response to a fellow american

Received a comment I liked a great deal to my Harpers post. Was writing back to Brash - and figured it was a fine blog - here it is:

Hey Brash -

funny name for starters. made me smile- sorry it has taken a while to respond to you. and honestly i don't spend a huge amount of time on my blog. please feel free to link up. I am all about the "conversation" taking precedent over the "screaming".

I don't see any difference between the radical left and the radical right. both end in violence which i oppose out of hand. I just know that what progressives believe in is right. It is proven over and over and over again in American history. And, hey, i like being on the winning side. We lose battles all the time in America, but so far, we win all the wars over ideology. As for gay marriage - it is interesting to me that conservatives haven't noticed that they have already lost. The conversation has moved to the Left so far no one on the Right has caught up to it. Howard Dean passed Civil Unions to great derision 6 years ago. Now it is the fall back position of conservatives who don't like the word "marriage" associated with "gay". The Left has won. The worst thing that can happen is civil unions in some blue states. That's a win for the Left already. and it won't end there.

I have no problem with the no gay marriage amendments being put on ballots. But I don't see litigating this issue in courts as overly confrontational - or even really aggressive. It is American. Should same sex couples be given the same rights as opposite sex couples? It's a good question. Does the equal protection clause count on this issue? That's all it is. The courts are not a back room way of getting things done in America. They are part of the system. States in the South would have voted to keep segregation - that does not mean it was constitutional. It wasn't. Did judges shove school desegregation down our throats? Yup. They did. Because they did their jobs - interpreting the Constitution. The majority does not get to create second class citizens on false pretenses. - and all the arguments against gay marriage i have heard so far are false.

the responsibility for the failure rate in heterosexual marriages lies with heterosexuals. Homosexuality is not a perversion. It is a natural occurrence in a percentage of the population of all mammals. It has been with us forever. Gay men and women have always been born. The Bible arguments are no good either for these reasons A. The laws of this country are not based on the bible - nor should they be. They are based on the Constitution, written by a bunch of guys who were in no way fundamentalist. B. the bible says all sorts of things we ALL find reprehensible now. Or just odd. The legality of selling your daughter into slavery, Stoning adulterers etc etc. Opening the door up to Biblically based laws is a slippery slope indeed. Bible fundamentalists are not really fundamentalists at all. They pick and choose from the bible just like every one else. C. Families are in no way affected by gay couples. Families are often destroyed by other things though - alcoholism, bad economic policies, out sourcing of jobs, wars fought under false pretenses.

The Left is not "forcing" anything here. It is standing up for people. Decent people.

I have a close friend would was injured in Iraq - he's a marine and a gay man. One of the finest patriots you will ever meet. If he is in a loving relationship with another man - why is he not afforded the same rights to marry the person he loves as the straight guy in the fox hole next to him? He's good enough to go to war, be injured and decorated.

So i don't think court battles are forcing any agenda. however - taking us to war against a country that did not attack us under very questionable circumstances - is forcing an agenda. telling people during an election that Social security was not going to be changed ( W did say this when the NY times reported that he intended this to be his first post election policy initiative last fall) and then doing exactly what the NY TIMES said - is forcing an agenda. Insisting that judges be people of "faith" - meaning fundamentalist Christians - is forcing an agenda.

The way i see it the Left is simply trying to be heard over a media that is almost completely Right Wing, a government that is entirely Republican, and a large group of religious zealots who are determined to undermine the fabric of American democracy.

I know I know - you don't think the media is Right wing - it is though. There are still liberal spots here and there - but please watch MSM for a week. count the vocal conservatives versus the vocal liberals. there is hardly an openly liberal person on any more. A few moderates here and there. Keith Oberman is pretty Left - but that's it. The rest of the non Fox anchors pretty much report what they think will get ratings - which may be left, right or just sensational. The agenda is ratings. and fear of Fox. It is absolutely irresponsible in a democracy. Examine the Jeff Gannon affair, and how it was dealt with in the media - this is the perfect proof that the media is Right Wing. A paid male hooker gets security clearance to the White house for a year - and no one in the media would pursue it. Imagine if that guy had been in Clinton's press room. It would still be getting play. Robert Novak is still on TV - and he probably knows who outed a CIA agent. The NY TIMES reporters are fighting for their freedom. Novak is on TV. That is Right Wing bias. The examples are too numerous to mention. But the big lie that the media is liberal is repeated so much that it has passed into myth.

Anyway, responding to your comment is helpful. Clarifying. I feel good about the arguments for the most part. I think they are healthy. I don't see any radical leftists on the scene right now that scare me. I do see radical right wingers that do though. conservatives don't scare me - i just think they are wrong - almost always. I don't want Bolton to be confirmed - but don't care much if he is - he's just gonna make a fool of himself, have the job for a few years, affect no change, and leave. Filibuster? - well, go for it - conservatives will rue the day. Put those crazy judges on the bench. Have one of them strike down Minimum wage (that IS what they believe in) . Liberals will sweep to power. A conservative President believes babies are being killed and he wants an amendment to ban gay marriage - but won't put one forward to ban abortion. Why is that? You know why - because he would get hammered and lose power. So is he a man of principle? He thinks babies are dying - but does nothing. I am flabbergasted that the Right does nothing about this. Babies are dying - so they say - and this man is chattering about Social Security and gay marriage, chewing around the edges of the abortion debate. W does not beleive that babies are dying or, if he does, he does not care. I am amazed that the fundamentalists don't see that they are being used. They are envelope stuffers for big business. I say over turn Roe vrs. Wade - there will be hell to pay.

Dobson and the fundamentalists scare me though. He doesn't want to put forth policy - he wants to change the structure of democracy. In fact, if you reall examine the result if they got their way - it would be the end of democracy. So we must stand firm against him for the sake of the country we love.

That's it - sorry this was so long - you seem like a good egg. Keep the faith. What we have in common far out strips what we don't.

sock monkey.