Gay Marriage?

[Jen]

Personally I am for it.

I know the Republicans are against it, but I am realy aghast at how many of the Democrats running for President are also against it.

Is there any canidate who supports the rights of our gay countrymen to get married.

[BOSSHOG]

1. I'm not sure of the answer, however

the opposition totally boggles my mind. I'm a white male hetero secure in my sexuality who has been happily married for almost 30 years. If it were legal (in this land of the free) for two people to love each other, regardless of their sex, how would that negatively effect my marriage or my sexual preference if they were "allowed" to marry? It is the essence of Conservatism to make illegal that which you do not like. It is why I am a proud liberal.

[Devlzown]

2. Kucinich is for it

and has been pretty vocal about it. I think Sharpton and Braun are too. I think the rest of the Dem candidates are for civil unions.

[Cannikin]

3. I hope we are getting our message out...

As of this hour, the poll at AFA.net has swung back in favor of gay marraige. I hope we can keep it there! Thank you to every heterosexual who supports 'my kind'. It means alot to me.. The backlash from the Mass. court ruling really had me down.
I read an article about a CBS poll where making 'homosexual relations' illegal all together.

[foreigncorrespondent]

5. Well I am sad to report that...

...it looks like the majority of America are in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage:

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found widespread support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. It also found unease about homosexual relations in general, making the issue a potentially divisive one for the Democrats and an opportunity for the Republicans in the 2004 election.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/21/MNGUG3RR449.DTL

This article mentions that 55% of the nation is for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Related articles:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001820338_gaypoll21.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/21/poll_backs_ban_on_gay_marriage/

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/national/21GAY.html?ex=1072587600&en=60ea334a78378c7d&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/122103amendPoll.htm

[wuushew]

8. On a positive note 3/4 of the states must ratifiy amendments

in order to be deemed constitutional

[Silverhair]

9. 3/4 of the states is 38 states. 37 already have DOMAs &...

Ohio is working on a DOMA for them. Also, in one other state, I don't remember which, the governor vetoed a state DOMA. That's 39 states that can be expected to quickly ratify.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I have a feeling that it will come to a narrow vote in the Senate...

When Daschle supports it, you can't hope for much.

[Silverhair]

21. Narrow? What senator wants to go back to a state that is

against gay marriage? (Remember - 37 have DOMAs. That is a strong statement of how their state views the issue.) So you are a Democrat senator in a red state and your state has a DOMA and you know from polls that your state is strongly hostile to gay marriage. Do you want to be reelected? There are lots of Democratic senators from red states.

Sorry, but I think your feeling is just wishful thinking.

[Terwilliger]

4. Yep!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1217-07.htm

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Gay Marriage will take awhile, but it'll happen...

If you look at the statistics the number of young people that support it are far greater than the number of old people that support it. Younger people will pass it on to their kids thus the number of people who support it will grow. If I were president I'd tell congress to require states to legalize it right away and then never mention it again. As a compromise I wouldn't require them to use the title "marriage".

[Silverhair]

10. What would you do when congress refused to obey you?

Remember, congresspersons are elected. They can get real hesitent to go against 65% of their voters on a hot button issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Veto something important of theirs...

But it's all wishful thinking. In reality I'd probably just encourage it to be left up to the states and tell the country why the right wing arguments are bullshit based on the fact that gay marriage isn't harming anybody.

[PackedForPerth]

7. Why go there?

In my experience gay people tend to be quite a bit brighter than average. Given that I can't imagine why on earth they'd want to get tangled up in as messed up a phenomena as family law is in the USA. It would seem to me that a civil contract coupled with the sorts of "domestic partner" clauses for medical policies and maybe inheritance and such not as are already happening in a lot of places would be far more desireable and much more likely to be possible.

[foreigncorrespondent]

13. Why?

Did it ever occur to you that we actually love our partners, and want to make the biggest commitment to that person we could possibly make?

Marriage isn't a club for heterosexual people only. Relationships come in all forms, and the sooner people begin to realize that, the better off my LGBT brothers and sisters will be.

I cannot begin to tell you the pain I feel, that so many people in the United States (my partners country) deem our love a "choice" and as such have decided to take away my partners rights as a citizen, born in the United States, by changing a constitution to legally discriminate against us.

Well I am sorry, but the love I feel for Sapphocrat wasn't a choice, it happened. When I met her I realized that I was looking at the one person in this world who God created for me, so as I say to those people who are against it, get over it! We don't mess in your relationship, so please don't mess in ours.

We love each other, and just want the right to make the ultimate commitment to one another, and have that commitment recognized by both our countries.

[PackedForPerth]

19. oh puleeze...

We love each other, and just want the right to make the ultimate commitment to one another, and have that commitment recognized by both our countries.

Have you actually gone over family law and seen how badly messed up you get if one or the other of you for whatever reason decides "We love each other..." just ain't so any more?

You can certainly find some religious institution or other to solemnise your feelings for each other. Why get the state and the whole bloody legal profession involved as well? It's about as bright as pinning a sign on your back saying "LOOT ME!"

[MadHound]

22. Oh please, stop with the obfuscation and convolution

Just because family law is screwed up it doesn't mean that you should deny the benefits of marriage to gay couples! Instead you should work towards cleaning up family law.

And while yes, I agree that there are problems to family law, there are also many benefits to marriage, like being able to have power of attorney for you spouse, being able to VISIT your spouse in the hospital, along with making medical decisions for your spouse if they are unable to do so, adaption becomes much easier for married couples, work and corporate benefits, and on and on. Then there is the *small* matter of being able to demonstrate publicly and legally your love and devotion for your spouse. Having a simple religious ceremony without the legal recognition is like having a picture of what you desire rather than the real thing.

Gay marriage is something that we need NOW. How would you feel as a hetro if you couldn't marry the object of your affection? I know that I would certainly be pissed off and upset if I wouldn't have been able to marry my wife. Our gay brothers and sisters have feelings just like us, and they are feeling the same anger and anguish.

Marriage, its for everybody.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gore1FL]

15. So therefore

Sterile couples, or those intending not to have children should not get benefits either, by your argument.

Additioanlly, should single parents be consdiered defacto married because they have kids?

[QC]

17. Because this country *is* dangerously underpopulated, you know!

:eyes:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

18. Yes, dangerously underpopulated by conservative white Xtian families!

:eyes:

[Lexingtonian]

16. It doesn't matter what the candidates think

They can't do much about it one way or the other. So they do the easiest thing compatible with what their supporters want.

I know the Republicans are against it, but I am really aghast at how many of the Democrats running for President are also against it.

They can do as much about it as Bush has done about Roe v. Wade.

The constitutional amendment stuff is a nonstarter. It's not clear whether the federal DoMA statute would survive a constitutional challenge (it hasn't been tested because no one has had standing to claim injury yet) and then the various state DoMA statutes would also have to go. There would also be a running problem with any such Amendment being in a constant state of collision with the Fourteeth Amendment (equal protection) so that in time a choice has to be made between them.

[Killarney]

20. I'm personally for it, but I don't think the candidates will go there

Edwards was asked on 60 minutes last night and he said he's against gay marriage.

I think most of the candidates would be for civil unions, but against gay marriage.

I still don't get why anywhere cares or thinks it's their business who someone else marries. Live and let live.