Forum puts Democrats in hot seat over gay issues

[zoony]

Not the only time I've read about the FLDS. And I know full well about plural marriage - in fact, I don't see anything wrong with it; just the Mormon fundamentalist way of going about it.

Fair enough. You're in favor of plural marriage, but certainly not the way the FLDS church goes about it. (who would be)

I can respect your beliefs, but also disagree.

[rincewind]

Fair enough. You're in favor of plural marriage, but certainly not the way the FLDS church goes about it. (who would be)

I can respect your beliefs, but also disagree.

Cool. But to be fair, I didn't say I was in favor of it - just did see anything wrong with it. If it is completely mutal, and between consenting adults, what's the big deal?

[zoony]

I see DJTJ lurking.

Why do I get the feeling he's writing a 40" long post right now?

Hey DJ... save it. Just tell me about it tomorrow at the tailgate.

[DjTj]

Just a short post ... I don't feel as strongly about this issue as Larry, I suppose, and this isn't good Tailgate conversation anyways.

No, A Civil Union would provide equal protection, and therefore provide 100% equality UNDER THE LAW. The rest is just verbiage.

A civil union law might provide equal protection within a state, but if at some point the federal government recognizes civil unions but only some of the states recognize civil unions, the status of civil unions in the rest of the states would probably be a lot stronger if it were called "marriage." If I was Virginia, and Maryland just legalized "civil unions," if a Maryland couple tried to argue that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, that Virginia also had to recognize "civil unions," it would be pretty easy to argue that Virginia doesn't have anything called a "civil union" so I shouldn't be forced to create one. On the other hand, if it were called "marriage" in Maryland, Virginia would have a much harder argument, especially since the Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to marriage.

In the world where all 50 states and the federal government recognize "civil unions" as the same as marriage, it doesn't matter what they're called, but along the way, it could matter a lot if you move to another state and want to get divorced or you die intestate or even if you get in an accident and want to visit your spouse at the hospital.

The way our country is set up, we are guaranteed to spend a lot of time in the in-between phase with some states recognizing "civil unions" and others not recognizing it, so the distinction in language could make a big difference.

So back off, and take the compromise.

I'd also like to point out that thousands of gays have taken the compromise and have had civil unions in Vermont or domestic partnerships in California. You are a fixated on the most vocal and activist members of the gay community that are out there fighting for every inch they can get. Like any other group, the vast majority of gays and lesbians are probably just trying to live their lives in peace, and they are very happy that they got the civil union laws. You shouldn't take their most extreme members as representatives of the entire group.

[zoony]

well that was about 14". I was off a bit.

[Ax]

If it a civil union affords them equal protection under the law... it seems to me that there push to have it called marriage is simply obstanance, stubborness, and arrogance. To your point... what's the difference? Why should it matter to them? It's just a word, right?

Why do they have to force the issue?

....

It's pretty simple really. Being able to call it a marriage would be acknowledgment that being gay is perfectly normal.

Which it is not.

And to try and equate being gay with being black is beyond ridiculous.

Being black is neither a choice, nor a birth defect.

Being gay is one, the other, or both.

[skinsfan51]

Democrats far and away better??? Obama may have a chance in open election, but it looks (right now) like Clinton is going to get it the Democratic nomination. She is way too polorizing IMO to win the national election. If she was to win that would make for at least 24 years of a Clinton or Bush as president, haven't we had enough of them?

You can mark my words, if Hillary gets the nod from the democrats the religious right in this country will show just how strong and many they are. I'm about as far right as one can get and I can tell you that it would be an awful day in the history of this great nation if Hillary Clinton became our first woman president.

But I do have to admit that with regards to the GOP frontrunners, they aren't very attractive, and, at face value, don't seem like a match for Obama or Hillary. But, there is one candidate who's character is impeccable and who I hope continues to rise (as he has in the last week), and that is Mike Huckabee. While admittedly "President Huckabee" doesn't sound the best , the man himself would make a great president, because he has great character, and that is more important than great public speaking skills or great public and foreign policy.

Bill Clinton lowered the integrity of his Office by his bad character. President Bush has brought it back up several notches, because he has sound moral character, but his handling of the war in Iraq has hurt him. He could end that war today and bring our troops home in a month, IMO, but that's a discussion for another thread.

If Hillary wins the Presidency anyone here can feel free to bring up this post again, throw it at me, and I'll eat my words. Because I honestly don't believe she will get in. (At least not by fair and honest measures.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

President Bush has brought it back up several notches, because he has sound moral character.

:munchout:

BTW, moral character has more to do with what someone does with their willy.

[Larry]

It's pretty simple really. Being able to call it a marriage would be acknowledgment that being gay is perfectly normal.

Which it is not.

No, it would be an acknowledgment that gays are citizens.

Which they are.

And chalk up yet another euphemism for "I want them to be second-class citizens because I don't like their type. And I want the government to enforce my prejudices."

[AsburySkinsFan]

No, it would be an acknowledgment that gays are citizens.

Which they are.

An acknowledgment that they are citizens? Is this even a question? I don't read anywhere that there is a Right to marry whoever we wish. BTW, it is up to States to determine the marriage laws, not the Federal government so I'm not even sure why this is a question for Presidential candidates unless they are going to try and grant more power to the Fed and take away more authority from the States.

[SUSkinsFan]

Let me pose a few simple questions to those who oppose gay marriage.

If homosexuals were allowed to get married tomorrow, in what way would your life be negatively impacted. Would your lawn suddenly die? Would you be unable to go to the store and buy groceries? More importantly, would your marriage be any less meaningful?

[twa]

Brikem, the counter question is how would society benefit from same sex marriage?

As DJTJ posted ,there is a right to marriage between qualified applicants that has been recognized because of the benefit to society.

What compelling reason is there for same sex marriage?

There must be convincing reasons for change (as far as public support) and the equal under the law bit has fallen short in the courts so far.

And Larry ,I ain't doing that whole argument again

[SUSkinsFan]

The counter question to your counter question is how is society negatively impacted by same sex marriage? Also, you didn't answer my original questions.

[Larry]

An acknowledgment that they are citizens? Is this even a question? I don't read anywhere that there is a Right to marry whoever we wish.

But there is a right to "equal protection under the law". Which you want to deny to a minority group based simply on your dislike of that group, and your desire for them not to be treated equally. (Because, as Ax stated, if they're treated equally, then that would imply that they aren't inferior to him.)

BTW, it is up to States to determine the marriage laws, not the Federal government so I'm not even sure why this is a question for Presidential candidates unless they are going to try and grant more power to the Fed and take away more authority from the States.

So, how do you feel about the GOP successfully pushing through federal legislation declaring that if a state choses to allow gays to marry, then that marriage will be ignored by all federal laws, regulations, and policies?

Why is it that, if two gays get married in Mass right now, they still can't file a married tax return?

[Larry]

What compelling reason is there for same sex marriage?

Equality.

Name a reason for opposing it that's more important to society than equality.

[zoony]

Larry... honest question, and I'm strictly curious. Are you gay?

...

[twa]

Let me pose a few simple questions to those who oppose gay marriage.

If homosexuals were allowed to get married tomorrow, in what way would your life be negatively impacted.

Increased burden on family courts,social security system,and yet another layer of government intrusion

Would your lawn suddenly die?

I wish...I hate mowing in the heat.

Would you be unable to go to the store and buy groceries?

Yes, it would totally destroy my ability to function

More importantly, would your marriage be any less meaningful?

Mine no,but then I need no government approval nor societies to bring meaning to it.....Can you explain WHY the same is not true for same sex marriage???

Does it make the institution of marriage less meaningfull ?...Yes( of course I feel many factors already harm it)because I hold marriage in very high regard,and I feel it weakens a vital part of a building block of society.

There is a compelling need for state sanctioned marriage (according to law and history) for the benefit of society.

I see no compelling need for extending it to same sex couples as there are legal remedies available for most issues that they confront.

Simply put, I NEED a good reason to change what has been effective to get my vote.

I'm sure some will consider me homophobic and a bigot(which is quite amusing to my gay/lesbian friends and family) but I do not care.

You can convince me with the compelling reasons and EARN my vote or take it up with the courts. :munchout:

[redskins59]

What I fail to understand is, if you're so against government intervention, shouldn't you disapprove of federal government trying to shove "marriage is between a man and a woman" bs down our throats? Oh, I see, federal government can intervene if what they oppose(like gay marriage) is something that you oppose. Last I remember, Bush was trying to ensure that the definition of marriage has to be between a man and a woman. The majority of Americans are simply wrong if they oppose gay marriage(as they were wrong about interracial marriage in the 1960's), period.

Republicans are for big government in their own way. I would argue that making the military bigger is basically making the government bigger(the government pays people who join the military anyway). Neither republicans nor democrats are 100% for small government. Only libertarians think that way(Ron Paul for example, strikes me as libertarian).

[twa]

What I fail to understand is, if you're so against government intervention, shouldn't you disapprove of federal government trying to shove "marriage is between a man and a woman" bs down our throats?

Why should I object when there are benefits to society that have been demonstrated both by history and to the courts satisfaction???

I certainly wouldn't object if the government got out of the marriage business altogether and I am quite sure the institution would survive just fine. :2cents:

But that's a totally different subject.

Larry we ain't all equal...deal with it.

[Larry]

Larry... honest question, and I'm strictly curious. Are you gay?

...

NYB. (Unless you're asking me out on a date.)

However, in answer to the question "Why is this such a big deal to you?":

I was a kid during the "civil rights period" of the 60's. I saw the riots (on TV), the marches. I remember being in elementary school when they announced the deaths of JFK and MLK. I remember pictures of "whites only" and "colored" drinking fountains. Of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent blacks from entering a white school. Of people being arrested (and beaten) for marching for simple equality.

And I remember wondering how people could possible hate so much. And wondering how decent people could tolerate the hatred being such a part of their everyday lives.

And I remember the statement that all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

And I resolved that if I were a grownup, and people were doing things like that where I was, that I'd be out there marching with the blacks. That I'd have the courage to walk down that street and be a symbol of the fact that equality isn't just "a black issue". That the politicians who voted for Jim Crow were going to lose more than just the black vote.

I believe that the people trying to legislate discrimination against gays are evil incarnate. (I believe that people who simply discriminate in their hearts are defective people, but that I'm not perfect, either.) That they hold the same moral ground as Hitler and the KKK.

I literally have trouble comprehending how our society has gotten to the point where the forces of bigotry can possibly stand up in public, and express their message of bigotry, not even hiding the fact that they're even using the same arguments that were used 40 years ago, and not be booed off the stage. I don't understand why people aren't ashamed to be seen with such scum.

And I believe that good people have the obligation to oppose such evil people, and their acts, whenever they see them.

I fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

Does that answer your question?

[81artmonk]

By the way, zoony - why the hell do you care if they call it marriage?

Gay people don't want to be different or special - they want to be able to get married just like anybody else, not have a 'civil union'.

I've talked about this before, and I think it applies again. Once gay people get the right to marry legally, the institution of marriage as we know it, will cease to exsist. Marriage has and always will be defined as a man and a woman. Every culture, through the history has defined it that way. Marriage is a man and a woman. If you allow anything else to marry other than what is the defined, than marriage will no longer exsist.

The example I like to use is if you mate a lion and a penguin, you no longer have either. The outcome will be something entirely different. Same with gay marriage.

The fact is they don't want equal rights under the law. If they did, than if we allowed them civil unions and equal right but not marriage, see if the gay community accepts that. dollars to donuts they fight that and still want marriage.

[SUSkinsFan]

I'm sure some will consider me homophobic and a bigot(which is quite amusing to my gay/lesbian friends and family)

So you can look those friends and family in the eyes and tell them that they aren't as good as you? That they don't deserve the same rights as you?

[Larry]

I've talked about this before, and I think it applies again. Once gay people get the right to marry legally, the institution of marriage as we know it, will cease to exsist.

For lo, the Earth will collapse if our society ever ceases to discriminate.

The example I like to use is if you mate a lion and a penguin, you no longer have either. The outcome will be something entirely different. Same with gay marriage.

(Um, as has been pointed out by countless bigots looking for a reason why bigotry is OK, gays can't breed.)

The fact is they don't want equal rights under the law. If they did, than if we allowed them civil unions and equal right but not marriage, see if the gay community accepts that. dollars to donuts they fight that and still want marriage.

Wow, now there's a logical argument:

See? The gays don't want equality, because if I were to offer something that isn't equality, I just know that they'll keep right on demanding actual equality.

(Here's another point for you to think about, too: The mere fact that you're offering civil unions as a compromise, proves that you don't think they're equal.) (Which also proves that you're lieing when you say that they are.)

[twa]

So you can look those friends and family in the eyes and tell them that they aren't as good as you? That they don't deserve the same rights as you?

Some I consider better than me, If you must know :laugh:

They have the same "rights" as me,and perhaps more as a protected class.

Are we the same? no, neither is my wife the "same" as me

Should they be able to have a government sanctioned marriage? no, not unless there is a compelling reason or the courts rule they should.

[redskins59]

The example I like to use is if you mate a lion and a penguin, you no longer have either. The outcome will be something entirely different. Same with gay marriage.

:laugh: This example made me laugh out loud. Do you realize that lions and penguins can't mate? Are you suggesting that if two men "mate", they're gonna produce something entirely different?

I am still reeling.