Gays push to recast marriage on morals

[Ian David]

Gays push to recast marriage on morals
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:59 PM ET165

By Duncan Martell

OAKLAND, California (Reuters) - As U.S. gays and lesbians prepare to battle a raft of state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage that will likely be on the ballot next fall, activists are recasting the issue as one that needs to be fought on moral rather than political grounds.

That is the message Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the oldest and leading U.S. grass-roots gay and lesbian coalition, has taken to more than 2,500 gay rights organizers at its annual conference held in Oakland this week.

"What I really want people to understand is rather than seeing these as political contests, these are really profound, unfair, bordering on immoral elections," Foreman told Reuters on Saturday. "Imagine if this was being done to a minority in Kosovo -- people would be outraged."


<snip>

Two key elements in the strategy to defeat more votes banning same-sex marriage will be reaching out to people of faith and demanding that Democrats, who have long counted on gays and lesbian as core supporters, stand up for the gay community, Foreman said.

"The Democrats' response to gay issues over the last few years has been incoherent and spineless, and that has only worked to their disadvantage," Foreman said. "There is a sense among large gay donors to the Democratic party that they need to have the party take a stand for us."


More:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-11-12T225851Z_01_SPI281689_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-GAYMARRIAGE.xml

[patrice]

1. Discrimination is LESS than American. And, When are Love and Commitment

EVER Bad?!?!

Think of the Catholic Church's natural morality, i.e. biology demonstrates that procreation is "God's" purpose for the difference between the sexes. So addressing procreation, as a basis for that kind of "natural morality": From the perspective of the "big picture" won't fewer people having children result in better Families and less Stress on Earth and Governments?

I mean, the CC's basic thing is that Marriage is for Procreation period. Gays can't procreate, ergo Marriage is wrong for them. So attack basic assumptions about procreation: Look at History, unlimited procreation, on balance, been better or worse for the Family of Man? I'd say a few people having fewer babies might result in better families. Why should Marriage be only for procreation when procreation is certainly no guarantee of Love?

[David Dunham]

2. Sadly, many Dems could not support gay marriage and win.

The Repugs know how to exploit this issue, and sadly many blue collar Dem voters oppose it.

[Brian_Expat]

5. Then we shouldn't support many Dems

They take our votes for granted and then treat us like shit. Let's see what withholding gay money, votes, and (wo)manpower will do to their impending victories.

[sui generis]

6. we have to take it back to "privacy"

there is nothing we would vote for in those "blue collar dems" lives that would be as intrusive and hurtful in their daily personal lives and to them directly as people as them voting to do this to our lives.

Anyone who claims to be a democrat who can think that supporting discrimination against Americans whom they will never meet or know, discrimination against our children even, is not a practicing democrat.

It's our job to convince our people that what we are about is to live and let live.

It's the job of republicans to convince people that they have a right to meddle in other people's personal and private lives.

[pansypoo53219]

3. why does the 'religeous' rite

want gays to live in sin?

[Meldread]

4. I agree with this tactic and stance.

This is a moral issue based around family values. The moral issue is this: What gives you the moral authority to say my family has no value?