Do you support Gay Marriage?

[ronnykmarshall]

For those that vote NO ... I want to know WHY?

[Left Is Write]

1. Yes. The real thing, not "separate-but-equal."

[Orsino]

484. Ditto. n/t

[onehandle]

2. Yes, but not for me personally.

Boy, would my wife be surprised.

[Foolacious]

69. BOTH

my wives would be surprised!

[NMDemDist2]

3. Ronny

I'm so sorry how Prop8 came out, keep up the fight, civil rights are HUMAN rights

:hug:

[Symarip]

4. Neither

Marriage is a religious act and therefore, shouldn't be sanctioned by government.

Civil unions for everyone.

[ronnykmarshall]

12. Fair enough.

[Zuiderelle]

61. It's not really fair enough. Civil unions for all would entail a huge undertaking to change

the language of all the existing laws. That makes no sense to do. It would be far simpler to allow everyone the same access to existing laws and benefits, and then change them to be civil unions, with as much time and energy as it would take to do that.

The answer of "civil unions for all" is a cop out. Marriage exists and is institutionalized and is denied us now. If civil unions were institutionalized and denied us, I would fight for them, but that's not what exists now.

Marriage is what protects us and our spouses and our children. Civil unions, as they currently exist, do shit.

[Left Is Write]

82. I agree with you.

Changing the existing marriage laws and affecting millions of marriages makes no sense. Just make the existing marriage laws and benefits accessible to everyone.

[Zuiderelle]

90. Thank you.

I really appreciate your response. I'm feeling very frustrated in the past couple of days trying to explain what seems so obvious to me.

[Left Is Write]

105. It seems obvious to me too!

[ej510]

88. Yes! WHO VOTED NO!!!!!

[AZ Criminal JD]

537. Obama

[progressoid]

175. "a huge undertaking to change" Isn't that the whole point?

CHANGE!! Institutionalize civil unions. Leave marriage to the church, synagogue, etc.

But more to the point. By separating civil unions from marriage, we completely destroy their only argument of the "sanctity" (i.e holiness) of marriage. Marriage can be left to the churches or whatever. And the legal part - civil union - would be handled by the court.

Of course, all of this is moot since we still can't seem to get past the blatant homophobia.

[LostinVA]

477. It's already like that -- God, the ignorance on this subject is truly maddening

[Teaser]

481. I don't support marriage period

It's an ancient custom. Ideally I'd like people to draw up whatever contracts they want for living, sex, and monetary arrangements with significant others, live-in prostitutes, whatever. They could call these contracts whatever they want.

But that will never happen, so allowing Gay's to marry is as close as I'll get to my ideal state.

[shimmergal]

434. Plenty of other countries

have, in effect, civil unions for everyone. If you have to register and have a ceremony conducted by the state, that's a civil union. Unlike some European countries, we don't insist on this step IN ADDITION if a religious ceremony is being conducted. Do we want to continue giving churches that much power?

[Poseidan]

439. the 'huge' undertaking is worth it

Besides, I don't see how it would require so much. Just make a transitional law, claiming all old 'marriage' law now applies to 'civil union' law.

[LostinVA]

476. Law doesn't work like that

:eyes:

[Moloch]

14. Agreed...

but lots of religions do preform gay marriages.... There's even a gay denomination (metropolitan community church) and they should be allowed to preform gay marriages everywhere!

[Symarip]

31. And that's fine

Call it what you want in everyday life: marriage, getting hitched, ball and chain, etc.

But to the government, it's just a simple form you fill out for taxes and shared rights. No more, no less. No priests signing licenses and thus, all our rights are protected.

It's so fucking simple, it's bound to never see the light of day.

[Moloch]

629. Its not only incredibly simple...

but we would have obtained full domestic partnership rights by now had the GLBT community not been so hung up on the word marriage...

[racaulk]

679. Doubtful.

And it's not the GLBT community that is hung up on the word marriage, it's the Religious Right. They brought this battle to us, we're just acting in self-defence. That's the way I see it, at least.

[Zuiderelle]

65. They do nothing to afford us the 1000+ federal benefits of marriage.

And you know that.

[LostinVA]

100. No, they don't -- they [erform religious ceremonies, not marriages

Marriages are legal contracts, not religious vows.

But, as PelosiFan said, you already know that, Oh SElf Professed GLBT Sole Voice of REason.

[Moloch]

509. Wow... you must follow me around from thread to thread..

While I'm flattered that you've taken an interest in me, I'm already seeing someone.

[LostinVA]

532. You are totally delusional -- I can't stand you, I have no desire to "follow you around"

I've been all over this thread, for 24 hours.

[vanderBeth]

This

[LostinVA]

21. In the US, the legal term is "marriage"

[Symarip]

35. I think the name should be changed

'Marriage' invokes specific religious images.

If it was just Civil Union Form 1234, no one would think it to be anything more than a drivers license.

[Maven]

43. Good. You personally start a campaign to get millions of straight married couples to "downgrade"

to civil unions.

Or maybe you should just admit you don't support equal rights when "tradition" is at stake.

[Symarip]

55. Are you kidding me?

The question is do I support a form of marriage. I don't support any marriage. I could give two shits what sexual orientation is attached to it. And I mourned greatly over Prop 8. Feel free to look through my posts yesterday.

Thanks for jumping to conclusions about my motives, though.

[Zuiderelle]

75. But marriage and its privileges already exist. So it's really a question of...

whether you believe in equality. Since marriage brings certain plentiful federal benefits, the fact that marriage is denied to gay couples, makes it incredibly unequal. If we change it so that marriage means nothing federally, then fine... but until we do, gay people have the same rights to the same benefits as straight people.

[Symarip]

127. I responded to the question how I would answer it

I'm not a politician nor a lawyer. I have no idea how to implement changing all marriage to civil unions. And I'll be goddamned if because other people are assholes over this issue you may think I'm trying obfuscate equality by succumbing to some idea of 'separate but equal'. I believe in complete equality, period. If you want to call it marriage, call it marriage. And if it's impossible to start from scratch and name it something else, then fine. I support whatever it is for you, me, and everyone in between.

[verges]

225. I feel that you're missing something.

Just because you change the LEGAL status to civil union(equal to the current legal status of Marraige) doesn't mean that you can't get married also. Marraige becomes a religious function. If a couple still wishes to get a church marraige, fine. But that in itself would confer no legal rights.

And it really shouldn't be difficult to grandfather marraiges prior to a certain date. Therefore not affecting anyones pre-existing matrimony.

[uppityperson]

347. I'm hetero and would be glad to call mine a civil union.

Edited to add that I want marriages for all to be legal. 2 adults. No problem. But if they changed the term, it would be fine with me so long as it was the same for all.

My previous "marriage" was merely a civil union, we signed the papers for the legal partnership. The one I am in now we had a small ceremony and signed papers.

Equal and the same for all.

[TechBear_Seattle]

53. The word "marriage" is embedded in centuries of law, judicial rulings and court precedents

Aside from which, marriage is and always has been a civil matter in this country, at least since the First Amendment was ratified.

If religions don't like that, it would be far easier for THEM to change their terminology. "Marriage" is the legal and civil term.

[Symarip]

59. So be it.

I mean, it's just a term. I wasn't really trying to start a war over words. I just hate that this legal matter is so obviously embedded in religion and no one wants to admit they are using their belief system to suppress the rights of so many. If it's the sanctity of marriage that bothers people so much, call it a civil union for gays and straights and everyone else and then you can't worry about the gays destroying your Christian girls and boys.

[TechBear_Seattle]

66. It is not "just a term." It carries thousands of legal rights at all levels of government

From federal all the way down to local. To say that marriage is "just a term" is flat out ignorant.

[RichardRay]

474. No, it's not ignorant.

Under most progressive governments in the rest of the world the issue has been settled exactly as is being described. A life partnership is legally established by a license from the state. If the participants want a religious ceremony they can get one, but it is not required. Some performers of religious ceremonies are licensed by the state to also issue the state certified agreement, but it's not part of their religious duties.

This allow for both civil and religious freedom. There are religious groups that do not want the state interfering with their sanctification of partnerships, and the state certainly has no rights in that area. If you're interested in achieving parity then it's going to happen much more quickly by generalizing civil union. If you're more interested in forcing someone or a group of someone's that they're wrong and you're right, then go ahead with the 'marriage' thing.

It's up to you; personally I don't give a rats ass either direction for anyone. I'm not married, won't ever be and don't know why it's fair that married people get any breaks anyway. Why can't I 'marry' my dog and then be able to have him in the hospital with me when I die? I'd way rather that than any person I can think of.

[redqueen]

534. Lots of countries feel no need to dance around it, they just call it gay marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gay_Rights.png

That's supposed to be a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gay_Rights. png (take out the space before "png" for a map of which countries dance around the wording, and which ones aren't so ... whatever.

[TechBear_Seattle]

547. What part of "marriage is a matter of civil, secular law" are you not getting?

Under the law, LEGAL MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE. Nothing at all. That religious groups use the same word to mean a religious ritual is irrelevant and has no legal bearing: without the filing of CIVIL papers with the proper CIVIL authorities, no amount of theological hocus-pocus can create a legal marriage.

Personally, I think we need to strip clergy of the right to officiate at legal marriages. In Maine, Florida and North Carolina, any notary public can celebrate a marriage, because marriage is nothing more than a notarial act: take a jurat of the two people being married, then countersign the signatures of the principles and witnesses. This is exactly the same thing that a notary does when assisting to fill out a mortgage application.

[RichardRay]

570. Personally, I think we need to strip marriage of all CIVIL weight.

Why should married people be treated differently that unmarried people? I'm single and not likely to be married. What justification is there for married people getting a tax break, an insurance break, different treatment in court or civil agreements, etc., etc. than me? Forget the whole thing - call yourselves married, civilly unioned, partnered or whatever you want to: as long as both or all of you in the assembly pay the same taxes and have the same liabilities that I do as a single person.

[LostinVA]

60. Most heterosexuals won't ahve their marriage demoted, and changing all the laws would be impossible

[TechBear_Seattle]

71. Changing all the laws would not be enough. What about the centuries of judicial precedent?

Our system of common law holds that a ruling about marriage is about MARRIAGE and not something not called marriage. Every last precedent, every last ruling, every last court judgement that touched on marriage would have to be thrown away.

[Exilednight]

624. And legal terms are changed all the time. What point are you trying to make ........

,by calling someone who believes in pure equality, a bigot?

People are not saying that they don't believe in equal rights, or even separate but equal clauses - they want to level the playing field for everyone.

Believe it or not, as a straight person I have personally dealt with this issue in my own marriage. My ex-wife is Jewish, and I am a Lutheran, but our "marriage" was not recognized by either of our religions. My former Father-in-law is a Rabbi, and broke with his own religion and married us. Don't think that just because someone is straight, that they don't know what it is like to not have their "marriage" recognized.

The part of your cause that I will support is that anyone who wants to call themselves a couple, and willing enter into a contract as life partners, should be afforded every equality that I have.

All that it would take is for Congress to pass a law that would change the word "marriage" to be interpreted as "civil union", and that all documents going forward would say "civil-union".

That's the simple part.

The hard part: Getting people to accept the word "civil-union" to define everything that we call today "marriage". It's a cause I personally have spent time working on.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. How many laws regulate who can and cannot become ordained clergy?

What are the tax benefits of being confirmed with the laying-on of hands from a bishop? What legal rights are inherent in being bar mitzvah'ed? What are the insurance and statutory priviledges come with giving confession?

Here are the answers: None, none, none, and none.

If marriage were a religious act, it would be a direct violation of the First Amendment for there to be any regulations, tax benefits, legal rights or other such priviledges granted by way of marriage. Consider the very evident fact that there ARE. Consider also that no ritual, no ceremony, no blessing can make a legal marriage; ONLY the filing of CIVIL papers with the proper CIVIL authority does that.

Marriage is, therefore, a civil act.

[progressoid]

200. Well of course that makes perfect sense except to the teeming masses in this country that are too

obtuse to get it. They see marriage as some sort of Holy thing ordained by Gawd Almighty (and notarized by the state).

[TechBear_Seattle]

212. In three states, marriage IS a notarial act

Florida, Maine and North Carolina allow state commissioned notaries public to officiate at a marriage. When you think about it, this makes perfect sense: the only job of the officiant is to take a jurat and countersign the signatures of the principles and witnesses, exactly the same thing that a notary does for a loan application or other affidavit.

[Why Syzygy]

377. That's it. They can't see

that contracts are a function of government. If biblical record is to be believed, their religion and government were/are one in the same (inthosedays). It no longer is.

Marriage is nothing more than a CONTRACT in the eyes of the state. Any adult of sound mind may enter into a CONTRACT.

This is smelling more and more like religious interference in civil matters.

[AlCzervik]

84. no thanks but you feel free to have a civil union instead.

[Meshuga]

250. One can have a wedding performed by clergy

but make it legal in the eyes of government only after goinging to city hall to create a legal union that is available to ALL.

[Meshuga]

239. I hold a similar opinion

Religion should stay out of government and government out of religion.

Everyone should get their unions by a court/city hall to get the full benefits that a life long union provides. If people find it important to be married by clergy then they are welcome to look for a priest or a rabbi who is willing to perform the ceremony that is not really binding by the law of the land.

Banning of gay marriage by the government infringes on the free exercise clause since many clergy are unable to perform gay marriages when their own religious beliefs tells them that performing gay marriages is the right thing to do.

[Withywindle]

310. No, marriage is NOT religious.

My parents are atheists. My mom a lapsed Catholic who hates organized religion but is vaguely spiritual; my dad is a rock-ribbed materialist. They were married by a judge at a courthouse. No religion ever went anywhere near it.

They're **married**. It's the word they use and it's the rights they have and no one, even the fundies they know, has ever questioned it.

It may technically be a civil union, but in the eyes of the law and the community, it's exactly the same as Sarah and Ezekiel T. Jesusfreak who spent a week fasting beforehand and handled rattlesnakes at the ceremony. It's exactly the same as any devout Catholic or Orthodox Jewish marriage in the eyes of the civil law.

They got married in Georgia, but they never lived there, and they're every bit as married in Virginia or California or Alaska or New York--or England or China or Zimbabwe.

**that's** what marriage is. And that's what EVERYONE should be able to have.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

473. Thank you

very well put.

People should be able to be married. If they want to. Period.

[nickinSTL]

571. absolutely right.

all the wrangling about semantics is pretty pointless. In this country, the legal union that is recognized by the government is called marriage - that isn't going to change.

In my opinion, marriages should be legal between any adults of the age and soundness of mind to enter into a legal contract - which is essentially what government-recognized marriage is.

In the reality of the legal parlance of our nation, allowing gays (or any group) civil unions instead of marriage is simply a separate-but-equal solution.

[shaniqua6392]

425. Marriage is only a religious act if you get married in church or by a religious figure.

But even if you are married in a church, it is only legalized by the state. If I go to a church and ask them to marry me, I then have to go to the state to get the legal documents. The church can not marry me without the states approval. Marriage is a state sanctioned legally binding contract. You need the states permission to get into a marriage and then you need it again if you want out of that marriage. I say marriage for everyone. My gay friends and family members deserve the same thing I have with my husband.

[Kaylee]

568. Put me in this camp....

Marriage is a loaded word and connotates a religious union. I believe this one word is the hang-up people have on this issue. However, the government should and must accept civil unions with all the legal benefits that entitles.

[Blondiegrrl]

677. I agree. But since we currently have "marriages" for heteros,

then we also should allow marriages for gays. But yes, I do think marriage should be relegated to the church and civil unions be the official legal term for all.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

5. Absolutely.

[Ian David]

6. I voted "Yes," but I'd prefer Civil Unions for EVERYONE, Gay or Straight.

Separation of State and Marriage.

Get government our of the marriage business.

But until that day, yes,I am in favor of Marriage Equality.

[ronnykmarshall]

7. OK ... no voter ... speak up!

Chicken shit.

[mmonk]

8. Absolutely.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

9. Damn right I do

and I am a middle aged straight white guy from the suburbs.

Human rights are for ALL human beings.

[Arkana]

10. Yes, but not for me personally.

:evilgrin:

And to make it even better, you can get high WHILE getting gay married in my state!

[ronnykmarshall]

20. Oh come on baby .....

If wasn't married ... you'd be all up on this!!!

