[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I guess I should have said this earlier. My position is that gay people in America won't have secure rights until both major political parties in America agree that we are entitled to those rights. You won't win that by being a special interest of one party, and a wedge issue for the other. Gay Democrats need gay Republicans, and vice versa. We are all ultimately working for the same end.

For interest sake, how many openly gay Members of Congress/Senators are there in the US and what's the Democrat/Republican split?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Johnny Lydon:
I think African Americans would consider legislation very helpful in keeping them from being lynched and beaten.

Yes whites were forced to see that their actions were not tolerant and in fact inhuman. They were coerced by the government not to kill black people. If that is what it takes in some cases then that is what it takes.

Not for a minute do you get to paint me as supporting lynchings and beatings- those were already illegal with no new legislation needed.

What was new was when in September, 1957, nine Black students were supposed to start school at Central High School, an all-white public school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Governor tried to stop the boys and girls from attending the school by calling up State troopers.__ President Eisenhower, however, intervened against the obstruction and called up the National Guard. While the world watched, Elizabeth Eckford, calmly led nine students through the doors of Central High School behind a column of _ Federal officers, opening the way for full implementation of the Civil Rights Laws and the establishment of public school integration.

Integration a good thing? Certainly. However, the only way the Government could bring it about was through use of force.

Simey's observations on the backlash from judicial activism ring true to me. Actually, if it were possible, I'd remove marriage from the Government at all- marriage is the religious institution, and the Government only needs even consider it in terms of estate law, divorce law, and protected speech between marrieds. The recognition of marriages across state borders, and across country borders for immigrants are also problems that would need to be addressed- and that's what it comes down to- Government is so heavily entwined in who is married and regulating around it, that removal and making it the desirable non-issue is difficult.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
...Actually, if it were possible, I'd remove marriage from the Government at all- marriage is the religious institution, and the Government only needs even consider it in terms of estate law, divorce law, and protected speech between marrieds. The recognition of marriages across state borders, and across country borders for immigrants are also problems that would need to be addressed- and that's what it comes down to- Government is so heavily entwined in who is married and regulating around it, that removal and making it the desirable non-issue is difficult.

Yes, exactly.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
For interest sake, how many openly gay Members of Congress/Senators are there in the US and what's the Democrat/Republican split?

There have never been any openly gay senators to my knowledge. Senator Barbera Mikulski, D. Md. is widely believed to be a lesbian. But she has never acknowledged this.

In the house there are currently three openly gay representatives: Rep. Barney Frank, D, Ma. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D, Wi. and Rep. Jim Kolbe, R. Az. Of the three, only Tammy Baldwin was out before election, but all three have been reelected a number of times.

There have also been a couple of other openly gay congressmen from both parties. Gerry Studds was another Massachusetts Democrat, and Steve Gunderson was a Wisconsin Republican. They both left office in the late 1990s.

There have also been other office holders. Bush appointed an openly gay man to be an Ambassador, as did Clinton before him. Cheney also had a gay Undersecretary of Defense when he was Defense Secretary. However, Pete Williams wasn't out although he was out to Cheney. To my knowledge, there are no gay governors or federal judges. A number of local office holders are openly gay. Here in the District of Columbia, we have two openly gay council members -- one Democrat, and one Republican.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There have never been any openly gay senators to my knowledge.

Thanks. Interesting that - I would have expected a greater number of openly gay people to be represented. I use "gay" to cover both men and women - my lesbian friends tell me it's more pc to do that!

The mayor of Paris is gay actually. But I don't think I've ever seen him attending functions with a male companion. People don't like to think about it too hard evidently.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Thanks. Interesting that - I would have expected a greater number of openly gay people to be represented. I use "gay" to cover both men and women - my lesbian friends tell me it's more pc to do that!

The mayor of Paris is gay actually. But I don't think I've ever seen him attending functions with a male companion. People don't like to think about it too hard evidently.

Well, we're a very small percentage of the population and there is still a lot of stigma.

It will be interesting to see how the social stigma diminishes. It is happening. In the long run, MTV probably does more for gay rights than any politician. Younger generations have markedly different attitudes than the older generations. In the long run, that's what will tip the balance. People's social values tend to be fixed by early adulthood.

