Iowa Poll on Same-Sex Marriage: Interesting Mix of Results
Iowa legalized same-sex marriages this April, and the state is really in a kind of transition, they are ahead of the curve as far as states granting the same marriage rights to all citizens, but at the same time the controversy is swirling around them, anti-gay forces are fighting against marriage in several states and the propaganda gets thick at times. So you find an interesting mix of attitudes among Iowans. From The Des Moines Register:
My in-laws are in Iowa, and we travel there fairly often. It's real different from the Eastern seaboard, values are different, the pace of life is different. People out there work hard, and they expect others to do their fair share; as part of that package, they are reluctant to tell somebody else how to live and they definitely do not like somebody else, especially the government whether it's local, state, or federal, making their personal decisions for them.
It is not surprising that the "very opposed" group is bigger than the "very in favor." It's a measure of tolerance. A reasonable person may look at the situation and realize it's none of their business, they don't understand why a guy'd want to marry another guy but if that's what they want to do, who cares? This person is not going to get excited about gay people marrying, they basically don't care if they do or not, and personally I see this as the ideal nonjudgmental attitude -- they may feel strongly that it should be allowed, but as far as "favoring gay marriage," I doubt you're going to register any intensity. On the other hand, there are those who feel repulsed by the idea that couples who are not boy-girl would fall in love and want to start a home and family. The idea upsets their view of how the world is supposed to be, they have an emotional reaction to the thought of same-sex couples marrying, and so you find a bigger percentage "strongly opposed" than "strongly in favor." It's an interesting asymmetry but not a hard one to understand.
Here's the result you just have to love:
That's just about everybody. The other eight percent might be people who married, plus their friends and family; the right to marry brought "real change" to their lives, when lovers took their vows of lifetime commitment.
So you have this strange pattern in the data, forty-one percent of people would vote against allowing gay people to marry, yet almost none of them are personally affected by the fact that gay people have been marrying in their state for five months. And really, what could happen? You go to work, you go out in the evening, you shop and do things, what in the world difference could it possibly make if the two people pushing a cart down the aisle in front of you are married or not, or if the guy in the next cube has a male spouse? This is a predictable result, giving gay and lesbian citizens the right to marry does not change the way anybody else lives.
You have to wonder then, what do those forty-one percent think they're voting against? It just might be that it makes a straight person uncomfortable to see two men, or two women, kissing or showing affection in public, you can call them homophobic but it is not so strange to feel discomfort in the presence of behavior outside the norms of your own social group. An intelligent person should be able to separate their own personal discomfort from the principle that is at the heart of American democracy, which is that people have the freedom to express themselves even if it is unpopular. Maybe it makes you uneasy, does that mean you would actually vote to take the right away from someone else, somebody you don't know, to marry the person they love?
There is a pretty thorough article, fascinating juxtapositions of attitudes, I'm skipping through it now.
Here's what I'm talking about:
That's exactly the right attitude, it seems to me. This guy will not report that he "strongly favors" gay marriage, but when you get down to it he is just fine with other people being happy, doesn't bother him a bit.
Skipping down ...
Now, that's playing with numbers -- twenty-five percent isn't all that different from thirty-three percent, especially with a plus and minus 3.5 percent margin of error. A few more Republicans than Democrats think it is the most important issue, that's not the point here, the point is that more than two thirds of Iowans think same-sex marriage is not the most important issue in the next elections.
As states adopt marriage equality, and people see that it has no negative effect on anybody's life, it has got to recede as an issue. A small percentage of people benefit when they are permitted to marry or to share the joy of a friend or relative's wedding, zero percent suffer any loss, restriction, or offense. After a while those who oppose the idea will be scratching their heads, trying to remember why it ever seemed so important.
Iowans are almost evenly divided about whether they would vote for or against a constitutional amendment to end marriage for same-sex couples, according to The Des Moines Register's new Iowa Poll.
Forty-one percent say they would vote for a ban, and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure.
The most intensity about the issue shows up among opponents. The percentage of Iowans who say they strongly oppose gay marriage (35 percent) is nearly double the percentage who say they strongly favor it (18 percent). Iowa Poll: Iowans evenly divided on gay marriage ban
My in-laws are in Iowa, and we travel there fairly often. It's real different from the Eastern seaboard, values are different, the pace of life is different. People out there work hard, and they expect others to do their fair share; as part of that package, they are reluctant to tell somebody else how to live and they definitely do not like somebody else, especially the government whether it's local, state, or federal, making their personal decisions for them.
It is not surprising that the "very opposed" group is bigger than the "very in favor." It's a measure of tolerance. A reasonable person may look at the situation and realize it's none of their business, they don't understand why a guy'd want to marry another guy but if that's what they want to do, who cares? This person is not going to get excited about gay people marrying, they basically don't care if they do or not, and personally I see this as the ideal nonjudgmental attitude -- they may feel strongly that it should be allowed, but as far as "favoring gay marriage," I doubt you're going to register any intensity. On the other hand, there are those who feel repulsed by the idea that couples who are not boy-girl would fall in love and want to start a home and family. The idea upsets their view of how the world is supposed to be, they have an emotional reaction to the thought of same-sex couples marrying, and so you find a bigger percentage "strongly opposed" than "strongly in favor." It's an interesting asymmetry but not a hard one to understand.
Here's the result you just have to love:
The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.
That's just about everybody. The other eight percent might be people who married, plus their friends and family; the right to marry brought "real change" to their lives, when lovers took their vows of lifetime commitment.
So you have this strange pattern in the data, forty-one percent of people would vote against allowing gay people to marry, yet almost none of them are personally affected by the fact that gay people have been marrying in their state for five months. And really, what could happen? You go to work, you go out in the evening, you shop and do things, what in the world difference could it possibly make if the two people pushing a cart down the aisle in front of you are married or not, or if the guy in the next cube has a male spouse? This is a predictable result, giving gay and lesbian citizens the right to marry does not change the way anybody else lives.
You have to wonder then, what do those forty-one percent think they're voting against? It just might be that it makes a straight person uncomfortable to see two men, or two women, kissing or showing affection in public, you can call them homophobic but it is not so strange to feel discomfort in the presence of behavior outside the norms of your own social group. An intelligent person should be able to separate their own personal discomfort from the principle that is at the heart of American democracy, which is that people have the freedom to express themselves even if it is unpopular. Maybe it makes you uneasy, does that mean you would actually vote to take the right away from someone else, somebody you don't know, to marry the person they love?
This is the first Iowa Poll to examine opinions on the issue since the Iowa Supreme Court in April overturned the state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage.
The newspaper's poll of 803 Iowans ages 18 and older was conducted Sept. 14 to 16 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines.
The poll has a possible margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
There is a pretty thorough article, fascinating juxtapositions of attitudes, I'm skipping through it now.
Here's what I'm talking about:
The poll shows that 26 percent of Iowans favor April's unanimous court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 43 percent oppose it and 31 percent don't care much or are not sure.
Despite the 43 percent opposition to the ruling, 61 percent of Iowans say other issues will influence their decision on whether to vote to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices in the 2010 elections.
"It's really none of my business what other people do in their lives," said Curt Goodell, 38, a Johnston resident.
He identifies himself as a Republican but said he worries his party will try to make marriage a key issue in coming elections. "I don't have any judgment toward people who want to get married: gays, straight or whatever," Goodell said.
That's exactly the right attitude, it seems to me. This guy will not report that he "strongly favors" gay marriage, but when you get down to it he is just fine with other people being happy, doesn't bother him a bit.
Skipping down ...
Few poll respondents who described themselves as Republicans say the court decision is the single most important issue in the 2010 elections. But more than a third of Republicans say it is among several important issues, while only about a quarter of Democrats put it in that category.
Now, that's playing with numbers -- twenty-five percent isn't all that different from thirty-three percent, especially with a plus and minus 3.5 percent margin of error. A few more Republicans than Democrats think it is the most important issue, that's not the point here, the point is that more than two thirds of Iowans think same-sex marriage is not the most important issue in the next elections.
Celinda Lake, a national Democratic pollster, has polled on the issue of gay marriage in Iowa since 2004. She said the minority of Iowans who consider the court decision a top ballot-box issue is consistent with her research.
"What we found is Iowa has always had fewer single-issue voters on gay marriage than a lot of other states even in the Midwest," Lake said. "Now what we're seeing nationwide, the issue has really receded. So, people are not particularly focused on it as a voting issue."
As states adopt marriage equality, and people see that it has no negative effect on anybody's life, it has got to recede as an issue. A small percentage of people benefit when they are permitted to marry or to share the joy of a friend or relative's wedding, zero percent suffer any loss, restriction, or offense. After a while those who oppose the idea will be scratching their heads, trying to remember why it ever seemed so important.
posted by JimK at 12:28 PM
42 Comments:
It's pretty obvious that Iowans, like the rest of America, would vote down gay "marriage" if given a chance.
Just like D.C. voters would vote down gay marriage if given a chance.
Just like Montgomery County would vote down the transgender discrimination if given a chance.
So much of the gay agenda is directed at denying Americans representation.
Teabag, man!
It is possible that a majority of Iowans would vote against marriage equality if they were given the chance. Of course people will make a popularity contest out of anything, that's why we have an ironclad Constitution, to bolster and protect the rights of everyone, even minorities.
What's the process for amending the Iowa constitution?
rrjr
"protect the rights of everyone"
no one has a constitutional right to change the definition of marriage
nice try
Loving v. Virginia?
Anon asserted:
“no one has a constitutional right to change the definition of marriage”
Could you please point out the line in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says that?
Or better yet, please point out the lines where it explains why a group of people with a genital centric philosophy that pre-defines how people should behave, dress, and love based solely on one’s gonads should have the right to deny another group of people’s UNALIENABLE rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as described in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
After all, all men are created equal, right?
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"Could you please point out the line in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says that?"
The Bill of Rights lists several rights. That's not one of them.
Of course, you have the right to try to change the definition of marriage. You just don't have the right to impose your definition on others.
The Framers were wise enough to put in place in rules for amending the Constitution, and we have done so twenty-seven times so far.
There was a Constitutional re-definition made with the 13th Amendment, which granted freedom to slaves and rendered moot the original US Constitutional definition of them as three-fifths a person. Then the 15th Amendment gave them the right to vote, a right the original US Constitution had denied them.
One of the beauties of the US Constitution is that it was written with provisions to allow it to evolve.
Anon asserted:
“Of course, you have the right to try to change the definition of marriage. You just don't have the right to impose your definition on others.”
You said it exactly Anon. Let me repeat it in caps so you can read it again:
“YOU JUST DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE YOUR DEFINITION ON OTHERS.”
Your definition of marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. You have no right to impose your definition of marriage on a lesbian couple any more than they have the right to impose a same-sex definition of marriage on you. They shouldn’t be allowed to force you into a homosexual marriage any more than you should be allowed to force them into a heterosexual marriage. Especially if it’s just to preserve your sacred definition of the word.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
I meant you have no right to unilaterally impose your own definition
those who oppose gay "marriage" aren't doing that
they are defending the definition of the word as commonly used
this is supported every time is put to a vote
words mean what everyone says they mean not just what a fringe group or individual wants theme to mean
"(Sept. 28) - A 14-year-old British schoolgirl died Monday, shortly after receiving a cervical cancer vaccination. Local health authorities launched an "urgent" investigation but say a link between the death and the drug has not been established.
The teenager was administered Cervarix, a vaccine for the human papillomavirus (HPV), at her school in Conventry, England. She became sick soon after and was sent to a hospital where she died.
"No link can be made between the death and the vaccine until all the facts are known and a post-mortem takes place," said Dr Caron Grainger, the joint director of public health for NHS (National Health Service) Coventry. "We are conducting an urgent and full investigation into the events surrounding this tragedy."
At least three other girls at the school who received the shot also reported symptoms, such as dizziness and nausea.
From an MCPS listserve:
"Particularly disgusting and exploitative type of fear-mongering, good work.
In the US, 28 women have reportedly died from Guardasil
4,000 die every year from cervical cancer.
That is 28 deaths out of /7 million girls/ who received the vaccine
By the way, deaths among girls attributed to dieting? 80,000."
As has been noted here a number of times, and many times elsewhere, the Supremem Court in Loving v. Virginia imposed its views on the voters of Virginia, changing that state's definition of marriage.
I would predict that our anonymous will counter that Loving was a decision based on racial discrimination, which, for reasons he states but I don't understand, differs from discrimination based on sexual orientation. He mumbles something about immutable characteristics, bringing up the central ex-gay canard, and ignoring protections based on religion and other characteristics.
Matt "Bam-bam" Barber suggests that the anti-gay industry focus on the 'ick-factor' of same-gender relationships in its fight against lgbt people's civil rights. Is not just an appeal to unreasonable prejudice?
"the Supremem Court in Loving v. Virginia imposed its views on the voters of Virginia, changing that state's definition of marriage"
I don't know what the Supremem Court is but Robert is wrong here.
Marriage has never been defined racially. It has always been defined in terms of gender.
While there may have some times and places in this country when interracial marriage was forbidden, no one would have said it was because it didn't meet the definition of marriage.
No one said, for example, that John Rolfe and Pocohantas weren't really married.
Same with the marriage of Moses to an Ethiopian in the Old Testament, Numbers 12.
From the beginning, Robert, interracial marriages were included in the definition of marriage.
You're wrong.
I don't know what the Supremem Court
Now you want to argue about a typo of "Supreme Court?" We see who's low on arguments today.
It [marriage] has always been defined in terms of gender.
Not so fast, Anon. In June of 2007 on Vigilance's The Morality of Liberals and Consevatives blog tread, Priya Lynn cited "Gary Leupp's comments:
"First I recommend you read John Boswell's fine book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980), in which he documents legally recognized homosexual marriage in ancient Rome extending into the Christian period, and his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Villard Books, 1994), in which he discusses Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex nuptial liturgy. Then check out my Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan (University of California Press, 1995) in which I describe the "brotherhood-bonds" between samurai males, involving written contracts and sometimes severe punishments for infidelity, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Check out the literature on the Azande of the southern Sudan, where for centuries warriors bonded, in all legitimacy, with "boy-wives." Or read Marjorie Topley's study of lesbian marriages in Guangdong, China into the early twentieth century. Check out Yale law professor William Eskridge's The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996), and other of this scholar's works, replete with many historical examples."."
And later told us more history:
"Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote that "Among the Gauls, the young men marry each other (gamountai) with complete freedom. In doing this, they do not incur any reproach or blame, since this is done according to custom amongst them." Bardaisan of Edessa wrote that "In the countries of the north — in the lands of the Germans and those of their neighbors, handsome [noble] young men assume the role of wives [women] towards other men, and they celebrate marriage feasts." "
Same sex marriages have been around for ages.
Repaired link to The Morality of Liberals and Conservatives
that's interesting anon-b but it's obscure history and not the current definition
I brought up the historical information about inter-racial marriage because they are well-known examples from our heritage which bear on our current definition, showing that Robert was wrong
I'm not saying you guys can't seek to change the definition but it needs to be agreed on by everyone and "gay" marriage doesn't even get a majority much less a consensus of consent in our society
So, in the the British colonies and in America, marriage was at first defined as union between two white people, then later in terms of marriage between people of the same race. How does this amount to marriage never being defined in terms of race? Do you just make crap up to pretend to back up what you say?
In the Old Testament, men were allowed any number of wives, concubines, etc.
In some cultures, marriage has been defined the way the religious right does: as between one man and one woman. But that doesn't by any means amount to always, or even usually.
The people, including Bam-bam, Maggie Gallagher, and our own anonymous troll, who continue this deliberate mistatement know better. So why do they persist in maintaining this untruth: I can only conclude, to deceive people into supporting their position.
What about that pesky commandmant on lying?
Honey, it gets old when you just keep making up the same mistruths to support your specious arguments. No one here believes you. Make up new stuff, it would be more interesting.
"So, in the the British colonies and in America, marriage was at first defined as union between two white people, then later in terms of marriage between people of the same race."
No, it wasn't, Robert.
You're wrong.
"In the Old Testament, men were allowed any number of wives, concubines, etc."
so what?
"In some cultures, marriage has been defined the way the religious right does: as between one man and one woman. But that doesn't by any means amount to always, or even usually."
Well, Priya apparently has a book which claims some pagan cultures had deviant marriages but they were definitely not "usual".
The news services are reporting that the Obama administration has reached a deal with Senate Republicans and Blue Dogs.
They'll support a version of health care reform with co-ops and Obama has agreed to crack down on the "gay" marriage fad.
some pagan cultures had deviant marriages
There goes Anon's reading comprehension problem again. Does "Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex nuptial liturgy" sound like "some pagan cultures" to anyone but Anon?
Honey, I am often wrong, but not in this instance. All those reading comprehension activities really paid off for me; you should try it.
When the law says that people of different races are to be punished if they marry, or evicted from the state, is this not at least in part defining marriage, as recognized by the state, as being based on race? Of course it is. That was the reading of SCOTUS in Loving. Geez, you can be exasperating.
Check this out from Amanda at the City Paper:
PFOX calls hate crimes laws anti-exgay hate crimes
Read that again: passing a law that protects people from violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity, is, in and of itself, a hate crime against people who define themselves as ex-gay.
Huh?
I think PFOX has been taking lessons from Anonymous.
A law saying different races can't marry doesn't mean they are redefining marriage. btw, not all states forbade marriage between races.
Show me a copy of Webster's, from any decade, that defines marriage as "the union of a man and woman of the same race".
You're wrong, Robert.
"Read that again: passing a law that protects people from violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity, is, in and of itself, a hate crime against people who define themselves as ex-gay.
Huh?"
A law that penalizes violence against group A greater than violence against group B is unequal treatment under the law.
An example:
Mr Drug Addict is desperate for money to get some druugs.
It's late at night.
He's at the corner.
Mr Straight Arrow is walking down one street and Mr Deviant is walking down another.
If he robs Mr Straight Arrow, he could get 10 years in the slammer.
If he robs Mr Deviant, he could get 20 years.
Who's he going to rob?
oh me gursh
Robert's wrong again
I guess that's what they call Robert's rules of disorder
remember when I said the public option had no chance and anon-b mocked me?:
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 29) — Liberal Democrats failed Tuesday to inject a government-run insurance option into sweeping health care legislation taking shape in the Senate Finance Committee.
The option was rejected by the committee 15-8."
I thought you guys had control of Congress.
What happened?
But hate crimes laws as anti-ex-gay hate crimes? Too much.
I myself am not necessarily a supporter of hate crimes laws, but that's just too much.
Your example, as you well know, is deliberately insulting in its use of terms. Back to that politeness thing, honey, what would your grandmother say about your manners?
Is there something in the bible or the Republican Party Platform that says we must be rude to queer people? Or is it in the Troll Handbook?
There are legal definitions as well as dictionary definitions. The legal definition of marriage varies from state to state and because of that variance and America's commitment to fairness, the US Supreme Court made the Loving v. Virginia ruling regarding Virginia state law, and that ruling then applied to all US states.
Anon must have an old edition of Merriam Webster's Dictionary. According to an article written in March 2009 by someone who calls himself BeetleBlogger, Merriam Webster's Dictionary has now added a second definition for "marriage" as follows:
“the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”
"I myself am not necessarily a supporter of hate crimes laws, but that's just too much."
Darn, Robert.
I wanted to insult you again and you go and say something reasonable.
That's cold, man.
"Your example, as you well know, is deliberately insulting in its use of terms."
Well, I'm using it now because it seems to tick you guys off but, seriously, aren't homsexuals trying to be deviant?
Isn't that the point?
"There are legal definitions as well as dictionary definitions."
There are also common usage defintions.
"The legal definition of marriage varies from state to state and because of that variance and America's commitment to fairness, the US Supreme Court made the Loving v. Virginia ruling regarding Virginia state law, and that ruling then applied to all US states."
Nah. The definition of marriage never stipulated racial homogeneity.
"Anon must have an old edition of Merriam Webster's Dictionary. According to an article written in March 2009 by someone who calls himself BeetleBlogger, Merriam Webster's Dictionary has now added a second definition for "marriage" as follows:
“the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”"
Oh, it's online and that's what it says for a second definition.
Webster's is wrong as common usage has been confirmed by votes in every state that has voted on it.
Webster is celebrating Wrong Day with Robert.
remember when I said the public option had no chance and anon-b mocked me?
You like counting your chickens waaaaaaaay before your eggs hatch don't you? Well go ahead, for now.
I didn't mock you, I said the Democrats don't need a single GOP vote to pass health care reform with a public option, or any other bill for that matter, which is absolutely true. The Democratic majority in Congress makes the GOP irrelevant.
I'm looking forward to hearing what you'll have to say after the House-Senate Conference Committee finalizes the health care reform bill to be sent to President Obama for his signature.
Some might say educated people know the only version of any bill that matters is the one that gets signed into law.
"I said the Democrats don't need a single GOP vote to pass health care reform with a public option"
That's kind of like saying men don't need a single female vote to pass any bill they want.
That would be true except that, obviously, all men don't want the same thing.
The real dichotomy in the Senate is not between Dems and Repubs.
It's between responsible politicians and liberals.
Responsible politicians don't need a single liberal vote to block the public option.
The Senate Finance Committee has 13 Dems and 10 Repubs.
But that wasn't the score.
The Senate Finance Committee has 15 responsible politicians and 8 liberals.
That was the score.
Suddenly you're singing Baucus' praises as a "responsible politician" (he's one of today's 15 "Nay" votes) but on September 24, 2009 at 9:34 AM, you wrote "Max Baucus should be convinced to resign immediately" then on September 25, 2009 at 10:17 AM, you added "Baucus should resign. "
I can't wait to read what you write about him in the days and weeks ahead.
"responsible" is a faction title, and hopefully a new party, but not an adjective to apply to any individual
those who abuse their authority as Baucus has need to go
a couple of pieces of good news:
1. The Federation of Gay Games decided yesterday to not hold the games in D.C. in 2014.
I'm sure local health officials are relieved.
2. The Senate Finance Committee yesterday approved an amendment to restore abstinence-only education funding as part of the health care reform bill.
The devious Barack Obama had tried to remove all abstinence-only education.
The Senate Finance Committee has 15 responsible politicians...
..."responsible" is a faction title, and hopefully a new party, but not an adjective to apply to any individual
Look what you're spinning now. "Any individual" Senator in your "faction" of "15 responsible politicians" is not a "responsible" politician.
You have spun out on this one.
White House comment after yesterday's Senate Finance Committee vote:
As the President said in his Joint Session address, health insurance reform legislation must provide more choice and competition in the health insurance market in order to drive down costs and provide affordable options to Americans who are uninsured or forced to shop in the expensive private or small group market. He believes making a public option available on the insurance exchange is a good way to achieve those goals. He has said he is open to other constructive ideas of increasing choice and competition. He will work with Congress to ensure that under health insurance reform, Americans who cannot find affordable coverage will always have a choice.
"Look what you're spinning now. "Any individual" Senator in your "faction" of "15 responsible politicians" is not a "responsible" politician.
You have spun out on this one."
You just don't get it, anon-b.
Policy positions and misconduct are seperate things.
Opposition to the public option is a policy postition.
Attacking citizens' freedom of speech is misconduct.
The new Responsible faction has correct policy positions but its major players are still subject to the same temptation to misconduct all other politicians are subject to.
To give you an example you'll understand, Bill Clinton helped Gingrich enact the Republican contract with America by cutting deficits and, thus, had the correct policy position but he still engaged in misconduct with that woman, Ms Lewinsky.
Get it now?
"As the President said in his Joint Session address, health insurance reform legislation must provide more choice and competition in the health insurance market in order to drive down costs and provide affordable options to Americans who are uninsured or forced to shop in the expensive private or small group market. He believes making a public option available on the insurance exchange is a good way to achieve those goals. He has said he is open to other constructive ideas of increasing choice and competition. He will work with Congress to ensure that under health insurance reform, Americans who cannot find affordable coverage will always have a choice."
This the problem that Obama has. It's become a classic and will be studied in political science classes for generations.
If Obama believes there is a moral imperative to providing health insurance to everyone, he should honestly sell it that way.
The whole canard about doing this to save money is insulting the intelligence of the American people. We'll pay with either higher taxes or premiums- and probably both. Everyone knows that and Obama has lost his credibility.
"the Democrats don't need a single GOP vote to pass health care reform with a public option"
well, that's true
but they might need some Democrat votes:
"Democrat lashed out at Democrat on Tuesday, interrupting, snubbing and dissing each other before splintering over the issue of ... a public health care option?
After months building up to the moment when the one-time core of President Obama's health care agenda would take center stage on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats quickly devolved into petty intraparty bickering - not quietly, in private, but right there in the capacious Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.
"Could you address what your amendment does with regard to the setting of prices?" Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida asked fellow Democrat Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV.
"I will not answer that question," a miffed Mr. Rockefeller said. "I want to focus on my amendment."
"I'm giving you bouquets," the Florida senator said sweetly. "I want you to help me."
"But I want you to focus on this amendment," the West Virginia senator said. "I assume it's going to pass unanimously," he added confidently as Day Five of the Senate Finance Committee debate opened Tuesday morning.
Mr. Rockefeller's amendment sought to tie the government-run health care option to Medicare levels of reimbursement, but that drew a resounding boo from Sen. Kent Conrad, who claimed every major hospital in North Dakota "goes broke" if the amendment passed.
"I can't possibly support an amendment that does that," he said.
Later, Sen. Jeff Bingaman demanded details of the proposed amendment, prompting an impassioned defense by Mr. Rockefeller that left the New Mexico senator speechless. "You're not going to respond?" the West Virginian asked incredulously. "Oh, I'm glad to respond," Mr. Bingaman said."
I see your problem anon. You ask if lgbt people are trying to be deviant, if that is in fact the point.
I think I perhaps see the source of your misunderstanding.
To answer simply:
No.
LGBT people are simply trying to be.
Tumor, Not Vaccine, Likely Killed Girl
LONDON (Oct. 1) - A British coroner says a girl who died after receiving a vaccine against cervical cancer was likely killed by a tumor.
Natalie Morton collapsed Monday about two hours after being given Cervarix, a vaccine which protects against two viruses that can cause cervical cancer.
Deputy coroner Louise Hunt said Thursday at an inquest into the teenager's death "it appears that Natalie died from a tumor in her chest involving her heart and her lungs."
Her mother and stepfather say that Natalie was "kind, fun-loving and had a beautiful smile. We will miss her very much."
Britain's National Health Service began offering the Cervarix vaccine to teenage girls last year. More than 1.4 million doses of the vaccine have been given out so far.
Robert is right!
The definition of marriage in the U.S. has changed through time.
This change HAS been along racial lines. At one point marriage was defined as only between WHITE people and the BLACK slaves were only permitted to 'jump a broom'. [Further, dictionary included in the definition "legal union between..." which precluded interracial marriages because the were not legal... hence a RACIAL component.]
This change has been along FREE status as well with only 'freemen or freewomen' allowed to marry.[This also contained a RACIAL component to it.]
This change has also been along AGE lines. At one point marriage was defined as occuring between girls as young as 12 and boys as young as 14.
This change has also been along PROPERTY lines with a legal marriage ONLY occurring when the woman gave up her last name, vowed obedience and pledged love until death, permitted unwanted/undesired sexual advances from the man, gave up any right to her own property and granted the man sole rights over the children.
The definition of marriage HAS changed on a multitude of lines, including the ones of which Robert spoke.
Post a Comment
<< Home