Gay Republicans

  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Aug 29, 2008 12:07 PM GMT
    I counted numerous times that the Democrats emphasized gay rights at their convention, even during Obamas final speech.

    At the end of the Republican convention please let me know how many times the Republicans speak out for Gay rights. I am curious.

    Thanks
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Aug 29, 2008 3:35 PM GMT
    Some of us won't actually be counting
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2008 3:43 PM GMT
    Because they've accepted the notion that they're second class citizens and that issue doesn't rise up to the level of the terrorist threat.
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Aug 29, 2008 5:52 PM GMT
    If you just hear it once, let us know. I would like to see the rerun of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2008 6:01 PM GMT
    and yet still, sadly, some knuckleheaded gay guys are going to vote and be Republican. sad. really sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2008 10:41 PM GMT
    It's even more amazing to me that the LGBT community falls in line with the Democratic party so damn easily. Obama does not hesitate to tell the world that he considers marriage the union of one man and one woman. I know–almost every Democratic contender held the same view. And the Republican candidates all felt that way. Somehow, I expected a whole hell of a lot more out of Democrats, and, perhaps, I expected even more out of Obama. Silly me.

    Maybe, just maybe, we should demand more. Maybe the LGBT vote shouldn’t be a given for any one political party. And maybe, if we feel like we are being completely ignored, we should withhold our vote.

    But we won’t do that, will we? We know that the alternative just absolutely sucks. We know that Obama might not afford us equal rights, but that McCain really wants to screw us over. And, more importantly, there are 2 or 3 Supreme Court nominations that are in the balance.

    Obama puts us at the back of the bus. McCain wants to throw us under the bus.

    Once again, I’m forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. I hate that.

    You really think Obama was speaking for gay rights at the convention? Bull. All that crap about a gay person being able to visit his partner in the hospital--he used that same line of crap at the Saddleback interview. If he can't support gay marriage, at least come up with something stronger to say at the convention than the fact that he believes a gay person ought to be able to visit his partner in the hospital.

    Spineless. Absolutely freaking spineless.



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

    Sep 01, 2008 10:46 PM GMT
    Maybe because "marriage" IS a religious term!!! Duh!! The issue is the fact that the US government has been using the term "marriage" when it comes to LEGAL issues involving the coupling of two consenting adults. Only when the US government decides to distance itself from right-wing religious fanatics, will gays ever be considered equal under the law. Is it really that difficult to understand????????????
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2008 10:47 PM GMT
    JonathanJ saidIt's even more amazing to me that the LGBT community falls in line with the Democratic party so damn easily. Obama does not hesitate to tell the world that he considers marriage the union of one man and one woman. I know–almost every Democratic contender held the same view. And the Republican candidates all felt that way. Somehow, I expected a whole hell of a lot more out of Democrats, and, perhaps, I expected even more out of Obama. Silly me.

    Maybe, just maybe, we should demand more. Maybe the LGBT vote shouldn’t be a given for any one political party. And maybe, if we feel like we are being completely ignored, we should withhold our vote.

    But we won’t do that, will we? We know that the alternative just absolutely sucks. We know that Obama might not afford us equal rights, but that McCain really wants to screw us over. And, more importantly, there are 2 or 3 Supreme Court nominations that are in the balance.

    Obama puts us at the back of the bus. McCain wants to throw us under the bus.

    Once again, I’m forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. I hate that.

    You really think Obama was speaking for gay rights at the convention? Bull. All that crap about a gay person being able to visit his partner in the hospital--he used that same line of crap at the Saddleback interview. If he can't support gay marriage, at least come up with something stronger to say at the convention than the fact that he believes a gay person ought to be able to visit his partner in the hospital.

    Spineless. Absolutely freaking spineless.





    And I'm sorry, I'd rather be thrown to the back of the bus than UNDER the bus. At least in the back I can fight forward.
  • Barricade

    Posts: 457

    Sep 01, 2008 10:58 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]JonathanJ said[/cite]It's even more amazing to me that the LGBT community falls in line with the Democratic party so damn easily. Obama does not hesitate to tell the world that he considers marriage the union of one man and one woman. I know–almost every Democratic contender held the same view. And the Republican candidates all felt that way. Somehow, I expected a whole hell of a lot more out of Democrats, and, perhaps, I expected even more out of Obama. Silly me.

    Maybe, just maybe, we should demand more. Maybe the LGBT vote shouldn’t be a given for any one political party. And maybe, if we feel like we are being completely ignored, we should withhold our vote.

    But we won’t do that, will we? We know that the alternative just absolutely sucks. We know that Obama might not afford us equal rights, but that McCain really wants to screw us over. And, more importantly, there are 2 or 3 Supreme Court nominations that are in the balance.

    Obama puts us at the back of the bus. McCain wants to throw us under the bus.

    Once again, I’m forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. I hate that.