I think we forget just how sudden the change has been. For most voters, this all came about after their attitudes were to a large extent fixed. I occasionally run into a friend of a friend called Frank Kameny. He was one of the early pioneers (pre Stonewall). But even Frank only came out and began campaigning in the early 1960s. The gay rights issue is still in its infancy even in relatively tolerant countries.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
True enough I suppose. OK, I retract that point. The fact that it makes you feel "icky" (to quote Zim), is perhaps not based on fear. It's perhaps based on ... well heck, I don't know what it's based on. Tell me!

The same reason picking your nose and eating it is icky.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
You are if you are voting for Bush based on his support for the death penalty.

Well I would agree with that. But you claimed just voting for said person is supporting such things.

If you are opposed to banning of gay marriage, or you are opposed to the death penalty, you shouldn't be voting for politicians who support these issues.

But I oppose of abortions even more. So where does that leave me?

Ya see, this is why I think we need to do away with the 2 party system.

Vote for the person, not the party.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I think Zim is more against "deviant sex" than homosexuality.
Zim, do you feel the same about heterosexual sodomy as you do about homosexual sodomy? It's the act itself, not the sex of the couple?

Yup I do. It's the act.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
In conclusion,

Christianity is a homophobic religion.

Zimphire is homophobic, a dislike for homo-sexuality.

That's all folks.

Someone didn't read the thread.

Tsk Tsk

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The same reason picking your nose and eating it is icky.

ROTFLMAO. Send this one into Bush. Think how many votes are out there waiting to be taken for someone pushing legislation to protect society against the threat posed by snot eaters!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
ROTFLMAO. Send this one into Bush. Think how many votes are out there waiting to be taken for someone pushing legislation to protect society against the threat posed by snot eaters!

I was just explaining WHY it was icky.

The same reasons when ones thinks of say, having sex with swine as being icky.

(I at least HOPE most of you believe having sex with pigs is not normal. Knowing this forum, who knows)

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Well, that's an interesting reply.

Rhetoric is one thing, but sweet words don't necessarily change cultural climate- what are words? Naught but air.

Legislation? If legislation were all it took, people everywhere would be in love with PATRIOT, and we'd all be infinitely more secure- but many different types of people aren't pleased, for as many different reasons, and there are some good analyses about whether security has been increased at all by the measures in the act.

Pork? Pork is redistributing one person's property to another person's advantage, usually to help keep the elected official elected.

Judicial appointments can lead to changes in how the laws are applied but cultural climate is slow to follow if at all- attitudes change because of personal experiences. If a judicial appointment brings a ruling that enables an experience to happen and that experience changes attitudes, that's both a long chain and long timeline, and is likely to be dependant on more factors than just the appointment.

I think you're applying a standard to my original comment that it wasn't intended to meet. All I said was that political leaders can create a more or less tolerant climate, i.e. atmosphere. You took that to mean that I thought politicians could change everyone's mind with a sweep of the hand, which isn't what I meant.

Rhetoric might be "naught but air," but it can influence. It can suggest a direction, it can embolden people, it can intimidate others, it can even change minds. Legislation can also influence, as can executive orders, political appointments, judicial appointments, judicial decisions, etc. I didn't say it automatically caused everyone to run to the county clerk and change their party affiliation, I just said it can influence the climate, the public conversation, public perception. I'd venture to say that if you were gay, you'd feel better with Barney Frank in office than with Pat Robertson.

Even if it can only be through force or coercion (which I think is rather reductionist), that's still a way to influence the cultural climate. There might even be a backlash, but that's all part of the dynamic.

EDIT: Just to be clear, vmarks, I agree with you that personal experience is usually the most important thing. I only meant to say that for a given political interest, it's possible for one party to create a friendlier (or more hostile) atmosphere than the other.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I was just explaining WHY it was icky.

The same reasons when ones thinks of say, having sex with swine as being icky.

(I at least HOPE most of you believe having sex with pigs is not normal. Knowing this forum, who knows)

I really did find your comparison funny. It was not meant maliciously at all.

There is a difference between two adults having consensual sex of whatever kind they choose and an adult having sex with an animal that cannot possibly consent. All I'm saying is its people find all kinds of thing that are and should be perfectly legal 'icky'.

