Do You Care If the VP Nominee AT LEAST Supports Civil Unions???

[musicblind]

I'm not asking about full gay marriage as few politicians are able to run on that, and I am not unreasonable. Though gay marriage is ultimately my main goal someday.

I am posting this because I have run into a DUer who does not believe this is an important issue and mocked the idea that gay rights had any similarities to black rights.

As a gay male, my hope is to someday grow up and be able to marry, adopt a child, and get to live the American Dream. That means the world to me. I have always longed for. I have always prayed that someday, when I am 80 years old, I can look over at the person sitting next to me on my front porch and say ... "I am so glad I spent my life wed to you."


Here is all I am asking:

Do you care if the VP nominee AT LEAST supports civil unions

or

Are you perfectly okay with a VP that wants to deny legal rights to a segment of the human population that is wrongly being denied their human rights.


All of this being said... I will STILL support Obama no matter who he chooses and I hope that no matter what you vote in this poll that you will STILL support Obama no matter who he chooses.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lisa0825]

2. Yes, I think it is an important issue.

That being said, I feel similarly about abortion rights. I think it is an important issue, but if the VP choice was a pro-life Democrat, I would deal with it. I feel MUCH more strongly about both issues regarding the presidential candidate as opposed to the VP candidate.

[musicblind]

5. Oh, like I said in my OP, I will vote for Obama nad urge everyone answering this poll

to vote for Obama NO MATTER WHO he picks. But I think that civil unions is an important quality, a human right, and that a VP choice who is at least pro civil unions should be considered a better pick that someone who is anti-civil unions.

But you are right, even if the candidate is anti-civil unions and pro-life... we need to vote for Obama no matter what. Obama is pro civil unions. He is a great candidate.

[offog]

284. I agree too.

I don't see how gay marriage "degrades" the instition of marriage. I guess it's part of the conservatives' zero-sum mentality. They're always afraid that if "others" get more rights (or resources) then "we" will lose something.
As for the so-called moral objections; conservatives tend to associate the term "gay lifestyle" with promiscuity, so if some gay and lesbian couples are in a committed enough relationship that they want to get married, don't freakin' complain!

[Motown_Johnny]

3. Yes, anyone who would deny equal rights to anyone shouldn't be on our ticket

[musicblind]

9. Thank you

hearing you say that means the world to me. The first poster that responded in this thread keeps claiming that it isn't a right, and likes to remind that the marriage is officially between a man and a woman.

[stray cat]

4. Don't most dems?

[ruggerson]

8. not Kaine

[musicblind]

11. Not Bayh

Everyone else... YES.

IN FACT, Bayh said he would support a constitutional amendment if the need came about.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Yes

It's important to me that both that at a minimum - Civil Unions are supported by the VP pick. It comes down to protecting life partners in the event of one's death. Two people work together, build a life together, invest together, etc. etc. - they did it as two. It goes to the survivor.

[Lisa0825]

15. I know we all wish everyone had the same rights right now...

I know I really do... but even though it has been a long time coming, I still find a lot of encouragement in the way things have changed just in the last 10-15 years. To see the MSM talk about Portia and Ellen's wedding without it being "scandalous"... just reporting it as news...it just really made me smile. To have so many in entertainment, politics, and everyday life out, when 10-15 years ago it would be career suicide... To have support groups on so many campuses to help young people trying to understand themselves... To have had a long-running sitcom with widespread appeal across demographics (Will & Grace), and a blockbuster movie love story about 2 cowboys... like I said, it may have been a long time coming, and we'd all (here) like it to be better than it is, but there has been a lot of progress, and as a straight person who considers herself an ally, I cheer for every step forward we make as a society.

[JustAnotherGen]

288. agree

I look at this from the perspective of being bi-racial. My parents were married at a time when Loving v. VA had JUST went down. So even though I'm hetero - I really don't see the big deal re: gay couples protection in a court of law.

Those against use the same arguments that were used 40 years ago.

That said - I do think it's lovely that people are beginning to not look twice - and just let people live and let live. :-)

[ruggerson]

7. Well so far there's at least one Kaine supporter amongst us

[Barack_America]

10. Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a dealbreaker if he or she doesn't....

Provided that he or she gets behind Obama's platform which will likely support civil unions.

[ruggerson]

12. Would you consider it a dealbreaker if it was your marriage they were gunning for?

[Barack_America]

24. We've been through this before...

And have arrived at a bit of a stalemate.

But, for the record, I have no marriage to speak of. I'm not particularly fond of "marriage" and if I had the ability to get legal protection for my partner without a "marriage", I would personally prefer this option. But I am happy to have that choice and wish that everyone did.

But, to this end, I do believe that progress in small increments will unfortunately be necessary.

[ruggerson]

27. I will vote

for the Democratic ticket if Kaine is his running mate. And will pray to the moon gods that nothing happens to Obama.

But it will be very disappointing and I imagine it would not be well received in many quarters.

[musicblind]

14. Oh I agree! It is not a dealbreaker

I said in the OP that I hope EVERYONE who votes in this poll will support the ticket no matter WHO Obama picks. I will do the same. I will not stop donating, supporting, driving friends to polls, I wont stop any of my support if it is Bayh or Kaine. I am just hoping to show a preference for a candidate that does support civil unions and have DU lift my spirits after having a new DUer tell me marriage is not a right and try and remind me that legally marriage is between a man and a woman. Fun stuff.

[LostinVA]

237. It is a dealbreaker for me

[hedgehog]

13. I don't know how to answer this. The only hope I see for civil unions

and gay marriage at all is the election of Obama. It sounds counterintuitive, but the best way to bring this about may be to ignore the issue until after the election. It's not that I'm saying we should give up the fight. I'm saying we should lie low three months and then when we've gained the ground of electing Obama, take the fight back out into the open.

[musicblind]

17. Oh voting yes does not mean you shouldn't vote for the ticket and support it with all your heart

Any ticket with Obama on top is better than McCain

We're just talking about if the issue is important to you when picking a VP.

Once we pick that VP we need to all be behind him or her.

[Diamonique]

16. I don't care.. because

... even if the VP doesn't at least support civil unions, he/she would have agreed to support Obama's position. If the person can't support the candidate's position, he/she won't be chosen. So it's a non-issue for me.

[kevinplayer]

18. Also

Vp doesnt make the bills or pass them thats congress and the potus' job you should worry must about them and the supreme court

[ruggerson]

21. You're forgetting that

the Veep can become President in an instant. It's happened, tragically, many times in our history.

[kevinplayer]

25. True

But we have checks and balances so every branch is equally important

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

74. Sometimes the VP gets the deciding vote in the Senate.

Unfortunately, Cheney has had that privilege often.

If some legislation regarding civil rights (gays or anyone else) came down to a 50-50 split (which would be ugly enough) and then failed because a supposedly "Democratic" VP voted no, that would be the end of this party.

[ruggerson]

19. 2/3rds of the country support marriage or civil unions

only 1/3 supports neither.

It is a VERY low threshold to set for a Democratic candidate on the national ticket.