    You really think Obama was speaking for gay rights at the convention? Bull. All that crap about a gay person being able to visit his partner in the hospital--he used that same line of crap at the Saddleback interview. If he can't support gay marriage, at least come up with something stronger to say at the convention than the fact that he believes a gay person ought to be able to visit his partner in the hospital.

    Spineless. Absolutely freaking spineless.



    [/quote

    It's not spineless. Could a candidate really come out and be 100% for gay rights/marriage/etc and not experience some sort of backlash. Both parties have to court the religious of the country and to do so means they have to tip toe around that issue, without coming right out and alienating gay "voters". I don't know. But, if the gay vote was a huge vote, candidates would be clamouring to address those issues.?
  • MuslDrew

    Posts: 463

    Sep 01, 2008 10:58 PM GMT
    VineyardHmo said
    JonathanJ saidIt's even more amazing to me that the LGBT community falls in line with the Democratic party so damn easily. Obama does not hesitate to tell the world that he considers marriage the union of one man and one woman. I know–almost every Democratic contender held the same view. And the Republican candidates all felt that way. Somehow, I expected a whole hell of a lot more out of Democrats, and, perhaps, I expected even more out of Obama. Silly me.

    Maybe, just maybe, we should demand more. Maybe the LGBT vote shouldn’t be a given for any one political party. And maybe, if we feel like we are being completely ignored, we should withhold our vote.

    But we won’t do that, will we? We know that the alternative just absolutely sucks. We know that Obama might not afford us equal rights, but that McCain really wants to screw us over. And, more importantly, there are 2 or 3 Supreme Court nominations that are in the balance.

    Obama puts us at the back of the bus. McCain wants to throw us under the bus.

    Once again, I’m forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. I hate that.

    You really think Obama was speaking for gay rights at the convention? Bull. All that crap about a gay person being able to visit his partner in the hospital--he used that same line of crap at the Saddleback interview. If he can't support gay marriage, at least come up with something stronger to say at the convention than the fact that he believes a gay person ought to be able to visit his partner in the hospital.

    Spineless. Absolutely freaking spineless.





    And I'm sorry, I'd rather be thrown to the back of the bus than UNDER the bus. At least in the back I can fight forward.


    That's an awesome analogy. I couldn't do any better.
    Obama is trying to get elected. Gay marriage scares too many people. He starts talking about that, he'll lose. For the time being, it should be about the supreme court. They don't have to get elected & re-elected. Obama is not the lesser of two evils for gays. He or McCain will be appointing our next judges.
  • joeindallas

    Posts: 484

    Sep 01, 2008 11:05 PM GMT
    Correction Marriage is a Legal Term

    (Holy) Matrimony is a Religious term One of the Seven Sacraments of Catholic and Orthodox churces
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2008 11:07 PM GMT

    See what McCain has to say about gay marriage... in front of a lesbian (my favorite lesbian)


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

    Sep 01, 2008 11:10 PM GMT
    Whatever. Tomato, Tomatoe. For Christ sake!

    In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

    Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry, and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is not allowed for lack of a valid reason and because it was deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2008 11:12 PM GMT
    I'd rather walk than sit in the back of the bus. Then wait until the bus breaks down, and when they ask for help, we should ask, "in return for what?"
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Sep 01, 2008 11:19 PM GMT
    Lots of bruhaha, just answer the question when the convention is over. How many times do the Republicans talk about gay rights? Enough said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2008 11:20 PM GMT
    Why even hold your breath. It's going to be ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NONE, NEVER, NOTHING, ZILTCH. It's more fun/interesting to get into verbal wars....isn't that what the GOP is about (wars, that is).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2008 11:41 PM GMT
    VINEYARDHMO--I want to agree with you. Really, I do. Primarily because you are so freaking hot.
    But. . .
    "Marriage" is really no longer a religous term. It is a legal term, of course, which you alluded to. If it were only religous, I would have no problem with marriage remaining the sole domain of the breeders. So, really, the "duh" comment wasn't warranted. (I won't even bother to elaborate on the twelve question marks at the end of your first comment).

    And, I, too, would clearly rather sit in the bus than be thrown under it. I'm just not about to declare Obama a champion of gay rights. Because he is not. Nor it the Democratic Party. Are they better than the Republicans in this regard? Ab-so-fucking-lutely!

    Finally, I'm not buying into that zip, zero, nada stuff. It's gonna happen--sooner, rather than later.

    And, seriously bro, hawt!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2008 12:05 AM GMT
    JonathanJ saidVINEYARDHMO--I want to agree with you. Really, I do. Primarily because you are so freaking hot.
    But. . .
    Despite what you assert, "marriage" is not simply a religous term. It is a legal term. If it were only religous, I would have no problem with marriage remaining the sole domain of the breeders. So, really, the "duh" comment wasn't warranted.

    And, I, too, would clearly rather sit in the bus than be thrown under it. I'm just not about to declare Obama a champion of gay rights. Because he is not.

    Finally, I'm not buying into that zip, zero, nada stuff. It's gonna happen--sooner, rather than later.

    And, seriously bro, hawt!


    Thank you...and I'm blushing.....but:

    Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions. Furthermore they frequently use the term "homosexual marriage," and some surveys have suggested that the word "homosexual" is more stigmatizing than the word "gay." Here-in lays the problem...the term "marriage" has BECOME a religious term. I could care less about the semantics of the word....the fact is that it is equated as a religious term.

    Some have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz (whom owns a house and vacations here on Island), for instance, writes that such an arrangement would "strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control."

    Some proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage on both sides find such a suggestion impractical. Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry (whom helped legalize same-sex civil unions in VT and MA) questions, "Why do we suddenly have to throw out the entire system, invent some whole new thing, just because gay people want to get married? I don’t actually see Alan Dershowitz doing anything about this, other than writing an article, because he probably rightly understands it would be an immense project to go around the country and convince 200 million plus people to trade in their marriage for something new and explain why we are doing this when we actually have a legal system that already clearly distinguishes between civil and religious marriage." So I ask you, why are gays asking for gay "marriage" when we have 200 million people against us?? Personally, I don't even want to be associated with a group of people who look at us as second-rate citizens yet bend over backwards to accept our $$$$$$$$.

    And...finally, the GOP is not going to bother with 1% of the population during their convention. The pricks have TONS more to worry about....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2008 12:16 AM GMT
    Anyone that wants to blast Obama about the use of the word "marriage" needs to stop fooling themselves that he is against Gays. Stop working against the rest of us that want to establish as many rights as we can and vote for a presidential candidate that has spoken out more for Gay rights than any other nominee I have ever heard of. Here is my post from another forum.

    B71115 saidwhere does obama stand on gay marriage? where does hillary stand on gay marriage? where did bill stand on gay marriage?
    Well like I said, this is not just about marriage, but fundamental rights of equality and freedom from discrimination (i.e. ENDA) but Obama wants to repeal DOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) and also end DADT (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/11/2008-04-11_obama_ill_end_dontask_donttell-1.html). If this (repeal DOMA) were done then the states would have a harder time denying marriages in other states that allow gay Marriage. I posted a link to OBAMA's site above also, but here are others
    http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm
    While he won't come out and say that Marriage (of Gays) is a Federal issue, he says civil rights (related to Gays) are. Pretty much if sexual orientation is added to the things that cannot be used in discrimination, then everything else will fall into place. State laws could be challenged and overturned easier if the Federal government widely accepted discrimination against Gays as wrong. This is actually how the California courts overturned the prohibition of Gay Marriage (Obama applauded the decision): that is by saying that not allowing Gay Marriage, the state was creating a second class citizenship for Gays (Civil Union rights in California were not as strong as Marriage rights).

    Here is how he put it ..



    He separates the idea of Religious marriage vs. Government recognized (civil) marriage/union, but says the they must be equal in the eyes of the Government.

    As a former civil rights lawyer and teacher of constitutional law (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930136.html), I think Barack Obama knows what he is doing (specifically in regards to Gays and Civil Rights) and I trust him and his recommendations. I don't think he would have pursued a non-trivial education in constitutional law and civil rights if he did not care about those things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2008 12:27 AM GMT
    Even if he has a problem with the word marriage (as a religious institution), he is moving us in the right direction and has said in the states eyes (government) there should be no difference between Marriage and civil union/marriage. Here are some of his view expressed.

    From http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights

    Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage"
    Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?

    A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

    Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage
    Q: The laws banning interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?

    A: We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples. Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

    Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church
    Q: You have said in previous debates that it is up to individual religious denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. What place does the church have in government-sanctioned civil marriages?

    A: It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I don't think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples. My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a decision, and obviously, part of keeping a separation of churches and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.

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

    Sep 02, 2008 12:32 AM GMT
    Anyone who thinks Obama and McCain are the same on Gay and Civil rights just needs to compare each candidates websites on the issues ..

    Barack Obama's
    the main page http://www.barackobama.com/people/
    and http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

    McCain's
    There isn't one so I found this surrogate McCainForGays
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2008 12:34 AM GMT
    VOTE OBAMA!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2008 12:43 AM GMT
    Aside the hangup about the word marriage etc .. how about considering these points from Obama's views

    # Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2008 )(he applauded the marriage ban being overthrown as an issue of second class citizenship)
    # Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
    # Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
    # Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
    # Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
    # We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
    # Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007) (that is religious marriage is not important but government recognition of any union is.)
    # Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
    # Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
    # Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation. (Mar 2007)
    # Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill. (Mar 2007)
    # Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998 )***

    That last one is the key as Obama was a civil rights attorney and knows that if sexual orientation is recognized as a protected minority class, ALL other laws could be challenged on that basis. This is how we overthrew the marriage prohibition here in California.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2008 12:46 AM GMT
    Is there such a thing as a Gay Republican?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2008 12:47 AM GMT
    ActiveAndFit....I'm confused....what are you talking about?