Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

You are absolutely right about the American view of the family as being the "fundamental building block of society."

If I were to guess the origin of this notion I'd have to put it down to the religious beliefs held by the earliest settlers of the American colonies. As you know your own history I probably don't need to remind you that the majority of these religious outcasts from Europe were the Protestant fundamentalists of their day. Their views, right or wrong, shaped the foundations of American society.

So when you visit the small towns and cities on your route, try to remember that many of the inhabitants trace their religious affiliations back to those early settlers. American religious life isn't made up of mega-churches. The majority of worship is actually conducted in small, innocuous Houses of God. Very much like parishes all over Great Britain, where families attend and are ministered to in much the same way their ancestors were - and they like it that way.

It may seem backward to those of us with more worldly views, but when you understand that religion was the main driving force in first settling North America, you can perhaps better understand why religion plays such an important role in American society.

I do find it intersting that perhaps if the republicans were not so vehemenently opposed to the idea of same sex marraiges, they might well attract quite a few extra supporters.

Morality exists independantly to sexuality which cannot be chosen, therefore I'm not surprised that these two, despite the Obama support seem distinctly conservative. What exactly has Sarah Palin done to inspire moderate conservative support other than proudly informing us that she's anti-abortion, anti gay-marriage and pro-gun ownership? That's three negatives to alot of people, me included. Progress comes with the willingness to change and the realisation that not everybody is like us and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

(chuckling at myself) I didn't see this coming, not as the first people you met and interviewed.
I SHOULD have seen this coming, but I didn't.

coresme2:

Just my opinion (which I don't assume to include anyone other than myself):
The media has been asking the same questions you pose (how could Palin attract those who are pro-choice? Pro-gay marriage....) and it seems that there is a shift in voting issues away from the "line in the sand" moral issues to the more secular issues of runaway spending, corruption in Washington, economy, things like that.

My extended family is very conservative, yet from both political parties, one side Democrat (husband's family) and my own who never vote anything but Repubican. In speaking with them, the predictable election year topics like abortion and more religious issues just don't seem to be carrying the weight of the voter's choice.

The issues of the candidates themselves has created havoc, as well, in this election year. My father-in-law, who proudly displays a large picture of JFK front and center in his home and who would rather eat nails than vote Republican, says he will stay home rather than vote for Obama. Sadly, I think this is a race issue. My husband agrees, although we did not press my father-in-law for details, so perhaps we are wrong.

My own father, who was going to stay home rather than vote for McCain (whom he detests. My father is a man who taught me that voting is a duty and privilage and God help us if we stayed home on election day) is now energized because he believes Palin is finally someone to help tackle Congress' corruption.

These are just examples within my own family, and I don't claim them to be indicative of other families in the US.

My point is that a trend seems to be developing away from the moral issues you're suggesting. Voters in both parties who were once easily predictable in their voting patterns are driving pollsters (and the media) nuts with 180 degree shifts.

Could you tell us whose covering the fuel costs?

5. What is this obsession with fuel costs?

Consider this an education on our Atlantic cousins....and you can never spend enough on education.

And this in a country where half the marriages fail?

'Leave aside your views on the rights and wrongs of the issue.'

I can't--because this IS a right/wrong issue, but not about sex or religion.

(And I say this as a person who has homosexual friends and colleagues.)

This is a serious, serious Constitutional question! Will Oklahoma be forced to recognize California's homosexual marriages?
Is the ruling of a state court in Sacramento binding upon the county clerk in Tulsa?
It may be, unless action is taken.

This goes to the heart of the question of the stability of our Constitutional union--fifty sovereign states deciding to play by one set of rules. No one gets to lord it over anyone else by a ruling of a state court.

It's not about sex, it's not about how the members of the couple feel, it's not about religion--it's about the Constitution!

Hope you bought a copy, and will take time to read on your journey.

Good luck on your travels. Now go visit some Mom-and-Dad-three-kids-and-a-dog families.

Well of course a newly gay couple are going to praise the institution of marriage in an up and down, over-the-top fashion. It's something they have never been able to take for granted as a gay couple. What are they going to do, treat marriage with a shrug? Nice job interviewing a gay couple from California -- I imagine pretty much the same as a gay couple in Spain or the Netherlands.

I think this is such a divisive issue because it instantly hits people in the stomach--for the most part, it's a completely emotional rather than a rational first reaction.

In my experience, people on both sides try to come up with rational arguments to support their positions, but it's always to justify what was initially a gut feeling one way or the other.

That's why it's so hard to have clear, calm discourse about gay marriage--it's almost impossible to find a common ground and talk rationally with someone who your heart/stomach is telling you is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. It's even harder to respect that they have the right to hold a different view from yours.

Because they're WRONG.

The gullibility of the average American never ceases to amaze. EVERY election cycle, politicians claim they're going to fight corruption and somehow change Washington. Even those who've been involved in politics for decades spout the language of the reformer. Despite the fact that they never keep these promises, voters continue to buy it. Stunning.

At this point, we're looking right down the barrel of this country's future. Abortion is irrelevant. Gay marriage is irrelevant. All these are questions best left to the individual, and have no place in politics.

Unless we elect now, and continue electing, leaders with the education, intelligence, and will to address the serious problems this country will face over the next 50 years - structural, economic, and beyond - we're quite simply done as nation.

The time is long past when we can continue to leave our country in the hands of those who think that decisions should be based on "gut feelings." Serious people and organizations don't operate that way. Neither can the US Government.

To OldSouth at number 8 - the answer to your questions is quite a simple one: No, other states are not "forced" to recognize gay marriages. Thanks to the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" that was signed into law in 1996, we are once again back to the point we were at many shameful decades ago when states refused to allow or recognize interracial marriages.

Ain't progress grand?

Day 2 and already I'm so incredibly tired of hearing people talk about what they think Jon is going to say and do.

Day 2 and so bored of hearing people talk about how their money is spent, sending him around the world, while waste and corruption are passing by their eyes everyday, unchallenged.

What I'm most interested in, and am always watching, is if Jon will bump into any Nader supporters, or if he'll blindside somewhere around 5% of this country's voters as does the rest of the corporately controlled media?

The Demorepublican Party must be contained.

Unfortunately, Gay marriage here in America is an outrageously religio-politicized issue (my own term). It has become the rallying call for conservatives. Think of it in terms of America's greatest hobby: mindless shopping. Conservatives peruse through their products (politicians) with a clip-board listing: Gay marriage, abortion, and God. If this light-skinned politician meets all the requirements, they will immediately buy this product with little or no furthering questioning--about their voting record, where their support money comes from, etc.

Dear jon,
do not feel the need to refrain from pointing out that stereotypical portrayals of Americans are often true. Of course there is variation, but America is full of deeply conservative religious people. Americans know very little about the rest of the world and express only the smallest interest other countries, their cultures, and they interact with America. Most educated Americans know this to be true, but find it necessary to defend their country. Okay. Fine.

And Jon, you should not be surprised; after all, England is the America of Europe and resembles it most compared to all other Euro countries.

to#8Oldsouth

I am confused. Where in our constitution is marriage discussed? I am old and long out of school so I may have missed something. How can it be wrong or denigrate marriage if ANY loving couple wish to make a commitment and enjoy the benefits of that union? I've been married for nearly fifty years, I do not feel threatened.

Morality and righteous living should be part of one's heart and soul, not something needing legislation.

To#9Eddienix

Gay marriage seems to be a huge issue in the US since it is once again on my state's ballot this year. ( Adding a ban to our state constitution was defeated four years ago but the ugly specter has reared its head again.)

I ask: can we all not live and let live?

Your route across the country is a little unfortunate since you are spending a lot of time in states which will have no bearing on the outcome of the election. While they may provide interesting stories Californians are effectively disenfranchised because of the electoral college. The same applies to most of the remaining states.

You could have made this project so much more meaningful by going to states that are likely to decide the election, like Colorado, Michigan, even Indiana. It even looks from the map as if you are going to drive through Pennsylvania, a key state, without stopping!!

We have a lot of repeats on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ so it is great they have commissioned a new programme. We hear a lot about American politics. How much do they hear about British election, not much except for the final result.

To#18Jonkelly

In my very humble opinion the Declaration of
Independence says it all to me. Except that I wish the wording had said all 'men and women' or 'all people' instead of just 'all men' but I do have to consider the culture of the times and what an extraordinary document our founding fathers wrote for us.

