Why Obama gets no more contribution from me

[dickthegrouch]

SEN. BIDEN: "No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically a decision to be able to be left to the faiths and people who practice their faiths, the determination what you call it."

Marriage is a civil right. Before you get married in church you have to get a marriage licence (at least in California). Neither State nor Federal law has any business discriminating against same sex couples when both GUARANTEE in their constitutions EQUAL PROTECTION.

At a time when No On Prop 8 is in full swing in California, Biden, and by reference Obama, have just done us a grave disservice. How a black man can be so clueless as to the effects of discrimination is completely baffling to me.

Obama has recently asked me for the other $1300 I could have given him. HELL NO is now my answer.

That $1300 has gone to Equality for All to help the fight against Prop 8 in California.

For more info please see www.noonprop8.com

Dick

[msallied]

1. I think that you do not understand what their positions are on this matter.

[codjh9]

What's there to understand? If they're against gay marriage, they're against gay marriage.

And although I think they're great in general, it does piss me off that they're against gay marriage. I think they're only doing it to appease that segment of Dems - hard to believe they're out there - who aren't for gay marriage. I'll never understand the uproar about it...

[msallied]

228. They have every right to be against gay marriage. They do not, however, have the right

to deny gays their civil rights. And last time I checked, they aren't for that and are, in fact, going to work to make sure that they DO have their unions recognized by the government. Marriage is a religious institution. The government really has no place interfering with it at all for gays or straights. A gay couple right now can go into a liberal church and get married, it would just have no legal weight. The crux of this issue isn't whether gays can get married. It's whether said union has legal weight. Obama and Biden support the legal side. They just have no inclination to use the government to force churches into marrying gays. Such decisions should be left up to the individual churches.

[codjh9]

248. I said nothing about anyone 'forcing' anyone to do anything. I just want the LAW to be

that IF a church wants to marry gays, and IF gays want to get married, they should be able to. If a church doesn't want to do that, fine.

[uppityperson]

277. You want the law to mandate what happens in churches?

Even now if I, as part of a hetero couple, got married in a church ceremony, I would not have ANY legal protection or partnership. In order for me, as part of a hetero couple, to get legal benefits, I have to file a legal paper. That is what they are for, making the legal part accessible to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

Separation of Church and State. Legal. Religious. Do you understand that?

[csziggy]

414. Right now the law is mandating what churches can do.

Ministers of at least two different denominations have said that they would perform same sex marriages but states are refusing to recognize these ceremonies as legally binding even though the states allow the ministers to perform marriages between couples of different sexes.

If the state allows ministers to perform marriages, what right does the state have to determine who the ministers can unite in those marriages?

[uppityperson]

419. There is a difference between Church and State.

In order to be legally married, you have to sign the legal papers. You don't need to have any sort of ceremony, rather like making a legal partnership. Have you read your state's marriage statutes? I did before I signed them with my ex. It defines, basically, who owns what, how things will be divided up if you split up. This is the legal part.

A church marriage is different. It is a religious and/or social commitment, not necessarily a legal one. Even if someone gets a church marriage, they still need to sign the legal papers for the legal protections.

The legal, State part is for the protection of the partners, to make the attempt that neither is financially dependant upon the other, neither is chattel.

[csziggy]

420. I really don't care what the churches do - but I don't think the state should be involved

In mandating what they can do. I choose not to have anything to do with churches as much as possible and my legal agreement with my spouse is recognized by the state only because a civilly licensed entity signed our license. So technically, we have been united with a civil union for 31 years and it has worked for us.

But the way I understand it, states grant the right to ordained ministers to legally do the same thing the notary public did - sign the license and create a civil, legal union between two people. All well and good as long as the state and the church agree on what constitutes that union. But since the people against same sex marriage and civil unions are using a religious basis for their claims, IMO as soon as ANY state recognized religious organization considers a same sex joining to be OK under the doctrines of their religion, the state has no right to object. That would constitute interference in a religion by the state.

[uppityperson]

421. Signing a legal license is not enough, it also has to be filed with the State.

When I signed with my ex, we had friends do the co-signing bit and then it still needed to be filed to be made legal. If the issue is "who can sign that you signed", then that depends on the State. I believe you are right that in (covering here) most places there are varied people who can sign the license along with the 2 people. HOWEVER, the legal bit isn't done UNTIL that paper is given to and filed with the State. That "giving to" can be done by one (or both) of the couple, or by the clerk or notary public or religious person. BUT, the only one who can actually do the legal bit is the State (here a clerk in licensing).

So no, an ordained minister cannot create a legal union, they can sign the paper, but the State (court?) is the one who creates the legalities as requested by the signing people. If people do the signing thing and never turn in the paper to the State (don't file it), it isn't legally done.

Religious person can sign that the couple signed (act as notary public) but can't legalize it. That is up to the State. What the State recognizes is that it is ok for a religious organization person to co-sign, but it still needs to be legalized by filing with the State.

[csziggy]

424. Yes, it has to be filed, but my point was that under most states' laws

A notary public or justice of the peace and a minister recognized by the state are equally able to perform the same act. The other trappings perfered by whatever religion are irrelevant as far as the legality of the piece of paper that is signed and filed. And I use "church" to indicate a religion which is recognized by the state.

We could have had just as elaborate of an event surrounding our union as the fanciest of church sanctioned ceremonies and under the laws of Florida once the license was signed by the notary, witnessed and filed, the state does not care. Frankly for our union, we woke up our friend, the pizza cook, who happened to be a notary, handed him his jeans and he signed the papers. His wife and a friend signed as witnesses. No fuss, no bother, no expensive or superstitious rites, just the bare minimum to meet the requirements of the state. And our no fuss, no muss paper signing has stuck better than any of our friends' who had the whole fancy dress deal with some religious nut muttering over them.

But the problem in my mind is that religion is being used as the excuse for not allowing same sex couples to have the same rights as we do, just because they are same sex and we are not. According to my understanding of the US Constitution Congress cannot enact laws which interfere with religion. Some religions do not have a problem with same sex marriages, unions, whatever you want to call them. So Congress - and individual states should not have a right to restrict those religions from performing those unions and even those same sex couples who only want the piece of paper to make their unions legal in the eyes of the state should be allowed to do so. IMO of course.

[uppityperson]

425. Got it, we are on the same page here, just using different words.

Legal license is ruled by laws, passed by State/Fed congresses. I agree that whether or not a church choses to perform a ceremony, or sign a paper (which then has to be filed with court/State/whatever to be legally binding) should not be legislated by State/Fed congresses. A church can do whatever it likes as far as whom they agree is able to wed, but that is different from legally holding a marriage license. Just because a church choses to perform a ceremony, to sign the paper, to say "according to church law you are married", doesn't make it legal as far as State/Fed laws are though.

State/Fed congress/laws, they do have a right in restricting the legalities once an application for license is filed. THAT is the part that I want to get changed. So long as the 2 people are of age, color, creed, sexual orientation should have no bearing. Same as back when you couldn't legally marry across color lines, sexual orientation line baring is wrong. Just wrong.

I have friends (I hate using that phrase) who have been "married" by a clergy person, yet their marriage is not legal in the sights of the law. I have me, who has not church status who is legally married because the State accepted my application for marriage license. I want everyone who wants to to be able to have the legal protections, and the social understanding that they are a married couple.

Side note, when Mr.UP and I went in to get the license thing to sign and return, we were asked a series of questions, out loud, in the middle of the public office at the courthouse. Were we related by cousinship or closer, were we of legal age and sound mind, did we have any undisclosed STDs. We looked at each other and both burst out laughing. "hey honey, there's something I forgot to tell you". It was a legal requirement that these be asked. Idiotic.

[csziggy]

426. Yes - we agree. The legal union should be kept separate from the religious union

I think it is the business of the two people joining in the union whatever other ways they chose to celebrate it. I certainly cannot understand why love between two people can threaten others simply because the sex of the couple. Mr Ziggy and I have had many friends of various orientations over the years and never felt that our union was threatened. In fact, the only ones who I feel threatened by are the ones who want to restrict the rights of everyone and the control I have over my own body.

Yes, if anything was going to keep Mr Ziggy from going for the license it was the bloodtest required. He is phobic about needles and turned white and pasty when they drew his blood. Otherwise it was not much different than getting a license for a car or boat as far as we were concerned, despite the stupid questions.

"I want everyone who wants to to be able to have the legal protections, and the social understanding that they are a married couple." I totally agree with that statement. I wish our candidate did but for now we have to take what steps we can toward that goal. Restoring the Constitution and balance of powers in the federal government are pretty close to the top of my list.

[uppityperson]

428. One thing this goes to show is that thoughtful consideration of what another person is saying

of double checking and taking time to actually communicate, rather than quick sound bites, works. Peace to you and yours.

[csziggy]

435. And that is why I am voting for Obama - he wants to bring that consideration back to politics

Peace to you and yours, also.

[msallied]

309. That's precisely what I'm arguing.

The churches can do whatever they want. That isn't the arena of the government. The ONLY arena that the government should be able to play in is whether said marriages are recognized legally for the purposes of wills, taxes, etc etc...

I am a "married" woman, but I dont believe in god. I was "married" by a judge. I really think that people are really getting caught up in semantics when in actuality I was really just in a civil union ceremony.

[uppityperson]

275. Here is where we differ "Marriage is a religious institution." Here is where we agree...

I didn't get married in a church, only have papers filed that give me legal rights (yes, am part of a hetero couple). Does this mean that I am not married? (This comment should be for the person you are replying to and those speaking of religious marriages).

Here is where we agree "The crux of this issue isn't whether gays can get married. It's whether said union has legal weight. Obama and Biden support the legal side. They just have no inclination to use the government to force churches into marrying gays. Such decisions should be left up to the individual churches."

I will vote for someone who gives the same legal rights to all, irregardless of color or sexual orientation.

[codjh9]

300. OK, I wasn't thinking clearly enough because I'm stressed out and have a brazillian things

on my mind. I don't care what does or doesn't happen in churches. I DO want gay/lesbian couples - and I'm hetero too, by the way, but have a few gay friends - to be able to get married if they want to! And unless I'm misunderstanding, the Obama/Biden position is that they won't allow discrimination in the cases of hospital visits, insurance beneficiaries/wills, etc., but they're still not allowing an official gay marriage - or a civil union, done in a JP's office, or whatever. If they ARE allowing that, then I stand corrected, but it all seems to be a state-by-state thing anyway... so maybe both of our arguments are a moot point.

[Ms. Toad]

285. And how often has the state

forced the Catholic church to marry a couple that was legally eligible to marry, but was not eligible to marry by church standards? (Such as a couple in which one member of the couple was previously married in the church, the marriage not annulled, with with the original spouse still living)

Under the argument you just articulated, the church would be forced to marry this couple. I can say with relative certainty, however, that has never happened. The Catholic Church (and any other church) is free to pick and choose among all couples legally eligible to marry only those couples that satisfy the (stricter) standards of the Catholic Church.

The same would be true if same gender couples were legally eligible to marry. Any church could just choose not to marry such couples - just as they are free to choose not to marry any heterosexual couple that is legally eligible to marry.

The argument (that if the legal status of marriage was open to same gender couples churches would be forced to marry couples against their beliefs) is right wing nonsense, started (or at least gained significant momentum) shortly in advance of the explosion of marriage discrimination statutes and constitutional amendments around 4 years ago. It began when the right-wing churches realized they couldn't get very far barring legal recognition of marriage on the basis that it was "against God's laws." Too many people oppose creating faith based laws - but that if they flipped the premise (not faith dictating the law, but the law intruding on the practice of faith), they could gain sympathy from liberals who are fundamentally opposed to the law dictating how they practice their own faith (think conscientious objection, sacramental use of peyote, and other instances where liberal people of faith have been compelled by their faith to act in contradiction to their beliefs - or - to break the law).

I was shocked when I first heard my liberal friends repeating the argument to me - and am deeply disappointed when I find this fundamental misunderstanding of how marriage laws work continuing to be repeated by allies to explain why politicians keep throwing me under the bus.

In our country, marriage has a dual identity: a legal/civil status - as well as a sacramental/faith based one. Faith communities are only permitted to gain legal recognition for their sacramental marriages by virtue of statutes which permit them to act on behalf of the state. That occurs when (1) the marriage fall within state guidelines as to who is permitted to marry and (2) the faith community has elected to act as an agent of the state (generally through its pastor, minister, rabbi, etc.).

In short, the state permits sacramental marriages between state-eligible individuals to also gain legal recognition; it does not (and cannot) mandate that a faith community act as an agent of the state for any state-eligible couple that walks through its doors.

[msallied]

311. I agree with your last sentence completely.

This is what I'm arguing. I do not think the government has any place at all defining the word "marriage," whether it be to include or exclude same-sex couples. The ONLY role they should be playing here (if they must play a role at all, and frankly I don't think that it should) is to uphold the rights afforded to all married couples under the current law. That is the civil rights issue at hand here. The fact is that a gay couple can perform a marriage ceremony in their church right now, but it will never be recognized by their state government until legislation is put in place. That is a major problem and that is something that I believe Obama/Biden are seeking to correct. We can call it whatever we want, marriage or civil unions, but in the eyes of the government it should really all come down to the same thing. Let the churches own the word "marriage." As long as a same-sex couple can walk into a courthouse and get a marriage license like anyone else, who CARES what it's called?

[Ms. Toad]

332. Actually, from a legal implementation standard,

calling it something else is far more difficult and costly.

Marriage is a legal state-based status. That means that, first, the marriage statute in each state would need to be rewritten.

In addition to the statute authorizing marriage, there are hundreds of statutes in each state which use the word "marriage" or marriage-based words (husband, wife, for example). Those either need to be rewritten by each of the fifty legislative bodies (and the federal government) or will need to be interpreted in court in individual cases (with the costs born by individual couples) in every state for every law (including laws established by court cases, rather than legislation). Because marriage (or civil unions) are state institutions, a decision in one state does not automatically extend to any other state - and cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Additionaly, marriage recognition across state and country borders has taken years (and countless court cases and dollars) to establish and tweak. If it is a different status (and a different name is legally presumed to be a different status), it will need to be retested in court (again by individual couples) until the equivalence is established.

Finally, there is no guarantee that other countries will recognize US "civil unions" in the same way our marriages are recognized. Again, that will take court battles - in foreign countries with court systems that may work very differently from our own - at the expense of the individuals involved.

In contrast, now that states and countries recognizing marriage exist, the results can be accomplished with only a few court cases for marriage (using the word) - first, a case affirming that every state must recognize legally valid marriages from any other state (already a well-established legal principle); second, a case affirming that a state within the US must recognize legally valid marriages from any other country (already a well-established legal principle), and third, a case which determines that the federal DOMA is unconstitutional. Because these decisions are grounded in federal constitutional law and will likely be appealed to Supreme Court, one decision will apply to all states.

Once a state (or the federal government) is required to recognize legally valid marriages, their own discriminatory marriage statutes will fall because they are completely irrelevant. If individual states don't change voluntarily, it won't really matter since any couple will still have access to the legal status of marriage merely by crossing the border, getting married, and returning home.

This is how the anti-interracial marriage statutes fell not that many years ago.

I am NOT advocating bringing these legal challenges now. I am legally married (Canada) - but am choosing to delay any challenge we may make because the composition of both my state court and the Supreme Court are not favorable right now and I don't want to make bad law. But when the time is right (a necessary precondition for either route to equality), it will be far easier from a legal/implementation perspective to establish access to a legal status that already exists (with well defined limits both within and across state borders) - than to create a new one.

[MNBrewer]

384. In Minnesota you only have to BELIEVE that the person officiating is an agent of the state

They need not be, according to statute.

[Ms. Toad]

397. Makes sense from a traditional common-law perspective

I don't know if Minnesota is a common-law state, but if it is, a fake agent of the state would create a common-law marriage by most standards. Generally to have a legally recognized common-law marriage, the couple must be legally eligible to marry, live together as married, and hold themselves out as married.

Until around 1991, that was all that was required in Ohio to make a legally recognized (common-law) marriage - and assuming the couple did the normal things after being married by the charlatan, their post-marriage actions would create the marriage even if the state agent wasn't really one.

So - from a historical perspective (many states had common-law statutes that co-existed with the ceremonial statutes), it makes sense - even if Minnesota has done away with true common-law marriage.

As a side note, makes for some really interesting estate/inheritance bigamy problems, since there (generally) is no such thing as common-law divorce.

[MNBrewer]

372. Marriage is NOT only a religious institution.

It is also a secular, legal status which is denied to gay people's relationships by law. There are churches that marry gay couples in a religious sense, and the state does not recognize those any more than it recognizes "unmarried" gay couples.

Putting up the "marriage is religious" argument is a avoiding the real issue, which is that you don't REALLY want us to be fully equal to you under the law, because you don't believe that we ARE equal to you.

[BrainStorm]

380. Yes yes yes

Thank you!

[MNBrewer]

383. For example, see Minnesota statute

<https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/laws/?id=203&year=1997&type=0>

ARTICLE 10
MARRIAGE PROVISIONS
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 517.01, is
amended to read:
517.01
Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a
civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent
of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential.
Lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the
opposite sex and only when a license has been obtained as
provided by law and when the marriage is contracted in the
presence of two witnesses and solemnized by one authorized, or
whom one or both of the parties in good faith believe to be
authorized, so to do. Marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941,
not so contracted shall be null and void.
Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 517.03, is
amended to read:
517.03
Subdivision 1. (a) The following marriages are
prohibited:
(a) (1) a marriage entered into before the dissolution of
an earlier marriage of one of the parties becomes final, as
provided in section 518.145 or by the law of the jurisdiction
where the dissolution was granted;
(b) (2) a marriage between an ancestor and a descendant, or
between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by
the half or the whole blood or by adoption;
(c) (3) a marriage between an uncle and a niece, between an
aunt and a nephew, or between first cousins, whether the
relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as to
marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal
cultures; provided, however, that and
(4) a marriage between persons of the same sex.
(b) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex,
either under common law or statute, that is recognized by
another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and
contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage or its
termination are unenforceable in this state.
Subd. 2. COMMISSIONER OF HUMAN SERVICES.] Mentally retarded persons
committed to the guardianship of the commissioner of human
services and mentally retarded persons committed to the
conservatorship of the commissioner of human services in which
the terms of the conservatorship limit the right to marry, may
marry on receipt of written consent of the commissioner. The
commissioner shall grant consent unless it appears from the
commissioner's investigation that the marriage is not in the
best interest of the ward or conservatee and the public. The
court administrator of the district court in the county where
the application for a license is made by the ward or conservatee
shall not issue the license unless the court administrator has
received a signed copy of the consent of the commissioner of
human services.

[Dragonfli]

412. I have to agree

My wife and I were married not in a church but at city hall.
Nothing religious about marriage unless you choose to take your vows in a church.

The " you can't legalize gay marriage because it tells churches what to do" argument is bullshit or "mis-informed" if I were to be polite.

The Government should not, and could not legally tell a church to marry those they do not wish to, but that really is a separate issue from legal gay marriage.

Who would want to be married by a bigot in drag holding a burning purse anyway? If Gay marriage were legal there would be(and are) many civilized religious leaders that would not choose to make it an issue contrary to their faith. No one would have to illegally force the bigoted Churches to do it against their will.

If an enlightened pastor could not be found one should still be able to be married at city hall or by a nice high priestess of a coven. Handfastings are beautiful ceremonies.

We should not twist the law to make everyone have to follow the hatred of only some religions.

[GrizzlyMan]

2. To each their own

Good luck with being afforded any "civil rights" under a McCain/Fundie administration.

[cboy4]

44. He's not saying he's voting for McCain

:eyes:

I'm sick of Democrats dismissing these issues with the arrogant, "oh, do you think the Republicans will be better?" argument.

[LisaM]

148. I agree with you. Believe me, I've suffered those same kind of "warnings"

Of course it's an obvious choice. But it doesn't mean that someone can't then channel their money to a progressive cause they're passionate about. Why does everyone, everyone have to stand on the sidelines waiting for rights? For how long?

I will tell you that I found a good resource - at least locally - for finding judges to vote for, QLaw. I figure the gay community is best positioned to recommend judges who will ultimately grant marriage as a right to everyone.

[sui generis]

158. well, amazing how weak the light

required to get the cockroaches scuttling. I've said it before - they don't give a shit about us, but they sure want us to care about them as long as they can justify it with browbeating.

Maybe in their world that works - but the well is running dry for my compassion with "their" big issues while they tell us to "get over it".

I'm not afraid of speaking up, and since I never trusted half our fair weather friends here, I'm disappointed that I'm not more disappointed either.

So I have one thing to say to DU: if you don't like that we don't like "our" leaders saying they are against our familes, then get the fuck over it.

Where's the smiley for nuclear war.

[GrizzlyMan]

402. Fact of the matter is, the Dems are better on the issue

Care to dispute that? Didn't think so. And I never said he was voting for McCain. My point was by not donating to Obama he was in some small way, hurting the Obama campaign. Get a grip.

[cboy4]

417. Don't shove your condescending bullshit toward me

GrizzlyMan.

You clearly insinuated the McCain choice by stating "good luck" with that.

The Dems may be better on the issue by that's like saying, at least the Dem plane has one wing compared to the Republican plane that doesn't have any wings at all.

Well you know what? I want to fly on a goddam plane that has two wings.

Let's see if you can puzzle together the analogy dude.

[MrCoffee]

190. Awesome, it only took the 2nd reply to invoke the unholy duo

You guys are getting sooo good at this!

[Democat]

3. If you want an extreme right wing Supreme Court, support McCain!

Come on, Obama and Biden need to get elected right now. Even if you don't like their answer to one questions, please realize that the Supreme Court, which will have an impact on GLBT rights for much longer than Biden/Obama, is at stake.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Sorry about that, but Obama didn't change his position......

That was always his position. What took you so long to figure it out?

Another thread for me to hide.

[cboy4]

46. Another anti-gay comment from Frenchie.

I've lost count.

[karynnj]

51. How is that anti-gay? It isn't that is Obama's position and it was in the primaries

Coming out for gay marriage could throw the election away. The country IS moving in that direction, but it is more likely to get there with supportive moves between elections.

Look at the right wing, they KNOW there is a difference. In 2004, Cheney and Bush were able to say that they were ok with civil unions - while their base KNEW they would do nothing to move that issue forward. They knew that Kerry saying he was for civil union with all the federal rights of marriage (including explicitly saying he would ask for legislation to make the changes needed in things like the tax code) actually meant that.

Their debate answers this year reflect the same thing. Palin's base knows that she will certainly not really help gay couples gain any rights. I think Obama's and Biden's committment is real. It's at least a better bet than the other side.

[cboy4]

55. I understand all of what you said ... but the poster has a very

nasty attitude toward anyone who challenges Obama's views on gay issues.

That's why I wrote what I did.

[Solomon]

58. Aw, poppycock!

We can't win for losing. You guys are ridiculous. Obama hasn't changed his position. And not voting for Obama is a vote for McCain with the stakes as high as they are.

Can we please get in the whitehouse before trying to fix all the problems?

[polmaven]

68. Well, in reality,

the nasty attitude is toward anyone who challenges, or criticizes, Obama's views on ANYTHING.

[cboy4]

72. You can say that again.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

103. Deleted sub-thread

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

[unfrigginreal]

138. Not anti-gay

Just the truth. Obama has the right position on this issue.

[dbackjon]

163. You think that denying equal rights to Americans is RIGHT>?

[unfrigginreal]

201. Obama-Biden want to give the same rights to gays as

every other American. Just not the WORD marriage. It's a stupid non-issue.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

223. SEPERATE BUT EQUAL! (Yeah, that's the ticket!)

[unfrigginreal]

227. Separate my ass

It's a fucking word.

