I just ran across this article by Keith Thompson on “Leaving the Left.” As someone who has followed a similar path, I highly commend it to you.
(For my short, not by any means equivalent declaration of independence that I shouted to a non-existent audience in 1991, see the last part of this post.)
Educated blacks must not often peruse this site. When challenged by one, you immediately censor him. Hahahahaa!
How does it feel to have the most UN popular political themed site in the world? And a site dedicated to such a visceral emotion evoking topic no less! Well, at least you revel in your inadequacies.
Good day.
“I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives — people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere — reciting all the ways Iraq’s democratic experiment might yet implode.”
It would seem like people who care about oppression would be concerned about the ways that democracy can fail.
“Leading voices in America’s ‘peace’ movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.”
actus,
It would seem like people who care about oppression would be concerned about the ways that democracy can fail.
Well, of course. If they had been remotely as concerned about the preceding dictatorship, this would almost be persuasive. (As a matter of fact, the going line for nearly a decade was that the “US Sanctions” were killing Iraqi children at an unbelievable rate. A couple of years ago, the “US Sanctions” suddenly became the “UN Sanctions,” which were “working,” and ought to be allowed to work as much longer as was necessary. How many more dead Iraqi children per annum that was supposed to be we never found out; but then, possibly we weren’t supposed to.)
” If they had been remotely as concerned about the preceding dictatorship, this would almost be persuasive.”
The problem is the same charge can be levelled at the right. Remember, Galloway and Rumsfeld have both met saddam.
But on a going forward fashion, it would seem like one concerned with democracy and oppression should prefer to be with the group that is demanding more success, rather than those who apologize for the status quo.
OK, I shouldn’t, but:
Trojan Law,
Educated blacks must not often peruse this site. When challenged by one, you immediately censor him. Hahahahaa!
You are doing an injustice both to Cobra (who is highly educated, and has been posting here at least a couple years) and to John. I encourage you once again to read through the threads here; there are a lot of vigorous arguments involving Cobra, who is not “censored.” Quite the contrary ;-)
Seriously, TL, if you’ve anything to say that is not brag or abuse, say it. I’m not the only person posting here who has urged you repeatedly to stay and post.
actus,
But on a going forward fashion, it would seem like one concerned with democracy and oppression should prefer to be with the group that is demanding more success, rather than those who apologize for the status quo.
I don’t really see your point. If the question is whether, now being in Iraq, we ought to get our butts out of there and cut our losses, whatever the consequences to the country; or on the other hand stick with the nascent Iraqi Government and try to make it work, your notion of which party is “demanding more success” strikes me as odd.
People who care about opression do need to worry about the ways in which democracy can fail, and maybe the wording was too simple, but I think Michelle is right that the comments to which this refers are not akin to “what do we need to do to make this work?” so much as “you’ll never succeed! Arabs aren’t ready for democracy! Everything is falling apart! Your plan is doomed!”
Also too simple is the comment that Rumsfeld and Galloway both met with Saddam Hussein. To the extent that this comment makes a point, I think the point can be undermined by considering which conversation Saddam Hussein probably enjoyed more, and why.
Thanks for the shout out, Michelle. The respect you show me is sincerely reciprocated.
The war in Iraq was not sold to the American public as “spreading democracy.” It was sold as a conflation of 9/11 anxiety and the false premise of Iraq having WMD’s. As the facts on the ground changed, so did the Bush Administration P.R. tactics.
The world sees the hypocrisy of Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah, who ranked #5 in Parade Magazine’s “World’s Worst Dictators” List.
http://archive.parade.com/2004/0222/0222_dictators.html
Saudi Arabia is the home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. Saudi Arabia is the ground zero of Wahabi, an anti-western, fundamentalist sect that is believed to one of the primary financiers of the Iraqi insurgency killing our soldiers.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2005/May/focusoniraq_May61.xml§ion=focusoniraq
The U.S. “liberated” Kuwait, but is Kuwait a democracy in 2005?
