enough of the anti-gay bigoted DEMOCRATS in the country go along with it -- and there are plenty of them too (at least 1/2 of democrats, i belive)... and the "social" issues concerns are not only over gays, but abortion as well, and, although i am not militantly anti-abortion and i understand it is a complicated issue, i still am amazed that somehow the debate over abortion in the country has evolved to where the pro-abortion people (quit calling it pro-"choice"; if abortion is really not such a big deal it shouldn't be a problem to use the actual word) have achieved the moral high ground and those who believe it is the taking of a life are the oppressive amoral ones...

also, i am not a religious nut (as is usually assumed about most republicans, or anyone who questions abortion) -- in fact, i am not religious at all. you don't have to be religious to question the no-controls-on-demand-often-only-another-type-of-birth-control use of abortion that we currently have.

and also keep in mind that the only way it ever could pass is if enough of the anti-gay bigoted DEMOCRATS in the country go along with it -- and there are plenty of them too (at least 1/2 of democrats, i belive)

What percentage of Democratic Senators voted to bring the FMA to the floor for a vote. What percentage of Republican Senators did the same.

The level of cynicism it takes to oppose a ban on gay marriage and at the same time blame DEMOCRATS for its potential passing is breath-taking.

The level of cynicism it takes to oppose a ban on gay marriage and at the same time blame DEMOCRATS for its potential passing is breath-taking.

The so-called "libertarian" wing of the Republican Party have been handling their cognitive dissonance in this way for quite some time. They seem utterly unable to confront the truth about their party and the moral and intellectual corruption of its leadership.

There is no doubt that many Democratic voters -- especially older folks, I've noticed -- are baffled and dismayed by the concept of gay marriage, enough though they may accept homosexuals in general.

California's Gov. Hollywood, on the other hand, has quite explicitly said he couldn't care less if gay people want to marry each other, but the (generally quite liberal) voters of California decided otherwise at the polls a few years back.

When "values voters" speak about "values" they frequently mean the right to be ignorant and prejudiced and to feel good about that.

Bush appeals to these voters because he comes across as ignorant and prejudiced and feeling good about it - he comes across as one of them.

For me personally, that's the single most important reason NOT to vote for this guy - even more so than the mess in Iraq, which in many ways is just a consequence of the ignorant and prejudiced behavior this administration has been exhibiting all along.

And the biggest mystery to me is that there still are some intellectuals, like you Dan, who would even consider voting for Bush. But I guess you'll just got to keep fighting the good fight for the freedom to outsource (something that isn't really in dispute, but never mind) and leave it to others to worry about - well: freedom.

Dan,

I have an idea that since you live in an academic coccoon, you might not be aware of what ordinary people are thinking about issues. Whenever you run with a tight-knit group, as I have in the past, you tend to think that everyone thinks the same way as you do.

After looking at the red-blue state breakdown, most of the country is in the red, flyover states. There are these little islands of blue (such as the universities in the midwest), but they don't reflect life outside.

I went to a funeral at a black baptist church on Thursday, and if anything, they are more socially conservative than most people. I have wondered why they vote Democratic, except that it is socially the thing to do.

Willie, That's right the republicans only control all three branches of govt. and the media, but this is obviously the democrats fault.

Jim, if you want to talk about "real america", I suggest you and your welfare-queen bretheren in the red-states stop stealing all our blue-state money. You red-states completely leech off the blue-states to subsidize your industries that can't compete globally (i.e. farming), which in turn is probably killing millions of people in the developing world. So thats "real life" for you.
On top of it, why don't you ask yourself where the decleration of independance, most of the revolution, the mjaority of the first states, the financial sector, and the tech sector of thi scontry are located in?

Let me lastly add, that I guess I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that Dubya has wound up dividing instead of uniting the country. I guess 9/11 changed everything, and now its imperative for our security to use wedge issues to sp lit the country! No flip-flop there. Thank god for dear leader's magnificient wisdom. Who woudl have thought wedge issues would gain prominence under dear leader's attempt to unite the country?

"Values voter" is another code word, like "state's rights." Values voters are brainless bigots, pure and simple, who have been convinced to vote against their own economic interests by unscrupulous people.

But it will backfire some day. Wouldn't want to be a Republican when that happens.

There are several things going on here, I think. Here are two of them:

First, gay marriage was hardly on anyone's political radar 10 or even 5 years ago. The speed at which it has moved from an odd, offbeat concept to something demanded as a human right has been awfully fast for many people. Moreover, as with abortion 30 years ago, the fact that recognition of gay marriage has been a cause advanced primarily through the courts has contributed to its opponents' fury. Americans may sometimes let their right to decide things slide but they greatly resent someone else taking it away. If the only way gay marriages could be recognized were by individual state legislatures changing their laws the opposition to it would still be there, but it wouldn't be much of an issue in national politics.

The other change is that as the GOP has become more identified with "values" issues it has become less identified with traditional Republican economics. Social liberals had a natural bridge in the past to blacks and other minority groups -- and especially to working-class whites -- because they both favored spending most Republicans opposed and looked favorably on unions Republicans sought to weaken. Bush's blank check fiscal policy has weakened that bridge, and traditional unions represent many fewer workers than they did in the past. Moreover the Clinton administration took the Democrats away from the protectionism on trade issues that appeals to many people working in the declining manufacturing sector.

The bottom line is that there were a lot of social conservatives 30 or even 20 years ago who knew the Democrats were closer to their positions on a number of issues, even if they were more liberal on abortion. That's not as true anymore -- and many of the national Democrats who were more liberal on social issues have been replaced by Democrats who are a lot more liberal on social issues.

We tend to become sidetracked by the Gay issue always. The overwhelming center of the 'social' voters care nothing about Gay marriages. Their major concerns are moral standards, religious values, and the suppresion of what they see as explicit Sex and Violence in Movies and TV. Kerry would pick up 70% of the 'social' voters, whether or not he favored Gay marriages, if he could convince them that he had been Born-Again into the Christian faith. Bush's greatest strength is his hypocrisy of his faith. It is declared hypocrisy because no one could take even half the actions he has as President, and claim any moral relationship with any religion. I say this not being religious either. lgl

This is a big Iraq aside, but the nyt has a grea peice the case for nuclear weapons in iraq, before the war.

After looking at the red-blue state breakdown, most of the country is in the red, flyover states. There are these little islands of blue (such as the universities in the midwest), but they don't reflect life outside.

What does land area have to do with anything?

> "Values voter" is another code word, like "state's
> rights." Values voters are brainless bigots, pure
> and simple, who have been convinced to vote against
> their own economic interests by unscrupulous
> people.

Amen about the first part, sister -- but I don't think it is illogical for rednecks/white trash voters to vote "against their economic interests." At least liberal billionaires such as George Soros do that as well.

MARCU$

> Jim, if you want to talk about "real america", I
> suggest you and your welfare-queen bretheren in the
> red-states stop stealing all our blue-state money.
> You red-states completely leech off the blue-states
> to subsidize your industries

Yep. Libertarian-leaning ECONOMIST magazine did a superb little article about the great "American Heartland" myth a few years ago. According to their survey, the Blue states that voted for Gore tend to be better off and they subsidize the Red Bush states by several hundred billions per year.
---
Another infuriating thing is how biased the electoral college system is. Earlier tonight, I checked one recent poll which stated "Shrub" was leading Kerry, 303-243 EVs. That is a 25% difference, although the population difference only is ~15%! That's because each candidate receives, in effect, 1-2 "bonus" electoral votes (=the state's Senate representation) for winning a state. This means winning the Mountain states is worth far more than being numero uno in California, although the population is about the same.
---
I don't see any valid reason for this over-representation anymore. Most states tend to be fairly heterogenous anyway. The rural parts of Pennsylvania vote GOP much like the Southeastern Dixie states while Philadelphia is part of the liberal northeastern corridor.

MARCU$

i notice that as usual the "values" debate has wandered completely back to how republicans are simply religious bigots against gays... and if you are a republican who is for gay marriage (like myself) you are someone who automatically is being a hypocrite and "how can such a person reamin in such a party!?"...

answer: gay rights are not the only issue in the world - if they were, and i thought republicans were going to succeed with FMA, i would vote against them... but they will not succeed on that issue (thankfully) and there are too many other issues in which i completely disagree with democrats (there are dangerous extereme left-wing ideas out there that are as wrong as some right-wing conservative ideas). i am as against many of those ideas as i am the anti-gay people... and, again, i remind you all, regardless of what the democrats voted on in congress, a majority of democrat CITIZENS are anti-gay bigots as well... so, don't lump all repubs into the bigot category without acknowledging your own... it wouldn't be a wedge issue if they're weren't enoght citizens in both parties that felt the way they do against gays... i myself am centrist. i do not want the extreme wing of EITHER party to win out on issues... but i am more to the right-of-center than left-of-center and therefore consider myself republican...

for a party that seems so intent upon always pinting out where they see gray areas everywhere instead of blak and white, it amazes me how some of you seem so black and white that you can't acknowledge how anyone could fell the way i do and vote the way i do.

also, again, notice how the evil "values" issue has again become only a one-dimensioned discussion about the anti-gay religious-nut right-wing republicans, and we're supposed to just forget about the abortion (oh, excuse me, i mean "choice" or "family-planning") issues in question.

in the end, i think most dangerous "right-wing" ideas will not win, but everyday i see too many silly and dangerous "left-wing" or "liberal" ideas not only winning, but becoming all too "normal".

OK Chris. We know where you stand on abortion and gay marriage. I'd like to know what these other "values" are, why you think they're so great, and especially why you think Bush will advance them in a way Kerry won't.

Susan, regardless of the merits of any one individual "Values" issue, what is this bizarre idea that people should vote based on their personal "economic interests"?

I hope that when Sen. Kerry and Pres. Bush debate the question of gay marriage, they each address the central issue: How harmful is it to children, if at all, to be raised by same-sex couples versus a mother and a father. There's really nothing else to talk about. Marriage exists as a social and legal institution for the propogation of the species, because historically at least most people thought that husband-and-wife families provided the best way to provide for and raise children. The happiness of individual adults is a secondary byproduct of marriage and completely irrelevant to the public policy issues. I would be very interested to hear if either Sen. Kerry or President Bush think that same sex parents are an appropriate institution for the rearing of children. If so, then they have no basis for opposing same sex marriage and vice versa.

How harmful is it to children, if at all, to be raised by same-sex couples versus a mother and a father.

This is incomprehensibly stupid.

Same-sex couples who have children have them because either:

1. They adopted the children, or
2. The children are the offspring of one member of the couple, and that person has legal custody

So even if you think the child is better off in a conventional household - and I know of no evidence for this beyond some people's personal beliefs - the fact is that the alternative is a series of foster homes or life with the other parent - the one who wasn't given custody.

So get over it, DBL. Think about what you're saying.

What's the Matter with America?, published on 2 September by Secker & Warburg (£12)

And for those of us not living in the UK (anymore), the American title is "What's the Matter with Kansas? - How Conservatives Won the Heart of America". I guess the British publisher figured the Brits would be less interested in what's going on in Kansas than in the whole of the US. :-)

Good book, though.

There are those who had suggested that a Bush loss would have meant a move by the Republican party away from its social conservativism.

I think this indicates how unlikely that scenario is. If Bush loses, it would be taken as a repudiation of the war in Iraq, and nothing more. The next candidate would sound more like the Bush of 2000 than the Bush of 2004. Whether that's a good thing or not is the issue in this election. My view is that the way to respond to threats after 9/11--even threats that we don't fully understand--is to be aggressive. But if the people want the Kerry approach--disengage from the source of the threat and focus on money for firefighters and cargo inspectors--I'm willing to go along. Then again, I don't live in a city with a port--I think that if I did I might not feel great that WMD made it that far.