[Gormy Cuss]

390. Yeah, like Plessy v. Ferguson was good enough

I know that the position of the ticket is necessary to win but if either or both candidates believe it, that's just sad.

[Terran]

264. I didn't hear that position stated by Biden in the debate

You're saying Obama supports equal treatment *by the federal government* for non-heterosexuals, in *all respects*? Including civil unions, SS survivor benefits, joint tax filing, etc? Is that his position? Because that's new to me. And if his position doesn't include all that, there is much more than a word at stake here.

[unfrigginreal]

265. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

Biden said as much last night.

[Terran]

269. He said what last night? Sorry, not getting you.

He didn't say he supported any of the things I just mentioned, which are major economic justice issues that far outweigh the piddly stuff he did mention like hospital visitation. If they don't support something key like Social Security survivor benefits for same-sex couples, then they are not truly supporting equality, and your statement that 'it's just a word' is non-operative.

[unfrigginreal]

272. Biden, Palin Debate Gay Relationships

Friday, October 3, 2008

Moderator Gewn Ifill asked both candidates, "Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?"

Campaign 2008: Get the latest news, video, and polls!
Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden told viewers and the crowd at Thursday night's debate that an Obama-Biden ticket considers gay relationships to be protected by the Constitution.

Moderator Gewn Ifill asked both candidates, "Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?"

Biden responded, "Absolutely...In an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and heterosexual couple."

http://www.960werc.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=104707&article=4346631

........................

It's a fucking word. I don't see a sliver of difference between Obama-Biden position and Dean position in '04. Of course if you feel more comfortable support Palin with her "diverse friends and family".

Edited to add link

[Terran]

283. Please don't get me wrong

I totally support Obama (and I'm not a one-issue voter). I do recall him saying that now. It's a very big broad statement, that. I'll be interested to see if Obama's administration holds to that statement, because federally-recognized civil unions would be a part of that. The key word is federal here, because states enacting same-sex marriage is largely symbolic compared to the benefits that accrue from the federal government when it recognizes that one is married.

I would just caution against the attitude you're taking with people here, though. Despite Biden's words, it's a long and very difficult step to achieving the kind of equality he's talking about, and you'll forgive those of us who are skeptical. Telling us 'it's just a word' is dismissive of people's concerns.

I'll be pleasantly surprised to see Obama bring this subject up to Congress. Heads will explode.

[dbackjon]

315. NO THEY DON'T

They have not come out in favor of FEDERAL RECOGNITION of MARRIAGE.


That would be the same rights as everyone else.



AND IF IT IS SO FUCKING STUPID, PLEASE SEND ME A CHECK FOR THE $30,000 I HAVE PAID EXTRA IN FEDERAL TAXES because my relationship was not recognized.

[unfrigginreal]

321. Are you dense

Obama-Biden want to ELIMINATE that fed tax discrepancy you are bitching about. Get a fucking clue.

[dbackjon]

331. Show me on their website where they advocate that

[Eyes_wide_ open]

410. from response #269

not on the website, but Joe did say it during the debate

"Moderator Gewn Ifill asked both candidates, "Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?"

Biden responded, "Absolutely...In an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and heterosexual couple."

[TankLV]

152. yep...like clockwork...

[Cha]

166. That's not an "anti gay" comment

but you knew that.

[rug]

76. And his position still sucks.

Which is what the OP wrote.

[HughMoran]

267. Good idea

There's never any winners in these threads - just accusations & hurt feelings everywhere. "Hide Thread" for me too.

[lady raven]

5. I wish they would change their position on this

I do not think allowing gay people to marry just as the rest of us do is a threat to "traditional marriage". The REAL threat to "traditional marriage" is those who are engaged in heterosexual unions who are abusive, unkind, or unfaithful to their partners. The only people who can destroy traditional marriage are those who are IN traditional marriages.

Hopefully time will change their opinions on this.

[GrizzlyMan]

7. This is one thing I vehmently disagree with Obama on

I'm a straight male who favors gay marriage rights. But then again, unlike the OP, I'm not willing to throw the baby out wiht the bathwater. I'm not a ONE ISSUE voter.

[vaberella]

10. Actually GMan read this thread...we think this is a political move.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7295432&mesg_id=7295530

Read the posts within this topic.

[sui generis]

107. I'm a proud one issue voter

Out and proud.

My family is my issue. So when the government says my family should not exist, it's a big ONE issue.

I appreciate your support, most sincerely, but this issue has context, and that context IS the people whose lives such a statement impacts. The question Biden left himself open to is "would you vote for or against proposition 8 in the state of California, and why".

Fortunately "you betcha" wasn't that fast on her feet.

[jberryhill]

6. I guess you weren't listening

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/

"It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do."


Biden laid out the 14th Amendment argument, and also said, literally above, that the federal government should provide the same rights to all married couples.

[Zuiderelle]

178. I guess you missed this part from you own link there:

IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

IFILL: Is that what your said?

PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.

NO OBJECTION from Biden. No saying, Oh no we do not agree. PALIN said that neither of them supported gay marriage, and he agreed in his silence (and laughter and Ifil saying that they agree).

This is a PROBLEM. This hurts gay people.

Granted that Biden SCREWED up. I don't think he meant to say what he said, HOWEVER, he did say that he does NOT support gay marriage. Ifill asked if he did and he said NO.

[buff2]

8. Quit being such a

Dick.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

12. I got that feeling, but some people are strong on some issues.

I can't deny that. However, most Obama supporters understand the issues nad look to the greater good overall and will try to continuously change the perspective of the Candidate. I actually think Obama is strongly supportive of equality in marriage but going the political route instead. He gives them all rights except for marriage and I feel he would support it if majoirty of his base would. But he has to keep everyone happy. His background says enough that he is pro same sex marriage. He just says other wise.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

24. I know and I recognized that. But let's call it benefit of the doubt.

If he's a freeper he'll be gone in the next 2 days. Don't stress over it. They come here and a few of our own go undercover over there. If they're truly inflammatory we can get them banned.

[buff2]

13. I've noticed I don't see all the

idiots that used to post here during the primaries.I guess the have moved on to different Dem sites. What a bunch of ignorant sore losers.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Marriage is not a civil issue

ALL citizens deserve equal treatment and rights under the law and that is the Obama/Biden position.

The fight should be to remove marriage from the sphere of government, to my mind that is a faith issue. No one is discriminating against you on this ticket but I'm sorry you feel that way.

[TechBear_Seattle]

188. In this country, marriage is a matter of civil law

I mean, come on! What are the federal benefits of being baptized? How many state laws determine who may or may not become ordained clergy? Can you name a single legal right granted solely by virtue of being bar mitzvah'ed?

The fact that there are tens of thousands of local, state and federal laws which touch on marriage, which recognize it as a matter of law, which grant special priviledges or protections, says beyond any possible argument that marriage is, indeed, a civil issue, an issue of civil law. Further, it is a matter of civil law that both Obama and Biden are on record as strongly opposing.

[keepCAblue]

322. Amen, Techbear. Well said. n/t

[quiller4]

14. I think you have misinterpreted their position and that is a shame.

[curious one]

15. You are better off with Obama/Biden than those 2 nut case from right.

This is the first step by going forward slowly and surely. Things will change. It just needs time to get what you want.

[chascarrillo]

16. As a wise philosopher once said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXTN3h-b9nU

[SoCalDemGrrl]

17. But you agree with McCain/Palin on most issues?? Come on realize what we are

up against here. McCain/Palin represent the possibility of the WORST kind of neocon fascist regime
in the HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY and because it wasn't PHRASED correctly
you will accept their fascism rather than cut Obama/Biden some slack on this issue??


SHAME ON YOu!!!

[Quantess]

18. He's trying to win the election, remember?

Too many people are opposed to gay marriage, I'm very sorry to say. Fine, donate money to the state initiative instead, but please vote for Obama!!!

[Bryn]

20. I cringe everytime they bring up same sex marriage in debates

It has no place in politics ... debates especially. It's highly unfair. I don't believe that Obama meant to discriminate, but he has say he doesn't support it because general population still is not ready to accept that being gay is not a choice in order to get election then he/Biden will tweak the law. It will be even worse if we just sit back and allow McCain/Palin to win because it will set many many years back. Understand? :hi:

[Whalestoe]

21. I just donated 30 bucks for you to Obama/Biden. Sorry you let this ONE issue divide you.

However, I'll still be voting No on Prop 8 with you. We're in this together.

[keepCAblue]

325. Are you straight?

I'm guessing so because it is always straights who dismiss gays in such a manner, as being "one issue voters". Yeah, it's easy to dismiss those whose shoes you do not walk in, but I wonder if it were straights' lives, families and dignity that were being shit upon every day by both dems and rethugs, would they be so quick to dismiss?

[Name removed]

333. Deleted message

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

[Whalestoe]

371. Yeah, because cutting off your nose to spite your face is a great idea.

Do you think Obama is gonna walk around being black and saying, "gay marriage is a great idea!" and get elected? Fuck no. The GOP fundies would rise up against him as well as many dems. We live in a backwards thinking society and it's fucking bullshit, but whatever--get pissed at me. Hope it helps.

[goletian]

22. getting you equal protections is easier than giving you equal protections + the word, marriage...

dont read into it too much. once civil rights have been upheld, you take the word, too. its a good strategy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. I believe Biden may have misspoken

"No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically a decision to be able to be left to the faiths and people who practice their faiths, the determination what you call it."

If you look at the entire sentence, it's clear that Biden is saying that he has no intention of redefining the religious ceremony of marriage, and I would suspect he meant to use the word "religious" instead of "civil". Because otherwise, the sentence contradicts itself.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Marrah_G]

69. No- he is not a dumbass.

His money is still going to liberal causes and issues.

[ronnykmarshall]

102. Dumbass gays.

Wanting to be treated equal!!!

Why don't they just go back into the closet.

:sarcasm:

[Indenturedebtor]

135. I don't think that the folks in this thread who are upset at the ticket have been listening

To the candidates. From where I'm sitting Obama/Biden have been saying for months that they aren't going to mess with "marriage" but that gay people will have all of the rights of straight people in terms of civil unions.

Um does a rose by any other names smell sweet? FFS folks :eyes:

[sui generis]

161. so if it's all in a name then why call it civil unions for gays?

can't we all just get along and call it marriage? Uh, hypocrisy alert.

[Indenturedebtor]

167. You can call it whatever you want. Unfortunately a lot of stupid is caught up in the "marriage"

thing. And I personally don't want anyone throwing away our chance to save ourselves and the planet over a fucking word. That's what stupid people do. That's why it's even an issue.

[sui generis]

185. this is a tedious old debate

and gays are expected to yield before anyone else.

Sorry to upset that. If the planet is worth saving, then it's worth saving for all of us, provided we are treated equally, and not separately.

If it's that important then why would Biden throw that out, unless he was taking us for granted. This hits us LITERALLY at home, and is extraordinarily demoralizing to those of us still capable of being demoralized.

I'm a bit more warlike myself, so don't expect me to yield.

[Indenturedebtor]

308. The RW controls the narrative, why fight the narrative and lose the actual reality?

Civil Unions are an important first step. Rove wants you to feel this way about it, if he can't have his first choice of energizing the seething base of hateful trolls around the phrase "gay marriage".

[sui generis]

313. Rove is out of the picture though

Fact is, there many ways Biden could have responded, and he chose to "use" us and our issue to reach out to conservative undecideds.

He failed to support both his base (us gays and our friends and families) and the party's values itself. He could have said America is doing what it needs to be doing to pursue fairness and equality, he could have said, I don't personally support it but I won't stand in the way of it, any number of things.

This was shameful, and I'm not a tool of Rove to say that. I'm still a democrat. I never expected the democratic party to just conform to my wishes for my needs without a fight, but there is definitely a line in the sand now.