To be clear, if your position is that you choose not to have homosexual sex because you find it 'icky' but don't care if others engage in it and if your position is that you don't support measures to prevent people who do engage in that 'icky' act being denied all of the things people that engage in non-icky sex have, then I have no quarrel with you. It just seemed to me at the beginning of this debate that you supported Bush's efforts to put legal barriers in place to prevent gays from having equal rights.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
I really did find your comparison funny. It was not meant maliciously at all.

Right but I was being serious.

There is a difference between two adults having consensual sex of whatever kind they choose and an adult having sex with an animal that cannot possibly consent.

Er I wasn't comparing animals to adults. I was comparing ICKINESS.

It isn't the animal not being able to consent that is icky. It's the actual sex with the pig that is.

All I'm saying is its people find all kinds of thing that are and should be perfectly legal 'icky'.

Well it should be legal as in we should all have free will. But not because it's a perfectly normal behavior.

To be clear, if your position is that you choose not to have homosexual sex because you find it 'icky' but don't care if others engage in it and if your position is that you don't support measures to prevent people who do engage in that 'icky' act being denied all of the things people that engage in non-icky sex have, then I have no quarrel with you. It just seemed to me at the beginning of this debate that you supported Bush's efforts to put legal barriers in place to prevent gays from having equal rights.

When did I say that? I said I agreed with Bush's ideals. I never said I would try to actually STOP it from happening.

It's going to happen regardless.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ya see, this is why I think we need to do away with the 2 party system.

Vote for the person, not the party. [/B]

Agreed

[kindbud]

hmm.

let's see here

America has had a 2-party system for quite some time.

America is #1

Therefore we don't need to change anything just because liberals aren't getting elected.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Supreme Court issue is a real one. But it is also telling when people's first reaction is to ask what the political stripe of a judge would be. The courts ought not to be the focus of our efforts. That's what's driving a good part of this backlash -- the feeling that an unelected judiciary will be who decides the issue. Our efforts should be in the legislatures.

That's obviously slower than getting a friendly judge to just strike down discriminatory statutes. But it is more democratic, and it is politically more palatable to the majority who are being asked to tolerate change. It's ultimately more likely to result in a mutually satisfactory settlement. My fear is that this 1960s approach isn't going to work for us the way it did for African Americans. The backlash against judicial activism has already happened. On the other hand, society is becoming more tolerant toward gays and lesbians. If we just wait a little, push, prod, and persuade, but do it democratically, we can ride that wave in. But overreliance on the courts will play into the hands of the right.

Understood, I just see court nominations as critical because they're effectively irreversible. Gentle persuasion and legislation is obviously important, but if it were up to Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas, Hardwick would still be the law of the land. Which would be worse - a slight backlash from Lawrence, or a decision that says "Don't even bother trying to enact or enforce this sort of legislation"? I'd take the latter, I think.

Make no mistake, however - I understand the value in leading by example, etc. If the Republican Party can be changed from the inside, so much the better. I think we all agree that social change usually requires both carrot and stick.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by kindbud:
hmm.

let's see here

America has had a 2-party system for quite some time.

America is #1

Therefore we don't need to change anything just because liberals aren't getting elected.

I just suggested it because too many people vote for the party.

I know people on BOTH sides that would vote for Hitler if he represented their party.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Understood, I just see court nominations as critical because they're effectively irreversible. Gentle persuasion and legislation is obviously important, but if it were up to Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas, Hardwick would still be the law of the land. Which would be worse - a slight backlash from Lawrence, or a decision that says "Don't even bother trying to enact or enforce this sort of legislation"? I'd take the latter, I think.

Make no mistake, however - I understand the value in leading by example, etc. If the Republican Party can be changed from the inside, so much the better. I think we all agree that social change usually requires both carrot and stick.

I don't think that we are in any great disagreement. Just to note that Supreme Court opinions are reversible. They can be reversed by constitutional amendment, which is what I'm worried about. Even a bad judicial opinion isn't the end of the road as the 14th Amendment showed with respect to Dred Scott. But if the constitution is amended, it more or less is the end of the debate. My fear is that if the courts get too far in front of public opinion on this, then that is exactly what could result.

