Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When are we going to stop playing the GOP's game on religious issues?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 08:27 AM
Original message
When are we going to stop playing the GOP's game on religious issues?
When do we stop being surprised about seemingly outrageous issues such as this "war on Christmas"? When do we stop knee jerking about all their other faux issues and see them for what they really are?

We need to give a whole lot of credit where credit is due. The GOP's fundies are doing, and have been doing an excellent job at get out the vote. That's all these faux issues are is more red meat for the fundies. These issues give the fundies a constant supply of reasons to remember to go vote. The net effect is a constant, year-round GOTV effort that never quits. That's something we don't do.

Now, we may be getting it. We have found an issue that resonates, that is the obvious one on Iraq. We have also stumbled on another obvious one in the inherent corruptness of the GOP. Of course we've known these now for years, but we haven't had one focused, disciplined message like the GOP has on issues. The GOP does an excellent job of taking isolated anecdotal evidence and applying it with a hugely broad brush to everything. That creates the outrage and snide comments you hear at the water cooler at work from the local workplace freeper. We now have a ton of real evidence on Iraq and corruption that we are starting to constantly hit on. That is why the GOP is now urging every GOP congressman that might be caught up in the Abram thing to resign now so that it will be a forgotten issue a year from now.

I think Sen. Reid gets it. I'm not sure about Pelosi. I'm not sure about Dean. But we need to keep using issues like Iraq and corruption and hammer them every single day to make sure our people stay motivated to vote and that we're not scrambling (again) come election time to get our people to the polls. It takes a lot of focus and discipline, but we have to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. We should laugh at the "war on Christmas"
because it is so stupid. Ever time we rant here about it we feed the fire. It is a bogus issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmylips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. The real meaning of Christmas or Christians....?
Capitalism has killed the real meaning of Jesus and Christianity long, long time a go. Ask any kid, Christian or nor, about Christmas and they'll say it's about Santa Claus, a big red fat guy and his rheindeer with a red nose. Christmas is a such Pagan holiday, Jesus-Christ must be crying at how capitalist laugh all the way to the bank.

It's the same with Christ, Jesus, God...etc. politician use the icon as a football for their political money machine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jella Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. One issue we can't back away from is
Gay marriage. The issue seems to really heat up around election time. I believe in my heart of hearts, that it cost us the last election. It's difficult to see an opportunity to make progress, and then have it hamper your ability to gain some power as to assist it along. With the move to have it outlawed, can it now be moved to the back burner?

It depresses me when I see the poll numbers on it, and really just as I speak with folks in day to day conversation. Do we have the energy to hold steadfast in a grass roots effort to make folks understand the indigence now, as I see it as the only way to change the ignorance now in 2/3 of the population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. No we can't... but understand also that
Edited on Fri Dec-02-05 09:11 AM by Gman
the reason they're putting these amendments on the ballot is solely to get out the vote. It gives the GOP 1) the ability to tell the fundies they are doing something and the obvious 2) get out the vote.

I always tell people that the only reason government has anything to say about marriage is that, legally, marriage gives two people the ability to do business as a joint partnership rather than their previous status of a sole proprietership. If you go into business for yourself, you file as a sole prop. If you go into business with one or more other people you file for a joint prop. There is no sexual preference discrimination when you file a business. There should be none in how the state identifies how you conduct your personal business.

Then I tell people that if you want to get married, go to a church. Maybe the church will marry two people of the same sex, maybe not. But you file how you do your personal business with the state. The state doesn't care who you run a business with, and it shouldn't care with who you conduct your personal business. This argument also goes to the heart of government recognizing established religion too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmylips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. My neighbor wanted to talk about this issue....
she's a republican. Actually, she wanted to talk about gays because her daughter, an unwed mother, is dating a guy who is obviously as gay as Carson (from the TV show gay guys). I told her, I was not interested in what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, under the sheets. When I care about what consent adults do in their bedrooms, sooner or later, they'll come snooping in my bedroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jella Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. well it's an issue that does get out the vote
and it works against the democrats. I can't tell you how difficult it was to try and be hopeful when the MA court made their ruling, and realize that the timing would hurt our chances to gain any control, or at least get some seats back. People are so freaked about this subject,and it cuts right to thier moral beliefs. Can we now back off, since the wheels are in motion.

I understand about applying as a partnership, but that doesn't include being able to see or have anything to do with your partner, say if he/she takes up ill and is hospitalized. As you grow old with a partner and vest in each others lives, this does become a serious issue.

It just saddens me that the dems had become so weak when this issue finally has come up. Timing it seems is everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. They are two different things
How people file to conduct a business is different from how people conduct their personal business and has nothing to do with hospitalization, survivor benefits, etc.

When you file to go into business with someone else, you file a joint partnership. That gives you, as a business, the ability to share assets and liabilities, income and expenses. The business pays taxes on your joint behalf. You run the business and do what you want however you want as long, of course, as it's legal. The state doesn't care one iota about the sexual orientation of any partner in the business.

Just as a business, when two people get a marriage license, get married, and the license is signed and filed with the county, the state grants those two people the right to conduct business jointly. They have joint checking accounts, file joint tax returns, pay bills together, etc. However, the big difference is that the state willfully discriminates and will not allow the above business transactions to be conducted jointly, as a partnership through marriage if the two people are of the same sex.

All I'm saying is the state doesn't care one iota about the sexual orientation of people who file to do business together. But the state will discriminate against two people who want to do personal business together if they are of the same sex. It's flat out discriminatory since the state also gives recognition and the same status to businesses as it does to people per federal constitutional court rulings.

And, the institution of marriage should be left to religion and the churches since the origins of marriage as we know it today does have its origins in religion. If two people of the same sex want to get married, then do it at a church. Maybe the church will allow it, maybe not. If not, find one that does allow same sex marriage. The state should only have an interest in how people choose to conduct business. If you get "married" in front of a J.P., there is nothing religious about that. You've only filed to do business as a joint partnership after some kind of ceremony. There's nothing religious about getting married in front of a J.P.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jella Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Oh I absolutely agree
with all your saying Gman, but don't you think this issue hurts Democrats as it does get out the vote for the Republicans?

Believe me I understand that marriage in the eyes of the state is a contract, but that's not how most view it when they go out to defeat any bill to allow same sex unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. It hurts the democrats because
Edited on Fri Dec-02-05 11:26 AM by Gman
the GOP has defined this issue and we are reacting to that now established definition. Politics 101 tells us to define the issue or it will be defined by your opposition.

Some redefinition is in order and that is an extremely difficult thing to pull off for something like this. We'll even be accused of trying to redefine the issue which can cause even more damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jella Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
10. well I'm hoping that we can deal with this issue
and use the corruption surrounding the GOP to come up with that cohesive word in the need for change in leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 13th 2014, 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC