Skip to main content

Too cute by half.

It sounded like a good idea at the time.

Get the proposed same-sex marriage constitutional amendment on the November ballot to drive up the Republican vote while driving Democrats out of office. The plan worked for President Bush two years ago, particularly in Ohio. So why wouldn't it do the same in Wisconsin this year, the GOP brass reasoned.

Welcome to the real world.

"The timing ended up backfiring," said U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Menomonee Falls Republican. "I think the opposite worked out this time."

The controversial amendment easily passed Tuesday, with Wisconsin voters approving the ban by 59% to 41%.

But the measure clearly had an unintended consequence by sparking a larger-than-expected turnout, especially among left-leaning college students, who flooded their campus polling places.

The result: Dems scored some unexpected gains in the Statehouse [...]

By putting the same-sex marriage and death penalty measures on the same ballot, Sensenbrenner said, Republican leaders in the Legislature ended up drawing the wrong type of voter to the polls - Democrats, especially conservative ones. Those people voted for the ballot proposals but against Republican candidates.

His proof: About 275,000 people cast ballots for the ban on same-sex marriages but not for Green.

What's more, he said, the Republican strategy gave opponents 1½ years to organize and raise millions of dollars.

"It was a lose-lose situation," Sensenbrenner said. "You had Reagan Democrats and socially conservative union members who wanted to vote yes and yes (on the referendums) and then voted for Doyle.

"And then you had liberals who voted no on both, then voted for Democrats."

We're more organized now. Put up your bullshit ballot initiatives, and you might pass them scoring some short-term battles (gay marriage bans will go the way of segregation within a generation). But you'll lose the war.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:55 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  great post (12+ / 0-)

    sad thing is though... the ballot measure passed.  
    Hope someone works on efforts to repeal it.

    •  yes, great post (4+ / 0-)

      Wisconsin's motto is still "Beer, Cheese, and a Few Weirdos"  isn't it?

      threatening the forces of conservatism since 1963...

      by cleverblogname on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:00:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  More than a few -- a majority (5+ / 0-)

        since the amendment passed in Wisconsin.

        Apparently a minor point, except to those of us in Wisconsin who voted against it.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:25:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yo Cream, Count me in the no's (0+ / 0-)
        •  kick the thugs out; kick the gays for extra (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          measure, and so that's the celebration going on in some quarters:

          Silver Lining for Dark Election Cloud?

          ... While last night's elections don't cure the moral problem in the core of the Democrat Party, it may moderate their previously and ardently pro-abortion, anti-marriage and radically secularist agenda.

          A good sign yesterday were the seven clear victories on state amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and the likely passage of another when votes are fully counted.

          and more from Rev. Rob Schenck

          The National Clergy Council and its lay affiliate Faith and Action, prayerfully recommits itself to being a strong, unapologetic Christian witness to moral truth on Capitol Hill and in every state capital. With faith in God, confidence in the Gospel and great hope for America, we renew our mission to challenge Capitol Hill with biblical truth and change the nation one policymaker at a time!

          So to hold our middle, do we have to pander, or will the dems use their possition as an educational oportunity and say, Hey! Poverty's important, but so are human rights!

          If your local service workers don't get a living wage (including healthcare) then your local social contract is broken

          by julifolo on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:52:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  So good to finally see some of these (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sherlyle, marykk, Rex Manning

    Stupid hate amendments go down.

    By the way, I'm going to pimp k.o.'s diary from earlier today because I think it is incredibly important:  crafting our majority

    ~ The improbable is possible ~

    by Benjaminwise on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:53:49 PM PST

    •  Yes, puhleeze don't think we're progressive (11+ / 0-)

      in Wisconsin.

      Some of us are, but the majority voted for putting discrimination into our state constitution.

      Oh, and a majority voted to bring back the death penalty for the first time in 153 years, too.

      Fortunately, the latter referendum was advisory.

      But the marriage ban is now law.

      On, Wisconsin.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:27:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What was the margin on the death penalty thing? (0+ / 0-)

        I guess I want a number to lean my rage on. How disgusting.

      •  Ouch! (5+ / 0-)

        It sucks.  Bob Lafollette is stirring in his grave.

      •  A bittersweet day for GLBT community in America (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cream City

        Tuesday nite was so awesome seeing those election returns coming in.  Watching some truly admirable people like Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill and Jim Webb amongst others go to DC was thrilling.  It was equally thrilling to see the homophobic Santorum, the racist pig Allen, the talentless Talent, and the idiotic Conrad Burns go up in flames.

        It's still quite depressing to me that so many Americans are either so homophobic or so easily persuaded by gay-baiting that they have to write discrimination into their state constitutions.  

        Would someone who voted for this discrimination please explain to me how 2 guys or 2 girls getting married to each othe threatens heterosexual marriage?  Thankfully on Daily Kos I am not likely to find someonewho voted for one of those amendments to articulate that.  But I sure would like a cogent explanation on it from somebody who feels that way because I keep hearing that blanket statement from Rethug talking heads and theocons without any in-depth reasoning to explain the line of thinking.

        •  Exactly. I am not threatened (0+ / 0-)

          in my marriage.  Actually, I'm not threatened by another woman, either.  Too old for that, been on my own before.  My husband wants a trophy wife, he can have her -- and try to keep up with her.

          But he won't, because I'm secure in myself.  And then in my marriage, which is as comfortable as an old shoe.

          Frankly, my husband wants a trophy spouse of the same sex, he can try to keep up with him.  That has happened to friends, and they stayed friends with former spouses who found happiness, and they raised kids together-if-apart better than many a joint custody situation I've seen with parents of different sexes.

          No one was threatened a bit.  No one needs to be.

          Btw, if you haven't found your happiness yet, I hope you do -- and I will do all I can to change this law in time for you to be comfortable in marriage, too.  Or whatever.  Makes no never mind to me.  

          Take care -- we'll get there.  And we won't make you wait a generation, either.


          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:17:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I agree with what Dean said... (27+ / 0-)

    ...about Referendum based politics when it comes to civil rights...

    He basically said that in the sixties the civil rights amendment would never have passed if left up to the electorate. Sometimes it's the role of the federal government to do what is right even if it's not popular...

    Sound familiar?

    •  The constitution... (31+ / 0-) constructed to protect minorities from "the tyranny of the Majority".

      You never have an open referendum on people rights.  Period.

    •  and some principles are worth tearing up a party (5+ / 0-)

      I can't help but remember those in the Democratic party who risked losing the southern votes and eventually a whole voting block for the move to bring in Civil Rights to the platform.  
      Something for all of us to keep in mind today.

      •  Not in this case (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        We've seen what "tearing up" the Dems means in these times:  escalating fascism at the hands of the Reps.  

        The gay rights movement is YOUNG.  The civil rights movement for blacks took a century, and though it won't take that long, it's going to take awhile for popular recognition of gay rights to become a majority position.  That river can't be pushed, and if you try, you sacrifice everything else important of which Dems are the safekeepers.

        It's too bad, but...too bad.  Keep educating the public, but also, know that movements take time.  Stridently demanding that Dems wreck themselves over this single issue is politically suicidal.

        The DLC was created to prevent the takeover of the Democratic Party by Democrats.

        by Dracowyrm on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:08:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I guess i wasn't talking about a particular case (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          just that there are times in which it's worth doing.  Stand your ground and take a stand as a party.  There have probably been a few of those moments in the past 6 years where Dems missed that opportunity.  Maybe the torture law passed last month was one of them.  

        •  Wait, what? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          So there are principles that are worth acting on, and principles that aren't -- and the deciding factor is whether those principles are popular?


          -2.63, -6.31   Reason, Justice, Integrity

          by umuhk on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:34:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  losers pass no laws. (0+ / 0-)

            Remember that. He who would change the world must not squander the goodwill of the people.

            I think I'll just leave it at that. Examples of people who learned this lesson, well, Clinton and Clinton, as well as FDR, Johnson, and many others. Those that did not, Gore, Kerry, Carter, need I go on?

            •  Politics before principles (5+ / 0-)


              If anyone needs me, I'll be waiting at the back of the bus. For a generation, apparently.

              -2.63, -6.31   Reason, Justice, Integrity

              by umuhk on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:16:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  See: (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                matt n nyc, julifolo
                MLK's Letter From A Birmingham Jail.

                We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

                The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

                by Shapeshifter on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:52:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Oh please.... (0+ / 0-)

                You're getting your progress, give it a few years. If you stop making progress, then maybe we put another element of the (I shudder to use this word) agenda on the chopping block for you.

                I just don't see why we should give up things we really need just so you can win faster. You had victories in Mass., NJ, and Texas. There will be others soon enough. For the rest, lets be a little patient.

                •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                  That's pretty dismissive. "Your progress"? "Give up things we really need just so you can win faster"? "You had victories"?

                  Looks like we don't need outside help to be internally divisive.

                  For the record, I'm not an ideological purist. I don't propose that we try to ram some hyper-radical "agenda" through, thereby alienating pretty much everybody.

                  But c'mon, folks, we're talking about equality here. I thought we learned this lesson some thirty or forty years ago. The rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens aren't some kind of special treat, to be dosed out on some "appropriate" schedule.

                  And also for the record, I'd like to state that I find the idea of "you're getting your progress, give it a few years" to be condescending, if not outright insulting.

                  Strike that, I do find it insulting.

                  -2.63, -6.31   Reason, Justice, Integrity

                  by umuhk on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:05:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're right.... (0+ / 0-)

                    I should sacrifice my ability to get decent healthcare so you can change one word from "partnership" to "mairrage". That's fairly insulting too.

                    If the republicans have taught us anything, it should be that greed isn't always good. If they had just reached for less, and reached more slowly, they'd still be in power. We'll chalk up your ability to change the name of this legal status right behind, oh, I don't know....

                    1. Extracting ourselves from war.
                    1. Living wage.
                    1. Healthcare.
                    1. Reliable voting.
                    1. Campaign finance reform.
                    1. Anti-corruption rules.

                    and any number of other things. Beyond that, the states will take care of it over the next decade, if not, then we'll get to it around 2016 or so, and fix any states that remain rediculous.

                    If indeed you represent this demographic, you represent about 1% of the country, are doing just fine, and improving all the time. Not everything is about you.

                    •  This is easily... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...the most ludicrous argument I've ever come across.

                      At no point have I suggested that you sacrifice anything. I'm not asking anyone to give anything up. I'm not even asking you to jeopardise your precious "goodwill" by ramming through "unpopular" legislation. All I'm asking is that equality of rights, in all cases, be kept on the table, and remain a cornerstone of Party policy.

                      I'm also not being so narrow-minded and, well, dense as to suggest that because you currently have Medicare, "you" have "your" progress on public healthcare, and you shouldn't be asking for anything more. After all, the public just isn't ready for national healthcare. It'll come eventually, right? Why fight for it now?

                      It's easy to denigrate others' rights when you think of them exclusively as "others". And as long as you, and potentially some portion of the Party, think in these terms, we're all a little worse off.

                      This isn't about me. It isn't even about the much more than 1% of the country that would stand to benefit from marriage equality. This is about working together as a party on something besides some laundry list of punch-points that tests well on the polls. It's about placing ourselves on the right side of the issues, whether or not they're popular enough to support legislation.

                      I fully understand that you don't agree. You're entitled to disagree, of course, regardless of the issue at hand. But I have to say, your position is looking more and more like the Dixiecrats'. It wasn't a good idea then, and it's not a good idea now.

                      -2.63, -6.31   Reason, Justice, Integrity

                      by umuhk on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:15:46 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  the new paradigm is this (0+ / 0-)

              build that goodwill by finding ways to disseminate the truth, instead of making people believe things that aren't.

        •  Well, for what it's worth (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          julifolo, blue in oz

          the DPW (Democratic Party of Wisconsin) was officially and loudly against the ban. Many (actually, I think almost all) Dem legislators -- including those from pretty red territory -- voted against it in the Legislature and spoke out against it this fall. Doyle has always been loudly against it.

          And while the ban passed, Doyle's still governor, we took control of the state Senate, and we picked up 7 seats in the Assembly.

          While there are indeed some unique circumstances this time around, the fact is that taking a public stand on this issue didn't wreck any Dems in this state.

        •  I beg to differ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cream City, julifolo

          The "gay rights movement" is not at all young. Depending on how you count, it might or might not be older than the civil rights movement in this country--older than the country, even.

          On a global scale, it probably goes back all the way through Western civilization. As a relatively recent example, the Germans had a lively "gay scene" and civil rights movement before Hitler showed up and used one of those anti-gay laws that was still on the books but that nobody enforced to crush the gay community under the guise of "promoting public morality" and send gay people off to the gas chambers alongside Jewish people. (Fortunately, Scalia won't be getting his way regarding our own laws of similar nature any time soon--they're toast-like.)

          The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

          by Shapeshifter on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:09:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not as much as you'd think... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            That's probably a singular example...I think Berlin in the 1920s would have been the world's first and only  above-ground "gay community" in the modern sense - with bars, saunas, publications as well as a gay rights movement that tried to overturn sodomy laws. If I recall correctly it started back in the 1890s and one of the leaders(can't remember his name) was a well-known sexologist and writer. Hitler apparently despised them and drove them underground pretty quickly in 1933.

            In the US, the Mattachine Society formed in the 1950s and led some small marches in NY and Wash DC but gay rights really only took off with the counterculture in the late 60s and 70s.

    •  Initiative and Referendum (0+ / 0-)

      The whole premise on which citizens directly amending the state constitution was an outgrowth of the Populist/Progressive Era designed to allow citizens to bypass legislatures controlled by monopolies (what we'd probably call "special interests").  As usual, Wikipedia has a gooddiscussion.

      Where I'd look for reform of current practice, would be something that made amending state constitutions more difficult.  I note that Massachusetts, for example, requires quite a process for constitutional amendment, whereas - in Nebraska for example - it takes 50% of a single ballot measure.

      Maybe, just once, someone will call me "sir" without adding, "you're making a scene." -- Homer Simpson

      by prodigal on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:52:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Neither would... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cream City, julifolo

      Amendments allowing interracial marriage. That was even less popular when the Supreme Court took it up than same sex marriage is today. I think something like 20-30% of the general populace still would prefer interracial marriage to go away.

      But that's sort of the whole point.

      Rights are supposed to be inalienable--they are not up for a vote!

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:02:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  See (3+ / 0-)

    Moderate Democrats are useful sometimes.

    Except on referenda.


    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:55:15 PM PST

  •  Go the Way of Segregation? (12+ / 0-)

    You know - W.E.B. DuBois lived to be nearly 100 years old and never saw the end of segregation.  I though in the 1970s that it was a generation away.  I am sadly mistaken.  What is the acceptable political, hard, cold, cost of denying GLBTI people their fundamental human rights?

    •  I think his point is (5+ / 0-)

      in this instance we lost the battle but when history unfolds THEY will lose the war.

      It is unfortunate that there is an element to society that is so fearful of different and that there are those willing to exploit it, but it is what it is.

      I think this is an acknowledgment of reality, not an agreement to end the war.

      •  Well this is a strange way to say it... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnnygunn, Shapeshifter, julifolo, mrbubs

        Basically, we lose equal rights for a generation, but we win Congress,  Even if we keep Congress for 12 years, we will still be burdened with these amendments.

        I understand what Kos is saying, but his word choice was pretty bad.

        I am heartened by the hope that Senate Democrats will bury the Marriage Amendment, but that won't undo the damage done.

        Politics isn't everything, it's the only thing.

        by tc59 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:08:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'd go further. (0+ / 0-)

        There are some groups that make good scapegoats (generally those that live among a society without integrting, and hold their fellow contrymen in contemp make ideal targets), and there are those that do not.

        The fact of the matter is that almost everyone under 30 knows someone who is gay, or soon will. It's hard to bash a group for long when they are the sons, daughters, and beloved aunts/uncles of "our" side, whatever that means. In addition, homosexuals tend to be more upper class than average. Probably this is a self selection on the fact that they made a lifestyle choice (and an unpopular one at that) rather than simply following falling into societal norms no matter how ill fitting.

        This is one war that is best not waged, as the end result is a foregone conclusion. Serious homophobia will be effectively ended on the national political level within 20 years regardless of what else happens. That's just the reality of the situation, so to set everyone else back (minimum wage, etc...) trying to bring this in to 15 years isn't terribly productive.

        We should take a shot when given the opportunity, but not get ourselves into serious trouble over this, as this one will naturally work itself out soon enough.

    •  Democrat candidates, not progressive issues (7+ / 0-)

      While I'm happy that there's a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, I'm not as thrilled about how it happened: overall, a small majority, elected in many cases on thin majorities at the polls. Alongside those elections, though, wave after wave of entrenched, legislated bigotry and discrimination.

      Sure, we have a population that will vote "Democrat" along with me, when faced with overwhelming greed, corruption, and incompetance from the competing party. But does that population align with me on issues (beyond the blindingly obvious debacle of the Iraq war)? Not likely.

      In fact, exit polls showed that while the Iraq war was a big motivator, corruption and scandal were more important to more people. The outcome of this election is a repudation of the Republican party, certainly, but it would be a huge stretch (and potentially a mistake) to believe it meant that social progress was on the wind.

      I like to believe, personally, that eventually, people will get over themselves and start behaving rationally about such things. I'm not sure I'll live to see it happen, though.

      -2.63, -6.31   Reason, Justice, Integrity

      by umuhk on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:06:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Personally (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnnygunn, julifolo, ruleoflaw

        I think gay marriage will not be decided by the people but by as the right likes to term them activist judges. I would also agree that it won't be my generation that repudiates this for the discrimination that it is but most likely my kids generation.

        I feel sad for those that are being discriminated against and torn because the best we can offer them is that playing semantics with the word marriage is the best hope we have to giving them and those they love some protection. I also worry that we may be putting off forcing people to acknowledge that relationships that our different should not be treated differently by terming these marriages as civil unions. It is a quandry when your choices are bad and worse.

    •  reading (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnnygunn, Shapeshifter
      a New Yorker article about the historic US requisite cave to the Turks on the issue of Armenian genocide, I wonder if it will take more than a generation.

      I'm neither Armenian nor gay, but am stuck wondering what it must be like to sacrifice identity to political expediencies.

      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.

      by Miss Devore on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:08:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gay marriage is coming (20+ / 0-)

      The right just doesn't want to acknowledge that they've lost this.  Bill Bennet admitted as much.

      In a few years, when people see married gays and that the sky is not falling, things will change.  And the kids, the generation beneath us, is all for gay marriage.  So when it's their turn to run things, it's gonna change.

      First will come the civil unions, then the marriage, and then those states will fall like dominoes.

      Stephanie Dray
      of Jousting for Justice, a lefty blog with a Maryland tilt.

      by stephdray on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:10:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stephdray, Rolfyboy6, julifolo, offgrid

        And those folks who were at the forefront of denying gays equal rights will be remembered in large part very negatively.

        Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

        by chemsmith on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:14:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The kids? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        julifolo, vincent vega, lil love

        And the kids, the generation beneath us, is all for gay marriage.  So when it's their turn to run things, it's gonna change.

        This is interesting. Which kids are "all for it"? I'm sure gay marriage has at least good laissez-faire support among, say, college students. But then, college students are among the most socially liberal groups out there right now, and it's not a slam-dunk issue even on campus. There are many more young people out there who don't attend college...and I'd venture the support among that population is decidedly smaller.

        If there are polls available that say otherwise, I'd enjoy seeing them (if only for the sense of relief for the future they provide).

        -2.63, -6.31   Reason, Justice, Integrity

        by umuhk on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:19:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Even calling college campuses "liberal"... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnnygunn, julifolo, le sequoit, lil love

 a little dangerous.  Even at a quaintly liberal college (albeit in the midwest), there's a very strong conservative presence on campus - enough to have brought David Horowitz and Ann Coulter to campus in recent years.  Granted, we gave 'em hell.  

          College kids definitely trend liberal, but it's only a trend in my experience, unfortunately.

          There are some days when no matter what I say it feels like I'm far away in another country & whoever is doing the translating has had far too much to drink

          by weirdmusic657 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:35:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Representative--or agents of a foreign power? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            (The "foreign power" in this case being Horowitz.)

            The college i attend is fairly "liberal", and for years there was not really a "conservative" presence on campus. Then, this semester, the College Brownshirts showed up as though by spontaneous generation. They're now trying to deliver body-blows to the college, and specifically the parts they don't like, and only a very small slice of the college actually understands what's going on. (I include myself in there, of course... so far as it goes.)

            The breakdown of students did not change, but suddenly the campus is at war with urban guerillas.

            The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

            by Shapeshifter on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:15:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  We won't see gay marriage in Wisconsin (0+ / 0-)

        since the amendment lost.

        Minor point, apparently.

        They can just wait a generation or so.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:29:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not a minor point (4+ / 0-)

          But it's also not something we can change right this second.

          But at the risk of sounding as much of a fool as Dick Cheney, I think the opposition is in its death throes.

          Stephanie Dray
          of Jousting for Justice, a lefty blog with a Maryland tilt.

          by stephdray on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:36:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Have hope, Cream. (0+ / 0-)

          Constitutional amendments can be repealed.

          •  But don't accept that it can wait a generation (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishingwell, julifolo

            Or we will lose the youth vote.

            They're not Dems, they're independents.

            They won't come back to the polls without a cause.  It takes two or often three times voting to get the typical voter committed to coming back, and committed to a party.

            "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

            by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:10:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Not a "generation" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          We won't see gay marriage in Wisconsin since the amendment lost. Minor point, apparently.
          They can just wait a generation or so.

          I don't think it'll take quite that long. The anti-gay marriage forces know deep down inside their tiny shrivelled souls they can't ultimately win on this.
          The same thing happened with the civil rights movement in the early 60's: There was an "anti" surge in the years right before the Civil Rights Amendment/Voting Rights Act was passed/accepted.

          Finally getting control of Congress is important here. We didn't win because we're pro Gay Marriage, but victory gives us an oppurtunity to do some public education about certain social issues.

          Remember, the RW has dominated political discourse in this country far too long. But both the Christian Right and the Neocons are now in the doghouse, and we are seen as a fresh start.
          We will suddenly find ourselves in a position to "reframe" the gay marriage issue, and coupled with a populist Dem economic platform, cajole some of these people into accepting the fact that the US is a diverse, colorful nation.

          This shouldn't take a whole generation - maybe 4-8 years (?)
          I'm just sayin.....

