Yes,  

I still disagree with the decision to change the definition of marriage to include people who want their same sex relationships recognized as a marriage, but...

at least it was done the right way.

I, for one wouldn't want a conservative or moderate court to decree that somehow the legislature's vote was invalid, or that somebody's rights were being trampled on, or that because of some technicality the new law is unconstitutional.

I am prepared to win the battle in the court of public opinion.

I believe that God made humans to fit man and woman.

I believe that society works best when marriage is a special union between one man and one woman.

I believe that we as a country have been under a cultural assault from extreme left wingers who believe:

-in abortion on demand (I agree),
-against gun rights (I agree)
-support of radical enviornmental protections (I disagree)
-a dishonest feminist agenda that seeks to have it both ways-  =equal when it benefits, keep unequality when it is convenient (for example fighting in the military--same standards on police force etc.)(I disagree)

and in this case a radical gay rights agenda (I disagree)

whether I agree or not,  I reject the idea of bullying people into agreeing by mental co-ercion.  Through court decree.  Through promoting the idea that they are evil, or something wrong with them if "they don't believe in global warming".

Again,  I respect the Vermont system, and will work to change it peacefully if I can.  If the people agree with me, the legislators will be removed.

But I will say, the Vermont action started through the courts.  Which was wrong. That is what is wrong with Iowa and California.  It gives an unfair advantage through the tyranny of the law .  People on high telling we the people what we must do.
 Then they have to jump through hoops to change it.

It is wrong from either side.

As Democrats we should support democracy.

There's more...

I'm a pro-choice democrat.

I'm a traditional values democrat. I'm against gay rights in general and certainly the gay rights agenda of today.

So I'm arguing for other pro-choice democrats to think what Iowa's decision along with other states where Judges are setting up a situation where they make a decision, and then set up a circumstance where the people either through referendum or through their government can't legally change it for many years to come.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article /20090403/NEWS/90403010
90403010

Such a change would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and a public vote, which means a ban would could not be put in place until at least 2012 unless lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks.

They are determining the status quo through manipulation, and then play intelligent defense to keep it legal.  

The new reality become normal.
People compare "this" to real problems like "the economy" or "crime".

We are defining deviancy downward.
---
I challenge those here to say why Conservatives shouldn't pack the courts with right-wingers and make jududicial decisions granting human rights to  Fetuses.  Proclaiming them to be a part of the human family and that the U.S. Constitution all along should have been protecting their Civil Rights?

Forget the idea of repealing Roe v Wade.  Institute bans on abortion and grant civil rights and protection to every unborn child.

Never mind the history of the Constitution, the application of our jurisprudence and laws, Roe v Wade, etc.

I hear the idea that we shouldn't "write discrimination into our Constitutions" well what about the discrimination against allowing the murder of unborn human beings?

----

My point is once you allow a small group of people (judges) to vote their personal opinions onto the population, it leads to unintended consequences and the door is open.

It is wrong from the right or the left.

These issues should be left up to democracy.

If you can honestly debate it, it's not a civil rights issue.

yes I know women's rights were debated, and African American's rights were debated.  But not honestly.

Humans have the ability to make distinctions.  Words and Ideas matter.

The gay rights movement has been playing undercover and politically dirty games to advance their agenda.  For example:

In Iowa they used arguments such as "there's no need for a Constitutional amendament to ban gay marriage because the courts haven't done anything".

Now that the courts have done something, "It will take 2 legislatures to undo it" and here come all of the stalling tactices and the political games.

See Mass. and other states.

If you think  your viewpoint is inevitable and won't be reversed, therefore no need to worry about these tactics,

See Republican Party 3 years ago, with THE NUCLEAR OPTION! concerning filibuster rules in the U.S. Senate.
---

Democrats please lets have a positive agenda to strengthen traditional marriage.  It  should include:

reform of no-fault divorce
counseling/waiting periods to get married
re-figuring of tax benefits to incentivize healthier marriage
universal healthcare to help the financial strain
govt. sponsoring of family friendly media entertainment.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

There's more...

It is a great pleasure to be a member of the Democratic Party as the Majority Party of America.  

Back when Howard Dean took over as chairman of the DNC, I honestly didn't think we could get back to this position so quickly.  I can thank Republican incompetence for that.

What is so inspiring is our President.

He has shown himself to be unbelievably agile on the various issues that confront this nation.

I just watched his mini-press conference on the White House Lawn, and was in awe.

I thought to myself that there was not 1 democrat, not even Hillary (whom I supported) could have been so credible in dealing with this AIG mess.

I applaud his bold budget blueprint. I really like the fact that his adminstration is on offense setting a bold agenda.  I honestly don't think my original candidate would have done that.

He is being very prudent in foreign affairs.

He made a great first pick to the judiciary.

All told.

So far.

Obama is actually better than the hype.

There's more...

Bad move to limit vouchers in D.C.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/educat ion/28voucher.html?_r=2
The NYTimes reports:

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats have put conditions on future federal financing for a small school voucher program here, and they are urging the schools chancellor to prepare the public schools to re-enroll, in fall 2010, some 1,700 students currently attending private schools at taxpayer expense.

That would be a horrible mistake. In the article many opponents state that test scores for those in private school don't demonstrate a dramatic improvement, therefore concluding vouchers a waste of money. That is the wrong metric. That is nonsense.

The proper way to measure whether vouchers are good or bad:

ask the parents!

The essence of America is choice. I have choice for my children, and choose to send them to private school.

Please explain to me why otherwise liberal democrats would want to limit an option for children because of how much money their parents make?

