Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog

…via Glenn she contends that the reason why Gay Marriage lost is because “people didn’t give it a chance“:

But two years later, the poll numbers had flipped, and the backlash never came. That’s because reversing the court’s ruling was a long process, not a quick and hasty ballot initiative like the one that Maine passed in Tuesday’s election.

Balderdash Emily! The reason why in Massachusetts people let it go is because we still have our fatalism, people are afraid to speak up publicly, cowed into silence so they just let things go. When people are willing to talk suddenly we are racist/bigot/homophobe/etcs. Who wants to deal with that stuff? Like the snow that comes every year and like baseball before 2004 we Massachusetts people shrug and deal with it because we assume we can’t do anything about it.

Tell you what, if you are so sure that the numbers are actually reversed why don’t you push for a referendum here? Let your one party state house let it go through instead of informing members that they will pay a heavy political price and let us vote. I’ll tell you why, because you know that like card check if people are allowed to vote the way they actually think without the stigma the media wants to put on them you would lose.

You can not do this because you so badly want not the rights of marriage (which could be done with civil unions or by legal contracts which I can support) you demand that I not only accept, but that I approve. You demand that I and millions of others abandon our Christian religious beliefs so that you can feel secure in your own skin. You do this for narcissism and you do this because you feel threatened by our disapproval as I once said last year:

The Gay marriage movement has all the trimmings of both a pop fad and a political movement by a loud group of elite people with money and clout; no different than the eugenics movements in the last century. I suspect beyond the core set of true believers the support is actually very thin. It is what the “enlightened” and “right” type of people support to show how good and tolerant they are. It allows people to feel good about themselves without actually doing anything. It keep them safe from that most dreaded charge of bigotry. In short it is an exercise in narcissism.

And like your counterparts in cinema and TV you challenge Christians because you have the courage of our convictions. Are you enforcing these “norms” in Islamic schools? Would you even dare?

And don’t give me this bigot nonsense, do you call believing Jews or Hindu’s bigots? I’ve never heard it in the media. Do you call Muslims bigots, HA! The legions in the media that look down upon us were the same gave us the lie 15 years ago that nobody was talking about marriage and that the defense of Marriage act was overkill and that a constitution amendment was totally unnecessary. To quote myself once again:

I’m 45 years old and I’ve always been a news junkie. I must have been the only kid in town to watch the impeachment hearings of Nixon in awe. I don’t recall any of our liberal stalwarts during the 70’s or the 80’s and VERY few in the 90’s (and then only in the late 90’s) argue for gay marriage.

Apparently by Mr. Cohen standards all of the people who lived in those days were cowards and bigots. Jimmy Carter must have been a coward and a bigot, Reagan, Clinton, Johnson. FDR and yes even JFK and RFK must have been the worst kind of bigots. JFK junior must have been one, Sam Rayburn, Barbara Jordan, Earl Warren and Martin Luther King bigots all.

Give me the intellectual honesty of my friend Dave. We were debating Gay Marriage and he has the honesty to say that yes polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and incest and every other combination of consenting adults should be legal and recognized by the state and laws altered accordingly. 10 out of 10 for consistency, 0 out of 10 for practicality but in a republic you make the rules you want and then make them work.

And before you give me the Ick, nobody is talking about that argument I’ll quote myself one more time:

And PLEASE don’t give me the “ick” factor argument about these other things being accepted. Ick is just an argument about culture. It is the same argument that one would have heard concerning gay marriage less that 20 years ago.

It’s the same Ick factor that our betters in Hollywood use to defend Polanski. If people only got used to it, and decided they didn’t want to fight it we would be OK.

Tell that to someone else, don’t tell it to me. I’ll take the arrows and the insults. If you are secure in your belief and are convinced it can win, give us a vote!

And tell me if we lose, do we get to vote again as you do? And if not why not? Why does the debate only end if you win?

Update: Slublog finds something odd:

What I find most interesting, based on comments at news stories and on social network sites is that yesterday, when the polls showed a narrow ‘No on 1′ win, I lived in an independent-minded, moderate state. Now it seems we’ve been transformed into a group of backwards, bigoted haters. Funny how that works.

No Slublog it’s not funny or shocker. Millions of dollars and media’s desire to stigmatize those who don’t believe in their 3rd sacrament of secular humanism (after abortion and global warming) can’t reach into the privacy of the voting booth and they can’t stand it.

Update 2: And I thought I was speaking metaphorically on the religion thing.

Forgot the links how lame was that?