Filibuster/Same Sex Marriage-One is definately a good thing, 2nd,maybe not

Filibusters

Republicans and Democrats both filibuster (not get 60 votes to end debate in the Senate) opposing bills on Iraq troop surge resolutions. Didn’t the GOP state that filibusters were bad when used against judicial nominees? Are filibusters bad or not or are they only bad and unconstitutional when it goes against their interests? Also, didn’t the GOP block 60-plus Clinton judicial nominees from getting a vote?
On another issue, Americans are told to listen to the troops and support them but isn’t an officer in the military in big trouble for refusing to go to Iraq? Why isn’t he not supporting himself? I think he should be punished. If you believe a war is wrong. then stand up for your convictions, but be ready to take your punishment.
Do any conservatives who support the war in Iraq really care what those military members who object to the war, such as this gentleman, care about? If you don’t then “support the troops” becomes a really hollow term.
If 80 percent of the soldiers in a war disagree with a war that doesn’t necessarily change our policy. The troops do as they are ordered, they don’t set the policy, though we should hear their opinions on the conduct of the war.
Another issue is how our war veterans are treated in Walter Reed hospital and other VA centers, in often horrible conditions. If this was a Democrat in the White House wouldn’t this be a bigger story on conservative talk radio? It seems with a Republican president it isn’t considered as important.
I am glad many conservatives are condemning Ann Coulter for using a slur for gays, the “F” word. She says she was just calling John Edwards a sissy by her usage of that word, that it was a joke. Fine, whatever is her rationale. I hope this is a positive trend and that conservatives can reach out to gays in America and not imply they are a threat to mom, apple pies and Chevies. In fact, many gay people make great apple pies and do drive Chevies and indeed they as a whole, do have moms!
Lastly, New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias, among other U.S. attorneys dismissed recently for various reasons, has been dismissed because as he states he refused a request by two Republican congressmen to speed up a probe of possible Democratic wrongdoing to improve GOP election chances. Now, the president can do this, but if true, dismissing a U.S. attorney for such thoroughly partisan reasons is an affront to the idea of justice.



Yes to same sex marriage

Marriage is said to be defined as being between one man and one woman for thousands of years. Well, tradition isn't a defense of keeping the status quo. For thousands of years governments were defined as monarchies or tribal chieftains. Until the early 20th century a democracy was men and not women being able to vote. In this country for several hundred years marriage was regarded by state law, depending on the state, or by custom as between those of the same race. Should we go back to banning interracial marriages? Tradition, or only a limited view of that tradition only serves to reduce rights/freedoms of a group is not good thing to keep.
Another argument I have heard is the idea that societies that have openly embraced homosexuality have been conquered. Well, in reference to the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire fell because it was overextended in its borders that became harder and more expensive to defend. There is extensive research on this very fact. If he is referring to homosexuality in Greece indeed the ancient Spartan warriors were some of the greatest warriors to ever live although they had relatively high rates of homosexuality.
In terms of the argument that heterosexual marriage rates in such nations as the Netherlands has declined because of the recent legalization of same sex marriage in the Netherlands, there is a confusion. Marriage rates for a variety of reasons have declined in the Netherlands long before same sex marriage became legal in that nation. Finally, the argument that consists 'if two women or men can get married, why not a man and a dog?' This is an absurd red herring that could have been used to oppose at certain times interracial marriage or even the right of women or blacks to vote. After all the reasoning could have went, 'if women or blacks can vote, why not dogs or palm trees'? Dogs, peacocks and especially a palm tree is not an adult who can give consent, emotionally and intellectually to a marriage contract. To compare two men or two women who love each other and want to marry each other to a person and a palm tree is an insult to the reader. The use of the slippery slope is often a lazy argument especially when it taken to absurdities. Same sex marriage won't lead to the "disintegration" of society anymore than interracial marriage, right of women to vote, right of non-property holding men or blacks to vote did. Same sex marriage or unions would be up to the church to recognize if they so wish (just as new Canadian law would do on this issue). If a church doesn't want to recognize same sex marriage just as it doesn't want to recognize a same sex marriage, that is fine. It is their right. What has to be safeguarded is a separation between civil/state marriage and religious marriages. The government/state should allow all its taxpaying citizens, gay or non-gay the right to marry the person that they love.