Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Two National Polls, for First Time, Show Plurality...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-10T06:32:38.284-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

I'd like to point out something about the inevitab...

2009-05-17T04:14:00.000-04:00

I'd like to point out something about the inevitability of gay marriage's acceptance in US. While many have commented on the generational difference in acceptance, I haven't seen anyone comment on one reason for that difference: while there have always been gay people, those 65+ in US grew up at a time when gays hide their gayness. Because of this, most 65+ers never learned that they had gay acquaintances, unless they were very close friends, to take that risk. Historically, people become more tolerant of a difference once they know someone -- it personalizes it: "Why shouldn't Anne and Joan be able to marry; they are nice people and obviously love each other". I prefer to believe that 65+ers aren't less tolerant inherently; they just had the truth hidden from them for so long. And thinking back to CA Prop 8 exit polls, if there is an issue in the African-American community, perhaps it is similar. Getting to know each other is the antidote to both blame and intolerance.

I can get on board with that Rillion.

2009-05-02T11:16:00.000-04:00

I can get on board with that Rillion.

酒店 , 酒店經紀 ,酒店公關 ,酒店兼職,酒店小姐, 酒店上班,酒店喝酒, 酒店工作, ...

2009-05-02T10:12:00.000-04:00

酒店 , 酒店經紀 ,酒店公關 ,酒店兼職,酒店小姐, 酒店上班,酒店喝酒, 酒店工作, 酒店兼差

If/when DOMA is repealed there should not be a law...

2009-05-01T19:56:00.000-04:00

If/when DOMA is repealed there should not be a law passed that automatically makes non-marriage partnership the same as marriages under federal law. There needs to be some flexiability since at least one state, California, has its partnerships open to some opposite sex couples that do not want to be married under federal law. Mainly it has to do with social security benefits and remarriage.

@Lord Calvert: we need some sort of act for the f...

2009-05-01T15:53:00.000-04:00

@Lord Calvert: we need some sort of act for the federal government to *recognize* civil unions because the only thing referencedd in federal law is marriage.

Although I agree that equal protection should guarantee recognition of same-sex marriages, federal statutes still need to be updated to recognize other partnerships at the state level. Alongside this and the need for the repeal of DOMA, marriage should be made gender-neutral anywhere it is mentioned in federal law.

@benrw - I disagree that we need a federal act to ...

2009-05-01T12:21:00.000-04:00

@benrw - I disagree that we need a federal act to guarantee such partnerships because that right is already enshrined in the US Constitution with the First and Ninth Amendments, as applied to the states by Article VI and reinforced by the Fourteenth Amendment.

I agree with you that DOMA should be repealed entirely because the only thing it was defending was the power of big-government to compel a definition of marriage on the people by force of law.

Joey, Excellent point on what constitutes "reason...

2009-05-01T11:53:00.000-04:00

Joey,

Excellent point on what constitutes "reasonable" in terms of recognition of same-sex unions. Ultimately, it will be up to the federal government to address the issue with a repeal of DOMA.

I would like to see DOMA repealed entirely, but I think we also need a federal act that would recognize civil unions/domestic partnerships *as well* as marriages. Why should couples, in say, Washington State be penalized by the federal government because their state has chosen to give their relationships a different name?

Who would have ever thought that Iowa would lead t...

2009-05-01T11:17:00.000-04:00

Who would have ever thought that Iowa would lead the country to true equality - first OBama, now gay marriage.

I doubt it surprises anybody who's ever been to Iowa and not just flown over it. Iowa has a proud history of leading the fight for civil rights. Iowa ruled against "seperate but equal" schools in 1868, banned discrimination in public accommodations in 1873, and was the first state to allow women to practice law. Moreover, Iowa's voted for the Democratic candidate in 5/7 of the last presidential elections (as many as liberal bastions like Illinois, Maryland, Vermont, and California).

I don't mean to pick on you, justsomeguy, but I see this kind of dismissive attitude towards Iowa (and the Midwest in general) a lot and it bothers me. Midwest doesn't mean racist and homophobic, and it's time for some of you guys to stop looking at those red/blue maps from 2004 and writing off the middle of the country. The upper Midwest, in particular, is a huge part of the Democratic party, and a real force in expanding civil rights. Don't forget it.

In a normal month you might be right, in a month w...

2009-05-01T10:42:00.000-04:00

In a normal month you might be right, in a month where two states legalized it and two or three others moved strongly toward it I think you are wrong.

The move is real, and soon gay marriage will be legal in many states...

This is something I sent an email about a few days...

2009-05-01T10:26:00.000-04:00

This is something I sent an email about a few days ago (to 538). Can there really be a 9% swing in polling in one month? The results seem a bit absurd:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/A_good_month_for_gay_marriage.html?showall

I think it's good news, but it's just unlikely to be accurate IMO.

My wife is a Latter Day Saint and a member of her ...