[Radical Activist]

20. I don't see it being a federal issue

and I know the position of the VP won't change Obama's position. This will be decided state to state. Its more important for state representative and governor candidates, which many on DU seem to think are unimportant offices.

[musicblind]

22. Oh I agree with you that state representatives and judges are very important

I made sure to read all the endorsements and the records on gay and lesbian issues for the people running in my state before voting for a single judge or representative. You are absolutely right.

However, I also feel it is important in the oval office as well... and on the supreme court.

[Radical Activist]

35. Yeah, the SC is a big one.

Knowing Obama is great on gay rights issues I guess it would depend if I thought the VP was a real bigot or if he was someone from a red state where just favoring a non-discrimination bill for things like employment and housing is an improvement and whether he supported something like that. People like that usually change for the better.

[musicblind]

37. As I said in the OP I plan to vote for Obama no matter who he picks for VP

I plan to support him with all my heart. He is a good candidate and he is in the right.

[ruggerson]

23. A President

has to sign a repeal of the Defense of Marriage ACt, otherwise all the legally married citizens in MA and CA and elsewhere in the future, will not have any federal rights as a married couple. There are over 500 rights and privileges afforded by the federal gov't to married couples.

IT's very much a federal issue.

[Radical Activist]

29. If there were enough votes in congress to repeal DOMA

I have a very hard time seeing any Democrat vetoing that, and I know Obama supports equal rights.

[musicblind]

30. And the VP is a heartbeat away from being the president

it is important to consider his ideas as well.

[ruggerson]

32. This discussion is about the Veep, not Obama

[Radical Activist]

54. Its Obama's Veep

So Obama's position is relevant since the VP has no constitutional powers. And I'm free to take the discussion where I'd like.

[ruggerson]

126. A veep can become President in a heartbeat

would you be comfortable with a veep that was against civil rights laws?

[JerseygirlCT]

60. I consider it a civil rights issue. A basic individual rights issue

And as such, no majority vote ought to decide whether a group of people is allowed to exercise rights that are inherent in our Constitution.

So no, I disagree with it being a state's issue. It will likely proceed like that - until a case is brought to the SC, probably on the full faith and credit clause. But we don't get to allow the tyranny of the majority to deny the minority human and civil rights.

[adoraz]

26. I'm in the middle of the two options.

>Yes, I care if the VP nominee, at the very least, supports civil unions. This issue holds weight with me.

>No, I am perfectly okay with a VP who is against granting civil rights to gays.

The issue does hold weight with me, HOWEVER I would be open to a VP against civil unions only under circumstances.

For example, lets say if Obama had a much better chance winning with someone against the idea, then I would at least be open to them. That is really the only possible way I would accept them though, if they would significantly help the ticket like no other candidate could.

edit-

oh and btw, it won't happen so no need to worry.

[musicblind]

31. Then you should vote yes

because the question isn't who would you vote for if Obama picks a VP who doesn't support civil unions. I implore everyone to support Obama and the VP no matter what... It is just, is that an important factor for you while considering who should be the VP nominee.

[adoraz]

34. ah okay, I misunderstood the question then

It isn't the top factor for me, but it is an important factor in choosing the VP.

[musicblind]

38. Thanks, no problem

big DU hug :hug:

[adoraz]

45. and a DU toast

:toast:

[musicblind]

47. Right back atcha!

:toast:

[Sulawesi]

28. I am a handsome straight man for gay rights, maybe I just like the attn though :)

[musicblind]

33. Hey baby, can I buy you a drink?

just kidding. just kidding. I had to try and be funny.

And thank you so much for the support. It means the world.

[Sulawesi]

147. a drink...anytime!

[mvd]

36. Yes it would definitely be a factor in what I think

:hi:

[musicblind]

39. Thank you

Everytime I hear someone say that it means the world to me. I will fight my heart out for Obama no matter who he picks for his VP, but it does mean the world to me to see fellow DUer's back the civil rights for gays and lesbians.

It is so helpful to come here and read these responses when I live in such a small and southern town who hates me for being gay.

Again, thank you.

[mvd]

41. No problem

For me it was just common sense. :hi:

[flvegan]

40. Anyone voting "No" can just fuck off.

Yeah, just fuck off.

The VP nominee may not support it, but if you don't care, then yeah...fuck off.

[ruggerson]

42. I'm glad the mods can see who voted "no"

[Catchawave]

52. I noticed that too....civil unions are rights too.

How can anybody be against that? Especially on a Liberal board.

[musicblind]

53. Read

kevinplayer's responses in this very thread. They are very unfortunate :(

[flvegan]

59. I did, and

I hope litigation won't be his choice of profession.

[musicblind]

62. Oh wow thank you so much

:hug: :hug:

I hope not either. He has a very poor understanding of the law. :(

[kevinplayer]

63. I'm not

I'm for civil unions and if the law changes marriage

[last_texas_dem]

85. I voted no

I support gay marriage, but I believe where the VP candidate stands on civil unions is irrelevant. I don't believe that Obama is a G. W. Bush, and he will not have a "Cheney" for a VP, calling the shots in the administration. If Obama is pro-civil unions, I don't believe where his VP stands, or formerly stood, on the issue matters.

[flvegan]

91. But you care what he/she thinks, it seems, right?

That's sort of the question here.

[last_texas_dem]

102. I care to the extent that I would obviously prefer a VP candidate

who has supported/supports civil unions and/or gay marriage. However, I don't consider a VP's feelings on the matter particularly relevant, b/c it will be necessary for the VP to support the policies of an Obama administration regardless of his or her personal opinions.

[musicblind]

103. But what if the VP became president?

Unlikely, but it could happen :shrug:

We just really hope not.

[alwysdrunk]

255. I voted no as well

For the exact same reasons as above. No VP other than Cheney has been the one to set policy. Obama does. And basically it is the position of the Dem party as a whole. Civil unions will sureley come at some point during an Obama administration, and Gay marriage a few years after that. If someone digs up some anti-civil unions quote by the VP, it will not matter one hitch when the time comes.

[LostinVA]

239. It's also against DU rules to be against same sex marriage rights

SKINNER himself said so YEARS ago. Anyone who voted "no" REALLY needs to rethink being on here.

I am tired of being thrown under the bus "just to win." Yeah, that really helped in 200 and 2004, huh? It's very eay to be cavalier with someone else's rights.

To Hell with anyone who voted "no."

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

43. Wow.... we have 5 homophobes here already?

No civil unions, even?? REALLY? :wtf:

[musicblind]

48. Yes apparently

read some of kevinplayers responses in this thread ...

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

51. True, but that only explains one bigoted vote.

Who are the other chickenshit cowards?

[musicblind]

58. I don't know but if they are going to vote that way

I wish they would at least have the guts to defend it.

I also wish a few more of the people who voted yes would help in calling out kevinplayer :)

:hug:

[Naturyl]

65. I didn't vote.

I have no problem with gay marriage or civil unions, but it isn't a high priority for me. I am poor and economic issues are my primary concern. For that reason, I am not greatly concerned about a potential VP's stand on this issue. Ideally, they would have no problem with such unions, but it isn't a make-or-break issue for me - just like the candidates' views on poverty probably aren't crucial to some of you.