The fact that we had a spirited discussion with an otherwise stalwart liberal like Eklipse should show that the coalition on this issue is tenous. That tells me that we should be very careful about resorting to the anti-democratic branch to force the majority to do what the majority is at the moment opposed to doing (even if you and I think they are wrong). I think the public is much more likely to reach an accomodation if the public is engaged and doesn't feel cheated out of their say by an unelected elite.

The other thing is that if you go the legislative and public persuasion route, not only will the result be more accepted, but also the composition of the judiciary ceases to be a factor. That way you don't have to worry about a Lewis Powell turning your victory into a horrible defeat as happened with Hardwick.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think that we are in any great disagreement. Just to note that Supreme Court opinions are reversible. They can be reversed by constitutional amendment, which is what I'm worried about. Even a bad judicial opinion isn't the end of the road as the 14th Amendment showed with respect to Dred Scott. But if the constitution is amended, it more or less is the end of the debate. My fear is that if the courts get too far in front of public opinion on this, then that is exactly what could result . . .

Yes, legislation reflecting the will of the voters (more or less) is certainly the optimal way. Obviously, the big question is whether it can move fast enough.

I am, however, very concerned about the balance of the Supreme Court moving too far to the right, and it's the main reason I can't bring myself to vote Republican, not as long as the cultural conservatives are in control of the party. Not that I want leftists either - moderation is all that I require.

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

The other thing is that if you go the legislative and public persuasion route, not only will the result be more accepted, but also the composition of the judiciary ceases to be a factor.

You must be assuming that the court won't, in your own words, "trump a legislature," which it certainly has the power to do.

Maybe you can't, but I can imagine all sorts of disastrous judicial results and decisions overturned (legislature and otherwise) should Bush have his way with two or more Supreme Court nominees.

It's conceivable, while you're still making nice with the republican party to persuade them to give gay people their due, a supreme court stacked with right wing judicial ideologues will be over-turning hard won rights left and right. And these decisions are harder to undue once these guys are sitting on the bench for the next twenty to thirty years.

That's a gamble I wouldn't dare want to make if I were in your shoes.

And even if I enlarge my POV about other issues which as a *conservative* I would want supported, looking at Bush's record so far would cause me to reconsider voting for him.

Fiscal responsibility? What a joke.

Smaller Government? Fat chance.

Moderate on social issues?

Apart from the fact that Bush has re-written US/international relations to your liking, it seems to me that anyone who really cares about being a true *conservative* would be having a fit with Bush and the republican party as a whole.

For some one as intelligent as you are I just don't get it. Seems to me like a another Bush victory and strengthening of the republican stranglehold within Congress and the Senate will ultimately be a horrible defeat in more ways than one.

[things]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
I for one support my president on this issue. I think gay marriages are wrong and should never be allowed. It is clearly stated in the Bible that members of the same sex should not consort with each other. I think it is sick.

Most Democrats and Republicans see eye to
eye with me. Thank God.

The Bible doesn't clearly state anything.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by things:
The Bible doesn't clearly state anything.

Depends on your willingness to listen.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
You must be assuming that the court won't, in your own words, "trump a legislature," which it certainly has the power to do.

Courts and legislatures each have the power to trump each other under certain circumstances. Usually, its the legislature overriding court opinions with which it disagrees by passing new legislation overturning a judicial opinion. More rarely, courts overturn legislation as being unconstitutional but courts aren't supposed to do that unless the statute can't be construed in a way that isn't unconstitional. If a state legislature passed a marriage statute and assuming that there is no Federal Marriage Amendment, then the courts would not find it unconstitutional even if they don't like it. Scalia said so in his dissent in Romer v. Evans.

What neither courts nor legislatures can do is overturn an explicit constitutional amendment. It wouldn't matter if you could clone Justice Douglas nine times and get each clone appointed to the bench, he'd still have to follow the Federal Marriage Amendment if it becomes part of the constitution. It's that end game that worries me. That's why I don't think relying on the courts is the way to go. Your comments about the power of judges only underscores why thinking that judges will deliver nirvana is dangerously risky. Actually convincing people (a majority, not just the hard left) and working the political system is frustrating and slow, but a lot safer.

[things]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
I for one support my president on this issue. I think gay marriages are wrong and should never be allowed. It is clearly stated in the Bible that members of the same sex should not consort with each other. I think it is sick.

The bible doesn't state anything clearly. We have a constitution in this country.

Most Democrats and Republicans see eye to eye with me. Thank God.

No they don't.

[BlackGriffen]

Some news on the more general front. From Bill Maher's Blog:

The Ohio legislature thought long and hard last week about how they can make their state even more bland and then voted to ban same-sex marriages. And to avoid any further confusion, they went so far as to officially define marriage as a legally recognized union between a man and woman who refuses to have sex with him. And talk about disguising your intentions - they insist that their biggest problem with gay couples is the safety issue of being mauled by your tiger. Don't we have better things to do than ban weddings?

D'oh!

BG

[finboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Having religious beliefs that teach against homosexual relations is not homophobia lerk.

Nope, but it's enlightening to see how "tolerant" of other opinions/lifestyles/cultures some of the lefties can be. We hear tolerance preached all the time, regarding just about any kind of lifestyle or religion, but the situation changes when the lifestyle or religion conflicts with certain views.

The difference between tolerating religion and accepting homosexuality (gayness, whatever) is that religion is a CHOICE, right? Doesn't that make it different -- we don't have to respect someone's religion or culture because it's a CHOICE.

I wish they'd make up their minds. Are we to respect other cultures/beliefs or not?

[spacefreak]

Don't we have better things to do than ban weddings?

Actually, they stated on their blog that they were initially going to spend their time hanging out on your blog, Mr. Maher, but it's so overtrafficked that it takes forever to load the pages. They came up with the ban idea while waiting for the Jan. 12 page to load, and passed the legislation while waiting for the Jan. 13 page to load.

They do thank you, Mr. Maher, for recently purchasing more server space. Now the Ohio legislature can spend their time doing the better things like surfing your blog without waiting forever between links.

[mr. natural]

Respectfully, Simey, I whole heartedly agree with you, but while your needle is stuck on repeating how better it is to work the state legislature angle over and over again, you neglect (willfully so, I can only assume) to notice how our discussion has segued into questions about how supporting Bush will likely impact Supreme Court nominees and the long lasting legacy this will be.

As an individual citizen I can not stop someone from bringing a case before the courts, but I certainly do hope that my vote will affect who is sitting on the bench to hear the case!

Apart from all the other issues which I suggested, were I to walk in *conservative* shoes, would turn me off from Bush and the republican controlled agenda -- none of which suggests actually adhering to so called conservative fiscal/governmental/moderate social values -- based only on his record of court nominees so far I would be alarmed, unless I was a fanatic of the core hard right wing republican base; and this is not something I assume you are a part of either, but perhaps I'm wrong?

Again, it strikes me, as intelligent as I believe you to be, that you're wagering an incredible gamble on this Supreme Court score with Bush at the helm for another four years.

Obviously, this is one bet I won't be wagering come November with my vote. How you can think to do so is beyond me. Of course, neither have you explicitly stated that Bush will get your vote, but your commitment to the republican ticket seems unshakable.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Respectfully, Simey, I whole heartedly agree with you, but while your needle is stuck on repeating how better it is to work the state legislature angle over and over again, you neglect (willfully so, I can only assume) to notice how our discussion has segued into questions about how supporting Bush will likely impact Supreme Court nominees and the long lasting legacy this will be.

As an individual citizen I can not stop someone from bringing a case before the courts, but I certainly do hope that my vote will affect who is sitting on the bench to hear the case!

Apart from all the other issues which I suggested, were I to walk in *conservative* shoes, would turn me off from Bush and the republican controlled agenda -- none of which suggests actually adhering to so called conservative fiscal/governmental/moderate social values -- based only on his record of court nominees so far I would be alarmed, unless I was a fanatic of the core hard right wing republican base; and this is not something I assume you are a part of either, but perhaps I'm wrong?

Again, it strikes me, as intelligent as I believe you to be, that you're wagering an incredible gamble on this Supreme Court score with Bush at the helm for another four years.

Obviously, this is one bet I won't be wagering come November with my vote. How you can think to do so is beyond me. Of course, neither have you explicitly stated that Bush will get your vote, but your commitment to the republican ticket seems unshakable.

What you are basically asking me to do is to vote for a party I disagree with, and candidates that I think would be bad for the country, and policies that I think would be harmful because a Republican president might nominate a justice who might get confirmed, who then might hear a case that might be improvidently and unwisely taken to court by a private party or some idiot left wing group and where that justice might vote in a way that I would find objectionable. Against all those mights would be the certaintly that I would disagree with a lot of things that I also consider important.

I'm sorry, but I am not a one-issue voter. I would have to be convinced that on balance I agree more with the Democrat nominee, than with a Republican. That hasn't happened yet, but it could. I have twice considered voting for a Democrat over a Republican for president. Once was when Buchanan ran, the other time was when Bauer ran. Short of that, I tend to find myself agreeing more with the GOP than with the Democrats. And further, I am not ready to cede my party to the religious right, nor am I ready to join a party that I regard as dead wrong on a number of crucial issues. Nor do I think it would be good to vote on one issue and pretend that the others don't matter. Nor do I think it is good for gays and lesbians to retreat into your ghetto.

mr natural: I will vote the way my conscience tells me I should vote. It's not lack of commitment to equality for my kind. It's just disagreement with the direction you have for my country. I a m n o t a D e m o c r a t.

[FeLiZeCaT]

I find amazing how people are mouth-washing with words continuously.

It seems to me this situation is very simple.

1) marriage can be a religious or political issue. But the bottom line is about to person wanting to be together.

2) Whether a constitution of some kind, or an edict, or a belief says it should be one way or the other, if we are supposed to be equals among all human beings, it is NOBODY'S business what somebody else is doing for him/herself, as long as no one is abused or hurt or killed in the process.

3) Anything else is belief and imposing it on somebody else (or interfering with someone else's attempt to achieve a form of happiness that won't interfere with the freedom/health/development of another) is basically unfair.

4) Either the Bible or the Constitution of the U.S. have nice things to provide but I will not submit unilaterally to the judgement of people who wrote things a long time ago that has nothing to do with my reality.

How could anyone go along with an institution (marriage) that was so oppressive to women when it got the benediction of any type of Church? Why would we want the State to maintain that in the first place?

From what I remember of my anthropology studies, marriage was always recognized by the Authority of the group, while religion (especially the Christian ones) would give it its blessing. That situation lasted for some time while priests would drag along couples by threatening them with the fires of Hell if they were not to comply...

It's like this thing, "We, The People"; a bunch of white men (no women or colored persons as far as I can tell) deciding the Fate of a Nation. It took how many years for women to be recognized as voters in the first place? How many years more to have black people recognized fully? Seems to me there is still a lot of work to do!

It seems the logic of these debates has nothing to do with the issue at hand: the freedom of people to make their life according to what they want to achieve for themselves gay, black or not.

It all has to do with whoever can line up as many words they can in opposition to another.

One of my teachers, a carpenter, once told me: "Freedom is not something you receive; it is something you take".

As long as you stick to a cage of beliefs that has nothing to do with reality, you entertain your own illusions of freedom.

As for the politicians that have to live with "parties of coalitions", how can we accept this as democratic? How can we accept to live in such contradictions? What are the exact benefits each and everyone of us is getting from such compromises? Do we really have to have such a political superstructure that basically oppresses through compromises? Do we have to be submitted to agreements that have nothing to do with our lives???

Of course, this humble opinion of mine applies to pretty much all industrialized countries.

And I am not supporting total anarchy either. ;o)

Let me rephrase the whole thing: This thread seems to me to be closer to a ping-pong game of rationalization with Simey as a guest star (no offense intended). In the meantime, the fundamentals of the issue are completely ignored.

Yep... that pretty much sums it all.

[mr. natural]

Struck a nerve did I?

Anyway, n e i t h e r a m I a D e m o c r a t.

Count me as an O R N E R Y I N D E P E N D E N T. Something this country seems to have no respect or place for in our tweedle dum and tweedle dumber political system any more.

But here's to hoping you get what you seek. I have my doubts you'll be pleased with the results as expressed. But we'll have to wait and see, won't we.