ONLY TWO CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

[MalloyLiberal]

KUCINICH

GRAVEL

As just stated on the Logo debate.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. So much for the faux outrage from Team Obama nt

[MalloyLiberal]

2. I just hate hypocrites

[Poll_Blind]

3. Thank you, didn't know. Somebody needs to come up with a chart...

...of who's for what and so on.

PB

[AZBlue]

42. Wouldn't that be great?!

I think someone will, just waiting for the field to narrow a bit more maybe. If not, I'm going to have to do it myself, because I haven't yet picked a candidate.

[LittleClarkie]

4. The rest support civil unions, I reckon, just like most of the candidates last time

Which is still better than the Republican stance, which is to eradicate even the thought of any partner rights whatsoever.

[cui bono]

5. and the people who want them.

:grr:

[motocicleta]

6. Godfuckingdamnit

So that means that I will be voting for a candidate, November 2008, who won't support gay marriage? And I am supposed to get excited about that? Fuck the fucking triangulating Dems.

Wait a minute, maybe they aren't triangulating. Maybe they really are bigoted pieces of shit. Could this be true?

[slick8790]

9. Alright. They're bigoted pieces of shit because

they want to leave marraige (a historically religious institution) to how the churches want it? If a civil union has all the same rights and responsibilities as a marraige, then stop complaining. "but it's the principle!". Deal with it. Most of the things that happen in politics involve compromise, and when the only compromise the GLBT community has to make is a word, then I'd say there's really not a problem.

But i'm probably just a bigoted piece of shit, right? :eyes:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

11. Somehow I don't think you'll get churches to accept that God is dead

And name calling will get you nowhere.

[motocicleta]

14. Honestly?

I've pretty much given up on getting anywhere; humans aren't really impressing me with their brilliance these days. The churches just keep springing up, even though they are based on fleecing people out of their cash for absolutely nothing.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Nice little broad brush you have there. And one hell of a blanket statement.

Some churches might be described that way, but many do good outreach work.

It is also not good to show one's biases against an entire group of people when one is talking about bigotry and prejudice.

[motocicleta]

33. guilty as charged

When the mega-churches disappear and social justice breaks out, I'll start to feel bad.

[LittleClarkie]

35. They're not all mega churches. Most aren't. Mine's not a mega church

We're barely a 100 people strong most Sundays, and mine believes in social justice.

So you'll feel bad about making grossly inaccurate bigoted blanket statements when big churches that don't even make up a majority of the churches out there go away and social justice, which some churches already practice, breaks out enough to break through your narrow little perception of the world, which means at this point it's going to have to go off like a nuclear bomb to get your attention, THEN you'll feel bad.

I'd feel bad about carrying around biased perceptions NOW, personally. I'm not sure why you'd ever think they were a good thing.

And I don't think you actually understand what you're guilty of when you say "Guilty as charged" or you would be so damn proud of it.

[motocicleta]

37. Yes, well, my mother goes to one of those precious, bourgeois little progressive,

socially responsible churches. I certainly didn't mean to catch them up in my bigotry net. For that, I apologize.

However, as long as men of the cloth are allowed to recommend that their little sheeple followers go right home and vote for the Repuke to save Merika ALL THE WHILE their church income is not taxed AND our country is some 86 or so percent Christian (allegedly), I will not feel guilty for holding a bias. Change a few of those facts, and I may change my bias.

I suggest we agree to disagree. In any case, I will no longer dialogue with you about my hatred of religion. I don't feel bad, and you're not shaming me, so we are wasting our time with this nonsense.

I do wish you the best,
moto

[slick8790]

12. Uhh.

I think ALL the candidates support civil unions. If one candidate will make gay marraige federally legal, what's the difference in making federal civil unions legal? Point to me the difference. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Churches can pick whether they want to allow gay marriage or not. But all people should have the same rights in respect to the government. hence the civil union.

[Bjorn Against]

16. If marriage must be a religious ceremony then why do atheists get married?

And if marriage is purely a church function then why is the government even in the business of issuing marriage licenses?

[slick8790]

18. Because there's no alternative?

Marriage began as a religious institution and should stay as such. A civil union should have the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage, only without any religious connotations.

