DebateGate

. . . whatever past successes reformist movements have had, I think the walls have narrowed so much on them in the past thirty or forty years that it's now practically impossible for them to make any headway.  This movement, for all its promise, will peter out in the end.

And more truth.  Our founders wisely made it difficult to radically change things in this country.  The problem is, through the law of unintended consequences, that stability has evolved into immobility.  The biggest obstacle to real change in this country is exactly what the partisans on both sides say it is:  The parasites on the bottom of the economic ladder and the predators on the top.  The rest of us are caught in the middle trying to avoid getting infected by the former or eaten by the latter.

Nice thread.  I think you have asked the $64,000.00 question, BSB, but I'm darned if I can answer it.  I consider myself a Republican, but the party is filtering people like me out.  I am not a slave to strict conservativism, and that makes me a RINO in some people's eyes.  I would vote for Romney, but a lot of folks won't just because of his religion.  I would vote for Cain but a lot of people won't just because of his color (and trust me, nobody is saying that, but it's true).  I WON'T vote for Rick Perry because I am having a personal backlash reaction against his supporters trashing my faith.  (Huckabee lost my interest last election for the same reason.)  So ridiculous reasons are dividing our party. 

Last election, we all "settled" for John McCain, even though many in the party didn't like him.  Predictably, a fired-up Democratic base behind a relatively unknown leader took the day.  Obama was a rock star, McCain was the guy we settled for.  Will Romney be our next McCain?

The more we divide ourselves into "strict" conservatives and liberals, the less room there will be for compromise and moderation.  In this regard, I think both the Tea Party and the OWS movement are hurting the country.  As to how to solve that, I haven't got the slightest idea.  We Americans need to be able to compromise, or nothing will ever get accomplished.   Maybe it's time to face the fact that our government is too big to change, and needs to be replaced not by a smaller government.  But by smaller governments.

Oh me neither.  Now if Sarah Palin gets caught up in such a scandal (heaven forbid) I would feel that, in order for me to make an objective analysis . . .

kimba you are arguing a different point.  I am not talking about a gay marriage affecting a heterosexual marriage.  I am talking about the institution itself.  Divorce ALSO effaces the institution - and again I am referring to the social significance of marriage itself.  Because divorce is far more easy to obtain than it once was, marriage is no longer taken seriously by a large portion of society.  If you aren't happy with a partner you just dump her and get another.  There is neither any incentive to work on marriages nor any stigma associated with walking away from one.   

Redefining the relationship that God ordained - that of heterosexual union for procreation and remaining faithful for life - makes marriage just a way of declaring your love.  It's like sending flowers.  Flowers are a lovely expression of love, but they are only temporary.  Marriage is more than just a way of telling someone that you REALLY REALLY LIKE them.  It is a committmemnt to begin a family, to remain faithful to one another and to make sure that your children have a stable, secure home.  As it stands now, when infatuation cools either partner just moves to the next thrill.  There is no need to let love develop, as it does over the course of a long marriage.  I just celebrated 34 years of marriage yesterday and I am married to a different woman, yet the very same one, I married in 1977.  I know that adultery happens, but it used to be discouraged - in fact scandalized - by society.  These days it's just another partner change.

Our society has denigrated marriage and tried to replace it with counterfeit institutions and uncomitted relationships.  The rights of children to a stable, secure home are unrecognized and unconsidered.  Further dililuting marriage by doing away with the basic purpose and order of marriage is inevitable, and it is one more nail in the coffin of our society.  Anyone who calls this particular spade a spade is ridiculed as a religious fanatic or a moral Pharisee.    And you tell me over and over and over again, my friend, you don't believe . . .

Actually, as I think about it, the state does have an interest in preventing bigamy, if said bigamy is not mutually consentual.  if daddy has two families and the one doesn't know about the other, the community property rights of the two clueless spouses and any children are adversely affected.  If Daddy and Mommy and other Mommy all live in the same house, then the state has no interest I can see.

I agree with BT that the same principle is in play with Walker's decision to drop the legal ball and Obama's decision to drop the legal ball.  It is unfortunate that Obama made the choice he did, given that I was favorably impressed with his original course of holding his nose and defending it.  Obama should have let the legislature do its job and the courts do theirs, by making the justice department do theirs.  Walker is in the same place.    The underlying issues are different but the separation of powers issue is exactly the same - and they (Obama and Walker) are equally wrong.

As to gay marriage not affecting the institution of marriage - that is your opinion.  Gay marriage advocates have long used the false premise that since an individual gay marriage does not affect an individual heterosexual marriage (or the analogous collective marriages) the institution is not affected.  But that is not true.  Marriage as a social institution is, by its nature, a moral issue.  The values of most societies have historically dictated that if a couple is to begin to engage in rearing children, commitments must be made to protect those children and to protect the spouses (historically women) from losing their economic rights.  It kept the sort of thing that is epidemic today - abandoned women, single parenthood and deadbeat dads - from being the norm. 

That social dynamic has, indeed, changed.  The family - which is based on the institution of marriage - has been denigrated and children and women are still bearing the brunt of that dissolution.  The reason for this decline is not only the selfishness of men, but the general effacement of the principle that marriage is a sacred institution - and the basis of society.  Gay marriage would further dilute the importance, sanctity and relevance of the institution - not of any particular marriage.  The burden of the effacement of the family is felt in the overabundance of social programs like welfare designed to substitute for proper self-sufficient family structures.  So yes, the majority is indeed effected by the erosion of the family.

The same arguments being used to defend gay marriage now were used to defend no-fault divorce and other easy-out methods in the sixties.  The jury is no longer out on those issues.  Lax views and laws on divorce have, as predicted, badly weakened the family and society.  We've already proven that anti-family morals hurt society.  This will be just as true as we weaken family structure further by redefining the entire concept.

The fact is, societies have the collective right to determine their moral value system.  If the majority of people in a society wish to allow gay marriage then it ought to be allowed.  But if, as has been clearly demonstrated time and again in this society, the majority wants to retain traditional marriage then it ought to be the law of the land - and the government of, by and for the people has no right to overrule the people.

I was just telling my wife that, when she broached the subject of conspiracy theories.  I told her of the throngs of anti-Bush folks that kept claiming that Usama was dead, but Bush was merely waiting to "pull him out" at the appropriate political moment

My point precisely!

Poochie.....whoever gave us the intel for that missle launch deserves a glass of fine wine!

Well, as you know by now, it wasn't a missile or a drone.  It was human forces - apparently a team of Navy Seals.  I would buy them any damn thing to drink they want.