:evilgrin:

[Chovexani]

94. If I didn't love NYC and hate the Sox so much

I'd be moving up to Boston. :smoke:

[BuelahWitch]

11. Definitely!

[Occam Bandage]

13. Yes. I think this poll would be more useful if it were:

1. I support full marriage equality.
2. I support civil unions for political reasons, with an eye towards marriage equality later.
3. I support civil unions only.
4. I support neither marriage equality nor civil unions.

[Booster]

78. 5. Full benefits for EVERYBODY, single or married.

[shimmergal]

440. Yes!

I voted yes on this poll, and no on the #@&*% provision which changed the Nevada constitution a few years ago. If we're stuck with this institution called marriage, then it should be accessible to gay people as well as straight.

But I'm not sure marriage is a CHOICE to everyone, either. Isn't there something innately unfair about making 1,000-plus rights available only to married persons? Isn't THAT against the 14th Amendment? What about that awful Arkansas measure that just passed, denying ANY single person the right to adopt or foster a child?

What about a constitutional amendment that says "Equality of rights shall not be denied on the basis of marital status?" I guess we're not there yet in public awareness. But shouldn't we be looking toward this?

Why is marriage the only partnership agreement which doesn't allow the partners to write their own contract? Just wondering. . .

[QueenOfCalifornia]

15. Who is the asshat

that voted No?

[LostinVA]

16. Anyone voting no should be banned from DU -- NOW

[Unsane]

29. lame

[yeswecanandwedid]

42. ..

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

73. Why do you "concur?'

Skinner says it's against DU rules to be against equal marriage rights.

[yeswecanandwedid]

102. ..

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

106. Owner? You're not Skinner

[yeswecanandwedid]

110. I removed them. Thank you.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

115. Skinner owns the board, not you

[gatorboy]

A coward's move.

Congrats!

[LostinVA]

108. Poeple ahve been banned before for agreeing with views against DU's rules and posted stances

That isn't blame. If people want to be anti-gay, there are plenty of other forums.

I'll make sure I tell Skinner you think he;'s "lame," since he's teh one who had banned people for this.

[yeswecanandwedid]

118. Then why bait people with a Poll if one of the answers will get you banned? I think that's his point

[LostinVA]

122. Then people shouldn't be a stuoid fucking Freeper and answer

His "point" isn't to get people banned.

:eyes:

[yeswecanandwedid]

128. It's too confusing for me man, sorry. I'm not sure what a Freeper is though. I'm pretty new, sorry.

[dem629]

352. I always love it when people screw up while calling others stupid (stuoid).

Present discussion aside, that's just some delicious irony there.

[LostinVA]

485. Typos are "irony," eh?

:eyes:

[gatorboy]

138. No one forced anyone to vote.

:eyes:

You're for gay marriage, correct?

[AlCzervik]

140. After your post about T. Boone Pickens quite frankly i put you on notice. You're suspect.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

151. Do you use the "Buddy List of Death" too?

[AlCzervik]

sometimes when i think they might make it past 100, this one imho will not. :-)

[Why Syzygy]

224. What's a "Buddy List of Death"?

Thanks.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

366. Putting DUers likely to be tombstoned on your buddy list.

So that way, you have easy access to their profile to see if they actually have been tombstoned.

[Why Syzygy]

372. Good one.

I checked my list, which I've added to since 4/07, and no one has been TS'd.

Someone outed themselves the other night as being a DU retread. He even listed his former screen names. He's gone. :(

[LostinVA]

413. OMG -- I miss that one

[uppityperson]

353. snerk.

I do also. Have to go through it one of these days.

[Warren DeMontague]

490. *

:rofl:

...I thought I was the only one.

[yeswecanandwedid]

158. I don't know as much as you guys here. I just know he was advertising on tv a ton and met with Obama

Besides that I wasn't aware he was associated with Swift Boat. Someone let me know after I asked. It's a bit scary as a new user here. Truly, I am amazed at this election and found your board and some great posts. I then stayed around to try and share thoughts and share this moment in our country. I don't know what I'm suspect of but really I just found this board full like minded folks and great topics. It's tough in Missouri to find people with like interests to chat with.

[gatorboy]

173. You are for gay marriage? Gay rights, correct?

[yeswecanandwedid]

195. You bet, I have gay friends. Actually..

One of my good friends is Miss Gay America 2009!!

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=101000568

We have a party for her tomorrow night in KC. Missy B's if anyone is in the area.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

309. You can't make up this shit

It's 2008, btw.

It's back to the future, man.

[yeswecanandwedid]

327. Yeah but Victoria just won a month or so ago. He will tour through the 2009 year. nt

That's why we are getting crazy tomorrow night! Party time.

[gatorboy]

332. You must show us YOUR page.

You're on the friend's list, right?

[yeswecanandwedid]

338. Not on his myspace page, we use Facebook now.

But I don't think you can see much on that site unless you are added as friends, that's why I linked his myspace page.

[gatorboy]

342. Oh, I have a Facebook page.

What's your name and I'll look it up. :)

[yeswecanandwedid]

351. I'm not sure if i'm ready to take our relationship to that level quite yet.

Maybe at a later date, my facebook is used with my family, kids, and close longtime friends. I'm not opening that up to all here on DU, sorry.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

358. You touched me in that "special" place and now you won't let me see your Facebook page?

[yeswecanandwedid]

360. LOL, what special place? My hands have been over here the whole time!!! nt

[LanternWaste]

457. Nice tap dance routine.

Nice tap dance routine. You should go professional...

[gatorboy]

363. Oh, you're ready. I can tell.

You've got that look. Now lets see that big gay facebook page, tiger!

[yeswecanandwedid]

376. My friend carl, you can see him here..

http://www.pageantmovie.com/viewtrailer.htm

He will introduce himself.

[gatorboy]

379. Playing shy now, are ya?

[yeswecanandwedid]

380. check your inbox, smokey.

[gatorboy]

189. Can't even fake an answer, can you?

Probably think it will send you to hell. :P

[yeswecanandwedid]

197. man, you are so on attack, calm down, i'm friendly.

[Left Is Write]

Oh, don't be so hard on him.

Some of his best friends are gay!

:crazy:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

205. OMFG!

:spray:

[gatorboy]

214. I'm sure they are.

:eyes:

[AlCzervik]

245. he needs a black friend to complete the set.

[yeswecanandwedid]

246. that's not very nice.

[AlCzervik]

248. you don't have to prove yourself to me, i'm just not that into you, sorry.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

307. If he has a Jewish friend, it'll be the trifecta

[gatorboy]

316. For bonus points he hired an illegal immigrant for the gardening.

[Left Is Write]

318. If he has a gay Jewish black friend, is there a special prize?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

323. if he has a lesbian Jewish black friend, there's a hybrid hummer

[yeswecanandwedid]

322. At least you guys can get me laughing. ;)

[NYC_SKP]

329. Hey, yeswecanandwedid... pssssst, come here.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

And I hope this very divisive thread doesn't give you the wrong impression of this place.

Don't believe the bullshit idea that you'll be banned for voting no in this poll, or even because you don't support gay rights, Skinner has never banned anyone simply for disagreeing on that point.

And be sure to visit the Lounge!

[yeswecanandwedid]

333. thanks for the welcome and thanks for the advise, it's appreciated.

[NYC_SKP]

368. This thread, not DU's best thread.

the front page--home page has great threads, and I love the videos and breaking news forums.

[LostinVA]

449. Skinner just publicly said that very thing about a week ago, so you are wrong

Also, people HAVE been banned for how they voted in polls -- as recently as a few montsh ago during the Primaries.

[Why Syzygy]

217. DIdn't "he" refer

to HIMSELF as "he"? That looks like a sock puppet issue too.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

111. "Owner?" You're not Skinner

And why do you concur with someone against gay rights?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

70. Why do you think this is "lame?"

Skinner says it's against DU rules to oppose gay marriage.

[Unsane]

146. Both Joe Biden and Barack Obama would need banishment if they ever posted here, then.

I support equal rights for everyone, btw, but I think it's ridiculous to advocate 'mandatory banning' for anyone with a view different than yours.

[Chovexani]

154. Take it up with the admins then.

If you were here four years ago, you'd understand why they put that rule in place.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

190. Take it up with Skinner then, it's his rules

[blondeatlast]

356. So that's why you never took a look at those pesky DU Rules.

I knew something was up with that and you. :eyes:

[Unsane]

383. huh?

[LanternWaste]

461. That must be why Obama and Biden never post here...

That must be why Obama and Biden never post here... :eyes:

[blondeatlast]

123. It's a cowardly act not to explain "no" vote. LIV is a little harsher than I,

but I still want to know the reasonaing behind a "no' vote on a progressive board.

[LostinVA]

143. It's my Sicilian blood,man, I can't helpit

I can't believe the Sheriff FVrom Hell was relected, btw!!!!!!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

144. Actually, Skinner has said previously that DUers are expected to support equal marriage rights

So I don't think that was harsh.

[Name removed]

Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1corona4u]

137. How democratic of you....

I voted no, because I do not support marriage-at all.

[LostinVA]

533. Hey, Skinner makes the rules, not me -- you're against marriage equality, not me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4311151&mesg_id=4318100

[dem629]

344. LOL

[Renew Deal]

443. Sorry, but I disagree

I know DU's policy to ban people who oppose gay marriage (probably why "no" has so few votes), but that doesn't make sense to me. Many people see marriage inequality as a civil rights issue. Many others see it as a moral issue. I think DU is large enough and sophisticated enough to have this discussion. Everyone would be better off.

[Hosnon]

562. I originally balked at your response but after two seconds of thought I agree.

And anyone voting in favor of a whole host of stupid shit should be banned as well (e.g., stripping women and blacks of the right to vote).

It's time that this issue permanently moves into the non-negotiable column.

[readmoreoften]

591. Thank you. Some things are yes/no. Equality is as easy as grammar school arithmetic.

The people who "don't get it" have simply made the choice to be hateful where no real extension of self is required. How hard is it to believe that same-sex couples are as capable of loving one another as heterosex couples? Not very damned hard.

[Enrique]

622. you should be banned for posting that

imho.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

17. My dear ronny...

You KNOW I do ...

And I'm terribly upset with the outcome of this election...

Marriage is a human right, dammit!

:hug:

[ronnykmarshall]

285. Thank you !!!

[NanceGreggs]

18. Hey!

How come You're Damned Fuckin' Real I Support Gay Marriage wasn't an option?

Time to stop side-stepping the issue, RKM!

[ronnykmarshall]

23. Get it girl!!!

[stuntcat]

19. two of my friends are married!

They got married almost two weeks ago and I think that no matter what the election decided they get to stay married. I hope!

[Maat]

22. I sure do!

I will fight for equality until the day I die!

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=87983&mesg_id=87983 .

In Solidarity,

[blondeatlast]

24. Yes. nt

[cliffordu]

25. Yep. The full meal deal.

[Colobo]

26. Civil unions for everyone. I'm straight, in a relationship and I don't want to get "married"

I just wanna be recognized by the state as part of a civil union. It's all about legal issues.

However, I did vote yes. If gay people wanna marry, why would I oppose?

[LostinVA]

33. The legal term, though, is "marriage" --

[Colobo]

44. Then marriage for everyone or for no one.

That's my stance.

[LostinVA]

58. And it's a good one

[fascisthunter]

27. My Sister Married Her Partner Two Years Ago

Best wedding I've ever experienced. Yes, of course I do....

[ronnykmarshall]

28. You what's really scary?

We just heard some noise outside in our front yard. Probably nothing .... which it was. But right now we are so fucking freaked out that someone is going to fuck with us.

I know that our lesbian neighbors took down their NO on 8 sign right after the election.

I'm fucking scared some shit is going to happen.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

505. I feel so bad.

People should be able to marry no matter their sex, race or religion. This all going to sort it's self out one day. The dark days are coming to an end.

[beac]

30. Absolutely 100%

On top of the fact that government should not be involved in deciding whom a citizen may love, marriage as sanctioned by the state is a LEGAL CONTRACT and brings rights and privileges that should be available to all citizens without exception or prejudice.

[Obamanaut]

32. Of course. My granddaughter asked me that this very day. She

voted for the first time this week, and was talking to us about everything on the ballot.

Told her that Granny and I have been married for over 40 years (approaching anniversary), and I've been quite happy all this time. Two things - someone else being married will not affect my marriage in the slightest, and why should I object to anyone else finding the same, regardless of the makeup of the couple.

[Left Is Write]

50. I said something similar to my daughter.

She asked me yesterday what Prop 8 was. I explained it to her and told her that, unfortunately, it passed.

She was very upset that people could be such bigoted idiots (her words). She's 21.

I told her that these "sanctity of marriage" people the worst, hiding their bigotry behind outdated notions.

[frogmarch]

34. Yes, Yes, YES!

Anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is an ASSHOLE.

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. I believe in full equality for all, and full seperation of church and state

The Mormon church has no fucking right to dictate laws of any state. Or any other church for that matter.

While all these marriage bans are horrible, this one is especially troubling, as it was an existing legal right.

Since when do we take rights AWAY from people in this country? (criminal convictions being the exception)

Oh yeah..... since 12/12/2000 :(

[sagetea]

37. Why, yes I do!!!

[ronnykmarshall]

38. Come on #2 speak up.

[MassLiberal]

39. Yes

I'm sorry for, and angered by, the Prop 8 vote. Enough is enough.

I live in Connecticut, and I'm proud that gay marriage is now legal here. We also just defeated an attempt to hold a constitutional convention that would enable anti-gay marriage proponents to do their evil work.

Marriage is a human right. If we can't all have it, then none of us should have it.

[ronnykmarshall]

40. Come on #2 speak up.

[tpi10d]

41. YES!

[Kerrytravelers]

45. Mr kt and I both do. The passage of 8 has taken all the joy out of this election for us.

[LostinVA]

67. Me too

[nini]

46. Absolutely

A friend of mine got married over the weekend - smart guy got it done before the election.

Another friend told me her partner's parents voted Yes on 8 with the explanation what she had was good enough. I couldn't believe parents would do that to their child - to anyone for that matter. Then the witch asked if they were cooking Thanksgiving WTF?


I saw your other post about being afraid after hearing something outside... call me - I'll be up to kick some ass in no time ;-)

[Zuiderelle]

48. 93 Yes, 2 No... I can live with the fact that 2 assholes voted No...

It's the 93 that make me happy to be part of this community despite all the everyday shit that goes down. If only that had been the same ratio that voted for OUR rights. I hate that our equality is left up to a vote of the majority. When will we ever be equal? After I die?

[AlCzervik]

49. Absolutely!

[NYC_SKP]

"Other" If only it was that simple.

I did not vote, but could vote "yes", if heteros want to get all involved in the stupid thing that should never have had any association whatsoever with governmental affairs, then fine, homosexuals should be given equal access to all that marriage has to offer.

The truth however, is that marriage, gay or straight, should never have become a matter of governmental interest, and to that end I could have answered "no".

Since marriage/civil unions are associated with property rights, taxes, health care and all the rest, I am adamant that whatever is available in these respects to one type of couple ought to be available to the other type of couple. To this question, if marriage means all these things, I vote a hearty "yes".

As to whether it's just about the word "marriage", and whether it may be legally used to describe gay as well as straight couples, I could care less, I don't give a flying fuck, it's all semantics and fighting over the word, an enormous waste of time with no happy resolution possible.

What matters are the rights associated with marriages or unions or whatever the fuck they're called, and these rights MUST BE EQUAL among gay and straight couples.

So, in the end, I'll vote "other", "none of the above", "it doesn't matter to me", "it's not worth the time if it's just the word", or "whatever, you all work it out".

:shrug:

[BuyingThyme]

51. Are you speaking of any marriage in particular?

[Raine]

52. Of course nt

[TomInTib]

54. No, because I don't support marriage at all.

Once any marriage is State-sanctioned, it is State-governed.

Giving up pre-earned property and alimony just sucks.

With the failure rate of marriage, no bank would loan money on a start-up business with the same odds of failure.

That being said, Ronny, this extra-hetero guy cried like a child when you posted those pictures of your marriage and your beautiful Mother-in-Law. That was one of the most stirring posts I have ever encountered on DU.

If you still have the link, could you PM it to me?

Thanks,
Tom

[ben_meyers]

56. Above my pay grade, I'll defer to my President-elect on this.

When he tells me where to stand, that's where I'll go.

[LostinVA]

72. You have to be fucking kidding me

[Chovexani]

97. That should get a DUzy.

It was seriously the funniest shit I've read all day.

[LostinVA]

103. People have lost their fucking minds on here

[BuyingThyme]

79. He doesn't have a position,

He leaves it to his religion.

(Coward.)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

81. So you only share the President's opinion?

Does that mean you only share Bush's opinion until Obama is inaugurated?

Obama has already stated he's against gay marriage, so you just admitted to being against equal civil rights for gays.

[ben_meyers]

104. I said president-elect didn't I, WTF does Bush have to do with it?

Get some reading skills.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

121. So you don't have any opinon other than Obama's?

Why is that?

If you're going to blindly follow a president, why not extend that to all presidents?

[ben_meyers]

159. Well, for one thing I have never forgiven

Warren G. Harding for the Tea Pot Dome scandal, and there is Truman's firing of Douglas MacArthur, oh I could go on all night, but it would be just as silly as this site has become today.

[ieoeja]

452. Let's see, MacArthur lied to the President about the first Chinese offensive...

Used his troops as bait to lure them into a second offensive when the first failed after three days.

Gen O.P. Smith, USMC 1st Division notified the Commandant he was withdrawing his division from under MacArthur's command, informed all US Army division commanders he would support any of them who chose to relieve MacArthur of command, ordered his own troops to fall back into defensive positions and told the 8th Army they were welcome to join the Marines but damned if he was going to send his Marines out to rescue them from their own blundering.

When the second Chinese offensive began the next day, 100% of our allied commanders informed their heads of states that they would *not* follow any more irrational orders by MacArthur.

Truman did not relieve MacArthur of any command in Korea. The generals in Korea, ours and our allies, had already done that. In fact, they were taking orders from Ridgeway before Truman even realized MacArthur had lost command.

And this completely ignores the fact that MacArthur ordered the use of atomic weapons, lying to the SAC commander about his authority (or rather lack thereof) to place such an order. Fortunately, the SAC commander did not buy into the lie. It also helped that the Marines refused the order to run away with remnants of the 8th Army joining them after their CO and XO fled the field (by MacArthur's orders; but they were the ONLY two officers to obey the order to abandon their men), so SAC would have been nuking them right alongside the Chinese.

[blondeatlast]

141. So only Barack Obama has the answer? I'd be willing to bet he'd happily take you to task

over that idiocy.

Wow.

This is a classic subthread.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

147. Truly classic

[blondeatlast]

184. Good to see you!

:hug:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

193. I'm baacckkkk!!

:hug:

Good to see you, too.

[ben_meyers]

201. Thank you very much, I'll be here all week

Please try the spinach soufflé.

[HEyHEY]

395. You're the troglodyte.

[LanternWaste]

463. Your opinions are predicated on the opinions of the President elect...?

Wow. Your opinions are predicated on the opinions of the President elect...?

Hope you guys like the same foods or else you'll be going pretty hungry I imagine.

[Occam Bandage]

85. Yes, that's a healthy way of interacting with the government.

[AlCzervik]

89. that's weak.

[Zuiderelle]

95. Oh god, what a fucking cop out. Are you really such a follower?

[AlCzervik]

107. seriously.

baaaaa baaaaa.

[Shakespeare]

166. TOTAL cop out.

The artful attempts to say "no" to the question are, in fact, not artful at all. They are, however, despicable.

[Left Is Write]

101. You need someone to tell you what you think?

[blondeatlast]

132. George Bush told you to "shop: after 9/11. So how much did you spend?

Yours may well be the STUPIDEST post I've seen on DU.

[blondeatlast]

I think MY President Elect would tell you to stand for yourself and

not let him do your thinking for you.

But apparently you missed the entire point of "Yes, we can."

God, it's people like you that gives AZ the legislature we are always stuck with; I bet you voted "no" on 102 and 300...

GEEXUZ. :mad:

[ben_meyers]

228. I stand shoulder to shoulder with President Obama,

You got a problem with that? He is our only chance to right the ship of state, and I'll be damned if I don't support him to max. The whole world is with us now!

[blondeatlast]

256. Your (and my) President-elect urged Californians to vote AGAINST Prop H8, yanno.

Still willing to blindly follow him?

MASSIVE robo-calls and he addressed it in every CA speech he gave.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a problem with it--and he likely would too. There's a reason he called on conservatives and liberals to formulate his economic platform--he doesn't like narrow thinking.

I helped get him elected--but if he's wrong about something, I fully intend to let him know about it.

[ben_meyers]

283. Absolutely, what ever he says

Biden said: "No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage."

Are you accusing them of merely pandering? No way!

[AlCzervik]

292. what if he was for killing polar bears, would you be for that as well?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

311. *crickets*

[AlCzervik]

314. if ever agree with anybody on everything 100% then i will check myself into a mental health

facility.

That to me is scary.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

319. Hell, even LostinVA and I argue over political stuff

[AlCzervik]

325. i think that's healthy, same thing in my house.

[LostinVA]

478. Of course, I'm always right

[Left Is Write]

321. I agree 100%.

:P

[blondeatlast]

328. Self-delete

[blondeatlast]

293. If he told you to jump off a cliff... As I say above, it's folks like you that give AZ

the legislature we have.

I'm gonna wretch.

If by some strange alignment of the heavens and earth I become president-elect, I will cheerfully tell you to play in traffic.

[bullwinkle428]

271. How does that make you any different from the Freepers over the last 8 years?

:shrug:

[blondeatlast]

302. Lemme take a stab at that one...

Betcha he has "gay friends..." :eyes:

[readmoreoften]

593. Your shoulder wouldn't reach Barack Obama's shoulder. You and him ain't on even ground, buddy.

And I seriously doubt he'd want you near his shoulder.

[Tektonik]

331. wow, you're a keeper here

:rofl:

[blondeatlast]

Check the Arizona forum--

You don't know the half of it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

361. Damnit -- now I have to check the Arizona forum

[blondeatlast]

370. Ah, I just went back there and he's not been active lately.

There's two people there I go out of my way to avoid both on the ground and on the board so I don't even look anymore.

[cboy4]

424. Is your head stuffed with straw?

Take control of yourself man.

[baby_mouse]

437. I think that's sweet, but I dont think that's how democracy's supposed to work...

[Jamastiene]

588. Biggest.Copout.Ever n/t

[readmoreoften]

592. Are you going to buy a puppy next month too, you sniveling obsequious zombie?

Is Obama your DECIDERER?

[racaulk]

678. Britney Spears, is that you?

Quote: "I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."

:eyes:

[gatorboy]

57. The mods can see who the "no's" are, correct?

Pizza time, but first full disclosure. :)

[jonnyblitz]

83. perhaps it is admin that can. all i know is people have been

tombstoned for how they have responded in the past.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

276. The admins can

[abumbyanyothername]

62. What I really support is NO MARRIAGE.

Civil unions with full equal rights for all.

Or better yet . . . fully negotiated contracts in every case.

[LostinVA]

77. Marriage IS a contract, a legal term -- that's the point

[rurallib]

99. I am with you 100%. If someone wants 'marriage' go to a church

but for the state, do contracts.

[Left Is Write]

112. Marriage is already a legal contract.

Whether people like it or not, marriage IS a legal term, and there are already existing marriage laws. Marriage and its benefits should be available to all.

If some religions don't like it, then THEY should call the church-blessed unions something else. Marriage is a legal term.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

330. Exactly

LostinVA and I were married by a minister (Pacifist Patriot), yet according to the state, we're only civil unioned. Meanwhile, my mom and stepdad got married by the mayor, and they have full marriage rights.

Marriage is a civil contruct in this country, and civil unions make gays 2nd class citizens.

[readmoreoften]

594. Marriage IS ONLY a state contract. Your church adds a little ceremony and voodoo dance.

My parents were married by the mayor in their own home. Guess what? They've been married for 40 years, not CIVILLY UNIONIZED.

[LostinVA]

63. Two people who should be banned from DU -- I wish Skinner would publicly address this issue

[City Lights]

64. Absolutely! nt

[ZeitGuy]

68. Without hesitation, YES. My question is...

...will the two who said "NO" have the courage to stand up for their convictions, or will they simply hide away in the convenience of their anonymity?

[Arctic Dave]

74. I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE!!!

Because I want my daughter to be able to have the same rights as her parents and be able to marry whom she choses. PERIOD!!

[kwolf68]

76. I didn't answer

Even if I didn't 'support' gay marriage from what I believe personally, it does not mean I should 'be against it' from the standpoint of policy and legality.

Everyone is free to be a racist, sexist, and homophobe, but our laws should never be.

[myrna minx]

80. Without question. GLBT rights are civil rights, human rights and equal rights.

[jonnyblitz]

86. of course you know I support marriage though I will die a

spinster. :P :hi:

[Jamastiene]

589. I am beginning to think I will too.

Of course, I'm for gay marriage all the way, but may never even get there. I'll be the spinster crazy lady with all the cats at the end of the street; the one kids will be afraid to go in her yard to get their baseball.

[jillan]

87. I just can't understand how this country can make such a giant leap forward and backward at the same

time.

It makes NO F*CKING Sense!

Even in Arizona - it was only 2 years ago when we voted that there shouldn't be a consitutional amendment on gay marriage - and Tuesday that all changed.

What is going on?

[1corona4u]

125. Because you can't force things on people Pirhana....they just end up resenting it...

I said the following earlier today about prop 8, and who voted against/for it;

I don't think it's just religion either....or race......
I know a lot of people who are against gay marriage, and it has nothing to do with religion, but their core belief system. What they were raised to believe. There are still a lot of people out there that look at being gay as a perversion. They don't understand it. They think, given the way human body was designed, is a clear indication of the way nature intended things to be.

[LostinVA]

161. Glad Dr. King didn't agree with you, or we wouldn't have President-Elect Obama right now

[1corona4u]

185. Yeah, I know, but my neighbor and I are having this argument right now...

and unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to go look up all the civil/equal rights/constitutional facts to argue the case with her. But those thoughts I posted are most all of the things people say to me about gays, and marriage. My neighbor is not religious at all, but that's what they think.

[JI7]

349. nothing was being forced on anyone, i hate it when people use that term

[readmoreoften]

596. No the bigotry of idiots was "forced on" innocent people who didn't do shit accept fall in love.

[readmoreoften]

595. Yeah, except that whole DESEGREGATION THING. Why don't you open a history book before you type.

I don't GIVE A FUCK who "resents" DESEGREGATION or INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE or GAY MARRIAGE or WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE. TOUGH TITTIES.

[InvisibleTouch]

91. As I've said before...

...everyone deserves the right to make that mistake! ;)

But, joking aside, it's a blight on our country that in this day and age we could take such a huge stride forward, and at the same time take a bunch of steps back. I've absolutely never understood how the marriage and happiness of one couple (of whatever mix of genders) can be detrimental to the marriage and happiness of another. Or maybe it's that definition of conservatism that's floating around here somewhere: "Conservatism: the nagging worry that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

Even worse, to me, is the adoption ban. When there are kids the world over in need of good homes, there are hypocrites out there who would deny them simply because the parents don't have a little piece of paper? And then insuring that some parents can never get that piece of paper, even if they wanted to? Talk about your catch-22.

The only explanation I keep coming back to, is religious insanity. That's not a diss on religious people in general, but on that subfaction that's so insecure in their faith that the only way they can keep it together is to force it on everyone else, and condemn those that differ with them. I don't know of any opponant of equal rights for gay people who does not base it on a twisted misinterpretation of religion. Because without that element, why would they possibly care? It would have no bearing on their lives and happiness at all.

Now, I'm straight, myself, but have a number of gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances. I was shocked, outraged on their behalf, that they should be treated as second-class citizens and denied basic rights. I thought we were more enlightened than this, after 8 years of hell. This is our next big project, as a progressive collective. We all need to work toward equal rights for all, even in this day and age. Another thread said it best, Obama's campaign is a perfect example - rather than focusing on our anger over the injustice, we need to move forward and create the positive. When you focus on the negative, you give it more power. When you ignore the haters and move ahead toward the positive, you shape the future.

[Olney Blue]

92. Yes

[bleever]

93. Yes.

[Chovexani]

96. Ronny, you big gay cherry!

:hug:

I want to know who the no trolls are too.

[LostinVA]

114. I think one of them is Chovexani

[Chovexani]

124. Nice reply, Fred

[LostinVA]

129. Don't forget what my sig says, Attila

[Chovexani]

131. I call lies, and possibly shenanigans.

[LostinVA]

150. Quiy being so thinskinned

:eyes:

[Chovexani]

174. Why, I never!!!

[LostinVA]

180. OOOOOOO -- what did you edit???

[Chovexani]

222. I was going to tell you what I really thought of you

Then I thought better of it, cause I don't want to stoop to your level. You cad.

[LostinVA]

411. I thought you loved me

[Dems to Win]

98. I actually support civil unions for everyone, gay and straight. Leave "marriage" to the churches.

Our new gay/straight civil unions would be the legal equivalent of today's marriages. But the legal version would happen at the courthouse. Then, if you please and your place of worship agrees, you can get "married" in a church. The church wedding wouldn't have any legal ramifications.

ALL civil unions must be equal. Including SS benefits!!! DOMA must be repealed.

[electron_blue]

167. Actually, the legal version already happens at the courthouse.

A couple gets the license at the courthouse, sign it in front of witnesses and it is finally legal when recorded at the courthouse. Any religious service done on top of that has nothing to do with the legality of it all. The govt only cares whether two people signed an oath in front of witnesses. That makes it a legal marriage. I wish the word marriage would really lose its religious overtones and I hate the way that the phrase 'civil union' has convinced many people in the U.S. that this is what you get if you aren't married in a church. I think it just muddles the issue.

[readmoreoften]

597. MARRIAGE IS A STATE CONTRACT. A church wedding is a voodoo dance. Take away the state: no marriage.

My parents married in their own home by the mayor. They have been married 40 years, not civilly unionized.

[WeDidIt]

109. Even my Republican brother (From cA who voted Obama) Supports Gay MArriage

He thinks gay people should be as open to paying divorce attorneys as straight people.

[satya]

241. Absolutely. No one should be denied full equal rights. nt

[WeDidIt]

278. I canvassed him in September to insure he was voting no on Prop H8

He assured me both he and his wife were opposed to Prop H8.

As for me, I would like nothing more than to see the Mormon cult destroyed forever over this bullshit.

[1corona4u]

113. LOL, yeah right.

Like anyone who answers 'no' will tell you why. The only thing it would lead to is the board gutting that person like a small catfish.

[1corona4u]

116. I support civil unions.

[endthewar]

134. Better watch out!

The flamefest will follow you shortly. :rofl:

[1corona4u]

145. I don't give a fuck.

They asked, I answered, honestly. I guess if they wanted everyone to lie, to make them feel better, then they should have just had YES on the poll.. I don't support marriage at all, regardless of sexual orientation. That's why I said no.

[LostinVA]

168. Quit being such an ass over civil rights

[readmoreoften]

598. So my parents aren't married? Is that what you're saying, MR ROFL?

They married in their own home 40 years ago with the mayor officiating. Are you telling me that I was born out of wedlock? Do you even fucking know what you're talking about?

[asdjrocky]

117. Of course.

Why shouldn't gay people be as miserable as I've been? Three different times.

[LostinVA]

119. Four people who need to be banned

[endthewar]

130. Good grief...

:eyes:

I voted no, post #126. Feel free to respond.

[readmoreoften]

599. Later. Happy to alert on you.

[NYC_SKP]

187. Nine, nine people by my count. What is this, a fucking witch hunt? nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

120. yes n/t

[endthewar]

126. I voted NO.

:nuke: :hide: :nuke:

:rofl:

Anyway, if it was up to me (which it isn't), ALL marriages would be replaced by civil unions in terms of how they're recognized by the government. I think that as long as the government recognizes marriage, there is a necessary blurring of the line between church and state.

[1corona4u]

133. Exactly. Marriage is a piece of fucking paper.

I support civil unions, as I said above.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[readmoreoften]

600. No calling out DUers.

[LostinVA]

135. Glad my rights are so fucking funny to you -- and, educate yourself on THE FRIGGING LAW

"Marriage" is the legal term. It is written into thousands of laws. Marriage is NOT "religious," it is legal. Churches perform religious ceremonies/vows, NOT marriages.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

157. Sorry, if you think civil rights are so fucking funny

Do you think equal rights for blacks was a laughing matter?

Sick.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

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

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

211. Somebody had to say it

:thumbsup:

[Danger Mouse]

234. I don't find this issue to be a laughing matter at all.

I'm PISSED, as I imagine you are, and people behaving like this jackass have no place on this forum right now.
:hug:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

237. I jsut find it amazing how alleged progressives can be so belittling about equal rights

It's appalling to me.

:hug:

[Danger Mouse]

242. I think it was LostinVA I said this to recently...

but, DU has its share of 'liberals' that are just as bad as freepers. I heard that in 2004, some idiots were BLAMING gays for Kerry's loss.

[endthewar]

251. How about blaming idiots for stupid statements?

Not talking about you personally of course, just generally speaking.







:rofl:

[Danger Mouse]

274. I realize you're talking about yourself. That's nice.

I like it when people are able to acknowledge their faults. It shows maturity.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

266. And, in 2006, after civil unions were legalized in NJ, we were told we were gonna cost the election

Those threads started within minutes of the NJ SC ruling, and of course we won the Senate.

[Danger Mouse]

281. I get sick of it.

:(

[Name removed]

216. Deleted message

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

[Danger Mouse]

230. Or, if you prefer, a dick. Jerk. Prick.

Take your pick.

[endthewar]

249. Oh noes!!!

:eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

204. So you have yours, so I can't have mine?

The struggle for gay rights is no different than the struggle for black rights. Civil rights are civil rights.

"Rights delayed are rights denied." -MLK

[Name removed]

221. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

406. Deleted message

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

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

421. Your first reponse gets deleted, so you post another personal attack

[NYC_SKP]

170. LOL!

Seriously, out loud!!!

Talk about "paint a target on your forehead and wait for an arrow", methinks some here think that a "no" answer deserves some serious violence and intimidation.

Give it a break already.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

181. Yes, because discrimination is funny

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

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

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

215. Your position will never, ever work

And your pictures are personal attacks, which break DU rules, btw.

[NYC_SKP]

229. No, stupid fucking polls that lead to witch hunts and outrage are funny.

I voted for 8, I'm shocked that it passed, but confident it won't hold water.

And the whole marriage debate is a mess because the government should never have gotten involved in the first place.

So here we are with this stupid poll, turned litmus test for DU members, and all the outrage.

What a hot mess, all I can do is laugh.

And, BTW, you don't know me, my race, or my orientation or history with discrimination, so give it up, dear.

Can't we all get along?

[ronnykmarshall]

252. No we can't get along.

You voted yes. So fuck you.

[endthewar]

255. Now that's how we can change hearts and minds.

:eyes:

[ronnykmarshall]

259. I'm not here to change hearts and minds.

I want to know who in this "liberal" blog voted yes on 8 or do not support my rights.

You've made that clear. So fuck you too.

[endthewar]

269. Same to you :-)

Fuck you too!

Yay! :bounce:

[NYC_SKP]

296. My dear ronnykmarshall.

Calm thyself down, are you talking about Prop 8, or oversimplistic poll?

I voted no on 8, I followed the League of Women voters guide to the letter, and yes on 2 and 12, on which they took no position. In another reply I said I voted yes, but that was my failure to proof read my answer.

Your response here to me indicates that you are willing to attack on the least amount of evidence. You must not have read my post or journals, and that's fine, but you are very quick to react and it makes only one of us look silly and weak.

Observe how I refrain from saying "fuck you". You, my friend, need to compose yourself. I voted against prop 8 and have shaken the hand of the current Mayor of SF, though it was unrelated to gay rights.

You owe me an apology, I do not expect it, but this very exchange is proof that your poll was, in the end, not a good idea and will not promote healing or the much needed legal relief for passage of the illegitimate proposition.

cheers.

[ronnykmarshall]

313. We good.

Sorry but when I saw your post that I thought you said you voted yes on 8 .. I lost my head. I'm sorry.

[endthewar]

317. Shoot first, ask questions later.

I see you follow McCain's foreign policy when you talk to other people. :rofl:

[NYC_SKP]

397. Thanks, ronnykmarshall...sorry I didn't see this sooner.

:toast:

Make no mistake, gay and lesbian partners must have all the same rights as hetero couples have, especially as they relate to medical and financial benefits, and to marriage.

I was flabbergasted by the results of prop 8, and I saw the vicious and misleading ads like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto

And they say: "Acceptance of Gay Marriage is Now Mandatory". Talk about misleading.

I think we all became complacent and none realized how underfunded the No on 8 force was in contrast to Yes on 8.

It was a shocker, and my thoughts are with you ronnykmarshall, but we will persevere.

California is not going to put up with it, trust me, it's a dead proposition now that it's passed and we've woken up.

:toast:

[endthewar]

254. Hey everybody! NYC_SKP voted FOR Prop 8!!! No joke, he just admitted it!

Sorry man, but this is going to be fun to watch! :popcorn:

[NYC_SKP]

280. Oh my, I did type that didn't I? This is gonna be good!

KILL HIM!!! :rofl:

I could go edit of course, but then they'd REALLY think I was evil...(Anyone here who knows me knows better.)

So I'm gonna let it ride, pass the popcorn, partner! :popcorn:

[endthewar]

290. Hehe. The worst thing about DU

is that people automatically vilify anybody who doesn't share the exact same opinion that they have on various issues. I think too many people here live in a "liberal bubble" and just don't realize what the average American is truly like.

[NYC_SKP]

301. That's a fact, endthewar...

And it would be more amusing if it wasn't for the fact that we sometimes lose elections behind it.

:toast:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

339. What elections?

[LostinVA]

479. They didn't name one, because it's never happened

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

335. I certainly don't live in a "liberal bubble"

But nice try.

When I got married (civil unioned legally, because the state views me as 2nd class) most of the guests were Irish/Italian Catholic Republicans. That's right. A whole bunch of them showed up in support of my gay wedding, yet people on DU think that I'm a 2nd class citizen.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

306. NYC_SKP -- "I voted for 8"

Nice.

[NYC_SKP]

337. No, actually, I did not vote for 8, you crazy kid, you!

I mis-typed and chose not to edit, why don't you read the replies?

What are you, on a fucking witch hunt?

Pathetic, utterly distasteful and really pathetic.

For the record, I voted straight LWV guide, plus yes on 2 and on 12, and I mistyped and if I'd have edited it you'd all call me something else, so take your shit to a real battle, you've got the wrong guy here.

K?

[Starry Messenger]

388. You voted Yes on 8 and you are asking why the outrage?

I just hope you are very sadly misinformed about its goals.

[NYC_SKP]

404. Read it again.

And read the replies below it. I mis-typed, and if I'd edited people would think for sure that I'd voted for it, so I left it alone and corrected downthread.

Here is what I wrote: "I voted for 8, I'm shocked that it passed, but confident it won't hold water."

I wouldn't be "shocked: and wouldn't be "confident that it wouldn't hold water" if I'd actually voted against it.

I think most of us in CA thought that such a stupid thing could not have possibly had majority support, and we underestimated the size of the warchest for it and it fucking passed.

Most voters who helped pass it probably didn't even read it.

I didn't read it either, I dismissed it immediately and voted NO.

[readmoreoften]

603. YOU VOTED FOR 8? Yeah, I'll witch hunt you. You want to see a witch hunt:

No THIS is a witch hunt:

This is a complete outrage! Now gays can dephile the sancity of marriage. The marriage I have to my wife has just been insulted since now those rump ranging Faggots can do the same thing. Fags EAT their own FECES! They lick each others rectum!!! THEY CALL IT TOSSING THE SALAD!! Salad of what?! Vomit?! That's probably what they bathe in those FILTHY FAGGOTS!! DIE DIE DIE!!!



http://www.fuorispazio.net/_archivio/Gennaio,Febbraio,Marzo,Aprile,Maggio,Giugno,Luglio,Agosto,Settembre_2002/img/kill_fags.jpg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxv2vLWoO3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LWlf3MwF8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4WGFeLTLE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0E-GITO09c&feature=related

[endthewar]

186. Thanks!

:hug:

I could have lied and voted "yes", but my true position is "no". I think that the government should just recognize all straight marriages as civil unions from a legal perspective and then recognize gay civil unions the exact same way. It keeps religion out of government and provides equality for all.

[Left Is Write]

136. Not really. The government doesn't care if your marriage is religious or not.

All it does is streamline the process by granting legal right to the clergy to pronounce a couple married. If the government required that marriages be performed by a clergyperson, or that religious vows be said, that would be blurring the line between church and state.

[endthewar]

149. Maybe so, but I stand by my first position.

The problem is that many people view marriage from a religious perspective but the government views it from a legal perspective. Most Americans support civil unions but most Americans don't support gay marriage. I think common ground could be found by guaranteeing civil unions the same rights as marriages and then considering all marriages as civil unions from a legal standpoint.

[Left Is Write]

164. Considering all marriages "civil unions" would require the unwieldy rewrites

of untold numbers of existing laws.

Many people fighting for marriage rights see the civil unions vs. marriage as "separate but equal" status and understandably don't want to accept that.

I have to say that it doesn't really matter whether "most" Americans support gay marriage. I'm sure in decades past, you'd have found that "most" Americans didn't support interracial marriage or suffrage for black people.

[endthewar]

199. Then let's get to writing

:hi:

As I recall, the question was as to what I supported, not what could be passed most easily.

[Left Is Write]

206. I disagree with completely rewriting existing laws to change existing marriages.

Give marriage rights to all. Period. Religion already has nothing to do with government requirements for marriage, so there's no reason to rewrite anything.

If any religion has a problem with it, let THEM change their language.

[endthewar]

209. Why can't laws be made granting civil unions the same rights as marriage?

Sorry if that sounds like a dumb question, but why not? :hi:

[Left Is Write]

226. Because "separate but equal" is never really equal.

If we tell gay couples they can have the same rights as marriage but it's going to be called something else, we are still marginalizing them.

There is no need to change any existing laws at all. Marriage is already a legal contract. Let it be available to all.

[endthewar]

260. Then let's call marriages "civil unions"

That way everybody has a civil union.

Look, it's not that I don't understand your point of view. But the fact remains that the anti-gay marriage movement currently has an ace-in-the-hole type of card with these ballot initiatives and their religious fear-mongering.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

350. Because it'd be costly as hell to rewrite the thousands of laws mentioning marriage

And straight people, do not want their marriages demoted (rightfully so).

The BIGOTS don't give a shit if it's called a marriage or civil union or whatever. They're against it, because they're HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTS. That's not going to change no matter what the name is.

[endthewar]

405. Then why are most Americans FOR gay civil unions but against gay marriage?

Your logic can square that circle.

[gatorboy]

165. So gay individuals don't have the right to view marriage from a religious perspective?

There are religious gay people. I know it's hard for you to understand that.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

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

[gatorboy]

231. Wow. I really hit a nerve with this bigot.

Calm down, man :hi:

[endthewar]

263. Yeah, I'm freaking out big time over here.

YAWN!

[gatorboy]

267. That's the best?

Come on. Not even a smilie? :P

[endthewar]

273. Hey, didn't Arkansas just ban gay couples from even adopting children?

Perhaps you should be knocking on those doors of your neighbors if you want to see some change in your neighborhood.

[gatorboy]

282. Hey, I did my part.

But there were obviously too many individuals like yourself for the ban, unfortunately. ;)

[SidDithers]

574. Why yes, yes you are...

Sid

[gatorboy]

262. What? no cute retort?

The klan rallies keeping you too busy? :rofl:

[endthewar]

265. The klan accepts black males?

:eyes:

Hehe, that reminds me of that one Dave Chappelle skit about that black klan member who was born blind at birth. :rofl:

[gatorboy]

272. What a coincidence!

Your best friends are probably gay as well. :eyes: :rofl:

[DailyGrind51]

637. Sure, the Klan accepts blackmail, along with extortion, assault, and murder.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

162. Stop being such a drama queen and simmer down

[Left Is Write]

169. Was this response meant for someone else?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

177. Actually, I was just being sarcastic

That's what the poster told LostinVA to do. Your post agrees with LIV's.

[Left Is Write]

179. LOL! Okay. I can be dramatic, but didn't think I'd reached that point yet.

:hi:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

183. Nah...you're cool

:hi:

[endthewar]

213. Better keep your day job

or at least put a :sarcasm: by your jokes, because they're hard to understand for people not living inside your little bubble. :rofl:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

219. Nice personal attack

[NYC_SKP]

155. Damn you.

As I was scrolling I had the same idea....ya beat me to it.

What is wrong here, DU members calling out others, talking about banning, trolls, bullshit.

Fuck ALL marriage, how about that?

Civil Unions, nothing more, keep the courts and the government and the banks and DU out of the Marriage and the definition thereof.

For fuck sake.

[endthewar]

235. Exactly!

Most Americans are in favor of civil unions for gay couples but not in favor of gay marriage. I think a lot of the anti-gay marriage sentiment is explained by some nostalgic notion about what "marriage" actually is (even though half of them end in divorce). I say that we just compromise with their sentimental feelings, make everything a civil union, and then spend more time focusing on other important issues to our country.

[NYC_SKP]

303. If I'm against the concept of marriage, then I have to be against gay marriage, too.

Such are the pitfalls of poorly designed polls.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

341. So you voted "No" based on your hypothetical wish?

Or you voted "No" because you're a weapons-grade asshole?

[freethought gal]

384. Second One, Definitely

[Starbucks Anarchist]

385. LOL, and welcome to DU!

:toast:

[freethought gal]

407. Thanks

:)

[Maven]

441. And now he's banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7818002&mesg_id=7822388

:rofl:

[FloridaJudy]

142. Of course I do!

I think this song sums up how I feel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfzVeTaSAsQ

[IsItJustMe]

148. No strong feeling about it one way or the other.

[LostinVA]

178. Do you or do you not support equal rights for all?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

369. Apparently, it IS just you.

[IsItJustMe]

391. With remarks like that, you are not helping your cause.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

394. My "cause" is equality for all.

And with indifferent people like you, we'll never get there.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

422. Ah, the "I supported civil rights but you were 'mean' to me, so now you can go to hell" argument

BTW, Starbucks Anarchist is straight, so he has no dog in this fight, except for being a kind enough person to care enough about equality.

[IsItJustMe]

430. You will some day learn that alienating people that may agree with you will never get you to where

you to where you want to go, and in fact, can quit often push people in the opposite direction.

I said I had no strong feelings about it, one way or another, and that is the truth. It is not something I have had to deal with, what-so-ever, in my life.

And for being honest, I am told to go to hell and that I don't support equal rights.

This is not a classic nor classy way of winning someone over to your side. And if that is the tactic that the people in this cause will be using going forward, I will make a prediction, more and more people will be alienated, and your cause will become less and less a possibilty.

[Ozma]

Tell you what, I won't be polite to you as long as you continue to insist

that you are better than other people !!! Get yourself a sense of compassion for others. I think you really are a troll here, and it's time you join up on Sean Hannity's board, they will kiss your straight ass more consistently.

[IsItJustMe]

535. You don't know me at all. But I can tell you one thing, you are not a very nice person and If I

were gay, you would be the last person on earth I would have to represent me. You have the Republican mentality for sure, You either with us, or against us.

Most people live in the gray.

[Ozma]

518. Then make sure you have "no strong feelings on it" when

They say that YOUR marriage is no longer valid, for whatever reason they dream up.. you got married in the WRONG church, the WRONG Synagogue, the WRONG Temple, the WRONG City Hall....the WRONG state!!!!!!!!!!!

Then try to file a join tax return, try to visit your spouse in a hospital when your spouse is dying of Cancer, try to collect life insurance from your spouse when your spouse dies, try to visit or care for your spouse's children after your spouse dies.

No strong feelings? Are you really alive and an American citizen, or dead and existing in Iran?

[Generic Brad]

152. I support marriage for all adult couples who want it

The key for me is "couples". A couple means "two". Gender does not factor into my definition of a couple.

[volstork]

156. Why do people care who other people sleep with?

The only sex life that interests me is MINE.

[AspenRose]

446. +1

:thumbsup:

[zulchzulu]

160. I support gay marriage...but know that civil unions/domestic partnerships could pass now...

...instead of never getting the issue advanced.

You put in the word "marriage" in the mix with legislation and it's probably going to fail. Why? Because politicians are generally spineless asshats when it comes to the issue.

It's all about framing.

If we could pass a constitutional amendment called "Civil Rights for All Amendment" that focuses on civil unions/domestic partnerships first and foremost and then go from there, the movement to ultimately get to gay marriage rights would come sooner.

I tried helping out in this cause and will do so in the future. It has to be done.

[bliss_eternal]

163. Not only do I support it,

...I was really sad when I couldn't apply to become an officiate for glbt weddings. :(
(They ran out of apps, and started a wait list). But I was pleased to see that so many people were willing and able to sign up to meet the demand.

Yes, yes, yes--love is beautiful and everlasting, I support it for all! :hi:

[ShenandoahAspen]

171. Not just yes, but HELL YES! nt

[flvegan]

172. Support it? I fight for it.

Nothing less than absolute equality for everyone.

[bridgit]

182. yes...

[Starry Messenger]

188. I fully support marriage for everyone.

Human rights are for everyone. We can nitpick over terminology later. Get gay folk to where the rest of us are now. That is the priority.

[freethought gal]

191. YES

But I'm a newbie, so I can't vote for this poll. But you've got my YES vote!

[Blue_In_AK]

192. Absolutely 100 percent YES. n/t

[ulysses]

196. yes.

[NYC_SKP]

198. GLBT, LGBT, IRC, BLT, IRT, MSNBC, IBTL.... this is becoming a flame war.

And it's in the wrong fucking forum...

:patriot:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

220. What forum does it belong in?

[Chovexani]

223. The "stupid queers" forum

Duh

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

227. Silly me, what was I thinking?

[NYC_SKP]

238. It's not about the Presidential race, or the President, or the Presidency, so..

It could go in General Discussion, or in the GLBT issue forum.

CA props 7 and 10 would go in the Energy/Environment forum, etc., etc....

:patriot:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

244. Well, if this is the wrong forum, I'm sure the mods would have moved it

The mods here are great.

:patriot:

[NYC_SKP]

264. No, not always. Lots of things stay here and I'm not particularly bothered.

I just wanted to string all those acronyms together to try to lighten it up in this thread! :hi:

I know it's a serious topic, but a poll designed to ferret out certain DU members is pretty unproductive....and are we solving anything?

[Left Is Write]

233. It belongs in this forum because it relates to the recent election.

[NYC_SKP]

258. I disagree.

Prop 8 only relates in that it was on the same ballot federal state and local elections.

This forum is GD-Presidential, not GD-Elections.

If it's about the California Ballot, there's a DU forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=141

If it's about Gay Rights, there's a DU GLBT forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=221

And I think it's fine for the General Discussion forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=389

Are you suggesting that a poll about better treatment of livestock, veterans benefits, or bonds for prison programs would be appropriate to post in GD-Presidential? (these were also on the ballot).

Have you seen other threads in GD-P unrelated to the presidential race, media coverage thereof, etc. Not likely.

But if you think these belong here, that's cool.

We can disagree and still be on the same side generally. :hi:

And, thanks for being civil in your reply!!!

[Left Is Write]

286. There was a fair amount of discussion about this prop leading up to the election.

If the moderators believe the post is inappropriate to this forum, they'll move it.

I do try to be civil in my disagreements (though I'm not always successful).

[bullwinkle428]

298. OH NOES! You might catch the gay because it's in the wrong forum!

:eyes:

[NYC_SKP]

305. I like acronyms, and I'm inclusive so let the post stay. And I have my gay shots!

But they don't work, not even a little!

[Irishonly]

203. Yes

Ronny, gay marriage was supported by three very vocal people here.

[Danger Mouse]

208. Yes, and fuck anybody who voted 'no' for any reason other than...

voting against marriage as a whole.
The fact that prop 8 passed at all is a fucking DISGRACE.

[political_Dem]

210. Yes.

[progressoid]

218. Funny thing. The Nos aren't saying much.

[graywarrior]

232. Whoever invented marriage should be shot along with the idiot who invented work

[NYC_SKP]

270. WOOT!!!

Looks what it's done to us!!!

And my 7 years of it did not end particularly well. :hi:

[graywarrior]

288. Mine isn't bad, but if we had a choice again, we'd remain unmarried

Only because we hate labels. Mr & Mrs....ya....right.

[CADEMOCRAT7]

236. I support marriage, and the rights of marriage FOR ALL. EQUAL RIGHTS.

For me, this issue has always been about my commitment to democracy, and my firm support of equal rights for ALL. I have felt that no one should be discriminated against !!!

[Left Brain]

240. You didn't have HELL Yes!

I'd have marked that one.

My husband and I stood witness to the Canadian marriage of our brother and his partner of over 33 years. Bullshit that they had to go all the way to Canada to make their Union legal (although not recognized in the states).

They have now been together 38 years. They keep their marriage certificate, framed, in their living room on the grand piano. I cry every time I see it.

[enigmatic]

243. yes

absolutely.

[rosesaylavee]

247. Yes. It is a basic human right. n/t

[grantcart]

253. yes but i prefer that it is a civil rights issue

[Barack_America]

257. This is where DU makes me sad. People are so damned hostile that we'll never hear from the "no"...

...voters.

And, though I disagree, I'm interested in their reasoning.

[endthewar]

277. I voted no.

I think that government should just recognize ALL relationships as civil unions. I think the way it is now there is a blurring between church and state that shouldn't be there.

[Barack_America]

287. That's not technically a "no".

You're still advocating for equal legal rights for all, whatever you choose to call it.

I think ronnykmarshall was looking for people to explain why they think that gay partnerships do not deserve equal legal protection.

But, for the record, I agree with removing the Church from the legalization of "marriages" entirely.

[endthewar]

299. Well, there were only two options on this poll

and everybody was ready to kill anybody who had the audacity to select "no". Also, I'm not so far removed from reality to realize that there are a LOT of Americans who consider homosexuality sinful, immoral, and unethical behavior. If people think that my view about civil unions for all is extreme, just wait until they talk to the average American.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

367. If I wanted to hear the reasoning of bigots, I'd be on Free Republic

[La Lioness Priyanka]

623. i have academic interest in the ku klux klan too. doesnt make me support their actions or reasoning

or ideology.

being quiet on bigotry is being complicit

its easy to take an interest in peoples reasoning when its not your rights at stake

people like you who excuse the bigots while judging harshly those who are anti-bigotry sicken me almost more than the bigots who are open about their bigotry

[TheKentuckian]

261. I vote yes but rather see the whole shebang crapped out regardless of orientation

The reality is we are supporting an expansion of a privileged class rather than actual equality. I think it is genuinely wrong for the government to be involved in sanctioning any personal relationships. The entire thing is social engineering and inherently creates inequality by conveying rights and/or responsibilities to people based purely on lifestyle choices.

As long as people are coherent and of age I don't care what you do or who you do it with but this whole marriage deal is bogus from a government standpoint. Equality is people having the same rights, not finagling the deck into your favor. People that make the same money should pay the same taxes, single people and those who are polyamorous might not want to lay in the hospital or die alone, and you ought to be able to insure anyone you like under your policy from a niece or nephew to a good friend.

So, yeah I support measures to increase equality and therefore will donate and vote in support of the rights of gays to marry but its hard to strongly advocate something based on equality that you don't agree with regardless of gender and/or orientation because it inherently creates 2 classes of citizen from the word go.

Marriage is bad law and I'm not proud to support bad law. I also think running into the teeth of the defense when your offensive line is crap is stupid too but I wish everyone to pursue happiness and will help any and everyone I can to have the opportunity but the hostility, witch hunts, and mouth open ears closed mentality towards any perspective that varies from the party line isn't exactly endearing.

[sub.theory]

268. Goverment must provide EQUAL RIGHTS

No one is ordering churches to marry anyone, and it is _outrageous_ that certain religious organizations conspired to ram Prop 8 through CA. All of them must lose their tax exempt status. I, as a taxpayer, refuse to underwrite their assault on our secular government - one founded on equal rights under the law for ALL citizens.

[RetroLounge]

275. Not just yes, but Hell Yes!

Sorry this happened...

RL

[JimDandy]

279. Yes, but I am personally uncomfortable with it. That is MY problem though, not theirs.

[EastTennesseeDem]

284. 10 reasons why gay marriage is wrong

10. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

9. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

8. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

7. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

6. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

5. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

4. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

3. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

2. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

1. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[Danger Mouse]

289. Of course! I've been a fool all along!

[ronnykmarshall]

291. LOL!!!

So good!

Thanks!!

Polyester is the work of SATAN!!!

[Left Is Write]

294. I thought it was the work of SATIN...

[tbyg52]

538. Yes, and Obama is a Muslin. nt

[Left Is Write]

542. Yes! And that's why it was curtains for McCain!

:D

[tbyg52]

676. FWIW, I nominate us for a DUzy! nt

[Fleshdancer]

295. I support equality

therefore, I support gay marriage.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

324. That's how it should be

BTW, hey, how are you doing?

:hug:

[Fleshdancer]

374. HOLYF*CKINGSHIT! You're BACK!!!!

:bounce:

YAY! When did this happen???

:bounce:

I'm so excited! The lounge just wasn't the same without you sweetheart!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

423. Yes, I am

One week ago to the day.

Thanks!

:bounce:

[dascientist]

297. I don't support ANY marriage under the govt. as it presently is.

[marlakay]

300. I am not answering because the truth is I would vote for it

but I don't support it...i know that sounds weird. I want them to have all the same rights we do, i will vote whatever way that makes it happen, i will vote for marriage for them, but i personally don't believe in it.

So I guess you could say i would vote against my beliefs on this because my personal beliefs aren't as strong as my beliefs in giving them the same rights as we do.

Its sort of like abortion for me. I would never have an abortion. But I am not going to stop anyone else for doing so...choice.

So I want gay people to have a choice too. It may not be one I personally believe in but its their choice.

[endthewar]

304. Wonderful post!

Hopefully you don't get flamed for it. Too many narrow-minded people on here demanding everybody to march lockstep behind their beliefs.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

326. They won't get flamed for it, I bet.

That poster was honest. I've resisted jumping into these threads today because they have seemed to break down into some kind of bickering. I've seen you more than a few times in those threads, and I understand your points.

I do have a question, if you wouldn't mind answering me. I get the point about the state staying out of the marriage business. But I want to know if, (and I don't know you at all, where you are, etc.), you would vote Yes or No on Prop 8. Just say yes or no, and please be honest. And if you've been asked that already somewhere else, let me know. Sorry if I missed it.

[gatorboy]

465. The troll sleeps with the fishes.

Took long enough!

[Shakespeare]

308. Yes, yes, yes--to say otherwise is to completely fail to understand what you're denying your fellow

citizens. It doesn't MATTER if you think marriage is a bad idea. It doesn't MATTER if you think civil unions are appropriate. The FACT is that marriage is completely entrenched in hundreds and hundreds of laws, and until that opportunity is available to ALL our citizens, they're being denied a basic human right that we enjoy without so much as a second thought.

And ronny, a big :hug: for you tonight.

[SoonerPride]

312. My spouse and I both wish we could be married.

But we live in a country that does not see our love of the last 22 years as equal to that of straights who get married and divorced 5 times in 10 years.

You tell me who undermines the concept of marriage?

[ronnykmarshall]

336. Britney Spears.

Not us, honey.

[Tatiana]

315. Marriage should be a legal right for all Americans. n/t

[Rowdyboy]

320. Its depressing but transformational change is so very slow in coming....

This week we've lost a wonderful chance for major change. It was right there in front of us and I let myself believe it was about to happen. It didn't. Its devastating. The youth vote went for us 60-40-we will win eventually its just going to take far too many years

[Withywindle]

334. Oh hell yes.

I've never seen an argument against it that isn't based on either bigoted superstition or chickenshit cowardice. (And in the case of "you damn queers better be quiet, you're gonna cost us the election," it's both.)

[sakabatou]

340. Ok, who are the 15 that voted no?

[hulklogan]

348. 15 people who don't believe that gays are deserving of equality under the law.

15 people who have H8 issues.

[sakabatou]

355. Freepers?

[JI7]

357. freeper trolls ?

[cherokeeprogressive]

409. Not sure about the other 14, but I was the first. I came back after dinner and was shocked.

I voted NO because I don't want to see ANY group of American citizens ostracized or set aside because of a fucking word. Marriage. GAY MARRIAGE? HET MARRIAGE? FUCK MARRIAGE!! I don't need to say I'm MARRIED to feel good about myself. I wish NO ONE had to say they were MARRIED to have the same CIVIL RIGHTS as any other group of people. I also saw it as a trap, along the lines of "Have you stopped beating your spouse?" A pretext toward a purity oath.

Equal Civil Rights for Every American Citizen. That's what I'm about. Take a gander at my screen name and ponder why I might feel that way.

What a fucking stupid argument for progressives to have.

Call every contract between two people who love each other the same thing: CIVIL UNION under the law. Give EVERY citizen the same rights under the concept of CIVIL UNION.

Let those people who want to call it marriage call it marriage. But TREAT it as what it is: Civil Union. Remove the word marriage from every law that affects CIVIL UNION between two human beings. And treat every single person as the Constitution lays it out: With equal protection UNDER THE LAW.

Is that so hard?

[Tektonik]

343. HELL YES

no votes without proper responses in this thread should be banned

[Gemini Cat]

345. I support gay marriage.

What I don't get is why in the 21st century this is even being debated and what I especially don't get is how is it anybodies fucking business who I marry. One would think we'd have put the homophobic bullshit to rest by now.

[bigwillq]

346. Yes. With the same exact rights

as marriage between straight couples.

[nam78_two]

354. Of course

Pity that question has to even be asked in this day and age.

[fizzgig]

359. 100 percent

[Lumpsum]

362. It's easier to reform government than religion.

If the ignorant religious want to keep marriage between man and a woman, fine, let them be ignorant.

Civil unions for all.

[NYC_SKP]

364. KILL HIM, KILL HIM, KILL NYC_SKP!!! He Said He Voted FOR prop 8!!!

In point of fact, I mis-typed and chose to just leave it and correct downthread.

The mistyped comment: "I voted for 8, I'm shocked that it passed, but confident it won't hold water.", the context makes it pretty clear that I did not support 8. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7814457&mesg_id=7815569

See posts #256 and #314:

ronnykmarshall wrote:"You voted yes. So fuck you." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7814457&mesg_id=7815689

and

haruka3_2000 wrote: NYC_SKP -- "I voted for 8" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7814457&mesg_id=7816029

So, DU, I am speechless, I've never seen a witch hunt quite like this and I'm really disappointed by this.

What a lovely poll, and what lovely comments... :sarcasm: :puke:

[Shakespeare]

381. ronny also apologized to you.

But you chose to make yet another post, far from his apology, without acknowledging that. Sad.

[NYC_SKP]

393. Not by any deliberate action, to be sure.

I shall track this down and respond in kind.

thanks for the heads-up.

[qwlauren35]

365. I said No.

Nobody likes me here anyway, so I'm just going to stick my neck out and say it. The level of progress required for gay marriage will probably take 100 years after the "coming out of the closet" movement. History demands it. If gay rights truly follows the model of civil rights or women's suffrage, then it is a long, slow, painful battle, with many, many setbacks.

From the time that Abigail Adams asked her husband John to consider the rights of women, it took nearly 150 years for women to get the right to vote.

The fight to abolish slavery didn't have a high enough priority in the 1780's. Took America another 80 years to get around to it, plus a constitutional amendment on black suffrage, and then after nearly 100 years of Jim Crow backlash, actual enforcement of the amendment so that we could vote.

You're seeing the backlash; it's part of the process. I am not sure that gay marriage will be a reality in my lifetime (i.e. in the next 40 years.) But an intermediate step is to get the rest of America to see gay people as human beings instead of "other". Y'all keep trying to skip that step.

It doesn't work that way.

[TheDonkey]

371. Just because gay marriage is going to be a STRUGGLE doesn't mean you shouldn't support it

this isn't a "neener neener neeener" you've got to suffer longer sort of thing. Do you or do you not support equal right regardless of whether it is on the way in the immediate future.

[qwlauren35]

390. Not right now, no.

I am purposely being contrary right now. But I hate the "my way or the highway" attitude of GBLT rights activists on gay marriage.

And it's playing out quite clearly in this topic.

In the past, I have said yes, on principle. But if I had to choose between abortion rights and gay marriage, I'd pick abortion. If I had to choose between the economy and gay marriage, I'd pick the economy. If I had to choose between electing a Democrat as president and gay marriage, I'd pick electing a Democrat as president.

At this point, when it comes to gay marriage, I would sell y'all down the river right now, in order to achieve things that I think are more important.

I am NOT a liberal progressive. Never pretended to be. I'd like to see the elimination of "don't ask, don't tell" more than I'd like to see gay marriage. I'd rather fight for civil unions than gay marriage. I'd rather fight for a Constitutional Amendment that gave civil unions equal legal status to "marriage". But I'm sorry, gay marriage is just not up there on my priority list.

Gay marriage is a slap in the face to every conservative Christian in America, and since I think they outnumber you, and I'm desperate to keep them from rising up and assassinating our president-elect, gay marriage "is expendable".

And no, I do not see marriage as a "basic right". It's always been a form of property management, combined with a religious significance, and a way of providing a strong infrastructure for children. Except for the tax benefit, every legal benefit of marriage is available to unmarried couples.

And I'd like to see some honesty here. The word "marriage" is symbolic of normalcy. Otherwise, a civil union with the appropriate legal recognition would be sufficient.

So, every time I hear someone say: no, civil unions aren't good enough", even if the legal benefits were identical, then I know that it's the symbolism that matters. And to two groups of people who are diametrically opposed on the issue.

It is like pro-life vs. pro-choice. The people who are diametrically opposed see no middle ground, and yet it does exist.

I do not agree with the position of the Christian right that "homosexuals" are an abomination against God, and should not be made welcome in any aspect of one's work or home life. However, I also don't think that "marriage" is necessary in order to achieve the legal rights that the GBLT community is entitled to.

And I will continue to seek a middle ground on this issue, knowing that it will piss off both extremes.

[LostinVA]

436. What a piece of work -- you should be on teh SAME "highway

[LibraLiz1973]

631. The way you said that Christian Conservatives out number gays was very offensive

You are very quick to throw an entire group of people under the bus for reasons that are sad & uninformed.
I could never be cruel enough to tell people that love each other that their rights just aren't important enough
for me to fight for.

You saying that you are seeking middle ground is kind of like Sarah Palin saying she can see Russia from her house.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

382. Pushing for gay marriage *is* the way to have gay people seen as human beings.

If we back down, gay people will be further marginalized, and the bigots will win. We're never going to change some people's minds, and we shouldn't have to.

There are people STILL mad about the Civil Rights Act, for God's sake. Should we not have pushed for its passage?

[donco6]

389. It already exists in MA and CT.

I think you're being too pessimistic. Which is something, coming from me.

[qwlauren35]

402. I had forgotten CT.

I think it is the fact that Prop 8 flipped that tells me that America just is NOT ready. Mass is unique for having two gay meccas, one on each side of the state. And for having Cambridge - notoriously progressive, to boot.

Mass folks are kinda funny. Almost like New Hampshirites, they don't like folks getting into their business. They're independent minded. Despite Puritan roots, they are a hotbed of religious liberalism. The UU churches dot the landscape.

I think gay marriage in Massachussetts makes sense.

Ever since California fought against Affirmative Action, my opinion of the state changed drastically, and it became clear that they are NOT like Massachusetts folks by any stretch. I used to think of them as liberal. But they produced Reagan, and elected Schwarzenegger. So, the liberalism is only in pockets. Live and learn.

I am surprised that New Hampshire does not allow gays to legally marry. To be honest, I would have thought that they would be next. And, at some point, New York. And perhaps at some point, Washington State or Oregon.

But I no longer have such expectations of California. Some days, I think we're damned lucky that it's still a blue state at all.

[LibraLiz1973]

633. Many Americans were "not ready" for affirmative action either. Do you think everyone

should have waited for them to get comfy with it?

[readmoreoften]

605. Oh, yeah, you really know your gay history don't you?

"Molly Exalted", 1763 http://rictornorton.co.uk/

Montaigne, 18th century: apparently, there was limited same-sex marriage in the 18th century in various nations, but that right was lost.
http://web.archive.org/web/19981205014731/http://www.bway.net/~halsall/lgbh/lgbh-montaigne.txt
http://rictornorton.co.uk/

Edward Carpenter (1884-1929):: Homogenic Love and Its Place in a Free Society 1894

The trial of Oscar Wilde

Okay: can we have our rights now? Are a thousand years of imprisonment and death penalty plus 200 years of lobotomy, clitorectomy, and castration enough?

[PBS Poll-435]

373. Yes, K&R, and OMG

at this thread!!!

3% of DU needs cookies, I believe.

:-)

[Mampula]

375. Gays marrying does not bother me

Even though I'm heterosexual, gay people who love each other should have the right to marry. They do not affect my life in any way.

[readmoreoften]

606. Thanks, straight marriage has totally never bothered me either.

:P

[Erin Elizabeth]

378. Absolutely, without equivocation, without hesitation

and with all my heart and soul, yes.

And not any separate but equal bullshit, either. MARRIAGE.

There are over 1400 state and federal protections and benefits conferred through marriage and it's straight up discrimination to say that one group of people CANNOT have access to those protections and benefits.

Period.

[BattyDem]

386. Same here!

:hi:

[RagAss]

387. Yes.

[helderheid]

392. Either marriage for all, or get the government out of the marriage business and civil unions for all

[Dem2theMax]

396. Yes. Everyone should have absolute and equal rights, period.

Including one of the most important - to love and marry the person of your choice.

[VADem11]

398. Hell Yes!

This is a civil rights issue and we can't rest until we have full marriage equality across the USA. We will win the fight for marriage equality. It's just a question of how soon.

[windoe]

399. Marriage is an agreement between two people

and all should benefit equally in law. This looks to me to be a constitutional right, and most disagreement I have heard is religiously based.

[MrSlayer]

400. Absolutely. I'm a huge proponent of equal rights.

Equal rights for all!

[marew]

401. I'm very straight but it is none of my business who is in someone

else's bedroom or the sex of the person they fall in love with. Why should I care? And why shouldn't everyone have the same relationship rights I do? I have never been able to understand why crazy straight people are threatened gays marrying. Just don't get it at all!

[progressivebydesign]

403. Whose place is it to tell others who they can marry?

I never understood that.. if someone doesn't support gay marriage, then they shouldn't have one. But why? why? do people want to impose their beliefs and prejudices on others?

[Breeze54]

408. Of course, who wouldn't? What are they 'ascared' of?

Those opposed are in Looneytoons. :crazy:

[Chorophyll]

410. Yes.

Simple as that.

[Frumious B]

412. I always ask this question of those who are against it.

If gay marriage were 100% legal five seconds from now in all fifty states then what would you lose? What would be taken from you? Nobody ever has a concrete answer beyond "It's just wrong." or "It's immoral." I always point out that this is not a rational objection, but a religious based one and, as such, is using the power of government to impose religious doctrine.

[markevil]

414. Another attempt to divide us by the Evangelicals

This issue has no relevance to anyone straight. They are trying to find a wedge to split a party that has always been for equal rights for EVERYONE. Wake up people, don't take the bait. Fight for your gay friends, Let's get equal rights for all, and move on to new prosperous times for our party.

[Hope And Change]

415. Yes!

[nc4bo]

416. Yes, I do. nt

[polichick]

417. I've supported gay marriage from the first time I heard someone mention it....

I'm shocked that so many people have problems with it ~ don't see how gay couples could possibly threaten "the sanctity of marriage."

[JerseygirlCT]

671. Yes. I've been arguing with people about it for more than 20

years now. It just mystifies me as to why anyone would object? Really? And the problem is?

[H2O Man]

418. Yes.

Of course.

[WillyT]

419. Absolutely !!! - K & R !!!

:kick:

[No Elephants]

420. I voted yes, but It would be interesting to see where the vote would have gone

if I had to vote "No" to indicate support of gay marriage. That is what Prop 8 required. My guess is that it lost a lot of votes by mistake, because of the confusion. No, I do want gay marriage. Yes, I don't want gay marriage. Confusing and counter-intuitive.

[Ozma]

445. GREAT POINT I never thought about that!!! n/t

[itzdaun]

536. I agree n/t

[Max_powers94]

426. yes and No

[readmoreoften]

607. ?

[cboy4]

427. That's a no from me

:P

[mtnsnake]

428. Of course I do

[Sheets of Easter]

429. The fact that the question needs to be asked here disturbs me.

18 "no" votes? :wtf:

[musicblind]

431. kick

Gay Marriage is awesome!

[Bassic]

432. 20 people voted no?

:wtf:

[Prophet 451]

433. In legal terms, absolutely

We have "Domestic Partnership" here. It carries identical rights and responsibilities as marriage, is processed on the same paperwork and virtually everyone has called it "marriage" since the start. I don't really care what it's called so long as the legal rights and duties are exactly the same. Calling it "marriage" would be better but I can live with a different name as long as everything else is the same.

[SeaLyons]

435. Of course I support it......n/t

[Poseidan]

438. I vote no

Because gay-marriage is un-Constitutional. Marriage is a religious establishment and religions have every right to practice their religions freely.

If you mean Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships, then I vote yes, as they are not religious and merely constitute non-discriminatory legal equality.

[redqueen]

453. Marriage is not a religious establishment. It can be recognized by a chruch,

but that doesn't make it a religious establishment. It's a legal establishment. That's why you have to get a marriage license from the state.

[ronnykmarshall]

455. How is it un-Constitutional?

[redqueen]

458. No... first I'll be sick

I'll be sick all over my keyboard, and THEN my head will explode.

That's what may happen if I don't get the fuck out of this thread right now.

[LostinVA]

460. You really are a piece of work, aren't you?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

500. Huh?

The Constitution provides for the separation of Church and State, so gay marriage, by definition, can't be "unconstitutional."

And last time I checked, Justices of the Peace officiate numerous marriages with no religion involved whatsoever.

[Left Is Write]

545. Marriage is NOT a "religious establishment."

My sister and brother-in-law were married at the county courthouse. No religious vows were said, and no clergyperson performed a ceremony.

Are they married, or are they in a civil union/domestic partnership? The answer is that they are married. No religion required.

Gay marriage is absolutely not unconstitutional. If it were, there would be no need to create an amendment to the constitution to specifically prohibit it.

Legalized gay marriage will not infringe on the rights of any religion to practice freely. No church will be compelled to marry a gay couple if such church chooses not to. I have no idea where people are getting the idea that this will happen. I am not Catholic. I have never belonged to a Catholic church, and I do not adhere to specific Catholic tenets. I can't walk into a Catholic church and expect the priest to marry me - and I'm a straight woman. If churches can refuse to marry straight couples based on the tenets of their faith, then churches can also refuse to marry gay couples based on the tenets of their faith. Ergo, no prohibition of the free practice of religion, ergo not unconstitutional.

Legalized gay marriage will only compel THE STATE to marry people. It will not compel CHURCHES to do it.

[olegramps]

604. I believe that you have demonstrated a principle yet to be discussed.

If marriage is a civil right, how can a priest refuse to marry a couple because of their religious beliefs. This would be like a judge refusing to marry a couple because he didn't agree with their political beliefs.

If the state invests power in the clergy to marry people then they can't arbitrarily use this right. That would seem to be against the principle of equal protection. You have stated that marriage is not a religious function, but a civil function. Well, marriage definitely was a religious function solely under the control of the Christian Church for centuries in Europe. This the crux of the matter. It is my contention that if religious ministers had not been invested with this power we would not be having this discussion. Relieving ministers of this power would probably be met with the same opposition to marriage that same sex couples face today.

[LostinVA]

649. They are refusing to recognize their marriage within the CHURCH -- they are not representatives of t

They are just given the right by the State to sign a license -- A CIVIL CONTACT/DOCUMENT. Marriage has zero to do with religion, and everything to do with the State. I have no right to have the Catholic Church recognize my marriage, and by extension a priest sign the license, I DO have a right to have the Clerk, JP. Mayor, etal perform the ceremony.

When you get a divorce, you go to a courthouse, not a clerical court. You don't need an annulment to get married again, only to have that marriage recognized in the Church as legitimate.

And, your grasp of history is very skewed: marriage has also been a legal construct, not a religious one, which is why very, very few people except for royalty and aristocracy got married until the rise of the middle class after the Industrial Revolution -- because there was no need for poor people to have a legal contract.

I think you know all this by want to try to "rationalize" away our rights.

[Ozma]

442. Why is this even a question on the DU??? my question is....

I have a hard time finding people debating semantics here.

The question should be "do you support equal rights for all human beings under the law?"

I wonder if it were worded that way would you get 4% of DU members NOT supporting that???

What's the difference between the two questions?

[Mike 03]

444. Support NT

[Greyskye]

447. "There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote,"

"There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote," - Evan Wolfson

Says it all.

[holiday]

448. As a Christian I do believe in gay marriage.

I am pro-family and it will help gay couples who have kids.

It will help gay couples to adopt.

To me, these are family values.

[insanity]

450. I support giving equal rights to everybody

If the fundamentalists are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage than their churches don't have to marry gay couples. The government should not be in the business of discrimination between consenting adults. We need to get that wall of separation between church and state.

[redqueen]

451. Um...

YES!

FULL equality... not this different kind of marriage type thing that's just for "the gays" shit.

[krawhitham]

454. I support Gay Marriage but,

I do not believe it should be a state issue or a country issue. It should be a issue in churches/religion institutes, it should up to them to allow "marriages".

Civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage can he handled by states so gay couples do not get screwed over if one happens to die.

But like I said to me "marriage" is a religion issue, and I believe in the separation of church and state

[LostinVA]

462. Let Redqueen correct your huge ignorance on this subject:

"Here:

MARRIAGE is ALREADY a legal term, people. That's why you have to get a Marriage LICENSE from the STATE. It's a LEGAL CONTRACT.

Churches / religions / etc. can RECOGNIZE the contract if they so wish, but this does NOT mean it's a religious establishment.

It's a contract... a legal contract.

Fucking hell.

I never knew there was so much blinding ignorance about this subject on here.

I think my head may well explode any minute now... just from reading a small sampling of the stupidity."

[Name removed]

464. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ozma]

525. Yeah, I was wondering how many people here really don't have a

clue about this issue as an equal rights issue. Maybe they would be happier with separate bathrooms, separate drinking fountains, separate spaces in restaurants? Geesh!

[Ozma]

524. Then you are willing to give up ALL your privileges because you are only...

married by your RELIGION?? You will give up tax breaks? You will give up inheritance rights? Hospital visiting rights, and about 1000 other "RIGHTS" you have as a married person that gay people who are in committed relationships for life do not have?

Geesh, I thought this was a POLITICAL forum, not a religious forum.

[redqueen]

456. OH MY FUCKING GOD!

:banghead:


Here:

MARRIAGE is ALREADY a legal term, people. That's why you have to get a Marriage LICENSE from the STATE. It's a LEGAL CONTRACT.

Churches / religions / etc. can RECOGNIZE the contract if they so wish, but this does NOT mean it's a religious establishment.

It's a contract... a legal contract.

Fucking hell.

I never knew there was so much blinding ignorance about this subject on here.

I think my head may well explode any minute now... just from reading a small sampling of the stupidity.

:banghead: :nuke: :banghead: :nuke: :banghead: :nuke: :banghead: :nuke: :banghead: :nuke:

[LostinVA]

459. You explained it exactly -- and, it's ALWAYS like this

I think some on here use it as a cop out for supporting equal marriage rights.

[redqueen]

466. I dunno what the fuck it is

but it fucking pisses me off.

:wtf:

[LostinVA]

468. Seriously -- it's especially puzzling when MARRIED folks say it

They went to City Hall to get a license, not clergy. They signed a pre-nup -- not a "religous ceremony agreement," etc.

[redqueen]

495. It just doesn't make any sense at all to me...

it seems like it's just a justification of bigotry, IMO. Sorry if that's harsh, but that's exactly how it seems. Rationalizing bigotry.

[Yes We Did]

501. Bigotry stems from insecurity.

...People insecure in their own sexuality or of the strength of their relationships.

It's sad.

What does two people in a same sex relationship have to do with what goes on in a straight couple's bedroom?

As a good friend often tells me... "What I eat don't make you shit" Obviously, that is a food reference, but the same principles apply.

Why does who I love have anything to do with you?

[redqueen]

512. Maybe so...

I still don't get it. Cause like you said, what's one got to do with the other?

I would love to be in a loving relationship in which we both were so in love with each other and so committed to each other that we'd want to make it 'official'. Why would I ever want to deny that to two consenting adults? Why would anyone?

:(

[Yes We Did]

513. Exactly.

Like I said, it's sad. It's really really sad. Hopefully one day soon it won't be that way. I think we have taken a huge step in the right direction by electing Obama, but obviously there is still a very long way to go.

[readmoreoften]

608. Nope, sometimes its stems from sociopathic bullying and the love of the smell of blood.

[Left Is Write]

550. This concept seems so ridiculously obvious to me.

I had no idea how incredibly frustrating it could be trying to point out what is so very obvious.


Marriage. Legal contract. Does not belong to only the religious.

[redqueen]

634. It *is* ridiculously obvious.

All the rationalizing and words salads say to me is "I'm a bigot trying to rationalize my bigotry".

[Anwen]

467. YES.

I am so disappointed in my fellow Californians :(

[TK421]

469. Most definitely yes...I have gay friends and co-workers who I would lay down my life for

who, I might add have been some of the greatest friends you could ever hope for, whereas the friends who I thought were friends were "fair weather friends" which I don't need. As someone stated up thread ( somewhere, sorry ) someone elses sex life is none of my damn business, and they have EVERY frigging right to happiness and protection from ridicule and violence.

Would also like to hear some "no" explanations on this matter

[mkultra]

483. TK421, why arent you at your post?

Respond!

[TK421]

563. That name amnesty thing is sounding juicier by the moment

Heh...this subject really raises my blood pressure :(

[mkultra]

582. name amnesty?

[TK421]

586. You know...on DU they have this amnesty thing going on where you can change your

screen-name without any penalty to post count ( or so I think ). I always get the TK421 why aren't you at your post? I always liked the name, don't get me wrong, but maybe I should change it to something else...

[mkultra]

647. why would you change such a cool name

didnt you think you would invoke the response of the starwars detail lovers.

[TK421]

670. Well...for starters I almost always get the "TK421 why aren't you at your post" question

and sometimes I can't come up with a creative enough response...other than I'm here. I just picked the name for some reason ( I am a Star Wars fan, but not that new trilogy shit...don't get me started on that ). It just kind of stuck, but I was thinking of other screen names...in particular a certain screen name I used to use years ago to terrorize various assholes in AOL chatrooms ( when that was the big thing back then ).

[Yes We Did]

470. As far as I'm concerned...

It shouldn't be an issue. Marriage is in fact a legal contract. There is theoretically supposed to be a separation of church and state and it would be wonderful if for once this country actually followed it's own governing laws.

This is the very reason I have no use for organized religion. The mormon church should have it's tax exempt status revoked. Actually, every church that preaches this bull shit should have the same thing done.

I was very happy to hear of the protests in CA, but there needs to be more done.

Hopefully, with Obama as president, there will be.

[SoFlaJet]

471. as a straight man YES!!!!!!!

no one wins unless we all win...I stand in solidarity with my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters on this. Equal rights for ALL!!!!

[Call Me Wesley]

472. Yes, of course.

I'm sorry your thread got this heated and flamed by a few. :hug:

[chieftain]

475. I used to support civil partnerships until I realized what

a bogus gimmick that is. Equal rights for everyone is so much easier to explain and a damned sight closer to the American ethos. I proudly voted against Prop 2 here in Florida. My wife and I drove past a Prop 2 supporter waving a sign and both gave him the thumbs down signal. Our marriage did not seem to be threatened by either action.

[mkultra]

480. Frankly, i just just dont know

You should have included an "Dont know" button.

I think i just haven't researched the issue enough or maybe i just need to spend some time thinking about it.

Heres my confusion;
I view marriage as a religious ceremony that triggers an official union by the state. I think that a civil union is a what you obtain when you don't subscribe to religion and you want the legal equivalent.

I don't think anyone should be denied the right to that union at all.

I believe that a right delayed is a right denied.

I think my hangup comes with the idea that a civil union is not good enough but rather the name must be the same. This seems like an attempt to stab at religious conservatives(who could use a little stabbing) out of spite.

So, as i said, confusion. i don't like using the law to grind personal axes but i believe in equality of rights.

I invite persuasive arguments on this. I clearly need to hear more on this topic.

[LostinVA]

487. "I view marriage as a religious ceremony that triggers an official union by the state"

WTF??? You ahve it BACKWARDS: marriage is performed by teh State, and clergy performs a religious ceremony recognizing your marriage within their religious entity.

[mkultra]

544. the state only issues the license

The event must then be performed by a clergy or justice of the peace.

The state only performs the marriage if requested.

[Left Is Write]

552. "The state only performs the marriage if requested."

So? The clergy only performs the marriage if requested also.

People can be - and are, ALL THE TIME - married without a shred of religiousness involved.

[mkultra]

555. sure, and thats fine

religion isn't a necessary component but it is certainly set up as the primary finalization component.
Whether thats right or wrong i cant say. Frankly, the religious component is not what catches me..

I guess my real hang up is about the push for use of the name marriage over a civil union structure that confers the exact same rights as marriage.

[Left Is Write]

559. Because it doesn't.

A civil union doesn't confer the exact same rights as marriage.

We already have legal marriage, a legal marriage that has absolutely nothing to do with religion. If religious institutions are the primary performers of marriage, that is societal preference and not a legal preference. The state DOES NOT CARE if you get married in a church or by a clergy.

There is no reason to have "separate but equal." Separate but equal is never equal, and it only serves to further marginalize a segment of our citizens.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

564. Your hang-up translates to "separate but equal."

[mkultra]

581. yeah, i guess it does

ill have to put more thought into it.

I personally feel that if the same rights can be obtained through a legal mechanism then the name lacks importance. my understanding of the union and its capabilities has been challenged though so i need to check it out more.

If a large segment of society is not ready, i don't see how forcing them forward will help them understand. This discomfort doesn't always result in an adequate excuse.

Separate but equal does not apply directly in this case as legal review of this premise in terms of institutions always turned up inequality. Seems like a legal mechanism would be far less prone to inequality due to its simplicity.

I think anyone who expects to jump directly to full marriage rights should consider the wisdom of pursuing an equal civil union principle first to draw closer to the goal.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

585. Who cares if a large part of society isn't ready?

There are people *still mad* about the Civil Rights Act from 1964, for the love of God.

Fuck the bigots, fuck their hate, and by the way, separate-but-equal was, is and always will be WRONG.

[Left Is Write]

551. Head, meet brick wall.

[mkultra]

558. if your not interested in discussing this issue further

feel free to discontinue.

[Left Is Write]

560. My response was a reply to LostinVA.

You're free to respond to it, of course, but it was not intended to be a commentary on my personal interest in discussing this issue.

[mkultra]

580. my appologies

[Warren DeMontague]

491. So, since I'm not religious, I'm not married?

Funny, my wife and I got a marriage license. From the state.

I really don't see why we need to play idiotic semantic games just because some fundies are uncomfortable with 'letting' the gays use the "M" word.

[mkultra]

546. obtaining the license doesnt confer marriage

the "marriage" is the step the completes the process.

If you didn't use clergy, then a justice performed the ceremony at your request. But for most states use the clergy to perform the event.

[Left Is Write]

554. "...most states use the clergy to perform the event."

There is NO state that requires the use of clergy to perform a marriage, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement.

The signatures on the marriage license and the subsequent filing of that license are what confer the status of married onto a couple. Legal marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and no religion or religious ceremony is required for marriage.

[mkultra]

557. teh religious aspect is not really the heart of the argument.

see my response to you above.

[readmoreoften]

610. No, most PEOPLE use clergy to perform the event. The state never REQUIRES a religious ceremony.

What the hell do you think happens in Las Vegas?

[mkultra]

655. you shoud try reading more often

i made it clear that religious or civil is acceptable.
wake up.

[Name removed]

549. Deleted message

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

[Starbucks Anarchist]

498. Incorrect.

You can get married in a church/synagogue/mosque/etc., or by a Justice of the Peace. In both cases, legal rights are conferred upon the couple via a marriage license -- the only difference is whether an actual ceremony is involved.

So basically, a house of worship provides the "icing on the wedding cake" via a ceremony, but houses of worship have no power to confer legal rights on anybody.

I think a lot of people immediately conjure up "ceremony" when they hear "marriage" while ignoring the legal matters involved, and that's where much of the confusion stems from.

[mkultra]

548. The license itself is preperatory

the event is what completes the process. The use of clergy allows people to blend the religious and legal aspects.

Even with your definition, My initial questions refer to the use of civil unions and why they are not adequate.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

566. Civil unions only for gay people?

That would fall under "separate but equal."

Or if you meant civil unions for everyone, gay and straight, it's impossible that millions of straight couples will downgrade to "civil unions."

[mkultra]

584. yeah, i think that a legal union

should be complete and available. I think there are alot of homophobic people that would do better if they where eased into equality.

This version of "separate but equal" is very different from groups of people attending institutions funded and run by the state. The legal mechanism can be constructed to insure full rights instantly.

[readmoreoften]

611. Bullshit. What you're requiring is non-religious people to have their marriages DOWNGRADED.

You're just expanding the disenfranchisement from GAYS to the NON-RELIGIOUS. My parents are MARRIED and have been for 40 years. PERIOD.

[LostinVA]

646. You're wrong -- the license IS the event

And, the answer SA for you: civil unions are "separate but equal." Which we know means second class citizenship.

[mkultra]

648. an unfulfilled license

Does not equal marriage, the ceremony, whether it be civil or religious is necessary.

[readmoreoften]

609. You are ill-informed. Marriage has ZERO to do with religion in the eyes of the state.

Marriage is a civil concept. Churches perform a marriage CEREMONY--a little dance--giving its blessing to the state-sanctioned marriage. That is why justices of the peace and captains of ships can MARRY people, not "civilly unionize" them.

My parents were married by the mayor in their own home 40 years ago. I have never heard an argument that they were anything less than married. I have never seen a contract stating as much. They file their taxes as MARRIED, every year. If you asked them what a "civil union" is, they would likely reply "a term made-up to describe a gay legal relationship a few years ago to distinguish gay relationships from straight ones."

[Left Is Write]

642. That's exactly what it is.

A made-up term to keep gay people's relationships separate from straight people's relationships.

It's a way for bigoted people - even those who may not be aware that they are bigoted - to feel good about "allowing" legal recognition of of gay couples while still maintaining some sense of separation from them.

I am married. Legalizing gay marriage will not change or threaten that in any way. I cannot grasp what people are so afraid of.

[mkultra]

643. i think your wrong about that

i was married with no civil ceremony at all. We obtained a license that was blank in most respects. This license was filed out and turned in by our clergy.

We are just as married as your parents and the state did nothing but record the occurrence.

I would suspect that the level of religious vs legal participation varies by state.

[LostinVA]

650. Your willful ignorance on this legal issue is staggering

[mkultra]

664. well, since im married and your probably not

it will be my experience that is reliable.


The license is permission to have a ceremony, religious or otherwise.

[budkin]

482. Who the fuck voted no? Tell me where you live so I can punch you in the face.

[Ozma]

516. I'd like to see that!!!! Good question! I think really some posters here

are just trying to be "cute" trying to argue semantics of what "marriage" is!!! They probably don't want to confront the issue directly, don't want to see that denial of righs to ANY adult American is really illegal, according to the US Constitution.


They have no dog in the fight, so they can be flip about it. Not a good place to be, when human rights are involved, IMO!!!!

[JuniperLea]

486. I support it, and I feel it's absolutely wrong not to...

This is not about marriages other than those between same sex partners. This has no effect on the traditional marriages the fearful are worrying about.

I heard some LDS guy whining because he was being called a bigot and he didn't feel he was one, he said he just supported "traditional marriage". That's fine, he has the right to think what he wants. What he doesn't have is the right to force his beliefs upon another.

Show me one place in any Christian Bible where it says Christians are to force their beliefs on others. Show me where it says that Christians have the right to judge others. Show me where it says Christians have the right to bear false witness against their neighbors. Show me where it says it is OK to treat someone else different. Show me where is says it's ok to treat someone differently than you would treat Christ.

No one is saying any religious community is going to be forced to accept anything. This is not about the thought and belief police. People can believe or refuse to accept anything they choose and that is their right. What they cannot do, what is NOT within their rights, is to attempt to foist their own beliefs upon other people. Period.

[Doityourself]

488. Yep. Absolutely and without hesitation! n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

489. Yes. Absolutely.

Actually, I think it's ridiculous that you should have to depend on straights to "grant" you the right to marry any more than we should have to ask you for it.

Equal Rights. Now. I stand with my GLBT brothers and sisters.

[KansDem]

492. It's in the Constitution: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (nt)

[Yes We Did]

494. And equal rights for everyone.

The pukes tried to say it's not in there "equality" but it is; all over the place.

[KansDem]

499. I'm not familiar with the Repubs' argument...

...but whatever it is, I'm sure it's convoluted!

on edit: I'm all for belief systems; they're necessary to get us through tough times and to answer question that will always remain unanswered, but I get angry when someone uses his/her religion to impose laws on others. I believe this to be a misuse of a belief system...

[Yes We Did]

503. I forget which program I was watching...

OH... Cenk!

He had a clip of some repuke saying that there is nothing in the Constitution about equality. Then Cenk went and found like 5 different instances where it IS in the constitution.

That's all I'm saying.

[KansDem]

504. I've edited my previous post for clarity.

But I'll check out TYT's clip, if I can find it...

Thanks! :hi:

[Yes We Did]

507. It was great! He ripped the guy to shreds. n/t

[Hosnon]

567. Is that in the Constitution? Or...

The Declaration of Independence?

:hi:

[GeorgeGist]

493. Yes if ...

it has a lower divorce rate than heterosexual marriage.

[PatSeg]

496. It isn't really a matter of supporting "Gay Marriage",

I'm totally OPPOSED to discrimination of any kind. If we're going to ban Gay Marriage, we should just ban marriage in general.

I just don't understand why people can't just mind their own business. Some people evidently have too much free time!

[FlyingSquirrel]

497. Yep, I think everyone has the same right to be miserable. ;-)

[Cali_Democrat]

502. Yes...of course I support Gay Marriage!

I wish the GLBT folks on this board lots of luck on their ongoing quest for equal rights.

[AntiFascist]

506. Of the NO votes...

how many of you believe in imposing your beliefs on others?

[Neecy]

508. Of course

I support a lot of rights I don't have - the right to marry, the right to serve in the military without being in the closet, the right to not get fired for being gay...too bad I don't have any of those rights.

This is particularly painful right now because two people I love like brothers were getting married in California next month. They've been together almost 20 years, own a house and a dog, and they were excited like kids at Christmas that they'd finally be married. Their disappointment now is one of the hardest things in the world to witness. And it isn't just that - it's being kicked to the curb again, the same lies about the 'traditional family', the same hateful crap again and again and again. Jesus Christ, I'm so sick of this shit I could scream. Just sick to the bone.

[kid a]

510. yes - unconditionally

[PatriotGames]

511. Hell yeah! What do I care? They pay their taxes too! n/t

[redqueen]

514. If I'd have started this poll I would have done it so poorly.

My two choices would be:

Yes! I support equality and civil rights for all!

and

No! I'm good with "separate but equal", thanks.



I'm sorry but you can't put things like this on a referendum. Imagine how things would have gone if we'd have put integration up for a vote.

*sigh*

[damonm]

515. NO. And here's why...

The State should not be in the marriage business. Period.
Churches should handle marriage - this is their purview. What the State should be doing is giving out civil partnerships to any couple that wants them. The civil partnership is where all the legal rights and privileges are. If a couple wants to sanctify their union in the eyes of their God, let them find a church that will do so, but it'll have no bearing whatever on the legality of their union.

[redqueen]

519. It kills me how all of a sudden people are so opinionated about the gov't not being involved.

If that was the case, why does everyone participate? Why do people get marriage licenses, if they're so adamant that the gov't not be involved?

Why not just have handfasting ceremonies or other religious-only ceremonies, and forego the LEGAL BENEFITS of MARRIAGE as defined by the STATE?

[damonm]

526. Reread the post, please...

The State should not be in the marriage business for ANYBODY, gay, straight, or otherwise.

[redqueen]

529. "Should" is not reality. Reality is that some who are now saying the state should not be involved

are currently enjoying all the benefits of marriage as defined by the state.

It would disgust me to find out if any of the people here who are claiming that marriage should not have anything to do with the state went right on ahead and got the state involved when they got married, instead of some ceremony like I said above... cause I would think they'd done so just to get all those lovely benefits that come with marriage that is defined and sanctioned by the state.

[readmoreoften]

612. So my parents aren't married? Their 40 year marriage is just a "civil union"?

All those movies I saw from the 40s and 50s with people getting married by ship captains and the justice of the peace... they were all civilly-unioned? Marriage is a SOCIAL CONTRACT, not a religious one.

[mkultra]

651. your wrong

marriage is either a civil or a religious union afforded special status by the state.

Its not one or the other. Its both.

[PresidentObama]

517. If you voted no, FUCK YOU n/t

[Name removed]

520. Deleted message

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

[PresidentObama]

522. You're correct, I can't believe 34 people on D-FUCKING-U would vote that way n/t

[Name removed]

523. Deleted message

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

[Tveil]

577. oh really?

This scum sucking, bottom-feeding, idiot-assed troll voted for Obmama when he was running for Illinois Senate. I was behind him when many here were still supporting Hillary. I was at Grant Park Tuesday. I put in more leg work for the Obama campaign than most of you calling for bannings. And my position on gay marriage is no different from President Elect Obama's.

[PresidentObama]

Really. Obama is a politician. You aren't

[lelgt60]

540. I don't believe they were "legitimate".

It is not possible to be an actual DU member and vote no - unless - you just get some weird kick about pushing people's buttons - in which case you're not a legitimate DU member.

[redqueen]

636. It seems that it is possible.

You just have to be a bigot trying to find ways to justify or rationalize your bigotry.

[DailyGrind51]

521. And the Christian Fundamentalists should support it too!

I can think of no worse Hell on earth than forcing gays to marry, so they can be just as miserable as the rest of the married public!:sarcasm:

[Ozma]

528. Humor is always a good ally when we have important issues to resolve.

[DailyGrind51]

601. Hey, I spent 10 years in a marriage I would describe as an "occupation by a hostile foreign power".

[Cabcere]

527. I do.

:hug:

[LostinVA]

530. If you voted against gay marraige, you are breaking DU rules and need to go

Hey, don't yell at me, yell at Skinner:

"To be clear: Democratic Underground DOES NOT permit homophobic bigotry and DOES NOT welcome members who oppose equal rights for all."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4311151&mesg_id=4318100


I hope the door hits your homophobic asses on the way out.

[Exilednight]

621. I voted no, but am nowhere near homophobic ..... maybe you should look at explinations before ......

you pass judgment on someone.

I detest the fact that the government gets to decide who is "married", or "not married". I don't care if it is a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

Let's just get the government out of the marriage business all together.

[LostinVA]

652. Yet another poster dancing the dance to deny us equal rights

[Labors of Hercules]

531. certainly.

everyone should have the option to experience the absolute joy and peace that accompanies the blissful institution of marriage.

Just as everyone should have the option to experience a root canal, or naval piercing. :evilgrin:

[lelgt60]

539. I support gay marriage - not civil union

Civil union for all might be fine in theory, but, after having read many of the arguments posted on DU, it can't work in practice because:

1) Those against gay marriage will oppose converting their marriage to civil union much more vehemently than they oppose gay marriage (people are usually more passionate about protecting their right versus opposing other's rights).

2) The term marriage is written into so many laws that would have to be changed

3) Civil unions might not be recognized abroad as marriage.

[jmg257]

541. nevermind - too serious a subject. A resounding YES!

[MsTryska]

543. I voted No. And here's why....

i think we should jsut get rid of Marriage as a legal concept entirely.

If marriage is some sort of religious institution - then let the Churches handle that portion.

I would rather the legal entity be Domestic Partnership, whether it's a man and a woman, 2 men, 2 women, brother and sister - what have you.


Any 2 people or 3 or 4 or what have you that wish to share a home and be legally responsible for each other should be able to enter into domestic partnership with each other.

if they wish to call it marriage then let them go to whatever religious insitution they belong to and have it sanctified as such.

[Nikki Stone1]

553. ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY YES

This is a civil rights issue.

[McCamy Taylor]

556. Yes, they can!

[SarahB]

561. Strongly!

[redwitch]

565. yes.

absolutely.

[obama44]

569. No. As a black male, why should I vote yes when everybody here has decided

to vilify the black race for Prop 8 being passed? If I'm going to do the time, I might as well do the crime. No.

[TK421]

576. First of all, not everyone here has "vilified" the black race for Prop 8, as you claim

There was a thread earlier on blaming Mormons and Roman Catholics for a strong push for that nasty prop. And I have to question your integrity here when your reason to vote on this is somehow connected to Prop 8. I happen to agree that major religious organizations are the problem...like the Mormons. My biggest problem is you making up your mind about this poll based on what you have read on ( what I believe to be, but correct me if I'm wrong ) ONE threads accusations that the black race was the sole reason ( again, not found ) for Prop 8 being passed. And that wasn't even being discussed.

What is this "time" you are talking about doing? Enlighten me

[marimour]

578. Since i'm a black woman then according to DU i'm even more against it so add me to that list

[readmoreoften]

614. Yeah, well next time I'll vote for the white Republican. Is that what you want? Tit for tat?

75% of African-American females voted for Prop 8. That doesn't mean YOU DID OR WOULD. It's just a fact. If you have a problem with it, take it up with other black women. When I see racist bullshit, I don't threaten to be a racist asshole too. I tell the other white people they're racist assholes and I don't want to associate with them. I don't run around telling black folks to "stop villifying my people." I tell my people to stop being bigots and taking the rights of others.

And why the hell are you willing to screw over African-American LGBT people? While you're at it, keep away Alice Walker and Lorraine Hansberry and James Baldwin. They're gays and they might infect them.

[marimour]

627. its obvious you didnt even bother to read my post.

Notice i said "according to DU" which means idiots like you are taking a 200 person poll with no methodology listed an attributing it black women as a whole. It had nothing to do with my feelings on the issue. Here's a thought, go talk to 10 black women, try making friends with them and see what they think. This bullshit about "75% of black females voted for Prop 8" is bullshit. Its not me who is screwing over black GBLT people, its people in the GBLT community that takes that poll and uses it as a pathetic excuse to blame black people for the fact that the MAJORITY of PEOPLE voted against prop 8.

[mkultra]

654. his name refers to his future goals, not his habits

[mkultra]

653. vote threat terror

you vote for whoever you want. Go PUMA if you want.

[readmoreoften]

613. I guess I should vote for Republican Whitey next time because you've villified me.

Almost all black members of DU support marriage equality and have taken AA yes on 8 voters to task, just like the majority of Christian DUers take the charismatic/fundie yes on 8 voters to task, just like the majority of LGBT voters will call bullshit on racism and sexism.

[marimour]

628. where are the blame white people, asian people and hispanic people threads?

No, thats right, its one of the smallest voting blocs in the state that made the difference. These threads remind me of Michelle Bachman and her idiotic blaming minorities for the mortgage crisis. Maybe DU'ers have more in common with freepers than I thought.

[Left Is Write]

640. "Everybody" here has done no such thing.

[SidDithers]

572. Not only yes, but HELL YES!!...nt

Sid

[IndianaJones]

573. who the hell are the idiots voting no? nt.

[Occam Bandage]

575. I would not mind seeing everyone who voted "no" tombstoned immediately.

Skinner did it with a holocaust-denial poll; I think it might be appropriate here, too.

[PresidentObama]

579. Agreed. It should be part of DU's platforum. No one should deny me the right to marry my boyfriend.

When and if I have a boyfriend again :P

[really annoyed]

590. Absolutely

I don't see how any person who considers themselves liberal could support banning marriage for their fellow gay and lesbian citizens!

Now, if a liberal is personally opposed to gay marriage but supports the legalization of it anyway - I can accept that.

[LynnTheDem]

583. I support marriage for any and all consenting adults. Period.

:)

[No Passaran]

587. You guys realize that Freeper Trolls can vote on these polls, no?

Chill

[readmoreoften]

615. No need. There are plenty of DUers who don't believe in LGBT equality.

We deal with them all the time. Remember 36% of people who self-identified as Democrats voted against Prop 8.

[redqueen]

635. If you read the thread you'll see that DUers are backing the trolls up on this one.

At least a few of them.

Sickening, isn't it?

[Jamastiene]

602. A note to those who voted no, but based on a belief in a strict separation of church and state.

I did notice that some people voted no because they believe in a very strict separation of church and state. If that's how some of them really feel, but they still believe we deserve equal rights, I can't fault that, except to say it is virtually impossible.

1. There is no way we could take all the references to marriage out of government at this point without sifting through literally tons law books in every state for years to change every mention of marriage. That won't happen. We cannot even get our sorry assed government to count all our votes any more half the time.

2. Marriage is a legally binding contract in every case, according to the government. It is not always a religious contract though. You can stay in a hotel room overnight in South Carolina with someone of the opposite sex and be considered married after that. At least, it used to be that way. I'm not sure if they have changed that or not. In that case, the religion thing goes out the window. No religious leader is going to agree with "fornication." You know that is true in most cases.

In any case, religion does not always play a role in marriage. So, in effect, some of those no votes were really saying they just want the churches out of the government.

I want the churches out of government too, but I'm for gay marriage. Who knows? One day, I may meet Miss Right and be able to talk her into marrying me. I'm wearing a tux though. :evilgrin:

[Exilednight]

617. Simple fix .....

Legislate that all laws, documents, rulings, etc .... with the word "marriage" shall be interpreted as meaning "civil union".

This would prevent from having to change the wording in every document, and there is plenty of precedent to justify such a measure.

[LostinVA]

659. An impossibility -- law doesn't work that way

[Exilednight]

666. Yes it does, it happens all the time. There are bills written specifically to define the ........

meaning of words, and/or to change the meaning of words.

[Exilednight]

616. I voted no, and here is why .........

I don't believe that government should be involved in the business of marriage, whether it be between a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, allow churches to decide whether or not a couple is married. Government should only recognize civil unions between two people.

With all couples being recognized as civil unions, there would be no more "separate, but equal" - everyone would be equal in the eyes of government.

[bunkerbuster1]

618. I support an environment where Dem candidates don't take a cowardly position

as did Obama and Clinton and Edwards (and Kerry).

[elizm]

619. Yes. nt

[EstimatedProphet]

620. Of course, Ronny. It's sickening not to.

[Enrique]

625. a very productive discussion

we have together determined that all of us who answered the right way are good and that some "others" who answered a poll question differently are bad!

But didn't we already know that?

[Ozma]

626. Well, at least one or two people got educated about gay marriage

not being FORCED upon churches..... that's a step forward, not if we can only get that message through to 10% MORE of the voters in CA.

[mkultra]

644. frankly i was just playing devils advocate

the militant tone of the post drew me in.

[LostinVA]

662. The OP is not the least bit militant, and you're a jerk if you were playing "devil's advocate" lives

[mkultra]

667. its probably the use of racism as a counter

to perceived insult that makes my want to infuriate them.

I personally don't care what anyone else does and thus by virtue support gay marriage and equal rights. But you and your racist militant thought police can go fuck yourselves.

[LibraLiz1973]

630. Absolutely 100% YES.

I am just sick that California said Yes to 8. What the fuck?

[ibegurpard]

632. Yup

eom

[IntravenousDemilo]

638. One of the reasons I prefer that it be called marriage is that some people are adamantly opposed.

And it's all because of WHY they are opposed -- they believe themselves to be somehow superior. The more the phobes hate the idea, the more they deserve to be punished, and what better way is there than to do something that they get really exercised about?

"I don't want those fags and dykes to call it marriage!"

"Oh, good, then that's PRECISELY what we'll call it. Suck on that."

[Left Is Write]

639. It should be called marriage because that's what it *is.*

If it pisses off a few fundies, that's the icing on the cake.

[Exilednight]

657. And that's the problem with the movement. You're more concerned about pissing people off .......

than you are about helping them grow and learn and change.

[Left Is Write]

661. Nope. That's not what I said.

[LostinVA]

663. Yes you did --in Bizarro World

[Left Is Write]

669. These last few days seem like Bizarro World on DU...

[Exilednight]

665. Your words ......

"If it pisses off a few fundies, that's the icing on the cake."

[Left Is Write]

668. Keywords: icing on the cake.

In other words, not the objective at all. Not what I'm "most concerned with."

I'm most concerned with ensuring that gay couples are granted the full rights of marriage under the law. That such an objective would inevitably piss off some bigoted, hateful people who would just as soon see gay people die off merely a side result.

I'm married. I got married when I chose to get married, no hassles, no harassment. My right to get married wasn't put up for a vote. Why should any segment of the population get to deny the rights of another segment?

[Exilednight]

672. The view is in the eye of the beholder ...........

I still say it shows that you take pleasure in other peoples pain instead of helping people grow and learn.

What I am trying to tell you, is that you need to pick your words more carefully. If Martin Luther King Jr ended his "I Have a Dream" speech with the words "and if it pisses off the white man, that's icing on the cake", we would never be witnessing what we are seeing now.

You have to find the fine line with being angry and compassionate, and not angry and bitter.

I'm married. I got married when I chose to get married, no hassles, no harassment. My right to get married wasn't put up for a vote. Why should any segment of the population get to deny the rights of another segment?

You're right, no one's rights should be put up for a vote, and I have always said that the gay and lesbian community should share in the same rights as everyone else in this country, I just disagree with you get there.

[Left Is Write]

674. Well, if I'm ever in the position of MLK, Jr, I'll get back to you.

The fact that you think I take pleasure in other people's pain suggests nothing more than that you don't know me very well. No, I'm not particularly concerned with people who would be feeling "pain" over the legalization of gay marriages. I'm concerned about the pain of those couples who are denied a right the rest of us take for granted.

Anyone who would feel painfor themselves over the legalization of gay marriages is just a little too self-absorbed.

[Exilednight]

675. Well.....

The fact that you think I take pleasure in other people's pain suggests nothing more than that you don't know me very well.

I only know what you put up on this board, but I can tell you this: the way you come across hurts the cause more than it helps it.

This is an issue I have worked on for years with my father, who was a civil rights attorney, and the part that always pissed him off was that the very people he was trying to help were their own worse enemies.

I'll try and explain this to you one more time, but I will use another analogy: I use to sit on the board of trustees in a town I use to live in. Part of the monthly meeting was allowing the public to have a say in their in their government, and we would have an open comments section of the meeting. We would continually get people who would come up with what I considered very serious issues, but the rest of the board was not willing to take them seriously due to how they come across.

I also remember this lady coming in with the issue of the city trash men not turning the trash-cans upside down after they empty them. Now, I thought this to be the most mundane thing to ever take up, as long as they were emptying the cans and not leaving them in the street, I was more than happy. But the way she presented her argument caused more than one of the board members to stand up and take notice. Her issue was addressed with the sanitation department the very next day. Within a week there was amendment placed within their union agreement.

On the flip side, I had a set of parents come in and ask that a set of lights be attached to the outside of the school where the buses pick up the children, siting that their child was almost hurt because a bus driver couldn't see their child while he was crossing the street. It made perfect sense to me, but the way they presented their argument turned off many of the trustees. I began to ask a few questions in order to determine what the best solution and allocation of the lights would be - the father started to use a few profanities and it turned off many of the trustees. I was trying to explain to the man that I wanted to help him, but the continual use of "what kind of idiot builds a school like this?" didn't help him win points with the other board members. It took three years of me pushing the subject, and sadly, a child's life, before the problem was addressed.

[iiibbb]

641. My "no" isn't exactly a "no". I think the gov't should call everything a "civl union"...

...and leave "marriage" out of it.

[dansolo]

645. I'd like to get rid of the word "marriage" entirely

I think that legally, all marriages should be "civil unions". If marriages are being treated as religious by those who oppose gay marriages, then by virtue of separation of church and state, "marriages" as such should not be recognized by the state, at least regarding the rights that the state bestows upon a married couple.

[martiko]

656. Yes

I see no reason why gays should be denied their right to love each other.

[gauguin57]

658. One of the choices should be ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!

That's what I would have chosen. As it is, I voted "yes." Because it's the only right answer.

[spanone]

660. of course

[usregimechange]

673. Ok, who were the 59 nincompoops?