The Republican party is going to dig itself a grave with the younger generations being alienated.
Fellows
You're spot on with this. The sub-24 group overwhelmingly supports gay marriage, something in the range of 70%. The GOP may win themselves some elections now on this issue, but they are most definitely shooting themselves in the foot for the long haul.
You think John Kerry is going to do anything? He was for gay marriage two years ago but then decided to run for president and switched his stance. John Kerry is a another typical do-nothing Democrat--a conservative. He might boot Bush out of office, but the status-quo will be maintained. There will not be federally recognized gay marriage and the gay rights movement will stagnate.
Well, I'm not sure how I'd feel if someone called for an amendment against me and my type in our founding document, the essence of our country. It's hard to imagine how I'd feel, but I think I'd consider it war, and I think I'd be pretty damn pissed.
it reminds me of a piece of a bob marley song (an adaptation of a speech given by ras tafari)
"until the philosophy which holds one [people] superior and another inferior is finally, and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war."
Since I live in Oakland I've had a chance to swing by SF city hall to say hi to the people wating in line to get married.
I wish every clueless bigot with a stupid devil cartoon of a gay person in his or her head could see this. It's one of the most moving things I've ever had a chance to experience. People from all over the country coming to celebrate their love and comittment in full light of day and with the full backing of, at least, the city that they're in.
Every few minutes someone gets a bouquet of flowers from "flowers from the heartland", a chain email that has proliferated like mad that encourages well wishers to wire flowers to random couples.
I encourage everyone to go to same sex marriage album (at the sf Chronicles web page). Look at these people. Look at those faces. Tell me you think they're wrong. Tell me you think what they are doing damages the institution of marriage.
I'm with Kirk-- if you worship a God who thinks this is a sin, then your God is a filthy hater, and so are you.
Is the Federal Marriage Amendment A Bait And Switch Game?
I've been thinking about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), whose text is available at the website of the Alliance for Marriage. The proposed text of the amendment reads:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
The Alliance for Marriage argues on their website that this language is designed to keep courts from imposing same sex marriage on the states, and to keep legislatures from passing laws authorizing same-sex marriage, but it does not prohibit state legislatures from passing laws creating civil unions for same-sex couples.
(snip)
If the FMA had been designed to do what its proponents claim it will do, it should have been drafted as follows:
Section 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Section 2. Nothing in the first section of this Article shall be construed to prevent either Congress or the legislatures of the several states from providing any other benefits, rights, or privileges, or combinations thereof, to unmarried couples or groups.
I understand this is an issue that brings out people's tempers and passions, but please for the love (or hate) of God (or whomever), don't go throwing around flame bait, and don't respond in kind!
I am glad to see some long-time Republicans re-evaluating things with regards to this year's election. Once I got out of high school and got a bigger taste of the real world (a taste that was definitely reinforced once I graduated and started working and "being out in the world more"), I realized that "voting down party lines" is just nuts.
I used to be so convinced (during the 80s) that the Republicans were the smarter party and better for the country and all that... and then I realized it's all just a big friggin game. The only people who make sense (from either party) are the ones with at least somewhat moderate thinking. People who don't "shoot down a bill" just because it was started by someone on the other side of the isle, but who vote on the merits of the bill (hopefully).
And that's how I try to pick the Governors, Senators and Congressional Reps and Presidential Candidates I vote for. Whichever candidate demonstrates the more capable mind / better ideas, gets my vote. I don't care what party they're affiliated with.
Vote for substance, not labels. Bush is a walking, talking label (Pro-Christian, Anti-Terror, Pro-Marriage, Pro-Taxcut) with absolutely no substance. Even guys like Kerry (who I generally wouldn't endorse) have more going for them. I listened to some of Edward's audio transcripts from the NYT this morning and HE seems a pretty straight talker on the issues.
Theres no question either would make a better President than Bush, and absent Tom Ridge maybe, they'd certainly appoint more respectable, open-minded people to their cabinet posts.
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
The Alliance for Marriage argues on their website that this language is designed to keep courts from imposing same sex marriage on the states, and to keep legislatures from passing laws authorizing same-sex marriage, but it does not prohibit state legislatures from passing laws creating civil unions for same-sex couples.
Yeah, it's a big lie. It clearly outlaws states from having even civil unions. It mentions state laws and says they can't require legal incidents of marital status. It couldn't be clearer.
I'm with Kirk-- if you worship a God who thinks this is a sin, then your God is a filthy hater, and so are you.
I was reading your post and then I see this... I would wish for people to remain civil and loving towards others. Some Christians hating gays getting married is wrong and gays hating Christians is wrong as well. Lets us not exchange hate for hate. The middle east has seen this fail since 1948. Why not instead shall we choose to love each other and stand up for what is right for all. Let us have the backbone to stand up for integrity and not accept bigotry where ever we tread.
Throwing hateful cheap shots around does nobody any good.
I am glad to see some long-time Republicans re-evaluating things with regards to this year's election. Once I got out of high school and got a bigger taste of the real world (a taste that was definitely reinforced once I graduated and started working and "being out in the world more"), I realized that "voting down party lines" is just nuts.
I used to be so convinced (during the 80s) that the Republicans were the smarter party and better for the country and all that... and then I realized it's all just a big friggin game. The only people who make sense (from either party) are the ones with at least somewhat moderate thinking. People who don't "shoot down a bill" just because it was started by someone on the other side of the isle, but who vote on the merits of the bill (hopefully).
And that's how I try to pick the Governors, Senators and Congressional Reps and Presidential Candidates I vote for. Whichever candidate demonstrates the more capable mind / better ideas, gets my vote. I don't care what party they're affiliated with.
Vote for substance, not labels. Bush is a walking, talking label with absolutely no substance. Even guys like Kerry (who I generally wouldn't endorse) have more going for them. I listened to some of Edward's audio transcripts from the NYT this morning and HE seems a pretty straight talker on the issues.
Theres no question either would make a better President than Bush, and absent Tom Ridge maybe, they'd certainly appoint more respectable, open-minded people to their cabinet posts.
This is also what I've been trying to say. Not that I'm superior to anyone here because of my age. It's just that if you live long enough you begin to see patterns that you've seen before. Especially in political matters.
Yes most definately vote for the best candidate! Republican, Democrat, or Independent ( in this particular case vote democrat since we all really would be much better off without Bush )!
I knew what GWB was like from the get go. Hell I'd rather have Nixon back than this guy! I really despised Nixon so that should tell you something. However at least Nixon was intelligent.
I was reading your post and then I see this... I would wish for people to remain civil and loving towards others. Some Christians hating gays getting married is wrong and gays hating Christians is wrong as well. Lets us not exchange hate for hate. The middle east has seen this fail since 1948. Why not instead shall we choose to love each other and stand up for what is right for all. Let us have the backbone to stand up for integrity and not accept bigotry where ever we tread.
Throwing hateful cheap shots around does nobody any good.
Fellows
I apologize Fellows. Going straight from the joy I saw at city hall to the grim reality of national politics made me particulary jumpy.
Well I should have known this would become a "pile on Bush" like every other thread does.
As I said, I'm not sure about an amendment. But, polling shows that 2/3 of the country (at least) opposes gay marriage. As for an amendment, it's pretty much a dead heat, poll-wise.
As for Bush being stupid to do this, I couldn't disagree more. From a political standpoint, this will further solidify his grasp on the Religous Right and the Bible Belt. It won't lose him any votes because anyone so opposed to this wouldn't have voted for Bush anyway. Yes, there may be those who like Bush otherwise and disagree with him here, but that's going to be a small number. Do you hoenstly think Karl Rove hasn't done the math on that one? It's a smart political move. Secondly, he now has put Kerry and Edwards on the defensive, forcing them to respond to his position rather than stake their own. They'll either have to be for or against, and I'm thinking Kerry will flop AGAIN and come out as "opposed" to the amendment. He pretty much has to if he's to get any of the more left-leaning liberal Democrats out there.
And finally, whether you think gays should be able to marry or not, what's with all the name calling? I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater". It's just that I feel we need certain social standards, and this is one of them. Gays should be able (and ARE able) to live their lives and be together...they just can't be married. Comparing this to things like Jim Crow is patently absurd.
Well I should have know this would become a "pile on Bush" like every other thread does.
As for Bush being stupid to do this, I couldn't disagree more. From a political standpoint, this will further solidify his grasp on the Religous Right and the Bible Belt. It won't lose him any votes because anyone so opposed to this wouldn't have voted for Bush anyway. It's a smart political move.
I think it is only natural that there is another thread about Bush. I mean come on Bush started this notion of an amendment.
As for your 2nd paragraph above, Who cares? Who cares if it is smart from a political standpoint? Who cares if it will further solidify his "grasp" on the religious right? Who cares if his stance will not lose him any votes?
I think what I am trying to get across to you SDW2001 (and this is coming from a former Bush supporter) is that after seeing Bush in office it is all about votes for Bush.
votes votes votes... votes over integrity at that.
I just have a little too much integrity to stomache the actions of Bush.
Yeah, I do have to agree that from a political standpoint, it is probably a good move for Bush. It'll get him a few more votes in the short run, and it forces the Democrats to declare their stance on the issue.
That doesn't change the fact that proposing an amendment like this makes Bush a jerk who wants nothing more than to bend the people of this country to his own personal belief system. If he had simply declared his stance on the issue, it wouldn't have spurred this discussion.
I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater".
Yes, it does. You hate me and everyone like me through your bigotted actions of deeming your relationship with some woman more valuable than my relationship with a man. But its all love. It's all equal. It's all valuable, and it should all be legally recognized in the same (or as close to the same) manner possible.
I am just as valuable as you. My relationship is just as valuable as that between any two heterosexuals. And anyone who argues otherwise is a filthy, bigoted monster, and I hope they die slowly and painfully.
Live and let live, until you **** with me and mine.
I was reading your post and then I see this... I would wish for people to remain civil and loving towards others.
Not possible when scum like Bush and his vacuous, evil supporters declare war on my very humanity.
Quote:
Some Christians hating gays getting married is wrong and gays hating Christians is wrong as well.
Fundamentalist Christians spread nothing but lies, loathing and evil. They are a danger to every innocent person in this world. Look at what their influence is leading Bush to do.
I will not hug those who would harm me. I have no more cheeks left to turn.
And finally, whether you think gays should be able to marry or not, what's with all the name calling? I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater". It's just that I feel we need certain social standards, and this is one of them. Gays should be able (and ARE able) to live their lives and be together...they just can't be married. Comparing this to things like Jim Crow is patently absurd"
Social standards? I thought people who live together for long periods of time and perhaps start families are SUPPOSED to get married... in the strictly "socially responsible" way...
What makes gays socailly substandard and unfit for marriage?
They can't make the exact same commitment as straight people?
What social standard are you maintaining by keeping them from marrying?
Comments
Originally posted by Fellowship
The Republican party is going to dig itself a grave with the younger generations being alienated.
Fellows
You're spot on with this. The sub-24 group overwhelmingly supports gay marriage, something in the range of 70%. The GOP may win themselves some elections now on this issue, but they are most definitely shooting themselves in the foot for the long haul.
Originally posted by Existence
You think John Kerry is going to do anything? He was for gay marriage two years ago but then decided to run for president and switched his stance. John Kerry is a another typical do-nothing Democrat--a conservative. He might boot Bush out of office, but the status-quo will be maintained. There will not be federally recognized gay marriage and the gay rights movement will stagnate.
Ralph Nader is the only one who is progressive.
www.votenader.org
We already have a big problem in the Whitehouse right now ( worse than Kerry ever could be ) and Nader isn't capable of defeating Bush.
That's it in a nutshell.
Originally posted by BRussell
Well, I'm not sure how I'd feel if someone called for an amendment against me and my type in our founding document, the essence of our country. It's hard to imagine how I'd feel, but I think I'd consider it war, and I think I'd be pretty damn pissed.
it reminds me of a piece of a bob marley song (an adaptation of a speech given by ras tafari)
"until the philosophy which holds one [people] superior and another inferior is finally, and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war."
I wish every clueless bigot with a stupid devil cartoon of a gay person in his or her head could see this. It's one of the most moving things I've ever had a chance to experience. People from all over the country coming to celebrate their love and comittment in full light of day and with the full backing of, at least, the city that they're in.
Every few minutes someone gets a bouquet of flowers from "flowers from the heartland", a chain email that has proliferated like mad that encourages well wishers to wire flowers to random couples.
I encourage everyone to go to same sex marriage album (at the sf Chronicles web page). Look at these people. Look at those faces. Tell me you think they're wrong. Tell me you think what they are doing damages the institution of marriage.
I'm with Kirk-- if you worship a God who thinks this is a sin, then your God is a filthy hater, and so are you.
Is the Federal Marriage Amendment A Bait And Switch Game?
I've been thinking about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), whose text is available at the website of the Alliance for Marriage. The proposed text of the amendment reads:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
The Alliance for Marriage argues on their website that this language is designed to keep courts from imposing same sex marriage on the states, and to keep legislatures from passing laws authorizing same-sex marriage, but it does not prohibit state legislatures from passing laws creating civil unions for same-sex couples.
(snip)
If the FMA had been designed to do what its proponents claim it will do, it should have been drafted as follows:
Section 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Section 2. Nothing in the first section of this Article shall be construed to prevent either Congress or the legislatures of the several states from providing any other benefits, rights, or privileges, or combinations thereof, to unmarried couples or groups.
Thanks!
I am glad to see some long-time Republicans re-evaluating things with regards to this year's election. Once I got out of high school and got a bigger taste of the real world (a taste that was definitely reinforced once I graduated and started working and "being out in the world more"), I realized that "voting down party lines" is just nuts.
I used to be so convinced (during the 80s) that the Republicans were the smarter party and better for the country and all that... and then I realized it's all just a big friggin game. The only people who make sense (from either party) are the ones with at least somewhat moderate thinking. People who don't "shoot down a bill" just because it was started by someone on the other side of the isle, but who vote on the merits of the bill (hopefully).
And that's how I try to pick the Governors, Senators and Congressional Reps and Presidential Candidates I vote for. Whichever candidate demonstrates the more capable mind / better ideas, gets my vote. I don't care what party they're affiliated with.
Vote for substance, not labels. Bush is a walking, talking label (Pro-Christian, Anti-Terror, Pro-Marriage, Pro-Taxcut) with absolutely no substance. Even guys like Kerry (who I generally wouldn't endorse) have more going for them. I listened to some of Edward's audio transcripts from the NYT this morning and HE seems a pretty straight talker on the issues.
Theres no question either would make a better President than Bush, and absent Tom Ridge maybe, they'd certainly appoint more respectable, open-minded people to their cabinet posts.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
The Alliance for Marriage argues on their website that this language is designed to keep courts from imposing same sex marriage on the states, and to keep legislatures from passing laws authorizing same-sex marriage, but it does not prohibit state legislatures from passing laws creating civil unions for same-sex couples.
Yeah, it's a big lie. It clearly outlaws states from having even civil unions. It mentions state laws and says they can't require legal incidents of marital status. It couldn't be clearer.
Originally posted by addabox
I'm with Kirk-- if you worship a God who thinks this is a sin, then your God is a filthy hater, and so are you.
I was reading your post and then I see this... I would wish for people to remain civil and loving towards others. Some Christians hating gays getting married is wrong and gays hating Christians is wrong as well. Lets us not exchange hate for hate. The middle east has seen this fail since 1948. Why not instead shall we choose to love each other and stand up for what is right for all. Let us have the backbone to stand up for integrity and not accept bigotry where ever we tread.
Throwing hateful cheap shots around does nobody any good.
Fellows
Originally posted by Moogs
To take the earlier tangent a bit further:
I am glad to see some long-time Republicans re-evaluating things with regards to this year's election. Once I got out of high school and got a bigger taste of the real world (a taste that was definitely reinforced once I graduated and started working and "being out in the world more"), I realized that "voting down party lines" is just nuts.
I used to be so convinced (during the 80s) that the Republicans were the smarter party and better for the country and all that... and then I realized it's all just a big friggin game. The only people who make sense (from either party) are the ones with at least somewhat moderate thinking. People who don't "shoot down a bill" just because it was started by someone on the other side of the isle, but who vote on the merits of the bill (hopefully).
And that's how I try to pick the Governors, Senators and Congressional Reps and Presidential Candidates I vote for. Whichever candidate demonstrates the more capable mind / better ideas, gets my vote. I don't care what party they're affiliated with.
Vote for substance, not labels. Bush is a walking, talking label with absolutely no substance. Even guys like Kerry (who I generally wouldn't endorse) have more going for them. I listened to some of Edward's audio transcripts from the NYT this morning and HE seems a pretty straight talker on the issues.
Theres no question either would make a better President than Bush, and absent Tom Ridge maybe, they'd certainly appoint more respectable, open-minded people to their cabinet posts.
This is also what I've been trying to say. Not that I'm superior to anyone here because of my age. It's just that if you live long enough you begin to see patterns that you've seen before. Especially in political matters.
Yes most definately vote for the best candidate! Republican, Democrat, or Independent ( in this particular case vote democrat since we all really would be much better off without Bush )!
I knew what GWB was like from the get go. Hell I'd rather have Nixon back than this guy! I really despised Nixon so that should tell you something. However at least Nixon was intelligent.
Originally posted by Fellowship
I was reading your post and then I see this... I would wish for people to remain civil and loving towards others. Some Christians hating gays getting married is wrong and gays hating Christians is wrong as well. Lets us not exchange hate for hate. The middle east has seen this fail since 1948. Why not instead shall we choose to love each other and stand up for what is right for all. Let us have the backbone to stand up for integrity and not accept bigotry where ever we tread.
Throwing hateful cheap shots around does nobody any good.
Fellows
I apologize Fellows. Going straight from the joy I saw at city hall to the grim reality of national politics made me particulary jumpy.
Thanks for the moderating council.
Originally posted by addabox
I apologize Fellows. Going straight from the joy I saw at city hall to the grim reality of national politics made me particulary jumpy.
I understand
As I said, I'm not sure about an amendment. But, polling shows that 2/3 of the country (at least) opposes gay marriage. As for an amendment, it's pretty much a dead heat, poll-wise.
As for Bush being stupid to do this, I couldn't disagree more. From a political standpoint, this will further solidify his grasp on the Religous Right and the Bible Belt. It won't lose him any votes because anyone so opposed to this wouldn't have voted for Bush anyway. Yes, there may be those who like Bush otherwise and disagree with him here, but that's going to be a small number. Do you hoenstly think Karl Rove hasn't done the math on that one? It's a smart political move. Secondly, he now has put Kerry and Edwards on the defensive, forcing them to respond to his position rather than stake their own. They'll either have to be for or against, and I'm thinking Kerry will flop AGAIN and come out as "opposed" to the amendment. He pretty much has to if he's to get any of the more left-leaning liberal Democrats out there.
And finally, whether you think gays should be able to marry or not, what's with all the name calling? I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater". It's just that I feel we need certain social standards, and this is one of them. Gays should be able (and ARE able) to live their lives and be together...they just can't be married. Comparing this to things like Jim Crow is patently absurd.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well I should have know this would become a "pile on Bush" like every other thread does.
As for Bush being stupid to do this, I couldn't disagree more. From a political standpoint, this will further solidify his grasp on the Religous Right and the Bible Belt. It won't lose him any votes because anyone so opposed to this wouldn't have voted for Bush anyway. It's a smart political move.
I think it is only natural that there is another thread about Bush. I mean come on Bush started this notion of an amendment.
As for your 2nd paragraph above, Who cares? Who cares if it is smart from a political standpoint? Who cares if it will further solidify his "grasp" on the religious right? Who cares if his stance will not lose him any votes?
I think what I am trying to get across to you SDW2001 (and this is coming from a former Bush supporter) is that after seeing Bush in office it is all about votes for Bush.
votes votes votes... votes over integrity at that.
I just have a little too much integrity to stomache the actions of Bush.
Sorry..
Fellows
That doesn't change the fact that proposing an amendment like this makes Bush a jerk who wants nothing more than to bend the people of this country to his own personal belief system. If he had simply declared his stance on the issue, it wouldn't have spurred this discussion.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater".
Yes, it does. You hate me and everyone like me through your bigotted actions of deeming your relationship with some woman more valuable than my relationship with a man. But its all love. It's all equal. It's all valuable, and it should all be legally recognized in the same (or as close to the same) manner possible.
I am just as valuable as you. My relationship is just as valuable as that between any two heterosexuals. And anyone who argues otherwise is a filthy, bigoted monster, and I hope they die slowly and painfully.
Live and let live, until you **** with me and mine.
Kirk
Originally posted by Fellowship
I was reading your post and then I see this... I would wish for people to remain civil and loving towards others.
Not possible when scum like Bush and his vacuous, evil supporters declare war on my very humanity.
Some Christians hating gays getting married is wrong and gays hating Christians is wrong as well.
Fundamentalist Christians spread nothing but lies, loathing and evil. They are a danger to every innocent person in this world. Look at what their influence is leading Bush to do.
I will not hug those who would harm me. I have no more cheeks left to turn.
Kirk
And finally, whether you think gays should be able to marry or not, what's with all the name calling? I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater". It's just that I feel we need certain social standards, and this is one of them. Gays should be able (and ARE able) to live their lives and be together...they just can't be married. Comparing this to things like Jim Crow is patently absurd"
Social standards? I thought people who live together for long periods of time and perhaps start families are SUPPOSED to get married... in the strictly "socially responsible" way...
What makes gays socailly substandard and unfit for marriage?
They can't make the exact same commitment as straight people?
What social standard are you maintaining by keeping them from marrying?
Originally posted by SDW2001
The widespread total acceptance of homosexuality has preceeded the fall of entire civilizations.
From the Political Survey thread.
The mongolian empire fell because of it?
Hmmm... Alexander the Great was gay?
Was Napolean?
The pharoes... that must be it.
Greece? the Roman Empire?
THE GREAT BRAVO NETWORK WILL FALL BECAUSE OF QUEER EYE FOR THE STRAIGHT GUY!
Is this the "there goes the neighborhood theory"?