Buy WILLisms XML Feed Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM June 20, 2005 5:36 AM Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM May 12, 2006 6:15 PM Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM July 25, 2007 4:32 PM May 28, 2008 11:12 PM June 9, 2008 12:25 PM Blogroll Me! July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 March 13, 2008 Due: July 29, 2008 Mar. 14, 2006 Apr. 4, 2008 May 19, 2007 July 9, 2006 July 14, 2006 Powered by Movable Type 3.17 Site Design by Sekimori WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy): The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
|
« Social Security Reform Thursday: Week Fifty-Six -- Shocking New Social Security Development. | WILLisms.com | Data Collection Demagoguery » Quotational Therapy: Part 98 -- Howard Dean, On Gay Marriage.One Man, One Woman, Eh? This one's for the single-issue voters. I know you're out there. And you know who you are. I know you are as right-wing as right-wing comes, but you claim to be "liberal" because of this one issue. You even now vote for socialist Democrats just to stick it to the anti-gay GOP. Again, this one is for you. ![]() Howard Dean, pandering to values voters: "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says." Oh, really, Howard? Because that's not what you've said in the recent past. Nor is it what the 2004 DNC platform said: "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a 'Federal Marriage Amendment.' Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart." So the plan was/is to discretely slip support for gay marriage into the platform (that nobody reads), hope gays would take the bait, then have candidates go out and say what the overwhelming majority of Americans want to hear (marriage = 1 man + 1 woman)? Nice. The GOP certainly has its flaws, but the Democratic Party is a hopelessly contradictory coalition of divergent interest groups (that usually don't even like each other). It constantly astounds me how the Democratic Party's mutually exclusive groups can put aside such stark differences and come together at election time. And for what? To be sold down the river when the going gets rough (and make no mistake, the polls are rough right now for both parties). [Hat tip: A Stitch in Haste] The right quote can be therapeutic, so tune in to WILLisms.com for quotational therapy on Monday and Friday. Posted by Will Franklin · 12 May 2006 11:14 AM CommentsI say let the liberals pander to the gays. This is not to say that conservatives or even Republicans would deprive anyone of their bill of rights. No where in the bill of rights does it say that two men or two women can marry and then collect social security money for the dead wife, which is what this eventually gets down to. Anyone can specify anyone else with power of attorney. I visited a hospital recently and their policy was that the person in the hospital could specify anyone as their person of interest. Posted by: Chief RZ at May 12, 2006 11:44 AM Chief, Are you offering to pay the legal fees of every gays couple who, unlike legally married couples, need to go through the hoops of a durable power of attorney? If not, then you are a rank hypocrite when you say it's only about money. Posted by: KipEsquire at May 12, 2006 12:38 PM I'm gay and I never understood the blind loyalty most gays have toward the Democrat Party. Dean's statement is just one of many examples of the Dems talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. I agree with Chief. I am not prohibited from marrying. I can marry any woman I want. Just because I don't want to marry a woman (my choice) doesn't mean I have been denied any rights. Would I be upset if we passed a constitutional amendment allowing SSM? Hell no. Make it a right. It worked for women's suffrage even when women didn't get to vote for it. Kip, I found an Durable Power of Attorney form for my state after about 2 seconds on Google. That hoop wasn't so big. Posted by: John in IL at May 12, 2006 07:51 PM Okay, try falling in love with a foreigner and bringing him into this country permanently. Then let's talk about hoops. Posted by: KipEsquire at May 14, 2006 01:36 PM |