      •  Gay Marriage is Here (6+ / 0-)

        in Massachusetts.  And the sky not only did not fall, and we also elected our first African American Governor (sky still there).

        Based on what I've experienced in Massachusetts (where we just barely fought off an out-right legislative ban right after Goodridge became the law of the land), with the passage of time, gay marriage becomes just mundane marriage for most of this commonwealth.

        And while I was terribly disappointed by a number of the anti-gay referenda (sp) that passed , I was heartened by  Arizona.  Because of the great citzens of Arizona, I know for sure, those of us in Massachusetts are not alone, we're just slightly ahead of the rest of the country.  THANK YOU ARIZONA.

        and Go Red Sox.

    •  The cost is enormous (9+ / 0-)

      But your examples, IMO, don't take into account the spread of 24hr media. I don't think it's impact can be understated. We see gay people in inclusive settings daily through the television. Many celebrities are not just accepted but loved, Ellen, Will and Grace, Tim Gunn, ect. It's becoming harder and harder to make the case that these people, real or fictional, should be discriminated against.

      I was a child during the fifties, a teen during the sixties, I remember when Bill Cosby became the first black man to star in a television show, I Spy. I remember Diane Carroll in Julia. I also remember the hoopla of the first voluntary inter-racial kiss on daytime TV, yes, I'm remembering the kiss between Kirk and Uruhru(sp?). It wasn't long before the sight of an inter-racial couple in drama, comedy, commercials, was no longer cause for headlines.

      I believe that we are going to see the same evolution with gays, only it will be faster. Our world changes faster.

      Shut it down is so yesterday. Now it's time to FIRE IT UP!

      by high uintas on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:22:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uhura, "whose name means freedom" (4+ / 0-)

        I remember when Shatner said "hell" at the end of City On the Edge of Forever. First time on American TV.

        I nearly wet my pjs.

        "To such thinking you have only to say 'the land you loved is doomed' to excuse any treachery, indeed to glorify it." -Tolkien, On Fairy-Stories, 1938.

        by Yamara on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:07:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  and Evangelical women (4+ / 0-)

        are not always against Gay marriage. I was pleasantly surprised, actually. Since my mother died, a few of her friends kept in touch with me. My mother was a liberal to moderate Evangelical ( voted for Democrats, debated her friends intensely over Bush and voted for Kerry). Anyway, 2 of these ladies, mind you both over 70....told me...

        " I do not know what business it is of mine or anyone if a gay couple marries. That is their business and it does not affect me. Who am I to judge what is right and wrong, Jesus said Judge Not.".

        ( yet their husbands take the opposite anti gay stance). Of course, I keep telling some relatives and my parents' friends that perhaps they are more moderate Evangelicals but they deny it. Most of these ladies are more anti abortion than anti gay marriage. They claim it is the male Evangelicals that take issue with Gay marriage.

        So I believe women will come around faster. Sure there are the hardcore, judgmental, Ann Coulter types..but I was shocked to discover how many Republican acquaintances who are female are more tolerant on gay rights.

        I am out shopping for new Drapes.

        by wishingwell on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:33:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've read that when a child comes-out to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnnygunn, Shapeshifter

          his/her parents, that the mother is more likely to
          be compassionate; the father, esp. in the case of a male child, is much more resistant. I wonder if homophobia in males is rooted in gender doubts less likely found in us females?!  Any thoughts on that, Kossacks? Observations? Life stories?! Could just be that maternal love is unconditional, and fathers
          not so much (must be "earned")??!!

          Aloha. . .

          •  Homophobia... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnnygunn, dolphin777

            Is an expression of "patriarchy". It naturally expresses itself more viciously against gay people who are male than female.

            The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

            by Shapeshifter on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:17:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sounds like reasonable thesis, Shifter! As (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              high uintas

              a feminist with a penchant for history, I've always found interesting the remarks that seek to explain
              the period pre-Judaism; what was the state of affairs for humans before the advent of monotheism?

              Best guess: matriarchy was order of the day; agriculturists linked to Mother Earth and Earth Goddess(es); early strains of Judaism found this threatening(!); very strenuous efforts were undertaken to discredit all forms of female worship.

              Patriarchy replaced matriarchy! Hence the morning/daily prayer of the devout observant Jew:
              "I thank Yahweh for NOT creating me a female"(!)
              I paraphrase.  And these were the authors of the Old Testament! I particularily find issue with Genesis when it places Man over ALL life forms; no
              stewardship there! We're reaping that today, aren't we?!  
              Aloha. . .

              •  Late to your comment, but hope you read this (0+ / 0-)

                I find the same things interesting. If you ever have a chance there is a really interesting book that covers some of the ground you are talking about. It's called The White Goddess by Robert Graves, the poet and the author of I Claudius, one of my favs. The White Goddess is about the feminine religion and the rise of the Sun God religions.

                Shut it down is so yesterday. Now it's time to FIRE IT UP!

                by high uintas on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:35:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  On its way, though . . . (16+ / 0-)

      I'm a child of the 1950's.  The homophobia of my childhood combined with my character resulted in a hellacious adulthood.  I bear the scars, and never really learned out to be a healthy person.

      And when I see the younger gay men and women today, I am so happy and so proud of them.  They are so far beyond anything I could ever have imagined in terms of self-acceptance and acceptance by their peers.

      I wish it was better than it is now.  But I see so much progress . . . despite the anti-marriage initiatives and rampant gay-bashing of the religious right . . . that I really believe things will on get better as time goes on.  

      This kind of crap is annoying and painful, but it won't stop progress.  This I believe.

      Maybe, just once, someone will call me "sir" without adding, "you're making a scene." -- Homer Simpson

      by prodigal on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:25:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am ashamed to admit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnnygunn, Shapeshifter

      that Milwaukee, Wisconsin is the most segregated city in the US.

  •  people just dont like republicans (0+ / 0-)

    my favorite quote post election  "now i know how flod patterson felt"-Hugh hewitt

    The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. -Bill Hicks

    by waitingforvizzini on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:56:23 PM PST

  •  We only took back the state senate (13+ / 0-)

    The bigots are still the majority in the assembly.

    Thwarting the forces of idiocy since 1978. -6.38, -6.00

    by wiscmass on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:57:55 PM PST

  •  Milwaukee County (4+ / 0-)

    let us down... The heavily Democratic county ended up being wayyy too friendly for the amendment.

    •  It only won in two counties (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kdrivel, 3goldens

      out of 72.  I think I read that it even won a third of the votes in oh-so-progressive Dane County (Madison), where the archbishop every priest to play a tape in every pulpit that ordered the laypeople to vote for the amendment.  (Bless many of them who walked out, stood and turned their backs to the pulpit, etc.)

      Milwaukee is as much as a fifth of the population of the state -- but it took more than the vote differential in Milwaukee.  And the archbishop in Milwaukee refused to take a stand and let the diocesan paper (huge circulation) run a piece by a priest who explained why the amendment ought not pass.

      But above all, bless our lame-duck Dem attorney general for mandating that the issue be stated as it was on the ballot, or it would have been passed by a larger margin.  Thank you, Peg Lautenschlager!

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:41:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "The 'Architect'"? "Bush's Brain?" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, 3goldens, wildwood13, dolphin777

    I don't think so. Just an old fat bald hack with a few tricks up his sleeve (hello?  Paging Jeff Guckert (sp?))

  •  Ha-ha! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, dolphin777
    Nelson: Ha-ha!

    Accountability moment, my ass!

    by orthogonal on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:59:39 PM PST

  •  Why not separate elections???? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    concernedamerican, sherlyle

    Why not separate elections so we vote for propositions/referendums separately from elections for office?  This is the kind of manipulation of the election that sneaks by year after year and we're part of it.

    Let's return the elctions to what they are meant for, not "drawing the right type of voter."

  •  any ideas- (0+ / 0-)

    -on ballot initiatives that might work in favor of democrats in state offices in a very conservative state?

    I'm thinking of running a measure in South Dakota in 2008 to turn South Dakota into the next Montana... please, any suggestions let me know!

    •  initiatives that state that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cream City, LithiumCola

      the fine for kicking donald rumsfeld square in the nuts whenever he is spotted in public shall be five bucks.

      it's a winner.

      "joke about the rapture here"


      by lipris on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:02:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wondered if the.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...initiatives this election cycle to raise the minimum wage in some states helped the Dem tide.  


      There are some days when no matter what I say it feels like I'm far away in another country & whoever is doing the translating has had far too much to drink

      by weirdmusic657 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:31:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Definately! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        In Montana there was a minimum wage initiative that passed with something like 75% of the vote.  

        I think you could easily argue that the minimum wage law brought people to the polls that might have stayed home and those people probably voted over whelmingly for Democrats.  We might not have Jon Tester is not for the minimum wage ballot.

        Also in Missouri the stem cell ballot barely passed.  McCaskill was trying to use the somewhat popular support of stem cells to motivate people to vote for her.  Remember Michael J. Fox?  The stem cell initiative passed, and McCaskill barely won.  Hmmm.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  But I think it will be viewed as a successful strategy.

        I'm tryign to think of something that is both progressive and popular that South Dakota lacks.  Oh, and something that won't motivate conservatives to vote in equal numbers.

        I guess I'll have to diary my idea later since no one really answered my question.

  •  Here in Wisconsin (14+ / 0-) seems just a sorry-ass state of affairs that the damn mean stupid thing passed.  When you want to attract a smart, skilled, young work force, what are you doing putting junk like that in your constitution?  There was even an add-on provision about banning arrangements that are 'substantially similar' (whatever that means) to marriage and it affects heterosexual couples, too.  I mean, these creeps really laid a stink bomb this time.

    He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles.jbs haldane on being asked what his study of biology had taught him about the Creator.

    by bodiddley on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:00:44 PM PST

    •  Gay marriage was already banned (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      by the Wisconsin constitution. This was just a mean spirited and unnecessary political stunt to turn out the conservatives.

      If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

      by jhecht on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:23:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  WI Gay "Brain Drain" well underway (5+ / 0-)

      I know of half a dozen gay people who have left Wisconsin in the last 3 years because they could see the writing on the wall.

      I, myself, left 2 years ago for a Blue State with an employer that offers domestic partner benefits.  My girlfriend left, too, for a Southern Blue state.  Her employer offers domestic partner benefits, too.

      This WI amendment for some be the last straw.  Others have already left:

      Rob Carpick, an associate professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison researcher who has won millions of dollars in grants for his research in the field of nanotechnology, is leaving for the more gay-friendly University of Pennsylvania.

      He takes with him the funding - some $3.4 million in grants from the National Science Foundation, branches of the U.S. military and private companies since 2000.

      "After six and one-half years of working very hard, I found it's problematic to work in an environment where you are not treated equally," Carpick, 37, told The Associated Press. "Fortunately there are other entities that are more enlightened than the state of Wisconsin on this issue and the University of Pennsylvania is one of them." The loss of Caprick is a blow to the University of Wisconsin.  It is trying to build a reputation in nanotechnology.

      •  Yep, and at my UW campus (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shapeshifter, julifolo

        we are going to lose several of our best colleagues, the ones that we know of already.  

        I'm sorry that we lost you.

        Our faculty senates spoke up to say it would happen, even the UW Board of Regents said it would happen and spoke up against the amendment.

        But our GOP legislators hate the UW, hate the UW faculty -- since, as you know, we're the only ones banned by state law from the basic right of collective bargaining, too.

