© the eyeranian

I like to call then: Nouveaux Cons! Those who understand French know that it is an accurate description... :)

The idea of banning marriage for gays (but not for rapists, wife-beaters or Britney Spears) is a moral travesty on its own, but then wanting to change the same document that freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote takes it to a new level of disgust.

But you forget that about half the population supports such a resolution, so you are being a bit quick to call for an end to the "neo-conservatives" which is a phrase that doesnt really mean anything, other than the fact these are conservatives who are also Jewish.

And its not like liberals, neo-liberals or whatever they are called are any better at not deviding a country. The conservatives devide us along social lines like this, and the liberals devide us along economic or racial lines. With one group you just can't be gay without suffering punishment, and in the other you just can't be rich without being punished.

At some point, I wish people would just pick whether people are free to be who they are or are not, and stop accusing the otherside of the aisle of doing the same exact things just in different areas. After all, there already is a constitutional ammendment that allows for income taxes.

I am conservative on most issues. While I cannot stand looking at gay men kissing on CNN, or in the street. I do not believe that the constitution should be amended for this issue. For one thing, when a constitutional congress is called, it is not clear what exactly will happen. we could end up with all manner of wacky things being inserted into the constitution. Of course there is more to it than that and I am sure some constitutional expert will want to comment on that, but still, I would rather they just keep thier hands off.

Oh, and just in case some gay person reads this and says that he is just as grossed out by watching straight people kiss, too bad, deal with it. If not for straight people kissing (etc...) you wouldn't be here.

I think the thing that really turns me off about gay marraige is not that they have the right to do it, but the sense that it is never going to be enough. It seems like the point is not to get married, or to march in the St. Patrick's Day Parade, but the point is to force an agenda in my face.

The militant gays want to teach about 'alternate lifestyles' to school children as young as kindergarten. I think it is hard enough to explain 'normal' sex to a kid in this day of Britteny-Madona gross outs, and vaugely violent wardrobe malfuntions. They don't need to be exposed to deviate (gay) sex at that young age.

So get married, but accept the fact that your alternative life style is in fact 'abmornal deviate sex' that grosses out 'normal' people.

Lastly, save your tired old cleche' that I am the one with the problem, or that 'I have some latent homosexuality myself therefor I have a problem ,,, bla bla bla psycho-babble bla.' . Its a tired, lame comeback that has no truth to it.

Omid , this is the second time I see you say Neo Cons are "conservatives who are also Jewish". well, you are WRONG!

Where do you get that and why make it a religious issue? Here are some prominent non-Jewish Neo Conservatives: Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld, Francis Fukuyama, ... the list goes on...

If you had said 'conseravtives who are also zionists' , I could buy that but as for them being Jewish, you are just wrong.

I would say the first amendment to the Constitution limiting personal freedoms was Prohibition in 1920. Of course that went over so well that it had to be removed in 1933. I couldn't agree with you more on this one Pedram. Bush and Congress need to just leave the Constitution along!

Oops. "along" should have been "alone".

I don't mind not allowing gays to marry, but remove anything dealing with the world marriage from law in the U.S.A. Let Churchs decide who they want to marry and not. I am for equal rights, so let's just remove the term marriage since it can't support equal rights. Civil Unions for all? or something like that. I was so sad to hear Bush is going to try to add something like this in my countries constitution. I don't believe the difference of possible child birth matters in defining marriage, it is already legal to have sex with a women and not want it to be for child birth in so many ways.

word not world on the second line..... grrr.

On the Jewish VS Zionist thread.

Jewish influence on conservative politics is tangential. There are millions of far right christians that subscribe to an 'end times' interpretation of the Christian bible. They believe the creation of the state of Isreal and the capture of Jerusalem is an omen of the end. They believe that the presence of the state of Isreal will hasten the return of thier saviour. It really seems like a doomsday cult.

Ironically many of these same people are southerners who probably don't even like Jews. So in this way the southern Christian Zionists support Isreal like a rope supports a hanged man. It is this base of the religious right, anywhere from 10 to 60 million, that influence the conservative branch of American politics.

I myself have a different belief, if your read all the religious texts and compile the end times prophecies into one short clip. "The whole Earth gets into a global war for a tiny piece of realestate. Then God comes back and he is really pissed off."

So lets not do that DUH!

Kristen,
Was the Prohibition removed in 1933? I don't think so. As far as I know it was "temporarily" removed. Legally it can come back easily.
I hope American people understand the dangers of any addition of this kind (limiting a right) to their constitution.

Here is an iteresting article from the "real" down to earth conservative:

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

The horse left the barn a long time ago on this issue. The "institution of marriage" was destroyed a long time ago. Personally, I don't think gay marriage will harm me or my family or society in any way. However, I do believe in the rule of law. The law is not being followed. One low low level judge and the mayor of San Francisco have taken upon themselves to ignore the law. This is a destructive development. If we ignore the rule of law, we may end up like the Haitans. The American political system allows deeply divided communities to live side by side in peace because the rule of law is (generally) followed.

There will be no constitutional amendment. Bush just threw that out there to buy time, so he can tell people he is trying to do something to preserve marriage. It doesn't have a prayer of passing due to the super-majority margin that is required to amend the constitution.

Hi Pedram:

Thank you for linking to me.
Your blog is really interesting. Sorry if I'm off topic in this section, just wanted to thank you.

:)

The Other,
The 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment (Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.) So to have a return to prohibition would require yet another amendment.

I just don't like the idea of messing with the Constitution. Especially for something that effects roughly 10%. In a world where the US is at war and the economy is as poor as it is - and this is what we're worried about!?!?

Kristen,
Regarding the 21st Amendment: have you seen the movie "Gabriel over the White House (1933)? If you haven't go and find it in the public library or Blockbuster. It is amazing. It is about a US president that solves all the problems of the nation by establishing a dictatorship in the US with the help of the God through the archangel Gabriel. At the end of the movie he saves America, and of course saves the world. A must-see.

AAAAHHH...."those NEO-CONS!!!" AAAHHHHH
They're little satans!!!!!!
They're all going to hell!!!

C'mon give me a break. It's easy to place a label on people.

Those "satanic" neo-cons are the only hope the Middle East has for change and democracy. Plain and simple. But, hey, vote for Kerry if you please. It matters little. It is not a question of "who" will win the election, it's a question of "by how much" will Bush win. I'm saying he will 45 states, easy. Maybe more.