As a Republican, I would like to hear some feedback from you guys about Obama/Biden being against gay marriage just like Republicans are
So now what? Taking that issue off the table, why is the gay community so anti-Republican?
I agree with the Republicans, Obama and Biden. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman only. However gays should get all the rights as everyone else under "union" instead of marriage
Oh..by the way this issue is low on my agenda. I am more concerned about cutting taxes, cutting spending, war of terror
Hummm,,, no takers huh...? I'll bite. Do you really think that all of the gays are so shallow that the only reason we are Democrats is because of Gay Rights? I beg to differ... It's because the two parties are so different and stand for things that actually mean something to us above and beyond the Gay issues. You clearly relate to the Republicans as I do the Democrats. I respect your opinion but still need some more clarification of why YOU think Marriage is reserved for only a man and a woman and not two committed humans that love each other and want to start a life together with all the same benefits of a straight couple. Really, no different than giving blacks equal rights. It's called Human Rights and I believe in them...
Do I really have to sit in the back of your bus??? Please make me understand your thought process. I'll be open minded.
To me it is totally irrelevant under which label I get the same rights and privileges are straight couples. Whether it is marriage, civil union, common law..doesn't matter to me. To me, the battle is more about equal rights across the board rather than just those pertaining to marriage, plus I have very little faith in the gay community when it comes to long-term relationships. I am not saying that there aren't many committed couples who have been together for years and even decades. To me, the definition of marriage is the union between two INDIVIDUALS, regardless of gender, who care about each other and who are in a MONOGAMOUS, committed relationship. The whole "yeah let's get married but still screw around with others" does not appeal to me one bit. But again, I do believe in equal rights across the board for SINGLES and couples.
I honestly do not agree with your definition of marriage. Why should it only be between a man and a woman? Whose definition is that anyway?
If you'd have cleared the repugnican wax from your ears just before that discussion came up, you'd have heard and hopefully understood what they both said. Unfortunately, I imagine, there wasn't a Q-tip nearby.
McGay saidIf you'd have cleared the repugnican wax from your ears just before that discussion came up, you'd have heard and hopefully understood what they both said. Unfortunately, I imagine, there wasn't a Q-tip nearby.
Hey McGay, no doubt I agree with you here and on other threads that there is a VAST difference between what the Democrats and Republicans feel about GAYS in general. My question on this thread is trying to get nycusa05 to explain to me WHY we should not be allowed as humans to call our "Union", a marriage... I'm curious as to WHY he feels this way... He would not answer me on the other thread, so I am hoping he will enlighten me here..
Does anyone think there is anything more important than just your own self interest? Is being GAY the only important issue to you? How about America, the next generation, our fighting men and women, our values and morals, what's best for the country as a whole? Do you really know what Obama and the Dems stand for?
Obama's pastor Wright has close associations with Farakan, who is as anti-Semitic and Anti-Gay as they come.
Obama probably could not obtain a security clearance for a Pentagon job because of his past Anti-American associations (specifically William Ayers, et all) http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/120499
Obama talks of his helping the "least among us", but has not sent his half brother in Kenya a dime. Obama's met him twice, so he's certainly aware of him. His brother's got to live on $1/month. http://www.suntimes.com/news/1119352,CST-NWS-brother21.article
Obama is closely allied with Acorn, a very discreditted group which has commited all sorts of voter fraud and intimidation tactics. Obama was their lawyer and a trainer in these tactics. Also, this Acorn and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mentality of everybody should be able to get a home loan, whether they got a down payment or a job, or lied on an application, is a major reason for this recent $700 billion bailout. Obama is knee deep in his endorsing of this policy. Also, James Johnson was on Obama's VP committe and made 10s of millions in Fannie Mae was released for unethical dealings with Country Wide. Franklin Raines also made 10s of millions at Fannie Mae, and is under investigation for fraud when he was CEO. He's an advisor to the Obama campaign.
Obama was way to the left during the primaries, now has given lip service to make himself appear more centrist. He's the most liberal (left wing) member of the Senate, to the left of even Bernie Sanders (VT), the self described socialist (akd communist).
Before the Surge, Obama (and most all Dems) wanted to leave Iraq. They really didn't care if Iraq fell into civil war, they wanted America to surrender (which would have emboldened our enemies). They were much more interested in winning the next election than losing a war. Obama now says were adopting his plan of drawing down troops (2 years later). Well, yeah. NOW we can withdraw troops now that we're winning the war. Duh.
Obama voted in Illinois to not allow a baby born alive in a botched abortion to be given medical assistance. He thought it would make a premature baby seem too much like a person, and would upset the pro-abortion crowd. Think about that, a baby which is no longer a concern to the mother (outside her body) must now be allowed to die, given no medical assistance.
Obama also supports partial birth abortion. Do you really know what that is? That is when the baby (7-8 months old) is delivered, but the head must remain in the birth canal. Then the doctor sticks a probe into the back of the baby's scull and sucks out its brains. Yeah, we need more of that.
I could go on and on. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. (Sorry for not getting links for all points, but Google them.)
And I don't want to hear about Gay Marriage. My partner and I have been together for 29 years with no piece of paper. We're very well accepted in this Republican suburb.
Are you Dems really ready to sell your soul to elect this complete "empty suit" (well tailored, but empty)? There's much more to life than being gay.
I also believe that America ought to drop export and import barriers for African countries that comply with principles of good governance. I also think America should drop agricultural subsidies (funny how Republicans never seem to be too concerned about this one!). But nobody, regrettably, is saying this. I also think that Nuclear power is a far too problematic solution to Global Warming. I also think that Clean Coal is a dangerous distraction. So nope, I don't agree with them on everything. So what is one supposed to do? Not vote?
Are the Democrats doing everything possible for the LGBT community? No. But LGBT people have political power within the Democratic party, and the fact that Ms Palin was forced to make some empty gesture of "tolerance" is entirely because of that political power. We are mature enough to recognize that in order to achieve what is politically possible now we have to compromise so long as the roadmap to our final goal is clear. Obama/Biden believe in Civil Partnership, which is clearly an unsatisfactory end, but as a metastable point on the road to equality, it is far better than what is on offer from the other side: Absolutely nothing!
He simply doesn't believe that all churches should be forced to perform marriages as religious institutions unless they want to. The Gay republicans simply want to confuse the issue and vehemently propose that Obama is against gays, etc because their own candidates are are woefully inadequate and when it comes to the rights of gay people.
2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007Legal 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.
So it is simple, the government confers the legal rights, churches confer the religious title. His views are consistent with his stand on civil rights and his belief in separation of church and state.
More importantly he wants to: Repeal DOMA End DADT and allow gays to serve in the military without discrimination. Establish ENDA Establish at LEAST strong civil union (same as marriage in the eyes of the government)
2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007 We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that in part out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.
That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.
When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that's unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.
Obama has publicly opposed proposition 8 ( no on 8 ) which would take away gay marriage in California, McCain is the opposite.
I'm as Republican as one can get but; I support same sex marriage. I don't have to check my opinions at the door. I do support drilling ANWAR.
Biden and Palin agree on the issue, I disagree with both of them. I am pleased that they both support lifting some of the oppression on the issue but nothing short of same sex marriage should be the goal.
Saying that Biden and Palin agree on the issue is absurd and a lie.
Biden attempted to trap her into agreeing with the position he held, unsuccessfully. She, unsucessfully, tried to say that she agreed with Biden in her non-support of gay marriage. Her position is no recognition (other than contracts, fuck you very much, because we can do that today and the contracts still are subject to federal and state laws) for gay couples and the Dems position is equality without the use of the term "marriage". While the Dems position is not 100% perfect, it is a far cry from the homophobic repug position.
2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007 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.
This country has much bigger problems than the GAY MARRIAGE Issue.
Mustang22.
Site your source regarding Obama's stance on Partial abortions where did you read that?
Reverend Wright is nolonger Obama's pastor he has not been for while. Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the nation of Islam and just because someone he knows has an association does not mean that he does.
Lastly,
I support our troops but the WAR in Iraq was a huge error! Iraq was will never be the same. We invaded that country under the guise of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"! Hmmmm I don't think they were ever found.
To answer you question! Yes I would sell my soul to an empty suit because anything is better than what we have now.
When Clinton left office we had a SURPLUS! In the twilight of the Bush admistration we have anything but!
Here Obama's actual view on Partial Abortion.
This is a clip. It was reported by "Fox News. It is clearly diffrent from what MUSTANG 22 wrote.
Barack Obama on Abortion Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that. Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.
As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.
McCain Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996) Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996) LLater voted opposite but look at latest statement about Prop 8 Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000) Supports CA Prop. 8: one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2000 )
Obama #Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006) # Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 200 # 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) # Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007) # 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) # Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006) # Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1990 )
nycusa05 saidAs a Repubilcan, I would like to hear some feedback from you guys about Obama/Biden being against gay marriage just like Republicans are
So now what? Taking that issue off the table, why is the gay community so anti-Republican?
I agree with the Republicans, Obama and Biden. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman only. However gays should get all the rights as everyone else under "union" instead of marriage
We would still be treated as second class citizens if we were to be given 'unions' instead of full marriage. even if all the rights afforded were the same, the title itself brings with it meaning in society. And there is no way to guarantee we would be given all the same rights unless it is under the title of marriage. Giving us anything else would create a Separate but Equal institution, and we all know how that works out...
Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that he was just as uncomfortable as Sarah Palin discussing the matter on record. Yes, we know what they both feel but seeing it in action is somewhat different. I wanted a Bobby Kennedy or Martin Luther moment. I wanted one of them to transcend the rhetoric and actually SPEAK TO ME as a voter and not insult me. I don't know why it hit me like a ton of bricks last night. Yes, we were playing a drinking game centered around Palin's use of words like "heck" "darn" daggonit" etc. so I was feeling those effects by the time the question came up .. but, seriously, watching them both stumble and bumble around to try and find words that won't offend but won't support either was disappointing. The "maverick" wont suggest that it is not the role of washington to mandate to states what constitutes marriage and that they have no business passing laws to discriminate against any minority. Biden refused to acknowledge that treating us as second class citizens is a disgrace and America needs to keep the religious right from interfering with policy. Then , at the end, knowing damn well there are other proposed ideas for equality, to say they feel the same was disgusting. Pandering. Without bravery there is nothing to aspire to and frankly, I felt like we were invited to sit in the back row instead of with everyone else. I have watched people on here work tirelessly to get Obama elected and yes, there are bigger issues here. But in all sincerity, are we worth so little that he can't even say the way we are barred from marriage is shameful? He couldn't voice his support of prop. 8. He couldn't suggest that states like CA represent his future hope of an equal America? I believe that is what he feels in his heart but he is being a coward. I think people respond to sincerity and one of these days it would be amazing to see a sincere and earnest candidate make it to the top. It isn't a wedge issue, it is a human rights issue that won't go away until we have equality. I will still vote democratic because I believe in sharing with those who have less, but my excitement and fantasy of real change has definitely left the building.
youngaugust saidWe would still be treated as second class citizens if we were to be given 'unions' instead of full marriage. even if all the rights afforded were the same, the title itself brings with it meaning in society. And there is no way to guarantee we would be given all the same rights unless it is under the title of marriage. Giving us anything else would create a Separate but Equal institution, and we all know how that works out...
That is NOT how it has worked out here in California. The court actually recognized that the ban on marriage for gays was "second class" and thereby threw out the ban. Why did the court throw it out? because California's constitution recognizes that minorities (like gay) cannot be treated "unequal" .. This is why Obama has cleverly said, go for your civil rights first. He knows that once equality is established then the courts can step in if necessary. He knows this because he was a civil rights attorney and yes he knows what happened to "separate but equal" very well .. the courts stepped in and squashed it .. i.e. Brown vs. the Board of education
As far as the whole "there are no guarantees" .. we can also say there are no guarantees that McCain will not appoint Supreme Court justices that will roll back gay rights (even sex as Scalia and Thomas, etc opposed) even worse than what they are now.
mustang22 said Obama's pastor Wright has close associations with Farakan Obama...William Ayers, et all) Obama..half brother in Kenya a dime. Acorn...voter fraud and intimidation tactics. Obama was their lawyer and a trainer in these tactics. $700 billion bailout. Obama is knee deep in his endorsing of this policy. Franklin Raines...an advisor to the Obama campaign. He's the most liberal (left wing) member of the Senate, to the left of even Bernie Sanders (VT), the self described socialist (akd communist). Before the Surge, Obama (and most all Dems) wanted to leave Iraq. Obama voted in Illinois to not allow a baby born alive in a botched abortion to be given medical assistance. Obama also supports partial birth abortion.
Mustang...you've hit every point I hear on Michael Savage's radio show. So good job on being such a tool.
Let's start from the top: Rev Wright/Farrakhan association: Obama dumped Wright. Personally decried Farrakhan. Farrakhan appeared on a church flier cover at the same time Obama appeared. Pictures of people on a cover of a flier is not the same thing as "being associated" with. Ayers: barely knew him. Served on a committee in Chicago. Dime: doesn't want Obama's money. Acorn: this get-out-the-vote organization helped people who were disenfranchised. It did not encourage them to vote more than once or vote as a dead person. Bailout: McCain supports the same bailout. I don't like it at all, but this is a wash. Raines: not an advisor. Liberal: Feingold, Boxer, Sanders and Clinton are more liberal. Biden is more liberal. In my opinion, he's not liberal enough. Surge has not worked. Other factors including Sunni/Shia ceasefire have had greater (and earlier impact) than the surge. Botched: utter bullshit. The bill you (don't) cite never said that. Besides, do you really think that he would vote for such a bill? Ann Coulter does. I respect her opinion. Partial birth abortion: again, nobody on the planet supports this. A hideous procedure--yes. That's why it's never been performed and having a law to prohibit it is redundant (although nobody has voted against this law).
I agree, it's not all about Gay Marriage, but making shit up is not making your case well. Congrats on being a tool.
XRuggerATX saidPut it this way. If a bill legalizing gay marriage were to cross a president's desk, who would sign it and who would veto it? Obama and Biden are in support. They just don't want it to be their call.
.
Oh, I feel better now. He was lying when he answered the question and said that he believes marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman in front of millions because he is too nervous the truth will keep him from washington. Ahhhhh, change we can believe in.
XRuggerATX saidPut it this way. If a bill legalizing gay marriage were to cross a president's desk, who would sign it and who would veto it? Obama and Biden are in support. They just don't want it to be their call.
.
Oh, I feel better now. He was lying when he answered the question and said that he believes marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman in front of millions because he is too nervous the truth will keep him from washington. Ahhhhh, change we can believe in.
I dont think he was lying. I think he was being political. He cant do us any good if he doesnt get elected. Coming out for gay marriage would only open a can of worms and give the repubs an issue to use.
We have the repubs on the ropes with the economy and Iraq, let's not distract the voters with gay marriage.
It is better to think politically and strategically, than idealistically and heroically.
After the elections, he can change his mind ... ...use the defeat of the Prop in California as the epiphany that gay marriage should be legal ...
Realize that we are getting closer to the goal...the Dems are publicly saying our relationships are constitutionally protected and the Repubs are saying they are tolerant. It wont be long now til a court challenge brings all the state bans down.
Digressing...
I just finished reading a very good book on the "Mother of All Legislating from the Bench," Marbury v. Madison, by the Father of All Conservative Jurists, John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. The whole power of judicial review is made up by Marshall and, under a strict constructionist view, is bogus, yet, even Justice Scalia recognizes the power of judicial review...can you say "hypocrisy"?
I love learning about stuff like this so that when conservatives start in on "activist judges legislating from the bench," I can whip the info out and beat their heads in with it.
The Activist: Marshall, Marbury, and the Myth of Judicial Review
XRuggerATX saidPut it this way. If a bill legalizing gay marriage were to cross a president's desk, who would sign it and who would veto it? Obama and Biden are in support. They just don't want it to be their call.
.
Oh, I feel better now. He was lying when he answered the question and said that he believes marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman in front of millions because he is too nervous the truth will keep him from washington. Ahhhhh, change we can believe in.
I dont think he was lying. I think he was being political. He cant do us any good if he doesnt get elected. Coming out for gay marriage would only open a can of worms and give the repubs an issue to use.
We have the repubs on the ropes with the economy and Iraq, let's not distract the voters with gay marriage.
It is better to think politically and strategically, than idealistically and heroically.
After the elections, he can change his mind ... ...use the defeat of the Prop in California as the ephiphany that gay marriage should be legal ...
You are absolutely right. I am coming at this from a surprisingly emotional place. I'll get over it soon enough.
[quote][cite]So now what? Taking that issue off the table, why is the gay community so anti-Republican?[/quote]
I certainly can't speak for the gay community, but I can speak for myself. There are other "gay" issues of importance to me that Obama/Biden support, which McCain/Palin and most Republicans do not: adoption by same sex couples, hate crimes legislation, protection against job discrimination based on sexual orientation. Putting the gay marriage issue aside, which ticket do you believe would give a more sympathetic hearing to any issue dealing with sexual orientation? To me, it would clearly not be the party that is beholden to the evangelical right, no matter how much the candidates of that party try to portray themselves as "mavericks."
But I don't just vote based on gay issues. There are other issues of importance to me where I agree with Obama/Biden's position more than I do with McCain/Palin's: education, the environment, the economy and energy, to name a few.
One issue I'm surprised no one has raised yet is the Supreme Court. With the current justices, the Court is leaning to the right. The oldest justices and the justices most likely to retire in the next four years are to the left of center on the Court. The next president is likely going to have the opportunity to appoint one, perhaps two, justices. McCain has already voiced his admiration for the most recent Bush appointees (both young, far right leaning, "strict constructionist" justices) and has stated his desire to appoint similar justices if given the opportunity during his presidency. This could tip the balance of the Court to the far right far beyond a McCain presidency, potentially for decades. The effects could extend far beyond overturning Roe v. Wade, to repealing other decisions, such as Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down sodomy laws and found a constitutional protection in the due proces clause of the 14th Amendment for private, consensual sex ). I would think that even the most Republican among us would not want to risk going back to the days when one could be arrested, in one's own home, for having sex with one's partner.
XRuggerATX saidPut it this way. If a bill legalizing gay marriage were to cross a president's desk, who would sign it and who would veto it? Obama and Biden are in support. They just don't want it to be their call.
.
Oh, I feel better now. He was lying when he answered the question and said that he believes marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman in front of millions because he is too nervous the truth will keep him from washington. Ahhhhh, change we can believe in.
I dont think he was lying. I think he was being political. He cant do us any good if he doesnt get elected. Coming out for gay marriage would only open a can of worms and give the repubs an issue to use.
We have the repubs on the ropes with the economy and Iraq, let's not distract the voters with gay marriage.
It is better to think politically and strategically, than idealistically and heroically.
After the elections, he can change his mind ... ...use the defeat of the Prop in California as the epiphany that gay marriage should be legal ...
Realize that we are getting closer to the goal...the Dems are publicly saying our relationships are constitutionally protected and the Repubs are saying they are tolerant. It wont be long now til a court challenge brings all the state bans down.
Digressing...
I just finished reading a very good book on the "Mother of All Legislating from the Bench," Marbury v. Madison, by the Father of All Conservative Jurists, John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. The whole power of judicial review is made up by Marshall and, under a strict constructionist view, is bogus, yet, even Justice Scalia recognizes the power of judicial review...can you say "hypocrisy"?
I love learning about stuff like this so that when conservatives start in on "activist judges legislating from the bench," I can whip the info out and beat their heads in with it.
The Activist: Marshall, Marbury, and the Myth of Judicial Review
Thanks Caslon. You handled that better than I would have.
NorCalJD said[quote]One issue I'm surprised no one has raised yet is the Supreme Court. With the current justices, the Court is leaning to the right. The oldest justices and the justices most likely to retire in the next four years are to the left of center on the Court. The next president is likely going to have the opportunity to appoint one, perhaps two, justices. McCain has already voiced his admiration for the most recent Bush appointees (both young, far right leaning, "strict constructionist" justices) and has stated his desire to appoint similar justices if given the opportunity during his presidency. This could tip the balance of the Court to the far right far beyond a McCain presidency, potentially for decades. The effects could extend far beyond overturning Roe v. Wade, to repealing other decisions, such as Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down sodomy laws and found a constitutional protection in the due proces clause of the 14th Amendment for private, consensual sex ). I would think that even the most Republican among us would not want to risk going back to the days when one could be arrested, in one's own home, for having sex with one's partner.
Actually I did mention that. It has also been in some of the other threads ..
ActiveandFitAs far as the whole "there are no guarantees" .. we can also say there are no guarantees that McCain will not appoint Supreme Court justices that will roll back gay rights (even sex as Scalia and Thomas, etc opposed) even worse than what they are now.
Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.
"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Jdunn1973 said Oh, I feel better now. He was lying when he answered the question and said that he believes marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman in front of millions because he is too nervous the truth will keep him from washington. Ahhhhh, change we can believe in.
I dont think he was lying. I think he was being political. He cant do us any good if he doesnt get elected. Coming out for gay marriage would only open a can of worms and give the repubs an issue to use.
We have the repubs on the ropes with the economy and Iraq, let's not distract the voters with gay marriage.
It is better to think politically and strategically, than idealistically and heroically.
After the elections, he can change his mind ... ...use the defeat of the Prop in California as the ephiphany that gay marriage should be legal ...
You are absolutely right. I am coming at this from a surprisingly emotional place. I'll get over it soon enough.
Just a lesson learned from back in '92 when Clinton was elected....he went charging in to change the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy at the urgent urging of gays without doing the political groundwork first. DADT went from just a military policy to the law!
Well, both candidates were pandering to the homophobia of the religious right (what is this marriage issue if not their favorite) in saying they supported "tolerance" while saying they believed "marriage" should be between one man and one woman. Leaving aside the problem of why it must be defined this way (something a real moderator or journalist would've injected into the debate), Biden did say he supports the same rights being extended to gay citizens as recognized by the constitution, something P.F. Palin only begrudgingly condoned. That said, Palin was clearly uncomfortable with the subject, saying "I tolerate those people" as if she were going to vomit in her mouth...can there be any question she'll kick us in the teeth, along with McCain's blessing, if in office?
NOW, I've gotta say I find this meadering politicians are doing around this issue to be sickening. Damn it, we deserve the same rights as everyone else, including the same "label", and we shouldn't have to live in CA or MA to get it! Unless the government is saying its a theocracy defining relationships instead of a gov. granting rights, this is a non-issue.
More importantly, however: given the state of endless war, millions without health issurance/healthcare, poverty (in the US...I'm sure the US could take care of its starving and dying in its cities before going to Dafur, thanks Biden), and the like, why are we talking about gays at all? Just sayin.
I guess I should have put in more links to the Obama facts.
Obama now distances himself from Flager, Wright and Farakan. Yeah, now that he learns that it's tough to run for President with lots of Anti-American associations.
Obama-Ayers. His political career was launched in Ayers home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Ayers_controversy But just Google "Obama Ayers"
Obama's half brother doesn't want help. Think about it. He may not want a Mercedes, and he may not have specifically "asked for help". But if Obama cared for the "least among us" as he says, I think he would have tried to help his brother living in a mud hut on $1/month.
Obama on Abortion: 100% voting record rating by NARAL. Just Google "Obama Born Alive" and "Obama partial birth abortion". You're just splitting words. OK, he's not "Pro partial birth abortion", he's just not willing to vote for a ban on partial birth abortion. If partial birth abortion never happens (like you say), than why not vote for a ban. And Yes it's true, he does not want medical assistance to be given to babies who survive a botched abortion. 100% NARAL. Some say he's even more Pro Choice than NARAL.
Obama was the most liberal senator based on voting record in 2007. No, maybe other years he was not as liberal, but it does show just how liberal he is. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Dems and Obama on Iraq, they wanted to leave when things were tough, back in 2005-2006. They really did want to loose the war. This is so obvious.
I could be wrong being an outsider looking in, but one reason why so many gays are anti-Republican is that the GOP gets a significant amount of support from Fundamentalist Christians who are usually rabidly homophobic. They can't seem to get past Leviticus and believe sexual orientation is a choice and not biologically based (like religious beliefs I guess).
It is still hard for me to understand how a country like the USA that believes in individual rights, how equal rights can be denied to a group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens for something they have no control over, their sexual orientation. Legalizing marriage between two men (or women), will not endanger the institution of marriage, straights have been doing a pretty good job of that for decades.
obama and biden, hillary clinton and other major Dems have held those positions for a long time. biden stating it in the debate is old news.
that aside, i think it's ironic that the Republican party so often pontificates on issues related to a very narrow definition of "family values" and tolerates some of the most hypocritical offenders - Sens. Larry Craig of the MPLS airport mens room scandal, and David Vitter, of DC Madame fame.
C'mon guys...let's grow up and be real. None of the main political parties have ever or will most likely never publicly admit to 'Being for Gay Marriage." Politics is too entwined with religion and just because they are Democrats doesn't mean they are publicly liberal-minded and in tuned to our rights. I don't think for a second that this public statement reflects Obama or Biden's personal views 100%, but they need to run for the entire party not just for themselves. They don't live in a vaccum but they need to not alienate middle Americans in order to obtain the vote. It's just business. It's up to us, not them to fight for our equal, legal rights! There is much more to us then securing Marriage Rights, right??
Quoting XRuggerATX "Put it this way. If a bill legalizing gay marriage were to cross a president's desk, who would sign it and who would veto it? Obama and Biden are in support. They just don't want it to be their call."
"Oh, I feel better now. He was lying when he answered the question and said that he believes marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman in front of millions because he is too nervous the truth will keep him from washington. Ahhhhh, change we can believe in."
What XRuggerATX states is also what I've said in another post. I'd rather have a liar claiming to be against gay marriage than a liar claiming to support it. The point is that Obama/Biden are too smart to let gay marriage be the same wedge issue that did Kerry in for the 2004 election. Change comes in doses.
I also think that the strategy that California and Massachussetts have done is the best way to go about the gay marriage issue. Their success are the watershed events that make the gay marriage issue a nationwide success. It starts in the key states and makes its way, over time, to the rest of the nation just like enviornmental issues and standards.
mustang22 saidThey really did want to loose the war. This is so obvious.
Your citations? Google? Wikipedia? Welcome to the RealJock forum. I guess this is your first rodeo.
I can't comment on the rest of your post. Basically you believe it's true because you believe it's true, not because you have facts on your side. In journalism school, learn how to research and present facts. So many other threads have debunked each of your claims already, and so here you are, all new and full of Ann Coulter/Michael Savage talking points. You have me at a disadvantage: I don't automatically believe bullshit when it's shoehorned into my skull.
But let me just ask a question, pertaining to your one claim I bothered to quote above. If it's so obvious they want to "loose" (sic) the war, why is Biden's son going off to Iraq? Why did so many Iraq veterans run for Congress on the Democratic ticket in 2006 and WIN their seats? Because they hate America, and want us to lose a war?
And the botched abortion thing. I dare you to post a citation source on that one. Come on, tough guy...post it. I dare you.
ActiveAndFit saidMcCain Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996) Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996) LLater voted opposite but look at latest statement about Prop 8 Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000) Supports CA Prop. 8: one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2000 )
Obama #Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006) # Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 200 # 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) # Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007) # 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) # Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006) # Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1990 )
i have a feeling neither obama nor biden given a shit about whether gays can get married or not. they are both smart enough to know there are more important issues in our day.
biden needed to answer the way he did in order to not alienate the socially conservative democrats and independents. does he truly believe that? i doubt it. if they were in office, they wouldn't have to worry bout being elected (although reelection is always n issue).
Hunter9 said, "i have a feeling neither obama nor biden given a shit about whether gays can get married or not. they are both smart enough to know there are more important issues in our day.
biden needed to answer the way he did in order to not alienate the socially conservative democrats and independents. does he truly believe that? i doubt it. if they were in office, they wouldn't have to worry bout being elected (although reelection is always n issue)."
AGREED! Thank you. We shall not be relegated to becoming a losing wedge issue.
the only reason the "gay marriage" thing is a topic in politics is because the fundamentalist/extremist Christian Right has decided to dirty themselves and their God in the swill of politics. They have chosen to become out of control and attempt to "govern" everyone else and make everyone "just like them" and "think like them", and "pray like them", and "act like them", etc., and that leads to a whole group of people who can be easily riled up because they are ignorant and easily manipulated, and many votes can be lost or gained as a result. Religion used to be a private matter...now its "god" has become weakened into the filth of worldly matters. politics, deception, manipulation, and conspiracy. (then again...is that really anything new?).
IF the only thing a person can see is that "gay marriage" is THE ISSUE, then they are extremely ignorant and dangerously limited in their vision. The fact that I am an Democrat, the fat that I will vote for O'Bama/Biden, has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. I do believe that "marriage" is something that should evolve and be granted to gay people because it only makes sense and is a fair approach to adult human relationships if that is what two people want. It simply is not balanced in the least to allow one group of adults (men and women) to be married, and then in turn have the absolute audacity, arrogance and hypocracy to not allow that same right and experience to two other adult people in love. Thinking in such ancient, tribal terms about marriage not only does not FIT in our world today, but it smacks of an " I can, but you can't" perception...which to me can only be expressed in one word...wrong.
And if straight, (and inanely some gay people too apparently) are so concerned about marriage being ONLY for a man and woman, and if they are so concerned about the sanctity of it and how "oh so holy" it is in one breath, while the divorce rate is staggering...then let's make divorce illegal and see how they like that. Seems fair doesn't it, if they want to be so "holier than thou" about it all.
To me, it seems that this whole issue of Man must marry Woman and breed, breed, breed...goes way back to the long gone eras of tribes and wars between them. Back then, the leaders were the "holy people" or whatever...and in order to be able to have a chance against other tribes that would attack ( cuz they were doing it all the time back then), or to expand the tribe, you had to keep making more babies/people for the survival of the tribe in wars and whatnot. So those "holy" leaders told people. "look here, this is what you have to do and if you don't...well...hmmm...I know...You'll burn in hell !!" (a rather easy threat for ignorant masses) And that scared people into doing what these "religious administrators" told them to do for thousands of years. Well, we don't live in that kind of World anymore. It's time to evolve and re-examine our perspectives and take our perceptions from ancient manipulative tribal days to the here and now.
fluxu8 saidthe only reason the "gay marriage" thing is a topic in politics is because the fundamentalist/extremist Christian Right has decided to dirty themselves and their God in the swill of politics. They have chosen to become out of control and attempt to "govern" everyone else and make everyone "just like them" and "think like them", and "pray like them", and "act like them", etc., and that leads to a whole group of people who can be easily riled up because they are ignorant and easily manipulated, and many votes can be lost or gained as a result. Religion used to be a private matter...now it's "god" has become weakened into the filth of worldly matters. politics, deception, manipulation, and conspiracy. (then again...is that really anything new?).
IF the only thing a person can see is that "gay marriage" is THE ISSUE, then they are extremely ignorant and dangerously limited in their vision. The fact that I am an Democrat, the fat that I will vote for O'Bama/Biden, has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. I do believe that "marriage" is something that should evolve and be granted to gay people because it only makes sense and is a fair approach to adult human relationships if that is what two people want. It simply is not balanced in the least to allow one group of adults (men and women) to be married, and then in turn have the absolute audacity, arrogance and hypocracy to not allow that same right and experience to two other adult people in love. Thinking in such ancient, tribal terms about marriage not only does not FIT in our world today, but it smacks of an " I can, but you can't" perception...which to me can only be expressed in one word...wrong.
And if straight, (and inanely some gay people too apparently) are so concerned about marriage being ONLY for a man and woman, and if they are so concerned about the sanctity of it and how "oh so holy" it is in one breath, while the divorce rate is staggering...then let's make divorce illegal and see how they like that. Seems fair doesn't it, if they want to be so "holier than thou" about it all.
To me, it seems that this whole issue of Man must marry Woman and breed, breed, breed...goes way back to the long gone eras of tribes and wars between them. Back then, the leaders were the "holy people" or whatever...and in order to be able to have a chance against other tribes that would attack ( cuz they were doing it all the time back then), or to expand the tribe, you had to keep making more babie/people for the survival of the tribe in wars and whatnot. So those "holy" leaders told people. "look here, this is what you have to do and if you don't...well...hmmm...I know...You'll burn in hell !!" (a rather easy threat for ignorant masses) And that scared people into doing what these "religious administrators" told them to do for thousands of years. Well, we don't live in that kind of World anymore. It's time to evolve and re-examine our perspectives and take our perceptions from ancient manipulative tribal days to the here and now.
you know. this makes me think of a couple other points.
in the middle ages there were "marriages" between men. They were government sanctioned. When two men wanted to live together and be "companions" ( of course, everyone knew what that entailed ) they would enter into what were then called " Brotherhood" agreements or contracts. Nobody got too pushed out of shape about it then. So why now?
And also, don't even get me started on the stressing of Earth's resources now...something they really didn't have to concern themselves with so much in the ancient times. Gee...maybe when we start running out of room, water, and food ( and that's already started ) then maybe the politicians and "religious zealots" will start insisting on same sex marriage. LOL !!!
A person really needs take off their "blinders" and look at these issues in much larger terms...but maybe that's just the blue blood in me.
Don't make me smack your ASS CHEEKS in public or you'll be Pink from TOP to Bottom... XOXOXXO, Love you, Aaron!
LOL....have at it ! but be prepared to follow through !
Oh,,, I'll follow through alright...and in a BIG way,,, but then you've seen that first hand....Play your cards right, and maybe I'll follow through,,, a few times for you... my little Peach fuzz... SLURP !
A straight woman friend told me she thought I should be very upset about Biden's remarks re: marriage for same sex couples.
I told her I don't live in a fantasy world and also that I've been paying attention for longer than a week or two: Dennix Kucinich was the ONLY presidential candidate this season who supports gay marriage - or at least the only one who admits it.
It's a hot-button issue, and the public pulse today is - surprise - pretty much in line with both parties' candidates positions: "preserve" marriage for opposite-sex couples, while ensuring constitutional rights of gay people, including gay couples.
We could go on and on about what's wrong with that picture - and Biden's misstatement that momentarily had us thinking he had endorsed gay marriage rights - but think of what is remarkably "right" about the current state of gay rights: Both in the public's opinion and the political posturing, we have apparently risen to a place where leadership of both parties defend our constitutional equality ... compare this to 16 years ago when the GOP national convention in Houston (Bush I preparing to lose to Clinton) banned the Log Cabin Republicans from even having a booth or table at the convention to connect with delegates. Outside the convention hall, delegates were treating gay activists to some remarkably nasty shout-downs, using megaphones to drown out the message they had already pushed outside ... and from the rostrum of the convention, equally negative remarks were coming from speakers.
It was a great moment when a friend's mother called him to APOLOGIZE for the convention, and to tell him she'd be voting Democrat that year. (The fact that my friend's partner had been a high-up staffer in the first Bush campaign made that an especially interesting call to him ...)
Anyway, if you see this on a continuum that began earlier than last Thursday night or last year - earlier than 1992, obviously - then you will hear something pretty encouraging, as I did. The current darling of the far right very-religious actually is at least SAYING she matches liberal Joe Biden's position on some of the basic
There is some distance to go - and though I live in NYC, I know that back home in Nebraska (or even Atlanta or Denver for that matter) there is some distance to go. But we're going in the right direction.
Keep the faith and keep doing your part. (the biggest thing any gay person can do is to be sure their friends, family and, whenever possible without ending a career, their coworkers know who they are. The power of ONE - one gay person whose friends won't leave him/her to hang out to dry. And we are each that ONE.
By the way, my compliments to you gentlemen - the level of discussion here is so far above that on the average or even above-average internet forum. I'm proud of you!
nycusa05 saidAs a Repubilcan, I would like to hear some feedback from you guys about Obama/Biden being against gay marriage just like Republicans are
So now what? Taking that issue off the table, why is the gay community so anti-Republican?
I agree with the Republicans, Obama and Biden. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman only. However gays should get all the rights as everyone else under "union" instead of marriage
I disagree. I think, as a gay man, that I should have the right to marriage. Not "unions". Marriage is NOT a christian institution. Marriage was around like before Christianity. And no one has the right to make me feel like a second class citizen by saying that gays can't have marriage. If you personally don't believe in it for gays, that's fine. That's your position. But don't make those of us that want marriage, suffer.
This is why I hate Republicans and Democrats. Always pushing their beliefs on everyone else, because they think that their ways are the only ways.
Clear support for the concept of equality under the constitution and before the law leads us to marriage equality in the civil realm. (Biden's strong statement re: such equality defines exactly where we are: poised for multiple challenges to exclusivity of marriage laws.)
It should and will be no business to the government what various faiths and church's wish to "sanctify" - it's irrelevant and distracting when a candidate or elected person says "it's up to the denominations". The denominations should have nothing to say about civil marriage. In fact, they don't. I was brought up Catholic, and believe me, in the eyes of the church, a couple married by a judge or other civil official are NOT MARRIED! The eventual legal definition may be to call ALL marriages "civil union" in the eyes of the State.
Again, we're on a path, not a point-to-point trajectory. Twenty-five years ago the New York Times wouldn't even use the word "gay" (only homosexual). Keep after it, but keep it real.
This debate is all to funny to me. So many of you are up in arms over this. I for one am not surprise when the bigorty of others come to forfront. Just like when the I'm not in the least bit surprise when the vail of inequality or institutional racism is lifted. Should we fight agaisnt it yes absolutely!
I but I am never surprised when people who really do not have my best intesterest and heart are shown or showing their true colors.
You can't buy into all of the Rheteric. I always leans towards the lessor of two evils.
I'm just sayin. 8-)
For the record I believe in our having the right to wed. But get ready for divorce.
The divorce lawyers are going to make money hand over fist!
Waaaaiiit a second there mustang...you think it's a bad thing that Sen. Obama has a half-brother half a world away that he hasn't given any financial support to? Why should he?
Don't know about the others here, but as someone who has a brother that has been a complete waste of space his entire life, who i wish i could ship off to nigeria or wherever, this means nothing to me. it may even make me a bigger fan of obama.
and i know you could 'go on and on' and thank you for not. we get the picture (sheessh!)
nycusa05 saidAs a Repubilcan, I would like to hear some feedback from you guys about Obama/Biden being against gay marriage just like Republicans are
So now what? Taking that issue off the table, why is the gay community so anti-Republican?
I agree with the Republicans, Obama and Biden. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman only. However gays should get all the rights as everyone else under "union" instead of marriage
Personally, I'm mystified by gay people (the owner of The Advocate, for instance) who've said that they're voting Republican because Obama doesn't support same-sex marriage... as though McCain does? It's like saying "well because Party A isn't 100% with me, I'm going to go with the other party that panders to its base by advocating for my negation."
If I were a voter in the US I could think of *many* good reasons to choose the Democrats over the Republicans besides their relative stances on gay people. The Dems might not be saying "yes" to same-sex marriage in this election, but they're still a thousand times more likely than the Republicans to move forward with protections from discrimination, with extension of marriage-like rights, and with allowing states to decide the issue for themselves (whereas the Republicans are shrilling for a nation-wide constitutional ban).
But aside from the concerns of a gay person not wanting to be relegated to second-class citizenship, there's the environment, there's foreign policy, there's war, there's health care, there's education, there's poverty. And for years of observation, on those the tally seems to be:
Democratic Party-- cares about the environment objectively (it's important in itself) and subjectively (it's important so we can keep living on Earth), wants to work with the rest of the world and earn back international respect for America, got misled into early support for the war but now wants to get out of the ruinous business of policing a country that refuses to be policed from abroad, cares about health care for *everyone,* cares about education for everyone, and wants to help people living in poverty;
Republican Party-- cares about how much profit can be milked from the environment and beyond that doesn't care because ruined Earth might expedite the rapture, doesn't care about international multilateralism because "America can do NO wrong," lied to get the war started, lied (or was simply oblivious/incompetent) to keep the war going, and keeps lying because to face reality and tell the truth would be 'showing weakness,' cares about health care and education for those "who can afford it," and for those who can afford nothing, well, building more prisons will help the economy.
This isn't to say that one party is perfect and blameless, or that the other is evil personified, but I'm talking about observable trends in the actions and words of the party's majority. The Democratic party, while sometimes inefficient in its idealism, tries to be good because it cares about individual people making up a noble nation, while the Republican party-- not exactly demonstrating prudency or effectiveness itself, the last 8 years-- is ruthless in its pursuit of being a "great nation" first, highlighting its internal success and sweeping its shortcomings under the rug at the expense of citizens trapped in a cycle of disadvantage. The Democrats care about human decency, the Republicans, rules and traditional 'morals' (usually *dictated* by superstition/religion). One is good for you if you believe "we're all in this together" and that citizens make a state worthy, the other appears good for you if you believe that "the nation" as an abstract is great and that you'll do alright in its sink-of-swim eugenics program of 'great-ening' itself.
Anyway, how any citizen who's paying attention, gay or straight, goes on staunchly supporting a party that's conducted itself like the Republicans have for the last two administrations is really baffling to me.
Frankly, anyone who believes what a candidate seems to say on television, whether in an ad, a speech, or a commercial, and then bases his or her vote on it is a complete idiot...or 18 years old and voting for the first time.
Get multiple perspectives. Background check the candidates to find out how they will govern. Look into their past, their philosophies, their world view. There are even some cool applications out there that take where you stand on a whole slew of issues and suggest candidates for you (including 3rd party ones).
Simply believeing what they say on TV is a lazy and irresponsible way to vote. And in 2000 and 2004, there were too many lazy, irresponsible voters. Now we've come to this.
obama/biden don't support legally forcing churches to perform spiritual ceremonies called marraiges for lgbtq people. what they do support is a far cry better than what the republicans are seeking.
nycusa05 saidAs a Repubilcan, I would like to hear some feedback from you guys about Obama/Biden being against gay marriage just like Republicans are
So now what? Taking that issue off the table, why is the gay community so anti-Republican?
I agree with the Republicans, Obama and Biden. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman only. However gays should get all the rights as everyone else under "union" instead of marriage
I was angry and hurt by Biden's response to that question, but I realized maybe he had to be political about it..the older generations aren't generally for gay marriage and they still hold a lot of the voting population so if Biden were to actively support it, it would be hurting the chances of Obama's election.
My friends explained this to me and it makes sense, however I don't like it.
You should reply to the thread you made I'm sure we'd all like to see what you think of this topic you started.
nycusa05 saidAs a Repubilcan, I would like to hear some feedback from you guys about Obama/Biden being against gay marriage just like Republicans are
So now what? Taking that issue off the table, why is the gay community so anti-Republican?
I agree with the Republicans, Obama and Biden. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman only. However gays should get all the rights as everyone else under "union" instead of marriage
I've been amazed at the blindness of so many Democrats here. Feeling that with the democrats in power, they would at last get equality Under a democratic rule. Yet the democrats have done little in the past to back this notion, or in this pre election battle.. Yet the Republicans have been transparent on this issue. Yet the Democrats have done very little to support it, or refute the Republicans notion. If they don't feel that most Americans will back this concept. They want run with it, because they will loose the race.
So many gay democrats are anti religion; I for One have no religious affiliations. Yet they want access to religious ceremonies. Marriage is one of them, to be a part of the Priesthood is another. Yet both are religious based.
A union ceremony, acknowledges you commitment to your relationships] and I hope with some legal binding. Hay why should the gay community be so special not too have to deal with the pains of divorce, legal battles over property, to have guardianship over any children and pets that come into the relationship.
But I feel all adults should be able to have their long term relationship[s] legalised, in a way that does not copy marriage, nor debase it. Not that the str8s and bi's haven't already done that.
This link summarizes how I feel about the exchange. If you asked me, Palin got away with a lie. She wouldn't do anything to prevent hospital visits? You mean like the FL Marriage Protection act that, quite frankly, goes out of it's way to deny homosexual couples any and every benefit. It's actually quite disturbing to read...
Besides, Biden hit this topic out of the park when he said it's no place for the government to be defining the definition of a religious institution. Our beef with the government should be equal rights, regardless of what they're calling it these days.
...use the defeat of the Prop in California as the epiphany that gay marriage should be legal ... 
I wasn't trying to steal your thunder. 
