I have been hearing a lot about the Ohio count as well, and can't help thinking "oh shit, its 2000 again."
If this is to be a democracy we should get a few things right. One should be the way we vote. I can think of two fixes right off.
First- we should have one non-partisan body that oversees elections to make sure there are the right type and number of machines in the right districts. The way we vote should not be subject to control by any single party. That's like asking wolves to protect the sheep.
Secondly, while candidates should be able to declare victory or concede shortly after the election, every valid vote should be counted and no candidate should have legal claim to office until the decision is finally reached. Leaving it up to the media to decide who won what districts before the vote is counted leaves to much to risk.
_
On the issue of the freedom of religion and freedom of speech- the court decided this issue that you can't disqualify speech because they happen to speak religion. The case was actually one from my college in which a religious students magazine wanted money to print their christian views but the public college wouldn't give it to them. The magazine won, and I think correctly. Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech.
But that said, there are two aspects of freedom of religion- the free practice of religion and the establishment clause. One says you can practice what you want, the other says that the state will not impose religious values on you. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't be religious, the issue is does he have the right to ram that down your throat.
Now much has been said about the founding fathers and their religious views. I believe a lot of them were very religious, but they realized that people have different faiths. While its' great to have religion and state while you happen to be in the majority, it bites when you are in the minority.
A famous case on prayer in school was raised by a Mormon in a Baptist school who basically asked- if we are to have prayer in school, why should it be your prayer and not mine?
And that's where the notion of the tyranny of the majority and civil rights come in. When you're in the majority you want majority rule. But when you're in the minority you want civil rights. So the Founders were smart- protect the minority interests and aim low. Why, because today you may be in the majority, but tomorrow you might not be.
---
With regard to the Blue and Red- it is ironic though that the states that fought the civil war are divided in a similar way. The red states were primarily the confederates and the blue states were primarily the union. Ironic?
The southerners make a big stink about "liberal new england democrats" don't know the southerners. Maybe. I have lived down here for 9 years so far, and its not my first time living in the South and I like a lot of it. But I'm also prone to the cities which are often democratic. In the country you have a lot of good ole southern values.
The problem is that the stereotypes go both ways. There are a lot of southerners who have no idea what it's like to live in the Northeast. Move there and you might find that they aren't all gay-loving welfare getting minorities but hard-working folks trying to make a living. I voted republican in New York, so I know that side too.
Is the Northeast more educated? Yes, probably. More of the top universities exist in the Northeast, public schools are generally better, and there are a lot of good private schools too. So yes- those Northeasterners probably have a better education.
But what about that Blue and Red divide across the Mason Dixon. Well let's not forget that the democrats used to own the south and the republicans tried to get inroads. When did it change? When the democrats under LBJ decided to build the Great Society and end the inequalities felt among minorities, in otherwords grab progressivisms.
That was rejected by southerners, but the tune changed from seperate but equal to "state's rights"- the same mantra of the Civil War, again the irony. The republicans saw the opportunity to capitalize on the democratic divide under Reagan (who advocated state's rights) and the republicans grabbed it.
And where do you find the evengelical strongholds? Where did prayer in school get going?
So yes, there are stereotypes of Southerners.
As a person who lives here, I wish they weren't those stereotypes, but maybe if the Southerners don't want to act like uneducated racists religious intolerant bigots, they shouldn't act that way. They don't all do, and I know plenty who don't. But there are plenty who embrace Bubba as their role model.
I mean, think about it Bradylama, people put their fear of two guys marrying each other over their economic self-interest. Isn't that kind of a dumbass thing to do?
SO yes, the 1960s was 40 years ago- but how much has really changed. The Southerners are still bible thumbers, they still discriminate but in appropriate ways. Blacks are ok now (at least for now), but try bing Latin in Virginia and see how many job opportunities you get. And who is most afraid of gays getting a legal right to marry, and thus willing to allow the state to discriminate against them?
Tone, you said that not all people who are against gay marriage are bigots.
Ok, so lets thing about that-
you are basically denying ndividuals a substantive due process right- to marry,
based on their choice of who they wish to love - a violation of freedom of speech,
thereby denying them a substantive legal right based on their gender and choice of gender- equal protection.
This is based on your belief in the supernatural. The issue of gay marriage doesn't deny you your right to frown upon the practice, does not attack the validity of your marriage, and doesn't force your church to exercise the ritual of marriage. Essentially all it does is force the government to recognize that some folks want to have a marriage relationship with people of the same gender.
SO you are willing to deny a minority a right that everyone else gets to enjoy because of your religious views? Is this not being a bigot? Gays are ok, as long as they don't have the same rights I do?
Is it the the idea that you want to deny people a right ok, but the word "bigot" is not?