<font color = lightgreen>I know, Cerek. The Gay Rights Movement overplayed their hand over the last year. They will have twice as much trouble now trying to become fully and officially recognized, but I suppose waiting for a Democrat victory was too long to wait.

The Republicans also gained control of both houses of Congress, which means the
next couple of Supreme Court justice nominations will be conservative ones. Perhaps Bush will focus on shaping his legacy, which means the possibility of more even-handed legislation and policy changes. Or perhaps we will complete our conquest of the world, after all. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

Anybody got a link to watch the concession speech?

NEVER MIND. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5936718/

[ 11-03-2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Yes, Illum you are missing something ;)

They can amend the State Constitutions to alow it, BUT that was not what was happening. What was happening was the Courts and rouge elected officals were saying we are going to do it anyways, or we don't care that the duely elected legislators passed a law one way or another. The only way to stop the courts from doing that kind of thing was to admend the State Constitutions. We people of the US don't like our Courts legislating from the bench.

[ 11-03-2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

So I expect to see Vermont and Massachusetts amending their constitutions in the near future. I'm not sure why they haven't done it already.

[ 11-04-2004, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

I'm disapointed, but half expected it. Then again, I think I'd prefer Hillary Clinton in the White House ;) .

<font color=plum>Nice backhanded insult, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. As you are fond of saying, "I thought you were better than that." [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font> </font>[/QUOTE]No offense, but Grojlach has a point, Cerek. Just what kind of country is the United States if they discriminate against gay people?

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
A country that has room for many different beliefs? Not all of which are compatible? Just a guess....we have seen how wonderfully peaceful and integrated Euorpe has been in the last decade....</font>

<font color=plum>Nice backhanded insult, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. As you are fond of saying, "I thought you were better than that." [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Which part was insulting to you? The embarrassment remark? As that one has a lot to do with the high percentages of "no" votes - I don't expect the US to adapt to the concept of gay marriage overnight (and we all know it's only a matter of time before they are institutionalised anyway), but I'd expected slightly closer calls. And if it's the second sentence that troubles you, I could bring up my home country again for comparison... ;)

[ 11-03-2004, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Nope, I disagree. It was the seeking to deny equal civil rights via banning by referendum that made it political.

Seeking equality as gauranteed by the law of the land is a civil rights issue, not a political issue.

Yeah, those referendum results on gay marriage were rather embarrassing. It only emphasises the major differences between Western Europe's progressive elements and the US's more traditional ones... </font>[/QUOTE]Not embarrassing, but sadly expected when the Republicans can rally so many moral mammys?


BTW I disagree that traditional elements are at work here, the trend in America since it is founding has been a steady movement forward to provide equal rights and benefits of citizenship to all. If anything, regressive ( and maybe repressive) elements won today and the traditional elements, which are truly progressive, lost.