[Solon]

27. That's false, Marriages started as property contracts...

A father sold his daughter to a suitable husband, sometimes, depending on culture, with the addition of a dowry. Some men acquired many wives in this manner, in rarer instances, some women, in some cultures, acquired many husbands the same way. In addition, marriages used to be just for the nobility, peasants used to just "move in" so to speak, with very little ceremony. Over time, marriages extended to the entire population, and churches started blessing them, in addition, the definition of marriage changed, it became about love and commitment, rather than property, and as women earned more rights, they became, slowly but surely, partners rather than property. This isn't universal, worldwide, but in western society, this is how it pretty much came about.

[Bjorn Against]

28. No because marriage does not have to be religious, so atheists can marry without conflict...

Furthermore I have attended a church which marries gay and lesbian couples, yet the state refuses to recognize those marriages. Do you believe the state should recognize legal status for certain churches marriage ceremonies, but treat other churches religious ceremonies differently?

[motocicleta]

17. Civil marriage ceremony

That's how my wife and I got married, and any consenting couple should have the same benefits.

Marriage, in the USA in 2007, is a union between two consenting adults who love each other and intend to spend the rest of their lives together. Any other interpretation is a callous, rote argument based solely to support some church's doctrine, not a realistic attempt to describe the truth.

Churches should have to choose a different name for their ceremonies, like, for example, church-ass-rapeage. That would more accurately reflect the benefits a couple receives from a church. Or is it too obvious that I think churches exist solely to separate fools from their money?

[slick8790]

19. I agree for the most part.

I think a civil union should be exactly equal to a marriage in benefits and whatnot. I think marriage was always something created by religions and as such should be left up to them. The government should give the same rights to all in a UNION given CIVILLY, hence a civil union. a marraige without the religious connotations.

[motocicleta]

21. Well, shucks, thanks for agreeing for the most part.

I'll remember that when my little brother can't marry his love, but can get a civil union in four of forty-six states in our union. Thanks a ton, slick.

[slick8790]

40. I think we've misunderstood each other.

I think there needs to be federal, nationally recognized recognition of gay partnerships that gives the same rights and responsibilities as marraige. I'm saying that since so many people have problems using the word marriage because of it's longstanding religious connotations, don't call it that. Insisting on a word that is causing so much acrimony gets us nowhere. I'm sure your brother would much rather have the rights he deserves under a different name than to wait indefinitely while politicians argue over a word. No disrespect was intended with my original post, and i wish your brother all the best.

[goodgd_yall]

31. Yes, this is how it should be

That it's called a "marriage" when it's a civil contract basically, comes from a time when church and state weren't as separated as it should have been. We've evolved to be able to distinguish between the church sacrament and the civil contract. This is the kind of discussion---the difference between the religious ceremony and the civil contract---that need to go on to get people to understand why gay marriage---a civil marriage---does not impinge on anyone's religious belief about marriage and so should be legalized.

[Solon]

13. Yes you are, you just make it nice by dressing it up in with religion...

to make it more palatable to you. To be frank, its stupid, Civil Unions cannot, by definition, be EXACTLY THE SAME as Marriages. Marriages are LEGAL contracts, first and foremost, they don't count until that license is handed back to the state. Its a "separate but unequal" argument.

[slick8790]

15. Explain.

"Civil Unions cannot, by definition, be EXACTLY THE SAME as Marriages."

Explain. I have not seen anyone anywhere say civil unions should not have the same rights as marriages.

[Solon]

24. In the United States...

Civil Unions and Marriages are issued by the States, however, due to the "full faith and equal credit" clause, Marriages are valid nationwide, regardless of where they are issued. This means if you were married in Virginia, and move to California, your marriage is still valid. Civil Unions, however, are confined to the states they occur in, if you have a civil union in Vermont and move to New Hampshire, your civil union is no longer valid. In addition to this, Civil Unions are not recognized by the Federal government, so things such as Social Security benefits and such cannot be claimed by these couples for their spouses. I could go on, but this is the basic rundown.

In addition, this argument over Civil Unions is, as always, put in a religious context, as if allowing Gay Marriage will intrude on the free exercise of religion. This is NOT the case, its not only a lie, its a damned lie. Churches have nothing to do with it, this has to do with the government, no more, no less. Churches are exempt from any law that would otherwise interfere with their religious freedoms, some still don't allow interracial marriages, yet they aren't sued over it! It would be no different if Gay Marriages are recognized by the government, some churches will perform them, others won't.

[slick8790]

26. Understood.

I don't understand what would be preventing the government from passing a similar law to the "full faith and equal credit" clause, but regarding civil unions. Right now there is clearly a problem with rights for gay and lesbian couples. But i think this issue is just an issue of compromise. A lot of people have a problem using the word marraige. So whatever, call it something else. If it gets gay and lesbian couples the rights they deserve, I don't see the problem.

But I agree with you 100 percent, the idea that civil unions are not nationally recognized and marriages are is a problem that needs to be fixed.

[goodgd_yall]

32. Your last paragraph

This is what I think is missing from the public discussion. We need to talk more about how a marriage performed by a civil authority is different from a marriage in a church. Americans are confused by the conflation of the two when gay marriage is discussed. They seem to think that they personally will be forced to accept gay marriage in whatever way their own religion may understand marriage and this they may find irreconcilable. But as you say, the fight for gay marriage has nothing to do with religious marriages, only the civil contract that is called marriage by the law.

[CTLawGuy]

39. because of DOMA

1. States do not have to recognize each others' gay marriages.

2. The federal government does not have to recognize any state's gay marriage.

So, Mass. gay marriages are exactly the same as VTs civil unions, in the eyes of all other states and the federal government, except for the name.

[Cameron27]

25. It's a matter of some perfectly normal tax paying

US citizens being denied the CHOICE of marriage. There may be nothing different, or wrong about civil unions, but if marriage is on the menu for some, then it's blatant discrimination to deny it to others.

[eridani]

29. Civil marriage is NOT a religious institution in this country

If you think it is, when was the last time you heard about someone going to church to collect child support?

Civil unions do NOT have the same rights as civil marriages.

Churches are now free to marry or not marry whoever they want to. If you want to marry in the Catholic Church, you either have to be Catholic or agree to taking courses on Catholic doctrine. If you don't want to do this, a priest will not marry you--and that's exactly as it should be. However he damned well can NOT tell you that you aren't allowed to go to a Justice of the Peace. With full marriage equality, any church will still have the right to decide who can be considered married within their church, but no one will be able to tell LGBT folks that they arene' allowed to go to the JP either.

[Hollow Shells]

41. Separation of church and State

Your reasoning is unconstitutional.

I personally find it very unfortunate that so many Democratic candidates are openly bigoted in our present day. I find it even more unfortunate that people who are openly bigots get so much support from people who call themselves liberals.

[smalll]

23. No, they're not really bigoted pieces of shit -

they're just executing then triangulatory maneuvers necessary to win. :shrug: You don't want ANOTHER four years of Repugs, do you?

[goodgd_yall]

30. Hard to tell, isnt' it---is it expediency or belief?

My research tonight shows Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Pretty outmoded thinking for so-called liberals.

[fujiyama]

38. Bigoted pieces of shit?

Ummmmm, have you heard the likes of Brownback and other republican candidates on this? Remember they tried getting a constitutional amendment through "protecting the sanctity of marriage". I don't hear any Democrats doing anything even remotely similar.

From what I gather, not a single democrat would have a problem extending all legal benefits of married couples to gay/lesbian couples. With a republican in power, you get the same shit you have now or go backwards.

[rucky]

7. Yep! Civil unions is politician-created doublespeak.

paternalistic pandering bullshit.

It's like getting bumped from coach to business class when there's a row open in first-class.

[Apollo11]

34. Civil unions are working great in Great Britain

Gays and lesbians are enjoying the recognition and rights provided by "Civil Partnerships" in Great Britain.

Don't take my word for it. Ask Elton John. Or George Michael.

And surprisingly there are very few people in England who are campaigning for "same-sex marriage".

Maybe because civil unions are not so terrible after all ???? :eyes:

[Solon]

36. Look at post 24...

There are governmental differences between the U.S. and Britain that makes Civil Union unequal here, though they are equal there.

[Maven]

8. Just one more reason I support Kucinich.

Just one more area where he has real integrity.

[DaveinMD]

20. Presidents and other politicians

are never the leaders of enacting true civil rights progress. The leadership comes from the people and the courts. Always has. Look back at the Civil Rights history in the 50 and 60. Kennedy was very slow to move on that. The same will happen with extending true marriage equality.