Comments on: Beyond the Margins: The Brown Effect http://thenewgay.net/2010/01/the-brown-effect.html For Everyone Over the Rainbow Fri, 25 May 2012 18:04:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Felix Mottola http://thenewgay.net/2010/01/the-brown-effect.html#comment-34462 Felix Mottola Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:43:21 +0000 http://thenewgay.net/?p=21533#comment-34462 I am watching the weblog for the month or so and have picked up a heap of useful information. I am undertaking to run my personal blog yet I believe its too general and I would like to focus more on more compact matters. I am watching the weblog for the month or so and have picked up a heap of useful information. I am undertaking to run my personal blog yet I believe its too general and I would like to focus more on more compact matters.

]]> By: Rob http://thenewgay.net/2010/01/the-brown-effect.html#comment-21850 Rob Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:58:09 +0000 http://thenewgay.net/?p=21533#comment-21850 Obama did NOTHING to advance gay rights when he had significant majorities in both houses of Congress. He's had an entire year to fulfill at least SOME of those campaign promises, and instead he's bailed on us. This was a huge missed opportunity that probably will not come again for years, if not decades. Why should we care that we've now lost the filibuster-proof majority? He did nothing with it when he had it. If Obama and the other "modernate" Dems do nothing for us when they're elected, is there any reason to keep electing them? Obama did NOTHING to advance gay rights when he had significant majorities in both houses of Congress. He’s had an entire year to fulfill at least SOME of those campaign promises, and instead he’s bailed on us. This was a huge missed opportunity that probably will not come again for years, if not decades.
Why should we care that we’ve now lost the filibuster-proof majority? He did nothing with it when he had it.
If Obama and the other “modernate” Dems do nothing for us when they’re elected, is there any reason to keep electing them?

]]> By: zack http://thenewgay.net/2010/01/the-brown-effect.html#comment-21640 zack Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:51:22 +0000 http://thenewgay.net/?p=21533#comment-21640 Good article, J. Clarence. I'm glad to see more of your writing here, as always. Good article, J. Clarence. I’m glad to see more of your writing here, as always.

]]> By: J. Clarence http://thenewgay.net/2010/01/the-brown-effect.html#comment-21613 J. Clarence Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:18:58 +0000 http://thenewgay.net/?p=21533#comment-21613 The equivalence is not only fine, but appropriate, Raphael. The whole "leave it up the states" is a classic Republican cop out to avoid dealing with a issue by not resolving it but rather taking a neutral stance on issues that might be politically costly. The as part of the Republican platform is the proposal to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. If they truly believed that states should decide they would not try to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, and could resolve the Full Faith and Credit Clause by an amendment like DOMA that does not restrict marriage but simply make it law that different states do not have to honor outside state laws that conflict with their marriage laws. All of that being said, there is something to that argument and a purely constitutional and federal level. Majorities will be in favor of arguably immoral things, but that is the price we pay in a Democracy. Slavery was, and still is, immoral, and many people believed it was, but it was legal for years because abolitionists lacked the electoral numbers to defeat it until they passed the Reconstruction Amendments. We put in places amendments and laws to protect against the tyranny of the majority, but we should not confuse ourselves, the majority sets the agenda (unless you are talking about when Democrats are in charge of the Congress, that is the exception to the rule). That is why we need to convince the majority to get them on our side. Much like how Suffragettes campaign across the country and eventually passed the 19th Amendment and how Civil Rights Activists campaign in both the South and North to pass local laws and the Civil Rights Act of '64 and '68. If he wants the chance to be re-elected he will be an independent Republican, and possibly even more moderate than Collins. And I don't think gays really have that much to worry about from Brown as a Senator, though they should be sad that they lost such a champ like Kennedy. (All back to work) The equivalence is not only fine, but appropriate, Raphael. The whole “leave it up the states” is a classic Republican cop out to avoid dealing with a issue by not resolving it but rather taking a neutral stance on issues that might be politically costly. The as part of the Republican platform is the proposal to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. If they truly believed that states should decide they would not try to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, and could resolve the Full Faith and Credit Clause by an amendment like DOMA that does not restrict marriage but simply make it law that different states do not have to honor outside state laws that conflict with their marriage laws.

All of that being said, there is something to that argument and a purely constitutional and federal level. Majorities will be in favor of arguably immoral things, but that is the price we pay in a Democracy. Slavery was, and still is, immoral, and many people believed it was, but it was legal for years because abolitionists lacked the electoral numbers to defeat it until they passed the Reconstruction Amendments. We put in places amendments and laws to protect against the tyranny of the majority, but we should not confuse ourselves, the majority sets the agenda (unless you are talking about when Democrats are in charge of the Congress, that is the exception to the rule). That is why we need to convince the majority to get them on our side. Much like how Suffragettes campaign across the country and eventually passed the 19th Amendment and how Civil Rights Activists campaign in both the South and North to pass local laws and the Civil Rights Act of ’64 and ’68.

If he wants the chance to be re-elected he will be an independent Republican, and possibly even more moderate than Collins. And I don’t think gays really have that much to worry about from Brown as a Senator, though they should be sad that they lost such a champ like Kennedy.

(All back to work)

]]> By: Raphael http://thenewgay.net/2010/01/the-brown-effect.html#comment-21600 Raphael Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:07:54 +0000 http://thenewgay.net/?p=21533#comment-21600 As for Brown himself, he may either act like a party tool, and lose re-election in 2012 (is that when his special term expires?). Or he'll be something more like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. On the upside for gay rights, he's one of very few Republicans elected on a national level that support civil unions. Which puts him to the right of Cheney, but to the left of 99% of Congressional Republicans. As for Brown himself, he may either act like a party tool, and lose re-election in 2012 (is that when his special term expires?). Or he’ll be something more like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

On the upside for gay rights, he’s one of very few Republicans elected on a national level that support civil unions. Which puts him to the right of Cheney, but to the left of 99% of Congressional Republicans.

]]> By: Raphael http://thenewgay.net/2010/01/the-brown-effect.html#comment-21599 Raphael Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:04:16 +0000 http://thenewgay.net/?p=21533#comment-21599 The "states should decide" argument is as bogus for marriage rights as it was for segregation and slavery. It's a way to overlook the fact that majorities in some states want to continue doing the wrong thing. I suspect that people who support that argument are usually disingenuous. Please forgive the apparent equivalence I draw between marriage rights and segregation or slavery--not my intention, but I can't really think of another issue for which people argue for states' rights on a moral issue. The “states should decide” argument is as bogus for marriage rights as it was for segregation and slavery. It’s a way to overlook the fact that majorities in some states want to continue doing the wrong thing. I suspect that people who support that argument are usually disingenuous.

Please forgive the apparent equivalence I draw between marriage rights and segregation or slavery–not my intention, but I can’t really think of another issue for which people argue for states’ rights on a moral issue.

]]>