2004 Presidential Election Poll

Fitzcarraldo wrote: My colleagues from Belgium never fail to remind me that "French fries" were in fact invented in Belgium. Allegedly.

Exactly! French fries are typical Belgian. A common joke is that Belgians eat french fries at breakfast, at lunch and at supper. Very tasty but very bad for your cholesterol hehe.

Peter Rideout wrote: James Lee wrote: ^Any free election is a triumph for democracy. If you're not satisfied with the results of the election, the maybe you have a problem with democracy itself. You're not alone...Alexis deToqueville had a number of criticisms of democracy, back around 1831(!), and very few of them have actually been meaningfully addressed in the last 170 years. Ultimately, however, it's either democracy or outright revolution for anyone who is interested in change. I'd like to avoid revolution...the carnage in Iraq and Vietnam is nothing compared to the horrors of the Civil War (in which the side of democracy lost, by the way). I'm in favor of getting rid of the electoral college, but GWB still won the popular vote...I dislike him, personally and politically, but I understand that many people (especially in the Pork Rind states) are justifiably leery of the shrill, smug liberal elitists and humorless, inhuman socialism they typically represent. Gdub gets a lot of comments like "how can you be gay and republican?" which is silly because they're not automatically mutually exclusive, any more than Gay & Christian (or Gay & Prog!)...similarly, many of my postions seem to be on the wackier side of liberalism, but I also favor certain traditional conservative/ republican ideals such as less government spending and less government involvement in our personal lives. I don't believe government should be legislating morality, but I also completely understand why half the country feels that 'a return to traditional values' (the most-often cited reason Bush voters gave in exit polls) is a compelling ideal. I don't think GWB will really satisfy anyone (plenty of religious, conservative, and republican folks have already come out against him) but let's stop being so easily spooked- the world is not going to come to an end because of him. His victory may mean that scary things will happen in the next four years, but just because the elections are over doesn't mean we've instantly lost the power to influence the course of events. [insert humorous closing comment here to balance the wordy seriousness of my post] Sorry, James -- I'm too stupid/lazy to read anything that long. Could you sum it up in one line or less, please?

An editor's challenge! Interesting. I'll give it a try:

*Do you value democracy? Accept the election results. Afraid of the future? Get involved.* 

Not bad...but you'd hardly recognize me from that statement. I didn't even get to use any of what one of my high school english teachers (playing Hemingway to my Faulkner) referred to as "ten-dollar words"

LOL, if only I was paid per word I'd be richer than Bill Gates by now.

One thing I will agree with you guys on is gay marriage. Ask a republican politician "Why aren't gay people allowed to get married?" the republican will answer "A gay man is allowed to marry a woman just like every other man in the USA"-sometimes my own party disgusts me. How do you argue with that logic?

The problem is the term "marriage." I'm sure one of the more studeous members can do some research on marriage. If I'm not mistaken, I rarely am, marriage is a "union under god" or something just as silly. Bible thumpers of MOST religions equate homosexuality as a "sin" or "immoral." Until that perception is changed, you'll have that battle. Civil Union is a more reasonable term.

Here's what I found on the word marriage:

MARRY: The first example in print is from 1325. In Latin ‘maritus’ meant ‘married man or husband,’ (which is of uncertain origin but may go all the way back to the Indo-European ‘mer-‘ and ‘mor-‘ which meant something like ‘young person’ – Lithuanian has the related ‘marti-,’ bride – and in that case would denote etymologically ‘man who has been provided with young women as bride’). From it was derived the verb ‘maritare,’ marry, which passed into English via Old French ‘marier.’ Marriage, which first appeared in print in 1300, also comes from Old French.

It is interesting that in Chaucer’s writings (1340?-1400), ‘marry’ was a relatively rare word in comparison to ‘wed,’ but by the end of the 16th century it was the more usual. The extended figurative sense of ‘blend, link together’ (e.g. the marriage of verse and tune) was already in use by 1400.

Don't forget that you're not just fighting 'traditional values' but also an Internal Revenue Service and especially a multi-billion dollar insurance industry whose financial interests are more important to the legislators than your personal relationships. If they could somehow get away with refusing benefits to even traditional family structures, they would (and do, on a daily basis). It's very hypocritical- the popular focus is on "values" but when have you ever seen either government or business rule in favor of values over profit? The fact that the national attention is on "traditional values" simply gives them an excuse for policies that promise to save them money.

Having said that, isn't the entire concept of providing economic incentives for marriage a bit strange and outdated? Doesn't it assume that one person will be dependant on the other (i.e., a remnant of the days when the poor helpless woman needed to be taken care of when her man was no longer able)?

from the Human Rights Coalition:

A large majority of voters support civil unions and basic legal protections for same-sex couples.

• In the same exit polls that said moral issues were important, 60 percent of voters supported some form of legal protection for same-sex couples. Here’s the breakdown:
  • 25 percent for legal marriage
  • 35 percent for civil unions
  • 37 percent against all protection

Swing voters did not swing to George Bush on gay marriage and it’s clear that the definition of moral values is beyond gay and lesbian issues.

• Fully one half of the voters who said they support civil unions voted for George Bush. The center of gravity in the election was in the voters who support civil unions.
• If polls show moral issues as high on voters’ priority lists but even half the George Bush voters support civil unions, then caring about “moral issues” does not mean opposition to gay equality.

Unless I'm mistaken, this means that "the will of the people" is not as important as satisfying a specific minority.

Peter Rideout wrote: danbo wrote: My point is simply semantics. Call it what you will, civil union, partnership... whatever, any persons contracted to a long term relationship, even couple living together, should be allowed tax breaks, property transferrals and the whole works. Forget battling for the terminology. Hello, DB! My, hasn't this thread taken an interesting turn! If I might play devil's advocate (BTW, I don't oppose gay unions): What about two long-term heterosexual roommates? How long exactly is "long term," and do the "couple" need to have sex with each other to qualify for the status, and its "benefits?" I'm not joking. Should straight roomates fake "gay' (assuming any would) to access the benefits of a civil union?

As for Gay unions I am a teamsters man myself.

And your last point Peter, could be applied to Hetro couples/roomates as well that are not married and probably is done more often than not.  The value=profit opinion is probably better suited.  I will say one thing on some corporations and health insurance is that at least you can get significant other insurance coverage now even though it is much higher than spousal.  So there is that profit deal again. The Federal government just doesn't want to have to deal with all the taxbreaks Republican or Democrat withstanding.

Another issue besides that of tax breaks or even medical benefits for partners... is inheritance.  I've know many gay couples that once their partner has died.. the family is legally able to strip those partners left behind of everything.  Next of kin does not include gay partners....

This also happened to Gianni Versace's lover of 15 years.  When Versace was shot.. I think his lover, who was also a VP in the Versace organization lasted about 6 months before Donnatella Versace had him stripped of all Gianni's property and out of the company.

It sucks when you live with someone and share a life for that long, yet don't deserve to inherit a thing..make any medical decisions for your partner.and can't even be responsible for claiming the body.

James, you've hit enough nails of the head to build a four bedroom two story house. I have family through marriage who are gay, good people, not because their gay, they're just ggod people. It's sad to see all the hate, ridicule and pain.

"it's about basic human dignity and compassion"

Right on James!