I am please to note the perspective of the school system's leader:

Michelle A. Rhee, the schools chancellor, said she did not share the negative view of vouchers held by many big-city superintendents.

"Part of my job is to make sure that all kids get a great education, and it doesn't matter whether that's in charter, parochial or public schools," Ms. Rhee said. "I don't think vouchers are going to solve all the ills of public education, but parents who are zoned to schools that are failing kids should have options to do better by their kids."

Other leftwing groups have mistakenly attached their agenda to that of the 1960's Civil Rights cause, but this is a real Civil Rights Issue that goes beyond race into economic status.

Many middle and working class parents don't make enough money to pay a private school bill, yet their public schools are a failure. It doesn't matter what is wrong with the schools per se, it matters what each individual parent finds fault with in a particular school for their particular child.

We have to decide who should be the "decider", millions of parents for their own child's unique needs or a government planning board that groups people together in the thousands and millions. What if I truly think my child needs school uniforms and more math? What about no school uniforms and more science? What about all girls and more sports? What about a Spanish immersion curriculum? While no school can offer exactly what every parent would want, we should give parents a reasonable opportunity to find a the school that fits best for their particular child.

What's more important eating or education? I'll answer eating. Yet, we aren't assigned a grocery store by the government. In fact, we don't have anyone overseeing the free market that gets food to every grocery store in America every day. What we do is have regulations, inspectors, and other ways to ensure quality and saftey.

For those who need help whether it with unempoyment insurance, food stamps, social security, etc. We give them the money and let them participate in society.  We don't assign them certain places to shop.

We allow the free market to rule. Education needs to be done the same way.

I choose America. I choose choice.\

Our President looked at the public and private schools and decided which were best for his needs.  That is how it should be done.

Democrats we have a chance to remake America.
If we can propose trillion dollar budgets, surely we can use some of that money to give every parent the options the wealthy among us have routinely.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

There's more...

President Obama unveiled a 10 year budget that assumes higher taxes on the top earners in our country. We are about to enter the same ole debate between Democrats and Republicans. If forced to choose, I would support President Obama's plan to pursue Universal Healthcare, Energy Independence, and other worthwhile programs with the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy. But I suggest real change in the way we raise revenue:

We as liberal democrats don't have to accept the status quo as a given, but instead could work to find ways to advance progressive and newliberal ideas. This must be done in a way to attract mainstream America, whose interest in politics and policy is fleeting at best.

A FLEXIBLE FEDERAL AUCTION TAX.

As Democrats we are often promoting expansive ideas that cost a great deal, and the tax and spend liberal label is applied negatively upon us. We can offer great ideas, and pay for them in a more creative way.

We should eliminate the Personal and Corporate income tax, and all state/local property taxes. The average individual and/or business should not have any contact or concern with the government over taxes.

We should collect all the revenue, that we as a people through our Government decide is necessary, through a FLEXIBLE FEDERAL TAX that would be collected by an
INDEDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT BOARD similar to the Federal Reserve Board.

Their job would be to find creative ways to raise revenue in the least intrusive way as possible.

Their main tool would be the ability to PURCHASE ANY HIGHLY DEMANDED GOOD/SERVICE at the retail price, and AUCTION them at a market price.   They can allow private companies like EBAY or Amazon.com to do it in the most efficient and creative way.

So for example, a few years ago when the Star Wars movie opened to sold out shows, that represented an opportunity for the IGB to purchase 10% of the opening night tickets, and resell them at the highest price.

This process could be repeated thousands of times per year at:

-Super Bowl, NBA playoffs, and other high demand/low supply events
-Iphones,
-hot, novelty gift items for Christmas or other holidays where supply routinely sells out.
-any situation whether local, state, or national where the public wants to buy a good or service, but it is clear there is a limited supply capacity.

People wanting to see popular, first time, rare events have demonstrated through out the years a willingness to pay high prices for the pleasure.

3 examples:

1.  When Apple announced the new Iphone, and Microsoft announced the new XBOX360 it was sold out for weeks.  These events are predictable, and currently there are those who routinely profit from buying them up and reselling it.  If the government would become the number 1 reseller, we as a people get that revenue, the person bidding gets the Iphone, and no one paid anything involuntarily.

2.  Many local parks have a permit system for holiday reservations for grill/bench locations.  Currently it is first come/first serve.   Instead of having all 30 grills assigned that way, take 3 to 5 of them and auction them off.  This still allows 80-90% of the locations to the general public, but those who either thought of the idea too late or just want the very best spot to see the fireworks will willingly pay for the privilege.

3.  We have sporting events, plays, and all types of events that routinely sell out every day of the year because there is never enough capacity.  Sometimes the resell value is astronomical.  For example a ticket to a Duke/NC basketball game  that is relatively cheap can be resold for thousands of dollars.  

The IGB would simply be able to buy the first 10% of any good/service it deemed would be easily resold at a high profit because of excessive demand.

The tax code would be reformed completely with the emphasis on ZERO taxes on everyone unless they wanted to purchase one of the above items/events.

Once Congress, and State/local governments determined their desired level of taxation, the IGB would determine the best route to collecting it.

By eliminating the IRS from average people and business lives, we will rid ourselves also of unproductive avoidance behavior, with people finding creative ways to lower their burden. Those resources could be redeployed to grow our economic output.

Our debates would be more over values and what is the proper way to do something rather than the stale  higher taxes/lower taxes saga.

The end result would be an ability to do more good through the government like:

universal healthcare with maximum choices for each person.

universal education k - college in a marketplace system w/o govt bureacracies and decision makers controlling the process.

We can do more in the public sphere without the resentment from the earners in our society of taking their tax money.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

There's more...