Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do you support the rights of LGBT citizens of the United States to be legally married?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:36 PM
Original message
Poll question: Do you support the rights of LGBT citizens of the United States to be legally married?
Humor me. I am deeply curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. I support civil rights
yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
70. Yes they deserve to be as miserable as anyone else
Edited on Thu Dec-18-08 06:45 PM by Vincardog
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #70
79. Absolutely. All consenting adults should have the opportunity to experience the joy of divorce.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. I support civil rights
the word marriage carrys with it too much dogma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:41 PM
Original message
but marriage affords more rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
33. Well make them the same just don't make my homophobe neighbor have to share his marriage
and you'd get a lot further if you ask me. Rights are something that can be legislated where as changing his old bigoted ass is nigh on impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. so you support civil unions for gay folks as long as it isnt called marriage?
and has the same rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #35
48. The back of the bus gets you where you're going, just like the front of the bus.
Or so some seem to feel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. easy now mondo
lets not be reading more in than there is ok. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. I think my statement was well deserved.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
52. No I support whatever the gay community wants just as sure as if I was gay myself
I was talking about people like my neighbor not me. I have no problems with any of it. I have a dear family friend who has been in the closet for his whole life, I'd like to see him be able to come out. It can't be good for someone to be living a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #33
74. You actually can't do that -
or at least it takes about a hundred times as much work - but I'm getting really tired of explaining it over and over again.

Here's the "brief" synopsis.

Marriage is a creature of political jurisdiction (there are more than 50 definitions of marriage in the U.S. alone, for example. Each country - or in some instances sub-jurisdictions - creates its own definition of marriage.

Despite the fact that each definition is different in each jurisdiction(as are the rights and responsibilities associated with the status of marriage), over decades, by virtue of uncounted court decisions, an intricate interstate/international/intranational relationship has been created among the various laws (definitions, rights, and responsibilities).

If I marry in Ohio, I don't have to re-marry when I move to Nevada - or Mexico. My new home "adopts" the governmental rights and responsibilities in my marriage. I may not have the same rights and responsibilities - but I get whatever rights and responsibilities my new residence would have granted me if I had married there. If I get divorced in Nevada, I don't have to re-divorce in Ohio (or Mexico) just because the divorce happened in a different state - and if my divorce decree requires that my spouse make payments to me or our child, (for the most part) my spouse can't escape it by moving to another state or country. When I file my federal taxes in Nevada, even though I got married in Ohio, I can still file married because Nevada treats me as married even though they had nothing to do with creating the marriage; the federal government treats me as married because my state of residence (Nevada) treats me as married.

Absolutely NONE of that applies to domestic partnerships or civil unions, which do not exist universally, and have no recognized rights and responsibilities outside the boundary of the state that created them - either in other states, or within the federal law. If I have a civil union in Ohio, I have nothing when I move to Nevada or Mexico. If I have a civil union, I am not even considered related by the federal government for tax purposes within Ohio - let alone when I move to Nevada or Mexico. Divorce (or whatever the equivalent is) - forget trying to sort that out. If a jurisdiction doesn't even recognize a relationship exists, how do they end it?

You can't just snap your fingers and create a multi-national set of laws and relationships between the independent jurisdictional laws for a new legal relationship - it takes decades of legislation and litigation. And - if you don't do all of that, it isn't equal anyway so your basic premise is not satisfied - that it is okay if they really are equal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ctaylors6 Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #74
104. DOMA
I have a technical question. Isn't it DOMA that creates the problems you listed? If all states had a legal definition of civil union like Vermont (which I pasted below), and Congress passed a law that said civil unions will be given full, faith, and credit among the states, what differences in legal rights would remain between civil unions and marriage? (And yes, I realize those are huge IFs)

Vermont § 1204. BENEFITS, PROTECTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES TO A CIVIL UNION: (a) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.

I want to state clearly that I support gay marriage, but I want to make sure I have a correct understanding of legal implications of various state civil union laws and interaction with federal law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #33
84. Why would he have to share his marriage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #33
97. Translation:
Just don't make my homophobic ass have to accept that you're a human being just like I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celeborn Skywalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. Absolutely!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. I suspect any "no" votes you get are going to be pranksters.
I doubt anybody who's on DU is going to be against gay marriage. (Which is what I assume you mean, since anybody can be "legally married" to a member of the opposite sex.)

The temper tantrums and random accusations of anti-gay bias being thrown around are really a measure of the juvenile behavior some people will engage in, rather than actual reflections of DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Or people attempting to justify their wild-eyed claims of homophobia on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. From the responses to the many threads about Warren, I doubt that all DUers support
gay marriage. If they did, why the rationalization and defense of bigotry?

If those Warren-defenders are truthful, and answer the poll, there will be plenty of NO votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_bryanto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Or those people (like me) carping about that restaurant out in California, I suppose
Let's declare an end to shades of gray.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. You can doubt all you want. You'd be wrong.
It simply means that many of us don't have fits over trivia that has no lasting impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
31. I was curious as to whether any of them would be truthful n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
32. I'm an Obama-defender, not a Warren-defender, AND
Edited on Thu Dec-18-08 05:01 PM by Terran
I'm gay. So take your black and white view of this matter and shove it.

edit: AND I support same-sex marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #4
93. don't be too sure about that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Without hesitation.
Most certainly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. Of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. Absolutely..n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
9. Without question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. Yes, without equivocation...(nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
11. I also support a constitutional amendment banning divorce amongst christians
I think certain groups should be singled out and the constitution used as a weapon against them (thats just me making fun of idiots with conservative values.) And I am all for the sanctity of marriage. If christians were too my amendment would not be necessary.

Zealots, stay the fuck out of other people's pants, ya perverts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vanje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
13. I'm doubting anyone will have the stones to click NO -- and identify themselves.
Funny how so many agree with your question, but how so many also can forgive the bigotry of denial of this right.

Cognitive dissonance...or is it simply "weak" support for our gay friends and neighbors vis a vis this issue? After all, if it's not your ox being gored, it's easy for some to mitigate, excuse and pretend it's not that big a deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. No, people think it's not a big deal because it's not a big deal.
Is Warren being made President? Is he writing legislation? Is he going to have a cabinet post? No. He's going to give a short, bland invocation as a reward for being one of the few evangelicals with actual social conscience. It's completely symbolic, yet people are still getting their knickers in a twist over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #27
45. He's a symbol. And a signal. If it's not a big deal, why are so many upset, hmmm?
When people get upset, it IS a big deal. No matter how much you and others try to mitigate it and shove those gay people and their friends back under that bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolann Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #45
89. Good for you...
that damn bus is just getting higher and higher (like a little kid's peas under his plate). Eventually the bus gets so high that regular people can see it at eye level. Then what? I'm so damn mad at Obama's choice for the inaugural blessing that I could spit nails. Just when he had a chance to show that he really did believe in diversity, he blew it...and for what? To pacify a bunch of homophobic assholes who constitute the far right of the country. I gave money and time to Obama and I am MAD AS HELL! And I'm not going to go away, either. It's outrageous that Warren gets picked out of literally THOUSANDS of ministers to give a BLESSING? Yeah, right, Obama's really into diversity. He'll never get another dime or another minute from me!

And BTW: I'm a white female married to the same man for 43 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
15. I support Civil Unions for EVERYONE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. And what are you doing to acheive that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
67. Same here.
The fundies are correct when they state that marriage is primarily a traditional religious thing. I want to see a system where any couple, regardless of relationship type or sexual orientation, can join pool assets and gain common legal rights of visitation and survivorship.

Leave marriage to the churches and strip it of legal recognition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. I don't think that's true.

A lot of moderates and atheists enjoy and honor their marriages, and won't be thrilled to have anyone try to take the institution away. Also, it isn't only fundies who are homophobic; there are plenty of free agent bigots around who don't want to share equal civil union status with gay people either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
16. The people of DU have spoken. 45-0.
Time to invoke the Little League "slaughter rule" (officailly the "mercy rule")!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
18. Worth a kick and a rec.
And I'll get me some :popcorn: and :beer: and hang out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
20. It's in the Consitution...
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

And what could be more happy than meeting and marrying the person of your dreams and spending your life together?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Declaration of Independence
no legal weight like the constitution but it provides an example of the moral character that the founding fathers had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. Okay, "Declaration of Independence."
I knew it was one of the Big Three (and I'm not referring to Detroit).

Thanks! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #25
66. And their slaves too, no doubt

So long as voters are white property-owning men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #66
96. I think it was property owning that was important
so the rare black property owner could also vote, but yes, mostly the founding fathers had the idea that one could own blacks and kill natives. From what I read Benjamin Franklyn is an exception to some extent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
61. It actually is in the constitution. Loving vs Virginia
Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #61
102. Thanks for the clarification!
:hi:

From now on I'll just say "...it's in the 'Charters of Freedom!'"