Civil Unions are not marriages, and are not equal at the Federal level, the only level that counts in terms of property conveyance and the legal definition of a taxable family unit.

[Indenturedebtor]

314. Rove may be out of the picture but his tactics certainly are not

Nor are the strings of the American Consciousness that he played to get Shrub in office much different than they were then.

Can we get civil unions for everyone and then go for the marriage definition please? I am 400% certain that it's a small step from civil unions being accepted to marriage being accepted, just as I am 400% certain that going from where we are to having marriages accepted is a dead end. We can't work with what we want the American people to be, we have to work with what they ARE!

[sui generis]

320. we're dealing with disappointment more than anything

a sense of betrayal.

Why is it that Hackett and Feingold were able to say without reservation that marriage is for all Americans, and these guys are splitting hairs?

Why is it that Biden felt the need to punch his teammates to demonstrate to his opponents that he's worthy of their vote?

We'll get over it. I doubt Biden will be speaking at any Black Tie events any time soon. I am officially against his marriage unless he calls his marriage a civil union, for what it's worth.

:shrug:

[Indenturedebtor]

335. I don't blame you... it is disappointing but they are on your side

Smaller steps than I would like, but I think it's ok to support steps in the right direction.

[Zuiderelle]

204. It's not a fucking word. If you don't know all the rights that come with it, then you aren't a

real democrat.

[Indenturedebtor]

304. Ok good luck getting a "Marriage for all" bill passed. Lets forget about Civil Unions and the

rights that come with them. And honestly I don't give a shit about being a "Real Democrat". I support Democrats because they generally represent my values... so you can keep your blue ringed flagpin.

While the RW controls the narrative, lets go ahead and play on the battlefield that they've set up for us to lose on. Or we could actually go the most effective route to guaranteeing rights for gay people.

[QC]

192. But be sure to drop off your contribution before returning to the closet. n/t

[johnaries]

26. Hey, Grouch! How about a little dose of "reality"? Have you ever played chess?

I feel ya, and I believe that there is no such thing as "separate but equal". However, baby steps. When you're dealing with a bunch of homophobes half of whom are self-hating closet-cases themselves, logic doesn't apply.

Right now, in this climate, gay marriage will never fly across the country. However,"civil unions" have a chance.

And, honestly, any preacher can refuse to marry any couple on any basis. A Civil Judge cannot. And if you get down to it, isn't any marriage performed by a Civil Judge a "civil union"?

And can't any preacher certified by the Civil Government perform a "civil union"?

In this case, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

If the homophobes don't want to give up the "definition" of marriage, well, let's just re-define "civil unions" so that they mean the same thing. Then it just comes down to a matter of semantics.

Baby steps. Fight the battles you can win. Then you can win the war.

[democracy1st]

38. thanks johnaries they have to crawl before they can walk

[Indenturedebtor]

171. Seriously - in 10 years everyone would be refering to "civil unions" as "marriages" anyways

People want to get their emotions and desire to be percieved as equals tied up in the issue. Get the same rights first and the rest will follow eventually. The rights are what matter more than some inbred fucking moron's opinion though no?

[JuniperLea]

340. Well said... sad but true...

I understand the frustration, but we need to keep mind over emotions in order to do the right thing.

[dickthegrouch]

27. There's a lot of people here not reading

The title says "no more"
The body says "the other $1300 I could have given him"
I never said I was supporting McPalin

I do feel my money is far better spent in an attempt to undo the damage done to our campaign by this gratuitous, unnecessary assault by Biden.

California currently treats same sex couples fairly by allowing us the right to marry. Domestic partnership is not enough as many have found out. Proposition 8, if passed, would remove that right from us again.

My original point, which I managed to omit making, was that faith has no part in this discussion. Biden brought it back into the discussion. Some of the people who are undecided, just went to the other side because of Biden's statement. That was a gaffe in my mind.

The other point I failed to make explicitly was that they CAN get back on my good side (and might even be able to get more donation) if they declare complete support for same-sex marriage at the federal level. Yes, it would require a dreaded flip-flop. No, it would not damage their campaign.

Dick

[Bryn]

33. Understood

as for me I am hetrosexual female, but I do not want marriage for myself. Marriage was invented by Christianity. Actually, pagans (it actually means "country dweller") first used to marry by tying ribbons or something around hands, jump over broom. Christianity rejected it before they finally accepted it. How do we define "marriage"? Isn't love enough to accept civil unions? It can mean marriage, same thing. You two can go off to beautiful forest, tie ribbons around hands, jump over broom. It's very personal, more beautiful. That's why I cringe everytime they bring up "same sex marriage" in debates. It has NO place in politics at all.

[Democat]

52. Fair enough!

:)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

92. Hey, do you think you could spare a few bucks to No on Prop 102 in AZ?

I understand that Prop 8 would take away a right you already have in CA, but we were one of few states to defeat an anti-marriage and civil unions initiative 2 years ago and now they are bringing it back as an amendment to the State Constitution that defines marriage as a "union between one man and one woman". The people pushing it have hundreds of $1000s and the opposition barely any. We could sure use any help we can get. :hi:

http://www.votenoprop102.com/web/index.php

[ronnykmarshall]

131. Done!

Thanks for posting that.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

273. Thank you!

:hug: :loveya:

[Zuiderelle]

214. Thank you for that link. I just donated a bit there too.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

274. Many thanks!

:hug: :loveya:

[quakerboy]

394. I got no money

But I can call my Gran out in AZ and have a conversation with her. I already got her to agree to vote for Obama, how hard could one more step be? I didn't know ya'll were fighting that one again.

[ronnykmarshall]

104. We've pretty much given our max this year.

But we are still donating to No on 8.

Sorry you have to take so much shit about this.

[Zuiderelle]

208. I agree. Since Biden did this, now that's what needs to be done

It would have been acceptable for him to leave it as he did before Ifill asked him point blank "Do you believe in Gay marriage?" If he had answered "I believe in full equality for all americans, whatever word it goes by" then everything would be ok.

Now he needs to CORRECT what he said, because he said that he does NOT support gay marriage. And he did NOT offer an objection when Palin said that they both do not believe in gay marriage.

It was weak and it was his lowest moment, in an otherwise impressive debate.

[Imagevision]

28. Marriage= Man & Woman - Civil Union= Same Sex - what's the biggie?

[Henryman]

31. Incorrect: Marriage it is a legal (logical) contract. ..

Meaning any two parties able to participate can have an agreement. "man & women" is a social construct. Let the games begin!

[endthewar]

43. It's called one-issue voting

Screw everything else in the process. I personally want to know Obama's position on life on Mars before I contribute another cent.

[FatDave]

64. "Obama's position on life on Mars"

Best David Bowie song ever?

[sui generis]

344. one issue, many contexts.

Marriage = property rights, civil rights, visitation rights, family rights, inheritance rights, insurance rights, privacy rights, child support and accountability, and the right to have both your parents recognized as your parents, not your guardians.

So color me a one issue voter and PROUD OF IT.

Screw "everything else" in the process. Fine. You screwed yourself. Our votes are not a given. They are earned. If you want us to care about your "pet" issues, then you better let us at least care about our issues.

You children really really need to grow up - you have no idea what the gay community goes through out of your sight when it comes time for us to interface with the law on behalf of our families. It is OFFENSIVE to be preached to by you people about our voting choices. Respect us and our issues in this party, and we'll return the respect.

Minimize us and our issues, and you have no right to make any demand of us. Having said that, most of us are grown up enough to make the correct choice WITHOUT input from you, whatever that turns out to be.

[ronnykmarshall]

106. The BIGGIE is that my marriage is under attack.

I'm having to fight to keep my MARRIAGE LEGAL in California.

That's the fucking BIGGIE!!!

The money I'm donating fight FOR my MARRIAGE could have been donated to Obama.

Sounds like a BIGGIE to me!

[JuniperLea]

346. Those pro prop 8 ads are gross!

They don't even care how bigoted they are proving themselves to be!

On the other hand, the anti-8 ads with the grey-haired couple talking about their kids is really touching.

I live in a very gay area... near Long Beach where the nation's largest gay pride parade is held every year. I don't know one person who would vote against gays... gay or straight. I'm lucky I guess. It was a great place to raise very tolerant kids too. The world needs to learn to live and let live. It's not that hard!

[ronnykmarshall]

366. and full of lies.

[BrainStorm]

382. and fear mongering.

They are disgusting.

[JuniperLea]

386. Oh, yeah! Totally!

The lawsuit bit is pure bullshit.

I really can't see this going through in California.

[TechBear_Seattle]

413. And Biden, by going on national television and saying he opposes equal marriage,

Endorses those ads and the lies they contain. That is why we are pissed beyond words.

[racaulk]

173. .

[roughsatori]

434. The "biggie" is that you are ignorant about this issue.

And have posted the Republican talking point. But bigots, be they Dems or Repugs have much in common. Your post could be found at Freeperville.

[moriah]

29. My views on the government involvement in marriage are very controversial.

I personally think the government has absolutely no business whatsoever defining marriage.

The only compelling interest a government has is in regards to legal and financial matters. Taxes, contract law, etc.

I think that as far as the government is concerned, *all* marriages should be treated as civil unions. There should be no distinction whatsoever as far as the government is concerned if two people choose to commit themselves and accept legal responsibilities for each other -- they should receive equal protection under the law. A "marriage license" should be nothing more than a legal document, a contract if you will, as far as the government is concerned.

Let "marriage" be defined by religious organizations -- my religion marries LGBT people, as do many others. Many people aren't married at all as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. There are too many differences in religious beliefs regarding marriage, and in my personal opinion the government has absolutely no business interfering.

But that's just me. Quite a few of my LGBT friends think I'm nuts. But I'm not married, even though we could marry -- I pay a heavy penalty in taxes to cover him and his daughter under my health insurance since HP covers domestic partners. There's a part of me that would like to resist getting married until the many committed couples in long-term relationships would be entitled to the same legal benefits and protection that we would get if we went down to the courthouse.

[Imagevision]

30. moriah - AMEN!

[dickthegrouch]

35. Thankyou, Moriah

I could support that position quite happily, too.

But the issue on the table today is not the State of California changing its contractual definition of Marriage. It is an odious, unfair, elimination of rights we currently enjoy.

Unfortunately, without marriage all sorts of people and institutions deem it OK to discriminate in bizarre ways that are eliminated if you can say "He's my husband" or "She's my wife".

All I was saying in the OP was I deem it more important to preserve my existing rights than support a candidate who doesn't support me. And, if telling him why I'm withdrawing my support helps him change his position, in my mind I've benefited both of us.

[moriah]

373. I also believe Proposition 8 is a bad idea.

I also personally believe that all of the constitutional amendments passed by various states will eventually be deemed UN-Constitutional by the Supreme Court. No state's constitution can violate the federal Constitution. The federal constitution demands equal protection under the law, and prohibits respecting an establishment of religion.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you hold to the idea that "marriage" is a religious institution, then the government attempting to define marriage is obviously respecting an establishment of religion -- they are saying that one church's definition is more correct than, say, my church's definition. Additionally, if a religion such as Paganism or some more liberal Protestant denominations chooses to marry a same-sex couple, refusing to recognize a marriage performed by an ordained minister who is licensed to marry couples in the state is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I do hold to the idea that marriage is essentially a religious institution. When you examine religious texts, most if not all discuss the institution of marriage and mandate requirements for it. Marriages performed by JPs and common-law marriages were the first step toward secular "marriage", but neither are recognized to the same degree by religions as a church wedding. And as I said in my previous post, the Catholic Church does not recognize marriage that was not performed according to their rules.

Under the equal protection clause, certain laws come up that are likely unconstitutional as well. Arkansas, for example, fines a member of the clergy $500.00 for "presum to solemnize marriage in this state contrary to the provisions of this act". For Pagans, this could cause a person to be fined for handfasting a couple if they were of the same sex, and possibly even if they do not attempt to sign a license or in any other way make it recognized by law.

