The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
October 16, 2004
| Thousands Rally On The Mall To Protest Same-Sex Marriage

The Washington Post reports that thousands of people gathered on the Mall yesterday to defend traditional marriage:

The event was part of an effort by Christian evangelical leaders and lobbying groups to mobilize religious conservatives as the presidential election nears. Dozens of such efforts are scheduled to take place across the country in the coming weeks.

[. . .]

The crowd, which included couples and families with young children, stretched from Seventh Street NW to the merry-go-round in front of the Smithsonian Castle, a distance of about three blocks.

Daryl Bursch, an official with “Mayday for Marriage,” estimated attendance between 140,000 and 170,000. U.S. Park Police no longer provides estimates of Mall gatherings.

From California Yankee.



Posted by Dan Spencer at October 16, 2004 04:47 AM | TrackBack
Comments

The Brigade Of Bigots For Bush. Religious conservatives don’t look too fondly on sex. I wish they would take their own advice and stop having it, as to stop reproducing.

Posted by: Vince [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2004 10:09 AM

In every Presidential election I’ve ever seen, the color blue has been used to designate states where the incumbent is leading, and the color red has been used to designate states where the challenger is leading.

Why has this system been abandonned this year?

My opinion: the mainstream media will use any device, no matter how petty, to help the Democrat candidate. I’m sure we’ll see more of this.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2004 10:42 AM

Nikita said,

In every Presidential election I’ve ever seen, the color blue has been used to designate states where the incumbent is leading, and the color red has been used to designate states where the challenger is leading

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference says this…


Colors and emblems for parties
Generally speaking, over the world, political parties associate themselves with colors, primarily for identification, especially for voter recognition during elections. Red usually signifies leftist, communist or socialist parties; pink sometimes signifies socialist. Conservative and Christian democratic parties generally use blue. Yellow is often used for liberalism. Green is the color for green parties and Islamic parties.

There are notable exceptions and variations:

  • In the United States, the (currently) conservative Republican Party is red, and the (currently) liberal Democratic Party is blue, stemming from southern Texas ballots helping illiterate voters in late 19th century and early 20th century thus colored [1]. Quite confusingly, however, electoral maps for Presidential elections are produced by the U.S. government with these colors reversed. For example, see U.S. presidential election, 1992. Nevertheless, the news media tends to use red for Republicans and blue for Democrats.
    * In Taiwan, the New Party uses yellow as its party color though its policies are conservative; Democratic Progressive Party uses green though its international alignment is with the Liberal International and not the Green parties.
    * In Canada, the official colour for the New Democratic Party is orange, while the Liberal Party of Canada uses red.
    * In Belgium, the Liberal Democrats (VLD/MR) are blue and the Christian Democrats are orange. In the Netherlands, Liberals (VVD) are blue and Christian Democrats use green.
    * In Northern Ireland, the Protestant parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly are called the “orange block” and the Catholic parties are the “green block”.

Color associations are useful for mnemonics when voter illiteracy is significant. Another use case is when it is not desirable to make rigorous links to parties, particularly when coalitions and alliances are formed between political parties and other organizations, for example: Red Tory, “Purple” (Red-Blue) alliances, Red-Green Alliances, Blue-Green Alliances, Pan-green coalitions, and Pan-blue coalitions.

Source: linkage

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2004 01:44 PM

The Brigade Of Bigots For Bush. Religious conservatives don’t look too fondly on sex. I wish they would take their own advice and stop having it, as to stop reproducing.

Uh, maybe you should save your eugenic arguments until such a time that the Democratic party supports a policy on the issue that is distinguishable from the Rupublican party. The only reason the DNC doesn’t support amending the Constitution is because they believe that DOMA and state laws are sufficiently oppressive.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2004 04:09 PM

Vince:

” Religious conservatives don’t look too fondly on sex.”

And that’s why Catholic and Mormon families are statisitcally larger? Must be asexual reproduction [snicker]. If you stuck discriptive words in your statement just before the word “sex” about the types of sex conducted by gay/lesbian people, then yes, you would be on the mark.

Posted by: Max Darkside [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2004 05:47 PM

Hey, Vince! You must be on the outside lookin’ in, or I must not be a Conservative, although I do claim to have a spiritual life. Which is it?

Talk about truth in labeling…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2004 09:32 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)