GAY CONSERVATIVES: DO YOU SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2011 2:38 PM GMT
    Do gay conservatives support gay marriage? Or do gay conservatives chose to vote against gay marriage (because the left supports it)?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2011 3:25 PM GMT
    not a true conservative here, but i think my views align closely with many gay conservatives on this issue:

    i believe in the "ends" of having full legal marriage for gays, but don't necessarily agree with the means of getting there that many liberals advocate. for example, i don't believe that the fed should have any say in this matter, whether to affirm or deny gay marriage. Repeal of DOMA is moving in the right direction. however, i believe it is wholly within the right of the state government to regulate marriage. while i might not agree with the state action, it is completely within their right to deny the marriage. on the flip side, if a state decides to legalize gay marriage, the feds would have to recognize the legitimacy of it just as any heterosexual marriage.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Apr 29, 2011 3:34 PM GMT
    I totally believe in Gay Marriage, though I have no desire to ever marry anyone myself. I just don't think it's necessary, but that's just me, and I understand why others do think it is necessary. I think I speak for many gays who just don't happen to consider "Gay Marriage" a major issue in their personal lives. That being said, what I do have a problem with is the grand-standing and the tactics taken to achieve this by some gays who, in my opinion, more often than not shoot themselves in the foot. I think gays need to work on the approach and the presentation to sell the cause to the masses. Prop 8 is a prime example. If Gays can't sell "Gay Marriage" in a place like California, obviously there were some marketing problems somewhere.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2011 3:40 PM GMT
    To the two guys above me: read this...

    " Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates. The United States has many ethnic and racial groups and interracial marriage is fairly common among most of them. "

    Courtesy of Wiki

    In 1991, a US wide poll, for the first time, found a slim majority in favour of interracial marriages.


    see http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2011 3:54 PM GMT
    Not a conservative (obviously) but my general belief is that the "State" (whether federal or a state government) does not have a compelling interest in defining who marries who how, or for that matter how many people can be in a marriage, except in cases where it creates laws to protect vulnerable individuals (children) and classes (developmentally disabled, women/children in poverty) from predation/exploitation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2011 9:22 PM GMT
    Being a pure homosexual one of the real gays; not bi. I support equality for homosexuals; us real gays. But being a homosexual I have no interest in a heterosexually institution like marriage, with deep embedded roots in religion, so I find the term "gay marriage" repugnant. Also it does not include our half brothers the bisexuals because they are not gay, they are bi, and already have access to marriage, and many have done so.

    So yes one fully supports homosexual unions, hell I've been in one for 20+ years now. But........not under the banner of "gay marriage."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2011 9:35 PM GMT
    True_Blue_Aussie saidBeing a pure homosexual one of the real gays; not bi. I support equality for homosexuals; us real gays. But being a homosexual I have no interest in a heterosexually institution like marriage, with deep embedded roots in religion, so I find the term "gay marriage" repugnant. Also it does not include our half brothers the bisexuals because they are not gay, they are bi, and already have access to marriage, and many have done so.

    So yes one fully supports homosexual unions, hell I've been in one for 20+ years now. But........not under the banner of "gay marriage."


    I am quite certain, Mr. True_Blue_Aussie, that being Australian, you may not appreciate the magnitude of legal protections and benefits offered by the civil institution of marriage in the United States, and that absent marriage there would be no reasonable legal path to attaining those protections and benefits. I am also quite certain that, upon reflection, that if gays are permitted to partake in this institution that you would not wish for a bisexual gentleman whose heart is won by another gentleman to be denied these benefits and protections, merely because of the gender of his intended.

    Regards.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2011 11:53 PM GMT
    I do not think that the federal government should have any say to force any definition of marriage onto the states; nor should states be forced to recognize marriages performed in other states that are beyond the scope of what that state would allow for citizens domiciled in that state.

    However, the federal government should recognize for full and equal marriage to the most open extent that states have legislated where federal benefits and protections are concerned, such as housing and ration allowances for SSM partners and their families, taxes, death benefits for SS and Medicare, things of that nature.

    Of course, the second part of that is contingent upon the repeal of Section 3 of DOMA.

    But to answer the OP's question - I consider myself to be mostly moderate/socially liberal, but fiscally conservative and paleo-conservative in terms of defense (as in quit the wars, draw down the military to reasonable levels, and stop butting into every other nation's business, but maintain the ability to put the idea of foreign aggression directed against the USA out of their minds).

    I do not go out of my way to vote against SSM out of any aught against folks on the left... but when weighted against other matters on the nation scale, I am less willing to hold the nation hostage for the sake of one item of interest to me when there are several, much larger issues that need to be dealt with -- or in some cases, left relegated to the states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 12:05 AM GMT
    The big mistake, in my view, is that the government has taken the word marriage and what it means, and made it synonymous with itself. Marriage should be a strictly 'religious' institution that churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and what have you decide upon. The government should call it a civil union or partnership, grant the same benefits and entitlements to all couples, and be done with it. If a couple wants to be married in a church, then there are certainly churches out there that will marry same-sex couples. And if a couple chooses not to get married in a religious ceremony, then that is their decision; but either way, they are still a union or partnership and recognized as such by the government.

    BTW-It still amazes me that interracial marriage was only fully legalized in 1967. That very notion, in my opinion, scared the hell out of many people because it was, in their eyes, an 'abomination' against God and against nature icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 12:05 AM GMT
    Being a hard right conservative faggot myself and understanding that this issue is ALL about money, you bet your fucking ass I'm for gay marriage.
  • tuffguyndc

    Posts: 4437

    Apr 30, 2011 12:07 AM GMT
    catfish5 saidDo gay conservatives support gay marriage? Or do gay conservatives chose to vote against gay marriage (because the left supports it)?
    i am conservative and i support gay marriage. actually, i am not that conservative. after hearing both sides i now know the importance of having gay marriages.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 12:10 AM GMT
    McGay saidBeing a hard right conservative faggot myself and understanding that this issue is ALL about money, you bet your fucking ass I'm for gay marriage.



    I wish it was "ALL about money".
    Unfortunately - for the religious right - who control the modern day Republican party - it's all about hate and forcing their bigoted and extreme religious views on all Americans.
    That's what fuels the anti-gay activism of the Repub party on this and other gay-related issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 12:21 AM GMT
    atl2atx85 saidnot a true conservative here, but i think my views align closely with many gay conservatives on this issue:

    i believe in the "ends" of having full legal marriage for gays, but don't necessarily agree with the means of getting there that many liberals advocate. for example, i don't believe that the fed should have any say in this matter, whether to affirm or deny gay marriage. Repeal of DOMA is moving in the right direction. however, i believe it is wholly within the right of the state government to regulate marriage. while i might not agree with the state action, it is completely within their right to deny the marriage. on the flip side, if a state decides to legalize gay marriage, the feds would have to recognize the legitimacy of it just as any heterosexual marriage.


    "While i might not agree with the state action, it is completely within their right to deny the marriage"

    That's where you lost me dude.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 12:44 AM GMT
    sdgman said
    atl2atx85 saidnot a true conservative here, but i think my views align closely with many gay conservatives on this issue:

    i believe in the "ends" of having full legal marriage for gays, but don't necessarily agree with the means of getting there that many liberals advocate. for example, i don't believe that the fed should have any say in this matter, whether to affirm or deny gay marriage. Repeal of DOMA is moving in the right direction. however, i believe it is wholly within the right of the state government to regulate marriage. while i might not agree with the state action, it is completely within their right to deny the marriage. on the flip side, if a state decides to legalize gay marriage, the feds would have to recognize the legitimacy of it just as any heterosexual marriage.


    "While i might not agree with the state action, it is completely within their right to deny the marriage"

    That's where you lost me dude.


    I believe his view is not entirely unlike mine: that marriage is a state's right to determine.

    Though my "faustian compromise" would be that the federal government recognize all marriage as equal for federal purposes, even if the state where two same-sex partners are domiciled does not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 12:53 AM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    sdgman said
    atl2atx85 saidnot a true conservative here, but i think my views align closely with many gay conservatives on this issue:

    i believe in the "ends" of having full legal marriage for gays, but don't necessarily agree with the means of getting there that many liberals advocate. for example, i don't believe that the fed should have any say in this matter, whether to affirm or deny gay marriage. Repeal of DOMA is moving in the right direction. however, i believe it is wholly within the right of the state government to regulate marriage. while i might not agree with the state action, it is completely within their right to deny the marriage. on the flip side, if a state decides to legalize gay marriage, the feds would have to recognize the legitimacy of it just as any heterosexual marriage.


    "While i might not agree with the state action, it is completely within their right to deny the marriage"

    That's where you lost me dude.


    I believe his view is not entirely unlike mine: that marriage is a state's right to determine.

    Though my "faustian compromise" would be that the federal government recognize all marriage as equal for federal purposes, even if the state where two same-sex partners are domiciled does not.


    Then whats to stop the state from denying other benefits to classes of people?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 1:09 AM GMT
    sdgman said...Then whats to stop the state from denying other benefits to classes of people?


    What would stop any state or states from enacting laws that hurt others? Well, existing federal laws for one; SCOTUS rulings for the other.

    In all likelihood, if history follows the general pattern, LGBT marriage equality will be "forced" from the top down onto the states, first by the repeal of DOMA in part if not the whole, and/or a SCOTUS ruling that invalidates part or all of it.

    Or we might just see legislation that not only repeals DOMA, but affirms equal marriage to be respected by all states, with full acknowledgment of marriages performed in other states by all states in keeping with the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    But this is just my opinion - mind you, I'm not inclined to defend this point dogmatically in the case of SSM, but in general: that the less that the federal government intervenes in the rights reserved to states, the more that market forces will tend to move people to either change the laws of that state, or move to states where laws favour their particular goals and honour their rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 1:42 AM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    sdgman said
    atl2atx85 saidnot a true conservative here, but i think my views align closely with many gay conservatives on this issue:

    i believe in the "ends" of having full legal marriage for gays, but don't necessarily agree with the means of getting there that many liberals advocate. for example, i don't believe that the fed should have any say in this matter, whether to affirm or deny gay marriage. Repeal of DOMA is moving in the right direction. however, i believe it is wholly within the right of the state government to regulate marriage. while i might not agree with the state action, it is completely within their right to deny the marriage. on the flip side, if a state decides to legalize gay marriage, the feds would have to recognize the legitimacy of it just as any heterosexual marriage.


    "While i might not agree with the state action, it is completely within their right to deny the marriage"

    That's where you lost me dude.


    I believe his view is not entirely unlike mine: that marriage is a state's right to determine.

    Though my "faustian compromise" would be that the federal government recognize all marriage as equal for federal purposes, even if the state where two same-sex partners are domiciled does not.




    For your argument to make any sense, you must think it would be okay for some states to make interrracial marriage illegal too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 1:47 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said...For your argument to make any sense, you must think it would be okay for some states to make interrracial marriage illegal too.


    Not at all. That is already a matter of settled law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 1:58 AM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    rickrick91 said...For your argument to make any sense, you must think it would be okay for some states to make interrracial marriage illegal too.


    Not at all. That is already a matter of settled law.




    Then your argument makes no sense.
    If states should have the right to decide who is allowed to marry in their state, then why can states deny the right to marry based on gender, but not on race?

    Interracial marriage was NOT a "settled law" and was as illegal as SSM until very recently.
    If we made interracial marriage legal nationwide, why is it not right to make gay marriage legal nationwide?

    This is not a matter to be decided by people's religious beliefs or comfort level.
    It's a matter of basic fairness.
    And it's a matter of providing an equal opportunity to the pursuit of happiness to all Americans.


  • musclmed

    Posts: 3270

    Apr 30, 2011 2:37 AM GMT
    above R..R..k should research hx of why polygamy challenges fail, It answers the question why the courts treat same sex marriage differently.

    I am for gay marriage. But 4 years of Democratic controlled congresses and 2 years of a majority did little or nothing to help gay marriage.

    Frustrations should be vented at the representatives who supported DOMA .

    The title of the thread is just a bait, we all see through it.
  • Goofeyman

    Posts: 199

    Apr 30, 2011 2:51 AM GMT
    I would say it's none of the respective individuals business on where a conservative gay stands on gay marriage. Again...."celebrate diversity." remember?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 2:55 AM GMT
    I'm quite conservative and I do belive equal rights for all so gay marrige is a natural choice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 2:57 AM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    sdgman said...Then whats to stop the state from denying other benefits to classes of people?


    What would stop any state or states from enacting laws that hurt others? Well, existing federal laws for one; SCOTUS rulings for the other.

    In all likelihood, if history follows the general pattern, LGBT marriage equality will be "forced" from the top down onto the states, first by the repeal of DOMA in part if not the whole, and/or a SCOTUS ruling that invalidates part or all of it.

    Or we might just see legislation that not only repeals DOMA, but affirms equal marriage to be respected by all states, with full acknowledgment of marriages performed in other states by all states in keeping with the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    But this is just my opinion - mind you, I'm not inclined to defend this point dogmatically in the case of SSM, but in general: that the less that the federal government intervenes in the rights reserved to states, the more that market forces will tend to move people to either change the laws of that state, or move to states where laws favour their particular goals and honour their rights.


    Well, then why do you approve of a state not allowing you to get a state issued license... states rights? fuck that.
  • scottmet99

    Posts: 78

    Apr 30, 2011 4:34 AM GMT
    gay marriage should not be dependent on a states decision. What kind of logic is this? It makes no sense to me. Gay marriage should be, and will be eventually, legal in the United States. It is simply a matter of time. And for the people who quote the Bible as a justification for marriage being between a man and a woman, let me remind you, the Bible also permits men to marry as many women as they'd like and to have slaves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2011 4:34 AM GMT
    musclmed saidabove R..R..k should research hx of why polygamy challenges fail, It answers the question why the courts treat same sex marriage differently.

    I am for gay marriage. But 4 years of Democratic controlled congresses and 2 years of a majority did little or nothing to help gay marriage.

    Frustrations should be vented at the representatives who supported DOMA .

    The title of the thread is just a bait, we all see through it.


    Bait?? Researching people's opinions on an important issue is bait? Personally, I thought it was an interesting question to examine among conservative gay men- especially when supporting gay marriage seems "at odds" with the political views of conservatives. Remember, you always have the option not to post if you feel that the sole nature of this thread is to entrap you.