Mainstream Moderates seeking middling people

By -
The Mainstream Coalition is in the middle of a membership/fundraising drive, sending out letters across South Dakota.

It talks about how "the rhetoric of divisiveness is escalating. The threat of polarization is increasing. And they want to offer information to as many of our fellow citizens as we can how to resist the imposition of ideologies upon us."

What do we need them for? I thought that's why L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology.

Anyway, the letter also talks about how the group "will promote and preserve traditional American values.." Curiously enough, without exception, the Republican legislators who founded the organization all voted against placing Constitutional Amendment C on the ballot (regarding the definition of marriage) which was intended to preserve a tradition that most South Dakotans share a similar opinion on.

While they (The MAINstreamers) are trying to tap into the undercurrents of the abortion issue for their membership drive, many South Dakotans might not be as divided on Amendment C. And as far as taking a stand on it, I'm sure the people (especially the members of the clergy) who presently sit on the organization's board want to avoid that one with a ten-foot pole.

As per the letter, go to www.mainstreamsouthdakota.org to find out more.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Gay marriage is already banned. Why do we need to double ban it? Other than to point out to those non-mainstream gays that we don't like them.

I would suspect that the mainstreamers voted against the gay marriage amendment primarily because it is unnecessary, not because they are all for gay marriage.
10:29 PM
Anonymous said…
Here is why we need the Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is currently banned by statute, but all it would take is 3 judges on the SD Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional and the law is out the window, thus allowing gays to marry.

With the amendment in the state constitution, three activist judges could not rule that the ban is unconstitutional since it would be in the constitution. The ban would be safe from judicial tampering.

All you have to do is look at Massachusetts where last year their Supreme Court threw out their law banning gay marriages.
11:32 PM
Anonymous said…
Bull's-eye, notla!
11:56 PM
Anonymous said…
Yes, because South Dakota's supreme court is full of ultra liberal activist judges.
12:24 AM
Anonymous said…
Without our state amendment to our constitution, couldn't the Supreme Court of the US throw out all state laws on the subject too?
7:32 AM
Anonymous said…
The US Supreme Court can throw out a state constitutional amendment the same way they can throw out any state law. The only reason this is on the ballot is to turn out the conservative bass. It is a disgusting use of a wedge issue.
9:09 AM
Anonymous said…
Many of them voted against it because of the still undefined "quasi-marrital" language. It was a crappy piece of legislation that could have consequences far beyond 'gay marriage,' while not actually changing anything in reguard to same sex unions at all.
10:27 AM
Anonymous said…
We believe that prejudice or hostilities based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation have no place in public discourse.

That's from the mainstreamers website.

I dunno, PP, looks like the mainstream clergy have no problem opposing Amendment C.

Can you explain why you support it?
5:29 PM
Anonymous said…
What a bunch of hypocrites these "mainstreamers" are! They talk of others being polorizing, divisive, and trying to impose ideologies. That is exactly what they are trying to do by proposing this luke-warm milk-toast organization to fight these evil conservatives. Also ,I believe another reason we need Amendment C is so we are not forced to recogize gay marriages that are performed in other states where it may be legal.
11:36 PM
Anonymous said…
Has anybody noticed a change in your daily lives now that Massachusetts allows gay marriage? Has your own marriage become worthless? Have you lost the will to go on? Do you blame gay marriage for these problems? Do you obsess about those gays going on each others' health insurance? I bet that last one really burns you.

Is there a real argument why a sanctioned monogamous relationship is worse than simply shacking up?
12:46 AM
Anonymous said…
Amendment C is blatant discrimination.

If it was really only about "gay marriage," then it wouldn't also ban civil unions, domestic partnerships, or "quasi-marital" relationships.

Amendment C is really asking South Dakotans to treat a married family differently from a non-married family.

If passed, Amendment C could essentially strip any rights from ALL non-married families (not just same-sex couples), and could deny them domestic violence protections, healthcare, and pensions, among other things.

That goes WAY beyond "gay marriage."
12:30 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A note from Benedict Ar... Sorry. A note from Stan Adelstein why he thinks you should vote Democrat this year.

By -
Image
(Click on letter to enlarge) And while it may not be printed at taxpayer expense, I don't see a disclaimer, either. When they hold the special session (supposedly at the end of November) , since he's left them already, I think his colleagues should expel him from the caucus. Sure. At that point it's only going to be symbolic. But since he's already said he's running again in the near future, sometimes symbolism is enough.
Read more

Corson County information on Klaudt Rape Charges

By -
Here's some of the information on the Corson County Charges: COUNT I That on or about December of 2005, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT II That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT III That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration, separate and distinct from the act alleged in Count II, with...
Read more

It's about health, not potential promiscuity.

By -
As the only South Dakota blogger out with 5 daughters, I feel I need to weigh in on the whole discussion that's occurring with regards to the HPV vaccine, and Governor Rounds' proposal to make it available. My family (including my three oldest girls) watched my mom, their grandmother, succumb slowly and painfully to cancer which spread throughout her body. If a similar fate from a different type of cancer was preventable through a simple shot, why wouldn't anyone advocate for it? At the age most of my kids are going to be getting it, they're still playing with barbies, and negative influences such as most of the programming on MTV, and other assorted trashy television is verboten in my house. All they're going to know about this vaccination is that it's a shot, just like for teatnus or measles. They'll go "Ow, I don't want a shot," and that will be it. Just another mark on their vaccination record. One check box for DPT, one for HPV, and so on...
Read more