Tim Blair

OK...now see...THIS is where I have a bit of mud to fling the bloggers way : the issue of gay marriage was about activists judges forcing their agenda undemocratically on a people who had previously voiced their opposition to such...yet it was even all over the blogosphere the emotional reaction to the subject matter, primarily that being that 'who are we to tell people how to live." The blogosphere was just as unwilling to clarify the matter as the MSM. I cannot tell you how many times I have posted in blogs the 800lb gorilla of judicial activism, only to be pooh-poohed as a bigot, or ignored.

And now that the electorate has spoken,
SUDDENLY the blogosphere discovers that it has a sound argument to the gay marriage issue. SUDDENLY it realizes that it was about those judicial activists.

Frankly, this is frustrating to me. The blogosphere has been EXCELLENT in disseminating information that the MSM has failed to promulgate, but in this issue, a majority of bloggers fall flat in their sincerity. Where was this when the subject came up? Why hasnt this point of judicial activism been driven home before now?

Pardon my cynisim, but in the matter of gay marriage and how the election was a reaction to judicial activism comes across to me as mere Johnny-come-lately MeToo-ism.

Pardon my cynisim, but in the matter of gay marriage and how the election was a reaction to judicial activism comes across to me as mere Johnny-come-lately MeToo-ism.

Im sorry...I posted the comment before checking my grammar. I should clarify :

...in the matter of gay marriage, the blogosphere's sudden interest in judicial activism comes across as mere Johnny-come-lately MeToo-ism.

I'd like to add that this strong point against a manipulative and bigoted MSM should have begun much earlier in the year. I think you will find that most people don't give a damn what gays do, as long as they don't allow activists to use the government to shove it down the mainstreams' throat, or as the judges in the various cases have done, overrun the DEMOCRATIC process with legislation that essentially tells them "we don't care what you want, we're writing law the way WE want it." That sort of thing does not serve ANYONE but a select elitist tyrannical group...and so far that has revealed itself to be the gay activists.

Sharon,
I think you miss the point. There is currently among the left an attempt to say this election was only lost due to SSM. They feel if they say that enough, and try to paint opponents of SSM as bigots, they can co-opt this at the next election cycle. Some gay activists aren't taking this blame lightly and are actually taking issue with their own political bedfellows. There is nothing genuine with this argument, it is merely a divide and conquer operation. They will blow it because they are the hate filled scaremongers amongst us and the bloggers keep catching them when they try.

The gay marriage group really over reached this time. It will be difficult to even get civil unions through now, all because they tried to go the Roe route on SSM and the rest of us caught on. The judiciary is going to begin getting reigned in now - several moral issues will be taken out of their pervue of constitutionality review, "under God" just being the first. I am pleased to see it happening. These issues should be debated by the people and legislated by their representatives - not appointed for life judges.

What good is Mass' SSM statute when only two or three other states will ever recognize it. You can't move, your stuck. They could have worked to improve legal contract provisions between consenting adults where there are current gaps in the law and no one would have cared. Now they and their press allies are working to clean up the mess they made - but too late.

Well, Sharon, I remember reading in more than a few blogs that the problem with gay marriage was the way it was being forced on a mostly unwilling populace by the judiciary of those states, but I don't have the links, and to tell you the truth, I don't really care. In any case, that argument won't wash in Florida, as there was nothing referring to gay marriage or any other kind of marriage on the ballot here.

"Moral Values" on the exit polls was such a mushy term that meant whatever the respondent imagined it to mean. The myth, taken up by many, that self-described Americans of faith (40% of the poulation, from a variety of religions)are on a gaybashing crusade above all other issues like security and the economy that more tangibly affect their lives is ridiculous. And when will people recall that the largest, most effective charitable outreach programs in the world (Oil-For-Food is OUT of the running) are founded by American religious groups and funded by private contributions? These judgmental, hateful bastards sure spend a lot of volunteer time and money on soup kitchens, clinics, childhood education etc. I think it's just to lull everyone into a false sense of security then Wham! Fascism! Good that the Left has ignored the pesky, misleading facts to intuit their evil designs.

Mr. Brooks hits the nail on the head. Squarely.

And the sad thing is, the Democrats really aren't listening. Oh, a few of them probably are. But not enough. Most of the DNC flock are running around, trying to blame their failure on "Middle America" because we are too stoooooppiiddd!!!!, instead of looking at themselves first.

I wonder if the left can't laugh at themselves because that means they would have to see the truth? "The rage of a drowning man".....how appropriate.

I have a post on my blog showing the percentages Bush and Kerry got in each of the 11 states, plus the percentages voting for the marriage bans. In nine of the 11 cases, the percentages voting for the bans exceeded those voting for Bush by a considerable margin. In other words, a substantial number of Kerry supporters also voted for the bans.

Furthermore, in most states these bans passed by huge majorities (except in the Kerry states, where they passed by solid majorities). Scroll down a bit and you'll see that this is true of the five states that already had bans.

And these 16 states are just those which have constitutional bans. Most other states have legislative bans. Just read the post.

In short, the numbers don't bear out the assumption that Bush got large numbers of right-wing Christians out to vote for the marriage bans -- only to vote against him. Furthermore, you have to question who's on the fringe here, since about 2/3 of Americans (in these states) voted for the bans.

Sorry, Angie, but haven't you heard? That 2/3 of Americans are stoooooppppiiiddd!!

Ask any leftie in San Francisco, or the UK Mirror. If you can stop laughing long enough to do so.

Hmm, well I happen to be gay and I happen to support the idea of equal legal rights for gay civil unions (or marriages or whatever, the terms aren't important) and I voted for Bush. Believe me, I wasn't thrilled about voting for Bush; he's too willing to spend money, a little too willing to try and please the UN, and there is that matter of the social conservative stuff, although I can't think of a single concrete thing he did in the last 4 years on that front that bothered me (except maybe the stem cell thing, though I don't know enough about it to have a meaningful reaction).

I didn't want to vote for him, but I really had no option; the democratic party decided to run with the BUSH LIED theme and their whole CHANGE IS COMING without having any bleeding idea what sort of change they wanted, other than removing the "Dread Chimp". As far as I'm concerned, the only real use for a president is defense and foreign policy and Kerry presented a very unwelcome image of humble acquiescence to such moral exemplars as France, whose leader seems to think it more important to visit the vegetative corpse of a terrorist crime boss than meet with the provisional leader of a fledgling democratic Iraq.

Imagine my surprise Wednesday when I awoke to find out, from the media, that I voted for Bush because I was a homophobic Evangelical Christian! The thought had never occurred to me, especially since I had enjoyed the sinful pleasures of gay sex only hours before pulling the lever for Bush (which was a little difficult since it was rusted from disuse here in New York city; fortunately Michael Moore was there and I got him to wipe some french fry grease off his fingers and get the lever moving again).

Apparently, to the media and a lot of other people who have been swallowing their bitter load like cheap rent boys, there was no way anyone voted for Bush for any other reason than hating homosexuality (and apparently associated evils like abortion, though the two subjects rarely go together in my experience). The idea that anyone at all should be voting because of Bush's foreign and terrorism policy is absurd, especially here in civilized New York, where even the rats drink latté and the mice eat runny brie and squeak approvingly at Godard retrospectives at the Film Forum. Why should anyone in New York be concerned about terrorism?

Anyway it hardly matters at this point. The "media", as usual, is wrong in their analysis. I would think they have been so discredited at this point that no one would even care.

"My name is Rather, King of Kerry:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Nice take on Ozymandias, goldsmith! LOL!

goldsmith — speaking on behalf of mickery everywhere, the real Kings of Kerry are spinning in their graves as we speak...

Remember guys —
In America, the vote was on gay-bashing...
In Australia, the vote was on interest rates...
In Afghanistan, the vote was on... was on... oh, shut up!
Can't wait to hear what the vote in Iraq is about.

