When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Joe Lieberman, the former senator from Connecticut whose ambition has outstripped his ability, has again been annoyingingly pensive on issues that would be easy for anyone dedicated to human rights.
At a forum on human rights issues that included issues on gay rights in the US, he noted that these are mostly state not federal questions. But on the federal issue of marital bennies to employees, Lieberman refused to take a stand.
The Courant reported Wednesday:
He refrains from "shooting from the hip" on issues of civil rights for women and blacks as well. But when it comes to support for Israel - aw, go ahead and shoot, Joe. Alas for him, Pres. Bush has seduced Joe's one sure consituency with his invasion of Iraq. This is where you read it first: Joe hasn't got a prayer of getting the Democratic nomination. He has lost three traditional Democratic strongholds -- African Americans and women and gays; and his hold on fellow Jews is likely to be positive but not unshaken.
Questions that ought to be no-brainers for any Democrat are ones he agonizes over, undoubtedly working over the comlpex math of gaining the support of opposing voter blocs. It's not seemly, and I for one won't support this guy. He's someone that would send me off looking for a Nader to vote for.
The gay rights issue is a piece of cake. To the extent that our marriage laws are based on religious views, they are uncontitutional. To the extent they are based on some legitmate state interest, such as provision of stable homes for children, they ought to be neutral toward sexual preferences.
I don't see why any consenting adults can't establish a civil union, gay or not. How about other relatives, or friends? These days it's increasingly difficult to keep a household going on one income (thanks to the economic policies of the right wing) so why shouldn't people join forces? Civil unions of this sort ought to be easily entered into and as easy to get out of as any contract. No-fault dissolution, with court activity, perhaps, only to oversee arrangements for the children, if any, of said union.
I do not see how this is a slap in the face in any way to any religion; it doesn't affect them, any more than other civil marriages do.
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
'Shooting from the hip' or pussy-footing around
Joe Lieberman, the former senator from Connecticut whose ambition has outstripped his ability, has again been annoyingingly pensive on issues that would be easy for anyone dedicated to human rights.
At a forum on human rights issues that included issues on gay rights in the US, he noted that these are mostly state not federal questions. But on the federal issue of marital bennies to employees, Lieberman refused to take a stand.
The Courant reported Wednesday:
WASHINGTON -- Joe Lieberman got a lukewarm reception from gay rights activists Tuesday, as he said at a presidential forum that he does not back gay marriage and that civil unions are a matter for states to decide.
The Connecticut Democrat also would not commit to overturning the rules in hundreds of federal programs that now deny benefits to gay partners.
Instead, he said, he would order a "methodical review" of the rules and regulations, "rather than come and make a declaration, shooting from the hip in this case."
He refrains from "shooting from the hip" on issues of civil rights for women and blacks as well. But when it comes to support for Israel - aw, go ahead and shoot, Joe. Alas for him, Pres. Bush has seduced Joe's one sure consituency with his invasion of Iraq. This is where you read it first: Joe hasn't got a prayer of getting the Democratic nomination. He has lost three traditional Democratic strongholds -- African Americans and women and gays; and his hold on fellow Jews is likely to be positive but not unshaken.
Questions that ought to be no-brainers for any Democrat are ones he agonizes over, undoubtedly working over the comlpex math of gaining the support of opposing voter blocs. It's not seemly, and I for one won't support this guy. He's someone that would send me off looking for a Nader to vote for.
The gay rights issue is a piece of cake. To the extent that our marriage laws are based on religious views, they are uncontitutional. To the extent they are based on some legitmate state interest, such as provision of stable homes for children, they ought to be neutral toward sexual preferences.
I don't see why any consenting adults can't establish a civil union, gay or not. How about other relatives, or friends? These days it's increasingly difficult to keep a household going on one income (thanks to the economic policies of the right wing) so why shouldn't people join forces? Civil unions of this sort ought to be easily entered into and as easy to get out of as any contract. No-fault dissolution, with court activity, perhaps, only to oversee arrangements for the children, if any, of said union.
I do not see how this is a slap in the face in any way to any religion; it doesn't affect them, any more than other civil marriages do.
Palema
6:46 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|