Republican Congressman Kolbe - "Gay Marriage...its time has come"

03/05/04 | sasafras

[sasafras]

Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe (Arizona) just announced that gay marriage (in opposition to the laws)is something whos "time is come" and compared the civil disobediance of gay couples getting married to the civil rights struggles of African-Americans. He went on to state that (paraphrase) 'gay marriage will be considered normal in a few years'. I heard it straight from his own lips at a meeting with him today.

[BackInBlack]

'It goes by various names, mob mentality, mass psychology, "a nation of sheep", etc.; but whatever name you hang on it, the result is what matters. And the result is that it's become trivially easy to "steer the agenda" by constantly bombarding people with "polls" that tell them what "most people think".'

So you and I believe the same thing: that polls saying most Americans oppose gay marriage do not mean that polls should dictate officials' behavior. We have very different reasons for that -- my worry was that poll-driven politicians would join most Americans in favoring redistribution (among other things) while you worry that polls are pretty much meaningless because people believe what they are told others believe. I have a little more faith in people to make up their own minds, but I do agree that, in general, people can be manipulated. I think it's more likely to happen through general media messages (and parameters set for debate) than polls in particular.

[sheik yerbouty]

"Dweeee...."

[BackInBlack]

"The sad thing is that we may have already lost the game. If the nation has slid so far to the left that the Democrats can run outright socialists like John Kerry and the Republicans have to pander to the liberals and their issues to retain any power, then we're in truly awful shape."

It's funny: liberals say the exact same kinds of things -- that this country has slid ridiculously far to the right, that Bush is practically a fascist, and that Democrats are wimps for pandering to conservatives. I'm not sure how both sides have come to this point. Maybe there really is a "culture war" where Americans live largely within their own culture and can barely fathom the other side.

Where we conservatives point to acceptance of gays, multiculturalism, and abortion rights, liberals point to pre-emptive war and tax cuts for "the rich." Very interesting times we're living in.

[TonyM]

No matter how many spineless immoral politicians try to say it is normal gays will never be married in the eyes of God.

[c-b 1]

do you suppose he could be classified as a RINO?

He is beyond RINO, I think flaming liberal would be more realistic.

[Spiff]

Where we conservatives point to acceptance of gays, multiculturalism, and abortion rights, liberals point to pre-emptive war and tax cuts for "the rich." Very interesting times we're living in.

The difference is that the liberals are lying.

[Spiff]

Where we conservatives point to acceptance of gays, multiculturalism, and abortion rights, liberals point to pre-emptive war and tax cuts for "the rich." Very interesting times we're living in.

The difference is that the liberals are lying.

[BackInBlack]

"The difference is that the liberals are lying."

They say the same thing about us. And it's hard to believe that millions of people on either side of the debate are outright lying. They may be wrong, but lying?

Another thing to keep in mind is that they are often accurate in what they say conservatives are doing; the difference is that we support it and they oppose it. For instance, preventive war -- we think it's necessary in a post-9/11 world, they think it'll lead to Armageddon. But I don't think they're wrong about what the policy entails -- at least, many of them aren't. Same with tax cuts for the upper income brackets: I don't think any of us dispute the fact that Bush's tax cuts went primarily to the very rich. The difference is that we think that'll have a positive impact on the economy, and liberals don't.

[JamesA]

Bonehead politician, so has the morality In America reached a time..perhaps of no return.

[tbird1]

YOU TELL 'EM, SPIFF.
tbird1

[foreverfree]

bump

[ChicagoHebrew]

Have gays been denied a seat at the counter in a diner? Have they been made to sit in the back of the bus?

They do have segregated bars

[mhking]

and compared the civil disobediance of gay couples getting married to the civil rights struggles of African-Americans

Bullsh*t. The RINO quoth wrongly.

[staytrue]

I think Kolbe's time has come to resign in favor of someone with respect for the law.

I've met Kolbe too. He is a thoughtful, kind, honest, considerate guy. Except for the fact that he is gay and for gay marriage, you would probably agree with him on almost everything else.

[staytrue]

Have to give you a mega ditto on your post 46.

I fail to see why when someone disagrees with another, the name calling starts.

[staytrue]

The biggest thing gays have done for this country is introduce a horrible disease and cause social decay.

HIV is STD just like herpes, syphillus, etc. Gay or straight.

I see rap music, hollywood, mtv, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse as causing social decay.

I think gays have contributed to this (except teenage pregnancy of course) no more or no less than the regular joe. If you think you can defend your statements, I would like to see it.

[staytrue]

Do we really want to live in a "culture" where pederasts and pathologically violent individuals are given a pass, because "they were born that way"? If not, then there is no basis for "I was born this way" being a rationale for passing homosexual-favorable legislation. And if it is grounds for giving homosexuals a pass, then it's also grounds for giving all "I was born this way" cases a pass.

I will give people a pass on "born this way" as long as they are not infringing on other people. A "born this way" killer does not have the right to kill other people. A "born this way" alchoholic may have the right to drink himself to a stupor inside his own home, but has no right to go driving. I think gay sex in your own home gets a pass from me.

[staytrue]

I don't think any of us dispute the fact that Bush's tax cuts went primarily to the very rich.

I am going to dispute that. The child tax credit phases out at 110k. Further, a person in an upper income bracket is not necessarily "rich" because you may make 200k one year and 40k the next.

Finally, the upper income brackets now pay a greater percentage of all income taxes after the bush tax cuts than before. In dollar terms, the upper income brackets received more absolute dollars however.

Finally, I don't think the people paying the taxes are really the people paying the taxes. Why I think that is in this opinion I wrote a long time ago. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39a2f70427f5.htm

[wylenetheconservative]

Re you statement about the Tuscon area "not trending RAT". Bush carried that Congressional District with less than 50%. The Gore + Nader vote actually defeated Bush by 3,000 votes. More Hispanics move in every day and the RATS register them to vote whether they are legal or not. Considering the GOP used to carry Tuscon with 60%+ I'd say the area is trending toward the Democrats. The GOP would have a real hard time holding that district without Kolbe as the candidate.

[dsc]

"I don't think any of us dispute the fact that Bush's tax cuts went primarily to the very rich."

Look, if you make 100k a year and Joe makes 500k a year, and both of you pay 30% income taxes, you pay 30k and he pays 150k, right?

After you *both* get the *same* 10-point tax cut, you pay 20k and he pays 100k.

Woah, he got a whopping 50k cut, and you only got a lousy 10k cut.

Yes, sir, that tax cut went *primarily* to Joe. Of course, he's still paying the same 20% you are, except his 20% is 100k to your 20k, but it's still terribly, terribly unfair, isn't it?

In the real world, of course, Joe would be in a higher tax bracket than you are, so any matching cut would be a smaller effective reduction for him than for you.

Any uniform tax cut that actually cuts the taxes paid by taxpayers is going to result in higher dollar-amount savings by people who pay more taxes. To say that a tax cut "went primarily to the very rich" on the grounds that some percentage of their taxes is a larger sum than the same percentage of someone else's taxes, is just silly.

Of course, "tax cuts for the rich" result in economic stimulation and job creation, but some people apparently think it better that we all be poor together than that some fat-cat robber baron should get a tax cut.