>>>Well . . . not exactly. In fact, not at all, because the country wasn’t handed back to the PEOPLE of Kuwait. The country was handed back to the RULER of Kuwait, Amir Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir Al Sabah, who fled his country the moment he was told it was being invaded and spent his exile in luxury while the people suffered under a brutal occupation. Mr Al Sabah returned once the danger was over. Since then he has made it clear he has no intention of allowing the citizens of Kuwait to have any influence in running his feudal kingdom.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley02142005.html
The world sees the Bush Administration LIFT sanctions against the Sudan. Yeah, that’s right…the slave state run by Islamic Fundamentalists with historical ties to Osama Bin Laden that is carrying out mass rape and GENOCIDE against mostly CHRISTIAN black Sudanese. The death toll by some estimates is nearing 400,000.
”We’ve seen a shift in policy and it’s very disturbing,” he added, saying that the House leadership, acting at the administration’s behest, had stripped from a 2005 spending bill bipartisan legislation that would have toughened U.S. sanctions against Sudan and called for Bush to seek multilateral sanctions, including an arms embargo, against the government at the United Nations.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0525-05.htm
China, is selling arms to the Khartorum government of Sudan, and as the most populous Communist government in the history of mankind, with 1.3 billion people NOT being spread democracy to.
I don’t blame Bush totally on this one, because our own corporations have sold us out. I will blame Bush for spending like a drunken sailor, and ramrodding through unneccessary tax cuts sinking us farther into debt while watching communist China to buy our T-Bills. You can’t exactly tell your loan-shark how to raise his children, can you?
The US invaded Iraq because of the Neo-Cons, who had been lobbying for the invasion and permanent base establishment in Iraq since at least 1997.
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold01142004.html
The documentation is all there, but if you REALLY still aren’t sure, take a look at the names of the Project for a New American Century, and play “who’s who” in the Bush Adminstration.
The Bush Administration is building 14 MILLITARY BASES right now in Iraq, which means we don’t EVER plan to leave.
–Cobra
Women just got the vote in Kuwait.
“your notion of which party is “demanding more success” strikes me as odd.”
Its partly the notion of the man who left the left, as he did identify it with those who are “reciting all the ways Iraq’s democratic experiment might yet implode.” But its my sense of those leftists who bemoan failure with the sorts of complaints, which I’m sure you’ve heard, of there not being enough troops, things not being properly secured, elections taking place too slowly, etc…
“I think Michelle is right that the comments to which this refers are not akin to “what do we need to do to make this work?” so much as “you’ll never succeed! Arabs aren’t ready for democracy! Everything is falling apart! Your plan is doomed!””
Who says Arabs aren’t ready for democracy? What do we need to make this work? People who are into nation building, not those who have previously disclaimed it.
“To the extent that this comment makes a point, I think the point can be undermined by considering which conversation Saddam Hussein probably enjoyed more, and why.”
I don’t know. Rumsfeld was there to sell him guns. Galloway? Look for an end to sanctions, which of course requires Saddam to clean up. Which do you think Saddam prefers, getting guns or cleaning up?
The US invaded Iraq because of the Neo-Cons, who had been lobbying for the invasion and permanent base establishment in Iraq since at least 1997.
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold01142004.html
So it is the fault of the Jews, right Cobra? After all, if that anti-Semitic rag, Counterpunch says so, it must be true. I would suggest that you be a little more careful where you get your information from in the future. Referencing such a website is offensive and you of all people should know better than that.
Having Saudi Arabia as an American ally in 2005 should not be a thing of comfort, nor should have been supporting Iraq 20 years ago. But the alternative 20 years ago was letting Iran overrun Iraq. I doubt that would have been better.
Is there an alternative today to our alliance with the Saudis which would make things better? I’d like to think that there is, but I kind of doubt it.
“So it is the fault of the Jews, right Cobra? After all, if that anti-Semitic rag, Counterpunch says so, it must be true. ”
If an anti-semite says its the fault of the jews, then it must be so? Thats rather silly. Just as silly as the line that neo-con == jew.
Actus, that was sarcasm on my part. How could you miss that? And it is not just silly that neo-com is used as a code word for Jew. It is anti-Semitic.
FWIW, Cobra, I thought one of the “neocon” arguments was that if we got Saddam out of Iraq, we’d no longer have to have bases in Saudi Arabia to protect Kuwait from Iraq. Which is fine with me; the sooner we’re well away from that corrupt shari’a-enforcing cesspool, the better. Even if Bin Laden happens to agree.