Richard, don't forget the votes in the EU election last year..."referendum on the war" where pro-war parties lost, "election based around domestic issues" where pro-war parties won.

"It's not the Earth the meek inherit, it's the DIRT!"

Richard Glover gets his premise wrong because, as an SMH snerd, he thinks Chrtistians voted against the good guys.

No Richard, Christians voted for the good guys. To put it very simply, if you could see past yuppie-left dogma you'd understand that many progressive-liberal values, despite their good intentions, harm a lot of people; an issue rarely raised in the paper you work for.

He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts.

Gosh, it says something that Kerry went backwards in his own turf.

I feel the same way about how the media and the lefties break-down of Bush voters. First of all if the exit polls were so wrong with regard to who people were voting for then how can anyone use the rest of the information to determine voter statistics.

I am a Republican who has no issues with gays, am pro-choice and am not religious.

I voted for Bush because I believe in America and know the importance of having a leader who stands strong on issues. When Bush spoke about the global war on terrorism after 9-11 rather than treat the issue as just getting Bin Laden I hoped he would do it at any expense. He proved throughout his whole first term that he would not bow to popular opinion even if it meant he would become unpopular.

The Democrats jumped from one issue to another which only split America and I am embarrased that 47% of Americans fell for this scheme.

1) National Debt: I prefer my grandkids owe money rather than have to face terrorism. Its only money.

2) Troop Support: No matter how you feel about Bush himself, our troops are in harms way and Kerry ran on wrong war at the wrong time...wrong candidate! Kerry continually spoke about us losing the war in Iraq....what kind of American would take that position when Americans are on the battlefield fighting

3) Euro relations: I only care about our allies in this regard. For Kerry to say we needed more or better allies was way out of line. You don't say wrong war at the wrong time and then tell us he would get more support....not going to happen.

4) Media: The left wing press can stretch to find fault in Bush but our veterans are snubbed by the press. Kerry never defended their right to speak? He's suppose to defend America...NOT.

5) US Economy: Kerry running on job losses and failing economy. Far from the truth, but his negative campaign and the media negative reporting restricted our stock market. Jobs are growing and the economy has been growing for 3 years. Why did our stock market start out good on Tuesday morning, drop when the false polls showed Kerry winning and then the rest of the week has been booming since Bush won.

Kerry and his American hate groups said anything that they thought would get them votes. With regards to gay marriage: Kerry disagreed with gay marriage but chose to ignore the issue so he wouldn't lose votes. With regards to the war in Iraq: Kerry voted for it and then against financial support...at one point he then turned against it for votes and then in the end was for it again. Kerry followed popular opinion in almost every issue rather than standing strong on anything.

Today, 5 days after the election I still don't where Kerry stands on some issues but I know well that Bush has not swayed on any of the issues.

For John Kerry and his cronies to have gotten even 47% of the vote is an American shame.

Talking with my greek mate, he says 'Bush is responsible for troubles in Cyprus, Macedonia etc.'

I say 'maybe they are painting a bigger picture.'

He says 'Greece used to have much more territory and it keeps getting smaller, new countries from greek states'

I said ' they all say that, they used to be bigger, turkey greece serbia albania - everyone is trying to annexe extra land based on boundaries once fixed in ancient times. In macedonia (state) they still talk about Alexander the Great as if he rode past yesterday'

I say 'when are you going to fix your own problems instead of blaming someone else who doesnt live there? After all the turks are your neighbours they are not neighbours of the US'

He says 'I agree and its about time and we welcome them with open arms but there is problems with their army (etc etc)'

'They say that you greeks you must make application with turkish government - how dare they! Nobody tells us what to do with our own land!'

I say 'its a bit like your kids, they never leave home and even when they are in their 40's they are still squabbling over toys and you have to smack them. Time for them to leave home and accept responsibility'

He says 'the US only act for the $$$'

I say 'the US only act to secure US interests, and Cyprus etc is no threat to US interests so why should they be involved?'

