"Gay marriage" issue & Americans' ignorance scares me.

[AlinPA]

The rPIGs are going to use this as their main issue. With 200 million dollars, with all the radio stations controlled by them as well as cable TV and screaming about Dems wanting "gay marriage", I am afraid Americans will fall for it.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/washpost/20031025/pl_washpost/a14193_2003oct24&e=2

[Madrone]

1. I DESPISE the fact "gay marriage" is an issue, period!

WTF are these fundies afraid of? If unions between same sex partners aren't illegal they'll no longer be able to contain the tenative hold they have on themselves and their restraint from entering same sex relationships?

It's like they think if gay marriage is legal they'll no longer be able to resist entering into one. Sheesh.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Well, it's always been an issue, of sorts.

I don't know of any place or time when homosexual unions have ever been officially recognized.

Unofficially, they have often been recognized, but always with a wink and a nod. But not that often.

I don't agree with the hysterical rants that the Republic will fall and it will be the end of civilization of we have any sort of gay union, but let's face it-- it is a radical change, and some people not only unreasonably fear radical change but reasonably question it.

Besides the almost universal sanctions against it from the major religions, there is the "ick" factor from a lot of straights. Marriage is probably a long way off.

Homosexuality is not as accepted as many would like it now, but it appears to me that it is more accepted than at any time in the past, and now just might be the time to start really moving on civil unions.

There are a lot of us straights who see it simply as an issue of rights and common decency. All domestic partners and families, whether they fit present legal defintions or not, should have the same rights and privileges.

(So, then what do we do with those Mormons with the six wives, or the communal "families" out there... Rights is rights...)

[unfrigginreal]

2. Most Democratic presidential candidates oppose gay marriage

Wednesday, July 16, 2003

WASHINGTON - The leading Democratic presidential candidates support gay couples having the same legal rights as husbands and wives, but stop short of saying they have a right to marry.

Most of the White House hopefuls attending a presidential forum hosted Tuesday by the Human Rights Campaign - a leading gay advocacy group - expressed their support for gay civil unions.

Only three candidates - Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio - said federal law should approve same-sex marriages.

The comments of the top candidates did not go over well with some in the crowd. The audience hissed when Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts said marriage is a right reserved in America for men and women.

more...

http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2003/ma__democrats_gays_07_2003.shtml

--------

Rove will make it an issue but I think our candidates have taken a position won't be as hard to swallow for the mainstream.

[AlinPA]

3. I'm worried they will twist Dean's signing the civil unions bill

and equal rights as "gay marriage". Media will play right along. 'muricans will eat it up and vote to "protect marriage".

[unfrigginreal]

5. Then you better be worried about all of our candidates because...

they either favor civil unions or gay marriage.

[w4rma]

4. That includes Dean, btw.

…
DEAN: We have civil unions, which gives equal rights -- doesn't give marriage, but it gives equal rights in terms of insurance, employment rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, to every single Vermonter, no matter who they are.

You know, interestingly enough, Dick Cheney took a position in 2000 in the debates that is not very different than mine. He said, this is not a federal issue. I really am inclined to leave this matter to the states, and I think we ought to let states figure out how to give equal rights to everybody in the way that they do it. So I think this is kind of a political issue at the federal level, but the power to decide these things really belongs to the state level.

KING: All right. On your own state level, if it were a referendum, would you vote for gay marriage?

DEAN: If what were -- we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberate chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people.

Marriage is a religious institution, the way I see it. And we're not in the business of telling churches who they can and cannot marry. But in terms of civil rights and equal rights under the law for all Americans, that is the state's business, and that's why we started civil unions.

KING: So you would be opposed to a gay marriage?

DEAN: If other states want to do it, that's their business. We didn't choose to do that in our state.
…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html
http://www.howarddean.tv/

[unfrigginreal]

6. Yeah, I know

It's one of the things that impresses me about Dean. He'll make progress for a cause by taking half steps even if it means we don't get the whole enchilada right away.