        So they bargained on this and got burned.

        But they still can be married and can protect their families with benefits.  May they burn in hell, though -- while you are in a far better place than . . . Wisconsin.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:34:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  As a transplanted former Pennsylvanian (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        • Philly, actually - I'm inordinately proud of U of P!! Philly too often termed provincial, esp. by Noo Yawkers. But I believe it takes a cosmopolitan enviroment to recognize that talent counts alot and trumps any other consideration!

        As a teen, I'm 70 y.o. now, I noticed that leaving out any element of original thinking, dedication. and willingness to bring about change in a troubled world just b/c the package was female or black or in any way out of the mainstream was JUST PLAIN STOOPID!!

        Aloha. . .

    •  Intentionally affecting heterosexual couples... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Apparently, at least.

      After the amendment passed, a day or two ago, one of the principle architects came out and said that Wisconsin "would not tolerate" (or something like that) unmarried couples being "encouraged" (ie, through benefits provided by employers--a big plus if you want to attract top-level, ie GLBT(etc) employees or those friendly to them).

      This, despite the fact that she repeatedly said she wasn't going to go after straight people or job benefits before, explicitly applied to both, now.

      I suspect--now more than ever--the amendment's vague, incredibly broad wording was completely and intentionally designed to fulfill these desires: to hurt people who didn't live their lives the way Julaine Appling and friends demand. To control.

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:47:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  kos (6+ / 0-)

    I agree that history will look back at how we treat the gay and lesbian community today in the same light as those that sought to make African Americans second class citizens.

  •  The only referendums we should have... (5+ / 0-)

    ...should be issues that involve public monies. Lie stadiums, community investment taxes, emmient dominan, etc...

    •  Yes! Now that we're in charge, can we please (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      julifolo, 3goldens

      work on REAL problems for a while?  No Dem had better bring up anything remotely like a wedge issue..we need to heal the wounds Rove has inflicted on us all by setting us at each other's throats with this kind of crap.

      •  Why not our own wedge issues? (0+ / 0-)

        If Bush vetoes the minimum wage, then have a COLA-indexed minimum wage go to the states.  Certainly the DNC could poll red states to see which blue issues are popular, and call for referenda or petitions on them.  

        •  Good point, but... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...I definitely see a difference in dealing with minimum wage issues vs. queers getting married.  

          Call me crazy, but I think enacting minimum wage reforms is a really positive thing, unless you're a big corporation who doesn't pay your employees jack and can't move them overseas.  As opposed to a divisive, hateful, and ill-concieved "marriage-defining" whatever-it-is.

          There are some days when no matter what I say it feels like I'm far away in another country & whoever is doing the translating has had far too much to drink

          by weirdmusic657 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:46:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  No, no one amends my constitution (0+ / 0-)

      without my say-so.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:42:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's good to see... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BPK, 3goldens, bodiddley, offgrid

    the Republicans are starting to plan elections with the same foresight with which they plan wars...

  •  Where were the unexpected statehouse pickups? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, sherlyle, scardanelli

    Inner suburbs and college towns?

    The GOP is losing those voters for a long time to come over identity issues and social conservatism.  These are educated (and often young) voters who don't forget easily.

    I'm gay and I hate losing these, but there's one hell of a realignment going on.  If the social conservatives don't get walloped and repudiated by McCain in 2008 or Hagel in 2012 -- and I dont think they will be -- then we are looking at picking up an entire generation here.  

    Social conservatism DOES NOT SELL in the wider population.  They flipped some Catholics on us for a while, but they are going to regret this.  They're losing the kids of those Catholics, and everyone else's kids too.

    (And they hoped to flip some Hispanics on us with these issues too, but their own nativist base wouldn't let them.  Big business chose the wrong dance partners, bitches!)

  •  Fair Wisconsin (14+ / 0-)

    I actually worked for Fair Wisconsin, the anti-amendment campaign, and organizing the UW-Madison campus against the amendment.

    Turnout on campus was 66% higher than '02. Doyle won about 5,000 more votes than he did in '02.

    We won 85% of the vote on campus, outpacing all Democratic candidates. This is 5% higher than John Kerry pulled in '04. Unfortunately, as there are no elected Republicans in the area, we didn't flip anything. We did pad the vote totals for most of the local Democrats quite nicely, though.

    The loss is disappointing, but there's no doubt that Democrats across the state were helped by this being on the ballot, because it energized the youth vote, which turned out in droves agianst the amendment, against the assholes who put this on the ballot in the first place.

    In 15 years, we'll get this fucking shit out of the Wisconsin Constitution. But at least we proved that when Democrats come out strongly against these measures accompanied by a campaign against these measures, Democrats stand to gain, not lose.

    he's stood for us, so we must stand for him. draft Russ Feingold!

    by defyingravity on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:03:52 PM PST

    •  young voter turnout tripled since 2002 (4+ / 0-)

      that's for voters 18-29...i think student turnout more than doubled actually, which is amazing.

      in dane county, where madison is located, something like 67% voted no.

      the rest of the state burst our uw-madison bubble.

      No one loves armed missionaries.

      by holycheebis on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:31:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pHunbalanced, umuhk

      If you're a socially-conservative Democrat who manages to paste his prejudices on the state Constitution but liberal on economic policies, then you have no need to vote for the Republican.  

    •  GOTV at UW-Milwaukee was incredible (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      julifolo, ruleoflaw

      We just don't have the same stats yet (we don't have the same UW resources to study ourselves as much as your campus studies Dane County:-).

      Long, long lines at every polling place, on campus and in the neighborhood.  Long, long lines of students for same-day registration.  (Thank heavens that we have one house of the legislature again, so we don't lose that.)

      And even at Marquette, the Catholic campus in Milwaukee, the main polling place reported a two-to-one vote against the amendment.

      The youth vote and the women's vote -- 58 percent of voters in Wisconsin -- did so much this week in Wisconsin.  Our youth vote was second-highest in the country in 2004.  I bet we're number-one this time, when all the stats come in.  (Nyah, Vikings fans.)

      Now, just do it again and even more so.  Repeal NOW -- not a generation away.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:49:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cream City, Shapeshifter, julifolo

      In 15 years, we'll get this fucking shit out of the Wisconsin Constitution. But at least we proved that when Democrats come out strongly against these measures accompanied by a campaign against these measures, Democrats stand to gain, not lose.

      The longer the Wignuts run with this Gay Marriage crap, the stronger we become in the long term. Now, I wish these bans didn't pass at all, but THEY ARE SERIOUSLY ALIENATING YOUNG VOTERS FROM THE GOP!!!! Even many of Young Republican types I know cringe at the gay bashing that the GOP uses to turn out their evangeical base.

      What really screws progressives in the short term is that many of their fellow Democrats, namely 40+ blue collar union types, like to vote for these measures and put them into law.

      Disclaimer: Just so my GLBT friends don't get the wrong idea, I know many, many of these blue collar union types who think the Gay Marriage bans are bullshit. The problem is just a matter of numbers: If, say, union members go 65-35 for Democratic candidates, yet split 50-50 on the Gay marriage initiatives, it makes it difficult to stop these measures, especially when you also take African-Americans into account.

  •  It also shows that the folks to throw under the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sherlyle, cwaltz

    train, or to offend, are not the majority of the population in the state in which you're planning to run such initiatives PURELY BECAUSE THE FAR RIGHT HATE-SLATHERING FUNDAMENTALISTS DEMANDED THAT YOU THROW THEM A BONE.

    HA!  HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

    •  The majority in Wisconsin voted for the amendment (0+ / 0-)

      and now, it is law.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:50:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't misunderstand that-- but the majority (0+ / 0-)

        came out in droves to vote against Republicans-- something the Republicans hadn't anticipated.  So they risked offending many voters-- the ones they hadn't counted on turning out in droves, like college students-- in order to appease the demands of a few voters who pushed to get the amendment on the ballot.  And THAT's the mistake they made-- they "threw under the train" the ones who were in the majority after all-- the ones who ended up voting against Republicans, for whatever reason.

  •  I'm glad some good came of this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    julifolo, 3goldens

    Wisconsin was the first to enact statewide gay rights; it's a sad day in the history of the civil rights movement.

    So much education and enlightenment still needs to occur; why is it so difficult a concept to grasp that these marriage bans are nothing more than gender-based discrimination?

    •  as i observed elsewhere ... (6+ / 0-)

      ... it is difficult because for most people marriage is not a legal arrangement, it is a religious sacrament. there are a LOT of catholics in wisconsin. keep in mind that as far as the catholic church is concerned, 99.99% of all divorces between catholics are civil divorces -- the church considers the marriage intact. if they could, the church would lead a movement that would make a legal divorce only slightly more difficult to obtain than a legal gay marriage.

      I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

      by UntimelyRippd on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:26:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow - good point... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        julifolo, ruleoflaw, offgrid

        ...never thought of the Catholic church's policy in that way.  

        But yes - even after YEARS of patient (and not-so-patient) explanation, people still can't separate the legal and religious halves of marriage.  Of course, this doesn't explain states like VA that have not only banned marriage, but also civil unions; that's not only about the idea of "marriage" but also fairly explicitly about legal rights as well.

        There are some days when no matter what I say it feels like I'm far away in another country & whoever is doing the translating has had far too much to drink

        by weirdmusic657 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:38:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Marriage" (6+ / 0-)

        If "marriage" is a "religious sacrament", then any government official (judge, mayor, etc) who preforms a marriage should be arrested for preforming a religious ceremony on public property, on public time, and with government money.

        Maybe we should give up the word "marriage" and only allow civil unions. Then after you get a civil union (for tax purposes and other civil law reasons), if you want to get "married", you can go to your church for it.

        "Like the mirror told me this morning, it's all done with people" - Wavy Gravy

        by offgrid on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:49:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, you know, most people get married in church (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          julifolo, offgrid

          marriage is perhaps the single most tricky institution to detangle from church on the one hand or from state on the other. ultimately, i agree that your solution makes sense -- but it will take many more years for it to evolve into something that makes sense to everyone else.

          interestingly, of course, as the population ages, it will be more and more a matter of senior citizens refusing to grant a right (privilege?) to the younger citizens who want it. food for thought.

          of course, in a decent society, 90% of all the tangible benefits gays want from marriage would not rely on marriage in the first place.

          I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

          by UntimelyRippd on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:14:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wonder (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cream City, julifolo

            interestingly, of course, as the population ages, it will be more and more a matter of senior citizens refusing to grant a right (privilege?) to the younger citizens who want it. food for thought.

            I'm off to see who's restricting whom.

          •  Equal rights (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            in a decent society, 90% of all the tangible benefits gays want from marriage would not rely on marriage in the first place.

            Should be 100%

            True that most people get married in church. But without a "marriage license", it has no legal meaning.

            It's the legal meaning that's important for equal rights.

            "Like the mirror told me this morning, it's all done with people" - Wavy Gravy

            by offgrid on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:55:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Not quite re gay rights (0+ / 0-)

      since the amendment passed in Wisconsin, and now, it is law.  

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:50:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sadly, without Foley, it probably would have (0+ / 0-)

    worked as planned.

    But Foley opened up such a huge window to the real truth/manipulation, that decent folks were repelled.

    The truth is now out there.  This tactic probably won't work again.

    On the other hand, minimum wage issues may just be as effective in to the future, from the Dem POV.  

    Who wouldn't turn out if they ware going to get a raise.

    •  minimum wage (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weirdmusic657, Terra Mystica

      I actually hope we punt this political football and solve wages by indexing to inflation when we enact wages. I hope we aren't like the GOP and actually deliver results, not based on what is best for politics but by what is best for America and then we deliver.

      We can find other issues to draw folks in on come election time. Health care springs to mind.

      •  One danger... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shapeshifter, cwaltz, vincent vega

        Now, I am not an economist, but in a large scale financial disaster (think the Depression), couldn't indexing the minimum wage to inflation compound such a problem?

        I am not against this idea in principle (in fact I've favored doing this for quite a while), but there would have to be safeguards to make sure that in a period of rapid inflation, any raise in minimum wage would lag far enough behind inflaction that it would not preclude an economic recovery.

        If implemented improperly, this could be very dangerous.

        •  A maximum increase can be set (0+ / 0-)

          An increase in the minimum wage need not track inflation precisely.  A cap of 5% per annum after the initial raise would put brakes on a COLA spiral.  

        •  It should be done in the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          same way we set COLAs for federal paying positions and SSI where it can be deferred if necessary or raised at a faster pace as well if warranted. Congress forwent 5 pay raises and gave themselves a 25% increase following that deferrment. It probably would be a good idea to have the same type of formula for minimum wage. I believe HRC actually is suggesting this in the Senate.

    •  Almost makes me believe in a god... (0+ / 0-)

      ...who is interested in swinging elections (or winning football games)

      Okay, not really.  But I'm sure it will make more than a few fundies think about stuff.

    •  It did work, just not by as large a margin (0+ / 0-)

      but the majority made the marriage ban law in Wisconsin.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:51:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  SAME THING IN OREGON (4+ / 0-)

    Howard Rich bought access to the Oregon ballot for at least of his bullshit anti-government intiatives (lower taxes for the rich, and starve government programs with draconian spending limits .  It helped really the unions and the Dems to vote, support Governor Kulongoski, turn the House of Reps blue.....

    You are a LOSER Howard Rich - you helped your opposition win this election!!!!!!!

  •  I agree with Kos on these amendments (6+ / 0-)

    Even here in Utah, not exactly a cauldron of liberalism, younger people are more open to the idea of equality for gays. Not all, of course, the Church has a strong hold on many, but I've encountered lots of young people who have no problem with gay marriage. It's an evil way to divide and becoming more and more transparent.

    Shut it down is so yesterday. Now it's time to FIRE IT UP!

    by high uintas on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:06:05 PM PST

  •  kos deserves a special (7+ / 0-)

    award, Top Chef of the evening, for making lemonade out of this particular lemon.

  •  In Virginia: (15+ / 0-)
    The constitutional amendment says that marriage is reserved for ONE man and ONE woman.

    I hear we'll have a lottery next week to find out who the lucky couple is.


    Up or down vote! Up or down vote!

    by osterizer on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:08:52 PM PST

  •  somebody (0+ / 0-)

    tell Colorado.

  •  Great (0+ / 0-)

    to see they have a clue about what happened to them.

    What's more important to me is how quickly we can repeal those gay marriage bans. They seem pretty silly in the world in which I live.

    Common Sense is not Common

    by RustyBrown on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:08:58 PM PST

  •  The town of Barre, VT voted to tax churches (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    julifolo, Yamara, dolphin777, Predictor

    Don't have a link to prove it. But my Mom (one of the few republicans in Vermont....unfortunately) is all up in arms about it.

    If true, I hope that it's a trend.

    The Democrats also gained veto-proof majorities in the VT legislature.


    Proud native of the Peoples Republic of Vermont (Don't tell Mom I said that!)

  •  Arizona (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weirdmusic657, julifolo, scardanelli

    voted down a gay marriage ban, because it also included a ban on civil unions!

    If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. --Mark Twain

    by Desert Rose on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:10:53 PM PST

  •  Hooray for young people! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, sherlyle

    Once again pulling through for us with the increased turnout.

  •  Gay marriage bans (0+ / 0-)

    kos makes a really interesting point. Right now, gay marriage bans are all the rage, and he suggests they'll go the way of the dodo bird eventually.

    I like that idea, but how valid is it? Is there any comparison in history to back this idea up?

    On an emotional level I find myself agreeing with kos, but I can't find an intellectual rationalization yet.

    Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

    by chemsmith on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:12:16 PM PST

    •  Umm . . . miscagination? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shapeshifter, chemsmith

      "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

      by LithiumCola on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:19:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...they'll have to go away, won't they?  

      Right now, gay marriage bans are all the rage, and he suggests they'll go the way of the dodo bird eventually.

      Unless they find other gay things to ban, you can have a gay marriage law passed, and a gay marriage amendment passed.  And then you're pretty much done - especially if you passed a crazy crazy gay amendment that prohibits gay couples from adopting too.  

      There are some days when no matter what I say it feels like I'm far away in another country & whoever is doing the translating has had far too much to drink

      by weirdmusic657 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:52:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  so true (5+ / 0-)

    Gay Marriage, like all progressive movements involving civil rights, will eventually become the law of the land.  The Republican's use of these types of issues to energize their base only reveals their own lack of compassion and equality but more importantly shows that they are not capable of winning on the real issues that matter in this country.  Hence Tuesday.  

  •  Woudl you believe that that's the first time (8+ / 0-)

    I've heard a Republican acknowledge that the same-sex amendments are just a cheap GOTV stunt?

    Are they so shellshocked they're being honest?

    Playing with peoples' lives for a few cheap votes . . . that's the Grand Old Party for ya.  The problem is, they are very quickly going to run out of lives to play with . . . and it looks like it only works sporadically anyway.

    Maybe these babies will grow up and turn into an adult political party sometime soon?

    "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

    by LithiumCola on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:13:30 PM PST

    •  They did so before, when they proposed this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shapeshifter, julifolo

      the day after -- I am not making this up -- the 2004 election.

      Also interesting is that the national GOP told them not to do this and to wait for 2008, when it would be needed even more to win the presidential election . . . by turning Wisconsin red (since this was the blue state closest to red in 2004).

      That was the national GOP strategy then.  

      How many states will have it on the ballot?  Fewer?

      Or more, to win back the voters, based on the majority who backed the marriage ban in Wisconsin?

      It will be interesting to see.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:54:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A bit off the beaten path, but... (0+ / 0-)

    nothing bothers me more than the term "Reagan democrat".  THAT AIN'T A DEMOCRAT!  That person is either an independent or a moderate republican.

    •  I agree (5+ / 0-)

      What is annoying too is finding

      1. Republicans saying they want to go back to Reagan's conservativism. What's that? Spending and borrowing like a madman? Iran-Contra foreign policy? Racism? Anti-environmentalism. The beginning of an energy policy that has forced America to pre-emptively invade countries? Just what Reaganism was worth a shit?
      1. Even worse, DEMS that act like Reagan was an okay guy just b/c W is worse. Ugh. Makes me sick.

      Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

      by chemsmith on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:18:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reaganism only even appeared to make sense (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yamara, ruleoflaw

        in the context of the Cold War.  

        I mean: "Osama bin Laden, tear down this wall!"  Doesn't have the same ring, does it?  But the only reason people put up with Reagan was that you could trot him out every now and then to "face down the Russkies" and we could all pretend it was a movie in which we were the good guys.

        Actually, I'm fairly convinced that a strong executive at all only even appears to make sense in a wartime context.  It helps explain the War on Terror ™ anyway.

        "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

        by LithiumCola on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:25:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, but that's the Carter doctrine (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The Carter Doctrine declared that outside intervention in the Persian Gulf (except our own) would be met with military means.  The Reagan Corollary added the internal stability of Saudi Arabia.

  •  Voter turnout at UW-Oshkosh (4+ / 0-)

    was up 59 percent from 2002.

    What I don't get was how we elected so many damn Democrats, yet still easily passed the amendment.

  •  I'm tired of the hatred (12+ / 0-)

    directed at queer people every election cycle in order to "motivate" getting people to the polls to vote for the "right" candidate or the "right" issue.

    I'm sick of playing the role of the sitting duck everytime some homophobe wants to hide their own insecurity behind the skirts (yes, the skirts) of a blustering tough-guy image that fears women and sensitive men.

    I'm disgusted with the self-hatred and self-loathing that are on display by these closet cases who attack people because of who God created them to be; people who want nothing more than to enjoy the freedoms and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution of this country.

    The Dems had better not buy into this crap, because if and when they ever do, they've lost me.

    "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush

    by RevJoe on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:16:27 PM PST

    •  You've nailed it, RevJoe! I've lost my (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "I'm straight, but I'm not narrow!" button (prolly
      from moving around so much!) Life-energy needed to solve problems, not encourage increase of same!
      24 hours in a day: why waste them hating?! And the self-hating gays: in a more tolerant climate, will they stop that?!  The Foleys of the world truly disgust me!  Power plays and preying on the young and subordinate! And Hasturd will yet end up in a special circle in the Hot Place!

      Aloha. . .

  •  Worked for GOP in Idaho (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Pulled out enough people to help defeat Grant. Given the margins (it was only a couple thousand votes) it probably was enough to do it.

    "I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer

    by Joan McCarter on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:17:10 PM PST

  •  It did not help matters (5+ / 0-)

    that Bishop Morlino, Bishop of the Madison Catholic Diocese which comprises several counties, issued a mandatory CD that had to be played at every Catholic service last Sunday.  He threatened the priests of the Diocese that if they dared show any verbal or nonverbal reaction to the playing of the CD, that this would be regarded as a serious act of disobedience and would be dealt with.  The CD spelled out in Morlino's words what is/is not acceptable in HIS Church.  Needless to say, he realy whaled on the Marriage Amendment Referendum, the Death Penalty Referendum, and the Stem Cell Research Ref.  Nice--we've got a bully and a conservative wing-nut creep for Bishop!  The Milwaukee Archdiocese did not go this far--their priests were not threatened or hampered in any way for disagreeing with the Church stance.  And the Green Bay diocese had a CD to be played at every service but it was not mandatory.  There are one heck of a lot of pissed off Catholics in the Madison Diocese and we don't know what most of our priests think because they'll be in deep trouble if they dare open their mouths.  How's that for freedom to practice (or not) one's religion?!  We now refer to Morlino as Bishop Bully.

  •  Sad state of affairs (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badlands, Cream City, julifolo, 3goldens

    Senselessbrenner cruised to victory again, our oddly-shaped district is just too gooper-friendly. And yes, this gay marriage amendment passed, and that sucks. But if you had told me ten years ago that 41% would vote against this ammendment, I would not have believed you. Sometimes change is slow. I salute the anti-ammendment forces for fighting the good fight against bigotry. They did a terrific job organizng, and their ads were great.

    Southeastern Wisconsin used to be much more liberal than the rest of the state, but that is no longer the case. Doyle ran stronger elsewhere, because the counties surrounding Milwaukee have grown much more conservative (and populous). Thank God for Madison, which rolled up huge margins for Doyle, and voted against the ammendment. I am amazed Kagen won WI-08 when these ammendments were on the ballot. That district leans Republican and I thought the ammendments would sink his chances.

  •  What gave me hope (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scardanelli, Predictor

    most of these bans only passed with numbers in the mid 50s- it maybe less than a generation.

