Gods, Guns, and Gays.

The new Democratic Party is not about leading or following: it's about being honest.  We can't continue to hide away our beliefs every time a "Republican" walks into the room.  I don't want elections based on God, guns, and gays but that doesn't mean I don't have opinions on them.  And since I have no intention of ever running for public office, but do plan on voting for Democrats this fall, I thought I'd share my beliefs on issues I just wish would go away.  I'm so sick of reading all this "red-state/blue-state" formulaic columnist crap.  There comes a point when as someone who grew up in an "urban-blue" area can't but help who the fuck does David Brooks think he is?

God
I am an agnostic which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as:

1a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.  2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

If you were to press for my opinion on the Bible I would say that I think it's a great story, but to be honest I'll probably never interpret it literally (especially Genesis and Revelations) barring permanent brain-damage.  But unlike what some conservative columnists might lead you to believe, I do believe in right and wrong, I just think it's much more complicated than most Evangelical Christians would lead you to believe.  In fact, I think it's so complicated that no one individual human can always be right, which is why people have religious beliefs in the first place!

I don't hate "God" or feel any need to change the Pledge or strip "Christ" out of everything public.  Would I technically oppose new monuments or bills that are implicitly Christian, yeah probably.  But to all the people clogging our courts with this I say "Uh, you do know there's a war going on and stuff, don't you have something better to do?"  I had to go to church on-and-off until I was 18, and I'm not going to lie, I hated it.  But I also went to a week-long Christian summer-camp through grade-school and those were some of the best days of my life!

Now back to the Bible just being a collection of stories or myths.  Some people think that makes it less meaningful, and in a certain way it does; but honestly, to take a book that's a recording of oral history so seriously, on top of being translated an untold number of times, strikes me as crazy.  How could one possibly believe that all the world's animals were crammed inside of one boat?  Societies always form stories about their past, which is why the flood-myth is so common among societies living on waterfronts: of course they have stories about floods and those that survive them.  I think anyone who was involved in the "blogosphere" during Hurricane Katrina can understand the mythology massive floods can inspire.

Abortion.  All policies should be directed towards reducing the number of abortions in this country to zero: by addressing the issues that cause "unwanted" pregnancies.  But criminalizing abortion only turns it into a class issue because if history is any guide women will always seek them.

Guns

Guns, Guns Guns.  I bet 1/3rd of the nightly news is probably always going to be about guns (whether local crime or war).  It's enough to drive anyone as crazy as Frued.  One way to reduce all this gun-talk would be for Democrats to realize there are many more important things for the Federal Government to worry about, because Americans are educated and so guns do actually deter more crime than they create.  Again I think this is a result of public education which is why it's very important to replace this President with one who actually values learning instead of taking it for granted (judging by all his partying) like George W. Bush.  

I think it's different in Europe because their populations are so dense, which is also why it's such a seemingly inflated issue to rural voters getting their made-in-urban-areas news.  I've gone clay-pigeon shooting, and let me tell you, it's great fun!  But even my Dad who is as safe as can forgot to turn off the safety on a couple of times.  Yeah, it's unlikely anything bad would happen but if you're paranoid like me, why create "what-ifs" when we could be at home playing foosball instead.

Gays

I haven't even seen Brokeback Mountain, and it's not something I would go out of my way to see at a theatre unless it was with a girlfriend.  I just don't see what the big deal is.  Are there aspects of "gay-culture" I find as offensive as Jerry Falwell, yes: that's why I support removing the stigmatization that makes it such a taboo (and thus alluring) topic in the first place.  I support any politician who advocates for legal equality between same-sex and hetero marriages.  Marriage is a commitment of love, and I would dare conservatives to say same-sex couples don't love each other.  And I would also say any one who's never fallen a little in love with a friend, probably has never had real friends.  I would also support the restricting of financial benefits of partnerships to those with children (edit: this is definitely a point I'm not sure about, it seems to me the theories behind many of the benefits for those that get married versus those that don't is the assumption that they will have children), but to deny the right of ones partner to visit an emergency room is just wrong.

•  tip jar March 9th

  

  by theleftknew on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 05:42:14 PM PDT

•  I don't understand

  Are there aspects of "gay-culture" I find as offensive as Jerry Falwell, yes: that's why I support removing the stigmatization that makes it such a taboo (and thus alluring) topic in the first place.  I support any politician who advocates for legal equality between same-sex and hetero marriages.  Marriage is a commitment of love, and I would dare conservatives to say same-sex couples don't love each other.  And I would also say any one who's never fallen a little in love with a friend, probably has never had real friends.  I would also support the restricting of financial benefits of partnerships to those with children, but to deny the right of ones partner to visit an emergency room is just wrong.

  Your basic view seems okay, but I didn't understand that.  Could you clarify?
  

  by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 05:48:48 PM PDT

  •  Also wondering...

    I assume, then, you mean both same-sex and opposite-sex partnerships here, i.e., financial benefits would only exist for couples if they had children.  Good luck with that one.  

    by orbitguy on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:22:06 PM PDT

    •  yeah, it probably isn't worth noting

      the difference.  I dunno for some reason when the topic comes up with my drinking buddies they get a little picky about the relationship between having children and marriage.  Kinda Darwinian maybe.

      by theleftknew on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:32:43 PM PDT

•  My gay Christian take

  Is just SHINE on, you craaa-thy diamond. This a swingy, peppy thtatement of the gloriouthly obviouth.  Love ya!

  by howth of murph on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:10:01 PM PDT

•  I agree with you, but we should only restrict the

  financial benefits of marriage to same sex couples with white children. The brown and black ones are almost as much trouble as the gays.

  by thebluenomad on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:32:17 PM PDT

  •  hmm...why the hostility?

    When I talk to people about gay marriage the one sticking point I have a hard time defending is many of the theories behind such benefits are under the assumption that the couple will have children.  Yeah it's probably a little nit-picky.

    by theleftknew on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:27:44 PM PDT

•  Gun don't kill people....

  Gun control kill Democrat campaigns. It is a huge loser for the democrats. It's why they lost the governer of MD, congressional seats, and lots of the electoral college.

  More importantly if the Dem are going to run in DEFENSE of the Constitution, they can't cherry pick and run against the 2nd Amendment like the GOP tries to cherry pick the other Amendments.

  Now the gay issue has been another huge issue for the Democrats, and I'm not sure what the solution is. Part of it is that the GOP stalwarts are probably figuring out there is not going to be a Defense of Marriage amendment to the constitution. The GOP can try it, but they would never get enough states to ratify it, and maybe the Democrats should just say "OK, go for it! That's your obsession, not ours."  Maybe it is time to "out" the White House homosexuals

  by bernardpliers on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:36:39 PM PDT

  •  A gun just isn't a gun...

    Look, the second amendment is, at best, equivocal. It doesn't say, "The people shall have the right to bear arms." It says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    I just don't think that the Founding Fathers meant for any jerk with $20 to plunk down at the pawn shop to have a gun, regardless of the consequences to the society at large. They meant that people should have a right to bear arms as part of a well-ordered militia.

    And even if the Founders did mean that, they didn't mean for people to have the "Street Sweeper Semi-automatic shoot-everything and kill it dead with one press of your index finger." They meant people to have guns that fired a shot, then you had to powder, wad, ball, ram, strike and close. Or whatever. It took time to get your second shot going. Time in which people could run away. Or shoot you.

    And I'm sick of people saying that it is to defend us from our government. I agree we need defending. But I don't see NRA-style weapons doing the job. To make me immune to the tyranny of the state, I think I need an ICBM or something these days. And none of us think that is reasonable. Right? cough Riiight?

    And even if the Founders did all mean for us go walking around with our fully automatic machine guns loaded with cop killer rounds like the NRA says, there is always the possiblity that they were fucking nuts. I mean, Franklin was a nudist. You've seen paintings of the man. Does choosing to go unclothed when you look like that seem sane?

    The point is that times change. And societies change. And what the second amendment means changes as we change. I do think people, law-abiding and ordinary people, have a right to own guns. But that right isn't unlimited or without concurrent responsibilities. Nor is it totally free from regulation.

    Democrats need to stop being so damned weak-kneed on the gun issue and say what most people think. Yeah, we're not wanting to take every gun away from every person. But when kids are taking them to school and killing each other, its probably a sign that we need to revisit the balance.

    Hey! I've got an idea. How about... only same-sex couples can have guns? Nice, matching designer dueling pistols for every couple? Yeah, well... it was just a thought.

    by Adistius on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 07:41:53 PM PDT

    •  missing one thing - legal jurisdiction

      This line of attacking the constitution  is exactly the line of reasoning that Gonzales etc and the GOP are now using to say "Nobody really knows what the 1st, 2nd, 4th amendments means. Those short declarative sentences are too hard. Throw it all out." the Democrats need to be like a reformed alcoholic and get off the bottle, because there is no such thing as "just one drink," when it come to attacking the Constitution and the GOP LOVES this kind of reasoning.

      Look, legal scholars agree - "militia" means it is a STATE issue, because at the time the Constitution was written the US did not have a standing army. OK ? There is no legal disagreement on this by lawyers for the states, federal government, left, or right. It is NOT a federal issue. It's like your property tax - it is NOT under the federal government. Never has been ! they had the Brady folks and the NRA on NPR and they were very friendly to each other and totally agreed on this legal point.

      So if you want to make that a LOCAL issue in your 2006 races, feel free, but it is simply irrelevant and damaging in a national strategy.

      by bernardpliers on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 07:56:48 PM PDT

  •  Um...

    ...we are not "the gay issue."  We are gay people.  If you thought about it that way, maybe it would be easier to find a solution to your problem with us.

    As for outing homosexuals, of whatever political bent, how does that solve your problem with us?  Because again...it is your problem that needs solving, not ours.

    Robyn

    by rserven on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 07:47:14 PM PDT

    •  Not a "gay issue" to me, nor my problem

      It's a "gay issue" for people in AARP who would be voting solidly Democratic except for frightening GOP propaganda about gay marriage (and some really embarassing stock footage of parades).

      I see no effort to make this happen, just the expectation that candidates should fall on their swords for you. Why is it (to paraphrase) "other people's job to find a solution to their problem with us." Calgone take me away.

      And maybe it's simply impossible to make Democrats the party of gays AND win. And God knows there's plenty of conservative gays, so it is essentially a false premise. And that's why I suggest outing the well known gays in the White House, to level the playing field.

      Because just like the gun issue, you are starting from a false premise that the GOP clobbers you with, and expect other people to carry the ball for you.
      

      by bernardpliers on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 08:12:00 PM PDT

      •  I guess you're not getting my point...

        ...most gay people don't have a problem with themselves, and most gay people don't have a problem with heterosexual people being heterosexual.  I assume that it is also true that almost all heterosexual people don't have a problem with people being heterosexual.  That leaves only one combination:  many straight people have a problem with gay people.  Read that sentence and figure out who has the problem.  I firm;y believe that this is a straight people problem, just like segregation was/is a white people's problem.  White people had to decide segregation needed to be dead and work to convince other white people that this racism was wrong.

        So why is this path being taken by straight people today?  They can't be bothered?

        I don't expect anything out of you.  I don't expect anything out of candidates for office, other than honesty.  The strawman you are fighting is of your own fashioning.  But as long as you insist it's a gay issue instead of being about gay people, you are part of the problem, just like people who used to talk about the Negro problem or the Jewish problem.

        I don't want the Democrats to be the party of gays.  That's in your head.  I want the Democratic party to be the party of justice and equality and honesty and mercy.  Because I know that if it is those things, I don't have anything to fear from people like you who would sell our civil rights away for power.

        What I know is that the battle for civil rights for gay people is already won.  It's been won in the hearts and minds of the next generation, or the next one after that.  It's on the table and any fair-thinking person knows what is right and what is wrong.  So we've won.  All that is left is how much pain people want to cause in their losing battle to hold on to what they have already lost.

        I could be wrong, except that...you know...I'm not.

        Robyn

        by rserven on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:43:19 PM PDT

        •  why *isn't* this path...

          typo.

          by rserven on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:44:40 PM PDT

        •  well

          These are all good points, but gays are themsleves a big straw man used by the GOP. Remember, they say that evolution and homosexuality are the things that will destroy every trace of civilization, reducing the earth to an uninhabited desert. I'm a little hazey on how that's supposed to happen, but groups like Phelp's (www.godhatesfags.com) get a lot of attention. Even jack asses like Phelps complains about gays in the GOP, but the rest of the GOP voters should get the message that there are plenty of closeted gays in the White House.

          If you challenge (no make that blow away) what people believe, that may be painful for them. But it is much more healthy than trying to change how people feel and think because that effort to micromanage other people's brains is called codependency. And todays content-free campaigns or factoid maniacs like Kerry aren't getting the job done.

          by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 04:18:52 AM PDT

  •  If they do argue against guns it should be

    because of the 2nd Amendment. Since they are the party of strict contruction, it is clear that the general proposition of allowing guns is modified by the specific saying to form a militia. Since we have
    National Guard units, anyone claimin to use guns under Constitution should be required to join NG.
    It may be loser but sticking it to strict interpretation

    by saul2006 on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 08:45:05 PM PDT

    •  National Guard is state controlled

      Except in time of war (or "war") or national emergency, they are under control of the governors.

      For the same reason, guns are still under the control of the states.

      Of course, a governor could probably order all firearms be stored an National Guard armories, but that state would look like Iraq.

      by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 04:04:05 AM PDT

•  Gun control is racism

  Why is it always "get the guns off he streets" and not out of the garages?

  When the Feds fund 'anti-gun task forces', they operate exclusively in inner city neighborhoods.

  Incarceration rates for firearms offences are even more racially skewed than for drug offences.

  The modern gun control movement only began to pick up steam when the then named Black Panther Party for Self-defence staged a lawful, peaceable, armed assembly on the steps of the California Capitol.

  by ben masel on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 08:37:46 PM PDT

  •  Right. And that's

    why Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) is, or was, on the board of the NRA.

    by Karmafish on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 08:46:14 PM PDT

    •  No, Innes is just

      in it for the $.

      by ben masel on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 08:52:17 PM PDT

      •  Really?

        I must confess my ignorance.  Not that I know that much about Innis, but I assumed he felt it was a civil liberties issue.

        How is he in it for the money?

        by Karmafish on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:31:25 PM PDT

        •  CORE and Innes

          CORE was a legit Civil Rights org in the 60s, but Roy's dad Ray privatised it in the mid 70s, and has became a Republican hack. Ray inherited the family business.

          I'm not all that up on the details, google away.

          by ben masel on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:37:10 PM PDT

•  As a former observant Jew who became

  a Deist , I have no problem with God but am sure the baby killing liar in the Bible is not God.
  Since God said in Deuteronomy 24:16 a son shall doe for sins of father and then himself cause the deaths of the sons of Pharoah and David for just that reason , then smiled on Solomon who turned around and spit on him proving he is a stupid, baby killing liar

  For what your rabbi, minister or priest will not tell you go to www.religionquestioned.com

  by saul2006 on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 08:50:31 PM PDT