I hope you will enjoy your visit here.

ysbytynewsjunkie, I would love to hear more about your elections. If you don't want to hear about our elections (and I don't know why you would...) just tune them out, like most of us here in America do for most of the two years of campaigning. I appreciate the coverage from the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, but I don't see why they would spend that much time on it. I would rather see it go the other way; I like watching your parliament debate (or even just committees!).

I am glad that you are doing this, Jon, but it would be really nice if someone came to the Midwest for once. Minnesota has been discribed as a swing state, and I know that Wisconsin was won by a margin of 0.4%, the smallest margin in the nation. Even with the RNC in St. Paul, I saw next to no mention of the random violence by the police at the protests, and the targeting of street medics and journalists.

Sorry, old complaint, but it pisses me off when things happen here, and it barely gets mentioned, but comparable things happen elsewhere, and they get a whole lot more coverage. I think it's just geography -- the farther east you go the more coverage there is. You also get a lot out in the far West of the country. And that's my point. You have the West, the Southwest, and it sounds like the South, coming north into the East part of the nation. Pennsylvania, Ohio, they are always looked at. There are more swing states than that!

#21Hanchak

I agree with you that some parts of the US can feel very left out when politicians focus on certain voters. I live in the Southwest desert and have often felt very ignored by politicians but this year one of our candidates is from this region so we are getting more attention.

I wish we would go to a majority vote instead of the Electoral College, as we do now. I think that would give more importance to each and every vote and not just focus on a few big states.

I also agree that news coverage does not often give enough coverage to local issues. We have a lot going on here, as well, that gets no real national coverage. I would like to know more about what is happening everywhere. This is one reason why I watch the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ.

Opponents to Gay Marriage are often fond of quoting scripture to back up their position, to which I like to respond with some "scripture" of my own.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

When congress starts dictating to churches what does and does not qualify as a religious institution; what, exactly, have they just done?

"What's more interesting to me is the common ground both apparently antagonistic sides share - belief in the central role of marriage in American life, and the family as the fundamental building block of society."

Whether we come from a functional family or dysfunctional family, our family or lack there of helps to define a part of ourselves.

Marriage does have some practical financial aspects - able to buy family health insurance cheaply, legal recognition of inheritance when the spouse dies, federal taxes are generally lower for couples rather than singles.

For the overall economy - purchase clothing for the special occasion, rent a place for celebration, food catering, photography, gifts, etc. Marriage is definitely good for those in the wedding business.

Dear Jon Kelly and the crew on the bus,

Good luck with your project. As moefry (Post 11) suggests, don't get too sidetracked by issues like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and lipstick. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed, watch Michael Moore's Sicko. They'll fill you in on some of the structural problems facing this country: huge inequalities in wealth and a complete failure of successive governments to support affordable housing, education and health care, failures that disproportionately affect low and middle-income families. Ask why some Americans are so rich that they can't keep track of how many houses they own, while others work full time, often at more than one job, and can't afford a decent place to live. Probe the mystery of why poor and middle-income working people continue to support the GOP. Remember that this is a highly stratified society, notwithstanding the myth of equal opportunity. Hang out in Wal-Mart parking lots as well as upscale malls, talk to cleaners and waitresses and sales clerks as well as professionals and pundits, and you'll have a chance of adding something to our understanding of what's at stake in this election.

To Chary8 (#7)

"And this in a country where half the marriages fail?"

Ironic, isn't it? In fact, many of my homosexual friends are more monogamous than my hetero friends. I'm married (and hetero), but about half of my 30-something friends at church are divorced with kids while three of the four homo couples I know have been consistently paired (yet not allowed to marry)... but I'm only one wacky human and not a fair data base for statistical analysis.


To kyoseki (#23)

" 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' "

I think this was conveniently forgotten by the GOP when they realized in the '70's that they could get votes and increase their power base by legislating morality in Amerikaner-Fundementalist "Gawd n'Kuntry" fashion.

Shame about that. Really.

Unfortunately, it still works for many, many people 'round these here parts. Gawd help us.

This along with abortion is used by the republicans and others to divert attention from the fact that they can not win this(or the last one) on the issues. They must create a culture war. Who is the government to decide who can marry who? How is this any different from banning interracial marriage. They will say god forbids it, there is no non religious argument to be made for a governmental ban. What happend to republicans being for small government. They say its government intrusion when they ban assault rifles but its perfectly acceptable for the government to tell you who you can marry or what you can do to your body.