Would this make me a "homophobe?" Sadly, I suspect that for some, it just might.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

82. Well, let me put it this way....

How many homophobes do you know who care about economic justice?

Odds are that the pro civil rights candidates are going to be the same ones who will also be concerned with the true economic conditions of this country. Dennis Kucinich (since you're a fan of his) would be a prime example, and a big reason for that is he knows what it's like to be poor.

Evan Bayh, on the other hand. DLC corporatist AND advocate of a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Once again, your position on justice for some is a pretty good indication of how you feel about justice for all.

[Naturyl]

87. I'm no fan of Bayh. He's Repuke-lite.

As to your point, it's a fair one and I'll consider it.

[LostinVA]

235. "it isn't a high priority for me"

Civil rights should be THE issue, then the economy, Iraq, etc. Beacuse without civil rights, what little we do have can be taken away with a snap of the fingers. Look at the Third Reich. It really is that easy.

[Bluenorthwest]

263. Consider this

Equal rights for all is in fact an economic issue. It sure is in my house, where we'd be much better off most years if just the tax law were equal. And we'd both have health insurance instead of just one of us. And I'd know that if I dropped dead this afternoon, the person I've spent decades with would get my hard earned benefits, just like real people.
So if you care about economic issues as a principle, and not just about your own, consider that the number one cause of seperation and divorce among the heterosexual married in this country is money problems. Look it up.
I think you are far from a homophobe. But I don't think you have thought the issues through very well, nor considered the fact that economic issues are shared by GLBT people. Consider that in much of this country, a person can be fired for being gay. Is that economic enough for you?

[Labors of Hercules]

44. I have only one thing to say to anyone who voted no in this poll:

kiss my organic, granola eating, gay loving ASS.

[musicblind]

49. Thank you

I love your environmentalist sig picture!

It's hella pretty :)

[donco6]

46. It would be hurtful, but then, . . . .

. . . sometimes I thank the gods that people don't drag me out of my house and burn me at the stake.

I just see things as on a teetering brink most of the time - like it would just take one pivotal incident, or one really good piece of propaganda to move the entire right wing into violent action against me and the folk. It just feels like there's this seething hatred right below the surface all the time - even from my siblings who forward RW crap to me all the time, like they don't know I'm gay and that the people they support are disgusted by me and my kind. We're "tolerated" . . . but that tolerance only goes so far you know.

So if the VP didn't support gay unions, I'd live with it like I always have. I'd live with it like I lived with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - the big Clinton backpedal that spelled doom for many valuable gays in the military. I'd live with it like the typical Dem who equivocates with "Well, marriage is between a man and a woman, but . . . " It's just the milieu I live in.

[musicblind]

50. I'm sorry to hear your relatives have treated you that way

that would piss me off so much.

What kind of emails are they sending? Ugh.

:hug: to cheer you up.

[donco6]

61. Thanks! Just got one yesterday . . .

. . . about Obama getting all his money from China or some such nonsense. Sent them the Snopes debunk. As I always do. They sent another one about the response of Greenville . . . Greensburg? Kansas after the tornado compared with New Orleans after the hurricane. Some others.

I do have one older sister who still has all her faculties. The rest are hopeless. We often commiserate! Ha!

Thanks for the hug!

[musicblind]

66. Ugh? sending that crap?

Can you explain to me why people think if they get it in an email it has so much more intellectual weight than if they hear it out of their dumb friend's mouth?

I have never understood that?

[AtomicKitten]

55. I think civil unions should absolutely be part of the party platform.

It matters.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. This issue is hugely important to me. I'm reluctantly accepting

of an incremental approach - as you say, it might be the best we can get now. But it's not right. It's just not right to deny people such a basic human right.

And this comes from someone with no personal interest in this fight: hetero, married, mother of two... But along with a woman's right to make her own medical decisions concerning her own body (another one of those things a few people here think ought not to matter) and civil rights in general, this is a very, very important issue to me.

The way I see it, if anyone's civil rights are denied or endangered, all of our civil rights are denied or endangered. There's nothing, nothing more important or more basic than that.

And I very much hope you have the opportunity to marry someone you love and have that family!

[musicblind]

71. Sadly if you read over

kevinplayer's comments he refuses to admit that gays have the right to get married if straight people are afforded marriage by law.

It is unfortunate. We keep wiping his butt with information while he can provide nothing worth while.

:(

[JerseygirlCT]

247. Yeah, I read his first post and figured it was a lost cause.

Very sad.

[TheDonkey]

57. what VP does not support civil unions? I think that is a BIG issue

I'm not one to shriek about marriage rights because if CUs are given the 100% FULL RIGHTS I will not bicker about semantics. But CUs are important.

[ruggerson]

69. Kaine

[musicblind]

73. Bayh

Even said he would support the constitutional amendment if need be :(

[TheDonkey]

223. Yea, that definitely changes my opinion about him near the ticket. What is Biden's view?

[musicblind]

224. To the best of my understanding Biden has the same views as Obama

and supports civil unions. Out of those three I would def. go with Biden.

Here is more info on Biden's stance for gay rights:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Joe_Biden_Civil_Rights.htm


Edit: And thank you so much for taking gay rights into such serious consideration for this election :hug:

[muffin1]

64. I can't believe we are still debating this issue in 2008.

Musicblind, I hope with all my heart that soon you WILL have equal rights in every aspect of your life. I cannot believe that this kind of discrimination is still going on today. You should have the same opportunities in marriage, adoption, employment, housing, etc. as anyone else.
I only wish Obama could come out (no pun intended) for gay marriage. I know he can't for obvious reasons - I just hope one day soon we will be much more enlightened in this country.
:hug:

[musicblind]

77. Thank you so much. And that is one thing I like about Obama

I know deep down he supports gay marriage and just can't say it out loud.

I means a lot for me to hear that. I live in a small southern town and get so much hate for what I am. Both of my parents voted for Bush and are voting for McCain. I love them and they love me but it hurts that they would vote against their own son's rights.

Just look at kevinplayer's responses throughout this post to see how twisted the thinking of the right wing can be :(

[muffin1]

83. Sadly, I saw all of his responses.

He is a total tool. I know those comments hurt, but just know that every day more and more people are opening their eyes. It is up to us to make sure to fight this blatant discrimination every time we are presented with an opportunity. We can't let homophobic comments or "jokes" go by unchallenged. I wish you the best!

[musicblind]

84. Thank you so much!

Hearing you say that helps me, and it is something I can remind myself of everyday in my life.

I don't think people will ever know how much hearing words of comfort like that help those who need to hear them!

:)

:hug:

[kristyt]

67. Bother Obama about this business after he's elected

Championing gay rights is going to win him like a dozen votes nation wide. He already has the gay vote and it's radioactive politically with the much larger group of independents he's courting.

I understand people have their issues they push and me saying it makes bad politics isn't changing you. But for everyone else, think strategically. Obama is pro civil unions, don't upset the apple cart.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

76. GO TO THE BACK OF THE BUS AND SHUT UP! n/t

We don't like you gays around these parts.

If you sit down and shut up, we'll put up with you.

[musicblind]

78. I'm not asking him to run on it

just that I would prefer he pick a VP who approved of it.

[Bluebear]

287. Oh dear, now I'll never have the chance to debate this with you, "kristy"

:hi: later, troll111!

[IndianaJones]

68. they should be patient and wait longer. nt.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

75. You have alot of nerve. n/t

[ruggerson]

80. he's on our side

[jesus_of_suburbia]

70. Anyone who votes against Civil Unions should be Tombstoned.

The mods should really look at the people who voted that they wouldn't care if the candidate didn't agree with Civil Unions.

[last_texas_dem]

90. Would having a VP candidate who had not supported civil unions

change the stance of Obama or his administration regarding them?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

72. There are 6 homophobes on this board so far. Please go to FreeRepublic

Leave us alone.

[kevinplayer]

81. I'm not homophobic

I believe in civil unions and when the law is changed marriage but i dont care about the Vp as much as Congress and the President and the supreme court

[Lisa0825]

86. Your horrid grammar makes my head hurt.... to the ignore list with you, troll! nt

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[IndianaJones]

92. you mean Joe Momma, playa'? nt.

[kevinplayer]

95. No

And dont call me player unless your black i find it degrading if a white person does it

[IndianaJones]

96. well, i'm not white and i thought maybe you were mistaking the poster for your mom. nt.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

97. Don't hate the playa, hate the....

....ah fuck it. In this case, hate the playa too.

[muffin1]

98. Does your mommy know

you're (with an apostrophe) playing with the computer? How about some punctuation? God, you are one stupid ass.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[muffin1]

101. I know all I need to know from your posts.

By the way, your grammar still sucks. Go away, little boy.

[kevinplayer]

104. Ok

then tell what you know about me Lets see im pro gay rights im studying to be a lawyer and im black also i dont check my grammar when posting on a website oh no

[muffin1]

108. Good luck with that. In fact, I hope

you will be part of the Bush/Cheney defense team.

[Rabrrrrrr]

273. I know you're tombstoned, asslick, but I have to say: real lawyers care about language.

Unless you're studying at a tech college or one of the many shithole "law schools", I don't think you're studying to be a lawyer.

Real lawyers care about language and communication. You don't.

[musicblind]

106. I find it degrading to be told gay marriage isn't a right n/t

[kevinplayer]

109. Well

No marriage is a right get over it

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

94. Hey, you finally capitalized a word.

Too bad it will be the one that speeds up your pizza delivery. Misogny is frowned upon here as much as homophobia, Cleetus.

[kevinplayer]

100. Show me

one time where I'm homophobic beside trying to explain the law to your dumbass

[IndianaJones]

105. its very distressing when I find a racial minority that is bigoted in this manner. Sad. nt.

[musicblind]

110. I know he claims that gay rights and black rights are NOTHING alike

:rofl:

[IndianaJones]

112. there is really no excuse for it other than stupidity, given the history in this country. nt.

[kevinplayer]

113. I'm not homophobic

Just because i say no marriage is aright now im a homophobe i find it distressing that a minority is ignorant and doesnt know the law

[musicblind]

115. minority? so far you have only one person who feels the way as you.

In fact gay rights has its own section on the human rights page of wiki. So PLENTY seem to agree with us.

[kevinplayer]

119. I never said gays

shouldnt be allowed to marry i just said marriage wasnt a right

[musicblind]

124. Seeing as marriage is a right and we have all demonstrated as such

your continued denial of this comes off as bigotted.

And your claim that you will not support gay marriage until it is a law is also disturbing.

[kevinplayer]

129. Marriage

is not a right and the legal term its between a man and a women also i support civil unions you dumbass tell me you can get married and it will be up held by the state you cant and I DONT THINK THATS RIGHT but if its a right then you should be allowed to because its not then you cant

[musicblind]

130. But seeing as rights have absolutely nothing to do with laws

as in NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH LAWS... how does it being a law or not pertain to it being a right? geesh.

[IndianaJones]

117. i know when someone is being denied their civil rights, playa'. nt.

[kevinplayer]

118. Then

You would know playa that marriage is not ac ivil right

[musicblind]

122. Yet again you have failed

passing your opinion as fact.

[IndianaJones]

123. didn't you get schooled on equal protection above, OG? nt.

[kevinplayer]

125. Ok pimpin

Equal protection is for rights marriage isnt a right

[musicblind]

127. Equal protection is to make sure everyone is equal

when someone is not equal (ie. marriage) that issue becomes their RIGHT. Hence marriage is a right.

For example. If straights can get married but gays can't then it becomes their RIGHT to get married as long as they abide by the same rules as straights. If blacks couldn't drive but whites could it would be thier RIGHT to drive as long as they were 16 and able.

You have been shown this, yet you ignore it.

[kevinplayer]

131. ok

but gays cant get married reconized by the state if there is equal protection for this so called right then it would be illegal to denied them that right because its not illegal then its not a right

[musicblind]

136. Yes it is a right because laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with what is and is not a right

therefore your arguements fail.

It's like saying icecream doesn't taste good because the sun isn't up! Sun and icecream go together but icecreams taste has no dependence on the sun for its creamy existance!

Rights are not given to us by laws. Rights have nothing to do with laws.

That is why all of your arguements fail.

BECAUSE RIGHTS ARE NOT SET OUT BY LAWS!

[kevinplayer]

138. If we

Are talking about morals then thats a different stories and rights arent set by laws but laws are set by rights and so they do have to do with the law

[IndianaJones]

142. so you believe interracial marriage can be outlawed? nt.

[IndianaJones]

128. bwahaha...which law school was that?...equal protection of the laws, triple OG. nt.

[ruggerson]

134. Justice Kennedy and five other SC Justices disagree with you

read the majority opinion in Lawrence V Texas and get back to us.

Private sexual relations is not an enumerated right in the constitution either.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

132. We interrupt this homophobic rant for a musical interlude....

I want to be the minority
I don't need your authority
Down with the moral majority
'Cause I want to be the minority

I pledge allegiance to the underworld
One nation under dog
There of which I stand alone
A face in the crowd
Unsung, against the mold
Without a doubt
Singled out
The only way I know

I want to be the minority
I don't need your authority
Down with the moral majority
'Cause I want to be the minority

Stepped out of the line
Like a sheep runs from the herd
Marching out of time
To my own beat now
The only way I know

One light, one mind
Flashing in the dark
Blinded by the silence of a thousand broken hearts
"For crying out loud" she screamed unto me
A free for all
Fuck 'em all
You are your own sight

I want to be the minority
I don't need your authority
Down with the moral majority
'Cause I want to be the minority

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-4YGEnHpP8

(As fate would have it, I was looking for the original Green Day video, but I found this one totally by accident, and found it far more appropriate for this thread. And I think the band would agree...)

[kevinplayer]

133. Funny

So you failed to prove im homophobic nice but i can prove your a racists so what have blacks done to make you so angery

[IndianaJones]

140. so, playa, do you believe laws preventing interracial marriage were a violation of civil rights? nt.

[kevinplayer]

143. No

because marriage is not a right

[IndianaJones]

144. thank god the supreme court disagreed and struck down such laws as unconstitutional...

and thank god minorities like you were not leaders in the American civil rights movement.

[kevinplayer]

146. Ok

then how come gays cant get married then

[IndianaJones]

148. same reason blacks had to wait so long for their civil rights....bigots such as yourself. nt.

[kevinplayer]

154. Excuse

me listen here uncle tom jones I support gay rights so i guess im not a bigot

[IndianaJones]

158. what gay rights are you talking about? the right to vote? nt.

[kevinplayer]

166. No

the right to civil unions and eventually marriage uncle

[IndianaJones]

170. so gays are being denied their civil rights...glad to see you caught on OG. nt.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

160. Uncle Tom JONES??

Well, that's ...... unusual.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfaNCRAFuek

[musicblind]

149. Exactly! The supreme court SAID it was unconstitutional and so now it IS

constitutionally protected as a right. Ta-da!

[IndianaJones]

151. from Loving v Virginia...

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence"

[musicblind]

153. Then it is law that marriage is a right and is actually a written law!

yay! We finally won and I can finally go to bed. I'm the east cost and it's 1 am over here lol.

[kevinplayer]

157. Sorry

So close that only applies in Virginia not the U.S. as a whole if its a right then gays cant be denied it but because they are it not a right

[IndianaJones]

161. yeah, and Brown v Board of Education is only applicable in Topeka. nt.

[musicblind]

162. But the supreme court ruling still stands no matter what state brings it forwards

all they have to do is say... we already ruled on this and here it is.

NOT TO MENTION

That laws do not determine what is and is not a right.

[kevinplayer]

169. You keep saying that

Then how come gays cant get married if its their rights

[IndianaJones]

175. is that an honest question? nt.

[musicblind]

177. Because laws don't provide rights.

laws having nothing to do with rights. Interracial marriage was a right in VA long before the supreme court agreed that it was.

LAWS DO NOT MAKE RIGHTS. RIGHTS ARE THERE FIRST THEN LAWS MAY OR MAY NOT COME ALONG AND BACK THEM UP.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

164. That was a US SUPREME COURT case, Cletus

And you fucking call yourself a LAW STUDENT??? :rofl:

[kevinplayer]

168. U need to stop

calling me Cletus is like calling me a nigger and it degrades me i dont call you names so you should so some respect and self respect and stop

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

173. "calling me Cletus is like calling me a ni**er"

You gotta be fucking kidding me, Cletus. :wtf:

[elshiva]

191. EPIC FAIL

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

141. You can prove I'm a racist? Oh this should be good......

Lay it on me Cletus. How have I been "racist" :rofl:

[kevinplayer]

145. Ok pimpin

Let me quote what you posted
"Honest your honor, I was just helping them black folks light up their dark yard at night.I didn't mean nothin' threatening by burning that cross on their front lawn"
thats funny

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

155. Are you so dumb that you think that was an actual declaration of racism?

That was an example of how BIGOTS (like yourself) try to weasel out of their bigotry when they are called on it. What's the difference between a Klansman and a homophobe? Nothing, other than a sheet over one's head.

[musicblind]

156. Oh yeah, disapproving of people burning crosses in yards is REAL racist.

All he did was point out how you were trying to rationalize your bigotry by showing you an example of another bigot trying to rationalize their bigotry. His statement is in no way racist as it is not prejudice against any race.

And before you call me racist. I have worked for the creation (including cutting off all of my HAIR!... which if you check out my myspace you will see is my signature thing!) of the civil rights museum to commemorate the black civil rights movement in Greensboro. I have written songs about African American rights and have have two boyfriends who were African American.

[kevinplayer]

159. I'm a bigot

Because i said the law says gays cant get married well i was just trying to point out what the law states so everytime i said i support gay right i was a bigot nice

[IndianaJones]

165. the first true statement you have made, playa'. nt.

[ghostsofgiants]

279. Bahahaha...

Okay, even if you are in some way NOT a homophobe (not likely), you're definitely a complete moron.

[musicblind]

137. Green Day ROCKS! I've been to see them in concert!

:)

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

107. Oh, that's right. You're the Regent University "law student". I keep forgetting.

Just think. One day, Marion and Willard will hand you that diploma.... which is about as useful as a union organizer at Wal Mart.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

93. Now we're up to 8 homophobic cowards

Come on you Phelps loving pussies!!* Show yourselves! :grr:





















*No offense meant to Michael Phelps, cats, or female genitalia.

[highplainsdem]

79. Anyone who voted No in this poll is in the wrong forum. Musicblind, I'm so sorry you were mocked by

the DUer you referred to in the OP.

[musicblind]

111. Sadly he is in this one now too

kevinplayer is his name :(

[Occam Bandage]

89. I care. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it's one of my top five.

[musicblind]

116. Thank you

:hug:

[MrSlayer]

114. Yes, I care about equal rights for all.

If you aren't at least for civil unions then you are not for equal rights under the law and therefore are an unworthy ass.

[kevinplayer]

121. You are correct

And gays should be allowed civil unions and when the law is changed marriage

[AZBlue]

120. Other: I think all this speculation is a waste of time and prefer to act to get Obama elected.

[kevinplayer]

135. And thats

What we need

[JeffR]

139. At the bare minimum - MINIMUM - any Democrat who doesn't support at least

civil unions, is not a Democrat as far as I'm concerned.

[csziggy]

150. Here is what I don't get - and I am FOR full rights for everyone

1. The whole "marriage" is for one man and one woman is framed as a religious argument

2. The right to perform marriages is conveyed by the State, but generally in this country performed by a religious authority.

3. "Civil unions" are proposed as an alternative to "marriage" perhaps with equal rights conveyed in both

4. The US Constitution prohibits restriction of religion by the State

5. But some religions do not restrict "marriage" to a man and a woman - some allow same sex marriage but are prohibited by the State.

"State" is meant as a government authority, whether county, state or federal.


2 & 3 are actually tangental to this - they are just the way it is in our country right now. But IMO since 4 & 5 are true, the State cannot constitutionally prohibit marriage between two people. No doubt there is some precedent, probably set during the efforts to prohibit Mormon polygamy, that could be used to fight this, but I simply do not understand why religion is used to prohibit the love of two people while allowing such hatred of others. :eyes:

By the way, since my husband and I were not married by a religious authority, I consider our union of 31 years to be a civil union. Just because we are a mixed sex couple does not change this in my mind. We chose not to have religious validation of our love and decision to spend our lives together. Most people still call us "married" since we are mixed sex - though there are some fundie religious wack job relatives who think we're living in sin. :shrug:


musicblind,
I hope under a sane and intelligent president we can get this entire country back to its senses and that you will soon be able to live a life of love with whoever you choose. :hug:

[musicblind]

193. Aw, thank you :)

:hug:

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[kevinplayer]

163. Thank you

I would like to add I'm pro gay right and pro civil unions and when the laws allowed pro gay marriage even blacks couldnt marry whites until the law was changed

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

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

[IndianaJones]

181. is driving a car a right? nt.

[Chloroplast]

187. You know very well you can be denied the right to operate a motor vehcle.

Just ask anyone that has had their drivers' license suspended. Driving is a privilege; if you drive drunk or even amass unpaid parking tickets, you can have that privilege revoked. But, I'm sure you already know that and are trying to be slick.

[IndianaJones]

188. so you feel a law can be made by a state to restrict blacks from operating a vehicle, correct? nt.

[Chloroplast]

197. LOL!

You can't restrict Blacks (or any other race) from driving as long as they follow that states' driving laws. If a Black driver is caught driving under the influence, then of course their driving rights could be restricted. But that goes for any and every driver.

[IndianaJones]

199. but if a state made a law doing so, you would be ok with it, since driving is not a right. nt.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

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

[IndianaJones]

206. you feel that states can place restrictions on privileges such as driving.

you have argued that states can place restriction on marriage because it is not a right...so they should be able to bar interracial marriage as well. this is your belief.

[Iggo]

182. Wow. Black folks against civil rights.

No matter how many times I see it, it always amazes me!

[IndianaJones]

185. amen. nt.

[Occam Bandage]

251. It's pretty common.

Black folk can be as selfish, bigoted, and "I-got-mine-fuck-you" as white folk.

[Iggo]

256. Oh, I understand that. People are people.

I've just got some mental block where it always catches me by surprise.

[ruggerson]

167. Jesus f**** Christ read the OP, it's about CIVIL UNIONS

learn to read before you spout your bullshit.

[Chloroplast]

171. I read it, thanks.

Just because you don't agree doesn't make anything I type 'bullshit'. But thanks for showing that you're irrational and rude straight across the board.

[ruggerson]

176. IF I'm rude

it's because I'm frustrated by stupidity.

If you don't understand the rudimentary difference between the issues of same sex marriage and civil unions, then you should really educate yourself before you inject yourself into a discussion about it.

The OP writes about support for *CIVIL UNIONS* as being the lowest bar one should set for a Democratic candidate. Not marriage. This discussion is not about marriage. IT's about whether people should not demand that at the very least, a progressive ticket should be in favor of what is tantamount to a Jim Crow system of second class citizenship. At the VERY least.

The fact that you a) did not understand the OP and b) voted no without attempting to educate yourself does not speak well of either your values or your judgement.

[IndianaJones]

178. as soon as they start talking about incest, you pretty much know what you're dealing with nt.

[Chloroplast]

194. What are you implying?

If someone wanted to marry their first cousin, there are states that would deny them a marriage license. Don't you think that people should be allowed to marry anyone that they want as long as it's love?

[IndianaJones]

195. no, I don't feel that way. do you feel that interracial couples should be denied marriage...

along with gays?

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

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

[IndianaJones]

203. by illegal do you mean unconstitutional? you disagree with that though...

since marriage is not a right, states should be able to place any restrictions they want on them. this is your belief.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

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

[IndianaJones]

210. lets take turns...first directly answer the question:

should states be able to restrict interracial marriage, why or why not.

answer that one, finally, and I'll let you know on the first cousins.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

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

[ruggerson]

To you it's just as important

but without any basic understanding of the issue at hand, to anyone else it's not very valuable.

Btw, what would you think of a Veep who opposed interracial marriage?

[IndianaJones]

186. at least you are consistent in thinking interracial marriage should be decided by the states. nt.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[IndianaJones]

192. but you at least feel that such restrictions as race tests would be ok for states to pass.

at least you are consistent in these beliefs.

[ruggerson]

202. You didn't answer my question from above

what would you think of a Veep who supported recriminalizing interracial marriages?

[IndianaJones]

211. talk about dancing a jig around a question. nt.

[Chloroplast]

213. A VP against interracial marriage running with an interracial man?

:rofl: Are you serious? I shouldn't have to tell you how ludicrous that would be.

[ruggerson]

252. Since Indy and I both asked you a direct question

and you refused to answer repeatedly - the only conclusion I can take away from this is that you are a complete hypocrite.

[Chloroplast]

258. I answered the question and you didn't like the answer.

You're just pouting like a child but that's ok; I respect your right (you know, your freedom to think whatever you like not to be confused with a privilege that can be denied by a state) to wail and tug at your hair when someone doesn't follow in lock step. Yay.

[ruggerson]

286. No you didn't. You responded with a question of your own

because you were cornered. Let's be clear: you wouldn't be fine with a Veep that wants to recriminalize interracial marriage, but you're ok with one who is in favor of keeping same sex marriage illegal. Difference between you and us is that you have a double standard.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

198. Well, perhaps we should reframe the question then...

(Apologies to Musicblind. This reframe is mine and mine alone, though I suspect most will agree with it....)

Should the next VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES say to the gay and lesbian citizens of the USA, "Fuck you, your civil rights don't matter to me. But vote Democrat anyway."

Because THAT is what this really comes down to.

Deciding the issue state by state? Great. It's working that way. Some states are obviously more able and willing than others. Eventually it WILL be decided nationally by the US Supreme Court, but having the battle won in as many states as possible before then, only makes the case stronger.

But that's not the question. The question is, should we tolerate a man or woman one heartbeat away from the Presidency who actively OPPOSES equality? And some whom the media have named as possible Obama VP's are just that. Evan Bayh, a snivelling little DLC shitwad, was a supporter of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage in 2004. Reportedly Tim Kaine is opposed to equality as well. Sam Nunn has been mentioned, though I doubt he was ever seriously considered. But he's the one who told Bill Clinton to extend homophobic discrimination in the military, so there's not much doubt where he would stand on that one.

Should a homophobe be Vice President? I don't see any legitimate way to answer "yes" to that question.

[OmahaBlueDog]

214. A sidebar question

<<Eventually it WILL be decided nationally by the US Supreme Court, but having the battle won in as many states as possible before then, only makes the case stronger.>>

Are you assuming the SCOTUS will rule in favor of same sex marriage? Even if Obama is elected, at least 2-3 SCJ appointments would be needed to get to that point. OTOH, if McSame is elected, this issue, abortion, and many others will likely be remanded to the states to the states.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

221. I'm assuming that if half the states have already fought this battle, and the good side won

Then it's going to be hard for a Supreme Court (even the current one) to justify ruling against half the country.

Of course they did exactly THAT in Bush v Gore, but at least they could SAY that was just one state.

Obviously though, if Obama gets to appoint 2 or 3 judges before this happens, it certainly wouldn't hurt.

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

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

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

222. Personally, I could care less whether they jack off to a poster of Fred Phelps on their own time.

As long as they support equal rights under the law for everyone.

(Though admittedly, I'd be less inclined to vote for someone who felt that way about Fred :scared: )

[musicblind]

225. Ew I just... ew the thought of Fred Phelps like that made me shudder n/t

[Chloroplast]

226. Fred Phelps is just a nasty excuse for a human being.

Disagreeing is one thing but some of the things that he says are beyond the pale.

[musicblind]

183. you obviously misunderstood the poll n/t

[Chloroplast]

196. I got the poll and also noticed it was stacked to have anyone voting 'no' labeled a bigot.

As I also said, I read the entire thread before posting. I should have addressed the OP before reading the thread but that was my mistake.

[musicblind]

200. The question was simply does the idea of Civil Unions hold weight for you

in selecting our VP nominee. Especially when we have multiple nominees that would be just as good a choice as any other.

If it does not hold weight with you and you are fine with a VP choice that does not consider civil rights that important then you can interpret what that makes you all on your own.

I personally do not think you are a bigot, and I have not called you as such.

Though I do think you are a little misguided in your thinking.

I do however think that Kevinplayer was a bigot, and alas he is no longer with us. As for the others that have disagreed with me on this thread. So far, no I do not think any of them are bigots. The milo guy who argued about marriage not being a right was not a bigot, he was just hung up on his law books, but that is fine, I get up hung up on things as well.

You are right by saying that merely disagreeing does not always make you a homophobe.

It does, in my opinion, make you incorrect.

But you could think the same thing about me if you wanted.

I hope that civil unions, however, is high on your personal list of priorities.

[LostinVA]

236. Then you shouldn't be posting on DU: Skinner himself has put in writing that

DU and its members are expected to support equal same sex marriage rights. I'm very tired of people throwing MY advancement in rights under the bus. It got us nowhere in 2000 and 2004.

[FloridaJudy]

189. Personally, I think the state needs to get out of the "marriage" business

And recognize "civil unions". Period. Between any two adults over the age of consent who don't have another commitment. Give them all the legal rights married couples now enjoy: insurance, visitation in hospitals, power of attorney, what have you. If the two decide to have a religious ceremony and get "married", fine. If they don't, fine. That should satisfy the people who are worried that their churches will be "forced" to marry gays. Well, actually it probably won't - that sort are never going to be happy until everyone else is exactly like them - but it will help eliminate any legal arguments.

Right now in Florida we have the opposite problem. Many of my local churches will happily join same-sex couples, but the state refuses to recognize the union.

[Chan790]

208. This is my ideal solution as well. n/m

[OmahaBlueDog]

209. I don't know if it's still this way, but that's how marriage worked in Mexico

A couple got married at city hall/ the justice of the peace in a civil ceremony. Then, they got married by the church.

I have found that deeply religious folk are really bent out of shape by the notion that marriage has a secular and a spiritual component. A good friend of mine (and a Baptist) and I almost came to blows 25 years ago (long before same sex marriage was a mainstream issue) over what marriage meant. I contended that it was a means of guaranteeing inheritance and property rights; he was really, deeply offended by this.

[csziggy]

266. Yep - and stop giving people the right to marry couples just because they are ministers

Or some other religious figure. Since a Justice of the Peace or a Notary Public can perform a legal ceremony in most states (if not all), make any religious figure meet those requirements and call the secular act a civil union for everybody.

Then for those who wish, a religious ceremony can be performed, possibly at the same time, by the desired religious authority. But absolutely no legal implication or recognition by the state for the religious ceremony unless the secular requirement is also met.

In other words, separate the legal and religious parts of interpersonal commitments.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

204. Rest in Peace, Cletus

[musicblind]

216. Yep, I'm not surprised

Glad he donated first though, before being booted!

[monomach]

212. We should demand three things of a VP nominee

In no particular order:

a) Commitment to protect Roe Vs Wade
b) Commitment to scientific research with the goal of eliminating the need for fossil fuels
c) Commitment to support same-sex civil unions with rights equal to those of a heterosexual marriage (or full-blown support for gay marriage, of course).

[OmahaBlueDog]

215. Hmmmmm

I'd have put a commitment to meaningful national healthcare above all of those, but perhaps that's just me.

[musicblind]

219. Oh that's a good one too!

[musicblind]

218. Thank you, I agree with all of those

Though I might also add a commitment to scientific research regaurding stem cells as well.

but I'll be happy with just your list! :hug:

[snooper2]

269. Um, how about a commitment to -

not invading other fucking countries that don't attack us?

I would think that would be at the top of the list...

[musicblind]

220. WOW. I cannot believe this poll got 400 posts!

So glad to see the energy for gay rights on DU! This really makes me feel a lot stronger about this wonderful community! :hug:


and thank you guys

[TheKentuckian]

227. I don't think marriage is a right

and am questionable on it's Constitutionality. I do not think social arrangement should be a consideration for different treatment under the law.

I don't see how this status can exist as is in a society that espouses equality. The whole thing should be scrapped in a legal sense and replaced wholesale with civil unions. Civil unions that can exist between ANY agreeable people that are of sound mind and legal age, for the purposes of benefits like POA, next of kin, insurance, and whatever. No special tax benefits or penalties.

Marriage to my mind is in effect, a spiritual relationship, a church can establish whatever rules it decides for marriage but the state would respect them as civil unions. If anyone of different beliefs wishes to marry than can have whatever ceremony the suits them and then (or prior to) engage in a civil union.

Instead of seeking access to special rights people should focus on inclusive equality. I respect the concept of marriage but it's legal status is legislation of morality and social engineering. Bullshit I sez.

[csziggy]

268. I fully agree!

Let's completely separate the legal and religious aspects and give the legal right to have a commitment between two people who love each other to everyone.

[ZombieHorde]

228. Rights and laws are just concepts and don't really exist.

The results of such beliefs are real, but the only real power the government has is violence and the threat of violence. The rest is just smoke and mirrors. There is no such thing as authority.

For some people, rights and authority may be emotions, and therefor real in that context.

I have a feeling that this post will be taken the wrong way by some. I have a strong desire for gays and straights to be treated equally.

my hope is to someday grow up and be able to marry, adopt a child, and get to live the American Dream

I hope that you do too.

[polichick]

229. I support "full gay marriage" 100% - wish it wasn't political suicide for Obama to say that...

But with the race this close the veep has to help him win ~ otherwise we'll be taking several steps back on this issue and many others.

[dkf]

230. I don't get why civil unions as legal relationships should be limited to sexual couples.

I think anybody that lives together and relies on the other for shelter, money and health insurance should be eligible.

What does a sexual type relationship have to do with it?

My bachelor uncle and unmarried aunty have lived together for more years than most married couples, yet when his assets move to her, they can't escape estate tax.

Neither does his health insurance cover her, nor hers cover him.

Yet they are dependent on each other as any other couple.

Anyway, I bet over time a whole lot of relationships are platonic.

[vaberella]

231. I can't believe I've reached this point where I would accept a concession.

I strongly believe that anyone has the right to marriage if you can afford to put yourself through that union. If you love your mate and you want to be with them it's not something that is bestowed on the worthy it's bestowed on those who can fully enter into that bond.


I'll support Obama, if he has a VP that supports civil unions at least because I know that McCain himself and his running mate will not and have the nerve to claim who has a right to what. <------ I can't abide that more than the concession on the issue.

[terrya]

232. I certainly do care.

We all know, of course, that civil unions aren't full equality. But, pragmatically, something is better than nothing. And realistically, politically we're not there yet on same-sex marriage. We'd have to repeal DOMA first.

Barack Obama is for civil unions. I hope that the VP choice supports civil unions as well.

[LostinVA]

233. Yes -- gay and women's rights are a deal breaker for me

I have to compromise on one person on the ticker with the former, I am NOT compromising on both names on the ticket.

[LostinVA]

234. You know, supporting same sex marriage rights is a REQUIREMENT to be a member of DU

Skinner himself stated it publicly years ago.

People who voted "no" need to really examine both themselves and Democratic candidates who don't support EQUAL gay rights -- including marriage rights. Just like choice, there really is no wiggle room here. I'm ashamed that the DNC platform this year is so "screw you" on both GLBT and women's rights. We're going backward.

[dkf]

238. Are you serious? We have a litmus test?

[LostinVA]

240. Yes, I am serious -- there is a "litmus test" on many issues, you know

[dkf]

242. Gee I thought as long as you were a respectful Democrat you could believe whatever you wanted.

[LostinVA]

244. You can believe anuything you want, you can't post anything you want

[dkf]

246. Well isn't a litmus test a "you must believe in order to belong".

Don't get me wrong. I'm cool with gay rights and civil rights, but I HATE being told I need to think a certain way. Isn't THAT more of an offense to civil rights?

[Marrah_G]

241. I would have a very very difficult time voting if they didn't support at least that

As it is, I think it sucks that our candidate (and the former candidates) doesn't fully support gay marriage.

[cboy4]

243. Let's hope the 20 idiots who voted no are freeper trolls.

:puke:

[QC]

248. Probably not: DU has lurched hard to the right these past few months.

It's sickening.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

245. I care, but only slightly - what matters is Obama's views, not his VPs'.

I think a VP opposed to gay rights (or whom I disagreed with on other issues) would be a bad sign, but not a very bad one - the VPs' main role is to help Obama get elected, and I don't think that VP opposition to gay rights would hinder Obama much from supporting them if he got in.

[Indenturedebtor]

249. This is not a presidential issue

Local government, supreme court, congress. President is the last part of the equation.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

250. winning at all costs is a stupid idea

because what then is the point, the country keeps moving to the right because the right can stick to their guns and have conviction in their ideology

since we are so wishy washy on ours we lack conviction and come off as false

[ghostsofgiants]

270. Fuckin' a, Pri.

Fuckin' a.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

272. thanks primate1

[ghostsofgiants]

278. I think being Canadian, and thus outside your sytem, makes it even more obvious to me.

It's sad, really.

[democrattotheend]

253. Not really, since the federal government has little to do with marriage policy

I feel strongly about gay rights, but since most of the rules about marriage are made at the state level, what the VP nominee thinks about civil unions isn't that important to me. If someone seemed personally bigoted, that would be an issue for me, but I don't mind a VP candidate who has played it safe on the issue for political reasons, since that person won't be setting marriage policy.

[ruggerson]

257. Yeah the Defense of Marriage Act never happened - we all imagined it

[Zuiderelle]

260. Most of the privileges of marriage are at the FEDERAL level.

Social Security Survivorship, Pension benefits, Health care benefits/taxation, Inheritance benefits/taxation, Income tax credits and 1,000+ more. Civil unions and marriages for gay Americans at the state level where they are allowed give only a FRACTION of the rights that straights have at the state and FEDERAL LEVEL.

[DS1]

254. I'm not sure that I care either way

Sure, it's important, but what's the alternative?

[Zuiderelle]

261. The question isn't if you would vote for him. Just if you care.

If you really mean that you don't care, then I'm very disappointed.

[EstimatedProphet]

262. The alternative could well be same-sex coupling is made illegal

That's one possible alternative, one that many people in the US would like to see. I think it would behoove us to act against that.

[Zuiderelle]

259. I hope the 19% are all freepers.

[terrya]

264. I would assume that would be the case.

It's hard to accept that anyone who voted no on this important issue would be progressive Democrats.

[mkultra]

265. its far mor eimportant that the POTUS candidate support civil unions

the vp is not so important. Obama has already stated his support of civil unions.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

267. Jesus Christ! 31 people on this board who don't give a flying fuck about civil rights?

I can't blame the admins if they don't want to read through all nearly 500 posts of this thread, and the main perpetrator is already history, but seriously a pizza party is in order here. Fucking Fred Phelps lovers don't belong here.

[Romulox]

275. Jesus Christ! Most people on this board who don't give a flying fuck about economic justice?

Your point cuts about 10 ways. :hi:

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

276. Homophobes are FOR economic justice? Since when??

You don't see Fred Phelps walking around with signs that say "GOD HATES POVERTY" do you?

[Romulox]

277. My point being: if *my* issues can be compromised, and so can *yours*. nt

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

280. Bullshit

First of all, don't assume what "my" issues are. Let me put it this way.... I ain't vacationing in the Bahamas this year.

Beyond that though, the comparison is absolutely ridiculous. You don't justify denying civil rights by screaming "but what about the poor?" "what about this? what about that?"

As I said to the other person trying to use this argument, you'll find that those who are in favor of equal rights for all and those in favor of improving the TRUE economic reality in this country (not the fucking stock market illusion) are one and the same.

[Romulox]

281. It's not bullshit. It's how politics work in a two-party system.

If you want support for issues that important to you, you must form coalitions with others and support their issues in return for their support of yours. You can't just declare your issue to be more important than others, and demand one way support. Right now, the Democratic Party seems fragmented to me, precisely because these sorts of coalitions have been neglected, and, in some cases, purposely destroyed.

"First of all, don't assume what "my" issues are."

I'm not assuming anything at all. I am posting to a thread regarding the Democratic Nominee's lack of support for civil unions.

"Beyond that though, the comparison is absolutely ridiculous. You don't justify denying civil rights by screaming 'but what about the poor?' 'what about this? what about that?'"

No one is justifying anything. I am explaining that if *my* issues may be compromised, so can yours...

"As I said to the other person trying to use this argument, you'll find that those who are in favor of equal rights for all and those in favor of improving the TRUE economic reality in this country (not the fucking stock market illusion) are one and the same."

Then you need to start demanding that Obama come out in support of both civil unions and economic justice. Because as it stands now, he supports neither.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

271. This is a weird and, frankly, dumb question.

This is a progressive board. Therefore, we would assume that most people will care about gay rights. But your wording and the premise of this poll appear to be troll-baiting, nothing more. Why are you posting it--to out those who vote "no"? Another school playground, useless, baiting poll.

[Solon]

283. That assumption is wrong...

I would say that most people on DU are prejudiced against GLBT people, they may not be outspoken about it, but, just like racial prejudices, its something that cannot be avoided. The problem is this, many long time posters that DISPLAY such prejudices, repeatedly, are allowed to stay, apparently not fearing being tombstoned or anything of the sort. There has been an inconsistent enforcement of rules here for a long time, months, perhaps even years. Frankly I'm puzzled, and suspicious of posters who don't see it.

[LostinVA]

285. Exactly -- great post

[helderheid]

274. I care. A LOT. I don't want anyone who thinks it's okay to deny a couple from marrying just like I

don't want anyone who thinks it's okay that I, as a woman, gets paid less than a man doing the same job.

[musicblind]

282. Thank you!

:hug: