i call party planner!!! w00t!!! lol

Tim

I'll be mascot!

Religious institutions can do whatever the heck they want to. These bans don't affect them. It doesn't matter whether the cermeony was conducted in a church or not; the government just won't recognize the cermony as a marriage.

The church issue is not a factor at all here. What matters here is the fact that different-sex unions get a privilige that same-sex unions do not.

Congratulations to President Bush for (fairly and justly) winning another term. Congratulations to Kerry and Edwards for being gracious losers. I am not necessarily pleased with the outcome, but I don't think I'd be much happier with the alternative. Here's hoping for a better four years (though I highly doubt it).


Btw, as a sidenote, I am 100% convinced that if Canadians were allowed to vote on gay marriage, the results would be the same as the US. At U of T, as liberal a place as it gets, the students voted against increasing funding for the Gay and Lesbian gorup on campus. 1000 to 700, so it was decisive. As with much else, the image here is not the same as the real deal.


Anyways, cheers :wink:

So, who do you all think will run in 2008? (Or not necesarily run, because many will, but who will be the Republican and Democratic nominees?)

I think it will be Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

*crosses fingers*

:wink:

Speaking of which, my schools' Greek System is getting a gay and diversity sensative male Fraternity. Sounds kinda gay in my view Most of my school was for it. Personally I dont care, but it sound stupid.

I think theres a difference between funding and allowing someone their rights ... i mean, was the additional funding required? Did they have a valid reason for wanting more money?? Where and how was this money to be spent??

I'm not exaggerating in saying that I truly feel for you, Makeshift.

I'm only 17, so I know it doesn't really seem to be my place to state what I think 'our nation is coming to,' but this troubles me, just as it does you. It troubles me deeply.

Before going to bed last night (as I said before), I felt crushed. I've only taken a serious a political stance within the past year or so, but what I felt, what I've been building on, was strong. Thinking down the line of what will happen in the next four years, I, like you, have to ponder this: what is happening?

I think it helps to know, though, that there are millions out there who are feeling exactly the same as you. You're not alone in this.

She'll lose. By a huge margin. The Democratic Party is already screwed up as it is, why ruin it more?


Yet another sidenote: I highly doubt a woman, black person, a Muslim, or a person of Jewish origin would get the presidency. If JFK hadn't won, I'd put Catholic on that list too. That being said, I'd love to see a Black, Jewish woman and a Muslim hispanic vice prez win it

My thoughts, for what it's worth:

The upsetness many Dems feel isn't just about Kerry losing. It's that we live in a 50-50 country with a 100-0 government, all major power centers, congress, senate, supreme court, presidency, all 4 big state governorships, are owned by one party. That's depressing, it's not the America I grew up in. I could take Bush as president if the Senate and house were democrat like during his father's presidency. Gridlock is good, it keeps both parties accountable for their actions and lets all of America feel like their views are taken into account.

But as to Kerry losing, I said on BOM this spring that it was the height of stupidity for liberals to bring the gay marriage issue to the forefront during a critical election year like this. It was selfish is what it was, to be blunt. It was putting a narrow issue above the chance to affect a lot more profound things in a broad way. If they had played it cool they could have ended up with 2 more left of center supreme court justices next year.

Kerry - awful campaigner, we all know it. It's kind of amazing that someone that bad at campaigning, who even seemed to take the summer off and not want to attack his opponent, and who had a nutty wife that even a lot of Dems didn't like, still came so close to winning.

I'm glad Daschle lost, he was a complete suckup to Bush after 9/11 and sold the Dems out, glad to see him gone. He was a weak image for the party, an easy target for Bush.

What of Howard Dean? I hope there is some future for him in prominent public life, some have suggested him for next DNC chairman, that might work.

To those who say the Michael Moore wing hurt the Dems, I disagree, the anti-Iraq point of view was a legitimate issue and it wasn't held against the Dems much by the independent, middle grounders, Moore's general anti-Bush stance wasn't the problem. It was cultural issues, particularly the gay marriage issue, that hurt dems a lot. By bringing it up in an election year they got initiaves put on the ballots by the fundies which then gave them incentive to get out and vote.

I disagree with those on the left in this thread who say look ahead to 2012. Nah the Dems have always had a better chance in 2008 than 2004. The country hates to throw out a president after one term unless they really have to, but after 8 years they often prefer a change of direction even if the previous times were good.

The dems just need to nominate next time someone who isn't a stiff. Gore, Dukakis, Kerry were stiffs, they need someone with a little life. Dean, Edwards, maybe someone else out there we aren't thinking of at the moment.

I was about to edit that post to add:

If something as relitvely petty as the example I gave would result in people voting no, what would be the result in something as serious as marriage?


It's too often forgotten that many, many immigrants to Canada come from conservative countries: India, Pakistan, China, Middle-Eastern nations, Latin American countries, etc. These are regions whose moral views are far more in tune with Bush (on a number of issues) than they are with ultra-liberals.

I was thinking about how much I'd like to see that within my lifetime.

Espcially a woman president. Sheesh they account for over 50% of the population!

david and makeshift,

i'm sorry that you guys feel so let-down by this election.

the election process is an amazing part of democracy.

instead of feeling sad about it - learn from it, and educate yourselves on what went wrong, what you think could've gone better, etc.

it puts a smile on my face to see two people who are just starting their "political careers" as it were feel so passionate about democracy. keep on believing.

Tim

I really, really doubt anything like that will happen before 2050. It would take an extraordinary change of events, or an extraordinary woman. It's not impossible, but it's very unlikely, imo.

i would love to see hilary or obama get in! that would be amazing. and a huge leap forward for America. It's about time that the country showed its diversity in people in the political parties.

Tim

i would love to see hilary or obama get in! that would be amazing. and a huge leap forward for America. It's about time that the country showed its diversity in the political parties.

Tim

I agree with your last statement about the type of people in Canada ... but I do disagree with you on the other thing ... I'm more than willing to vote FOR gay marriage (cause really, at the end of the day, does it effect me!??. I mean ofcourse, I'm not equating everyone as being me or whatever, but I would have a more serious issue with giving a gay group funding from my own tuition money on multiple number of basis:
a) The questions i psoted above
b) Could my tuition money be spent on something much more important.

the 'little' thing you mentioned has too many variables and most canadian kids finance their own education, as cheap as it is ... I dont know much of UofT but at Concordia and Mcgill here, how the tuition money is spent is taken very seriously by the Student union as well as the students and the administration as well ...

How about Condoleezza Rice?

Blah that means not see it within my lifetime or be reallyl reallly old. A lose/lose situation.



Umm, hmmm...*still speechless*

72 cents. That's how much it would have cost the students.

It was just an example. But I think that there is a huge difference for people to choose between giving rights to some people without it coming at their expense (as they see it), and something they feel threatens their values, etc.

That's why so many support civil unions but are against gay marriages. The difference lies in the terminology, but that's a huge deal, no?

lol believe me

if it meant my tuition going up, i would not give funding to a gay student group on campus.

i'm not saying i don't support it, just saying that monetarily i have higher priorities at the moment. i could donate things other than money, also, if i felt compelled to do so.

Tim

whats really funny, ironic and crazy is how some of the more conservative societies in the world (india, Pakistan, Bangladesh) have seen female prime ministers on multiple occasions ... I mean sure, I often believed the pakistani elections had vote tampering but still .. vote tampering to support a WOMAN!! It's great other than the fact that most of us hated her!!

India also just voted .. again for the gandhi family .. Sonya Gandhi. Not only was she a woman but also Italian before she got married and moved. There were tears on the street when she finally stated that she could not take up the position and it was offered to someone else in the party ...

janet reno perhaps

Tim

Same thing here.

Voting "no" for more funding to a gay group (even if it means only 72 cents) does not correlate well with voting no to gay marriage.