In addition to the local discussion of the story of gay-friendly donors from around the country bundling donations to selected legislative races, there's an in-depth poll of note coming out on Republican voter attitudes related to some of the issues of import to the bundlers in question.
Might be an interesting story, though this comment in the link above is pertinent:
These findings do indeed comport with the worldview of the sponsoring organization, and that's something to keep in mind. But they also generally comport with what Republican pollsters find when they survey voters in private. Note that Fabrizio surveyed self-identified Republicans - NOT primary voters - those pools overlap, but primary voters often colonize their own turf far away from the center of the party.
It's tough to see how this sort of bundling effort is really that newsworthy, it's not wildly different from what EMILY's List or other such groups (formal and informal) on both sides of the aisle do. While money in campaigns is important, candidates still usually win based on their message, not strictly their bank accounts. But the stealth factor and the hot button nature of the issues at hand probably makes it worthy of some newsprint...or pixels.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 27, 2007 07:50 AM | Email This1. I think that most people want other people
to be treated fairly. The devil is in the
details. On the gay marriage issue, I,
personally have no objection to domestic
partnership legislation. I do object to
redefining marriage, however. Even domestic
partnership when applied across the board
has some issues, especially if it promotes
a trend of dissauding heterosexual partnership
units with children from marrying. I know
there are some terrible marriages, some awful
marriages, and some abusive marriages. By and
large though, the best institution for raising
children is a marriage. From my research, the
best family unit is a heterosexual couple even
though there can be great single parent homes
and some gays make great parents. Personally,
what two consenting adults without the
responsibilities of parenthood due in the
privacy of their home is none of my business
and I don't believe the state should interfere
with that. When children are involved, I do
believe there is a societal interest in
nurturing institutional structures that promote
the care of children.
2. Having done a fair amount of research, I know
that the key to any poll is the crosstabs and
getting an idea of what questions were asked,
and how they were phrased and written.
I think that what most polls will find is there is a desire for the fair treatment of others and how that translates into policy is the interesting question.
I can't speak to what happened in Colorado, but my position on equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation, was already well established. The donations, reported as $5475 in my race, made up an extremely small part of the total budget ... and certainly didn't amount to enough to give me any advantage over my opponent. It's just possible that there's no real story here, other than the fact that people tend to donate to candidates that share their positions on issues. As you stated, Gill is doing nothing more than the NRA, the American Chamber of Commerce, EMILY's List or countless other groups do - recommending candidates for support.
Hopefully, over time, equal rights under the law won't be viewed as a 'hot button issue.'
??? So... we should outlaw the Opera, Safari, & Firefox browsers because they're abnormal?
Works for me! =:-D
The policy question is how to treat gay persons who want to form committed relationships as fairly as possible while still recognizing that the preferred unit for raising children is a hetersexual committed relationship. I know that some are going to disagree with that premise. It is important for children of both sexes to have gender roles of both sexes. I know some disagree with that as well.
I do not know if a homosexual disposition can or cannot be changed. While I take Scripture literally, I don't think it is helpful to call any person abnormal. Where I think the argument should be focused is what is the preferred institutional structure for raising children and how can government policy and society support that.
Posted by: WVH on June 27, 2007 02:44 PMTry as I might I just can't fathom how gay marriage would have any barring on me or my choice to marry except in so far as I could share in the happiness of some really good friends of mine...
Posted by: Giffy on June 27, 2007 04:47 PMIf it becomes normal for every straight couple to have many affaires romantiques, then this means we should legislate this is required and straight couples who refuse to do this may not adopt children??
Then in the next decade if the normality becomes something else (not having affairs) then again we change the rules?
There is insufficient appreciation of the concept of fudamental values which if they include equality, fairness, the harm principle, etc. dictate that there be equal rights for all.
There was a little child with a getting-older disease in your area, no, who died this week? He was not normal. But he was a model of character, no?
Perhaps this retreat to concepts of what is normal/abnormal reflects an inability to think more profoundly than the surface ??
"que lastima!"
au revoir--
There are some great gay parents, the question which will have to be researched is a longituditude study over time to examine what effect, if any, of being raised in a single gender household has on gender identity and the able to function in relationships. I can tell you that much of the research done on many Black children raised by single mothers is not favorable. Aside from the economic issues of a single parent, there is the gender formation. I know that many feminists will want to dispute this, but both males and females need both genders. Finally, I think you are correct that children need a consistent caretaker who loves them and expresses that love. Sexual orientation of the caretaker has little to do with the caretaking function. What I am concerned about is the gender integration and adaptation of the child. Many single parents provide mentoring and other opportunties, so that their children interact favorably with the opposite gender. So, I am not sure that the research at this point is what you say.
Posted by: WVH on June 27, 2007 09:53 PM
Like the phony story over using Norm Maleng's campaign funds for Dan Satterburg's election effort, which was spun out of whole cloth by gossips, rumor mongers, and gutter snipes, making an issue over carefully configured campaign contributions smacks of much of the same.
Disagree with her on the merits of whether gays and lesbians are entitled to special protection or rights under the law - that's called public policy debate. But don't imply that her acceptance of otherwise lawful campaign contributions evidences something not supported by the facts. That's malicious innuendo, and it's both morally wrong and one hell of a way to get the ol' Piper steamed and grabbing his Thesaurus, lexicon of snappy phrases, and compendium of Latin maxims in defense of his friend's honor, which is unfairly being called into question. Don't go there!
Deb Eddy is a conscientious, hard working, and honorable public servant, albeit of the wrong party and holding some views with which I disagree. But more than that, she is my friend, and it's upon that hill that this right-wing, red-meat-eating, red-state-voting, full blooded conservative will die.
Have I made myself clear?
The Piper
If you lived in a cotton farming town in the south 150 years ago, slavery would be very normal to you. If you were a kid in Germany in the 30s, it would be very normal to see all the Jews in your town wearing patches. Islamic extremists have normalized a culture of violence in many parts of the middle east today.
It's not a question of what's normal. It's a question of what's right.
You're obviously straight, so that's normal for you. Moral courage demands that you stick up for the rights of everyone, not just people who happen to be like you.
Posted by: AD on June 28, 2007 06:13 PMAIDS is a disease that is frequently sexually transmitted through abnormal sexually behavior. This disease is rampant in the Gay community. People who have AIDS for reasons I don't quite understand are shielded from discovery even to the extent that other unsuspecting people may fall victim and this is different then other other sexually transmitted diseases. Imagine discovering that the doctor who operated on you has AIDS and too bad you have it now. So sorry. Well this actually happened and the Doctor was a dentist that infected a number of his patients with the disease. So sorry.
Through out history, people who had a communicable disease were usually restricted in their movement to reduce the toll on society. Typhoid is one example. Venereal diseases are other examples. But somehow the disease of AIDS escaped that confinement less the infected be labeled as a GAY person. Or is because the GAY movement felt that they would suffer if a direct correlation between their abnormal sexual behavior was associated with a disease. Would appreciate further explanations on this topic as it would help me to understand why AIDS is not considered dangerous to society and infected people are free to infect others.I don't get it.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 2, 2007 12:36 AM