A long and detailed essay that will help educate some of us who favor same-sex marriage in America was published in the New York Review of Books in July and is now available online. The conclusion for recognition of gay relationships at the Federal level, including immigration - don't hold your breath. I started a new topic as the previous one got derailed by the usual suspects (including me).
The same-sex future.
Loved the article, thanks. When I think of all the men I know who fall in love--some by mail--with Asian wives, marry and bring them to the USA, I do get angry. I have paid taxes all my life and contributed to my local and state community, but I am a second class citizen in my own country. I wonder how many Americans know that under Bush, when big business asked him to, his state department made a special visa, so the foreign specialist imported by these businesses, could bring their same sex partners with them when they were hired for jobs in the USA. Talk about the ultimate put-down on gay Americans. We have less rights then foreign nationals.
Thanks for the link. IMHO a very good article...Originally Posted by Curious
However, I am pessimistic that the US will enact any type of gay marriage or gay marriage equivilant anytime soon.
IMHO the US and much of the western world (including Israel - referencing an earlier thread) are getting much better about accepting full equality for gays and lesbians.
However, this type of policy change is not a priority (IMHO) for politician in the US and the American Taliban (Right wing religous lunatic fringe types) still hold sway over many parts of the US and would make it too difficult to pass such legislation.
I predict a 20-30 year time frame for any action on the US federal level equalizing treatment of gays and lesbians with heteros.
Personally I think the US should send troops into the US south and shoot up the Amercain Taliban....most of whom are well known and would be easy targets for predator drone missile strikes....it would be great TV watching a televangelist in mid rant invoking the name of Jeeeeeeesus...getting blown up by a hellfire missile....sigh... one can only hope.
Just my opinions....see below for my opinion on opinions....
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they all stink.
You should sell that idea to FOX TV. Imagine the Nielson Ratings, it would blow "American Idol" right off the air. We could call the program, "meeting your maker."
Whenever the govenors of Texas, or South Carolina or other wing-nut states alk about the succession or nullification, I say go ahead succeed. Do the rest of a us a favor and just go away.
You are as bright as a 10 watt light bulb, coming from me that is a real statement about your intellect.
All the Best!
Wes
Why do you say that? just to be insulting. Let's discuss rather than just throw insults.
I understand a bit of history and the background of the succession movements and the nullification crisis
in the 1820-1830. Read up on John Calhoun. Perry and Demit are coming from the same mind-set as Calhoun.
What's wrong with letting them succeed from the union? They'd be back in no time flat. Yeah, Texas has a lot of oil refinaries, but so what,. if they were a independent country, they'd have to have customers?
This gets me to the drill baby drill mantra of the repugs. Let's say we open up the alaska reserves or the off-shore reserves, there's not enough oil there to make the US self-sufficient and the amount as a % of the total worldwide production is too small to make
a dent in the cost of a barrell of oil. And if I'm a US oil company, and I drill a barrell out of alaska, I'll sell it to whomever will pay me the most. So unless you want to advocate nationalization of the US domestic oil industry it won;t reduce the cost of gas one bit.
(which BTW is why gas is cheap in mexico, the oil company there is nationalized and have a seperate price for domestic use).
Plus consider, maybe it's a good idea for us to keep that oil there and use up all the other guys oil first
plus, there's a variety of reasons that there hasn't been drilling, besides governmental regulation. These places are damn difficult to get to oil out of. Last the American Petroleum Institute estimated that oil need to have a floor of $85 a barrel to make production from some the alaska and off shore field profitable.
The same for the oil shale, another favorite of the repug energy policy. The government already provide funding to keep the oil shale industry a float; oil needs to be over $100 a barrel as a price floor to make oil shale profitable.
Is that an intellectual enough discussion for you?
Like GF it is a little long, however, no one with any real attachment to the real world thinks that is a likely scenario We took a long time to get those 50 stars even numberd and I am sure no one wants to talk about the lower 47.
You don't really expect some one to take that argument serious do you. Facts and quotes may look good but hardly revels in practicality. BTW I went back and corrected your spe;lling another insult if I have to do it. But at least it proves you read the text and didn't copy and paste.
Wes
All the Best!
Wes
well honestly I wasn't serious but I do find it humorous that they want to talk succession and nullification.
Perry and Demint are the ones that brought it up and do I think they are serious? No, it makes
for good political theater tho.
I certainly don't think that Perry is serious about succession but I'm not so sure
about Demint and nullification. I think he may very well think that this a
tactical that the SC legislation could employ. So yes knowing a bit of US
history helps; Calhoun was from SC as well.
Note that I wasn't suggesting that the other 48 states throw them out of the Union, but, if by some chance the TX or SC legislation actually voted for succession, I say let them go. Not worth another Ft Sumter.
I'm a bit curious about how you view yourself politically. Obviously you're no fan of Obama and some of your comments hark back
to standard right-wingnuttery, but on the other hand, you seem to be saying, you think he needs to be more a left than he is.
Of course, politics are circular, go far enough right or left and you arrive at the same place, eg paulites and larouchians.
Thanks for the spell check; not a strong point for me without a spell checker.
now having hijack the original thread, I agree, It will take another 20 years before we see full gay marriage equality in the US across all 50 states and the federal government. I think we are likely to see it at the state level in half the states within the next ten years tho.
I don't expect DADT to fall during Obama's first term, but if he is lucky enough to win a second, I think there is a strong likelihood it will fall during the second term.
Clinton's biggest mistake was letting this become a legislative issue and pushing it too early.
That said, I'm pretty disappointed that he does not use his CnC powers to stop the discharges under DADT.
One thing that will make DADT fall real fast is if we ever have to re-institute the draft.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote