Edwards on MTP: "No" on Gay Marriage; Homosexuality is Not a Sin.

[The Cleaner]

This is what John Edwards said on Meet the Press this morning. He believes in civil unions but not gay marriage. He does not believe homosexuality is a sin.

Do you agree with Edwards' stance on gay issues?

[ikojo]

1. No, I do not. Marriage is a civil institution not

only a religious institution. If gays and lesbians are allowed to marry it does not mean churches and synagogues and mosques will be forced to perform gay marriages.

Gay marriage gives gay and lesbians the same rights as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples. The right to visit a loved one in the hospital. The right to inherit property following the death of a loved one.

[marmar]

3. No. Equal marriage for everyone, or get rid of it as a function of the state.

If the government is going to keep denying the right to marry to a segment of the population, then they need to do away with the concept of marriages and leave it to religious institutions. Replace it with civil unions for everyone.

[Colobo]

4. Why don't we

Make civil unions the civil institution par excellence for everyone, and leave "marriage", which is essentially a religious thing, to religious institutions?

[mzmolly]

171. This is my position, but a candidate doesn't dare promote it, yet.

Welcome. :hi:

[CrownPrinceBandar]

197. That's been my notion all along..........

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: for good thinking!

Welcome to DU!

[Midlodemocrat]

233. Because that word 'marriage' is deeply entrenched and will be

for generations.

I don't say to folks, Mr. Midlo and I have been civil unioned for almost 18 years. I say married. Everyone I know does.

The GLBT deserves the same. No exceptions.

[Bill McBlueState]

looks fine on paper

But Congress and the state legislatures aren't considering this option. However, numerous states are grappling with the issue of whether to extend the benefits of marriage to all people.

Given what's on the table, marriage for all is a more likely possibility than marriage for none. That's why I support marriage for all.

[mdmc]

400. yes

[marmar]

6. Sorry ikojo, I meant to attach my above response to the main post, not your sub-post

I agree with you! :hi:

[ikojo]

17. No problem!!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

172. Civil Unions can also afford the same rights as marriage.

However, I personally feel that we need an equal system for all who pay taxes in this country. That said, I don't expect any candidate with a chance of winning would dare assert that position at this time. Doing so would only give the RW fodder to motivate the scary people to the polls.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

424. and...

...the right to health insurance of the working spouse.

[Colobo]

2. My two cents

1) Religious arguments should be dealt with in the religious arena, not in the public/political arena.

2) Take the government out of the "marriage business". Civil unions for all, and whoever wants to "marry" should go to the nearest church/synagogue/mosque/you name it to do so.

We all should be equal under the law.

[Breeze54]

36. Why can't they go to the Justice of the Peace??

[Hippo_Tron]

127. Dupe n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Colobo]

7. Sin

is for those who follow the precepts from any religion. I do not, for instance, I'm not a sinner. I'm free of sin through the grace of myself. :)

[mdmc]

nice

I disagree.

I think that we are all sinful, and we will all have to deal with it.

I see it like gravity, or karma, - you don't have to believe in it for it to effect you.

Peace and low stress...

[Zhade]

46. Your beliefs don't apply to others.

Disagree all you want - until you find any actual evidence 'sin' exists, it's just your opinion, and you're welcome to keep it.

[mdmc]

56. turn on the news, all the proof you need

peace.low.stress.

[RB TexLa]

96. Sin is a theological concept, the severing of our relationship with God

I think you are confusing sin with morality.

[mdmc]

110. yes

yes i am and thank you for the clarity.

[Nomasdm]

416. Ah! you want more proof?

I will submit to you, there will never be enough evidence to convince one who is deceived....until

[mondo joe]

51. That's how I feel about Pixie Dust.

You can't see it, hear it, weigh it, feel it or detect it in any way.

And yet you're covered with it, whether you admit it or not.

[Nomasdm]

415. i.e atheist

[JackBeck]

41. If you have any kids or loved ones

I hope they never make you proud.

[mdmc]

57. ideally, I would be humbled

but I am pretty sinful....

[JackBeck]

59. Have fun in your hell, then.

And the next time you generalize about how we are all sinful, remember that "we all" don't follow the same religion on DU.

[mdmc]

61. sin is the same, regardless of religion. Sin is universal.

Murder is sinful, regardless of your religion (if you "believe" you are murdering for God, then your belief is sinful).
As a Catholic, I've been taught that eating meat during lent is sinful. :eyes: that one I bet the great creator will let slide (or forgive).



as far as hell goes,

-at least it is a dry heat. And it will only seem like an eternity. :)

peace and low stress

[JackBeck]

64. Sin is not universal.

Atheists and humanists do not hold humans accountable to the concept of sin. And I hold their beliefs in the same respect as I do all other schools of thought. They are all equal. Especially in the United States, since it's not a Christian nation.

Please do not impose your rules of how I should live my life when you clearly are disrespecting how others live theirs.

[mdmc]

82. i'm not imposing rules, i don't know how you live, and I don't

disrespect anyone.

Murder is sinful and evil.

Now, regarding gay marriage -
I support civil unions for all legal purposes. I think that marriage is a religious thing, unless done by a judge, which would be a civil union marriage.
For me, marriage is an unbreakable union between a man and a women. I want to get married in my Catholic Church.
I think that everyone should have the same legal human rights = civil union. Civil unions could be performed by judges and clerks. Marriages could be performed by judges and clerks and religious figures. All civil unions would be equal. The marriages could reflect various wisdom traditions.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

84. But why do you think it is only between a man and a woman?

Why is a heterosexual relationship more holy than a homosexual relationship? Both heterosexual and homosexual couples have children so procreation isn't the issue.

[mdmc]

88. I am a Catholic. That is how I define marriage

For the record, I think that marriage is an unbreakable union between a man and a women.
I think that divorce is sinful (I don't think that it should be illegal).
I don't think that Catholic marriage is better then a civil union. It is just what I want for me.
My sister got married in a church, got divorced, and remarried by our judge. Her marriage is as real as anything that I will ever have.
And your eventual marriage will be as real as anything that I will ever have. It is just, with all due respect, what you want is not what I want.
I think we should all have equal civil union rights. Let the religions add all their independent hang up on to the civil union through their marriage rituals and rules.

While I do believe that we all live pretty much in constant sin (deleted message above), I think that God is forgiving. If one does not believe in sin or God, then I guess no harm, no foul.

[JackBeck]

93. You believe that marriage is an "unbreakable union between a man and a woman"

And then go on to say that divorce should not be illegal?

How does that work?

[mdmc]

101. civil unions for all, let the religions add on their hang ups via "marriage"

As a Catholic, I don't "agree" (I can't think of a better word) with the concept of divorce; it is not for me.

I think that everyone should have the same civil rights. Let the religions add on what they want in their concept of marriage.

So Catholics can have civil unions with marriages that forbid divorce.
And Bob Jones University Chapel marriages could forbid marriage between different races, but would also be legal civil unions.
And cool progressive churches could have gay marriages.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

94. So your sister got MARRIED by a judge.

You consider it just as valid as being married in the Catholic Church. Why are you against same-sex couples being MARRIED by a judge? Same-sex marriage will not force churches to marry same-sex couples. If the Church wants to do it, that's up to them.

However, why do you think it's okay for an heterosexual couple to be MARRIED by a judge, while a homosexual couple can only have a civil union?

Separate but equal is not equal.

[mdmc]

103. I guess it is the term 'marriage' where I get hung up

I think everyone should have the same rights (civil unions).

Judges could do civil union marriages. For gay or straight people.

I guess I am hung up on qualifying the type of marriage. Something for me to work on...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

104. Yes, that is something for you to work on.

Until then, you believe gays are second-class citizens, if we can't have our unions called marriages.

[mdmc]

109. call em marriages

If the debate is between "should gays have civil unions, marriages, or nothing", I will side with marriages.

If this is the best way to further civil rights, then please consider me down with "marriage".

I hope that a candidate other than Kucinich will support gay marriage over civil unions. I hope that the democratic party will support marriage and won't reduce gays to second class citizens.

Please understand that gays are second class citizens - gays are the only minority group that can still legally be discriminated against. I hope the dems will take a stand for equal rights.

[JackBeck]

114. That is bullshit sarcasm and you know it.

Not one gay person would think that "gays are the only minority group that can still legally be discriminated against."

Please prove your conclusion. I've never met a gay person that feels that way nor come across any studies that show that homosexuals feel that way. Where do you get your facts from?

[mdmc]

370. You can't be discharged from the military for being black

or jewish, or for being a liberal.

You can be discharged from the army for being gay. This is discrimination. This is legal. This is wrong and immoral.

Are you saying that there are more then one group of people that can be legally discriminated against or are you saying that gays cannot be legally discriminated against?

[JackBeck]

116. "Please understand that gays are second class citizens"

Oh, too rich.

Thanks for the reminder.

And you call yourself a progressive?

[Nickster]

177. I honestly don't think that statement was meant that way. In context, it read to me as

asking that you understand that gays are being treated as second class citizens, not that the writer thought gays are second class citizens.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

185. But he does think that, as he does not support equal rights. nt

[Nickster]

194. I think that's a little bit harsh for an assesment. I didn't get that. Maybe a bit inarticulate, but

I don't think that he doesn't support equal rights.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

198. He doesn't support equal marriage rights and he said "Gay Pride" was a sin.

To me, that doesn't sound like support of equal rights.

[Nickster]

217. Read the rest of his comments. He obviously has a conflict with his religion and his

conscience on this. I've spoken with a number of decent people who articulate their feelings to me in almost this exact same way.

They fear what they don't understand and they try to interpret it through the prism of their religion. Organized religions are pretty much authoritarian on the matter, "gay marriage is bad" end of story. So followers get confused, "my church tells me it's a sin, but the arguments in support seem ok, I must be missing something...." Then they fall back on what their religious organization tells them.

In his religion, being boastful and full of pride is a sin. I don't think he fully understands what being prideful is all about from a sin perspective, but that's ok. He can work on that.

He also said that he'd support civil unions. He has a conflict between using the word marriage and what his religion has told him about what a marriage is and that's ok to. What people don't seem to understand is that having what you feel in your heart between two people and your God is marriage.

As much as I hate to hear the parsing of language, this is going to be the first step for full gay marriage. Get people to accept civil unions and pass laws accepting civil unions as being legal. Then we can move forward from there. Most of our Dem leaders don't support "gay marriage" but will say they support civil unions. If we can't convince our political leaders to accept full gay marriage rights, then we have to work on objectives we can achieve, civil unions.

Personally, I don't understand why straight people have a problem with the whole concept of gay marriage. I'm not the most wholesome of hetero males, but I have no problem with the idea. It doesn't make me "uncomfortable" or "uneasy" or whatever.


I can't spend as much time as I'd like to fully write this out, so I hope this makes some sense.

[mdmc]

388. thanks for the post sir.

:toast:

This all started with a flip statement that I made which was offensive and was deleted. I am sorry I posted it, but I did learn something - civil union marriage is not the same thing as marriage.
Now I support marriage for all.
It won't stop me from supporting a 'pro civil union' Democrat. It also gives me new respect for Dennis Kucinich.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage.
I prefer a system of equal civil unions for all, and marriages for those that would like an additional component to their civil union.
So for me, I would have a civil union, with a Catholic marriage (which would be defined by the religious terms - no divorce, raise kids Catholic).
Someone else could have a civil union, with a Bob Jones University Chapel marriage (which would be defined as union between man and women of the same race, since Bob Jones U. doesn't condone inter-racial marriage).
Or a couple could get married at a cool progressive church - civil union, plus marriage which could be ended by the mutual agreement of both parties(divorce, prenup).
Or just get married by the judge or town clerk - a straight up civil union. Gay or straight.

This set up would allow everyone equal rights, but would also allow people to honor their own wisdom traditions.

[mdmc]

381. last night was a mess

I apologize.

Pride is a sin. Gay is not.

I support gay marriage.

[youthere]

210. I agree.

[mdmc]

353. we need to work hard to change that fact

it is still legal to discriminate against gay people. I am a liberal; I work hard to change the law to include sexual orientation.

I do not intend to offend you. Again, I apologize.

Peace to you, and keep working for equality.

[treestar]

409. You are in the wrong here

The other poster made his position clear and you are going out of your way to be insulting.

He said he was down for gay marriage and all legal rights. Then let the churches do what they want. It was clear that his opinions were not to be legally imposed, just within the religion, which you would not have to join.

The Catholic Church won't be allowing gay marriage within your lifetime, but this poster is an open minded Catholic in saying outright to limit Catholic rules to the Catholic church and not have them imposed legally on non-Catholics. There are Catholics out there who would impose their Catholic beliefs as law if they could get it passed. You're not talking to one of those individuals.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[Nomasdm]

417. Bullshit! No you cannot!

That is never how marriage was intended period. NO one here called gays second class citizens (except you)

[Breeze54]

107. The Catholic Church condones divorce!

:crazy:

What century do you hail from, anyway?? lol

[mdmc]

112. it has been a while since i've been to church

i've heard that the pope is letting lots of stuff slide lately.

[yardwork]

150. But not equal rights for gays and lesbians? Why that, I wonder?

How come it is ok to "let slide" certain rules, like not eating meat during Lent, but other rules get one landed in hell, supposedly?

[mdmc]

356. I don't have an answer

I support equal rights myself. As far as the church, they have all sorts of ratings for sin.

I don't think that being gay is a sin. The sin would come from acting out of lust. It is the same sin that straight people commit.

sigh

[Midlodemocrat]

144. I am also Catholic.

Married in the Catholic Church. My three children are baptized Catholics and my eldest is set to receive Confirmation.


My definition of marriage is between two loving, consenting adults. The divorce rate being what it is in this country, the heterosexual population has no right to claim the moral high road for marriage.

I can't see how the GLBT community could possibly fuck up any more than the hetero community has.

Marriage = between two, loving, consenting adults. Period.

[JackBeck]

85. Once again, you assumed that some of us believe in sin.

Like I said, Atheists and Humanists don't believe in sin.

So, when you say claim that we all are sinners, I would appreciate it if you don't include all of DU posters when you assume that we all follow your religion.

[mdmc]

91. ok we are all not sinners, but we are all human, flawed

but we can agree that murder is wrong. evil. unlawful. I call immoral behavior sinful. I never thought that someone would take offense to this.

I am sorry for the offense that I have caused. I only want peace and low stress for us all.

:pals:

[JackBeck]

98. If you wanted peace you would have never said that Gay Pride is a sin.

Oh right. That's that original post you had that was deleted that started this whole conversation.

[mdmc]

105. I really meant that pride is a sin

I am sorry for the offense. I actually meant that being "proud" was more sinful then being "gay".

I find the concept of pride very interesting. The religious right is so holier-the-thou yet 'proud' of their pride. Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth (my fav. vice), wrath, envy, and pride are the (theoretical) 7 deadly sins. The bold sins seem to plague the GOP.

[JackBeck]

108. Not even.

"Sin is sin. Pride is sin. Therefore, Gay Pride in sinful."

Yeah. Pretty offensive. Apology not accepted.

[mdmc]

113. again, my bad

I had no idea that my flip reply would be so offensive.

for the record I think that it is fine to be proud of being gay.

I do feel that lust and pride are sins, but this thread and my reply was not the best way to broach the subject.

peace and low stress

[JackBeck]

118. To call Gay Pride a sin is pretty disrespectful.

And in the way you did is no surprise to anyone why it was deleted.

[mdmc]

360. yes, I was in the wrong.

In the light of day I can see my mistake. I am sorry for the offense that I have caused you and all others that might have felt the same way.

Peace to you and keep up the good fight.

[phylny]

132. HE needs to believe in what you believe, but YOU don't need to believe in

what he believes.

Is that about it?

[JackBeck]

153. Not at all.

If you read all of my posts leading up to the one you responded to, you'd see my argument was not all schools of thought believe in sin. So to call Gay Pride a universal sin is not an honest statement, since universally, not everyone believes in the human concept of sin.

[JVS]

119. Why back down?

How does refusing to acknowledge sin somehow make it non-existant. If I claim that there is no such thing as drunk driving, that doesn't make it true.

[Maven]

124. False analogy. nt

[Midlodemocrat]

161. I believe in sin.

But loving someone else regardless of their gender is about as far away from a sinful act as I can possibly imagine.

[JackBeck]

212. And that's where the nuance can be found.

The thread starter (note: the deleted post) stated out of the blue that Gay Pride is a sin, since pride is a sin. My point was not all people believe in sin. Your understanding of sin, I believe, falls more in line with how Jesus would respond. Love trumps all at the end of the day.

[mdmc]

394. yes

lust/pride are sins. Love conquers all. All this started cause I posted an inappropriate comment(deleted) that was offensive. It is more or less a misunderstanding that I caused and am sorry for.

Sidenote-
I recently attended a funeral for a gay democrat that had passed. It was held in my Catholic church and it was one of the most amazing things I have ever witnessed. To see this guy's father up at the alter talking about his son, and his son's life.
His father mentioned how his son was always out of control until he met his current partner three years ago. He mentioned how happy and complete his son's life had become. He lived more in his last three year then he did in his entire life. He was happy.
For me it was amazing to hear a dad about his son's relationship like that. It was also amazing to hear it in my church.
The last speaker of the night was the partner. He was amazed by the turnout and thanked everyone, including the priest that conducted the service.
It was really one of the most amazing things that I have ever experienced.
Lastly, I live outside of New Paltz, NY. When Mayor Jason West started marrying gay couples, my priest did a sermon on Transubstantiation. He mentioned how he could (symbolically) turn water into wine every Sunday. He mentioned how marriage is a form of transubstantiation (two 'ordinary' singles form a union between them and God). "Transforming the ordinary into the Divine is a blessed thing. And no one should be denied this blessed institution. This was basically revolutionary because of gay marriage and at the time the DC cardinal had said that pro-choice politicians should be denied the Eucharist.

I am actually as much a human rights activist as I am a Catholic. It saddens me that I have offended people in this thread as it was not my intention.

[JackBeck]

125. When you say people should be aware of sin, you are imposing your rules on others.

And that is disrespecting the way that I live.

And like I said before, Atheists and Humanists don't live by your rules so please respect the way that others live.

Gay Pride is not a sin, which is why your original post was deleted.

[LeftyMom]

117. Nonsense.

Huge swaths of humanity either don't believe in any god at all or in a impersonal one (or more) who takes little interest in the day to day affairs of humans. The idea that sin is universal is a rather humorously immature and provincial thought, especially when it's clearly not even a universally held concept in people much more like yourself than nearly anybody else you could encounter on earth.

In order to have sin, you need to have a supernatural being to offend, one who chooses offense. Many religions and other worldviews lack one, the other or both. It is, in all honesty, a rather primitive concept, this self-centered idea that the all-knowing and all-powerful finds our lives so interesting they function as something of a soap opera/ enormous game of the Sims for him/her/it/them. It is at it's core a very silly idea, and about as relevant to modern life and domestic policy as the idea that we offend our departed ancestors if we don't leave a snack on their graves on holidays, that is to say not at all.

[rosesaylavee]

251. "enormous game of the Sims"

My g*d is better at the Sims than your g*d! :D

(Sorry. Just struck me funny is all.)

[mdmc]

376. maybe sin is the wrong word

perhaps karma is more appropriate.

[WindRavenX]

8. Well, Edwards just lost his support from me

Very, very disapointing.

[BayCityProgressive]

9. so let me get this straight

he doesnt think there is anythign wrong with gay people...but they still shouldnt have equal rights??? What a freaking moron.

[WindRavenX]

11. Apparently

It's very discouraging to hear this. Edwards has always been the strongest popular candidate (IMO) with regards to dealing with poverty and health care issues in this country.

Well, I guess I have to double my hopes that Gore runs. Otherwise, DK is getting my vote in primaries.

[Lex]

14. Gore is for gay marriage?

Didn't know that.

[WindRavenX]

19. I *think*

I'd be actually pretty shocked if he wasn't.

However, as I've said before, whoever gets the nomination gets my vote-- Hillary, Gore, DK, it doesn't matter. In the primaries, however, I try to support the canidates that are as progressive as possible, and one of those issues is in favor of gay marriage.

[BayCityProgressive]

21. he isn't really

that strong on poverty issues...he just says the word a lot more. His healthcare plan isn't much different than any of the other candidates.

[Lex]

12. Because his position on this is different than the other Dems?

:shrug:

[WindRavenX]

15. I'm almost 100% certain that DK, Gore are both in favor of marriage

I take this issue very very seriously.

[Lex]

20. DK may be, not sure about Gore.

I'll try to find out.

I think all other Dem candidates pretty much line up with what Edwards' position is.

[WindRavenX]

23. Yeah, and if they all do favor civil unions in favor of marriage then it's still bad

I can't believe it's the year 2006 and we're still denying people the right to marry. Oy.

[Zhade]

48. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE A GIRL???

Actually, I'm kidding, because I like girls too. :)

You so rock.

[WindRavenX]

69. you do too!

:pals:

[Maven]

78. O/T

Did they actually blur out the middle finger on that crude representation of a cartoon character in the news photo?

[WindRavenX]

81. yes

Yes, that's how fucked up this country is :eyes:

[Maven]

83. Wow, I... wow.

:crazy:

[Midlodemocrat]

221. Well, it's cuz those of us heteros have to protect the children

and the sanctity of marriage, doncha know?

I mean, it's not like any heteros get divorced or cheat on their spouses, or abandon their kids, so we gotta keep those gays in the back of the bus.


:sarcasm: in case no one got that.

[Telly Savalas]

421. Since I'm a pedantic asshole

I feel compelled to point out that it's the year 2007, which makes it marginally more pathetic that we're denying equal rights than it was in 2006.

[Freddie Stubbs]

149. What has Gore done or said to make you believe this?

:shrug:

[dsc]

10. If he honestly doesn't believe it is a sin

then why doesn't he believe gays should be permitted to marry? I can understand the flip side (think it is a sin but feeling the government has no role enforcing sin) but I can't understand not thinking it is a sin but that the government should discriminate.

[gratefultobelib]

13. Yes, I do.

[WindRavenX]

38. why?

?

[gratefultobelib]

63. Well, I sure don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but at the same time

the notion of two people of the same sex being married just seems strange to me. Sorry if that is offensive--I don't mean for it to be. I have read and fully understand and support all of the legal arguments for civil unions--that makes sense. But calling it a marriage just, as I said, is a little unsettling to me.

[blonndee]

65. So your discomfort at such a "strange" idea

is enough to deny gays equal rights? If you don't believe it's a sin, as you say, then on what basis (if not your own personal discomfort) do you believe that it's okay to discriminate in such a way?

[gratefultobelib]

67. Hmmm...I purposely tried to steer away from the word "discomfort," but

I see I did say "unsettling" so you may have taken it that way. I'm really trying to puzzle this out for you--I don't know how else to frame it. "Strange" is maybe my best word. I'm truly not uncomfortable with it, probably I just have to get used to the idea. The discrimination part--oh, no, no. I'm against that in any form. Whatever it takes to disallow discrimination, I'm in favor of. I thought the civil unions were designed to protect gay rights.

[JackBeck]

72. Can I ask you if you agree that sex discordant couples of different races should be allowed to marry...

Because up until 40 years ago they were not allowed to marry.

Do you believe that women should be looked at as property?

Do you believe that women should be allowed to decide who they marry?

I just don't understand how any progressive in the United States can deny the GLBTQ community the right to marry when so many other countries have liberally granted a path for us to follow. But it doesn't amaze me. We're such a young country. Most country's are hundreds of years older than us.

Maybe someday we'll catch up.

Sometimes I wish this country were smart enough to look at what's happening around us, instead of thinking that we're the ones who are leading the way.

[gratefultobelib]

148. Oh good heavens! Of course I think it's all right for people of different

races to marry, aaacck! on women as property, whatever. I'm a feminist from way back, but you're going to have to cut me some slack here. I've got to get used to the idea of the gay marriage issue, plain and simple. It will come for me and many others, I'm sure, with time. Until the issue came up a few years ago, I had never considered the inequalities gay couples have as opposed to straight marrieds. I understand that now. It's wrong. I would hope this will be rectified, and when the idea of civil unions was first proffered I thought, OK, that sounds sensible.

[JackBeck]

158. While you and other "progressives" take your time getting comfortable with gay marriage,

enjoy the 1400 benefits that you get on a state and federal level if you are married.

While you take your time asking me to cut you some slack, think of the dying partners in same-sex couples who are denied access to their partner in their last moments of life because they are not considered family.

Like I said before, we are such a young and immature country. Yet we think we are the moral high ground. Many other countries are so far ahead of the United States when it comes to citizen's rights. It's sad how backward this country and it's inhabitants are.

[Midlodemocrat]

224. Why? Why do you have to 'get used to the idea' of gay marriage?

How is it any different than civil rights or the feminist movement? Answer. It's not.

I'll tell you why. Once we stop hating the gays, we won't have any one else to hate on and it's a lot of trouble to find a group so universally despised.

[gratefultobelib]

410. I just noticed your question here--sorry! I partially responded to what

you have written in my post #404, but I want to elaborate a bit. Maybe it will help clarify, maybe not! When I was a teenager in the late 50's, early 60's I literally did not know what a homosexual was. The standard word of my time was the "q" word, no need to repeat it here. We had a Social Studies teacher who, it was rumored, was a q, but again, I wasn't sure what it meant, only that it was sexual and not good.

Off to college and a little education and I gradually began to get a grasp of what homosexuality was and more than anything I was mystified. Why would anyone WANT to be that way? Then along came the feminist movement, my consciousness being raised, my bleeding heart liberal side became firmly entrenched. As I said in the other post, I remember reading letters to Ann Landers, whom I greatly respected, and her replies truly opened my eyes. And there was a TV movie which I thought was quite good (although it would be panned now), but I came to understand that homosexuality was not a choice. I evolved!

With more time passing, more understanding on my part, I realize many gays are perfectly content being who they are, it is NOT a lifestyle, they should NOT be discriminated against in any way, and if they want to be married, it's OK! I will always support gay rights. I honestly think it's just the word--marriage--still sounds strange. Ha!

And here's a tragic side note--my Social Studies teacher committed suicide a few years after I graduated from high school. He was the favorite teacher of many of us.

[blonndee]

411. Thank you...

Very interesting perspective! Please check your PMs. :)

[Change has come]

73. Would you accept the fact...

that my life is truly none of your business? You can be comfortable or not with your life and your sexuality. If you get to be married, then so do I. :patriot:

[gratefultobelib]

154. Yes, I certainly accept that your life is truly none of my business! I don't

WANT it to be my business. I think, though, that you need to be patient with people who haven't YET signed on to the idea of gay marriage. Ten, 20 years down the road we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

141. i find bigotry strange. but i dont think we should not allow bigots to get married.

[ProfessorGAC]

147. Good One!

I find it strange that we have an idiot in the White House, and we let idiots like him get married, too.
The Professor

[La Lioness Priyanka]

152. seconded. huge number of things i find strange. and these strange people can get married.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

207. It doesn't matter if it seems strange to you.

No offense, but your personal feelings do not trump basic civil rights for everyone.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

209. Thanks.

I find it amazing that some people find civil rights so "strange."

[Starbucks Anarchist]

214. No problem.

:hi:

[LostinVA]

256. Thanks, babe!

I'm sending a case of RR EVOO your way, UPS.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

258. You're welcome!

:evilgrin:

[Midlodemocrat]

267. Word!

:applause:

[Midlodemocrat]

268. The notion of two bigots getting married seems strange to ME.

However, it happens all the time. Allowing them to marry, is, just as I said, a little unsettling to me.

[Zhade]

49. Why do you support discrimination?

NT!

[gratefultobelib]

66. I don't view it as discrimination if the civil union between homosexuals gives the

same legal protection as a marriage between heterosexuals.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

87. There is no such thing as separate but equal.

If heterosexuals can get married, but homosexuals can only get civil unions, that relegates homosexuals to the status of second-class citizens.

Separate but equal did not work for African Americans and it will not work for homosexuals.

Anything less than full marriage equality is BIGOTRY.

[gratefultobelib]

159. I agree--if the civil unions promote unequal treatment or benefits

then homosexuals should be able to be married lawfully as do heterosexuals. I guess I've assumed the civil unions would be TOTALLY equal to heterosexual marriages in all the legal ramifications, i.e. insurance, end of life decisions, etc. I think comparing this issue with the Civil Rights struggle is a bit of a stretch, though!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

182. It is not a stretch at all. Both are oppressed minorities.

And quite honestly, I'll take Coretta Scott King's opinion on whether it's an apt comparision over yours.

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/coretta.html

Make Room At The Table for Lesbian and Gay People
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page.

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said. - Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.

We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination. - Coretta Scott King, remarks, Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000.

"We have to launch a national campaign against homophobia in the black community," said Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the slain civil rights leader. - Reuters, June 8, 2001.

For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law.... I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others. So I see this bill as a step forward for freedom and human rights in our country and a logical extension of the Bill of Rights and the civil rights reforms of the 1950’s and ‘60’s. The great promise of American democracy is that no group of people will be forced to suffer discrimination and injustice. - Coretta Scott King, remarks, press conference on the introduction of ENDA, Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.

And even if civil unions provide the same rights as marriage, it still shows that gay people are SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS. It says that our relationships are not as valid as a heterosexual relationship.

You can either stand with justice or you can stand for oppression.

"Rights delayed are rights denied!" -Martin Luther King, Jr.

[gratefultobelib]

404. Thanks for the quotes from Mrs. King. I read them all and, of course,

I agree. Now that I remember, I've read these words before, so I stand corrected on the importance of Civil Rights and Gay Rights. However, I do hope you are not lumping me in with the "homophobes" of whom she speaks. I've been a staunch defender of gay rights since the 1970's thanks to Ann Landers and an excellent (for its time) made-for-TV movie with Martin Sheen. Anyway, I still have not wrapped my mind around the idea of same sex marriage, but...I...will...work...on...it!!!

[LostinVA]

183. But, it's NOT a marriage -- that's the whole damned point

You cannot have two "separate but equals" entities. I believe we found that that doesn't work, and it's also unconstitutional. It is impossible to say civil unions have/will have the same rights as marriage. They inherently can't, as THEY AREN'T MARRIAGE. The rights of married partners are woven all through our laws.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[gratefultobelib]

155. Biting you doesn't sound very pleasant, but I'll tell you...these posts

have helped me evolve a little more.

[marmar]

16. I liked Edwards a lot, but my concerns started to grow with all his hawkish Iran bluster...

And he just lost me with today's Meet the Press performance. Again, as with Hillary Clinton, I'll support him if he's the ultimate nominee, but kind of in the way I ate green peas as a kid: just swallow them quickly so that you don't have to taste them.

[Zhade]

50. What did he say on MTP? Is there a thread on it?

NT!

[karlrschneider]

18. sin is an illogical and artificial construct that exists in many forms, depending

on the particular delusion the definer embraces.

[Katherine Brengle]

22. Nope. Marriage is already a civil union, the "distinction" is a guise for bigotry. nt

[HuffleClaw]

24. waffling bullshit if you ask me.

typical politician

[zanne]

25. If you're gay, how much does a church wedding mean to you?

I hope I don't sound naive, or worse still, insulting, but it seems to me that marriage can be either religious or civil. Why would anyone oppose gay people marrying outside a church in a civil ceremony when anti-gay marriage people can get married in a church if they want to? Or would a civil ceremony be unsatisfactory for you?

[Ms. Toad]

60. Not the point.

Marriage is a legal status in this country (and the rest of the world). Entry to that status can either be gained through a civil ceremony (judge, justice of the peace, etc.) or through a religious ceremony (laws are generally written to permit religious entities to solemnize religious marriages and record them with the state to obtain legal recognition of the religiously solemnized relationship).

Edwards (apparently - I didn't see the show) is opposed to permitting gay couples to have access to the legal status of marriage - regardless of the means (civil or religious) by which the legal relationship is established.

FWIW, my 25+ year marriage was solemnized in both a religious ceremony (13 years ago) and a civil one (3 years ago) - and my legal status is still is not recognized by my state. Of the two, having my marriage taken under the care of my faith community was far more important - and the state's approval has nothing to do with that aspect of my marriage.

[mondo joe]

134. Gay people have religious weddings all the time.

So you'd have to ask those who do what it means to them.

[Hosnon]

26. So long as the label "marriage" has only a religious meaning, I can live with

this view.

I think the state should grant any couple (gay or straight) a civil union. Then, if a church wants to sanction it and call it a marriage, that is fine - and they cannot be forced to sanction gay civil unions.

[Maven]

70. It doesn't only have a religious meaning.

As I've said on other occasions, "marriage" is a legal term like any other.

[Hosnon]

71. I wasn't saying that it does.

Just that it should if I am to be OK with homosexuals not being able to "marry". Let "civil union" have the legal meaning that "marriage" has now and let "marriage" be relegated to the religious sphere.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

80. And heterosexuals are not going to want their marriages DOWNGRADED to a civil union.

In this country, marriage is a civil institution, and heterosexuals aren't going to want to change that at all. Also, it would be quite costly to rewrite all the marriage laws into civil union laws. Quite ridiculous an effort in order to deny eqaul rights.

[Hosnon]

90. Then make it all "marriage".

Why must people read more into what one says?

If Edwards' position is to be acceptable to me, marriage should only be a religious term. Is his position the only acceptable position? Of course not.

They can all be "marriages" and I'd be similarly OK with it.

I'm simply pointing out how his position can be acceptable to me.

Edit: And who says a civil union is a downgrade? You. Marriage does have a religious element to me and I'm not religious so I may prefer to be in a civil union. And it wouldn't be that costly to change. One phrase stating that the word "marriage" is to be substituted with the words "civil union" would do the trick. You wouldn't have to rewrite the entire code of a particular state.

[Midlodemocrat]

238. Yup. Do I now say that I'm civil unioned instead of married?

Cripes. What is so bad about extending the word and the act to marriage to everyone? I don't fucking get it.

[Ian David]

27. No. Everyone-- gay and straight-- should get Civil Unions from The State,

Let Marriage be a religious ceremony with no legal weight.

[Colobo]

39. Exactly.

Very simple and to the point.

[Maven]

74. I don't know why this suggestion keeps up, as though it were viable.

It's not going to happen. "Marriage" is written into statutes and judicial opinions dating back to old English common law. As a legal institution, it's not going anywhere.

The whole "civil unions for everyone" idea isn't even politically viable. Do you think straight couples are going to accept a "downgrade" in their legal status--and make no mistake, that's how they'll see it--for the sake of equality? Bigots on the right would point to such an idea as evidence that gays and lesbians were trying to "destroy" marriage, just as they said all along. And to what end? To tiptoe around a word?

I don't mean this as a criticism of you, Ian. I know you support full equality. But it seems to me many present this idea ("let's just get rid of marriage altogether") as a fictional Option C in order to avoid saying they support equal marriage for GLBTs.

There are no shortcuts here.

[mondo joe]

28. He might as well have said he doesn't believe blacks should ride in the front of the bus.

This, not his house, is a problem.

[Lex]

30. I think his position is the same as all other Dem candidates

but DK.

[mondo joe]

31. Yes - and it's a problem. I sometimes think this is why some gays vote Republican -

if you can't get your rights with either party, you might as well improve your stock value.

Now I don't really think that as a philosophy - number 1, the Repubs are guilt of a lot more evil than just what is perpetrated against gays; and number 2, the Repubs position on marriage is just the top if their vile iceberg.

[Lex]

32. LOL if you think

your "stock value" increases under Repub rule.

[mondo joe]

34. Depends on your stocks.

:-)

[Lex]

35. True that.

:hi:

[mondo joe]

42. Incidentally, even though I think he's wrong, I do think support for civil unions

is a step in the right direction.

And I'd take one if it were available.

[Zhade]

52. Oh, don't say that in the thread about the WA state "procreation marriage" initiative.

There's a yahoo wandering around slamming people for daring to draw comparisons between the Civil Rights struggle and our plight.

[originalpckelly]

29. Is playing politics with the human rights of other people a sin?

It should be.

[Breeze54]

33. No he didn't say he was against gay marriage!! Stop misquoting!

He said he wasn't SURE YET!!!!
He said maybe it was his upbringing...he said gays should be in the military.
I agree he didn't say outright he was for gay marriage but he didn't say he was against it either.

----------------

He said:

that he struggles with the issue of same sex marriage, but he understands that the reason
he struggles with it is because of his Southern Baptist upbringing. He is "not there YET"
on the word "marriage." He twice said he realizes that as a public figure, he should not
be imposing the religious beliefs he grew up with on the entire country as public policy.

He stated, unequivocally, that he was for civil unions and partnership benefits.

When asked if gays and lesbians should serve openly in the military, he responded "yes."

When asked if homosexuality was a sin, he responded, "no."

[Zhade]

54. He needs to just wake the fuck up, then.

Either he's for discrimination, or will fight against it. There's no real middle ground here.

[Malikshah]

137. Edward, STOP hiding behind Jesus and the Crucifix

"but he understands that the reason
he struggles with it is because of his Southern Baptist upbringing."

The same goes for all those in the Church who want to appear as if they believe in equality for all, but just can't seem to reconcile their faith.

It's called cowardice. All faiths are organic beings that grow and change over time-- it's been a few thousand years for these faiths right now-- these folks that shield themselves from the light of freedom and hide behind their faith.... they have none.

[VOX]

401. I don't think he's hiding; he's saying that his religious background has been an impediment...

to his coming to the idea of supporting gay marriage. He says that, on this issue, he "...struggle(s) myself with imposing my faiths..." It's a process and I think that he would eventually get to the place where he would support gay marriage, IMO.

Read the MTP transcript here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/5/

[Malikshah]

402. As others have said-- the struggle is simple-- stop hiding behind the cross

Mr. Edwards. Once you strip away centuries of patriarchal indoctrination--it is clear-- the choice is either to discriminate or not.

The solution is quite simple.

[Az]

37. Take government out of marriages and institute civil unions for everyone

Marriage as a concept is too tied into various religious institutions. It means something different to every different group. What the government should recognize is the business end of a committed relationship and the couples own personal social/religious group should handle the social/marriage aspects of the relationship.

[Lex]

40. Yes, civil unions with the exact same rights for everyone regardless of sex organs.

Churchs can still do marriages, as they wish or according to their rules, which would be religious in nature so they wouldn't bestow any federal or state benefits.

[Bluebear]

43. He did NOT say "NO" to gay marriage.

This is inaccurate. He said he is "not there yet" because of his Baptist background and is contemplating it, but this is not an accurate post.

[Zhade]

45. Well, what the hell is keeping him?

I mean, seriously.

[Bluebear]

53. I surely hope he reconciles his Baptist faith with equal rights soon.

I have had enough of religion oozing from the White House.

[Zhade]

44. No. It's subtle bigotry, even if he doesn't realize it.

Marriage is not solely a religious institution - it it is, then atheist and agnostic marriages don't exist, which is clearly not the case.

He also notes that it's not a 'sin' (as if sin even exists), so there's no religious component to his anti-gay stance.

The process of elimination makes it apparent he just finds it icky, which is a bigoted reason to deny my rights and equal protection under the law.

But after his whole Iran fiasco, he's not even on my list, so whatever. He's not going to win anyway, I'm guessing.

[Fovea]

47. No, and I have performed religious ceremonies for

gays and lesbians since the 70s.

But I believe that having supported civil unions, the door is not closed for Edwards later support of equal marriage.

This does disappoint me, and it does make me want to talk to him about it.

[Dastard Stepchild]

55. I believe in marriage for all, period.

I won't go so far as to say that a religious institution needs to marry the couple - the Catholic church can and does refuse the marriages of heterosexual couples on the basis of divorce history (among other reasons). However, the state cannot and should not make that claim.

That said... if BGLT individuals could have legally recognized unions (with all the rights and privileges thus accorded under law), I would rather put aside semantics and support the "civil union" and not hold out for the title of "marriage." And I do say this with utmost sensitivity towards the ridiculous unfairness of the situation. But I would rather have legal unions for all couples than a never-ending fight over the use of the word marriage.

Were there such a thing 10 years ago, I would have been able to bring over my then girlfriend and married her and kept her here with me. Immigration law is painful for BGLT folks.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. I think gays should have the same right to marry as everyone else.

But I do agree with him that it's not a "sin".

[philosophie_en_rose]

62. If it's not a sin, then what's the difference?

Now I love me some John Edwards, but Chewbacca does not live on Endor. :) If homosexuality is not a sin, then his position does not make sense.

Perhaps he means that marriage should be a private issue, whereas the government should deal with civil unions for all. :shrug:

[Vidar]

68. Edwards is setting himself up to be beaten by Hillary on the right

& everyone on the left.

[Breeze54]

120. Exactly! "Hillary IS on the right!"

;)

[nolabels]

75. I think marraige is a crock of bull

If you are going to share your life with someone else do you really need any organization telling you how you should do it :shrug:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

76. It's not the organization telling you how to do it. It's the legal rights.

The right to visit your partner in the hospital, the tax benefits, etc.

[nolabels]

86. The denial of rights to see others in critical conditions is a matter of.......

rights being taken away. Not of them being granted. Tax benefits or deduction for Married people is also taxation without representation in logical terms of the words being used.

Government even infringes on individuals right for loans with the marriage catch. Even though we could qualify in every other aspect for our first home through FHA we could not get one. My partner of four years and I were forced to get married to qualify. That's a crock, the crock being for the simple fact the commitment to home is way more binding than some piece of paper known as marriage license , this especially to a court of law, ie. government.

[mondo joe]

92. To the contrary, no one has the right to attend to someone in critical condition

except family. Marriage grants that right to the person of your choosing, as well as the right to make your medical choices for you when you are incapacitated.

Marriage is a necessary formality for people to establish their partner for legal purposes.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

99. You beat me to it. Well said. nt

:thumbsup:

[nolabels]

115. Though not a lawyer, A power of attorney document does the same on medical........

i am pretty sure. Though i might agree with the swimming up stream is ignorant sometimes, on philosophical aspect i must disagree. The medical aspect of attending to a person is a very gray area at any rate at this present time. Often rules like the slave being a partial person take centuries to be discarded. Traditions and antiquated ideas are often deeply ingrained in the fabric of everyday life.

I submit to you that denial of an individuals rights on grounds of belonging to a religious institution is against, or denying, several of the US Constitutional rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

What Is the Marriage Boycott?
http://www.unmarried.org/marriage-boycott.html

Demystifying Common Law Marriage
http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage.html

[mondo joe]

133. I submit to you that when you are hit by a car and dying in a hospital, it would

be a poor time for your partner to have to argue that you are a commonlaw spouse and that's why he or she should be let in to share your last moments or direct your medical care.

And if you would like to pay the legal fees to establish power of attorney rather than the marriage license, you are free to do so. But one has to wonder why I should do so, to satisfy you.

[ScreamingMeemie]

146. You are pretty surely wrong.

Family can and has trumped power of attorney.

[nolabels]

157. Well no kidding, the point was that if there was NO family members involved or.........

or at least it was for me. If someone was incapacitated or physically unable to take care of their own affairs was what i was trying to refer to. The exact correct answer to everything was never to be. Often people who have disabilities, issues or are just different from other family members are ostracized from the rest of their genetic counter parts. For which such a thing as a power of attorney is a big help

I am not advocating anything except never giving up. It's seems just kind of shame of having to debate of the caring for others takes such a legal aspect. It seems it's not about the other person anymore but more of possessions and who has say so on such

[mondo joe]

170. Of course it's legal. What else would it be?

If you were incapacitated would you want anyone who walked in to the hospital who said they were authorized to make your choices honored?

Or would you want some reassurance that the person was someone you selected?

[nolabels]

190. That also depends

If you have a wife beater or some other kind abuser being put in the place to make them decisions then no (If it were my choice for instance). Also sometimes family members are distraught and unable to make cogent decisions in emergency situations. At such times i would rather have a professional with experience make the near term in them important decisions also, just for instance.

For me, trusting the good intent of (most)others was never an issue, but the thing was if understanding the knowledge at hand was good enough to make the correct decisions

[ScreamingMeemie]

176. It is more about being treated equally and with respect in the eyes of t

the law. End of story. For many power of attorney has been a promise that soon turned into bitter heartache. How many times do you really think no family members involved happens?

[LostinVA]

196. Thanks, MrsG

[nolabels]

254. Very little and hope others think that is good thing also

The chances of others having to make life and death decision for other family members is very slim and getting slimmer everyday.

[LostinVA]

192. Bingo -- both in same sex partner situations and otherwise

It has within my own family and circle of friends.

And, in VA, those power of attorneys are worth less than the papers they're written on. They are actually ILLEGAL.

[Midlodemocrat]

230. Except they don't ask you for that if you are standing next to your

beloved who lays in the bed.

They look up at you and say "Ma'am, are you his wife?" so you can sign the papers to have them slice open his chest and repair his heart.

They don't say "Ma'am do you have power of attorney, or any other documentation that will allow us to discuss his health with you?"

And, EVERYONE deserves that. REGARDLESS of sexual orientation.

[LostinVA]

269. Thank you, Midlo -- I love you!

As I keep saying, if more Catholics were like you, I'd still be in the Church.

[JackBeck]

77. When the government, if you consider that an "organization", denies you over 1400 rights

then I tend to take notice, whether it's on a states level or federal level.

[nolabels]

100. The organization that needs you to conform to their needs and.........

not to your inalienable rights to be your own person in your individuality. The fourteen hundred so called rights are made acceptable by first making a public pliable to them and not by them granting them. At least that is how all them original framers documents i have seem to have been written. They seem to say these are most acceptable negotiated rules we could make that would encompass the largest amount of people.

Many of the others that came after tried to use them acceptable negotiated rules to divide people and still do to this day

[JackBeck]

106. Are you a character on "Family Guy"?

"The organization that needs you to conform to their needs and not to your inalienable rights to be your own person in your individuality."

Am I missing something? God forbid I imply, since I'd rather not be called on it.

"The fourteen hundred so called rights are made acceptable by first making a public pliable to them and not by them granting them."

I love the "so called" reference. And the fact that any legitimate minority group must plead their case in front of a wiling and acceptable nation.

The fact that you conclude with how others wanted to "divide" speaks volumes of your intentions.

[nolabels]

121. The fact i chose to debate any of it under insinuations of my person is also an insult

Understanding how some would rather be steeped in belonging rather than understanding why does not amaze me. Understanding how others are in need having that feeling of being ridiculed does though. I do confess that feeling does come to me too. Something ingrained in the genes no doubt.

Though i cannot understand your point of reference simply because circumstances do not permit, i also submit to you, that your point of reference of who i am and my circumstances are at best a pot shot.

[JackBeck]

123. Welcome to the club.

If I forget, remind me how brilliant your post was.

[JackBeck]

126. On second thought, what the fuck are you talking about?

I gave you a chance and you haven't responded. So, seriously, do you have a point to your ramblings? I think I may have mistaken you as referencing a pop culture reference, but maybe I was wrong.

Care to explain your post?

[nolabels]

140. I accept what ever you say about me

:hi:

[nolabels]

151. I don't know what i saying, maybe i was confusing or confused

Either way please excuse my arrogance or ignorance. I just kind of figure you were referencing mythical figures and your closeness to them to prove you superiority over others you encounter. Probably just a figure of speech to be sure. Beside what would a cartoon character like me know :shrug:


The point is the people are ultimately who or what decides what the law will be, eventually in the long run anyway. The government in the USA was originally erected to serve the people. The peoples government has been usurped, stolen under fiat. The government now takes the position the people serve the government, and the government they run serves money and business interests. That is where our documented rights ended.

We are back to square one now, where our inalienable rights will take precedence. Throughout history it is proven that the more crooked the government the larger amount of laws they will end up erecting to protect it. The government and the minions that support it want to go loggerhead over the fact that government is the final say so on everything. It operates in this way though many times it does not have a majority of people supporting the laws if the facts were known. That will not work in the long run

I have nothing against anyones religion unless that religion is used against other people or me in an effort to gain leverage to things that should not be.

A government that denies or erects rights because of ones religious tenants is just another form of oppression. Marriage the way it practiced and legislated onto currently is imposing religious institution into government


(snip)
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
(snip)
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

[mondo joe]

156. While you masturbate over your inarticulate principles, gay couples are suffering.

Just FYI.

[nolabels]

175. Just for my information?

My inarticulate positions are my positions, at least i am more than willing to own up to them. I have not been notified, as of yet anyway, that i was needed to be the protector over any particular group and to save them from suffering.

The only point i was ever trying make was no person or group should be allowed or denied by government because of any affiliation in any group. Married people are such a group i would be referring to at this time. If the affiliation is also a religious affiliation that is selective and exclusionary then it should also be unconstitutional under the (aka. Bill of Rights) first amendment .

[mondo joe]

317. Marriage is not a erligious affiliation.

Test it: you can have a non religious legal marriage.

But a purely religious marriage is not recognized by the state.

[nolabels]

367. We have a non-religious civil union dubbed a marriage from...........

administered by the then Justice of Peace (also sometimes called the mayor) of Laughlin, Nevada


http://www.visitlaughlin.com/ltourism/accommodations/index.jsp

After four years of living together it was the only way we could qualify for a FHA loan. It is really so much of ceremony and not much else.

If you ask me, next to children, the loan / title papers for a home are the glue that hold people together not some concept of an old gray haired dude from on high

[mondo joe]

372. I don't know what you think the right has to do with holding people together.

Whether a couple stays together or not is their business.

Denying equality to gay couples is the problem.

[nolabels]

395. It has to do with government being subordinated to religion

Trying to highlight that religion and the way people live their lives are being dictated to everybody by people who have no desire in plurality. We, me and you and anyone else that has a dispute with a system that runs that way have a much better chance together than trying to change it than we do separately.

The people who want to divide and subjugate others are also the ones who desire to keep things like they are. FHA (Federal Housing Administration)guarantees loans for people who have less means, mostly shortage of down payments. If a person has a healthy down payment, a conventional loan will make all kinds of loans possible with such and no FHA loan will be needed.

People that loan money need the people they loan money to have a steady situation so they have a reasonable chance at getting the money they loaned returned. The FHA is agency that gives loan guarantees that can shrink that down payment to a much smaller amount. This done with tax money that everyone pays. To qualify for a FHA loan you must be married

You say "Denying equality to gay couples is the problem"

I would say "Denying equality to gay couples or any other kind of couple a problem" because that is not how the Bill of Rights, the laws that trump all other laws read or could be understood by original intent. This why the right is so hot to make a federal marriage amendment.

[mondo joe]

135. What inalienable right do you have to make someone else's medical choices while

they are dying in a hospital simply because you say so? Is there no onus on anyone to show that they have been designated to do so?

[nolabels]

248. Yep that was pretty much the point, others deciding for others

The government has positioned itself to make all them decisions with everything already decided regardless of situations in effort to augment their position of the ones to utter all that is to be said. They put dollar amounts on peoples lives and ignore peoples lives when they want to push for causes deemed unpopular.

After having to watch my brother live in the head trauma ward as a vegetable for two years before he finally past was not an easy thing to do. Yet as family, we where not in the running of having any decisions made about it. Because my brother was single, in his mid thirties, he made a ward of state in the county hospitable because of his incapacitation. The idea of getting power of attorney was never even a thought for him.

Mostly for everyone, under our current government, nobody has rights including the inalienable, according to the government anyway.

How others could construe taking away rights of others would enhance their own rights is beyond me.

Marriage is a crock is my position, but that only makes it my position and not too much else. If that could threaten anybody then i would also say they are probably living in a delusional reality.

[mondo joe]

79. I suggest you reconsider, since the issue is the thousands of rights associated

with marriage.

If you're comfortable with those being denied to gays, we've got a new topic.

[napi21]

89. If civil unions grant the same rights as marriage, why are you all so

hung up on a word? I really thinkthe Dems could get a civil unions bill passed, andsignedinto law. Almost every post I've read hereinsists that it's all about rights. If that's true, why is everyone so insistent on it being called marriage? I don't understand.

[zingaro]

95. "separate but equal" applies. Whether it's semantics or not...

to say a civil union is OK but marriage is not - that it's somehow santified and outside of the reach of couples of the same sex - is discriminatory.

That's why it's different and not OK.

[JackBeck]

97. Because our state and federal government calls it marriage

so it makes it easier for persons involved. Would you rather we start a campaign convincing heterosexuals that the only way for gays to get equality in marriage rights is to take your marriage away?

[napi21]

102. Personally I don't really GAS what you call my relationship.

I was marriedin a church in 1964. I have no idea why the State sanctions priests performing cerimonies, but they do. If you want to say i'm in a civil union, that's fine with me. Hell, you could say we're the REAL oddballs because we've stayed together for so long. I never put much interest in titles, names, or particular ceremonies. I guess that's why I find it so hard to understand why there's so much todo about this difference issue.

[JackBeck]

111. I'm sure you don't GAS

But that's not the issue. Lots of gay peeps do give a shit.

Not only are we supposed to have a separation between Church and State in this country, we are supposed to have a separation between State and Federal. But things get a bit mashed together sometimes, agreed?

There's such a "todo" about this issue because whether or not you believe marriage should be a religious issue, unfortunately, it's an issue in this country.

Other countries have figured out progressive ways to deal with gay marriage and the world hasn't come to an end. I wonder when this country is gonna grow up.

[TheWatcher]

131. The Question is if this country can SURVIVE to Grow Up

That is not likely the way we are going.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[Norrin Radd]

128. No religion has a copyright or a trademark on the word "marriage."

Edwards is wrong about denying anyone the right to marriage.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

136. i heard it and i dont even think he believes himself. this is a tricky issue for the dems.

and they dont really know on which side to err.

should they be bigots or immoral?? (according to voters this issue is polarized enough that one way or the other this is how a politician will be labeled)

edwards took the position most viable candidates will take which is to not criticize homosexual but also not award equal rights

[WA98296]

138. Gay Marriage is not a presidential issue, it's a trap for....well, fools.

For Christ's sake, don't fall for this BS. Edwards personal opinion on marriage...who gives a rip?

I wish he'd have something meaningful and substantive to say about things that effect EVERY American -- like how the Free Trade agreements are ending the middle class and what that impact will be our society -- what he would or could do about that. About what can be done to solve the health care crisis. About what can be done on a national level to insure voting integrity and actually getting something done about campaign finance reform to preserve democracy. About changing the laws about media ownership so that our citizens actually get real NEWS, about how we can survive the assault that has been committed on this country's treasury by the current administration. About how to insure that a dictator will never take over our government (again).

Issues like gay marriage, abortion, gun control may be important on some level, to some people. Don't kid yourself, these "issues" are waved in our faces so that we FAIL to focus on what is going on right in front of us.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

143. as long as you tax me and deprive me of my rights. i will demand they be discussed.

[Maven]

187. Obviously they don't affect him;

therefore, they're trivial "bourgeois" issues, as another wrongheaded poster once decreed. :eyes:

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[La Lioness Priyanka]

142. no, you fucking queers cannot force my religion to recognize you."

even if its not in your words the quote is bigoted and homophobic and why would you post it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

145. My courthouse marriage is no more religious than a civil union.

Bullshit on the religious meaning.

[rpgamerd00d]

164. I disagree.

If all you want are equal rights under the Constitution of the United States, and those are granted, then you should be satisfied.

It makes no sense to claim injustice over a single word. Once full rights are granted, pushing for the word ceases to be a matter of equality, and instead becomes a matter of religion and religious doctrine.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

165. so seperate water fountains is ok with you? its still water we are drinking.

[rpgamerd00d]

168. Completely different.

Either marriage IS a religious process, or ITS NOT.
It can't be BOTH NOT Religious (when you want civil rights) AND Religious (when you want the word).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

169. It is NOT religious. it can be accompanied by a religious ceremony

but the rights are civil rights. and seperate is never equal.

[rpgamerd00d]

216. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

You know that marriage is simply a civil process.
I know that marriage is simply a civil process.
Most liberals know that marriage is simply a civil process.

And 50% of America (the 50% that voted for Bush) know for "a fact" that its a 100% religious ceremony.

I've said for years on this messageboard, gays+lesbians could have had their civil union rights YEARS AGO if they simply gave up on using the word "marriage" to describe it.

[LostinVA]

229. But giving up the "word" marriage gives up rights

It makes us "separate but not equal."

Marriage is a legal term in this country. For marriage equality to happen, the word MUST be "marriage."

[rpgamerd00d]

247. Totally incorrect.

Civil Union is a legal term.

All Marriages ARE Civil Unions BY DEFINITION.

That is NOT separate but equal.

Its simply EQUAL.

Marriage is nothing more than a civil union with a religious connotation.

[LostinVA]

257. I'm totally correct -- marriage is the legal term pretty much everywhere

Good try, though. Why don't you try it again for the ten millionth time?

[ThomCat]

357. She's right, and you're wrong.

Giving up the word marriage gives up all the the rights that have accumulated in law that are granted upon marriage.

Marriage are not by definition civil unions. Marriages are by definition a certain type of legally recognized relationship that is heavily defined and rewarded by law. You're ignoring all the legal background because of some definition you made up in your head that you think is more important than the real world.

[LostinVA]

189. Marriage is never a religious process

Marriage is a civil institution. Clergy can only marry because they are considered CIVIL officials, not religious. Some people chose to have their marriage encased within a religious sacrament/ceremony, but the marriage is NOT religious. It's civil.

[Midlodemocrat]

219. I don't know where to start.

Marriage is a civil term. People get married in civil unions by a JP or a judge or an Elvis impersonator.

Getting married 'in the church' signifies a religious, in the case of Catholics at least, sacrament.

Since the word marriage connotes 'spouse', beneficiary, et al, there is no reason on the planet to exclude the GLBT community from marriage.

It's not as if the gays are gonna fuck up the institution, heteros have had a lock on that for quite a while.

[rpgamerd00d]

222. You need to give up your attachment to an English word.

You yourself said "in a civil union". Just call it that, and BAM. GLBT get their civil rights.

I can't fathom why you're attached to a single word.

[Midlodemocrat]

228. Because getting married is the pinacle.

Do heterosexuals send out 'civil union' announcements or 'civil union' invitations. No they don't. They send out wedding announcements and invitations.

Separate but equal is not equal.

There is no excuse for a progressive to claim that civil unions are 'good enough' for the GLBT. It wasn't 'good enough' for me, so why should they have to accept it?

As progressives, we need to take this one 'balls to the wall'.

[rpgamerd00d]

234. No, you are completely wrong here.

All marriages ARE civil unions.
Not all civil unions ARE marriages.

That is the essential difference. It has nothing to do with "separate but equal". Its not separate at all.

You will NEVER EVER get religious groups to disassociate the word "Marriage" with religion - EVER. NEVER.

Your fight is for your RIGHTS. Those RIGHTS only include CIVIL UNIONS. Your RIGHTS DO NOT include obligations on RELIGION put forth by the Government.

We talk about FRAMING the debate all the time, yet somehow we're BLIND as a bat on this one.

The Debate is about GLBT getting their CIVIL RIGHTS to a CIVIL UNION just like Heterosexuals. Its NOT MARRIAGE. MARRIAGE is a CIVIL UNION performed in a RELIGIOUS CONTEXT.

[Midlodemocrat]

243. Dude, I'm hetero and married, so it's not about 'my rights'.

So, do I now say I'm 'civil unioned' instead of married?

I don't know anyone who was married by a JP who called it a civil union. Not one.

And, FWIW, my church, my CATHOLIC church is more than willing to perform marriage on its gay parishioners, when it becomes legal.

It's a word. Why are you fighting so hard to prevent someone else from utilizing it and proclaiming equality by utilizing it?

[rpgamerd00d]

249. OMFG are you NOT LISTENING to a WORD I am saying?

Is gay marriage legal in all states? No.
Why?
Because they WILL NOT GIVE UP the FRIGGING WORD "Marriage".
Could gay "marriage" be legal in all 50 states TODAY if they simply called it "Civil Union" instead?
Yes, 100% guarenteed.
Does that diminish it in ANY WAY? No, all marriages ARE civil unions by DEFINITION.

[Midlodemocrat]

260. LOL. I guess not because you are not making sense.

Why should gays have to settle? Because YOU say so?

I better go tell my husband we're civil unioned and not married. I think he should know.

[LostinVA]

261. We're listening to everything you're saying, and no one is buying it

For a damned good reason.

So OMFG.

[rpgamerd00d]

266. Well, I can answer your questions, but I can't understand them for you.

[ThomCat]

361. You imply that you have the wisdom

to understand things that are beyond all the rest of us. Dream on. :eyes:

You've got a pet theory and you're defending it to the death without any evidence or support. Have fun with that.

[fishwax]

406. there's plenty of right wing opposition to civil unions too

so you're assertion that gay marriage could "be legal in all 50 states TODAY if they simply called it "Civil Union" instead" is simply wrong.

That's not the only thing that's bullshit about your argument, but others are doing a fine job with the rest.

[LostinVA]

You can't, because the LEGAL term is marriage

WE'RE not the ones "attached" to the word. Anti-gay marriage advocates are.

[rpgamerd00d]

236. Incorrect, the legal term is "civil union"

[LostinVA]

262. Nope, wrong again -- keep spinning

[ThomCat]

359. You're wrong again.

Marriage is a legal term. It's a legally recognized relationship. Civil Union is a separate legally recognized relationship with far, far fewer rights, and it's only recognized in a very few places.

They are not the same, and they could not be the same without a massive overhaul of all the existing family law and tax law (just to start).

[ThomCat]

355. Nonsense.

To use a bit of corporate speak, religion is a value-add in marriage. You can be married without religion, but many people think religion adds to the marriage.

Unfortunately, many people also think that without that value-add you aren't married at all, and that's total bullshit.

[ScreamingMeemie]

174. Organized religion does not and should not hold the license (no pun

intended) for the use of the word marriage. If full rights are granted, it shouldn't matter that it is indeed a marriage.

[rpgamerd00d]

211. Shoulda Woulda Coulda = Fantasyland

"Marriage=Religion" = reality

[ScreamingMeemie]

213. Maybe in your mind...not mine... says the agnostic MARRIED to the

atheist..in the real world even. You cannot change the facts of my marriage. Sorry.

[rpgamerd00d]

225. Your facts DO NOT MATTER to Conservatives.

Since when have FACTS *EVER* Mattered to conservatives ?!

Their "Fact" is that marriage is purely, 100% religious.
Its irrelevant that they are 100% wrong. In their minds, they are 100% right.

If you want 100% equal rights, give up the word "Marriage" and use another term - civil union, civil bond, civil living-with-this-pain-in-my-ass-till-we're-dead. Doesn't matter. Just stop trying to use that one word and you win.

[ScreamingMeemie]

241. Sorry. this is RW rhetoric you are spouting.

I find it very odd in fact. My marriage is 100% devoid of religion. Hurts to be disproven, eh?

[rpgamerd00d]

244. Wow, this is going COMPLETELY over your head.

Your reality means nothing to a conservative.

They will argue that marriage is 100% religious and you will never, ever convince them otherwise.

[Name removed]

246. Deleted message

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

[rpgamerd00d]

250. Um, Im far more liberal than you.

And implying otherwise is a violation of the rules.

[Midlodemocrat]

271. Oohh, the "I'm more liberal than you card"!

Well played. Well played. I think I would have waited until later in the thread, but this could keep you in the game.

:bounce:

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

275. However, I think I'M more liberal than you, Midlo

[Midlodemocrat]

276. Yes, yes, I would agree to that.

I'm happily ensconced in my own little corner of the burbs with the three kids and two dogs and the HP (heart patient), so yes, I'm gonna say it was LostinVA with the candlestick in the drawing room.

[LostinVA]

288. It was the knife, dammit

[Midlodemocrat]

299. I'm sorry. I'm still reeling that I'm not as liberal as he is.

:cry:


:rofl:


If only.

[LostinVA]

351. Hehehehehe -

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

And I'm more CONSERVATIVE than the two of you and I still believe in gay marriage.

So ha!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

365. And I'm more CONSERVATIVE than the two of you and I still believe in gay marriage.

So ha!

[blonndee]

277. *I'M* more liberal than both you

pretenders, so I get to tell you what rights you really have and what you have to call them. Kay? B-)

[LostinVA]

291. Hmmmmmmmm

[Nomasdm]

419. Or, I will threaten to IM you with my PW'd army boyfriend!

Get my drift?:argh: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[blonndee]

422. Come out from under your bridge? Or your tombstone?

Enjoy your stay. Very pathetic that you had to come back as a sock puppet.

[Nomasdm]

423. You mean high ground!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Maven]

432. Well, at least you think you're funny.

Back from the dead, eh

[rpgamerd00d]

278. Ahh, so, you're on your towns Democratic Committee? Cool.

Also, which DFA chapter do you belong to?
Did you work on Ned Lamont's campaign too? Funny, I didnt see you at any of the events, maybe its just because you're not from CT.
And I guess you're also a candidate for one your local town Boards (board of ed, board of finance, etc) backed by the Democratic Party, right? Or is that just me?
Well, at least you're in an interracial relationship like me, right?

Ahh nevermind.

[Midlodemocrat]

281. Dude. Trust me, you DO NOT wanna play this game with me.

Not at all.


And, no I don't live in CT anymore, but feel free to give either Mark Warner or Tim Kaine or Jim Webb a call and drop my name.

Oh, and next week, when I have dinner with Madame Speaker, (That would be Pelosi for the obtuse), I'll give her your best.

[rpgamerd00d]

287. Pfft, dream on.

Yeah, and Im related the to Kennedy's.

[Midlodemocrat]

293. LOL.

I really don't care what a troglodyte like you thinks. You're nothing more than a name on a message board.


:rofl:

[ThomCat]

298. You see, the difference is

that Midlo is living in the real world. We don't know about you.

We know for a fact that she's done a lot of good progressive work. We don't know about you.

She's earned the respect of large numbers of people here...

[Name removed]

300. Deleted message

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

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

303. You are so funny. Where do you get this material?

Thom is as liberal as they come. I can assure you on that.

:rofl:

[rpgamerd00d]

308. Then he isn't ACTING very liberal at the moment.

[ThomCat]

327. Delete. Posted in the wrong place.

[ThomCat]

329. Coming from you, that's an endorsement.

You wouldn't recognize a liberal if we all lined up in front of you. (which is basically what we're doing.)

[Midlodemocrat]

306. Actually, it was YOU doing the attacking.

"I'm more liberal than you"


Ring a bell?

[rpgamerd00d]

311. If you viewed that as an attack, I'm sorry. It was more of a simple statement of fact.

[Midlodemocrat]

318. Yes. It is a well known statement of fact that all posters with the

term gamer in their nick are very liberal.

[Nomasdm]

427. who cares?

[ThomCat]

330. Ha.

In what world?

[ThomCat]

316. I'll challenge your number of hours

of volunteer work compared to mine any day. I'll challege the causes I've worked on the ground to support with sweat and tears compared to yours any day.

You don't impress anyone here with your hollow claims. You're the one with the obvious closed mind, blaming the victims as a matter of course and claiming you're so much smarter and better than everyone else.
:eyes:

[Nomasdm]

426. will you be flying ariforce one?

you really put him in his place - not!

[LostinVA]

285. Oi Frigging Vay

[ScreamingMeemie]

289. Again in your mind. It bothers me so little in fact that I don't bother to

alert on messages that I deem to be "attacks".

I will state again that I believe your views on this to be conservative in nature. In fact more wildly conservative than any person I have met in real life. For the religious aspects of my marriage (as non religious as it is) bother them not one iota. It's you that it bothers. Me married in a courthouse, without invoking God. How positively crazy. :sarcasm: Alert away...sigh.

[Midlodemocrat]

296. Didn't you read his post.

He's more LIBERAL THAN YOU!!!

He's on the democratic town committee.... (I was President of mine in CT, but I digress)

He's in an interracial relationship!!! He's very, very liberal. He says so himself.

[rpgamerd00d]

304. The head of a town committee is called a "Chairman" not a "president".

But I guess you'd have to actually be ON one to know that.

[Midlodemocrat]

307. Not in my town and not 15 years ago.

but I would guess you're only about 16, so you probably wouldn't know. I'm guessing from your user name, that is.

[rpgamerd00d]

314. My daughter is almost that age, so I guess you're sorta close....

... not.

Maybe they were 15 years ago, can't verify that atm.
But one would think you'd use the current terminology, no ?

[Midlodemocrat]

319. If we had DTCs here, which we don't.

Each area has a different term.

[ScreamingMeemie]

312. Ummm...Maybe in your town... but they vary in towns across the

country. Perhaps you should look outside your town to find norms and what other people are actually thinking. I find this very strange for one so liberal.

Edited to add: Alert away. After all I was a double super, primary-ized mod so I should know. :hi:

[ThomCat]

301. Bullshit.

You've already posted several times that you're personal believe is that everyone should be blamed for anything bad that happens to them. You apparently think blaming the victims is good progressive policy. And you clearly don't give a damn about doing anything to actually help anyone.

You can claim that you're a liberal forever, but nobody's going to believe you if all they have to go on is your posts here and the things you say. You don't sound the least big liberal.

Roleplaying can help you develop your imagination, but please stop imagining you're a liberal.

[rpgamerd00d]

328. I never once said any of that.

There is a HUGE difference between responsibility and blame/fault, and I'm sorry you don't see the distinction like I do.

Fault/Blame is attributed to those that cause actions to happen.
Responsibility are those that have to deal with the results.

If you are at a red light and get rear ended, the FAULT is the other drivers. But the responsibility to deal with a broken car and the repair bills and insurance claims and (possible) lawsuit is YOURS.

I don't know a better way to explain the difference.

[ThomCat]

335. In the real world

fault, blame and responsibility all correspond to each other with amazing frequency. Those who are responsbile are assigned blame and held to be at fault. But a very naive, issolated person with little real experience might not know anything about that.

Parse language all you want. That's the refuge of people who don't deal with reality. After all, words on a character sheet are so much easier to deal with than the real world. :eyes:

You're still going around insisting you're more liberal than everyone else, with no evidence whatsoever.

And you're still insisting that the victims are responsible for their victimhood, as if that somehow doesn't imply fault and blame.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here other than making a fool of yourself, but whatever your goals are, I hope it makes you happy. You've proven time and time again that you're exactly the person that none of us would ever want reprenting us in any capacity on any democratic committee, council or board.

[rpgamerd00d]

344. Well, I can't help you understand something that's over your head.

The world is a bit more complex than you seem to view it. My example of the car accident was pretty clear, I think. Somehow, you fail to grasp what I was saying in that example. Either because you're not smart enough, or you just don't want to "get it".

I am sick and tired of people who call themselves "liberals" who would let gays and lesbians in this country suffer without the ability to inherit, without the ability to visit sick partners in the hospital, without the ability to make decisions on their behalf, without the ability to adopt children (in some places), ALL BECAUSE YOU'RE STUCK ON A WORD.

You can sit here and CLAIM that the word is important, and that you'd rather not have those rights for gays and lesbians, and claim how that makes you a patriot, or a civil rights leader, or how its "hard to talk this stance but that's how it has to be". But to me, all that is bullshit. That is bullshit rhetoric, and solves NOTHING. Gays and lesbians STILL are unable to exercise all those rights, and you seem to feel that their suffering is "a sacrifice for the cause". Gee, where have I heard that from before? (*cough*bush*iraq*cough*)

[ThomCat]

346. You're deluded.

Where do you get that idea that I (or anyone here but you) thinks that anyone's suffering should be a sacrifice for the cause?

You're just upset because you've proposed a bullshit solution that
1. Shows that you don't understand the issues, history, factions, or consequences
2. won't work for a lot of obvious reasons (obvious to everyone but you)

And instead of listening to people you're going around insisting that nobody else is liberal because we dared to disagree with you, and that nobody else understands but you because we dared to disagree with you. And, the only argument you can make to support your position is to parse language about the differences between fault, responsibility and guilt.

You can rant all you want about how horrible everyone else is, but you have no clue what you're talking about. You're clearly just bitter because we're not all rallying to your side and proclaiming your wisdom and superiority. Get over it. You've just been beaten down by a whole lot of DUers who clearly know more than you. Give it up.

[rpgamerd00d]

354. Well, I can answer your questions, but I can't understand them for you.

[ThomCat]

363. Is that your final answer?

Have you finally stopped spouting nonsense and fake-superiority and settled down to an innane response that means nothing? :)

[rpgamerd00d]

366. No, its just that is clear to me you don't understand what I'm saying.

Maybe its a limitation in text communication, or maybe its an unwillingness to see.

Don't know at this point, but continuing to argue is pointless.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

368. No, we understand. We just think your argument is full of shit.

Perhaps you have a hard time understanding with the limits in text communication. Perhaps you just have an unwillingness to see.

[rpgamerd00d]

371. Right, because as we all know, Equal Rights for African Americans just happened one day.

African Americans NEVER had to live thru a period where they were first "separate but equal", before the attitude of americans changed and the laws changed to give them full rights.

So clearly, pushing straight out for Gay Marriage is clearly the logical path, rather than a two step process that's been proven to work in the past.

:sarcasm:

[ThomCat]

375. D00d, she's not someone you want to challege

regarding civil rights. You knows more when she's asleep than you do when you're awake. :rofl:

We have only EVER won any civil rights by fighting for the ultimate goal of equality. At every step of the fight full equality is the goal even if incremental steps are the results. If your goal is incremental steps, the other side will force you to compromise and accept a much smaller step, or a delay that means the step might, maybe come some other time.

We have always pushed for full equality in every branch of the civil rights movement, so that if we have to settle for a incremental step at least it's as big a step as we could manage to take right now, and then we keep fighting to take another.

[rpgamerd00d]

377. Isn't that exactly what I was saying?

Push for the Rights, and not care what you call it ?
Isn't that the same thing as "an incremental step" ?

Are we agreeing now all of a sudden?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

379. No, you push for full equality, even if you only make an incremental step at first.

You want to make a half-assed effort for an incremental step.

Believe me, none of us are agreeing with you.

[rpgamerd00d]

380. It seems to me like we're saying the same thing except for, perhaps, semantics.

All that matters is the rights, not the name. You push for those and get them, even if you have to sacrifice the name to get them.

[ThomCat]

384. You need to accept

that the name is important because all the legal rights come with the name. No substitute name is going to have that huge body of law behind it. The law just doesn't work that way.

[rpgamerd00d]

392. Law X: Civil Unions = Marriage. Tada. Body of Law updated in 3 words or less.

How hard was that?
Pfft.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

396. Perhaps you would like to scour the thousands of laws regarding marriage to change the wording.

It's not that fast and simple. It would be a costly endeavor. Quite a bit of effort just to keep gays from being married.

[ThomCat]

399. You're not used to thinking in big pictures are you?

If all civil unions are marriage then there are no civil unions. Everyone's married.

And if you could write one law that changes the meaning of a bunch of other laws, don't you think there would be examples of that having ever been done?

Laws can render other laws unenforcable. Laws can make other laws moot. But I've never heard of laws that change other laws.

As Haruka said, you'd have to go in and manually change every law that mentioned marriage. Our legislators would be busy for decades just tracking down all the laws and changing them. And every one would be subject to debate. You'd end up with a patchwork of laws, some of which say Marriage and Civil Union, and some of which only say Marriage.

So then how would we know exactly which rights apply to civil unions? It would take teams of lawyers to scour the changes to see what has been changed and what hasn't.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

385. No, you are seeing the words, but you are not comprehending the words.

I will use the New Jersey Equal Marriage Rights struggle as an example. We pushed for FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY. We pushed to have it called MARRIAGE, not this separate but equal CIVIL UNION SHIT. We ended up with Civil Unions in the end, and we are continuing the fight for FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

You don't start out with a compromise. MLK did not start out with a compromise. He was pushing for full equality, even if it was achieved through incremental steps.

[ThomCat]

382. No we do not agree

because you want to stand up and shout "We'll accept civil unions."

1. You ignore that that accepting civil unions means accepting something that is inherently descriminatory. It would be codifying our relationships into a legal situation that accepts discrimination against us.

2. Civil Unions cannot be equal to Marriages simply because of the vast scattered body of law that only applies to Marriages but would not apply to Civil Unions.

3. By insisting at the start that civil unions are the goal, you set our negotiation point so close that we can't reach any distance through negotiation.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

378. 100% correct, Thom.

And you're right, he doesn't want to challenge me on civil rights creds.

[Nomasdm]

428. Perhaps one is comming out of the closet.

[fishwax]

412. You have a very strange interpretation of the rules

Subject: Um, Im far more liberal than you.

Text: And implying otherwise is a violation of the rules.

Not even remotely true. Otherwise your post itself would be against the rules, as it implies "otherwise" about someone else. The faulty logic there seems indicative of your poor logic in the rest of the thread as well.

[LostinVA]

263. No, it isn't going over MrsG's head

You just wish she'd buy your line.

[rpgamerd00d]

264. What line?

I guess its over your head too then.

[ThomCat]

305. Ha!

Insult another person who out-classes you. :rofl:

You're picking on all the right people to really show what a piece of work you are.

[ScreamingMeemie]

315. Isn't it really weird how it's over all of "our" heads...

My God. This person holds the key to true progressive values. Quick! Call Howard Dean....

...and yes, this post will be deleted, but someone had to say it. :hi:

[LostinVA]

374. I know, I feel so humbled

[ThomCat]

345. What's going completely over your head

is that you're giving in to the concervatives, accepting the way they insist on framing the issue. You're conceding that they're right before you've even begun the fight.

Yeah, the dude who says he's more liberal than everyone else here is accepting neo-con perspectives as the starting point for where the left should be. :eye:

[Nomasdm]

425. sad, but true

[ThomCat]

352. Bullshit.

People have been getting married far longer than there has been organized religion, and in many situation where the recognition of organized religion is scarce.

There are countries where agnostics and athiests are in the majority, and they still get married without any difficulty at all.

Religion has always wanted to coopt religion, define it, imply religious purpose and values into it. But that doesn't make marriage inherently religious. It makes marriage something valuable that religion still wants to own and control. And you're helping them.

You're helping the religious right. You're granting them the right to frame the debate. You're conceding the fight before you've even entered the right, and yet you're also proclaiming yourself to be the heavyweight.

[blonndee]

162. If "you fucking queers" aren't your own words, who are you quoting?

Because it does seem to go along with the rest of the post: "it doesn't fucking matter what the fuck you call that piece of paper filed with the Clerk of the State."

[rpgamerd00d]

166. I quoted every right-wing asshole in America.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

191. Sure...

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

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

[ThomCat]

283. rhymes with feeder

:rofl:

[blonndee]

199. 1) why quote right-wing assholes and 2) why quote them to support your own position?

I don't understand. :shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

200. also could it not be phrased it a less bigoted manner?

like seperation of church and state? blah blah?

[blonndee]

208. Considering the source,

I don't know if it could or not. IMO, that "quoting someone else" business is a convenient way to...well, you know. Hence the now "deleted message."

[rpgamerd00d]

218. No idea why it was deleted

[blonndee]

231. Well, you'd have to ask the mods but maybe this will help:

"4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

"You are permitted to discuss political or social issues relating to human sexuality, provided that you exercise the appropriate level of maturity, sensitivity, and discretion..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

"Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "cunt," "whore," "slut," "skank," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[LostinVA]

235. It's not the first time this poster has advocated this position

You can wrap the words up as "prettily" as you want - but it doesn't make the words any prettier, eh?

[blonndee]

239. Indeed.

Frequent flyer. :hi:

[LostinVA]

273. Yup

[rpgamerd00d]

240. Of course not, I've been saying it for years on this board.

Give up an english word (marriage) and viola! Civil Rights granted.

[LostinVA]

265. "Restored" Please tell em when the hell gays could marry in this country?

Oh, excuse me, "civil unioned"? And, even though you like to think it isn't, "marriage" is a legal term in this country.

Jeebus.

And yeah, you've been peddling this weird, anti-Progressive position more than once. It's been noticed.

And, I am damned tired of you blaming gays for the reason why we don't have marriage equality. YOU don't get to frame MY life.

[rpgamerd00d]

270. Excuse me but it IS your fault.

Don't go blaming anyone else for YOUR LIFE.

The reason you DO NOT have full civil union rights under the law is YOUR FAULT.

Because you will not give up on the word "marriage".

You are willing to go without that right for now, and wait for a time when the people of this country see that word the same way you do.

That is YOUR CHOICE.

[ThomCat]

280. WTF (2)

You're blaming her for the existance of homophobia and discrimination?

What drugs are you on? :wtf:

[rpgamerd00d]

282. Everyone is responsible for their own life.

Period.

[ThomCat]

286. That's a wonderful excuse

for persecution. Ever bully and tyrant always says that same thing. So if other people persecute you, harass you, beat you, rape you, rob you or do anything else to you it must be your own fault.

Does blaming the victims make you feel like a big man?

[rpgamerd00d]

295. I never said it was their fault, I said they were responsible.

Why do people CONSTANTLY confuse those two words?

Fault: Person committing the act.
Responsibility: Person who is in control of the outcome of their life.

Totally different.

[Midlodemocrat]

302. I got news for you, dude. We are all subject to fate.

Fate trumps responsibility every friggin' time.

And, with so much out there that we can't control, why create additional hatred? Why not advocate for the GLBT community to have the same rights I enjoy?

I failed in November because the bullshit anti-marriage act was passed here, but at least I tried.

What did you do? CT is an extremely liberal state. I know. I lived there for 32 years. What did you do to prevent this discrimination? Even from your very liberal perch in CT?

[rpgamerd00d]

322. I worked hard for Ned, but we all know how that turned out.

I still wear his knit cap with his logo on it "Stand up for change".

Look at the poll I created called "Civil Rights poll". See that I'm not alone in this idea that fighting for incremental changes and WINNING is a SHITLOAD better than fighting for dramatic change and LOSING.

[ThomCat]

326. Right...

The entire civil rights movement has been proof that incremental change is the way to go. :eyes:

It's only because the rest of us are smart enough to ignore your sage advice that we've accomplished so much. But of course you're the super-liberal so you get to take credit for everything all the rest of us have done.
:eyes:

[Midlodemocrat]

331. No it isn't and here's why.

*My* rights are being infringed upon. No one asked me who I was when I was in the CICU this summer when my husband was having surgery.

No one asked what I was doing there.

No one asked me if I had 'right' to be there.

No one asked me if I had a durable power of attorney or a medical directive or any other legal mumbo jumbo.

They looked at me and made the logical jump that I was his wife and therefore could answer questions about him and our insurance and DNRs and such.

EVERYONE, EVERYONE should have that right. NO ONE should be denied access to their loved one because some people are 'uncomfortable' about gay marriage. Hell, I'm uncomfortable about the way a lot of my neighbors behave in their marriages, they cheat, they're abusive and they downright suck.

But, no one is complaining about their rights. Their right to go into the ER or the ICU and be with their spouse.

And, frankly, I think it's time we let the gay population have a shot at the whole marriage thing. The heteros have certainly fucked it up beyond belief.

[rpgamerd00d]

334. I Agree With You!

Just call it a civil union, give it 100% of the power of a Marriage, and call it even.

Then, fight for marriage AFTER that. That way, win or lose on the marriage part of it, at LEAST you still have those rights you mentioned.

How can that NOT be a GOOD THING ?

[Midlodemocrat]

337. You do?

No way, dude. No way.

I fear that if we settle for civil union, then marriage will be to quote my next week's dinner companion, 'off the table'.

Gays, you got civil unions. Isn't that enough for you? Why do you always have to be whining about something? Blah, Blah, yada, yada.

[ThomCat]

342. We're already hearing that from many people.

x(

[ThomCat]

341. That would be "separate but equal"

and we know how well that worked out.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of laws big and small that reference marriage. Are you going to go re-write every one of them to reference Civil Unions too? How?

And even if, by some miracle, civil unions were the same (on paper) as Marriage, when public opinion and prejudice ghettoized civil unions as second class marriages, what then? When GLBT people have to prove their relationship every time they turn around, but straight people don't, what then? When GLBT people have to start carrying around copies of their civil union paperwork, and people start insisting that it needs to be on file in triplicate at the hospital in advance so they can verify it before honoring it, what then?

[rpgamerd00d]

347. THEN you fight for calling it a Marriage !!!

But at LEAST you have IRONCLAD civil rights which CANNOT BE DENIED while you make that fight.

And as you said "Separate but equal" worked out great. I say "great" because FIRST we got "separate but equal" and THEN we got "full on equality". Step 1), THEN Step 2). That is EXACTLY how that happened, yet you STILL THINK WE CAN SKIP STEP 1.

Maybe we can. But as a strategy, its inferior. People CHANGE incrementally, not universally. Can't fight human nature.

[ThomCat]

348. We've been fighting far longer than you have

for full marrage rights. We haven't seen you on all the threads here or elsewhere. We haven't seen you comparing notes on where you've been and what you've done. We haven't seen you networking or organizing anything.

Many of us here have backgrounds in civil rights. You've got nothing.

Just because we don't agree with your fantasy strategy for changing the world doesn't mean we aren't in the fight. In fact, your fantasy strategy is what convinces us that you aren't in the fight with us. You're just complaining.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

333. Oooo...you have a Ned Lamont hat.

You know, I have a Coors Light hat, but that doesn't mean I drink Coors Light.

[ThomCat]

309. Semantic Masterbation.

I hope it feels good. You're still saying that the victim is in control of the people who do the persecuting. So are Black eople responsible for white racism? Are Native Americans responsible for manifest destiny and white racism? Are women responsible for sexism?

Is there anything that the people with power are actually responsbile for? :eyes:

[LostinVA]

292. I love being a homophobic lesbian who creates the bigotry against me

What the hell do you think I do all weekend, Thom? Talk to my GF???

It's fun when they run out of "facts," isn't it?

[ThomCat]

313. I'll bet you and your girlfriend

are plotting the spread of homophobia. And you must be damned good at it too. That must be it. rpggamerdood essentially said so. :P

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

324. Yes, we spend much of our time plotting it.

In our spare time between DU, reality tv, and sex.

[LostinVA]

349. We are -- WE'RE the reason why NJ has civil unions and not marriage equality

[ThomCat]

364. Damn you!

Damn you to Heck! It's all your fault! :P

[Name removed]

284. Deleted message

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

[ThomCat]

290. Wow.

When one of the kindest, friendliest people at DU points out that you're a asshole, then you're really made a mark for yourself.
:applause:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

294. Hey, Thom!

:hug: :hi:

I call 'em like I see 'em. :D

[LostinVA]

403. Yup, bigotry and discrimination is my choice

Are you really that clueless? No, I didn't think so.

I thought Liberty Baptists had started classes already. No?

[Midlodemocrat]

274. Years? How about one year and 5 1/2 months?

[ThomCat]

279. WTF?

What rights would be restored? That implies rights that existed at some point but were taken away.

Did I have the right to marry a man at some point?

[mondo joe]

332. But you're wrong. The same forces that have opposed marriage have

also opposed civil unions.

You will not find anyone on the other side just dying to compromise on civil unions.

[LostinVA]

232. Hmmm..... blonndee....

I think you just hit the nail on the head, huh?

[Name removed]

310. Deleted message

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

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

325. I just need to tell you this.

I fucking love you.

[rpgamerd00d]

336. I'm not the least bit homophobic.

If you can't win your argument, just capitulate. But degenerating into name calling is lame.

[ThomCat]

343. Ha! As if you have any chance to "win your argument"

You've posted nothing but claims supposedly superior liberal credentials, and twisted posts blaming victims but claiming you're not really blaming victims. The only person you're convincing is yourself.

[Name removed]

429. Deleted message

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

[blonndee]

431. Thank you so much! You just did something I was waiting for...

bye bye now, chickenshit.

[Maven]

184. Are you an attorney?

Because you really don't know what you're talking about.

[rpgamerd00d]

220. Really? Are you sure?

Because I know for a fact that virtually all objections to gay+lesbian marriage are over the WORD "Marriage".

I've said for years on this messageboard, gays+lesbians could have had their civil union rights YEARS AGO if they simply gave up on using the word "marriage" to describe it.

[LostinVA]

237. Again, marriage is a legal term

And, I've said for years on this messageboard, fundies+bigots could have had their civil union rights YEARS AGO if they simply gave up on using the word "marriage" to describe it.

[rpgamerd00d]

Again wrong, the legal term is "civil union"

[Maven]

253. Marriage is a perfectly "legal" term.

There are many "legal" words that coexist in conversational English.

And by the way, RWers oppose civil unions as well as marriage. The "word" is a smokescreen for the real source of opposition: hatred.

[rpgamerd00d]

255. That isn't relevant.

All Marriages ARE Civil Unions.
But the reverse is not true.

There is no such thing as a marriage that is NOT a civil union (unless its unrecognized by the state, in which case, they can call it whatever they want).

No, the RWers have an argument (a weak one, but an argument nonetheless) then they can tie this to Religion. They can confuse people, and rile up emotions, and cloud people's judgement, if they can tie this issue into an attack on religion.

But if you take that away by removing a word (marriage), then they have no argument that will stand to public scrutiny.

[ThomCat]

323. No, that isn't true.

Legally, all marriages are marraiges. All civil unions are civil unions, in the places where they are recognized and only where they are recognized.

Legally they are two separate types of legally recognized relationships that are superficially similar in the rights and benefits that accrue to the people who enter into those relationships.

[LostinVA]

272. "Marriage" is often a legal term in it's own right

In many, many states, etc., the term is not "civil union, it is indeed "marriage."

[ThomCat]

321. Marriage is mentioned hundreds of times

in laws throughout the states and at the federal level. Rights and responsibilities are granted by being married, so marriage is a legal term.

The fact that civil unions have recently been codified in a few laws does not suddenly make all the other laws somehow disappear. So again, you show that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. :eyes:

[Nomasdm]

430. That substantiates the legality right?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

338. They why do you go to get a marriage license at the courthouse and not a "civil union" license?

Straight people in NJ get a marriage license. Gay people get a civil union. They are not the same thing.

http://www.state.nj.us/wedlic.html

How to Obtain a Marriage License in New Jersey:

Applications for NJ marriage licenses must be obtained at the municipal office in the bride's town. If the bride does not live in the state of New Jersey, you can apply at the municipal office of the groom's town. If both the bride and groom are from out of state, apply at the municipal office of the town where the ceremony will take place.

Fees:

Due at the time of application is the fee of $28.00.

Requirements:

The bride, groom and one witness who is 18 years of age or older and knows the couple.

Some towns will require proof of residency such as a driver's license, lease or tax return.

It is recommended that you apply at least two weeks before the ceremony. You may apply as early as 6 month prior to the wedding. The marriage license is valid for 30 days from the date of issuance.

The individual performing the ceremony should file the license with the registrar in the municipality where the marriage took place within 5 days of the wedding.

Premarital blood tests are no longer necessary in New Jersey.

[LostinVA]

358. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

BURN!

[rpgamerd00d]

362. Because a marriage is a superset of civil union.

I hope you remember your math classes and what a superset is.

Civil union = a bunch of rights.
Marriage = a religious ceremony + civil union.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

369. Wrong. Straight people can and will be married by a judge. NO RELIGION INVOLVED.

Gay people are legally stuck with civil unions, even if they have a corresponding religious ceremony.

[ThomCat]

373. That's nice that you can cite middle school math

but you should learn the difference between formal logic and law. Formal logic governs nothing. Law governs all of us.

Marriage = Lots of rights, benefits and privilages. With the optional addition of relgious recognition and meaning.
Civil Union = a couple of rights that are partially recognized in a couple of small areas.

Your very over-simplified logic changes nothing. You still clearly don't understand or care that there is a vast body of law that surrounds marriage. Creating a civil union does not make it the equal of marriage or anything close.

[rpgamerd00d]

383. Then it should be made to be.

And has, in some places.

[ThomCat]

386. Please cite anyplace. Any ONE place

where civil unions are somehow the full equal of marriage. Please! I challenge you to put up or shut up.

As for "it should be," that's nice. You keep dealing with your fairytails of what should be. The rest of us will work in the real world. We may agree that ultimately everyone should have the same marriage rights, but your path doesn't work, and we're determined to follow one that will.

[rpgamerd00d]

390. Really? How about this:

I admit, I'm not a lawyer, so this isn't "legalese", but I fail to see how this would not work.


(huge body of laws, all centered around the word "marriage", exists)

"Law #9999999: A Civil Union is equal to Marriage in every respect."


Tada!

No need to amend 2398487548545 laws. You just add one law that undeniably states that Marriage = Civil Union, and you're done.



Oh, as far was what states?
NJ for one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/nyregion/26marriage.html?ex=1319515200&en=e0fbeeb4988d3208&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[ThomCat]

397. Wrong on both counts.

There has to be some difference between civil union and marriage for there be any reason to bother defining civil union at all. Marriage already exists. Why create create a law saying "you can now call marriage 'civil union' if you want, but it's legally just a marriage.' What would be the point?

If marriage is the exact same thing as civil union, then just call it marriage. That's what it already is. There would be no benefit or purpose to calling it something else all of a sudden. What would you want to happen? Would all straight people call their marriages "marriage" and all gay people call it "Civil Union?" Why? If the law says that they're the same then everyone's going to say they're married. So just open up marriage under the law to everyone and get it over with.

To go to the bother of creating something new called a civil union, it has to be defined, and that definition has to be somehow different from what already exists. The question then is, how is it different. And why bother making something different when Marriage already exists? And how do you justify those differences? And who would want to justify those differences?

The people pushing for Civil Unions are using the argument that it's worth creating civil unions because they're "like marriage." They're somehow "close enough." They clearly are not equal, and they're not intended to be equal.

As for NJ, Civil Union is NJ is not the same as marriage. Not even close. It doesn't provide any of the benefits of marriage derived from federal laws and regulations (just as a start), and it isn't recognized outside of NJ.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

398. And a civil union is absolutely USELESS outside of New Jersey.

If my GF and I were to have a civil union in NJ, but if one of us were to get in an accident in another state, we would have NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO EACH OTHER.

Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.

So don't tell me the civil union bill is equal to marriage, okay?

[ThomCat]

320. Bullshit.

If that was true we wouldn't have constitutional amendements rolling through so many states preemptively denying civil unions and any form of recognition of similar relationships. Read the text of some of those amendments. You might learn something.

We've all learned that you clearly don't have a clue.

[Dracos]

160. If you remove the religious

argument the only thing you have left is discrimination

[La Lioness Priyanka]

163. ...

:thumbsup:

[Malikshah]

204. See my post (#137)-- Edwards and others hide behind Jesus and the Cross

Would love to see an editorial cartoon of God holding up his robes and telling the cowards from all faiths to get the f*^% out and admit that they're denying people their due.

[Strawman]

167. Spinelessness under the guise of "reasonableness"

That's the way to not seem mean to gays while catering to homophobes and heterosexists.

There's actually nothing reasonable or fair about being for civil unions, but opposed to gay marriage.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

173. I think Edwards is a homophobic bigot.

And I think that's a damn shame.

[mainegreen]

178. Agree? No. Understand why he's taking this stance? Yes.

In the end, whoever wins the nomination will get my vote regardless of their stance on this issue. Change on this issue needs to come from Congress, not the president.

[ScreamingMeemie]

181. So the prospective president's opinion really shouldn't matter?

I'm sorry. I can't buy that and I can't be okay with denying equal rights to anyone in order to see "my guy" elected. You, as a candidate, either vow to enact change so that all are treated equally or you lose me.

[mainegreen]

188. It should...

but see my reply lower down.

[LostinVA]

179. "Rights delayed are rights denied!" -- MLK Jr.

And, don't even think he was anti-gay rights, because that is not true.

[ScreamingMeemie]

180. Tell that to poster number 178...

These are the types of days when DU is a big disappointment...well some of it anyway.

[mainegreen]

186. I think perhaps you misunderstand me?

I do NOT support Edward's stance. I merely understand why he's taking that stance given what he perceives as the political reality today. I do not agree with his perception of today's political reality. I'm sure America is ready for equal rights in marriage. However, if Edwards were to win the nomination for president, I'm sure as heck not going to abstain from voting nor will I vote for the Republican or any third party candidate for President.

[ScreamingMeemie]

193. I sure as heck will not throw another of my fellow citizens under the bus

to see a man/woman elected. For me it starts right here, right now. I will actively campaign for any candidate who honestly stands for that. I will not actively campaign for any candidate who does not. No more blisters on my feet for something I don't agree with. We are selling out our brothers and sisters for the sake of a vote and turning our backs on the base of our party beliefs...for a vote? What is the worth of that?

[mainegreen]

202. Just a devils advocate's question:

Would you vote for the Democratic nominee for president in the final election if he supported civil unions but not full gay marriage?

I ask this because I've come to accept myself (grudgingly, aka from the Nader wars) that the presidential position has such power that one sometimes must vote for a candidate for president over your ideal candidate to prevent the worst of all candidates (Republican or what have you) from becoming president.

:shrug:

[ScreamingMeemie]

205. Are we there yet? No we are not. Hence the anger at Edwards and my

non support of him. Let our voices be heard. That's not a devil's advocate question. It pops up eleventy billion times during the primary wars and we're not even there yet. It's a rhetorical question. Why be willing to settle for that now when there are other options. I answered your question in that post if you read it again. I do not actively campaign for candidates who won't support basic civil rights.

[LostinVA]

201. I know -- but, I suspect they truly don't respect Dr. King enough

to listen to these words of his.

[smoogatz]

195. Of course not.

Gay people are entitled to the same rights and privileges under the law as everyone else; it says so in the Constitution. To the extent that the institution of marriage confers certain rights and privileges (and it does, as we all know), gay people must be allowed full and unfettered access. There's just no rational reason not to do it.

On edit: Edwards is shamelessly splitting the difference here, IMO. The more he talks, the more he strikes me as a triangulating POS.

[terrya]

203. No...I don't understand his opposition to same-sex marriage.

I don't understand his opposition, I don't understand Barack Obama's opposition, I don't understand Hillary Rodham Clinton's opposition, I don't understand John Kerry's opposition, and on and on and on.

It's a simple matter of giving full equality to Americans, such as myself, who work hard, pay taxes and are loyal Democrats. Who just happen to be of a different sexual orientation such as former Senator John Edwards. I don't understand why some people have a problem giving Americans, such as myself, the same rights as others.

That's just wonderfully swell that he doesn't think homosexuality is a "sin". Welcome to the 21st century, John.

[Nickster]

226. I bet if you sat a few, not all but at least a few, of these candidates down, you'd find that

they do support full gay marriage, but are afraid of the political backlash. We aren't going to find many politicians like Ned Lamont for instance who will have the guts to say "Gay Marriage? God Bless em".

[terrya]

245. I agree.

People like Eliot Spitzer, Governor of New York, who DOES support same-sex marriage, are few and far between.

I think you're right. I bet if you did get someone like John Kerry, who did vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, who has fully supported other GLBT legislation, and privately talked to him about same-sex marriage, he would say that he supports it. But of course, he does (or did) have Presidential ambitions. It's most unfortunate.

[Nickster]

252. Wow, another reason to like Eliot Spitzer. I didn't know that was his view. That's good to hear. n/t

[rosesaylavee]

206. No.

Two people who wish to commit to living their lives together should be able to have a ceremony celebrating and blessing that union. Period. Its no one else's concern what they do in the bedroom. Period.

[Catfight]

223. It's a political stance, so no, his character goes down the drain when

he takes the political side. I think of it like the segregation issue, when people stuck by what was right and not political, real change was forced so that change could occur. Separate but equal is always wrong, in every case, including gay marriage. Everyone deserves the right to legally be bound to someone they chose to marry, period, end of story, fu'k John Edwards and anyone else that won't do what is right. He will never get my vote.

[Lars39]

227. I don't believe in a two-tier system.

He's straddling a bit.

[Bill McBlueState]

242. No

All people deserve equal access to the civil institution of marriage.

As to whether it's a sin, this is a secular democracy. It doesn't matter whether any religion calls anything a sin.

[Neecy]

259. well...

I'm getting damned tired of the Democratic party taking my money and my time volunteering and then kicking me to the curb when they gain office. Granted there isn't another game in town but still, it hurts.

I suppose that Edwards, by taking this stand, supports DOMA. Nice that they have to "defend" marriage from the likes of us, one of the backbones of the Democratic party. I'm really sick of this shit.

[nolabels]

297. Except the part "He does not believe homosexuality is a sin"

Is he a preacher or a politician? Accepting the fact he is trying to cater to many religious groups whose vote he needs would be that something i am ambivalent on it. Him giving that response "does not believe homosexuality is a sin" starts to exclude others and only opens the door for people who want to project religion into the political process. Gay or straight, you don't have to be, in the figuring out that religion and politics should not be mixed. Negotiation from strength for the rights of others seems the best.

These people who propose that they come from the right do not want that concept of 'civil unions' being entered into the lexicon because it makes their position indefensible. It's only words with basically the same meaning but originating different realms of human intellectuality. The idea of words and who gets to chose them is so important for some because that is all they have left in their effort for divisive fights with others.

[WI_DEM]

339. If we fight 2008 on a pro-gay marriage platform we lose

all the ballot initiatives show that. Is that right? No, but from a political stand point that is the reality.

[Pacifist Patriot]

340. My position.

I can see where the state should be involved in terms of contract law, but that's where it ends. Any two consenting adults should be granted a civil union license by the state. Gender irrelevant.

Then let the couple decide if they would like some other body (church, synagogue, ethical society, grandma's bridge club) solemnize their union in terms of a "marriage."

The semantic argument is present for bigotry to continue.

Thus saith a minister who performs approximately 25 weddings per year. :)

[Orsino]

350. No, I don't support this discrimination.

I hate that one of our better "choices" won't stand up on such a fundamental issue. I hate that America's prudery urges him in that direction.

[mvd]

387. I don't agree

I believe in total equality under the law. If the term "marriage" is used by the state, then it should be used no matter sexual orientation. Edwards is a smart guy and is probably still indoctrinated by his religion, even if he doesn't see homosexuality as a sin. It's also a cultural barrier that we are up against. It's too bad that our own candidates would be breaking DU rules by supporting equal but separate.

[WindRavenX]

389. wow, this thread introduced a lot of people to my ignore list

See, these threads DO have a purpose...

[Madspirit]

391. Nope

I want marriage. I would still vote for Edwards because civil unions are better than the bludgeoning the Republicans would like to give us but I want marriage. I've been with this woman for 15 years.

Once again...we get the scraps.
Madspirit

[Plaid Adder]

393. I sure hope he's speaking from the heart,

because as political calculus that doesn't make any sense.

Many people who would breathe a sigh of relief over his opposition to same-sex marriage are gonna blow a gasket over his comment about it not being a sin, and vice versa. So this position isn't calculated to win him a lot of points.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people who do take this position: my GBLT friends/relatives/etc. are not going to hell, but I also don't see why they should marry. It may be--and I think, is--logically and ideologically inconsistent but that's humanity. A lot of people who are OK with GBLT folks in general believe something bad would happen to the world if we were allowed to marry. I don't know why exactly. Something about heterosexuality being the foundation of the great straight American worldview and it being scary when people challenge that, maybe.

Anyway, no, I don't agree with him, but WTH, on this issue I'm screwed anyway. I will put a marker down now that you will not see any truly viable candidate come out in favor of same-sex marriage during the 2008 election cycle.

The Plaid Adder

[Taverner]

405. All marriages should be civil unions

[MaggieSwanson]

407. Absolutely, unequivocally NOT.

Can anyone explain to me why two people who are in love should not be married? The civil union option is a cop-out. Either we are all equal, or we are not. There is no middle ground, as much as some would like to have it.

In the words of Dennis Kucinich: "I firmly believe that this nation must take a new direction: away from war and toward peace; away from convoluted schemes that promise expanded health care for all Americans but deliver only a fraction; away from trade policies that rob our nation of jobs; away from fear-inspired laws that deny basic Constitutional rights and lead to oppression and abuse. And, importantly, away from policies that discriminate against targeted groups of citizens because their lifestyles are 'different.'"

http://kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php

[treestar]

408. No, the only way for equality is to have gay marriage

I don't see the civil union dodge as meaning anything.

I don't see why he's against it - must be thinking along political lines and assuming that being against it gets more votes.

[LeftCoast]

413. Well, I won't be donating to the Edwards campaign.

I suppose I'll still vote for him if he wins the nomination, but I'm not putting any of my hard earned queer dollars into his campaign.

[Nomasdm]

414. Edwards - What Religion?

[Warren Stupidity]

418. Once again Edwards stands for nothing.

He is as bland and positionless as any other mor pablum candidate. Way to take a stand Johnny. Safe and down the center it is. How's that huge house in the other america?

[RetroLounge]

420. Why is this even being debated in 2007?

Marriage for all. Equal under the law. Period.

My best friend stood up for my wedding. But I cannot stand up for his because he's gay?

Makes no fucking sense. Why on earth should he have less rights than I do?

He shouldn't...

Equal rights = human rights.

RL

[ZacharyG]

433. I'm supporting Edwards in 08

But, on this I disagree with him. The whole notion of granting gay people "civil unions" and not full marriage rights seems like the "separate but equal" BS.