When Bush said he’d be a uniter, he probably didn’t mean uniting Democrats against him.
I know I’m obsessed with this, but I guess I’m not the only one. We’ve got some U.S. Senators (bipartisan!) introducing a resolution to keep the blessed thing going. Yay!
I’m finding all kinds of stuff today:
So, er, what’s your cyborg name?
From Geov Parrish in the WorkingForChange newsletter:
This year’s presidential race is going to be the most important the United States, and the world, has seen in decades. At least. And it is going to be very, very nasty. Liberals had better stop being nice, stop being complacent or cynical or despairing or disengaged, and take your gloves off. Now.
If you were defending yourself, your spouse, your loved ones, your kids from a life-threatening menace, you wouldn’t engage in polite debate with the menace. You’d do what was necessary to make sure it could do no harm. That’s Election 2004. Your job prospects are on the line. Your retirement. Your future health care. Your civil liberties. Your constitutional rights. Your kids’ educations. Their kids’ portion of the insane debts now being paid off to the hyperwealthy, assuming there’s a natural world left to be poor in by the time these parasites finish any second term. And, beyond it all, it’s your city or town increasingly likely to be targeted by some fanatic from some far side of the world who hates what your government did to murder his family.
A few things I love about this case:
- it underscores the real difference between marriage and a civil union (they have both now, but marriage gives better benefits);
- the county originally granted marriage benefits, but then revoked them citing an “administrative error”;
- as the U-T article points out, “There are 1,138 federal provisions and several hundred state provisions where marriage is a factor in determining benefits, rights and responsibilities,” again deflating the “separate but equal” argument.