He says 'the US should pull out (of everywhere I presume)'

I say 'the only reason that europe is not still at war is that the US maintained a massive presence that stopped all the squabbles. If it wasnt for the US you would be speaking russian'

I say 'why do greeks hate the US?'

He says 'they love americans its just the govt they hate.'

I said 'but most americans voted for the govt.......'

rog, it sounds like your friend really doesn't know what he wants. Or understands what the problems in your part of the world really are. A pity....but it sounds an awful lot like the lefties over here.

Its a greek tragedy, Jeffs.

GROAN!!!

Did I fall for that, or what?

Sigh.

Richard Glover talked about going to Sunday School as a little boy in the 60s. He mentioned doing activities with, I think, cotton balls and, maybe, pipe cleaners. And this qualifies him to pontificate about what the Bible says? What a silly man!

Rog - would love to know what your Greek friend thinks about Bush's recent recognition of Macedonia, especially since your friend made it a point to say that Bush is responsible for their problems.

JEM - you are right...however, I think I was more interested in bitching about the conversation of the issue amongst bloggers themselves rather than the actual facts of the election. I was trying to dovetail and instead I doglegged. Mea culpa, and I agree. It was about the fact that the activist lobby over-reaching. I was merely remembering the chatter amongst the blogs I had been keeping up with this past year...apparently I kept up with some decidedly pro-gay-marriage blogs. The point I wanted to make was that I am bit bemused by the fact that this sticking point is only now coming out in the political debate when there are some people who have been trying to say it for ages. Still, am glad its being said, period.

Im a live/let live person. I figure that if people genuinely feel they have found someone to love and be loved by, love in itself is a grand thing, and I'd be a stingy person to deny that. However, in my viewpoint, the word 'marriage' means a specific kind of love and no amount of government huckstering can change it. It doesnt serve ANYONE.

Andrea : as I pointed out, the blogs I have been reading over the past year must be ones that are distinctly pro-gay-marriage...how that manages to work out, I'll never know. I certainly don't argue with your statement "was the way it was being forced on a mostly unwilling populace by the judiciary of those states." In fact I completely agree with you. My frustration stemmed from the fact that when *I* made the effort to point out the issue of judicial fiat, I was ignored, shunned as a fellow blogger, or derided and called a bigot by those who wrote their indignation at the thought that some nebulous entity was preventing certain groups of people of having joy. I think the problem of judicial fiat is insidious, but often tossed
away as inconsequential amongst some bloggers. Best regards!

How can we be fighting for freedom if that does not include the rights of gay people to get married.

Since when was freedom and equality a negotiable issue.

What's wrong with gay people getting married if they want to.

Should not freedom for one, be freedom for all.

History is full of majorities taking away or denying the rights of minorities, so how does it equate to justice that because a majority of people think x should not have x rights, and therefore it's ok to deny those rights to one section of society.

Exactly what are heterosexual people so afraid of.

A majority of people in the 1950s did not support black civil rights. A majority of Southerners in the 1850s opposed an end to slavery. A mere 100 years ago a majority of men did not want women to have the vote. So how does that make the majority right.

No one here is against freedom for gays to live as they wish to live, "why." They already have all the rights every other person has. Marriage is not a "right." It is a traditional institution with certain restrictions, some legal, some customs developed over time. What gay marriage activists say they want are certain benefits that married couples have, and some of these are already obtainable through other legal means. But what they (or at least the ones whose actions have been garnering all the attention) actually seem to be demanding is for society to be forced, by the liberal's favorite method of legal fiat from above, to regard the union of two men or two women to be no different than that of a man and a woman. I can tell you that right now THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN, no matter how much you or I don't have any problem with it. Like most contemporary liberal "reforms" that have been imposed on society without taking into account the actual democratic will of all the people the gay marriage movement's activities have caused more resentment than acceptance and set their cause back at least a few years.

By the way, you'd be more convincing if you used either your real name and email address or at least a less hokey nick and fake email -- "justice@forall.com" indeed.

Sharon: if you had a problem with other bloggers calling you names, the place to complain about it is those blogs, not this one. Or at least say who you were talking about.