  •  I thnk these amendments hurt Repubs... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, 3goldens

    ...becuase if haters can get their hate fix by voting for the amendment, they don't need to vote for the Republican candidates.

    Remember that nationwide, many of our votes came from people who also voted against gay rights, etc.

    By getting the wedge stuff on a seperate ballot line, the Repugs make themselves unecessary.

    Politically, this is good for The Democratic Party.  But we progressives need to figure out how to stop these amendments because they are so hate-driven.  How can we do this?  This is what we need to think about.

    •  I think that the results of Wisconsin... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and AZ may put and end to this Rovian trick.



      •  No, Wisconsin voted for the amendment (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kdrivel, ruleoflaw

        and that made it law.

        The diary does not make that clear.

        But we are reality-based here in Wisconsin.

        Repeal begins NOW.

        Not a generation from now.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:00:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  no, you don't understand... (0+ / 0-)

          ...the whole point of the ammendment was to elect republicans...

          That not only failed, but backfired... and republicans were hurting more than expected in AZ, too.



          •  No, a lot of those Republicans (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishingwell, Timoteo, julifolo

            really hate gays.  It energized them, too -- and they are committed.  

            Attitudes like "we'll fix this in a generation" will lose us the youth vote.  They will not come back to the polls unless they see real change.

            I know them, I'm talking to them -- and many are broken-hearted and feel that their votes didn't matter.

            Real change starts with repeal.  Now.  Or we may not see them in 2008.

            "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

            by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:18:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And yet... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The amendment will have real-world effects.

            This is why it's so reprehensible--so vile, such an indicator of base and dishonorable humanity. They're intentionally punching me in the face to get elected. Their motives don't particularly matter when i'm bleeding from the nose.

            The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

            by Shapeshifter on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:16:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Just like in Michigan this year (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    they put a ballot initiative that bans affirmative action programs in colleges and universities. It passed by a large margin (UGH!!!), but not only did we see Michigan re-elect its Democratic Governor and Democratic party US Senator, we also surprisingly took the state house and almost took the state senate. I didn't hear any final numbers, but I'd heard voter turnout was pretty high across the state.

    Hopefully we can stop this bullshit initiative from being implemented. There are legal issues (just like with the ban on gay marriage voters passed here in '04).

    I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

    by land of the free on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:22:02 PM PST

  •   Amendments to ban gay marriage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cream City

    passed easily in seven of the eight states where they were on the ballot.

    The states include Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

  •  Good (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, 3goldens, Yamara, scardanelli

    By putting the same-sex marriage and death penalty measures on the same ballot, Sensenbrenner said, Republican leaders in the Legislature ended up drawing the wrong type of voter to the polls - Democrats

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of assholes.

    The people who voted for the hate amendment get no kudos, however, despite their voting for a Democrat.

    That a man can stand up. - Johnny Tremain

    by lirtydies on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:23:47 PM PST

  •  Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Screw them! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    julifolo, 3goldens

    Republican leaders in the Legislature ended up drawing the wrong type of voter to the polls -

    How dare they refer to any voter as the wrong type.
    Every registered to vote citizen is the right type of voter


    I'm ready for a *Tea Party* !

    by Esjaydee on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:25:59 PM PST

  •  There's a milestone (0+ / 0-)

    on that corner we just turned.

  •  Oh Man: Great post. That just made my night. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Whew! (12+ / 0-)

    Jim Doyle was the Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike. For the past four years we were assailed with every wingnut wet dream imaginable -- conceal and carry, TABOR, stem cell bans, voter ID, on and on and on.

    Doyle was not the darling of the progressives in Madison and I did my bit to tell everyone I knew to suck it up. Mark Green would open the flood gates to every crackpot idea that these morons could come up with.

    How we can work to reform our politics, reform healthcare and create the progressive promise in Wisconsin.

    Our state motto is Forward. The election has put us back on that track.

    Just when your faith in humanity fades...

    •  You are correct sir (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Concealed Carry is an abomination to peaceful people.  It is time to disarm these right wing kooks.

      •  Agree -- Minnesnowta's concealed carry is scary (0+ / 0-)

        with huge signs at every tourist business -- bars, restaurants, etc. -- that guns are not allowed.

        Which, when we're walkin' by, Walkin Dude, only makes us think that there must be a lot of guns around us, outdoors.

        It's a tourist turnoff.  And if ever concealed carry comes up again in Wisconsin, let's all say so.  I took a few photos of those so-attractive signs on the main tourist mall in Minneapolis to have at the ready.

        But they are so deluded there!  When I mentioned how weird it was to see the signs, locals said they really feel good about them, because it welcomes us into a gun-free zone.

        That's about as "Minnesota nice" a spin as ever I have heard.

        Not that we wouldn't mind reducing tourism pm our freeways, with all those flatlanders passing through pulling those big boats with no turn signals.  

        But we're glad to take their money.  Just not at, y'know, gunpoint.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:33:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  any incidents in Minnesota? (0+ / 0-)

          All those 'no guns' signs in Minnesota really make the place look shabby - kind of like walking into a business that has the metal grates over the windows.  "What kind of neighborhood is this?"

          OTOH, I don't think there's been any incidents of licensed firearm carriers using their weapons improperly has there?  Has there been any impact on street crime statistics?

          •  Don't know; just visited there (0+ / 0-)

            and won't have entirely fond memories.

            Maybe a local knows.  Or check the Star-Tribune.

            "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

            by Cream City on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:26:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not needed (0+ / 0-)

              If you somehow buy the idea that this gives you some protection, Minnesota and Wisconsin have among the lowest crime rates in the country. Just because little boys want to play cowboys doesn't mean we should cater to their immaturity.

              The adults have to speak up here.

              •  Where did you get the idea that I buy the idea?! (0+ / 0-)

                I was speaking of those who want concealed carry.  I certainly would think that my comments clearly suggested that I am not one of them.

                Nor, if you are using "you" to mean its proponents, would logic, evidence, etc., be persuasive with them.  If they want it because they're scared of the big bad city aka Milwaukee (since so many proponents seem to be burbanites and Waukeshans), they remain scared no matter how much evidence is presented to them.  It's the price of the politics of fear.

                However, since I actually live in the city, it doesn't scare me a bit.  Being so blatantly misunderstood does, though.

                "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                by Cream City on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:39:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  WI's concealed carry... (0+ / 0-)

        Was part of what made my father switch from Republican to Democrat. It truly was a nasty piece of legislation.

        The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

        by Shapeshifter on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:20:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why I am so proud to be a Badger (0+ / 0-)

          Our state stands among the few smart enough to reject C & C and the death penalty. Neither have a chance in the current legislature, and with our demographic changes I don't see it ever happening.

          On Wisconsin!

    •  I work in an industry that does a lot... (3+ / 0-)

      of work for the State of Wisconsin.  Looking at the state from the perspective of my industry, Doyle has been a terrible governor.  (Not in that he is costing the industry money, but in organization structures imposed by is political appointees, and there associated minions, there seems to have been a loss of balance as to whom contracts go).  If I had known in advance that the Democrats were going to take the state Senate, I would have had a hard time voting for Doyle.

      I had been hoping that (former governor) Thompson's younger (and seemingly "slower") brother would run as a Libertarian again.  This time I would probably have voted for him.

      It would be a great thing if a viable alternative to Doyle would appear to challenge him in the 2010 primaries...

      •  Governor Lawton? (0+ / 0-)

        there seems to have been a loss of balance as to whom contracts go)

        Doyle's contracting practices are part of a federal investigation.  

      •  Job ain't done (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cream City, vincent vega

        There are vast improvements that need to be made in the Doyle administration and that includes getting Doyle to get in front of cleaning up government.

        I want Wisconsin back to where it was before Tommy was governor -- clean as a whistle. I am not going to say the Doyle was not the crook as portrayed in the Green ads or in the Journal, but with this win Doyle should stick some of his capital into reform.

        Having him in office will make this a hell of a lot easier than not having him in office.

        On Ed, I've met him and I like him but he proves my favorite statement, "Libertarians are Republicans that like to do dope."

    •  I did suck it up & voted for Doyle (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but I also gave hell to my activist friends whose best argument for electing Doyle was "he's not Mark Green"

  •  Absolutely 100% Correct (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Predictor

    These hate mongers need to have their ass kicked and we are just getting started.  Power to the people.

  •  PEOPLE POWER 101! (0+ / 0-)

    This is what this election was all about people power and people power means fundamental LGBT rights. Senator Tester will deliver in the Senate guarnateed. Thanks again to kos for leading the way in people powered LGBT rights.

  •  He Said It!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It has to be true!

    gay marriage bans will go the way of segregation within a generation

    You're the Best!  Thank you!

    Never confuse kindness and patience with stupidity and weakness!!

    by Joes Steven on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:40:43 PM PST

  •  funny how a fukt war makes voters more serious (0+ / 0-)

    about issues.

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:44:57 PM PST

  •  playing catch with hand grenades (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weirdmusic657, 3goldens, Yamara

      The Christian Nationalist mobilizing politicians are playing catch with a handgrenade every time they touch abortion or gay marriage. Both can go off with a frightful bang if mishandled ... and its no more than they deserve for playing god with someone else's life.

    "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise" - U.S. Constitution author and fourth President James Madison

    by Iowa Boy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:45:05 PM PST

  •  Mrs. Deadhead the candidate (8+ / 0-)

    I am certain that is the right explanation, ol' Jim isn't dumb... just mean and arrogant.  

    My wife was running for the State Assembly, she was the only candidate in the state to qualify for the November ballot as a write-in.  She got 35% of the vote (7,000 + votes) in one of the "reddest" places in the country.  Her opponent is probably going to be the next Speaker in the Assembly, his brother may be the next Senate Minority Leader.  And yet she got 35%.

    She spent exactly $0, knocked on 0 doors and made 1 public appearance.  The local paper graciously printed her campaign announcement and ran one profile on her positions.  She did not mention the opponent, she did not mention any of his positions... she only talked about what was important to her.

    In her official statement to the paper after the election, she simply stated that 7,000 people clearly do not feel represented currently.  The last line of her statement expressed her "sadness" at the results of the Death Penaly question.

    It was a burden even doing what little we did in the race, but I am very proud of her for taking on that burden in order to set an example and lay some groundwork for somebody else in 2 years.

    •  I hope she runs again (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WI Deadhead, ruleoflaw

      We need every good candidate we can get in Wisconsin.

      A lot of them don't do well the first time around.

      Did she connect with the Women's Network?  Women won Wisconsin for Doyle and many a Dem, since we were 58 percent of the voters in Wisconsin this Tuesday.

      We do have our first woman majority leader in the state senate, joining our first elected woman lieutenant governor, our woman chief justice, and other Dems.

      Let us know what we can do.  Thank her for me, and thank you.  

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:06:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's great news (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WI Deadhead

      I hope she considers more of a future in politics.

  •  Iraq (0+ / 0-)

    It is the Iraq stupid!

    with apologies to James Carville

    No more gooper LITE!

    by krwada on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:46:09 PM PST

  •  Virginia more progressive than Wisconsin? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cream City, 3goldens

    Wisconsin voted 59-41 in favor of hate. Virginia passed  our hate amendment 57-43.

    Warner/Clark '08 - Republican Nightmare Ticket

    by Clark04 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:46:43 PM PST

  •  Another reason I live in Mexico (3+ / 0-)

    Mexico City's assembly on Thursday voted for the first time in the country's history to legally recognize gay civil unions, a measure that will provide same-sex couples with benefits similar to those of married couples. The mayor was expected to sign the measure into law.

  •  If I could quote Chris Matthews here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Predictor


    Well it's upsetting to me that people so badly want to restrict the rights of gays.  I don't know what we've done to them.  But apparently they want to enshrine hatred in our constitution.  In California, we had our state senate and assembly pass gay marriage only to have Arnold veto it.  

    Now, it's interesting about this ammendment.  Arizona became the first and only state to reject this hate ammendment.  And I have a feeling that if the dynamics were the same, it dispatched that asshole J.D. Hayworth out of congress.  I'm laughing just thinking about it.  

  •  Is It Time To Stop Tolerating Intolerance? (5+ / 0-)
    Just asking.
  •  Make the best of a bad situation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    North Central

    Constitutionalizing a ban on gay marriage is not only reactionary, but it isn't even conservative.  True conservatives don't seek to alter fundamental law by way of plebiscites.  As I recall Der Fuehrer like to use plebiscites to ratify Nazi policies.  That being said, Sensenbrenner is a smart old pol and if he believes that the hate plebiscite backfired on the GOP I am inclined to agree.  Blowback can be a b*tch.

  •  Move Over Blacks... (0+ / 0-)

    Move over blacks, the new group that it's socially and politically OK to pile on are... THE GAYS!

    Way to go, America!  You're so grown up, aren't you.

    •  Gays are the (0+ / 0-)

      "new blacks" according to Bill Maher and after living through the Civil Rights movement of the 60's I'd have to agree with that. It is the same type of discrimination for no rational reason or basis other than fear itself. As a gay person, I will not back down from fighting for these rights because I didn't see the African Americans backing down in the 60's no matter how unpleasant it got.
      They didn't back down in North Carolina from eventually overturning the interracial marriage ban(think it was 1971), it only took a long time. I agree with Kos that it will evolve and change over time.

      "Bush is in command. And when he heard that sectarian militias had killed hundreds of Iraqis, he called for an immediate invasion of Sectaria." - Bill Maher

      by Predictor on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:04:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's not tempt fate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There are a bunch of bloodthirsty conservatives sitting back hoping and praying we attempt to legalize gay nmarriage the next two years.  We fought our guts out to get the center right of this country on our side; let's not fritter it away.  I like what Bill Maher said last night on Larry King:  give the R's "marriage" and guns, and we'll win elections and rule all the other issues.  There are huge swaths of the country not ready, not even close, for gay marriage.  Do we want to drop right back into political Siberia by sending those center/right moderates into their camp.  Let's work on all of the issues but that one and let it evolve naturally.  They are praying that we pursue that "liberal agenda."  Let's pursue the agenda that unites moderates and progressives, not the one that divides them.  Please.  

    •  Definitely agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The conservatives, after dusting themselves off the drubbing they received on Tuesday, will wonder what the Democrats will persue as their agenda.  I think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be smart about this and not go for anything that moderates are not comfortable with.  It wasn't Bill Clinton's intention that the first issue that would come up after inagurated was gays in the military.  And that whole "don't ask don't tell" policy.  But that is what happened.  And Democrats have to stay focused on what got them elected:  an angry cry from us to right the wrongs the Republicans have done for the 6 years Bush has been in office.

      •  Think Vital Center (0+ / 0-)

        Let's think about preserving our majority, not doing something that would end it quicker than we can say, "Dick Cheney took five deferrments to avoid combat but questions others' toughness."  Pushing gay marriage and holding abortion orgies is ruinous to our party.  Like Rahm said:  "Think Vital Center"!!!

        •  jharri... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Who is pushing gay marriage in the Democratic party?

          That's where we disagree, apparently. I haven't seen any Democrats pushing hard for gay marriage. Not to the point where it impacts any policy.

          Abortion orgies? I don't see much of that being pushed either.

          I think you will see that gays have been and will be very patient with Democrats. We always have been.

          •  Thanks! (0+ / 0-)

            I just think if there are "progressives" who would throw Democrats who believe in sensible limits on abortion or who are pro-life or are opposed to gat marriage overboard.  This element tried to run to Bob Casey's left in the primaries, which would have led to Rick Santorum's reelection.  We cannot dismiss candidates with an abortion/gay marriage litmus test.  

    •  That's easy for douchebag Maher to say (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cream City, julifolo

      He's straight, and quite sleazy to boot, he screws around and doesn't care much about anything but himself.

      Gay marriage was supposed to be a big help to the Republicans this year. Remember? And they still lost.

      If you want to enable those who are anti-gay, fine, but that doesn't win elections. And someone like Maher who is best friends with Ann Coulter can kiss my ass.

      •  Pragmatism, my friend! (0+ / 0-)

        Do not throw the baby out with the bath water.  Please realize that there are tons of things that unite the centrists and progressives.  I would rather win elections and have 99% of my values represented, than lose them and have none.  We cannot eat that political poison.  Sorry.  My heart is bigger than a canyon, but I do not ever again want to love through what we have 2000-2006.  Ever!

        •  Are you straight? (0+ / 0-)

          If you are, then that means 99% of your values are being represented.

          If you're gay, then far, far less of your values are being represented. If your values include things like wanting to have a will or seeing your dying partner in the hospital.

          It's an easy trap to blame gays for political failures, but that is not why Democrats lose.

          •  That's not marriage (0+ / 0-)

            I empathize greatly with the disparate treatment given gays in those situations.  I cannot relate as a straight person.  I support giving gays all of the rights when it comes to wills, hospital visits, etc, and I think there is unanimity in the Dem party on those issues and a strong consensus across the country, even in the most Republican districts.  It's that one word that causes the political backlash that could make our party crumble like a deck of cards:  marriage.  

            Hypothetical:  Let's say Al Gore were the Democrats' best hope in the general election and, though he did not support gay marriage, he supported all of the equal rights which you mention.  Let's also presume that you found yourself in agreement with Gore in terms of foreign policy and the ecomony and all other relevant issues.  Would you support a candidate with zero chance of winning the general election who advocated for gay marriage?  I would hope pragmatism would win the day and Gore would get your support.  Particularly is George Bush III were on the other side of the ballot.  

            •  jharri, the problem is that (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cream City, Shapeshifter, julifolo

              many of the amendments in states like Wisconsin ban far more than marriage.

              This is part of what gays are asking for - just some simple rights. Yes, some want marriage, and they go to court (which I don't agree with), but many just want simple rights which are taken away by these amendments.

            •  Yep, Wisconsin disagrees with you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The diary doesn't tell you that it voted not only to ban same-sex marriage but also to ban benefits to anyone in "similar" unions.

              The lawyers are going to get a lot of business.

              Interestingly, many of them are Republicans.

              Go figure.

              "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

              by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:19:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Marriage is the identifier... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Family--as identified by marriage, in this case--is given special, preferential treatment in law which cannot be replicated in any other legal fashion.

              A will can be overturned if "family" members want it to be. After all, the person who is on the other side is--as far as the law is concerned--a disinterested third person.

              This is how our society has been set up. As long as that continues to be the way our society has been set up, marriage will continue to be very central to the struggle for equality. Period.

              The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

              by Shapeshifter on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:26:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I saw the same interview with Maher (0+ / 0-)

        and as far as I was concerned he was being cavalier & politically incorrect and it was not stated in a serious manner at all, he was throwing it out to get a reaction from King.

        "Bush is in command. And when he heard that sectarian militias had killed hundreds of Iraqis, he called for an immediate invasion of Sectaria." - Bill Maher

        by Predictor on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:08:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The gift that keeps giving (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cream City, julifolo, North Central

    State Senator Erpenbach has vowed to get another Constitutional amendment on the ballot to outlaw discrimination in Wisconsin. Let these fucking bigots (and I met a few out canvassing with my daughter against the amendment) vote that down. See how the courts handle that. This wedge issue crap works two ways.

    PS: Six signs against the amendment in my block on the east side of Madison, 6067 to 407 against in my ward (94%), 68% against in the country, one hour wait to vote at 10:30 am and record turnout.

    •  Thank you! I've been waiting for the next Dem (0+ / 0-)

      to get my money, and it is Erpenpach.

      I'll go read up this in the Madison media online -- you know that I won't find a word of it in the Mwokee Urinal Sentinel.

      Where is Berceau on this?  Risser?  Other Madison Dems?

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:02:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Being a College Student in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cream City, julifolo, North Central

    The biggest issue on our campus at Marquette University in Milwaukee was to vote NO on the gay marriage ban ammendment.  People were out for a week with signs, shirts, and flyers mobilizing students to vote NO.  And I know of few fellow students who voted yes.  So from firsthand experience the younger generation did vote in higher numbers on my campus so continue to put up referendums on issues that will mobilize young voters.

  •  Same-Sex Marriage Amendments (0+ / 0-)

    These anti-Civil Rights measures will come back to haunt their proponents. As Markos says,

    "gay marriage bans will go the way of segregation within a generation."

    It will take the American Taliban a long, long time to recover from these manifestations of their dark hatred for fellow citizens. We must look at these ballot initiatives as a gift from them to us - one which will keep on giving for years to come.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:27:27 PM PST

  •  Eau Claire (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    My understanding is that opposition to the amendment drove up the Democratic vote here in Eau Claire, especially amongst students at UW-Eau Claire.  It wasn't necessarily the sole reason for the increased D vote (word is that Madison Dems have been planning a major GOTV operation here since 2004 (before the amendment was on the ballot), plus the close Legislative races).  But it was a factor.

    Regardless, the Legislative results are excellent:  as posted above, we ousted Sen. Dave Zien (the guy who kept pushing the coneal-carry gun bill that most people didn't support, but which kept coming a vote away from passage through a veto override) with former TV anchor Pat Kreitlow (a rising star in the party, make my words;  Sen. Rob Brown, from my district, with farmer Kathleen Vinehout;  and Rep. Rob Kreibich (like Kreitlow, a former TV personality, from the same TV station, no less) with Jeff Smith.  The Eau Claire area always should have been blue in the Legislature, now we've mostly corrected the problem (Michael Turner came shockingly close to beating Terry Moulton in the other Assembly race covering the city, and that race shouldn't have been close).

    The other way I look at it is, this amendment was the GOP's big weapon to take out Doyle and get complete control of Wisconsin government.  They thought the amendment would bring out all the conservatives, who would then vote for the Republican gubernatorial candidate (who turned out to be Mark Green).  I'll bet a lot of GOP legislators were ambivalent about it passing...they just wanted GOP voters at the polls to give them a GOP governor.

    So what happens?  They get the amendment passed, and then all the moderate-conservative Dems, as long as they're in the booth, vote for Dem candidates, Doyle gets re-elected, the State Senate switches parties, and the Assembly tightens.  And the GOP has now used up their weapon.  I'm not happy the amendment passed, but the GOP strategy backfired, big time.

  •  Fair Wisconsin deserves a BIG round of applause (7+ / 0-)

    Organized, on point, efficient, focused, persistent ... I've volunteered for MANY campaigns, but Fair Wisconsin was the best organized, ever. They set up early, did lots of canvassing, made it easy to volunteer, were very organized. Without them, this vote would have been WAY worse.

    It's really a crime, but I agree, this blot will bleach out with time. Unfortunately, many will suffer because of the bigotry and ignorance.

    Here's a bit of an email I received from someone I'm acquainted with. This is the second - the first assumed I was voting FOR discrimination. When I set him straight, I got this in response:

    "It isn't just for church reasons that having marriage defined as Man and Woman should be protected.

    "Having marriage defined protects all of society.

    "If you look at the medical problems that homosexuals have everyone would understand much better.  The average male homosexual life span is around 55 year of age.  Most homosexuals have many health problems because of their choice of lifestyle.  I am not just talking about aids either.

    "Sorry to get on a soap box, but it is very important to understand the real issues.  If we don't protect marriage as one man one woman, then we will ALL pay for it in increased health care costs and inflation will skyrocket as a result."

    Of course, my email back pointed out all the idiocies of this silliness, but it's like living in the Dark Ages. Willful ignorance ought to be punishable by law. But it's not.

    Anyway, this is what Fair Wisconsin was up against.

    In our community, the amendment was actually defeated thanks to the students (and the nuns). Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to tip the whole state.

    •  Wow, I don't know how you had the patience (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cream City

      That e-mail is so unbelievably stupid, my blood is boiling.  I wouldn't even know where to start with tearing down the illogical idiocies.  I'm speechless, really.

      Kudos to you and Fair Wisconsin for all the work you did.

    •  They banked heavily on the students... (0+ / 0-)

      Fair Wisconsin did a great job organizing the troops in Madison, Milwaukee, La Crosse and elsewhere-- but they failed in their pitch towards non-liberal, non-accepting types.

      Were they to have chosen the Arizona route, eschewing the gay "fairness" idea in favor of centering more on the Civil Union bans effects on straight couples and families, they might have gotten support outside of Dane County among the non-students.

      They choose to bet heavy on the campuses and Madison and, unfortunately, lost.

      Sorry America: He's just not that into you.

      by LoneBlackMan on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:49:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They did, actually, do a good job (0+ / 0-)

        of focusing on the infamous second sentence in their ads -- the ban on benefits in civil unions.

        But reading a lot of the rabid red blogs, as I do, I can tell you that also won a lot of votes.  

        The creeps worried that it would raise their taxes to provide the benefits to public (state, city, etc.) employees, especially the dreaded UW, the world-class university that they love to hate.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:23:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  catjo, sorry for going off-topic (0+ / 0-)

      but since you don't have an e-mail address in your profile, this is the only way I can contact you.

      Soon I'm going to be posting my interview with Paul Jay, chair of Independent World Television/The Real News, which, as you know, is an international network with no corporate or government funding whatsoever. They're about to enter a new phase. I'm giving a heads-up to people who have shown interest in IWT/TRN via their diaries, comments, or recommendations. If you'd like me to inform you when I post my first diary in the series, please send e-mail to me at alanfordean at yahoo. Of course, other people who are interested in independent media are invited to contact me as well. Thanks!

      Read up on election integrity on the dKosopedia: Overview + Timeline

      by AlanF on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:08:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So this helped defeated John Gard?? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That's fucking priceless. He was one of the chief anti-gay zealots while he was in the state house. Now the gay bashing ends up helping to doom his Congressional bid.

    I hope that Kagen can do a really good job of connecting with voters and keeps that seat for quite a long time.

    •  Talk about bad timing (0+ / 0-)

      Gard makes the big move up trying for Congress, Green the same, going for governor. Both get hammered, both are gone.

    •  Stem cell really beat Gard, I think (0+ / 0-)

      even though it wasn't on the ballot here, it became the unspoken referendum issue for a lot of candidates in this state where embryonic cell research was discovered and shut down.

      Gard's opponent, the new Dr. in the House, made stem cell part of his major plank on health care issues.

      So Michael J. Fox -- his ads here, his appearance here -- made a big difference, too.

      Bless him.  I don't see any diaries here on all that he did for the Dems -- even though that wasn't his intent.  We just were on his side of the issue.  Bless him.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:07:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you think Kagen can (0+ / 0-)

        keep the district, or will he be a one termer like Jay Johnson?

        He seems like a solid candidate and person, so I hope he can stay around.

        •  I don't know, I don't know him (0+ / 0-)

          as well as I did others in the Dem primary.

          I would worry about it but for

          1.  the example of Herb Kohl, who came to Congress with no political experience, who also bought the win, but who has stayed and stayed (although perhaps overstayed, but thank heavens, or we might have had Tommy T).
          1.  the background of Dr. Kagen, who comes from a politically minded family; as I recall, his father ran for Congress, too.

          Let's hope he's a keeper.

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:25:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Gard beat Gard (0+ / 0-)

      This race was always an uphill battle for him -- his negatives were sky-high, as he's one of the most polarizing (okay, the most polarizing) political figures in the state. A large swath of the population, particularly in Appleton and the Fox Valley, genuinely despises him.

      But this didn't help...

  •  Too bad they didn't get rid of Sensenbrenner (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Isn't he the "I'll take my gavel and go home" guy?

  •  A win / lose for homobigots (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cream City

    Screw Sensenbrenner. There's always the next election for the Republican homobigots, but that amendment is permanent.

    "Only poets know how many poems end up as pies."

    by DJ Rix on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:35:30 PM PST

  •  Same sex marriage bans will go the way of... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    miscegenation statutes prohibiting interracial marriage.

    I just finished oral arguments at my law school arguing against such same-sex marriage bans, and the central analogy drawn are the interracial marriage statutes that were struck down in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

    Some of the mock evidence supporting statutes banning gay marriage reads like the most vile and twisted rationalizing you'll ever see.  But all that legislated hate'll soon be gone, gone, gone.

    Equal Protection Clause baby.  Gotta love that Constitution!

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass

    by big dave on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:58:21 PM PST

  •  Time to Destroy the INSTITUTION of Marriage. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The bigotry  in the Amendment becomes meaningless verbiage if all references to "Marriage" are removed from the rest of the Statutes. Civil Unions can be created by normal statutory process, so long as there's no legal "marriage" to be equivalent to.

    51,245 votes for US Senator.

    by ben masel on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:08:57 AM PST

    •  Clever! (0+ / 0-)

      And something i have been pitching a bit, myself. Something like "You want to 'preserve the sanctity of marriage'? Okay, we'll take marriage off the books entirely. It's all civil unions now, and anyone can get one--not just straight people."

      Of course, very strangely (or, depending on your cycnicism level: not strangely at all) almost no people who want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" will go for that deal.

      But it's a good approach, and one i didn't think of.

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:32:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Marriage is for Churches (0+ / 0-)

        Leave the "sanctity" of marriage with their biggest protectors, the Churches.  To be legal, one still should have to get a secular Civil Union, but if one so desires, one could also go get married at a church, or by the Captain of a ship at sea.

        I think it's a brilliant idea, just take the wind right out of the marriage debate.

        Chairman Conyers, you may call your first witness.

        by rabel on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:36:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, i take it back... (0+ / 0-)

        The anti-marriage amendment would prohibit this sort of approach also, now that i think about it.

        At least, i think it would.

        The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

        by Shapeshifter on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:25:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Some of you sure seem optimistic... (0+ / 0-)

    These initiatives passed with pretty big margins against a Democratic tide, and if the Arizona bill didn't overreach, it probably would have passed too! The Christian Fascist groups like Focus on the Family are not going to drop this - it's probably their most popular issue! Gets the troops excited, and brings in the Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, secular homophobes...I'm wondering why you're so optimistic.
    Heck, they had the Democratic black church leaders coming out to scorn any comparison to civil rights, and major candidates like Ford siding with the Repugs.

    They're also drumming up the propaganda on gay adoption and foster parenting (which they must stamp out for the sake of the children!), Gay-Straight Alliances, gay teachers, corporate benefits, etc. It's clear what they ultimately want - no formal rights at all, no public acknowledgement or recognition of any kind. You don't recognize people who choose to base their identity on a sin, do you? They are in this for the long haul.  

  •  To Our Good Friends In Wisconsin (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Don't whip yourselves over this. As a gay man I can assure you that pass or fail, we will still continue to be gay and stand up for ourselves...even out here in lonely, red Utah.

    It's important to get it repealed if possible in every state that it now exists and it's also important that we get the EXACT same legal benefits of marriage regardless of what folks want to call it. It will happen in time.

    They've made hate one of their central themes. However, they can't stop us from loving each other no matter what rules they throw at us. Thank you Lawrence v. Texas. People grow, people change. Our enemies will one day side with us. At least that is my hope.

  •  Here's an amendment (0+ / 0-)
    idea for all the states that ban gay marriage.
    "Any person who is not entitled to the same marriage benefits as other people in the state are exempt from all state taxation of any sort"
    Anyone who is against the amendment can be labeled as wanting more taxes.
    No equal rights, no equal taxes.
  •  Kind of hard to gloat about this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Especially if you live in Wisconsin. It is extremely depressing to think that my neighbors voted to put discrimination into the constitution.

    "Conservatives care about children from conception all the way up until birth." -- Barney Frank

    by JanF on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:54:15 AM PST

  •  Guns, God, Gays (0+ / 0-)

    The Dems touch any of those three in this cycle - we're done for another decade.

    If they stick on Iraq, Economy, Wages, Health Care - they have a huge opportunity of major gains throughout the country, to slowly bring the country onside.

  •  Something to keep in mind (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    da in texas

    Look back at the results from the 2004 presidential election in Ohio.  Look at the number of folks who voted for Kerry and Bush.  Look at the number of folks who voted for the stupid gay marriage ban and against it.  Study those numbers:


    Ohio Issue 1:
    Ban Same-Sex Marriage
    Yes 3,329,335 62%
    No 2,065,462 38%

    Republican Bush  2,859,764 51%
    Democratic Kerry 2,741,165 49%

    Look at that margin.  If you assume that every single person who voted against the Gay Marriage ban also voted for Kerry (and we didn't have a Green on the ballot here that year, IIRC, so that may be a reasonable assumption), then Kerry picked up over 600,000 votes from folks who voted against allowing equal marriage rights for gays.  That's a 12% shift in the number of presidential ballots cast.

    In other words - these voters have always been there.  They're a minority in the Democratic party, but they're the economically populist "hold-their-nose-and-vote-Dem" social conservatives.  In 2004 Bush barely squeaked by not because of the gay hatred, but because of the people who might normally vote for the Dem but voted for the 'pub because they were petrified of some brown people crashing a plane into their courthouse or something and thought that the 'pubs were the only ones who could keep them safe against the Terrarists.

    That argument has shifted.  The "hold-their-nose-and-vote-Dem" group is coming back to its full force.  The trick is to do the things that will keep them voting Dem, even if they don't like the social agenda that they get with it.  If the Dems can pull off a permanent shift from being viewed as "useless on national security" to being viewed as "strong on national security", then those voters will stay Dem - and continue to vote for socially regressive things in their local elections, because that's just who they are.

  •  “May God Forgive Them, They Voted Democrat (0+ / 0-)

    --2004 Election Summary--
    Desperate voters, fearful that homosexuals might enjoy the sanctity of marriage knowingly elect an incompetent President.

    --2006 Election Summary--
    Desperate voters, despite their fears that homosexuals might enjoy the sanctity of marriage knowingly elect oversight for an incompetent President.

    "If we don't hang together, they'll hang us separately." Ben Franklin

    by cognitorex on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:15:30 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site