Kerry's stand on gay marriage may mirror his gun stands!


PDA






I'mSpartacus!
February 12, 2004, 12:42 AM
Kerry is for UN control over US forces, but he's also against. Kerry is for gay marriage, but also against. Kerry is hinting he is pro-2nd. Amendment but...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_gay_marriage_2&printer=1

If you enjoyed reading about "Kerry's stand on gay marriage may mirror his gun stands!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Malone LaVeigh
February 12, 2004, 02:18 AM
The Repugs are going to beat the gay marriage issue like a drum in this election. Biggoted ______.




(Edited by Don Gwinn to save Art's Grammaw the trouble.)

Gray Peterson
February 12, 2004, 05:55 AM
I hope people keep this on the high road. I will not vote for Kerry for my own reasons. However, I will not vote for Bush, either.

A) He supported, and pushed for, the USA PATRIOT act, a misnamed piece of legislation that for the most part renders the US Constitution null and void at the president's whim.

B) He supported the assault weapons ban, and stated that he would sign it if a renewal hits his desk.

C) He supports bigoted, and hateful constitutional amendments that would put discrimination into the constitution for the first time...ever.

For these reasons, I cannot vote for Bush. Would be a moot point here anyway if I wanted to: Oregon has not voted for a GOP candidate for a long time for President.

Both parties are pure evil.

tiberius
February 12, 2004, 10:34 AM
He supports bigoted, and hateful constitutional amendments that would put discrimination into the constitution for the first time...ever.

So being designated as 3/5 of a person (blacks) and having no vote (women and blacks) is NOT discrimination???

Mulliga
February 12, 2004, 10:41 AM
Sigh. Worst...Election...Ever.

ojibweindian
February 12, 2004, 10:42 AM
Kerry flops around on issues like a shad on a #5 hook.

lee n. field
February 12, 2004, 11:26 AM
Worst...Election...Ever.

What was the last good one? Coolege vs. whoever?

clubsoda22
February 12, 2004, 11:27 AM
read the sig.

Obiwan
February 12, 2004, 12:59 PM
Kerry mirrors his own stands...on everyhting.

The man is like a weathervane:barf:

OF
February 12, 2004, 01:14 PM
I really don't think I understand this whole gay marriage issue. What is the deal? How would gay marriage' be different from civil unions. or 'civil marriage' if you prefer? I just don't see the issue. If I understand correctly, the proposed amendment (and I'm not sure where I stand on this) would guarantee that same-sex couples could enter into civil marriage/unions with the full rights that a married couple couple has, just without the name 'marriage'.

Someone has to explain this to me, it makes no sense.

- Gabe

Skunkabilly
February 12, 2004, 01:40 PM
Protecting the sanctity of marriage? How about prohibiting cohabitation?

Art Eatman
February 12, 2004, 02:01 PM
This whole deal--and not just Kerry--seems to be one of sloppy language. Semantics. Dictionaries...

"Marriage" has historically meant the union of a man and a woman, and built into it is procreation. (That's "children", for folks from West Bugtussle.)

Hokay. For those of the same sex, "Civil Union" would codify the legal and economic aspects common to a "real marriage". Me, I have no problem with that. Not my business about somebody's property rights as regards health insurance or retirement benefits or anything else. Seems to me it gets into the realm of "equal protection under the law".

$0.02,

Art

OF
February 12, 2004, 02:40 PM
I guess I'm asking: what are proponents of gay marriage petitioning for? The term 'marriage' to be applied to same-sex two-person unions? But isn't that no more than an attempt to co-opt a traditional heterosexual religious institution? What right do they have to that term? I understand fighting for the right to be recognized with respect to the state, but is that injustice not satisfied through 'civil marriage' or 'civil unions' that guarantee full rights as anyone has with respect to the state?

Isn't 'marriage' more of a religious term, really? Isn't the problem then that a term with religious meaning (marriage) is bound-up within the state's statutes regarding what are really just civil unions as far as the state is concerned? As far as the state is concerned, it's all "civil unions" when you get right down to it...? What does it matter what the state terms that union: marriage, civil union, whatever. Can't this just be solved by making changes so that wherever a statute says 'marriage' you change it to 'marriage or civil marriage'? Or something like that? Like replacing 'he' with 'he or she'.

If "marriage" is really a religious term, isn't this then by definition a religious issue...in which case they're going to have to take this one up with someone other than the legislature...

- Gabe

PS: Mods: if someone freaks out on this thread, do us a favor and edit the post, PM the bad guy, but leave us our sandbox....please.

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 03:15 PM
Got news for you all, King George has just carefully staked out the position that he is in favor of an amendment stating that "marriage" is for men and women only, but he is not outlawing civil unions between gays. he's trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth just like Kerry, but Bush is taking heat from the "Christian hate Club" that normally back him 100% because he didn't completely condemn gay unions. Funny thing is, it didn't work anyway. Some of the gay and lesbian leaders last night were calling it a transparent ploy to get the gay vote and they don't believe he will make good on it. So, he pissed off the right wingers and the left wingers didn't take the bait. Not a good day at the poll machine.

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 03:19 PM
I guess I'm asking: what are proponents of gay marriage petitioning for? The term 'marriage' to be applied to same-sex two-person unions? But isn't that no more than an attempt to co-opt a traditional heterosexual religious institution? What right do they have to that term? I understand fighting for the right to be recognized with respect to the state, but is that injustice not satisfied through 'civil marriage' or 'civil unions' that guarantee full rights as anyone has with respect to the state?

Isn't 'marriage' more of a religious term, really?

The term also has legal connotations. gays want to be sure that they won't be sent to the back of the bus with laws that differentiate between actual marriage and "legal unions"... and those laws will come flying out of legislatures across this land if legal unions for gays are recognized. If they are allowed to have actual marriages, the lawmakers won't have a foothold to discriminate with legally.

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 03:22 PM
Protecting the sanctity of marriage? How about prohibiting cohabitation?

How about a little indignation for adultery?

Clinton got dragged through the wringer for a dalliance with an intern, Kerry is now being accused..... yet all I heard was deathly silence when the champion of our morality, Newt Gingrich, admitted he had been nailing his over the desk for a while and even dumped his long time wife (and mother of his kids) for her.

Can we all spell:

HYPOCRITES?:barf:

ojibweindian
February 12, 2004, 03:35 PM
HYPOCRITES?

I believe that Gingrich was relieved of his duties as Speaker of the House, and shortly thereafter retired from service.

The Liberals did not do the same for Clinton.

So who's the HYPOCRITE?

Gray Peterson
February 12, 2004, 03:40 PM
The issue here is of the LEGAL incidents of such marriages. Marriage is not judeo-christian or hebrew in origin. It's existed across many religions.

What do these groups want? They want the LEGAL protections of CIVIL (not religious) marriage. CIVIL is the important part. No church would be forced to marry same sex couples in this country (A bogus claim by so called "Family Research Institute"). If there were any claim to do by anyone, I would rather forcibly shout that down as a first amendment violation.

We try for civil unions, and what do we get it?

The same groups who oppose same sex marriage doing the exact same thing to us, citing false studies from Paul Cameron, saying that we're evil, that we're bringing Sodom and Gomorrah back.

Don't blame gay rights groups for us pushing for marriage, blame the FRC and right wing money maker scare groups who said that civil unions were absolutely unacceptable many years ago.

Thumper
February 12, 2004, 04:07 PM
yet all I heard was deathly silence when the champion of our morality, Newt Gingrich, admitted he had been nailing his over the desk for a while and even dumped his long time wife

Well...I don't know how to characterize your statement...perhaps an accidental little white prevarication?

Republicans demanded, and got, Gengrich's resignation. You don't think we're all idiots here, do you?

Sean Smith
February 12, 2004, 04:34 PM
This is all really quite stupid.

Marriage has become a government entitlement program... get a legal marraige, get free goodies and extra priveliges from Uncle Sucker. Gay people want their fair share of these goodies and extra priveliges, but since they are predicated on taking part in a 4,000 year old man-woman ritual, they can't play.

Government, when you get right down to it, has no buisness being involved in some man-woman religious ritual that dates back to when our ancestors were still dancing around fires chanting "ooga-booga" to make the rain god come back from over the mountain. And that certainly is a silly basis for stealing (via disproportionate taxes) from the people that aren't part of the buy-a-woman-for-jewelry club.

Hence, the gays have a point: an entitlement program was created for one group of people on a stupid basis, so excluding them from it IS discrimination. The right answer, of course, is to remove all government involvement in marraige, and all the de facto welfare swag that goes with it. Then marraige is just a matter of finding some priest/witch/whatever to do the ritual for you, and let God sort it out.

OF
February 12, 2004, 04:50 PM
I can live with that.

- Gabe

nualle
February 12, 2004, 04:50 PM
Gabe: Some religious organizations (churches, synagogues, etc.) have been doing marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples for years. No problem.

No church (etc.) that doesn't want to do them has to now, nor will ever have to. Every church retains the right to refuse to perform any ceremony it doesn't want to do. If Thus-n-such Church doesn't want to marry its female member to a male nonmember—for any or no reason—that's it's choice and its business. Same for gay marriage. Still no problem.

The problem arises with legal/civil marriage. We insist our marriages be called marriages because if they are called anything else, that amounts to reinstitutionalizing separate-but-equal into law. We've already been down that road and seen that separate is not equal. Some bigots will always use the difference to justify denying people equal legal/civil/public/secular treatment.


Edited to add: I'd be fine with the State getting out of marriage altogether. But that seems a much bigger and less likely societal change.

Malone LaVeigh
February 13, 2004, 01:05 AM
Isn't 'marriage' more of a religious term, really? If that's the case, then the government has nothing to do with it. Straight, gay, or doberman pinschers.
Republicans demanded, and got, Gengrich's resignation. You don't think we're all idiots here, do you? No, but some people are making me wonder. Gingrich's resignation had nothing to do with dumping his wife as she lay in her hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery. He fell on his sword after leading the Repugs to a disasterous defeat in the '98 midterm elections. You could look it up. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/06/gingrich/)

The thing that bothers me the most about this issue is that the voices I hear speaking out against gay marriage are voices of fear. All this talk of having to defend marriage. I think if you are secure in your own sexuality, it shouldn't bother you what anyone else does.

Thumper
February 13, 2004, 01:13 AM
Um Malone, the hyperlink to which you just referred me supports my position, not bountyhunter's. Did you even read the link?

Sources say Gingrich made the choice when he was told as many as 30 Republicans would refuse to vote for him on the floor of the House. Another close associate of Gingrich said the speaker did not want to be the center of attention and distract his party for the next two years.

Even more to refute bountyhunter's strange claim:

Though he received support from members of the caucus he spoke with by phone, Gingrich only reached 40 to 50 people, indicating that many were not returning his calls.

I appreciate the link, though :D

wingnutx
February 13, 2004, 01:50 AM
Edited to add: I'd be fine with the State getting out of marriage altogether. But that seems a much bigger and less likely societal change.

Sounds good to me.

Malone LaVeigh
February 13, 2004, 03:05 AM
Um Malone, the hyperlink to which you just referred me supports my position, not bountyhunter's. Did you even read the link? This is embarassing. Did you read what I wrote? You quoted bh:
yet all I heard was deathly silence when the champion of our morality, Newt Gingrich, admitted he had been nailing his over the desk for a while and even dumped his long time wifeTo which you replied
Republicans demanded, and got, Gengrich's resignation. I'll try spelling it out even more clearly. He resigned in November 1998. The article clearly stated, "In the face of a brewing rebellion within the Republican Party over the disappointing midterm election..."

Now here (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/01/gingrich/) is an article from September 99 about his divorce. I'll even do the math for you. That's 10 months after he was forced from office.

Now let's see you squirm out of that.

Delmar
February 13, 2004, 03:42 AM
Have spoken to a person at work and asked him why gays were asking to be included in marriage or civil union, and I thought his answer was fair-its because of tax benefits, as well as health care.
As it stands now, he cannot place his spouse on the company health plan because they are not legally married or whatever the legal definition requires. It's also more difficult for them to buy a home, vehicle or whatever. Death benefits and Social Security also come into play.
Doesn't seem that they should be denied those things from a government who is supposed to be legally blind on religous issues.

Delmar
February 13, 2004, 03:51 AM
the champion of our morality, Newt Gingrich

Bountyhunter-if the champion of your morality is ANY politician, I would suggest you look in the mirror instead. After all, the politicos and the rest of the world do not have to live with it-you do. There never was, nor will there ever be a Superman on Capitol Hill or the White House.

c_yeager
February 13, 2004, 06:30 AM
As long as people can get married by a JUDGE in a courthouse marriage is NOT a soley religious enterprise. It is a state-sanctioned program with legal implications. Religion and sactity have nothing to do with it. If the state wants to preserve the religious nature of marriage then they need to get their grubby little hands out of it first.

Nightfall
February 13, 2004, 06:56 AM
Put me in with everybody else who thinks gov't should simply stop taking part in the marriage business altogether.

Like gov't will voluntarily ever take it's nose out of anything... :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Kerry's stand on gay marriage may mirror his gun stands!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!