[Sean Reynolds]

7. Yes. BUT Dean does support a state giving marriage rights to gays.

I believe only Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton are the only other candidates that would support states' right for gay marriage. The rest are opposed to it and support the concept of civil unions.

[tsipple]

8. Very True, Sean

Republicans will try to use the issue of civil unions against any Democratic nominee. All nine candidates are unanimous in supporting civil unions or (in three cases) gay marriage.

So we'll need to pick the candidate who does the best job communicating to voters, to make sure this issue like all others is framed correctly.

[Jackie97]

15. That's one reason why....

I don't really like the Democratic party. They're not liberal enough. I know why they do this stuff though. They realize that the people themselves won't vote them in if they stand for radical ideas.

[w13rd0]

9. Seriously, I have found the following line of argumentation very effective

Fundamentalists argue that one of their primary objections to homosexuality (outside 'cuz god says so in da bible') is that it presents a health risk due to multiple partners (never mind the accuracy of this thought, or the blind ignorance of the fact that heterosexuals have multiple partners as well). "Exodus" groups have been demonstrated to be shams, whose "successes" are fraudulent or vastly over-stated. Why then would one want to DISCOURAGE homosexuals from engaging themselves in long-term committed monogomous relationships? They can either admit that it is in their interests, and the interests of society, to encourage long-term committed relationships FOR EVERYONE; or they have to admit that deep down inside they just want to kill everyone that doesn't think like they do. Fundamentalists rarely think anything thru to logical conclusion.

I'm not asking for a Roman Catholic marriage with my groomsmen and his groomsmen, complete with the Eucharist. If the State were not already in the business of sanctioning and passing judgement on marriage, and assessing penalties and benefits accordingly, it wouldn't be an issue. So the fundamentalists have a choice. They can either start accepting the 14th Ammendment, or they can advocate that the State withdraw from sanctioning or granting benefits to "marriages" entirely.

It shouldn't even be an issue, and it's just modern day "orientation baiting" to use it for electoral politics. Dick Cheney should be f'n ashamed of himself, as should all the Log Cabin Republicans out there.

[karlschneider]

10. I know a guy who goes ballistic over "the things those homos do" and

complains because his wife won't suck his dick whenever he wants and that she objects to being screwed in the butt.

I'm an educated person but I lack the ability to grasp the ...er, "mindset" of such idiots.

Sorry for the graphic language, but frustration overcomes diplomacy at times. :grr:

[Sean Reynolds]

13. That guy sounds like a real winnder.......

Why does his wife continue to take that crap?

[greekspeak]

12. Scares me too

As much as I want to be considered equal with straight people, I would much prefer to stick with the status quo and have a Democrat elected than to have more power in Republican hands and set back gay rights to 19th century levels.

Decades after the civil rights movement began in earnest, minorities, espeically African Americans, still have to suffer a multitude of indignities. America as a nation is simply not ready yet to allow full, true equality for all its people. What a sad legacy for the "land of the free."

[Jackie97]

14. Why can't these conservatives get a life?

Seriously. I could understand going after abortion rights if one actually believes that it leads out to murder (Although, I don't agree with that), but now some of them are saying that they're going to put the fight against homosexual marriages first. How do they think that homosexual marriages will destroy heterosexual marriages? Will men suddenly leave their wives because they can now marry a man? Give me a break.

If anybody is anti-marriage, it's people protesting against allowing gay marriages to be legal. I seriously do wonder if these people have lives of their own that they get to have control over.

[LittleApple81]

16. My thoughts exactly. It should provide more stability to society

and happiness for those people who want to be able to share life experiences with somebody else.
Gays deserve the right to have somebody who loves them help them when they are in need, or in the hospital, or in an accident.

I am all for making this a better world for EVERYBODY.

These people who have no life and want to follow "their bible" are really sick and without a clue.