Additionally, the equal protection issue comes up even if you hold that marriage is a secular institution, or universal enough that it is not entirely in the domain of religion.

Arkansas law specifically says that marriage, as far as the law is concerned, is a contract.

9-11-101. Marriage a civil contract — Consent of parties.

Marriage is considered in law a civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is necessary.

The purpose of this law is to say that a person must be capable of making a contract in order to get married -- that people with reduced capacity according to the law cannot marry in Arkansas. But here, it relegates the institution of marriage into a contract as far as the law is concerned. Forbidding two fully adult citizens privilege to enter into a contract together based strictly on the gender of the two parties is obviously failing to provide equal protection under the law.

----------

Another tricky issue comes up on same-sex marriage. Arkansas says they will not recognize marriages performed outside of Arkansas if they are between members of the same sex. So what happens if one person in the marriage undergoes a sex change? Is the marriage now void? Transgender issues become very complicated. I know a couple who are married under the laws of Maryland. One of them was born legally female, sought gender reassignment surgery, started taking the hormones, but before the surgery her legal status was changed to male. He then married his lifepartner, a person who was born intersex and had surgery at birth and declared legally female. Unfortunately he didn't react well to the hormones, and his gender was changed back to female according to the law. So they are now a same-sex couple. And married!

What if they leave Maryland?

It's just wrong. Flat wrong. There are ways to get around not being legally married. My gentleman and I have executed powers of attorney, we have executed durable powers of attorney for health care, we signed a statement of domestic partnership and filed it with my work. We should not be forced to get married just to have health care, or to keep the benefits he receives through my health care plan from being taxed out the wazoo.

Apparently to people here my views aren't that controversial. :)

But I have been told on here as well that my view isn't the best one in another debate on this issue, which is why I prefaced it with the idea that it was controversial. Many see it as a veiled attempt to discriminate by not feeling that the government should recognize marriage. I do think that marriage is more than just a legal contract to the people involved -- it's a spiritual union, a confirmation and public celebration of their commitment to each other. And I think the government has absolutely no business mandating who can have that spiritual union.

[vanderBeth]

45. Thank you.

I believe France has something moving in the similar direction with their civil union equivalent. It is something done by both heterosexuals AND homosexuals. It is getting very popular among young people as an alternative. You are granted the same rights and financial matters as a married people. Marriage is still only between a man and a woman because France still is largely Catholic, but the their civil union is becoming exactly on par with marriages. Marriage is just a different type of union that is still "Catholic approved", etc., but people have a choice of what they want in terms of civil union.

[FatDave]

65. Doesn't seem that controversial to me.

Seems pretty common sense. And didn't Joe say something about letting the churches decide what to call marriage?

[SidneyCarton]

97. I have advocated for this as well.

[TimeChaser]

203. Actually, I agree with you 100%

:)

[TheWraith]

32. You clearly want to be offended, so I guess I won't bother you with facts.

Like the fact that Obama and Biden openly endorse full civil status for gay couples, including all the legal benefits of marriage. If you can't see that actually using the word is politically radioactive at the moment, then you're not paying attention.

[BzaDem]

34. This is so ironic

because if McCain wins (which you donating less to Obama helps make happen), the Supreme Court will have 5 votes in the bag of the religious right. Hope you enjoy that.

[bowens43]

36. dumb move... oh well. nt

[bushclipper]

37. Did you not know this already??

[FlyingSquirrel]

39. Good luck with that.

Nobody is gonna win the WH while leaning too far to the left on Gay Marriage at this point in time. This country has too far to go. You'd rather have McCain win? Come on.

[Ikonoklast]

40. You haven't been paying attention, then.

Either that, or this is just a oblique attack on my candidate.

Have fun when the Morality Police headed by Vice President Churchy Spice come to take you to the Re-education Camps.



Single-issue voters are so myopic they make Mr. Magoo look like a visionary.

[SwampG8r]

154. oblique attack on my candidate

ding ding
look who is here up in arms and what is said and this is truly an oblique attack on my candidate

[fujiyama]

41. Have fun living in your fantasy world

where an (openly) pro gay marriage politician can win a statewide, let alone presidential election in the near future.

But putting money towards defeating that lousy measure in CA is also good use.

[npincus]

42. oh, right. Much better to cede the election to Crazy McNut and the Pentacostal Looney-Tune.

[H2O Man]

47. Oh.

[Beausoir]

416. So that's all you got? We are discussing basic human rights and all you got is "Oh".

That's all you can bring?

Basic human rights and all you can add is "Oh".

You are not half the man you think you are.

I am sick to the gills of people like you.

[H2O Man]

418. Yesterday

"I'm not half the man I used to be .... now that I've become an amputee."
-- John Lennon; home studio; 1974

There are numerous threads on this topic. On those that I think have OPs raising valid points, I contribute more. On those that I think are divisive, I do not. It's of no consequence to me if you approve of that, or not.

[davidpdx]

48. Welcome to ignore

I hope your stay here is short.

[QC]

199. Why do do many of the n00bs think that everyone is as fascinated by their ignore lists

as they are?

I just don't get it. When it comes to their ignore lists they are like little boys who have just discovered their penises and can't stop talking about them and playing with them.

[Danger Mouse]

49. eff ewe.

[No Elephants]

50. I hear you, dick. I am hetero, but gay rights is a HUGE personal issue for me for

family reasons. You have every right to put your dollars toward fighting the Caiformia anti-gay proposition and I support you in that. But, I firmly believe that Obama needs to get elected much more than McCain does. And Obama is not going to get elected by taking the most liberal position on wedge issues, be it gay rights or affirmative action or guns. If McCain is elected, you will get the extreme right position. If Obama gets elected, it will be a moderate to liberal position. And he will nominate judges who will decide things right. It was the judges in Massachusetts and California who mandated the ability of gays to marry, not the Governors or any elected official.

When it comes to human rights of any kind, which is preferable for equal rights of any kind--the far right position with yet more far right judges or the moderate to liberal position with liberal judges?

BTW, did you read the speech the obama gave in MLK's church during the primaries? Before a large group of African American Southern Baptists, he talked of gay rights being just like the civil rights movement. IMO, that took a lot of courage on his part and put his candidacy at huge risk.

[BluRay01]

56. I would recommend this reply if it were possible.

I don't disagree with the OP--Obama's position (and Biden's) on gay marriage makes me cringe and has throughout this campaign. But there are a couple of reasons I support them anyway--first, this election is about so many things, and gay rights (or, more accurately, equal rights) is just one of them. When deciding where I want to see this country go, there's no contest. Obama's and Biden's vision for this country is, in large part, mine as well. Second, I do think that Obama and Biden will get us much closer to equality than anyone else on the ballot. We might even see full equality in our legal status over the course of this administration. But many of the vital issues come down to the judicial system. The Supreme Court will have a loud voice in determining the direction for this country, and it is likely that after the appointments of the next administration, the court makeup won't shift for a generation. We can't afford more neocons on the court, and that's exactly what we'd get with McCain.

[No Elephants]

73. Thank you. They can do nothing unless they get elected; and McCain Palin would be light years worse

[No Elephants]

74. They don't call them "wedge issues" for nothing. Please think big picture.

[justiceischeap]

81. You are exactly right No Elephants

It's all about the Justices that are appointed by the new Administration. We need the Judges that are ultimately decide this decision on our side, not the Fundies and if McPalin gets elected, that's exactly what will happen.

As a lesbian, I get tired of hearing others in the gay community say, "I'm not gonna support so and so because they don't support gay marriage." Guess what, your one issue isn't the only one that matters. We live in the UNITED States not the ONE PERSON States of America. That said, what the hell is so great about marriage? The heteros have managed to screw it up beyond all repair. The divorce rate is skyrocketing and some gay people are hung up on names. What's the difference between calling it a civil union in the beginning to make it more palatable to the rest of the nation as long as we're getting all the same rights? If we get civil unions with all the same rights, then we can then move on to call it marriage later if that's so important to the movement.

[csorman]

82. This is the best explanation I've heard in a long time. eom

[blue_onyx]

91. I agree...one shouldn't vote based on one issue

But the Democrats shouldn't be allowed to take 10% of the population for granted. I'm fine with calling a union between 2 homosexuals a "civil union" instead of a "gay marriage." I truly hope Obama wins in a landslide. Once he wins, however, I hope he does not ignore gay issues or say "it's a state issue." I'm worried gay rights will be pushed aside out of fear it may hurt him during his re-election in 2012.

[iiibbb]

121. Not only that... once a coule "unions" everyone is going to call it "marriage" anyway.

There will be no distinction except at certain religious levels.

I'm in a somewhat analogous mixed-faith marriage (Christian/Jew). The most conservative of Jews don't really recognize our marriage... do I give a crap? Everyone knows we're married. At the end of the day, the relationship is above everything else. One's commitment to one's partner is the measure of it.

There is supposed to be separation of church an state anyway... so who cares what gov't calls it. We officially did a justice of the peace because our officiants didn't want to mix faith and politics.

Secure the rights... the worry about what words are used to describe it.

[No Elephants]

141. Thanks. I firmly believe that gays should have the right to marry and every

other right that heteros have. They may not choose to marry, but they should have the same rights. The minute you give someone different rights or fewer rights than the majority, you are saying someone is inferior and someone is superior. I have no use for that whatever. But, I firmly believe that gays will be much better off with Democrats in office and on the bench (not only the Supremes) than they will be with cons in offices and on the bench. And a Dem voting third party realistically only helps the Pubs.

[deadlyaj]

53. being for gay marriage is political suicide

let the courts handle it

[Starry Messenger]

57. We tried that in California.

Now the "yes on Prop 8" haters are pushing ads about activist judges abridging the rights of citizens to define marriage, etc.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid62578.asp

I'm not going to judge the OP. Money to defeat this crap is a good thing too.

[ronnykmarshall]

109. The court DID handle it.

Now we have to fight the fucking right wing to KEEP our marriages.

Pisses me off that the OP is being shit on for ...... GASP ..... saying something NEGATIVE about the democrats.

[high density]

54. The pendulum doesn't swing that fast.

Last night was nothing new.

[HughMoran]

59. booo! hide thread

don't need the negativity 1 month before a historic election

[demokatgurrl]

60. Having, I confess, not watched the debate

I didn't hear this and from the quote, I honestly cannot tell what the hell Biden said. (That's a problem I have with him sometimes- he's very smart but sometimes doesn't express himself clearly). If he said what I think he said, I am sadly disappointed. Although I am a straight, married woman, I have never understood why on earth anyone would want to stop any couple, gay or straight, from marrying whomever they wish. I also strongly disagree that "faith" has anything to do with marriage. As you said, marriage is a civil right. It's a legal contract. I did not get married with any clergy- it was a judge, a witness, my husband and I. Anyone should be able to do that.
If it's "left to" anyone to decide who can marry, I'd say it's the states. Keep "faiths" the hell out of it.


Having said that, I expect, and observe, far more intolerance from the repukes.

[mtnsnake]

61. If Biden said exactly what you wanted, we would lose. Simple as that.

The TV ads would be out in full force within hours, the right wing would make the election about the tradition of marriage, and we'd be sunk again. Would Biden LIKE to say what you and most of us would want him to say in regards to that? Damn right, but he just can't. This is a game to win, not a game to lose. Let's get Obama in office first, and then we can progress to where we should on this matter.

[Marrah_G]

62. I know how much it must hurt to hear that from our candidates

I don't blame you for putting your money towards a defeating prop 8.

I understand why the politicians say those things, but they must also understand that they risk losing monetary support from those same people they throw under the bus. It's only fair and is to be expected.

All our local candidates and issues need our support also. You just diverted your funds to something just as important.

[terrya]

63. Actually, thinking of last night....I don't blame you a bit.

[Beacool]

66. Why are you surprised?

It's the same position they held during the primaries, nothing new there.

As for your $1,300, were you really about to donate that kind of money to a political campaign in this tough economy???? Put it to better use, pay off bills or donate it to some charity. Every charity I know is suffering in these lean times.

[Teaser]

67. Just abolish marriage altogether

that way, everyone's happy.

[Lilith Velkor]

96. Hear, hear

It is not the business of the church or the state who I'm fucking.

And being "a couple" is not so goddamn special that people should get tax breaks for it - those should go to the single parents who really need it. Or just parents, I'm cool with that because having kids is expensive.

[cosmicsheep]

70. single issue voters are how republicans ALWAYS win

So good luck with that!

[stray cat]

71. If thats the only issue you care about than it makes sense not to vote

Clearly from the debate McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden both believe in civil unions so if thats the only issue one cares about it makes sense not to vote.

Just like republicans who only care about guns or only care about banning even civil unions or only care about abortion. Just don't condemn single issue repubs.

[Doityourself]

75. Guess I better step up my contributuions!

[BlueIdaho]

77. Me too! nm.

[ClarkUSA]

90. Me three.

:toast:

[alarimer]

78. He's never gotten a contribution for me and never will.

I will vote for him but I basically do not agree with about 90% of the positions he takes and this is just one of them.

If it is a question of "Americans not being ready", well, they weren't ready for civil rights either and it took a President with actual courage to stand up to the morons in this country and shove it down their throats. This is what will have to happen on this issue as well. Americans will NEVER be ready and equal rights will never happen. It's time for someone courageous (so it will probably not be a Democrat who does it) to take a stand and force the issue. The Democrats are a bunch of spineless weasels in general (and why I am now not a registered Democrat).

But it is because of weak-kneed stances like this and the support for the bailout and other issues that I am holding my nose to vote for these clowns. Ony because they are (marginally) better than the other clowns.


And by the way, I am heartily sick of equating any criticism of Obama (even honest disagreement) with being a "traitor to the party" or other such nonsense I hear on a regular basis.

[TheKentuckian]

210. Just 10% agreement with Obama across the spectrum of issues

Who in politics exceeds 50% for you? Do any of them have a snowballs chance in hell of winning on the national level?

I don't consider you a traitor but I do question your identification with the party in general, Obama is a solid Democrat. If you can only find 10% or less in common with him then your overall connection to the party would seem tenuous.

[crankychatter]

235. you're entirely too nice - nt

[unfrigginreal]

246. Kucinich, I'm sure n/t

[NMDemDist2]

79. under the circumstances I don't blame you.

Sadly we are not at the point where a national candidate can come out for marriage.

I was pleased with the start of the answer, but he really did go down from there.

You send your cash to no on 8, I'll pick up the slack for you nationally

:pals:

[ronnykmarshall]

218. Thanks!!

You're a good friend to my peeps!

[blossomstar]

80. You have just cut off your arm to spite your face.

They have to get elected FIRST. Your cause will most definitely benefit more from Obama/Biden. Where are your brains?

[ronnykmarshall]

115. Do you understand how SERIOUS the threat is?

Do you understand that if Prop 8 passes same sex marriage will be OUTLAWED in California?? My marriage will be null and void.

I guess we gays just need to step back again and wait for our turn?

[sui generis]

164. well, but you're marriage isn't real

:sarcasm:

:hi:

[sui generis]

not really.

Why should we vote for the least worst? Would you vote for somebody who said your right to the legal protections of marriage did not exist because of your ethnicity/eye color/religion/whatever?

Seriously. He graciously cut our arm and face off with that careless comment. Fuck Biden. Now I want to hear what Obama has to say. I'm not voting for McCain, but I'm not voting for somebody who can't lead either.

I'm pretty sure Obama will "clarify" this comment to our satisfaction, but if he doesn't then I just don't give a fuck any more.

[TankLV]

162. Sui - I know how you feel - I feel it too - and am just as angry

but we've got to look at the BIG PICTURE...sorry...but that's the REALITY...

We cannot afford to let even a CHANCE that mcINSANE and miss mooselips will occupy OUR White House!

I have not and will not ever give a dime to these quizzlings - BUT THEY WILL HAVE MY VOTE, GODDAMMIT!

It's that important...

Please, please, please - I beg you - be a bigger man than they are - and at least vote AGAINST mcINSANE if you can't vote for these two right now...

[sui generis]

177. I hear you and I'll go one further

The issue needs to be addressed. They represent us or they don't, but merely withholding money is not enough. We have to voice our positions TO our candidates directly and stop being taken for granted.

Maybe if the democrats lose often enough because gays stop voting for them, things will change. As long as we're in a no mans land though, we have to include our people rather than shut them out.

Most everyone here IS going to vote for Obama. The hurtful part is not my vote, but the votes within our less politically active community. If they stay at home because of this, it's not my fault and the blame lies SQUARELY on Biden and Obama.

That's the nuance that blogs miss.

[Stop Cornyn]

83. If it makes any differance. Biden misstated Obama's position. When Biden said, "Barack Obama nor I

support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage," he meant to say "Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a religious side what constitutes marriage."

Obama DOES strongly support redefining the bundle of civil rights associated with marriage so that gay couples should enjoy every civil right that others enjoy.

[blue_onyx]

84. I'm disappointed with Obama, Biden, and most Democrats

regard this issue. Many say, "Well, they want to win." But I think it's wrong to assume that gay voters should just suck it up and except that their leaders won't fight for their rights. I'm ok with the fact that Democrats want to support "civil unions" but not "gay marriage" mainly because I don't think there's a difference. It seems to me we are fighting about what to call a union between two homosexuals which is dumb. The person who posted this has every right to not support the campaign financially. I will strongly support Obama but he will not get a pass when I think he is wrong.

[RunningFromCongress]

85. Marriage is a religious term. Period.

[Matariki]

291. Well then, I guess according to you, any gay marriages I perform as a clergy member

are all legally honored.

Somewhere.

Maybe in that country somewhere up your ass?

[ClarkUSA]

86. What did you expect Biden to say? Democrats want to win the White House, y'know.

Obama said to a gay activist at fundraiser that though he understands, it's one step at a time...

And that he'll revisit that as president because he has to get elected first. Touching such a radioactive subject
during a tight presidential race when so much else is at stake would be political malpractice. There is plenty
of time under an Obama administration and a larger Democratic majority to redress such issues without such
high risk.

Keep your donation - the rest of us will give more because we happen to think there's important things at stake
in this election that we need to support since Obama is depending on us to fund him: universal healthcare, an
end to the war in Iraq and a unitary presidency, etc.

[budkin]

87. They HAVE to say this... if they didn't they would lose the election to McSame.

They obviously don't feel this way.

[renie408]

88. Here's the thing....

I hear what you are saying and I understand why you are saying it. I also feel that the whole 'man/woman' definition of marriage is ridiculous.

BUT...I understand the political reality which compels Obama/Biden to make that statement and I know that Obama will nominate SCOTUS Justices who will help to change the political reality.

If you truly want equal treatment for gays, then you should donate every dime you can spare to Obama. Otherwise, McCain will get to nominate the 2-3 Justices who are expected to be seated over the next President's term. That just CANNOT be allowed to happen.

[SoonerPride]

89. I'm gay and will continue to donate. So there.

There is no other option.

[ronnykmarshall]

119. Is your marriage under attack?

I think the OP stated that he's donated in the past to Obama. I have too. But with the right wing bigots out rasing us in Calfornia I agree with him. I've donated about $500 to Obama but I can't afford to send that much to both. No on 8 is getting our money for the rest of the election.

[cyr330]

93. I understand your frustration. . .

I really do. I share it. And I also see that you did NOT say that you wouldn't vote for Obama. There's nothing wrong with voicing disagreement.

I, too, was somewhat dismayed, but I had already heard it before, so it wasn't a surprise. I had already decided long ago that I would vote for Obama--there's no other viable choice! Once he's elected, perhaps we'll have the opportunity to make some long, long overdue changes. There is no other way, as the alternative is just too awful to contemplate.

[grantcart]

94. Well the positions between the two parties are so similar and the likelihood of their

future positions after this election are likely to continue to be identical I can understand why you would be indifferent or hostile.

[SidneyCarton]

95. Great, give my regards to President McCain, okay?

[grace0418]

98. I'm extremely frustrated and disappointed by their position on this, however I cannot

and will not let it sway me from what needs to be done. Not supporting Obama/Biden because of this is not an option for me. It's akin to voting FOR right-wing candidates simply because they support a ban on abortion, even if you disagree with everything else about their platform.

I understand your frustration, and I even understand withholding your money. But I hope you'll still vote for Obama.

[Neecy]

99. Hey, I don't want like it, either

But I've donated money and time to Obama/Biden. As a gay woman, I know the danger Palin represents should she end up as an accidental president, despite her happy talk about tolerance and her (lone) gay friend. This woman is a hard-core theocrat and she scares the shit out of me - and should out of you, too.

You CAN do both, you know - fight against Prop 8 and fight FOR someone who has promised to uphold our legal rights and againt a theocrat who promises little more than not to burn us at the stake. Good god, keep an eye on the big picture.

[ronnykmarshall]

193. I believe the OP is doing that.

Sounds like he has given a big amount to Obama in the past.

[jmondine]

100. I'm sorry to hear that

While I don't personally share your outrage and will continue to support Obama, I respect your choice. This is one of many areas where Obama/Biden are far to centrist for my taste.

I think that the word "Marriage" should be struck from all government definitions. The government has no right to define what marriage is or means for anyone, straight or gay.

I myself am polyamorous. I have both a wife and a husband, though obviously not in the legal sense. It saddens me to hear my own politicians saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Even if this was broadened to two adults of any gender, I would still be left out. But I know that our immature culture is not yet ready to spread its arms of diversity that wide. It is virtually on the brink of embracing gay marriage, and I hope to see that fully happen in my lifetime.

[King Coal]

101. Well goody-goody for you. That will fix him. LOL!

[weezie1317]

105. I agree that any adults should be able to marry, but this is not ready to be accepted nationally ...

yet. We have to give the nation time to catch up to our way of thinking. Obama is taking a liberal position here -- or what most of America sees as a liberal position. You need to lead people to the water and not drown them with it. Get them to accept Obama's position first and then marriage for all.

PS - And if we don't back Obama on this, then we get McCain -- which makes us all worse off.

[sui generis]

111. if you have to say it to get elected

you have to keep saying it to stay elected.

I personally don't believe in interracial marriage on the civil side, etc. . ..

imagine how it might feel to hear that out of your candidate's mouth in the year 2001?

Our candidates work for us, that's why we vote for them. If there is no difference on this issue then why should we care? I think the gay community is feeling sucker punched, and some of us make really lousy victims.

[weezie1317]

117. We have to bring the country around to our way of thinking. Obama is taking the steps to do that.

[sui generis]

124. but you do that by leadership

by being a leader of public opinion. When your "opinion" is against it, as a political leader, then it's two steps back and no steps forward. Quite frankly, it's hurtful.

[weezie1317]

132. The public follows steps, not leaps. We have to lead them there or they won't follow.

[LibraLiz1973]

108. That's fine. The question is, does he still have your vote?

If not, you probably should not post here for a bit.

[Obamarama]

110. Nothing like throwing the baby out with the bath water...

Hey, I'm gay too, but I wasn't rocked by Biden's articulated stance. I've known this is their position at the moment. As all of us know, positions change. If elected, I think they may advance on this issue as their term progresses. Just a hunch. Why? They need to get elected and I understand that won't happen if they support come out and say they support gay marriage. No, it shouldn't be that way, and yes, everytime I hear a progressive political leader say it I feel like a 2nd class citizen. These are smart, liberal men, and like I said before, if elected I think I will eventually see this issue move more in our direction.

Second, what is important here, and what I wish Gwen Ifill would have ASKED about it last night instead of that lame benefits question is this: Obama and Biden don't and won't ever support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. McCain and Palin? To parrot Caribou Barbie: "You betcha."

So take a deep breath, chill out, and reassess.