Chris wrote: "you don't have to be religious to question the no-controls-on-demand-often-only-another-type-of-birth-control use of abortion that we currently have."

So...where do you stand on the issue of free, government-administered but involuntary abortions performed via precision-guided bombs by the U.S. military?

DBL: Marriage exists as a social and legal institution for the propogation of the species.

Hey! We got a live one here!

I'm so glad, because maybe you can answer a question for me. The question arises logically from your premise, and so far I haven't found anyone who can answer it.

Here's the question:

If marriage is for propagation, with personal happiness an irrelevancy, and public policy should reflect that, then when do we outlaw marriage between heterosexual couples who have neither the ability nor the interest in becoming parents?

shoot, everybody knows that the democrats are more for the minorities.

Why won't Kerry say so? For the same reason Bush accuses him of saying so: Because we don't want to believe it. On this ultimate question, Kerry clings to Bush's wishful thinking. Tonight, Kerry vowed to prevail in Iraq "for those soldiers and for those families, for those kids who put their lives on the line. That is noble. That's the most noble thing that anybody can do. And I want to make sure the outcome honors that nobility."

"I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right," Kerry said, explaining his vote against the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq. "That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war, I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote."

No, Senator. That isn't what you did with that vote. You haven't said no to the Iraq War as you did to the Vietnam War. And the reason is that this time, you're running for president.

But the greater shame belongs to the candidate who launched this war, refuses to admit his errors, and now holds the moral pride of his countrymen hostage, blackmailing them into shunning the truth. Tonight he scoffed, "If I were to ever say, 'This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,' the troops would wonder, 'How can I follow this guy?' "

Exactly, Mr. President. If you were ever to give them the correct assessment, they would ask the correct question.

William Saletan

Oh, I love values so much, I wish people would just leave them alone.

THe comments from the leftists in here over DOMA are amusing, if non-factual.

Let's consider the true role of government, before we start nattring on about a loss of rights... I contend that these were rights we never HAD...and that the problem comes from trying to create new ones out of whole cloth.

To give you a better idea what I'm talking about, let me give you some text to read. It's longish. Rather than posting the entire thing here, (and adding to Dan's BW bills) I'll give you a link to drill.

Read it? Good.
Now, with that as a basis, let's continue.
If is as suggested, the purpose of government is the upholding of the culture's values, then how is DOMA out of line? Seems to me the argument against DOMA is flawed at it's foundation... that government has no right to make such dictates. I submit that if it does not, it's not doing it's job.

And as for blaming it all of Republiicans... that may do very well for rabble rousing, but it's not true. Let's face it; this law was signed by Bill Clinton, for pity's sake.

Let's also face the reality that the Republicans never had enough of a majority to press htrough ANY law that the Democrats had serious objections to. Withness the way court appointments were held up as an example.

Sorry, from either angle, the anti-DOMA folks lose.

OK, obviously, I dropped something in the code... the link didn't fire.

http://bitsbits.blogspot.com/2004/07/what-is-purpose-of-government-anyway.html

The fact of the matter is that RIGHTS ARE A CULTURAL CONCEPT, and are nigh on meaningless outside that construct. Once the culture is allowed to fall to the law, even in an attempt to impose rights where they do not exist, what happens to real rights, which are a cultural concept?

When one says "freedom", the question should be 'freedom from what'? The answers that come back will invariably be cultural in nature. They do not make any sense outside that environment.

I'm Bithead and I approved this message

This argument could be used to argue against women's sufferage, the emancipation of slavery, the black vote, etc. When you claim that it can't -- that it can only be applied to homosexuality -- you render it meaningless.

I wonder how much of voting for Bush because of Social issues is just a matter of people who are going to vote for Bush no matter what casting around for explanations for their vote.

People want to be logical, but many votes are just knee-jerk reactions. There are vast number of Americans who don't even think about who to vote for that deeply, they just know who their guy is and go with that.

Then after the decision is made they find the explanation. For Democrats you might be seeing a lot of voting on economic issues because it is where Bush has so profoundly veered from their traditional beliefs. For Republicans it is becoming harder to say that Bush has really made us safer (and he certainly has not been a fiscal conservative) so they explain their vote with social issues.

This is just my reaction to that poll. Of course I live in my own bubble and maybe there really are people out there who think that two people of the same sex marrying each other is really much more important to America than foreign policy or the economy. But that concept just boggles my mind.

I wonder how much of voting for Bush because of Social issues is just a matter of people who are going to vote for Bush no matter what casting around for explanations for their vote.

Exactly. Unthinking absolutism, nationalism, etc. are comforting in a confusing, chaotic world. Every Republican proposal appeals to base instincts: socially Darwinistic tax cuts, anti-environmentalism, anti-gay prejudice disguised as Christian righteousness, macho swagger instead of diplomacy, invading coutries and killing Arabs as a substitute for the war on Al Qaeda. The false security of a missile defense system has an appeal that is similar to that of SUVs.

Of course I live in my own bubble and maybe there really are people out there who think that two people of the same sex marrying each other is really much more important to America than foreign policy or the economy.

The fact that Kerry doesn't actually support gay marriage gives away their real motives.

This argument could be used to argue against women's sufferage, the emancipation of slavery, the black vote, etc

True, but you may note that's an argument I don't take.
And diving in, you may even discover why. Each of these causes you list, each of these changes, were choices made by the culture and imposing those changes on the government, in the end, and not by the government's imposing such standards on the culture.

Now, if you'd care to argue that DOMA isn't currently suported in the culture, I await your argument with interest. Barring such an argument, what you're pusing for here is a cultural change imposed by government.

Each of these causes you list, each of these changes, were choices made by the culture and imposing those changes on the government, in the end, and not by the government's imposing such standards on the culture.

In 1860, abolition had not been 'decided by the culture.' It was a controversial progressive issue, opposed with proof texts from the Bible by the conservative half of the country.

Just like the black vote, women's sufferage, integration of the races, and opposition to the disenfrachisement of homosexuals.

Let me start by saying I'm a Democrat that supports gay marriage. OK, we all know now that the liberals here are superior human beings because they support gay marriage and are not bigots, unlike the yokels that live outside the civilized areas in the United States. And, of course, knowing that, it's appropriate for "liberals" to resort to insults and ad hominem attacks against groups of people they don't like. And it's ok to reduce the debate over values to, well, they are just a bunch of brainless bigots. And it's ok for liberals simply brand values voters as bigots rather than trying to understand their position. And, of course, that's because it's more fun to show how morally superior you are. But, of course, it's not ok when Republicans do it because we all know they are retrograde people.

In 1860, abolition had not been 'decided by the culture.' It was a controversial progressive issue, opposed with proof texts from the Bible by the conservative half of the country

No, goethean, sorry.
To the contrary, it *had* been so decided; and apparenty a study of the history of this country would be in order for you.

The north was agaist slavery by a wide margin, and had the vastly larger population numbers. The question which prompted the civil war was not slavery per se' but rather the reaction of government to that choice of the people.

Indeed, a look at the basis for war from the south was not slave or free, but that the choice was being imposed by the government, on a minority of it's citizens... namely, white Southerners, by the federal government. States Rights, and all that.

Electoral politics-wise, the most important question unanswered by this survey is whether or not this increased percent of social issue voters is comprised of people who would previously have voted democratic.

There's this increased percent of people who identify with social issues and are going to vote on this basis. But is it the case that they always used to do that anyway and are just more aware of it now, or are these people who used to overlook these issues and vote the other way?

in other words, have the people changed their views, or have the times made them change their awareness of certain priorities? My guess is that this is largely a gay marriage number. But are these people pro-union catholics switching sides or reliable red staters feeling more strongly about certain things these days?

THe thing that confuses me is why would the average woman care about whether 2 guys or 2 women could marry each other? How in the world is this going to affect that woman's life (unless she is wanting to marry another woman)?

Especially when zealotry is more prevalent amongst males (who are typically the ones who lead churches) than females...

bithead,
It never ceases to amaze me how many right-wing thinkers conceive the necessity to try to understand entire branches of human thought and effort ab nihilo.
"Why we have governments and what their role ought to be"- the discourse on this subject would fill a good-sized library. So why start your analysis from scratch?

Having said that, I find your ideas both simplistic and in error.
First, you act as if 'societies' in the past up and decided to have 'governments', and that therefore 'they' must have had a purpose.
I find that proposition laughable. It is akin to arguing that 'societies' decided to have 'language' or 'culture'.
Second, you claim to deduce that 'purpose' from first principles. But there are clearly other rationales for government's existence (eg codified mutual protection, the facilitation of economic relationships by formalizing them, etc). From what I've read in anthropology, those two seem much more likely than your hypothesis, which (like mine) has no basis other than your intuition.
Third- if we accepted the first two propositions, you claim that therefore the deduced purpose of government (to advance cultural norms) must be adhered to. You give no reason why this relationship between individuals and government might not be allowed to evolve over time. Just as music was probably(!) at first a religious/ceremonial activity, but has now been divorced from that original context. Or hunting used to exist to supply food, but now serves a primarily recreational purpose (at least, in the US).

Read a few books on the subject. You may well disagree with them, but I think you'd benefit, as would your polemics.

Wu

"I heard Senator Kerry say that there was some kind of 'global test' that you ought to be able to pass to support preemption, and I don't understand what that means," Rice told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Condi's a liar. I didn't think she's stupid; maybe she is. No; I think she's a liar. She knows what he meant but chooses to play ignorant; to play the hand her boss has dealt.

We all understand that the USA can't go around like an insensitive bully kicking everyone we can reach when we can't get to the target we want. We actually do have to share the globe with a whole bunch of other people with other cultures. And in spite of the fact that "us great Americans" are being told that forcing democracy on other cultures at gun-point is the "New American Way; the Preemptive American Right," it's not right!

The fact remains that we must share civilization with other countries and other cultures. We wouldn't put up with them spouting off and shooting at us to get four more years in office. And I wouldn't expect the rest of the world to put up with the US doing it to them. If we keep acting like we can whup the world, they may just call our bluff!

"My view is that the way to respond to threats after 9/11--even threats that we don't fully understand--is to be aggressive."

Yeah! Yeah! Let's go kick some ass! Let's drop some bombs! Shock and awe! We're Americans and WE CAN; SO LET'S DO IT! Ok - Ok - who we gonna do? C'mon MB, C'mon Thomas! wo we gonna do? C'mon! Pick somebody. WHO WE GONNA DO? We'll teach them! We'll get them on the run! We're gonna win the war on terrorism! We're gonna kick some butt! (Who we gonna do? C'mon, who we gonna do?)

I like that religion is finally coming back into politics. It's what so many other countries are teaching me right now. It doesn't matter what the leaders want if enough of us beat the woman when she does wrong in public. Or sell the foreign neighbor for talking wrong so the police raid his home. And I lke the idea that if we can have "In God We Trust", the politicians are paving the way for, "In Allah We Trust," too. If we no longer have to separate church and state, who's to say what church, right?
We all have the same rights, right?

Only in the twisted world of contemporary American conservatism and Republican politics would conservatives support federal intervention on a social issue that has always been a state regulated issue. Whatever happened to principled federalism? Limited government? states' rights? I long for the good old days when conservatives actually lived up to their principles instead of pandering to an interest group like protestant evangelicals. That would require too much intellectual honesty, I guess.

It never ceases to amaze me how many right-wing thinkers conceive the necessity to try to understand entire branches of human thought and effort ab nihilo.
"Why we have governments and what their role ought to be"- the discourse on this subject would fill a good-sized library. So why start your analysis from scratch?

The re-examination process tends to eliminate a lot of the distortions induced over time. Often, (alas!) these are distortions that have gained the status of a holy writ.

Having said that, I find your ideas both simplistic and in error.

Gee, who didn't see THAT one coming?
First, you act as if 'societies' in the past up and decided to have 'governments', and that therefore 'they' must have had a purpose.I find that proposition laughable. It is akin to arguing that 'societies' decided to have 'language' or 'culture'.

You're suggesting that govenments set themselves up, and managed somehow to superceed the existant societies ? Or is it that you think government a natural occurrence?

You give no reason why this relationship between individuals and government might not be allowed to evolve over time.

You've not been reading it all then.
As I've said, rights are a cultural concept. If government takes the lead, rights tend to go away.

Do you suppose anyone will mind?

Only in the twisted world of contemporary American conservatism and Republican politics would conservatives support federal intervention on a social issue that has always been a state regulated issue. Whatever happened to principled federalism?

I will direct your attention to article IV of the constitution, called the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. As Captain Ed rightly points out at his place this morning;

"States are compelled by law to recognize marriages performed in other states. If any state performs a marriage between homosexuals, then all other states in the union will be bound to recognize it, regardless of that state's law. "

Bithead wrote: The fact of the matter is that RIGHTS ARE A CULTURAL CONCEPT, and are nigh on meaningless outside that construct. Once the culture is allowed to fall to the law, even in an attempt to impose rights where they do not exist, what happens to real rights, which are a cultural concept?

When one says "freedom", the question should be 'freedom from what'? The answers that come back will invariably be cultural in nature. They do not make any sense outside that environment.

I'm Bithead and I approved this message"

Gothean replied: "This argument could be used to argue against women's sufferage, the emancipation of slavery, the black vote, etc. When you claim that it can't -- that it can only be applied to homosexuality -- you render it meaningless."

I think gothean misses the fact that constitutional change is also part of the culture - specifically embodied in the amendment process. Women's suffrage and the ending of slavery were accomplished - or confirmed by means of an amendment after national debate. And in the case of slavery, a war. Jim Crow was never constitutional and therefore did not require an amendment to repeal. It did require reversal of a number of Supreme Court opinions - again after a national debate.

In contrast Roe v Wade was done by judicial fiat after almost no debate - and certainly no time for a national concensus to form. The debate has occured since 1973 - very little before it. There was little effort to legalize abortion democratically.

Gay marriage has followed a similar path - and that is why I'm against if. If we have a process of debate in legislatures and the representatives of the majority decide to legalize it - in whatever jurisdiction - so be it. To allow a few judges in a few corts to decide and impose it upon the nation without debate only does violence to our culture of democracy.

I think gothean misses the fact that constitutional change is also part of the culture - specifically embodied in the amendment process.

Interesting you should mention this, because this is the only culturally driven change possible... when we get to the point where such amendments are feaseable, what is being changed is already wanted culturally.

However, in recent history, when the government has taken the lead ove the culture, it has invariably done so by way of Judicial Fiat. Abortion is a good example.

It's easy to pass a law, but far harder to change a mind... but the harder course is far more effective, as a rule. "But the law won't change another's mind when all they see at the hiring time, is some line, on the 'colored' bar.."

(Extra credit... what's the source of the quote? When you make the reference, you'll understand that I'm also making ref to your last para, here, Don... The speaker is referring to the civil rights act of 64, which went through the legislative process!)

I'm not that culturally hip - do I cheated and googled it. I think it's from the song 'Thats The Way it Is'.

Kind of a bitter point I suppose. In the end I think Welfare reform was done in a fairly positive way. With child care and all kinds of support for ex welfare clients seeking work.

Seems to me that when we loosened the welfare system during the late 60's and early 70's the effect was perverse. Rather than having the welfare poor in the middle of our working communities welfare tended to make entire neighborhoods into the equivalent of the poorhouse - out of sight, out of mind.

We may be reversing that at long last....