By the way, can anyone tell me what a “neocon” is? Please? I thought the original meaning was “60s Leftist who got a glimpse of reality and moved rightwards.” Next it was “pro-Israeli foreign-policy hawk, preferably Jewish, who either writes for or reads Commentary.” Now it’s generally “nasty Republican, offense unspecified,” and is applied to domestic policy debates all the time, whereas the last iteration was all foreign policy.
If the danged term would only sit still for a moment, we could skewer it. My preferred tactic is just to keep asking everyone who mentions “neocons” to define the term. Do that sufficiently often in public and it’ll disappear as fast as Sen. Reid’s accounts of Clarence Thomas’s poorly-written opinions.
Oh, Lord, forgot all about Counterpunch. Cobra, if you link that lot several times, people are going to draw conclusions about you as surely as if you had repeatedly linked Free Republic. For my part, I will not trust anything at all they say about the Middle East until I’ve fact-checked it a dozen ways, and I don’t have time to do that now.
“And it is not just silly that neo-com is used as a code word for Jew. It is anti-Semitic.”
Which is why people don’t use it. The most powerful neo-con isn’t even jewish!
“By the way, can anyone tell me what a “neocon” is? Please? I thought the original meaning was “60s Leftist who got a glimpse of reality and moved rightwards.”
For practical policy purposes, I usually identify it with believers in the PNAC agenda. Philosophically there’s more, including that Strauss guy.
To quote Ronald Reagan, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Party left me.”
On affirmative action, the party has certainly left middle and working class white males. Group identity is more valuable to them than merit and ability. The upper classes who develop these schemes have nothing to lose — they’re well-connected.
” The upper classes who develop these schemes have nothing to lose — they’re well-connected.”
I think it was nixon that justified affirmative action as an attempt to replicate the advantages of connection with the system that supposedly the upper classes have. Who knows.
Michelle writes:
>>>”Oh, Lord, forgot all about Counterpunch. Cobra, if you link that lot several times, people are going to draw conclusions about you as surely as if you had repeatedly linked Free Republic. For my part, I will not trust anything at all they say about the Middle East until I’ve fact-checked it a dozen ways, and I don’t have time to do that now.”
Fair enough. I have an even more detailed account of the Neo-Con pre-Bush maneuvers here from PBS “Frontline.” This one is great, because it has a timeline, highlights and photos of the specific neo-cons in question, particularly the very gentile Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condolezza Rice. There are some neat pictures, too!
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:93bVuvlJxZ8J:www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/clinton.html+Neo-cons,+letters+to+Clinton&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Cicero writes:
>>>On affirmative action, the party has certainly left middle and working class white males. Group identity is more valuable to them than merit and ability. The upper classes who develop these schemes have nothing to lose — they’re well-connected.”
Tell me something–exactly WHAT has the Bush Administration and the GOP in general proposed that benefits “middle and working class white males?” They certainly don’t favor labor unions or public education, both hallmarks of the working class white male. The tax cuts mostly benefit the extremely wealthy, and opened the door for sucker-punch Alternate Minimum taxes that the middle class didn’t usually have to pay.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_2768592
The Bush Administration openly favored first amnesty for illegal immigrants (primarily from Mexico), a “guest worker program”, and “Social Security” for Mexicans? Hello? Even FrontPage Magazine blasted Bush for this one.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qfTrdcOvryIJ:www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp%3FID%3D11498+%22Social+Security+for+Mexicans%3F%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
And while they’re counting their future pesos, Dubya comes up with plan for Social Security that starts benefit cuts after $25,000. That’s right–WORKING CLASS level.
Dubya and the GOP are AGAINST raising the minimum wage. Dubya and the GOP are for cutting MEDICAID, which helps poor, and working class white males, many of whom DON’T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.
Yet, they beat a path to voting booth for the GOP year, after year.
I completely understand why upperclass white males, those who clock in over $150K-$200K and up would vote to keep the party rolling for themselves. Why on EARTH would middle and working class white males vote consistantly against their own BEST INTERESTS?
Thomas Frank, author of “What’s The Matter With Kansas” writes this ominous piece on the subject:
>>> What we are observing, then, is a populist movement that has done irreversible harm to the material interests of the common people it professes to love so tenderly-a form of class animosity that rages against a shadowy “elite” while enthroning a new aristocracy of bankers, brokers, and corporate thieves.
In the burned-over districts of conservatism the right-wing class war grown so powerful that it has taken over the environmental niche once held by the left. It is the dissenting movement out there, the voice of the hard-done-by, and in places like Kansas it draws headlines with its high-profile campaigns against evolution and abortion…
…This is what’s the matter with Kansas, and with America…the country we have inhabited for the last three decades seems more like a panorama of madness and delusion worthy of Hieronymous Bosch: of sturdy patriots reciting the Pledge while they resolutely strangle their own life chances; of small farmers proudly voting themselves off the land; of devoted family men carefully seeing to it that their children will never be able to afford college or proper health care; of hardened blue-collar workers in midwestern burgs cheering as they deliver up a landslide for a candidate whose policies will end their way of life, will transform their region into a “rust belt,” will strike people like them blows from which they will never recover.”
http://www.tcfrank.com/
–Cobra
Cobra:
Where did I praise the Bushes in my post?? I think that this administration has sold out the middle and working classes as much as any Democratic administration. And who is more connected than the Bush family??
The fact is both parties have sold average Americans (including the educated middle class) down the river. The Republican elite traditionally uses cronyism and nepotism while Democrats push affirmative action.
Where does this leave those white males who manage to earn a college degree despite having non-college educated parents? These folks are caught in the middle: no connections to rely upon and no leg-up based upon affirmative action. Sounds like a catch-22 to me. Would you like an order of fries with that bachelor’s degree?
Cobra,
My beef with Thomas Frank’s argument (I’ve not read the book yet, but I have read several reviews and have had it constantly quoted at me) is that he’s making the twin assumptions that self-interest is a good thing, and that there is no self-interest but economic self-interest.
Apply this to wealthy liberals favoring tax increases, to white anti-segregationists, to the men who ratified the 19th Amendment. Morons and dupes, right? Because obviously the point of life is to keep what you have and add to it if possible, and these people are all acting clean against their own self-interests.
“is that he’s making the twin assumptions that self-interest is a good thing, and that there is no self-interest but economic self-interest.”
He might make a third claim (or assumption, haven’t read the book either) that people think they are acting in their economic or total self interest.
I think it was him that gave the example of the madonna britney kiss, causing a great uproar in the family values folks, who promptly rush to the polls to give madonna and britney another tax cut.
He might make a third claim (or assumption, haven’t read the book either) that people think they are acting in their economic or total self interest.
Yes, actus why let ignorance interfere with your comment. Please enlighten us by telling us what you believe a book you haven
“Yes, actus why let ignorance interfere with your comment. Please enlighten us by telling us what you believe a book you haven
Richard,
actus is right: I said explicitly that I hadn’t read the book, but you didn’t jump on me for not knowing what I was talking about.
You wouldn’t happen to have read it yourself, by any chance?
Michelle, do you really believe that actus and Cobra need you to speak for them? I don’t think they have any problem in defending themselves. The reason I attacked actus and not you was because you clearly stated that you had read reviews of Thomas Frank’s book and were using that as the basis for your comments. Actus on the other hand decided that it was okay to simply make up a reason without having any basis for it at all. However, the real reason I attacked actus was for his snide comment about family value folks.
I think it was him that gave the example of the madonna britney kiss, causing a great uproar in the family values folks, who promptly rush to the polls to give madonna and britney another tax cut.
As usual his comment was a total non sequitur whose only purpose was to provide him an opportunity to attack the religious right. His comment was totally uncalled for. However, when it comes to groups he dislikes, actus has no problem going out of his way to show his disdain for them.
Richard,
As I understand it, what actus said is basically Frank’s book in a nutshell: more or less, “Give the lower-middle-class dolts some ‘cultural-elite’ misbehavior to feel aggrieved about, and they’ll never notice our nefarious economic shenanigans.”
Now if I had the conspiracy-theory brain of a few commenters here, I’d wonder whether Madonna and Britney counted on their kiss getting them a Republican Congress and a continued tax break.
I know actus and Cobra can take care of themselves, Richard. I just value this place almost as much for its civility as for the level of argument.