More succinct...;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
21. K&R, President-Elect Obama should not give a wink and a nod...

to people who want to take away our Fundamental civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
23. Yes. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
24. Of course, why shouldn't gay people be miserable too?
Besides, if the anti-SSM lobby is opposed to gay sex then, presuming it works the same way as straight marriage, letting gay people get married leads to less gay fucking.


*ducks and runs*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
26. anything less would be discrimination
I live in France because my wife is French. This helped me have a residence card automatically and I had the nationality no problem after a few years. Had I fallen in love with a French man this would not have been possible unless we moved to a country in the EU that would have married us. Gay people deserve the same rights I have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
28. Of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kool Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
29. Yes, of course I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
30. Not
Unless they are called something else other than "LGBT citizens". I'm bigot against stupid acronyms. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
34. 100% Absolutely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
36. Other because
I have come to believe that government should not sanction the religious rites of any religion.

By giving extra rights and privileges to those that choose a participate in the religious rite of marriage they are showing preferential treatment over other beliefs.

Stop issuing marriage licenses, replace them with equal certificates of partnership and if some of those chose to go a step further and have that partnership sanctioned by a religious body they may but then are not afforded any special rights in so doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Government doesn't "sanction the religious rites of marriage".
Fail for stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. ok your stupid
If they only accept the marriages as defined by a certain religious viewpoint then they have sanctioned that form.

Many churches in America have married same sex couples but the state refuses to recognize those marriages with the same force of law as they do with those of same sex couples, ergo they give sanction to one belief over another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Let's look at why you're wrong:
"If they only accept the marriages as defined by a certain religious viewpoint then they have sanctioned that form."

That's not what happens. Only the state has the authority to license marriage for legal recognition. Some people choose to have a religious ceremony to officiate it as well, others choose a non religious officiator.

In either case, it's not the church rite that determines which marriages are legally recognized.

A church rite WITHOUT the state license is not a legal marriage.

A state marriage with no church rite IS a legal marriage.

So the state isn't sanctioning a religious rite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. You are right as far as you go but
one cannot get a same sex marriage sanctioned by the state because of pressure from religious institutions. If the pressure of one group with a particular religious belief can hold sway over the government and preclude a group of people from the rights and privileges afforded by "marriage" then that religious belief has been given privileged status by the state.

Better for the state to get out of the argument altogether. Issue a partnership license to any couple that seeks the rights and privileges afforded couples by the state.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. In other words, you misstated your case.
And you're still being foolish if you think the state issuing partnerships will work.

Firstly, the same people who don't want same sex marriage as well as many who do want it, will not simply give up their marriages for a "partnership".

Secondly, most of the same people who don't want same sex marriage don't want gay couples to have "partnertships" either, or any other legal recognition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_bryanto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #36
47. Totally agree n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #36
68. How does your theory explain common law marriage?
No church or religious instition is involved such arrangments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike 03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
38. Unequivocally, and without hesitation.
It's only right, and it's Constitutionally guaranteed, as far as I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TlalocW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
40. Yes, but you can't get divorced
Just kidding. You can get divorced, but you can't do "couples skate" at the local skating rink.

Just kidding again.

TlalocW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
41. Yes, of course
I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
42. 100%! 'Marriage' as defined by the state is a
Edited on Thu Dec-18-08 05:13 PM by beac
LEGAL contract and gives hundreds of rights and benefits that no citizen should be denied based on the gender of the person they choose to marry. The arguments on the other side about 'history' and 'tradition' are the same ones used to try and validate slavery, anti-miscegenation and segregation.

I am 100% certain that those who voted for Prop H8 and the like (and people who voted 'No' here-- WTH???) will be viewed no differently by history than the people who screamed at the kids desegregating their high school in Little Rock in 1957.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
46. This is pissing me off more and more
And how many of these dumbass bigots have been married more than once? Here's the real question, is the religious Reich renewing their attack on gays because they have lost the battle to deny women their right to choose? And if you say women haven't won it yet, with a Democratically controlled government, what are the chances of them losing the right to choose?


I think the Reich have switched targets, but they have no idea how much this is a loser for them in the long run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
49. there should be no question about it
absolutely support the right of consenting adults to marry and have the benefits marriage affords.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
50. Sure. Of course. But...
...I also support the rights of homophobes to be homophobes or whatever.

Personally. I don't have too much of a problem with gays, but sure, anybody should have the right to marry any another adult.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
54. Yes, I believe the First Amendment gives them the right
Edited on Thu Dec-18-08 05:34 PM by Uncle Joe
to be legally married.

The First Amendment says Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Justices of the peace, ship's captains, etc. can perform heterosexual marriages and yet these aren't referred to as civil unions, for one reason, there is no outcry from religious groups against them.

Congress recognizes marriage by our tax laws, and if they say only a man and woman can be married this is a de facto respecting of religion and seems to me to be unequal treatment of the law.

I also believe the Third, Fourth and Ninth Amendments reinforce that right by implicitly establishing privacy as a right of the people, not man, not woman, not man and woman, but the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
57. The two bigots need to get banned from DU now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. See post #4.
Twenty bucks says they're either pranksters or astroturfers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. I've seen people post plenty of times on here that they're against gay marriage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. thats why I posted the poll
wanted to see if people would be honest.
have seen a lot of homophobia on here lately. i guess i am sort of shocked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #65
76. Why don't you point out the homophobia?
Or just push the alert button? The mods will happily deal with it.

Of course, some people here are having trouble telling the difference between homophobia and not jumping on the Obama-bashing bandwagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #76
82. Pointing out the posts is against the DU rules
And a lot of the time, alerting doesn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #64
75. I think I've seen two people here in the last year who were actually against gay marriage.
95% of all the people I see here who talk about not wanting gay marriage are fixated on a point of sophistry, not wanting the government to sanction any kind of "marriage."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
58. Yes! A thousand times yes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lugnut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
60. Absolutely!
Anything less is unacceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
62. Yes, of course
K&R

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
63. Sure.. and divorce and re-marriage ad infinitum... equal is equal nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
69. I'm desperately trying to understand the logic of those who voted NO
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
71. As a matter of fact I do, Mari333.
For non-citizens too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
73. There wasn't an answer for me, even though I still clicked on one:
Where was:

"Hell yes, yes, a thousand times yes, and anyone that disagrees with me should take a running leap and go straight to hell in the proverbial hand basket?"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
77. Of course. "Separate but equal" will not suffice, the XIV amendment covers all of us. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
78. Other. Marriage for LGBT citizens of the U. S. is inevitable.
Prohibitions against same-sex marriage will collapse under the repeated activism of LGBT marriage advocates and the fact that in the present social context, they are becoming more and more of an anachronism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
80. Define support?
Do I think gay marriage should be legal?... Absolutely.

Do I think it's a "civil right" or is comparable to the CR movement of the 60's?... Hard to say, but probably not.

Would I vote for or against a certain candidate based on their position on the issue?... No. Whatever their position is (for or against), I wouldn't take it into consideration.

Would I march, protest or join in a boycott of businesses that contribute to anti-gay agendas?... No. I have no dog in this fight.

Quite honestly... I have no problem with GLBT people or gay marriage, but I place the issue as one of little or no importance to me.

There's much more important things to be concerned about right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
81. We're up to five bigots that need to be banned
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
83. You bet your sweet bippy I do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
85. Yes!!! Of course! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
86. Hell to the yes. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qanisqineq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
87. Yes
but after 8 years of marriage, I don't know why anyone would want to be. :P

kidding! maybe... :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
88. I'm against heteronormativity in all its forms
I'm against straight people getting married.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
90. Loudly, and with my time and money. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertoRoberti Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
91. No Marriage for Anyone!
I support for gay couples whatever rights straight couples have. Anything else is indefensible. But the government has no business giving ANYONE anything but a civil union! The only concern of the government is to define the rights and responsibilities of couples who enter into this arrangement. If anyone wants some further "sanctification," they should go to their church or cult or whatever.

In short: Marriage for all couples, or civil union for all couples!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertoRoberti Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
92. The Biblical definition of marriage
Always tell your fundamentalist friends: "I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, as a legal agreement between two men whereby one acquires ownership of the other's daughter or daughters."

I can't believe how often these Bible enthusiasts get away with saying "one man one woman" is the Biblical tradition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sultana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
94. YES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
95. Absolutely.
The only problem I see with gay marriage is that it will make divorce lawyers richer. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
98. Yes, completely
no marriages for straights, civil unions for others. Both the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 03:25 AM
Response to Original message
99. "Equality under the law"
If that's not a "yes", then I don't know what is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
100. yes
Completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
101. Yes, yes, yes, a thousand, a million, a billion, a trillion times yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
103. Yes, I do
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
105. yes n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Feb 13th 2025, 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC