Liberals Will Ban Bibles

[chipotle]

As suggested earlier, I'm going to get political here occasionally rather than moving things to a separate blog, but to spare those who might find this a little too acid,

From the AP wires (via Yahoo):

Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November. The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

I have more than one friend who supports Bush and who's also gay or bisexual. (Many of them are also atheists or agnostics.)

And, you know, I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't. They're convinced Kerry would be terrible for national security, or that he'd take away their guns, or that he'd radically balloon the nanny welfare state or whatever. Or they've just accepted the Republican talking points that Kerry's a flip-flopper with no discernable record in the Senate. I disagree with each of those points, but I doubt I'm going to be able to convince those who are dead set against Kerry, just like I doubt I could be convinced at this point that Bush's policies, both foreign and domestic, have been anything but disasters (or "catastrophic successes," if you prefer).

But I am going to say to those people, those self-identified "conservative queers" or the Republican atheists: don't believe for a second that "your" party has the respect for you that you give it. No matter how closer you may think you are to the Republicans than the Democrats on issues of policy, your value is as a scarecrow. You will cast your vote for Bush at the same time Bush's campaign will be using you as an example of everything that's wrong in American society. To you, they may be the party of fiscal responsibility, military strength and upholding the Second Amendment. To them, you're a godless queer. Period.

Yeah, I know it's the other things that attract you to the Republicans. I'm just saying I can't shake the similarity between that idea and "my husband doesn't hit me often, and he's really a fine guy most of the rest of the time."

Comments

[musewoozle.livejournal.com]

A very interesting article.

When I read it, that article reinforces the view that modern politics hinges a great deal on manipulation and nonsense as opposed to reason.

Banning the Bible is absurd. The Constitution guarentees freedom of religion with no interference by the government. The odd thing is that people actually believe such a banning is possible.

I think gay marriage will be a question of the equality of rights, and I feel it will have to go through sooner or later. Again, it is interesting (also disturbing) to see how people use sexual stigmas to manipulate an audience.

I wonder if out founding fathers intended for our country's government to work this way.

-- Jacob

[pathia.livejournal.com]

Well, to me the legal, moral and pure definition of the word marriage means between a man and a woman. Period. No if and's or butts, that's just what I believe.

Also, to me, it's a religious word, period. It's up to the religions to accept gay marriage, not the government. I think it's an infringement on the 1st ammendment to have state marriages in the first place, they should only be called civil unions.

Since neither party holds this viewpoint, it makes it a null set in terms of effect on my vote.

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

This is also my stance, pretty much. For political reasons I don't see it happening anytime soon, but historically marriage was religious long before it was state-sanctioned -- and I haven't heard any good argument for it being state-sanctioned, really.

My irritation level over the ads in this case is an irritation with it being fear-mongering -- they're not just drawing a socially conservative line in the sand, they're turning those they disagree with into bogeymen. I expect this to happen between some parties in every election, but I don't expect the official party committees to engage in it.

[musewoozle.livejournal.com]

I'll venture a shot at why marriage should be managed by the State.

I think the idea will be similar to why privacy is not part of the Constitution. In particular, if one allows privacy, then it also entails that one may use privacy to commit acts which are contrary to freedom (an example would be murdering someone in the privacy of your home).

I think that a similar argument should hold true for marriage. Marriage should be managed by the State so that the rights of the people involved are not open to compromise and unfair treatment.

In other words, I could see the possibility that a religious instution could have marriage laws which over-rule existing civil rights.

For example, it might be possible to say what when one is married, the wife loses equal rights, such as the right to vote.

-- Jacob

[dour.livejournal.com]

For the record, agreed on the second paragraph.

The Republican party is a sad thing right now. I would venture that the majority of its constituents and even office-holders are not in it for the "moral" side of things, but for the fiscal side; it's just the current high figures on the totem pole get to decide what face the party will wear.

This is why Schwarzenneger has been so ungodly popular (and effective). He's a far better representation of the true majority, and he's got the balls to give Bush the finger. I only hope he'll inspire others to take a stand.

Meanwhile, I will be writing in Howard Dean on my electoral ballot.

[bigtig.livejournal.com]

"To you, they may be the party of fiscal responsibility, military strength and upholding the Second Amendment. To them, you're a godless queer."

Assuming all republicans are bible-thumping queer-hating backwater evangelistic mongrels, of course.

There are strong portions of the republican party that would like to lose a lot of the religious fundamentalism that exists in their rank. The near revolt that took place in the party in the late 90's that was followed by the equivalent of the "Council of Trent" illustrates the point. And now we have neo-conservatism. Whee.

I am surprised at the statement. It would be like someone telling me I can't vote Democrat that because I grew up in the military "I'll be viewed as nothing more than a babykiller. Period." ... that's silly and ignoring the moderate elements of the argument.

For the reason of just complete irrsponsibility of action and stupidity of interaction with other nations, the Demorats
could nominate a bucket of mud and I'd vote for it.

I'm not replublican. (Libertarian, actually) But I find one of the most disconcerting thing about voting democrat is the surprsing company I find myself keeping at times. The amount of unmitigated vitrol is astounding. Here in PA, the largest state up for grabs, the shear volume of unfounded propoganda in both directions is appauling.

The emotions are just too high I guess.

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

Assuming all republicans are bible-thumping queer-hating backwater evangelistic mongrels, of course.

Yes. I didn't make that assumption. The Republicans who ran those advertisements did. My point wasn't that Republicans who disagree with this don't exist -- I was addressing Republicans who don't agree with it, after all. My point is that the RNC is, by and large, saying that Republicans who disagree with this don't matter. It's not a question of whether Republicans on the street want to go out and beat up gays and ACLU members -- it's a question of whether, strategically, painting gay marriage, atheism and Planned Parenthood as the greatest threats to the state of the union will win the election.

In this campaign cycle, there's a whole lot of vitriol and nastiness coming from both sides. And that's not a good thing. But the reason there's a whole lot of mud being slung from the left this time around is because the Republicans have spent an awful lot of time in the previous few election cycles proving that it works.

[dbcooper.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen anything like this from the Democrats, but then that's because I'm not on their mailing list.

I did get the "order your absentee ballot now and make your vote count" mailing, which I found quite amusing.

I am a rarity, in that I am a Republican adamantly against the "Defense of Marriage" amendment. If it were really a defense of marriage, it would include provisions intended to lower the divorce rate, especially to keep parents together.

As far as whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, I feel they should. I have yet to see any evidence that same-sex marriages threaten male-female marriages. So far, as far as I can see, the major contributors to divorce remain infidelity, irreconcilable differences, personal issues (one spouse being convicted of a crime, or extended geographical separation due to work), and the like.

If we need a constitutional amendment, it's an extensive rewrite of the First Amendment, as follows:

I. The right of people to speak and express themselves freely, to form and follow or ignore religions as they choose, and to otherwise peacefully assemble, being the entire reason for our Republic to exist, shall not be abridged, neither by Congress, nor by the Executive Branch, nor by the Judicial Branch. Reprisals against free speech, expression, religion, non-religion, or association that infringe on those rights shall not be tolerated.

In the meantime, the GOP has largely been successful in diverting arch-conservative attention away from the failures of the present administration--so well, in fact, that they have also effectively glossed over the failures of the previous administration--using the red herring of gay marriage.

Remember, every time Bush brings it up, he avoids talking about the economy, the Iraqi quagmire, the environmental mess, the educational nightmare, and all the corporations to which he has proven himself loyal at our expense.