I know actus and Cobra can take care of themselves, Richard. I just value this place almost as much for its civility as for the level of argument.
And therefore you are not bothered by actus’s snide comments because they are directed at someone else?
Richard,
I really do think that’s from Frank, not actus. Does it bother me? Of course it does. But it isn’t a personal attack by one commenter on another.
” Actus on the other hand decided that it was okay to simply make up a reason without having any basis for it at all”
If you must, I have read plenty of reviews and discussions and the jacket — it was sitting on my shelf till a few weeks ago when I lent it to my brother.
“As usual his comment was a total non sequitur whose only purpose was to provide him an opportunity to attack the religious right. His comment was totally uncalled for.”
I did say that I thought it was from Frank. Thats not non-sequitor when we discuss Franks book. And I do believe it sums up his book. That’s also not non-sequitor.
It does leave out a point that I heard frank makes: that the people who fire up the religious right never deliver anything. I don’t think that’s quite true.
Actus, my problem with you is that you have a fixation with the religious right and take every opportunity to attack them as if they were a threat to the republic. No actus, we are not in danger of becoming a theocracy, at least not from the religious right. However, there is another group out there who are much more of a threat to us, namely radical Islam. I do not think that you are happy with the way they treat women and gays. However, you do not seem to be very concerned about them.
“Actus, my problem with you is that you have a fixation with the religious right and take every opportunity to attack them as if they were a threat to the republic”
Well, we were discussing a book about the influence of the religious right.
“No actus, we are not in danger of becoming a theocracy, at least not from the religious right. However, there is another group out there who are much more of a threat to us, namely radical Islam. I do not think that you are happy with the way they treat women and gays.”
Living where I do, on the east coast, I am mostly concerned about how I am in the battleground between two types of fundamentalisms. The terrorists want to bomb my cities, and the red staters want to tell me how to defend them (and who to love too).
actus,
Living where I do, on the east coast, I am mostly concerned about how I am in the battleground between two types of fundamentalisms. The terrorists want to bomb my cities, and the red staters want to tell me how to defend them (and who to love too).
I don’t think anyone from the religious Right is telling you “who to love,” unless it be “thy neighbor.” The debate has been about whom you might legally marry.
I’ve been struck by the way the various referenda introducing gay-marriage bans into state Constitutions have been represented as a move to the Right, an assertion of the Right’s power, &c. To me it looks very different. I see people quite happy with the status quo (one man, one woman) noticing that judges have in at least one state thrown that status quo out. So what do the people do? Reinforce the status quo. Why this counts as a rightward move I don’t know; it looks to me more like staying in the same place.
(NB: I’m in favor of gay marriage myself. I just want to see it voted in, not judicially imposed.)
“I don’t think anyone from the religious Right is telling you “who to love,” unless it be “thy neighbor.” The debate has been about whom you might legally marry.”
It’s also included other lifestyle questions too.
“I’ve been struck by the way the various referenda introducing gay-marriage bans into state Constitutions have been represented as a move to the Right, an assertion of the Right’s power, &c. To me it looks very different.”
I think they’re very clearly a move to the right when these amendments go beyond the “status quo” and muck up non-marriage relations. Same-sex or opposite sex.
I guess there is some hope for you actus. You do recognize that radical Islam is a military threat. Now all you have to do is recognize that they are also orders of magnitude more of a threat to
actus,
[me:] “I don’t think anyone from the religious Right is telling you “who to love,” unless it be “thy neighbor.” The debate has been about whom you might legally marry.”
[you:] It’s also included other lifestyle questions too.
Any concerning “who to love”?
[me:] “I’ve been struck by the way the various referenda introducing gay-marriage bans into state Constitutions have been represented as a move to the Right, an assertion of the Right’s power, &c. To me it looks very different.”
[you:] I think they’re very clearly a move to the right when these amendments go beyond the “status quo” and muck up non-marriage relations. Same-sex or opposite sex.
Now this is a subject I honestly don’t know enough about to comment on. I didn’t think that any of the states that officially banned gay marriage had also invalidated existing domestic partnerships established in the state in question. Have they?
