Am I allowed to be mad at Kerry now?

[dsc]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4624659/

BOSTON - The Massachusetts Legislature gave final approval, for this year, to a new version of an amendment to the state constitution Monday that would ban same-sex marriages and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.


Within moments of the 105-92 vote, Republican Gov. Mitt Romney said he would ask the state’s highest court to delay implementation of its November ruling that ordered same-sex marriages to begin taking place as of May 17. But Attorney General Tom Reilly, whose job it is to represent the state in court, said he would not seek the delay on Romney’s behalf.

end of quote

When I first brought this issue up I was told there was no real amendment. Now there is. A virtually identical amendment failed by two votes. Now this one passes by 7. A swing of just 9 votes (4.5 from one side to the other). It is exceedingly hard to believe for even one minute that a statewide elected official can't swing that many votes. I will still vote for the man but I have every earthly right to be pissed.

[mobuto]

1. Starting in May, gays and lesbians

will be allowed to marry.

Gay marriage won't be made illegal until 2006, at the very earliest, and even if it is then - which is far from certain - civil unions will be legal.

Just a year ago, civil unions were thought unthinkable in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the nation.

[redqueen]

7. "Just a year ago, civil unions were thought unthinkable"

First, please allow me to compliment your choice of words. :)

Second, in light of that fact, who the #$&*$@( HELL thought this year would be a good time to pursue this issue? If anyone finds out, I should hope that person or group would be just as hated as Nader is around here.

[dsc]

10. You are looking for the MA Supreme Court

This is a long standing legal case. They, God forbid, found that people like me are every bit as entiled to rights as people like you.

[redqueen]

40. I am all for gay marriage

I just hate the timing, and for very good reason.

[soleft]

93. I bet Dennis doesn't hate the timing

[redqueen]

95. You'd lose the bet, then.

Dennis has said clearly that he is in the race to say the things Kerry cannot say.

:hi:

[soleft]

102. That was my point

[redqueen]

104. Eh?

If DK understands that there are things a candidate has to stay away from, why would he be happy about the timing of this controversy?

[soleft]

105. Not the timing of the controversy - the timing of the cessation

of denying civil rights to gltbs.

I would imagine Kucinich would advocate gay rights any time any place regardless of whether it was policitically expedient to do so.

[redqueen]

106. We'll just have to agree to disagree then

IMO his statement that Kerry was restricted in what he could and couldn't say was an acknowledgement of the circumstances that define this as the absolute wrong time to bring this issue to the forefront.

[mobuto]

11. Very Rumsfeldian, no?

Syntax, syntax.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Mass. made this an issue by ruling that gay marriage is a constitutional right. It would have been nice if they had done that not in an election year, but you try telling that to a Court.

Whether we like it or not its an issue, and I think we just have to remember that regardless of what happens, gays and lesbians are going to wind up with vastly more rights than they had just a year ago.

[dsc]

9. well gee, I should be so happy

I am honestly wondering if all of the pro choicers lecturing me on this would accept for one nano second Kerry stating he was against partial birth abortion but in favor of abortion all the rest of the time. Somehow I really, really, really doubt it.

[JI7]

13. pro gay marriage group is not a strong voting bloc

the abortion rights groups are in terms of voting and money. the nra is also.

[dsc]

16. that just plain isn't true

LGBT voters are actually more faithful than people who identify as pro choice. The only difference is that there are more of them.

[JI7]

24. yes, we need to get more PEOPLE to support gay marriage

and then show the politicians we are willing to help in terms of voting, volunteering, money etc if they support it. and just as all prochoice people are not female and include many men, the pro gay marriage side needs to get everyone on their side. and there are some gays who don't care for gay marriage and other gay rights issues as can be seen with bush getting 25 percent of the votes in 2000 and the log cabin organization. for now most of the country opposes same sex marriage which is why bush wants it to be an issue and brought up the anti gay amendment. just look at the polls in support of bush, there is no outrage at him for supporting that amendment.

[mobuto]

14. I don't agree with Kerry on this

I personally don't think civil unions are enough. But we live in the real world, and if it isn't politically possible yet for most politicians to support gay marriage in Massachusetts, it sure as hell isn't nationwide.

[dsc]

18. they did before Kerry opened his mouth

this amendment failed before he endorsed it. BTW every poll I have seen shows gay marriage is favored by a majority of MA voters.

[mobuto]

27. Then you haven't seen many polls

Try looking at Zogby 1/04.

After the Supreme Judicial Court made it clear that it would not accept civil unions in lieu of marriage, there was never any doubt what the legislature would do. The only question was which Amendment would be passed.

[dsc]

31. Is that a MA poll?

Those are the only ones that count.

[mobuto]

34. Yes a Massachusetts poll

Shows a majority favoring the Constitutinoal Amendment.

[dsc]

35. Then why did they all fail before Kerry opened his trap

did they forget they wanted to vote for them?

[mobuto]

37. Um

You seem to be confusing things. Various factions in the legislature have been fighting over different versions of the Amendment and there's been a lot of horse-trading. Votes have been going back and forth on an hourly basis. For a time, some thought they could avoid an Amendment if they simply legalized civil unions, but the Supreme Judicial Court said no. Its simplistic to "blame" Kerry.

[TheDonkey]

2. What has Kennedy done about this issue?

The amendment also still has a chance to be shot down by the people.

[dsc]

5. On MTP he stated unambiguous support for gay marriage

I have no idea what effort he has put into that position in MA.

[meegbear]

3. Kerry is a not part of the Massachusetts legislature

so no, you are not allowed to be angry at Kerry now.

[dsc]

12. If his public pronouncement had no effect on the legislature

then he is a stunningly unpopular man in MA. Which is absurd.

[JI7]

17. well, he did have tough elections

so i guess not very popular compared to some.

[dsc]

19. He had no Republican opponent in 2002

just how tough is that. He had one, and only one, tough election as a Senator. He lost one for Congress at a very young age. Every other race he won handedly and had no real fear of losing.

[KissMyAsscroft]

4. This is the problem with liberals.

Shortsighted, impatient.

We want it all now, or we will take our ball and go home.

Meanwhile we are dealing with people with the mentality of Rumsfeld.

Patience people, patience. Strategize, pick your battles, be relentless, never give up....

[redqueen]

42. No, not liberals

...so much generalization.

I think it's more a product of our drive-thru instant gratification society.

ECS and SBA spent their entire lives working for women's suffrage.

[JI7]

6. you can be mad at him all you want

[bearfartinthewoods]

8. the line forms on my left................

grrrrr...................

[emulatorloo]

15. I did not know Kerry was serving in the Massachusetts Legislature!

I thought he was a US Senator. . .

When did that happen?

[dsc]

21. what is your explanation for the change?

I mean really. Two days before his endorsement the amendment loses by 2. After he endorses it it wins by 7. Did the votes fall out of the sky?

[WilliamPitt]

22. Tom Finneran

[dsc]

26. He was against from day one

was he not?

[emulatorloo]

79. Mass Legislators negotiating with each other in the Mass Legislature?

That's usually how bills get passed. . .

At any rate, if you want to be mad at Kerry, be mad at Kerry, although I doubt that he has time now to fool w the Mass Legislature given the other stuff he has to do right now.

I will remind you that George Bush is neither for Gay Marriage or Civil Unions or Full Partnership Rights or Protecting GBLT families in any shape or form.

I believe that John Kerry is hung up on the term marriage, and I think at some point he will be talked out of that hang up. His wife has already given interviews saying that people are going to get used to the idea of gay marriage.

[WilliamPitt]

20. Kerry serves in the MA State Legislature?

I knew he was a powerful man, but I had no idea he controlled Tom Finneran and the MA state legislature. All that and running for President, too.

Seriously, this pisses me off as well. Massachusetts is an odd state. We're considered 'liberal, and in many ways we are. But Massachusetts liberalism has a deep vein of cultural conservatism. Most of our liberals outside of Cambridge wear blue collars, and those folks fall on the Right when it comes to issues like this.

And that isn't Kerry's fault either.

[dsc]

25. Where, oh where did the votes come from?

The House leader was against from day one. Yet it lost by 2, Kerry endorses it, it wins by 7. Did the votes fall out of the sky? I know that if Glenn went around saying the state legislature should do x he would have been able to say 9 votes in Ohio. I find it beyond hard to believe Kerry didn't have the same effect.

[WilliamPitt]

29. You're asking people to prove a negative

Before you lay this situation on Kerry, you should try to find an iota of proof to back your assertion. I don't know if Kerry had a hand in this, so I can say nothing to refute your charge. But you don't know, either. Ergo, you're flinging an accusation with no basis.

By the way, I stopped beating my wife.

[dsc]

30. So which is it?

You have now given two totally different answers to the question I asked. Above you name a specific person, now that I have pointed out he was opposed from day one, you have a new tack. Kerry is a statewide elected official. It is pretty absurd to say he had no effect.

[WilliamPitt]

32. Like I said above, I don't know

Guess what? Neither do you.

I do know this: Finneran is a snake. Whatever public statements he said have to be taken with an acre of salt. He could well have engineered these votes behind closed doors while maintaining a public face against it.

See? I can wing accusations without proof, too. It's really, really easy.

[dsc]

33. He was against gay marriage, not the amendment

which is exactly what you knew I meant. So again, where oh where did those votes come from. Given you complete inability to name any other interviening act, I think we know the answer.

[WilliamPitt]

38. Given you complete inability to offer proof of your accusation

I think we don't.

[dsc]

41. Were you telling a story you liked before or are you telling one you like

now? The first time I asked you said the House Leader's name. Not maybe the house leader, not perhaps, but his name. You got called on it, and now you don't know. You did then, now you don't. Are you being honest now or were you being honest then?

[WilliamPitt]

62. I think you're just looking for a fight, but I'll answer anyway

You posited a theory cloaked as an accusation. To wit: Kerry engineered the vote in the MA state legislature. You offered no proof of this beyond the fact that a vote took place.

I put forward the name of Tom Finneran. When anything happens within the MA state legislature, it is always a safe bet that Finneran had a hand in it. The man could give Machiavelli lessons in fucking people over while keeping a smile.

Of course, I had no proof for my supposition, either. But here is the difference. You came in flinging accusations without proof. Yet somehow you attempt to maintain a sense of superiority over someone (me) who did the same thing.

Do you have any proof to back your claim?

Anyone who knows anything about Massachusetts politics knows that, if something weird happened in the legislature, Finneran was involved. Kerry is not a power in Massachusetts. Kennedy has cornered the hail-fellow-well-met retail politics market here. That's why Kerry focused on national politics and foreign policy a long time ago. He would have been peeing in Kennedy's pond had he tried to elbow into the local game.

Objectively, my theory carries a hell of a lot more basis in Massachusetts political fact than yours. But at the end of the day, I have no more proof than you do.

I'm not the one making accusations, though. Dodge it as you will, but the burden is on you to prove what you are saying. Simply making statements is not proof.

[dsc]

66. Yes you were

Unless you, an author, can't find maybe on your typewriter. You didn't say maybe he did it, possible he did it, or anything like that. You said he did it.

As to the rest, you have one, and only one, notable change in MA since December on this issue. That was Kerry's endorsment of the amendment. Tom Finneran was against gay marriage from day one.

While I am sure Kennedy has a deeper organization in MA it is totally absurd to state that Kerry has none. Kerry was elected state wide 5 times (Lt Gov and 4 Senate races). There is no way he did that without having some organization and building up some favors owed to him.

[nickinSTL]

23. Kerry=MA legislature?

This doesn't say anything about Kerry. It says something about the MA legislature.

Sure, Kerry has voiced support for basically the same thing, but he's still NOT responsible for what the MA legislature does.

And Kerry is running nationwide, not just in MA.

[dsc]

28. again where, oh where did the votes come from?

This inquiring mind would like to know.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

36. The votes came from the MA Legislature

As has been pointed out several times, Kerry is not a member of the MA Legislature.

Moot point.

[dsc]

39. and why did they change their minds?

death rays from Mars? messages from the fillings in their teeth? voices in their heads? Before Kerry opened his mouth, the amendment failed, after it passed.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. Good point. we don't know why they changed their minds so you are

speculating under the pretense that you are right.

[dsc]

48. Name just one other intervening event

Go ahead.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

51. Nope...I don't have to because you can't make your case

You can simply assign cause out of an assumption without considering all the media and advocacy orgs from both sides putting pressure on the state legislature.

[dsc]

57. funny over and over we hear that Dean would cause Kerry to lose

by not endorsing him. Yet here, we have a case where Kerry endorsed this measure. He did so in clear, unambiguous terms, yet he is not at fault. So which is it? Do endorsments matter or don't they? Or do they only matter when you want them to?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

67. Hmmm..bringing Dean into it only proves my point..this really isn't about

Kerry..it's about a bunch of crybabies whose candidate lost demonstrating as much hatred for kerry as they can over their candidate's FAILED campaign.

[dsc]

71. I brought him up to show how inconsistent you are

For weeks we heard that Dean would be responsible for a Kerry loss if he didn't endorse the man. And yes, you were among those who said this. Now, when Kerry endorses something, it doesn't matter. Which is it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. I never said that either so there's another statement you imagined

or extrapolated out of something that was never said...you aren't using my words against me, you are using your innacurate interpretation of my words...a bad debate skill and an even worse listening skill. In essence, you are having an argument between you and your interpretation of what I said...I don't even factor into this.

[dsc]

84. sadly I can't search for that one

but lets look at the record in this thread. You claimed you didn't defend the 90% figure, yet I find a place where a person demands a link for that figure and you tell him if he weren't ignorant he wouldn't need a link. Then you claimed you hadn't called me a liar, which is technically true, then when I quoted you as saying I made something up, you stated you hadn't said it. Post 52 shows you did. So I am two for two. I can't search for the third.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

89. what does "if you had been following the issue mean"

I mean give me a treatise on the difference between ignorant and "not following an issue"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. Well one is following an issue and the other is ignorance :-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

96. The point I was making was that the public was againsr marriage

by a large margin but for civil unions. Is it not calling someone a liar to claim they said things they never said?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. Look you already don't like Kerry so it follows

that you would irrationally blame him for a vote by a legislature of which he is not a part. Why not place the blame where it squarely belongs with the Republicans who like issues like this so that they may divide?

[dsc]

46. actually the only body in MA that is Republican controlled

voted for gay marriage. I am referring to the Supreme court. Both the court itself and the majority decision had a majority Republican vote. BTW you evidently didn't read or puposely ignored the fact I WILL VOTE FOR KERRY I hope you saw it this time. Hint it is the bold, underlined, italicized and capitalized text. BTW I as still waiting for the citation of any poll with 90% against gay marriage.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. And I will await you demonstrating that I ever said 90% were against

Please tag your fucking responses and demands onto the post of the person that actually made the statement.


I didn't ...my response in that thread was to H Fishbine...I was not defending the 90% figure...please go back and read so that you may make demands of the proper individual.

I still await your response to my PM responding to you wherein you inform me you have lost all respect for me. I answered you in earnest.

See, Dave? Two can play DEMAND A RESPONSE

[dsc]

50. you most certainly did

or else maybe you need to take your own advice. A person asked for a poll to back that figure up and you told him "If you knew anything about this issue you wouldn't need a link" Don't tell stories you like about what I posted. Oh and I will site this you can count on it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. I said polls were AGAINST marriage I did NOT defend the 90%

figure...again..you are MAKING that up...

GO ahead and cite it..all it will prove is that I didn't say it. This is what you do when you can't prove your point...you TAKE what someone says and twist it to make your point...why should I worry that I have lost the respect of someone who behaves like that?

[dsc]

54. Here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x485000#485392

Here is post 11 (in its entirety)

"90% against GLBT marriage "


You have a source for that?



This is your post 24, in direct response

Polls are overwhelmingly against gay marriage but FOR civil unions


You don't need a link..if you have been following the issue you know that already.



He asked for a link for 90% of the population being against gay marriage. You stated, in clear, unambiguous words, that he didn't need a link but for his ignorance. Now maybe where you come from that is not backing up the idea that 90% of the people are against gay marriage but here on planet earth it is.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

64. Just what did I add to those quotes

You accused me of lying you need to back it up. If I added a syllable to that quote you need to put it forth now or apologize. I am sick of you calling me a liar for point out your own words.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. Where did I call you a liar? see? You're doing it again.

I say I DIDN'T SAY something that I didn't say. Informing you of that fact seems to be calling you a liar even though I didn't say you are a liar. Do you not see your own behavior in the matter?

I'm going to back off from this conversation before you embarass yourself more

[dsc]

68. You accused me of

adding words you didn't say, making things up. Now maybe those aren't lying to you but somehow I think if you told a client to make things up on the stand you would be sitting in jail for suborning perjury.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. LOL! In court a judge would be clear I never said 90%

Please continue to have it both ways with this hysterical excuse for a debate.

Real simple PAL..YOU SAID I SAID SOMETHING I DIDN'T SAY,...YOU CONTINUE TO ARGUE THAT I SAID IT WHEN I DIDN'T.

There's a word for people who see things that aren't there.

[dsc]

72. Post 52

You said this

you are MAKING that up...

Now you tell me. Did you say that or didn't you? Would you call that calling a person a liar or not? Those are your, unaltered words. So which is it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. I didn't say it. I am not saying you are a liar. I am saying you see

things that aren't there. Not all people who see things that aren't there are liars.

[dsc]

83. This is post 52 in its entirety

I said polls were AGAINST marriage I did NOT defend the 90%

Edited on Tue Mar-30-04 02:39 PM by nothingshocksmeanymo
figure...again..you are MAKING that up...

GO ahead and cite it..all it will prove is that I didn't say it. This is what you do when you can't prove your point...you TAKE what someone says and twist it to make your point...why should I worry that I have lost the respect of someone who behaves like that?



end of quote.

You used the words making it up. Are you now claiming that making it up isn't lying?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

85. Either way..I didn't say it...make your own conclusion..you can be counted

on for that

[dsc]

87. Yes you did

You said "You are making it up" How in God's name can you claim you haven't said it.

[mitchum]

107. Ah, there it is (the demand for an apology)

as surely as the sun rises in the east...

[rumguy]

113. LOL!!!!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. OK let's look at this

Polls are overwhelmingly against gay marriage but FOR civil unions ..what that means is that polls are overwhelmingly against gay marriage and for civil unions..since that is what I said, that is what I meant.


You don't need a link..if you have been following the issue you know that already.
This sentence follows the first sentence. What it means is that if one is following the issue they know polls are overwhelmingly against gay marriage but for civil unions.

So..no nowhere did I say 90%

Now as for you...are you accusing me of being an illegal alien? Aren't people who aren't on planet earth aliens? Isn't that illegal to be an alien in America? There's some of your own logic used right back on you. Hit the alert.

[xchrom]

45. being mad at the democratic candidate

is definetly not allowed.
and yes -- of course you can't prove those votes jumped over to the anti-gay marriage side because kerry said something.
but if lamda said gay folk stay home on election day and we did -- do you think any one would think it was because lamnda said something?

[dsc]

47. No of course not

They wouldn't think that.

[seaglass]

53. They were two different amendments. People vote differently

on different amendments.

[dsc]

55. they were virtually the same

The only difference is the coupling of the issue.

[seaglass]

63. No. The Finneran amendment banned gay marriage and said

civil unions COULD be created at a later date if lawmakers so decided - there was NO guarantee.

The amendment that passed immediately recognized civil unions and the state rights that go with them.

In addition the Finneran amendment failed because he was only supposed to give a speech and instead pulled a fast one and introduced an amendment - lawmakers were bullshit.

[dsc]

70. that isn't the one I was referring to

I was referring to one by a Senator. I will look it up if time permits.

[seaglass]

76. I think you should take the time since your entire argument is

based on this.

The Finneran amendment lost by 2 votes.

[dsc]

97. sorry but I am done with this

I know you didn't behave this way but I have been called all kinds of names and everything else. I honestly don't give a shit anymore. Again you have a reasonable question but frankly if I am to have any hope of giving even one shit about Kerry I need to leave this place now.

[WilliamPitt]

98. OK then

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

58. self deleted

[redqueen]

61. Well they're only answering your question

In their opinion, you cannot be mad at him for this particular event.

:shrug:

[dsc]

73. No she called me a name

that is supposed to be against the rules. Evidently not.

[WilliamPitt]

74. What name?

[dsc]

75. Kerry hater

which is last I checked a name.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

88. Alert must be broken

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x16073

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

81. I agree that kind of thing isn't helpful

I don't think it's fair, but whaddaya goona do? You know how this board is lately. Tensions are high.

I think you have every right to be mad at him. Hope this squabble ends soon.

:hug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. I still believe this thread demonstrates that some people have a double

standard where Kerry is concerned. Dean never campaigned on gay marriage..nor did Kerry. There is no evidence that Kerry had anything to do with this vote and only someone unwilling to objectively assess Kerry could come to that conclusion.

[Cocoa]

59. of course you can.

If you want to be mad at anyone, you can always find plenty of reasons. Knock yourself out.

[jpgray]

90. dsc knows this--the thread is a springboard for internecine battles

He can be mad whenever he wants to at whatever he wants to. The reasons he posted a thread here about it are open to speculation. The reasons he blames Kerry for a MA state legislative decision are also open to speculation.

[rumguy]

114. yep

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

100. Oh come ON! He used the word MAD

If he was concerned he should have used the word ANGRY.

This is shit..you let someone start a flame war and when he gets what he gives..you HUMOR HIM???

[ButterflyBlood]

103. If I'm not mistaken...

the amendment that failed by 2 would ban gay marriage and was neutral on civil unions, while it allowed them, it didn't require them. this one requires them, so they are not identical.

[curse10]

108. That's logical

:eyes:

Kerry is not the Mass legislature. And, IIRC, you aren't even a Mass resident. You have no idea what's been going on here. I've been at the protests. I've seen the other side and their hordes. You assume WAY too much and give Kerry way too much responsibility and power for someone that clearly despises the man.

Am I upset about the amendment? You bet I am. But the fight isn't even over. It goes to the voters in 2006. If Mass really wants gay marriage we know what to do. And it doesn't matter what Kerry says about it.

[Nicholas_J]

109. Depends

On whetther you think that in order to suport gay rights, the Democratic Party should throw in the towel anj just hand the keys to the White House over to Bush for the next four years. You well know that taking a pro gay marriage stance will simply place Bush in the White House again for four years. I have just been discussin this issue with a gay friend who has been a freind for 32 years, and he was stopped by the newsmedia and openly stated his opposition to gay marriage in front of the T.V. cameras in the New York City area. I didnt get it until he explained that hes stance was he'd rather let gay marriage go for a while in order to get Bush out, and risk having what rights he'd already attained reversed. I absolutely could not understand his opposition to gay marriage, but his explanation was more than enough.

[xchrom]

110. okey dokey then

we'll stand over here in the closet while you all trudge off to the voting booths.
and having just about nothing but gay friends{comes from being gay myself} -- i know not one, not one who opposes gay marriage on the idea they'd rather get bush out.

[Nicholas_J]

111. I know several

The friend I quoted, is against it on strategic grounds. DO you let Bush win over it.

My sister does for the same reasons.

So I know two, and bet there are more who would rather see Bush out, than risk a permanent amendment preventing gay marriage, and giving Bush four years to accomplish it, as wells as to make it an issue to draw back on other laws protecting gay rights. Many localities have laws protecting gays in the workplace. All it takes is federal legislation to overturn every city or county that has laws that allow the significant others of gays to be benficiaries on their pensions, as well as to purchasd health insurance for significant others, and many other benefits that gays receive in local communities could be overturned with the swipe of a pen by the Bush administration. Federal laws over-ride local ones, and we already see Bush trying to get rid of overtime laws that he claims burdend big business. So do local laws requiring governments or businesses to cover the significant others of gays. Cut down significantly on expenses for health benefits, or to pay out survivors benefits out of pension plans.

Making gay marriage a main issue among democrats is one of Bush's dreams, and that is clearly seen by the fact that he decided to bring up the Federal Amendment banning gay sex marriages right now.

He can win on that one wedge issue without a problem if any democratic candidate falls into the trap of supporting it.

I knew my friend was very intelligence, and I had to argue with hm to explain his position for some time. He didnt want to discuss it, and was interviewd by television in the New York city area, told the reporters he was gay, and told them he opposed gay marriage and saidf he didnt want to discuss it furtther with them.

I didnt think my sister had the ability to think that far about something that effected her personally in that manner, but She surprised me as well.

To think otherwise is to beleive that Bush will be just as gay friendly as the democratic party.

[xchrom]

112. the democratic party is as friendly as gay folk

make it.
no more no less.
your response about your anecdotal gay friends -- floors me.
doesn't it sound familiar to you? i.e. i have some black friends?
hello? to me that crap is homophobic and sexist.
and consider that your friend might have some issues with self loathing.

[Nicholas_J]

115. Definitely no self loathing problems

but I expected that as a response. No in fact we were discussing the years ago and his "self loatthing " of that period, and going over the events that put a complete end to self loathing. It is a very common response among those who here gays citing opinions that they do not like, just as not agreeing with gays on all issues has frequently results in being labeled a homophobe.

Sorry no more anecdotal than your citing your personal opinion of not knowing one gay who opposes gay marriage. I worked in a carreer and in an area that had a high percentage of gays in the job, in fact, in the location I worked more males were gay in the profession than not and in fact because I was in the profession, and working in the area I was working in, It was frequently asumed that I was gay. In fact, since I am relatively a loner in my private life. I spend far more time in the company of gays than straight people.

Sorry, I think an actual statistical analysis would likely find that far more gays oppose the issue of gay marriage as a strategic necessity than you would imagine. I know many who do.

In fact, I am willing to be that gays are no more monolithic in what they support and what they do not support than any other particular group, just as there are blacks, latinos amd women who oppose affirmative action, and other programs that have assisted blacks, and latinos and women.


I am rather glad that my friend responsed in the way he did, as it disabused me of a hidden bias I had. That all gays support the same things, and that if they do not, there is something wrong with them which is I have seen as a kind of gay bashing among gays.

[DaveSZ]

116. Kerry's thoughts on civil rights:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36386-2004Mar30.html


"Yet in speeches, Kerry is often harshly critical of Bush. At a fundraiser Monday night in San Francisco, Kerry said, "It is a disgrace that this president and his party traffic in prejudice against gays and lesbians and others in this country." Wade said the "others" includes African-Americans, citing Bush's position on affirmative action and appearance at Bob Jones University in 2000. As proof of Bush's prejudice against gays, Wade pointed to the president's backing of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages."


As others have pointed out, only a year or two ago, civil unions for gays and lesbians would have been unthinkable and now about half the country supports them.

Just give it some time. I know Kerry is on the right side of this issue, and remember if Bush packs the courts there will be no such thing as "civil rights" or "gay rights."

[Moderator]

117. Locking

too many PAs