Sad day in USA for both Parties

You may find this article from First Things magazine interesting. Here's the gist:

Conservatives, for instance, have seen the war in Iraq primarily as a foreign-policy issue—a partisan issue, certainly, since everything in politics is partisan, but not as much as other issues, since foreign policy has traditionally been among the less divisive of American political concerns.

 {snip}

The left, however, has seen Iraq almost entirely as a culture-wars issue. From the moment the invasion looked imminent, the left responded with petitions, denunciations, marches, placards, screeds—the whole leftist arsenal since the 1960s for fighting the culture wars.

That's what drives me nuts with my leftist friends (who make up the majority of my friends). They seem stuck in a Cold War ideology, using Cold War tactics.

The core message of my friend's campaign is simply to "Be Against the Man".

Oh my. There is way too much at stake to simply "be against the man".

Last night on ABC there was a really good comment by George Will, whom I respect even if he is conservative and I am... well, something else... and not liberal.  BUT  he said last night was completely normal for a midterm election during a president's second term.  He said it happens almost every 14 years.

So in all... nothing new last night.

 Peace,
Brian

I am sad that in WI, conservative means excluding. I always thought conservative meant status quo. See, gay marriage is already illegal, so this amendment to our state consitution is NOT status quo. It is agressive and hateful.

And the paper this morning said that the same people who were most vociferous in passing this amendment are now moving on to legislate against no-fault divorce.  

and here is a lovely quote from the conservatives in WI on this issue:

Joann and Jim Wright drove from Baraboo Tuesday night to attend a prayer service led by Pastor William Bartz at the Monona Oaks Community Church.

Wright said his support of the same-sex marriage ban stems from his religious convictions. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, he said, makes it clear that sexual relations between same-sex couples is an "abomination."

Retired local pastor Richard Pritchard, who also attended the service, said he thought the amendment was necessary to stem the spread of AIDS.

"Our bodies are not made for male intercourse and that's why the disease spreads," he said. "I would hate to see the government approving this kind of a lifestyle when it's so dangerous."

(http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=106564&ntpid=1) 

The media is ridiculous. I'll give you that. And you have to be pleased about Connecticut, Joe Lieberman the Republican won...

Now THAT is a DUMB@SS thing to say. 

Thank God heterosexual sex is still safe !!! 

Its not as "agressive and hateful" as much as it is a "Really, I swear I'm not gay" from the conservative masses (Ted Haggard style )

Hollis, if you support legislation that would strengthen families, by enlarging the definition of what constitutes a family, why would you oppose no-fault divorce?

No-fault divorce is good bad for children. If a couple wants to divorce, especially a couple with children, they ought to show cause for why that should be.

I don't understand your position.

I'm first.

Heh.

With all due respect Don, I think it a tainted view to believe that divorce is necessarily "bad" for children.  I could equally argue that parents living together in a constant state of unhappiness is as bad if not worse than divorce.  I also think it tainted to legislate one's personal decisions based on an antiquated system of social structure that is represented in the bible.  Society progresses in spite of biblical teaching as evidenced in the fact that we no longer have slaves.

I belive there are some studies out there on the affect of divorce on children...it's not just an opinion or tainted view...

Fine.  Then just show that as cause. 

Set some kind of standard to meet, instead of simply relying on the judgement of the two parents involved, who may be caught up in who knows what.  Things that may be affecting their judgemnt.

The state has a stake in the welfare of the children.  If it can rightly step in on issues like custody and child support post divorce, then I think it has the right and duty to step in bofore the divorce to see if it is a marriage that is actually reconcilable.

Seems to me that if the only requirements for someone to be granted a marriage license are a) minimum age, b) mental competency, and c) opposite gendered couple, then the first two things should be the only requirements for someone to be granted a dissolution of that license/marriage.

I'm glad these folks in WI are going for the abolishment of no-fault divorce laws. It's good that people see what their true agenda is. First, they went after limiting rights for people who were different. Now they're going after someone else's rights - hey, maybe your rights! By all means, pull aside the curtain, Oh Great Wizard!

Don, my point (which I neglected to actually make ) is that there is a biblical basis for these people's legislative agendae, which ought to scare anyone and everyone who feels like religion should be kept out of the legislation. If your religion forbids gay marriage or divorce, by all means, don't do it! 

(anyone have a statistic for the # of people who use the Bible as an excuse for not making a GOV'T (not church) sanctioned "union" available for gay people, who are also legally divorced..??

Sorry, 'bout that sis...  

Well, I believe that people absolutely have the right to bring their religiously formed opinions into the public square. 

At the same time, I believe that non-religious arguments are more persuasive in a pluralistic society.  And I believe there are compelling non-religious arguments for all of these hot-button "values" issues.

And, as a Catholic Christian, I believe that scripture is only one of the gifts that we were given in order to come and understand God's will.  So scriptural quotes taken out of historically understood context don't move me.

Yup, most of us bring our sense of morality or religion into the decisons we make.  But. It IS a slippery slope. (as the anti gay rights people like to say!)

My next door neighbor is a Free Will Baptist. His daughters and wife don't wear pants. That is from his religious/moral tradition. He would very much like all of us women in long skirts, as that is what he believes is God's will. He was adamant that the gay marriage issue was the most important issue in the election. More important than poverty, I asked? he said yes. 

This kind of fanaticism from the Christian right is as scary as Fundamentalists from other traditions. 

I think I just found my new church. I'm all about a religion that says I can't wear pants.

Man...i would so have loved to ask him how many scripture references there were involving poverty, versus homosexuality.

I asked him that, and he said, "That is an irrelvant question."  At that point I said, ooooookay, and went back in my house