I don’t like the idea of heterosexual “domestic partnerships” anyway. A couple who can’t marry because they’re of the same sex should have some sort of legal form by which they can set themselves up as a couple. But a straight couple who already have a nice, massive institution of marriage right there don’t need “domestic partnership.”
“Any concerning “who to love”?”
Sure. Ever hear of Lawrence v. Texas, and the problem people have with that?
“Now all you have to do is recognize that they are also orders of magnitude more of a threat to
actus,
Lawrence v. Texas has nothing to do with who you can love, whether you think it rightly or wrongly decided.
The Federal Marriage Amendment has the (IMO) great virtue of not being law.
Your Ohio case is really something. The amendment overturned any law treating non-marital relationships as “approximating the significance or effect of marriage.” The result? A man who injured a woman (who lived with him, but was not his wife) was treated as a man who beat up just any woman. Under the then-existing law, the fact that she lived with him would have made his punishment more severe, because it would’ve been “domestic violence,” which is, as we all know, much worse than merely striking a random woman who doesn’t live in your apartment.
[me:] But a straight couple who already have a nice, massive institution of marriage right there don’t need “domestic partnership.”
[actus:] Maybe they believe in the sanctity of marriage, and don’t take it lightly. That’s the case I had with the person I lived with for 2 years.
See, this is the thing: I know gay couples who have lived together for thirty years, and who would marry if they were able. I don’t see why their cases should be thrown in the same bin with those of a bunch of heterosexual couples who want all the benefits of the marriage they could have any time, but none of the downsides.
“Lawrence v. Texas has nothing to do with who you can love, whether you think it rightly or wrongly decided.”
No. it just has to do with the government ability to put you jail for having consensual, adult sex with the person you love.
“Under the then-existing law, the fact that she lived with him would have made his punishment more severe, because it would’ve been “domestic violence,” which is, as we all know, much worse than merely striking a random woman who doesn’t live in your apartment.”
Of course. I mean, those victims have a home somewhere to go, a safe home. So there isn’t the damage of the constant fear, of the power relation, and other things which make domestic violence a problem. But now domestic violence victims have to actually be married to the guy, rather than just living with him. Which seems to gut the whole point of the law.
And I’m not sure that for at least some of the drafters and promoters of this amendment, this wasn’t an unintended or unsurprising consequence. Even the AARP opposed ohio’s amendment, because they thought it could mess up same sex couples and their retirement plans.
“I don’t see why their cases should be thrown in the same bin with those of a bunch of heterosexual couples who want all the benefits of the marriage they could have any time, but none of the downsides.”
I don’t think that I had all the benefits of marriage. But note what goal is, not to prevent me from have all the benefits of marriage, but ANY. Including those that a private institution might decide to give me and my partner.
actus,
Of course. I mean, those victims have a home somewhere to go, a safe home. So there isn’t the damage of the constant fear, of the power relation, and other things which make domestic violence a problem. But now domestic violence victims have to actually be married to the guy, rather than just living with him. Which seems to gut the whole point of the law.
I like “the guy”; you’re assuming up front that all heterosexual victims of domestic violence are women, and all perpetrators men.
But if the point of the law is to protect vulnerable people living in a household with other people, it could be rewritten easily and to good purpose besides. Just amend it so as to say that assaulting anyone who provably resides at your own address carries an additional penalty. That would include anyone from your POSSLQ to your grandmother. What’s wrong with that?
“Just amend it so as to say that assaulting anyone who provably resides at your own address carries an additional penalty.”
That’s fine. To me, that’s exactly what “domestic violence” means: someone you live with. In the case of a man and woman in a relationship that’s too marriage like for the law.
actus,
To me, that’s exactly what “domestic violence” means: someone you live with. In the case of a man and woman in a relationship that’s too marriage like for the law.
Well, um, change the law. If you live with your mother and brutalize her, and she has nowhere else to go, then her victimization ought to be subject to the same sort of penalty. Ditto your sister, ditto your roommate, ditto anyone. Show me how formal domestic partnership ought to make a difference in the situation you’re talking about, one in which two people are sharing a living space and one is abusing the other. Just make it law that assault on someone provably living at your own address carries extra penalties.
“Well, um, change the law.”
I know. That’s why I want the amendment repealed. That’s what prevents recognizing marriage like situations.