Activism and Politics > Politics

Legal hate-GLBT fest continues . . . adoptions by GLBT targeted.

(1/3) > >>

So, if you weren't convinced the first time we danced around with our president on a major GLBT issue (gay marriage) perhaps you'll be convinced this time.

As a result of Bush's announcement for a consitutional admendment prohibiting gay marriage, there has been stepped up efforts to ban GLBT people from adopting kids. Indeed, 16 states have considering or have ALREADY banned gay adoptions.

This ought to hit everyone here hard because once you do the SRS, you're pretty much out of the child concieveing business (unless you had the foresight to freeze you eggs or sperm). Wanna adopt kids? You're outta luck unless you want to move or have big bucks to have attorneys argue that you're "not gay".

I am pretty much steamed by this development (see stories in Feb 21 2006 USA Today for background). For our own well being and freedom to be who we are, we cannot elect another Republican politican. Let me make this clear -- NO MORE REPUBLICANS!!!!  Even if the President is a Democrat, a GOP-controlled Congress will make their own legislation or prevent the democrat President from undoing the conservative hate-GLBT gains. And even if we dump Bush and the GOP congress, we have to deal with the new conservatived-leaning Supreme Court -- they will be in power for a while, possibily ruling on gay marriage, gay adoption and who knows what decades from now.

Even if you know of a repectable republican, we CANNOT risk strengthing the GOP as long as its dominated by backward thinking selfish individuals who think they know whats best for us.


ps: Of course I am open to any compelling argument as to why the GLBT adoption ban might be a good idea.


Bare with me as I step up onto my soapbox...

Being a "respectable Republican," I would have to agree with you.  The present iteration of the GOP has been shanghi'ed by what is popularly called "The Religious Right."  I daresay that many of our brothers and sisters here would probably call them the "Religious Wrong."

I vote for candidates who support and have a track-record of following my idea of Republicanism.
1) Smaller Governement.
2) Strong Defense with well-paid, well-trained and well-equiped soldiers.
3) Whenever possible, use the Private Sector for services because they are usually more efficient.  This leads to...
4) Reducing the Federal Budget.
5) Reduce needless regulations.  This does NOT mean I support rolling back environmental legislation or drilling in ANWR!  It DOES mean rolling back NCLB.  (Have you detected a constancy in my position on this legislation?!)
6) Maintaining personal liberties.

A candidate who supports these general positions, regardless of political affiliation, will make my short list of who I would support in an election.

This means that we must VOTE!  The entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate is up for election this year.  We have the lowest voter turn-out in the free world.  Get out and vote!  Tell your family, friends, neighbors, enemies - EVERYONE! - to get out and vote!

Let me get off my soapbox bofore someone tries looking up my skirt....


We have the same problem with voter turn out in Canada.  Only 64% of registered voters voted in our last election in January so I think it was pretty low.  I think one of the reasons is voter apathy, and a lack of viable choices, lack of inspired and inspiring leaders.

I always vote and I vote for the party who I feel will best represent my interests in government.  Thankfully we don't have the problems that you seem to be experiencing.


Normally I don't like to talk about politics, but...

This is my understanding of republicans and democrats.

Their goal is to have a system in place that rewards the rich and working middle-class and leaves anybody who does not fit into their cookie-cutter idea of what a person should be to suffer out in the cold.

Their goal is to give everybody equal opportunity by allowing government funded services to anybody who is in need of them.  This includes healthcare, low-income housing, disability, and food to people who can not work.  If somebody has more money, then they have they can make use of private sector services for healthcare, housing and anything else they need.

Now a problem that has surfaced more recently in the US is the electoral college voting system where each state has a certain "weight" in terms of votes.  As each state counts their votes a state is determined to be supportive of the democrat party, republic party, or other (such as Cassie).  It is entirely possible (and has been happening) for there to be more voters overall to vote for one candidate and have the other candidate win because certain states with more weight, but less people voted a certain way.  The problem with this system is that the statement "every vote counts" does not apply.  You could be in a state that has 100000 voters who ALL vote for democrat and all other states have only 10 voters that year who ALL vote for republican.  Although 100000 people voted democrat and 490 people voted republican, the republican would win.  Really stupid system in my opinion.

Now you see why I don't like to talk about politics.



I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

Being Republican does not mean that you leave non-cookie-cutter people out in the cold.  That's the Religious-Wrong speaking.  The GOP is pro-business and pro do-it-for-yourself, which can leave some people out in the cold if they fall flat on their face.  You can make a good argument saying that the Democrats have tempered the Republicans.  However, you can make a solid argument that the welfare plans of the Democrats "Great Society" encourages generational poverty.  I have students who can't wait to get out of school so they can collect their welfare check - just like their parents and grandparents. 

We need to find the median between these two extreams.

Yes, the Electorial College is cumbersome and the ranking of the various states is odd.  However, it is no more odd than the population distibution across the US.  The Electorial College gives smaller and less populated states a larger say in the presidential election than does a straight popular vote. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that JFK was elected because of a handfull of vote scattered across the country.  These individual votes pushed the town Democrat, which caused the county and then state to go Democrat.

The last place I lived, there was a referendum whether to keep the villiage police or rely on the county sherriff alone.  Only eleven votes seperated the Yea's and Nay's.

Every vote does count.



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version