2009-05-01T09:06:00.000-04:00

My wife is a Latter Day Saint and a member of her church is absolutely convinced that Gay Marriage will be the law of the land within 5 years. I personally don't think it will happen short of a Virginia v. Loving Supreme Court case. And I still think that Nate's calculations on date that there will no longer be enough votes for an anti-gay marriage amendment failed to take the LDS into account. Utah and Mississippi are going to be closer than Utah and Montana.

I doubt the LDS will be a major player in the issue anywhere east of the Mississippi, there just aren't enough of them.

Who would have ever thought that Iowa would lead t...

2009-05-01T06:52:00.000-04:00

Who would have ever thought that Iowa would lead the country to true equality - first OBama, now gay marriage.

So maybe the loss of rights in California actually...

2009-05-01T06:48:00.000-04:00

So maybe the loss of rights in California actually HELPED as it moved the debate to a national one.

...and let's face it - if it is legal in Iowa it has to be legal anywhere!

This recession time is the moment to push for the ...

2009-05-01T05:28:00.000-04:00

This recession time is the moment to push for the gay marriage. The opposition is diminishing as this is a minor issue for most people affected by these hard times.
The republican can't launch an aggressive anti gay marriage campaign. It would just accelarate the narrowing of their support on their most conservative base. And moderate would not understand that focus on that when the country is facing such serious problems.

benrw, All of this work is being done in various ...

2009-05-01T02:03:00.000-04:00

benrw,

All of this work is being done in various stages. What is happening in your state is that the marriage equality advocates are trying to push for Civil Unions now because they feel that it is a more attainable goal than marriage equality. If they can get civil unions now, in a few years they can go back and push for marriage.

In New Jersey, we already have civil unions; we are now at the stage of being very close to being able to pass marriage equality in the legislature. (We have a governor who has said he would sign it, we know it will pass the Assembly, and we need a few more votes in the Senate.)

You may think that what your advocates are proposing is "reasonable" but it's not. A civil union in IL will not give the 1000+ FEDERAL rights of marriage to those people, because the federal government only recognizes "marriage" and not "civil union". In fact, with DOMA in place, it will not recognize any gay marriages, which is why we are also pushing to have it repealed. After all, if the decisions of marriage reside with the individual states, and a state has granted marriage, shouldn't the federal government abide by it?

The only other viable option at this point would be to remove the word "marriage" from all federal and state state documents and make all partnerships "civil unions". This would cover everyone equally and no one would have to redefine "marriage" as it would be only used to designate religious sacrament. Of course, everyone would probably end up colloquially calling it marriage in the end anyway, but I guess that will be the irony of it all.

The question lies in liberty - not in right. Neith...

2009-05-01T01:22:00.000-04:00

The question lies in liberty - not in right. Neither the majority nor a mass of individuals nor their representative government can have a right to suppress the right of homosexual individuals to voluntary marriage with whomever they choose. They have always had the right to do so and always will, however, the majority, the masses, the government have, thus far, been at liberty to deny homosexuals the liberty to exercise their right to consensual marriage with whomever they choose. It is the nature of a right that it cannot be taken away nor can it be granted. The fact one is alive is what grants one rights. At issue always is whether or not individual human beings - and on another topic, individuals of other species - have the liberty to exercise their right to self-determination. It is impossible to factually and logically argue a right to ownership of another life, however, it is possible to factually and logically argue the liberty to deny them self-determination, most commonly and most arguably because they themselves threaten the self-determination of others.

In the case of homosexual individuals having the liberty to exercise their right to consensual marriage with those of their own choosing, no argument can be made that their doing so threatens the self-determination of others and therefore no factually or logically supported argument can be made to limit their liberty in this matter. Consensual homosexual marriage does not factually or logically threaten the right of others to do the same.

There is but one rationale for denying homosexuals this liberty - irrational savagery quite outside the values of civilization. In an authentic civilized culture, such rationale is not to be given tolerated.

Shame on Nate and everyone else who speaks of "gay...

2009-04-30T23:49:00.000-04:00

Shame on Nate and everyone else who speaks of "gay marriage"!

Don't you know that a certain person from that shining bright liberal bastion called New Orleans, Louisiana, will come thundering down on all of you for calling it "gay marriage" ?????

Now that that is out of the way, the major problem facing those of us who support 'gay marriage', 'same sex marriage', or however you want to phrase it, is that it is right and good for individual states to pass such laws, or the courts to rule against the existing prejudicial laws prohibiting such marriages, BUT, it does not go far enough.

It has been documented that there are more than 1000 federal laws and regulations that affect such marriages. Anyone who gets a federal paycheck as a current or former employee of the federal government is affected. Anyone who gets any benefits paid at least in part by federal funds is affected. Those benefits include any medical benefits; social security; federally-funded welfare benefits, etc.

Anyone who does not work for the federal government, but their work is funded in major part by the federal government, are almost certainly prohibited by federal law and/or regulation from 'benefiting' from marriage if the couple are not opposite sex.

Opposite sex couples have the option of filing their taxes as a joint return, or filing separately. Those married couples who are not opposite sex MUST file a federal tax return as individuals, whether they want to or not, whether it is of benefit or not - those couples CAN NOT file a joint return. And in some (most? all?) states, your state return must be filed in the same manner as the federal return (e.g., if you file an individual federal return, you MUST file an individual state return.

Progress is being made one state at a time. However, it will take more time until there is enough pressure to get Congress to overturn DOMA and all the other prejudicial laws and regulations on the book.

And this is where the person I alluded to above and I disagree. That other person wants a vote NOW to overturn the current laws restricting marriage to opposite sex couples, whether the votes to do so are there or not. I, on the other hand, think that I have a more realistic view on the subject, and think that progress is being made, but will take longer to get to the rest of the nation on board. Taking a vote now will not win us the progress we need, but in fact may cause a back-lash that will set us back from the progress we've made to date.

Progress is happening faster than I thought it would when I was younger. Thirty years ago I would have thought that where we are at now, with several states (by judicial decision or legislative action) allowing marriage for all couples, would be the situation we faced in about 2030 - in other words, the current situation is about 20 years ahead of what I thought would be the situation when Reagan took office.

That does not mean I am satisfied with the current situation, but it does mean that I am pleasantly surprised with the current situation.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Achieving relationship equality takes two steps: ...

2009-04-30T23:17:00.000-04:00

Achieving relationship equality takes two steps: (1) getting the batch of legal rights and responsibilities that the state gives to couples, i.e., civil unions; and (2) having our relationships seen as truly equal to straights by getting to use the word "marriage."
In California, despite Prop 8, LGBT couples achieved the former through legislative action, and it was almost totally noncontroversial. Even the folks who put Prop 8 on the ballot knew they would lose if they tried to take away civil unions (we call them "domestic partnerships" here, but same thing).
All of these polls show widespread support for giving same-sex couples formal legal recognition. While rights are at stake, ultimately this is about politics--take what you can get today and come back for the rest tomorrow. That is the way democracy is supposed to work. I do not understand why the LGBT groups who presume to speak on my behalf won't accept that. I agree that it is wrong to make us LGBT folks sit in the back of the bus, but I'd rather sit in the back of the bus than not be able to get on the bus at all.

The storm is coming (spanish accent)....

2009-04-30T22:47:00.000-04:00

The storm is coming (spanish accent)....

I think the important thing is that this is becomi...

2009-04-30T22:28:00.000-04:00

I think the important thing is that this is becoming less and less of a "hot button" issue. That is, a smaller and smaller minority is outraged by the idea, and the majority is OK with it or at least resigned to it. The incredible amount of money that the Mormon and Catholic Churches spent in CA defeating the gay marriage proposition was probably the last gasp; in the end, it backfired because it forced people to think about not only about how much manipulation and lies the Churches were spreading (e.g. the Schools will have to "teach" gay marriage, every church will have to perform gay ceremonies, etc.), but also confront their own feelings. Once the initial shock is past for many, it becomes less and less of an issue. Churches and right wing nuts can say it will "destroy traditional marriage", but people with even a small amount of thought realize that makes no sense - if their marriage is so weak that gay marriages will destroy it, then they should not be married.

Two polls forward, one poll back. The Q poll's wo...

2009-04-30T22:26:00.000-04:00

Two polls forward, one poll back.

The Q poll's wording is different; it has the qualifier "in your state" which increases opposition.

More support gay marriage in abstract, but make it an actual issue in a voter's home state, opposition increases. That's why I still think there's a 5% polling bias in non-IVR polls in favor of gay marriage.

The wording in the Q polls was a way to get around the polling bias.

I think the question breaks down differently than ...

2009-04-30T22:22:00.000-04:00

I think the question breaks down differently than I see it asked in a lot of places.

It may be that a significant portion of this issue is NIMBYish in nature. People may support Gay Marriage in abstract, but fear the state government will force them to allow gays to marry in their church.

I would love to see the support/oppose numbers on the question "Would you support the right of homosexual couples to marry under the condition that your church not be compelled to perform such ceremonies?"

I'm quite confident you'd achieve a plurality.

@benrw - I am slightly confused by the terminology...

2009-04-30T21:20:00.000-04:00

@benrw - I am slightly confused by the terminology being used. How can the legislature "pass" gay marriage? Isn't what they are actually doing is repealing existing laws that prohibit it? Freedom of association is already a guarantee in both the US and Maine constitutions that the current prohibition to gay marriage is violating.

Gay marriage in the US already is legal and has been since 1787. It is the laws prohibiting it which are illegal as those laws expanded the power of government unconstitutionally. That is a small, but exceptionally important distinction that all of us need to be reminded of.

In Maine, where the Senate just passed (21-14) the...

2009-04-30T20:43:00.000-04:00

In Maine, where the Senate just passed (21-14) the first round of gay marriage legislation, we are seeing nearly equal proportions of gay marriage supporters (48%) and opponents (49%) with only 3% undecided. An important question: Why has there been such a dramatic increase in support in the last month alone? It's more than a statistical fluke, given the confidence intervals. Is this a "tipping point?" If so, what are the reasons and is any polling addressing this?