[slampoet]

112. ME ME ME ! My pet issue.

[ronnykmarshall]

116. When your marriage is under attack get back to me.

Until then you can take your "pet issue" snark and shove it right up your ass.

[traveller]

118. Fighting for what you believe to be a just cause is OK with me:-)

[ronnykmarshall]

125. Thanks.

[slampoet]

126. When my Sister's gay marriage is under attack i will tell you.

As for me I can't afford to get married.



Do you have any other issues? Sounds like you have a lot of issues.

[ronnykmarshall]

139. If she's in California when her marriage IS under attack.

Yeah I have "issues". I have issues with people pissing on my rights.

Sorry if that offends you.

[sui generis]

120. yeah, but

my pet issue involves childcare, inheritance tax, hospital visitation rights, property disposition, life insurance policies and real estate deeds.

That's a lot of pet issues. Here's one for you: FUCK JOE BIDEN.

You You You. All you can think of is your pet issues, the environment, healthcare, energy, foreign policy. Whatever. Oh yeah, civil rights. Forgot something?

[slampoet]

149. Other than childcare what part is not taken care of by legal documents (wills, directives) ?

And these are issues for single people too.



I am straight but not narrow. All i ask is that you broaden yourself too.

If you stopped and paused possibly you'd see that avoiding pushing for marriage and pushing rights for all people married or not on this issue would get you what you wanted and MORE.

[sui generis]

150. I'm not single though

I'm not pushing for marriage IN the debate, but on the other hand he went so far as to say he was AGAINST it instead of saying he was FOR civil rights and the political processes currently challenging the debate.

That's the sticky part for me.

Again, we're not voting for Joe Biden. I'm voting for Obama, but it was a sucker punch, and bad leadership, and disappointing to hear from "our" people.

[Zuiderelle]

222. Wills and directives do not change the FEDERAL taxes, benefits and privileges

I pay tax on domestic partner health benefits... my pension will be paid out in a LUMP sum and taxed as will my 401K. My Social Security benefits will disappear if I die and be paid to NO ONE. I cannot file jointly with my partner who makes considerably less than I do, therefore we both pay more tax.

That's only a few of the things. Also, all the legal documentation we do have, that we paid out the NOSE for (that is automatic when you marry), can be contested at the whim of a bigoted judge.

Sure these are issues for single people, but you have the CHOICE to marry and protect each other. We don't.

[LeftCoast]

364. I'm in exactly the same position

I see the discrimination in each pay-check.

[dsc]

258. there are thousands of tax issues which can't be taken care of via contract

For instance, if a same sex couple gets health benefits via one person's employer they pay taxes on the value of it as income. For me that would add over 5k to my income for tax purposes. Social security is not transerable to widows of same sex unions.

[Girlieman]

113. Short sighted

Personally, I'm fine with gay marriage, but it's definitely the tail and not the dog. If you want to change something like that, you've got to get it done in the legislative branch. Don't expect your presidential candidate to take on that cause. That's not realistic. The candidate has to take a moderate position on this issue, that's just reality.

Furthermore, there are priorities. I see issues such as health care, economic equality, ending the Iraq War and civil rights as far more important than gay marriage, if for no other reason than they affect so many more people and for many people are life and death issues. In no way do I minimize the importance of gay marriage to those affected, but it simply does not have the same consequences as some of these other issues. Nobody dies if there is no gay marriage.

[ronnykmarshall]

122. Do you know what Prop 8 is about?

[chascarrillo]

129. Do you know what the 2008 Presidential election is about?

[ronnykmarshall]

136. No Elizabeth Hassleback ... tell me.

:eyes:

[chascarrillo]

174. Thank you for admitting that your argument was on her level.

That takes guts, and you get major props from me for your honesty.

[ronnykmarshall]

184. Well since you responded to a question with a question ..

you get the Elizabeth H award. Pat yourself on the back.

[Rockholm]

187. Answer the question.

[ronnykmarshall]

196. Excuse me ...

but I think I asked a question to some ELSE about Prop 8.

I'll answer the mother fucking question when I get a repsonce.

[Rockholm]

256. I wanted the other person to answer YOUR question.

I guess I asked it on the wrong line. That other poster was in total Elizabeth Hasselback mode.

[ronnykmarshall]

262. Sorry!!

I'm not holding my breath for a responce however.

Thanks for back up.

Go SOX!!!

[Rockholm]

354. Always got your back.

We queers need to stand together, since it seems there are those that would just soon have us go away.

And yes....Go Sox....provided you mean the Red Sox. Boy, do I want a Red Sox-Dodgers World Series. Can't wait to have Manny destroyed by his former fandom!

[ronnykmarshall]

358. I like the Red Sox

I'm not much of a Dodger fan even if I live in LA.

I like the SF Giants.

[Girlieman]

422. Yes I do,

I understand its importance.

With all respect, I think you are conflating importance and priority.

[Demi_Babe]

114. that's ok, I'll pick up your slack

[sui generis]

123. what's worse than Joe Biden's comment

is every one of these so called "friends" of ours here who is perfectly happy giving away our rights to get Obama elected.

You are NOT our friends, and you know who you are. Good thing you don't need our votes or you wouldn't bother posting in this thread.

[charlie and algernon]

142. and you think McCain is going to be any better? LOL

go ahead, vote for McCain or Nadar, which is basically a vote for McCain, and see what rights you get under an ultraconservative administration.

[sui generis]

156. there's always this stupid reply that some make

the one you just made.

I'm not voting for McCain or Nader. I'm voting for Obama, but he by god better not be "against gay marriage" or you don't need my vote, period.

And then you only have yourself to thank for McCain. The world will continue with or without Obama, really NOT my problem. I don't "get" rights. I take them.

We have since time immemorial, managed to survive and thrive. I am in a relationship, with a family and significant assets. Your petty environmental and employment and gas problems don't impact me. I have lawyers and accountants. My financial and social bed is made.

So tell me again why I should care about "everything else"? LOL.

Because of ethics (sorry I had to answer for you). But if those ethics don't include some enlightenment, then neither candidate makes the tiniest bit of difference in my world.

[cliffordu]

127. Keep your money.

[mtnester]

128. Man oh man

I never thought I would see what I see upthread...on DU no less. By MANY.

horribly sad day indeed

[jobycom]

130. I can respect that. I hope you will still vote for Obama.

This is an issue that affects most under-represented groups in this nation. Heck, any democracy. The majority piles on them, and since it takes a majority to win, no politician will firmly embrace them.

It's worse for Democrats, because the Democratic Party is the one who wants to support all people, who despise discrimination and human rights violations the most, so they are the party who raises expectations amongst under-represented groups. And then, to gain a majority of votes, they distance themselves from those same groups, hoping that the support they offer is enough, and believing that they have to get elected to have any chance to make things better.

I don't like Biden's, or Obama's, or Clinton's (either), position on this, either. Marriage should be respected for all people. The government can't call it marriage for one group and a civil union for another group and consider that equality. That whole "Separate but equal" mentality was shown to be a lie by this nation's race relations. Either all people can marry whom they choose, or no one can. It's either called a marriage for all people, or a civil union for all people.

Vote with your money. Send it to someone who will use it the way you want it used. That's commendable.

But in an election, you have two choices, and you have to decide which of those comes closest to what you want. So I hope you'll vote the right way. And I hope your money sends the message you want it to send, too.

Peace.

[ginnyinWI]

133. It's just politics.

To hold any other position gives McFailin' a cudgel to whomp us with.

[IndianaJones]

134. civil rights for gays is not a popular pet cause on this board. nt.

[ronnykmarshall]

137. Ain't that the truth?

I just love being talked down to by the high and mighty around here.

[Obamarama]

145. Pet cause? PET CAUSE??? It's not a "pet cause".

It's a real issue to at least 10% of this country. That's 30 million people...a far cry from a "pet cause." You make it sound like we're an orphan disease or something (an "orphan" disease is one which afflicts a very small number of people and so gets no attention).

This is an issue very important to many of us. Some within our community feel strongly enough about it to make their vote a single issue vote when it comes to gay marriage. Others, like me, weigh all the other things that should be considered outside of the gay marriage issue. I may not agree with the single issue voters, but you know what? We've both got the right do address it in our own way. And when you stop and think about it, we're really arguing for the SAME THING, just in different ways, and with different tactics. Maybe both tactics will move us closer to where we want to be, who knows? That's what's called a democracy, kids.

I am normally not the activist type, but calling this a "pet issue" got my fucking hackles up. I realize you may have not really meant it the way I perceived it. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were articulating how others feel about it. So, I'm not going to jump all over you, but I am going to take this opportunity for a teaching moment:

Gay rights issues are not a "pet cause", and I really hope I never see it referred to as such here again. If that's the way you really feel, I'd be happy to suggest a whole host of other discussion boards where you might fit in better.

[Atman]

140. I don't care what the politicians want to call it..."marriage" is a religious term.

Call it "marriage" if you want to. "Marriage" is just the church's term for a government-codified civil union. If you get hitched by a JP instead of a priest, it's still just a "civil union." I would, personally, prefer to have absolutely no distinction, but the reality is that the change will come in increments. Eventually, I believe we'll see no distinction. As long as the union is viewed identically under the law, I don't care what they call it. I'd still say I was "married" either way. Because I would be, regardless of what some nut-bag wanted to call it.

.

[racaulk]

341. So atheists can't get married either? n/t

[Atman]

359. I'm an atheist. And I'm "married."

Look, I understand why people are so upset about this, and I agree 100% that it should not matter one iota whether a couple applying for a marriage license is mf, mm, ff, or a combination of all-of-the-above. It just shouldn't be anyone's concern. But the reality is, you're asking a presidential candidate to put himself in an impossible situation, a la Dukasis' "What if your wife was raped?" moment. All us good liberals know what SHOULD be said, but it is simply unrealistic to expect this to be done *boom* overnight. The fact that a major candidate was able to go as far as he/she did last night is a decent step in the longer process. It's not the end of the process. As I said in my other post, I think in a relatively short period of time we'll see this final stupid distinction of nomenclature put to rest, too. But it ain't happening a month before a presidential election, and to demand it I find somewhat selfish and short-sighted.

But what do I know? As an atheist, I'm already pretty far down on most people's popularity list.

.

[racaulk]

362. But you just said upthread that marriage is a religious term.

If you're atheist and, therefore, nonreligious, how did you get access to recognition of such a religious institution?

I'm gay and atheist, so I guess I'm doubly screwed. ;)

I agree with you that progress happens way too slowly, and that's very frustrating for progressives like us that want to see positive change come about quickly. I'm just really saddened by the Democratic Party, my party that I wholeheartedly support, is willing to take a "safe" position on this issue because it's politically expedient to do so. I just think sometimes you have to do what is right (just like LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act) because it's the right thing to do for your country, regardless of the political cost to your party. Our "big tent" party doesn't seem to want to throw any of its constituents under the bus in the name of getting elected...except for LGBT Americans.

[LittleClarkie]

143. How many candidates have we had who DIDN'T have that position?

Almost uniformly they are for civil unions and not marriage.

I understand why you're upset. I don't understand why you're surprised.

[progressivebydesign]

144. I suggest you might want to check out the Log Cabin Republicans...

I find one-issue voters and contributors so very destructive.

[IndianaJones]

146. like African Americans that wanted equal treatment. they were destructive too. nt.

[TheDonkey]

355. It didn't happen overnight and AAs STILL do not have equal treatment

This is not an "all or nothing" world we live in. That's why the word is progress not completion.

[derby378]

147. Hey, I'm a pro-gun Democrat, here...

So Biden said that Obama doesn't support same-sex marriage. They don't support my Constitutional right to own modern firearms, either. Our party still needs a lot of work.

But when everything balances out, Obama is spot-on regarding way too many issues for me not to vote for him.

No money for Obama? I understand. Just make sure he still has your vote.

[TornadoTN]

155. Wait a second - where does Obama or Biden suppress our right to own modern firearms?

I am a gun owner and an advocate of the second amendment. Obama has gone on the record (I was at a rally in Lebanon, Virginia where he said "I am not going to take your firearms") as saying that he is not going to push for new gun control, just to push to enforce the laws we have on the books and to close loopholes. His recent interview in Field & Stream backs that assertion up.

However, your overall point is great. There are some areas where I think Obama is too centrist, but he still have my unwavering support.

[derby378]

266. That F&S article indicates he will support reinstating the 1994 gun ban

Support for the ban is also on his campaign site under "Urban Policy." I classify that as pushing for new gun control.

[TankLV]

151. That is why, from the beginning, they will never get a dime from me either...

they will get my vote, but I will not work for them, stump for them, or anything else...

You can't say "fuck you" to someone, and then extend your hand and in the next breath ask for a handout...

WE tried to argue this during the primaries, but were shouted down by the koolaid drinkers that said "oh, no, obama "supports" gays" bullshit.

But a mcINSANE and batshit crazy palin administration would be even worse...

at least they are consistant - they started kicking us under the bus FROM THE START of this thing...

[Cosmic Charlie]

153. John McCain appreciates your support!

[TankLV]

157. Moderators: Please lock this thread - we don't need this crap again NOW...

having said my piece - along with everyone else - this is NOT going to help the BIG PICTURE...

we have to HOLD OUR NOSE on this one...

this "discussion" does nothing to get to the prize...

[mtnester]

217. Why? Why lock it?

The Democratic candidates for the highest office in the land just threw the gays under the bus...AGAIN....in front of 50+ million people, on live TeeVee...at least where any type of partnership is concerned. It should stay right out there. No need to lock or hide something this public now...no rollback machine for this one.

Palin would not answer directly the final question on civil rights for gay unions. She does not want them at all. Biden wants only civil rights protections for them, but my question is this....if there is no MECHANISM for the union, how do you protect it and its associated rights? You cannot protect a civil right if folks are not allowed to participate from the beginning....if the MECHANISM for the right is eliminated or not protected or does not even EXIST. You had to allow inter-racial marriage to happen first before you could protect the rights of it...so the mechanism has to be addressed.

The mechanism needs protected first, THEN you protect the rights. And it should not be a long drawn out thing. And the party I belong to ought to be up front and forefront about that, not sniveling in the corner. Especially since recent years polling indicates a massive turn around on supporting civil unions among same sex individuals. No, I won't Goggle it for you...that is something you all can do when you have a free moment like I did.

I live in a state where folks of all walks of life lined up to vote against gays in Ohio ever being allowed to establish the MECHANISM for a civil union. It will take a federal effort now for my son and his partner to have any protected civil rights where a union is concerned, as they cannot HAVE one, here or any place else and bring it back as Ohio will not recognize those either.

Ted Strickland helped pass a law in Ohio that you cannot discriminate against the GLBT community. HOWEVER, that does not apply to civil unions, as that was a dandy ohio constitutional amendment. Ultimately, only a Federal amendment will protect or even ALLOW the mechanism of a civil union, and subsequent civil rights protections for those unions and all benefits and rights of.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."...Loving v. Virginia....this should be applicable for any reason.

Now, I need an aspirin. And I need to call my son. Because I want for him the same happiness I and his father have. And my own political party is no help in that regard. So I wait, and we see the same old tired arguments regurgitated over and over (now is not the time, you can't be a one issue voter, suck it up, look at the greater good...PET ISSUE (yeah, that offended me too)

HUGE sigh....

[jrockford]

294. You're worried about the "big picture" but won't stump for them, help them, etc? Yeah, w/e

[cboy4]

301. Who do you think you are demanding that someone's

thread get locked just because you don't like what he said?

That's outrageous.

If you don't like it, move on.

[Secret_Society]

159. I don't like it either

but sometimes one has to realize that certain things can't be said

[dbackjon]

160. Good for you!

[WI_DEM]

165. And would any other Dem nominee have said anything differently?

[Chloroplast]

176. That's what I would like to know.

[Captiosus]

168. I'm going to go all Jeffersonian here:

Why should this even be a National issue?

This should be a state issue as it currently is. It is clear that the "red" states are going to be, always and forever, against gay marriage while "blue" states will be in favor of it. I don't see this changing any time soon. It is a divisive issue nationally. A candidate who comes out strongly in favor of nationalizing same-sex marriage will be lambasted in religion-land. The McCain campaign would have had a nice new ad to fire up right leaning undecideds by making a "They're out of touch!" ad against Obama/Biden.

If Biden had come out and said he favored it, I guarantee you would have seen Virginia go from lean Obama to lean McCain in the span of a week because it would have motivated enough anti-gay marriage folks to get involved. Remember, Virginia was one of the first states to "ban" gay marriage back in 1997, and then reaffirmed the ban in 2004 by overriding then Gov. Warner's veto. Virginia also bans private companies from giving benefits to partners of same-sex couples.

The only thing that should be a National issue is ensuring that same sex couples who are married in states allowing it are afforded equal rights everywhere under the Full Faith and Credit clause. For example, in Virginia, the 2004 act that was passed says that any other marriage or contracts from other states are invalid. To me, that's unconstitutional and is where the real national issue should be. States shouldn't be able to pick and choose what qualifies under Full Faith and Credit.

For the record, I support gay marriage, but I'm in the minority in the State of Virginia. I also donated $50 to No on Prop 8 even though I'm a continent away.

[TheDonkey]

169. YES on full civil rights. Obama/Biden have the RIGHT answer on this issue

Marriage, civil unions, I want to exact same rights as given to me by the constitution as heterosexual couples. Obama/Biden are in full support of that. I do not care what the word is. Those that are so wrapped up in the name do not GET IT.

[ronnykmarshall]

186. Excuse me but you're the one that does not GET IT!!

Tell me, what is Prop 8 about?

I'll wait for your responce.

[derby378]

280. Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Pick me!

:bounce:

[TheDonkey]

357. Wanna guess what happens when we get an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage???? Hmm??

Prop 8 is going down in FLAMES. Deal with it.

But if you'd rather give ammo to McCain/Palin so they pass an AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION defining "marriage" guess what the FUCK happens to all the current state marriages and Civil Unions. Wanna guess????

I'll wait for a response

[racaulk]

389. McCain/Palin will pass an amendmend to the US Constitution?

You do realize that this not something the chief executive can unilaterally do, right?

I recommend that you read Article V of the Constitution so that you can become more familiar with the process.

[No Elephants]

170. It's very disheartening to see Dem gays and Dem heteros

turning on each other. Gays absolutely should have the right to marry. And, IMO, the only way that is ever going to happen is to get a majority of liberal judges appointed. They serve for life. They don't have to worry about getting elected or getting re-elected. The way to get liberal judges appointed is to get Dems in the Oval Office, especially now, given the ages of so many of the Justices. (McCain has promised over and over to appoint judges like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.) But, geesh, let's don't turn on each other!

[QC]

212. DU has always been popular with liberal homophobes.

None of the other liberal/progressive/whatever you wanna call it boards are as tolerant of homophobia as this one has traditionally been and thus none of the others have "discussions" like this one. Combine that longstanding tolerance of homophobes with DU's recent turn to mob rule, and you have all the makings for a good ole-fashioned homophobe jamboree like this one.

[No Elephants]

282. It is not only about semantics. It is about some wanting to make sure that there is official

distance between them and gays, something that makes them feel superior. It could be marriage; it could be adoption; it could be withholding parade permits. The more injustice to gays, the happier and more justified and superior those folk feel.

[Jackpine Radical]

172. There are several specific points I don't like about Obama's platform.

But in each case he's significantly better than McCain, who is the opposition that counts, and I'll settle for the good, the reasonable, or the tolerable before I do anything to bring the intolerable into reality.

[jillan]

175. Please keep in mind that Obama/Biden are trying to win over undecided voters and what

Biden said last nite was a political comment.

During the primaries he sang a totally different tune, saying that once Americans are more accepting of civil unions, gay marriage will be right around the corner.... and look how far we have come.


I understand your frustration, I thought his comments sounded very harsh.

But I do believe that Obama/Biden will do alot more for glbt issues than McCain/Palin will ever do.

[sui generis]

211. how about keeping his decided voters

you don't catch the elephant by throwing the donkey under the bus. All that does is kill the donkey.

[TexasObserver]

179. Is there any award for starting the dumbest thread of the week?

[ronnykmarshall]

189. You just won it.

[TexasObserver]

207. Thread. Not post. Thread. Do you know what a thread is?

Or are you equally clueless about that?

[ronnykmarshall]

215. Nope just getting a better idea who my friends REALLY are around here.

[TexasObserver]

219. Your friends are those who vote Democratic. You're being petulant and self defeating.

But that's who you are, eh?

[ronnykmarshall]

226. So I should just stand back and let my marriage be taken away?

So why I am I self defeating?

I've been giving money to Obama.

You want a fucking kidney too?

[TexasObserver]

234. Nothing said last night was new. It's the same thing Obama-Biden have always said.

This is merely the latest "excuse" you bring forth to whine about Obama.

Support him or don't support him, but if you're not going to support him, stop pretending otherwise just so you can hang out here and fulfill your PUMA needs.

[ronnykmarshall]

240. Ooooooooo

that's what this is all about.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[cboy4]

303. Wow, another thinly veiled anti-Hillary comment.

You don't know when to quit. :puke:

[ronnykmarshall]

367. Stunning isn't it?

But predictable when he didn't have anything to back up his comments.

[Beausoir]

237. Hang in there Ronny. There are still some good Democrats to be found here.

I support you all the way.

[ronnykmarshall]

244. I know ... thanks baby!!

[sui generis]

232. and the award for dumbest post of the year . . .

I'm a Texan. And a democrat. My party supports equal rights. What about yours? Too bad about our elected party leaders - it would be better for us if they learned something about leadership.

[TexasObserver]

236. Our Obama-Biden ticket has been consistent on this all year.

It's not a new position. If you want to be offended, that's your business. If you don't support the ticket, that's my business.

[sui generis]

245. again - stupid talking point.

All you do is reveal your own views here.

Okay, I don't support the ticket until Obama clarifies this. Do your worst - if you like I'll paint a target for you. How about this:

If I don't vote, no big deal. If a million people like me don't vote, it is a big deal.

Cogitate here for a second: "not a new position". Oh gollee, you're right. Gosh guess I'll just vote anyway, ya got me.

Come on. Many of our votes were contingent ONLY on having this addressed in a way that was acceptable. He could have soft-shoed it, softened the blow, passed it off on process rather than opinion, but he DIDN'T. He found common ground with the enemy by making us the common enemy. And you want us to vote for that? Sounds like your business is in the toilet where it belongs.

That's the nuance people like you completely miss.

[TexasObserver]

270. So you're not supporting Obama. This is a Democratic site.

you know the routine

[sui generis]

288. so you're not supporing equal rights. This is a Democratic site

Go bluster to someone who gives a shit. You are not the democratic party any more than I am, and you sure don't speak for anyone but yourself.

I would recommend avoiding speaking to me. You were unable to respond to my points, therefore you are beneath notice. Move along now.

[TexasObserver]

293. pfft

[ronnykmarshall]

369. Nice responce.

[TexasObserver]

401. this thread is great!

for my Ignore List

[TechBear_Seattle]

180. I agree. Let the bigots be bigots; I have better things to do with my resources

And yes: opposing fundamental human rights like marriage is bigotry.

[Captiosus]

230. The problem, though

is simply that a lot of folks just don't see marriage as a "fundamental right". (I'm playing devil's advocate here - see above re: my support for gay marriage.)

There's nothing anyone can point to and say "see, (insert document name here) gives us the right to wed". Marriage, if talking heads on the subject are to be believed, is rapidly becoming an outdated concept among heterosexuals with people choosing cohabitation over marriage. The fight for gay marriage is actually a fight on three fronts:

1 - Convincing people that marriage is still relevant in a time when marriage is losing popularity in favor of cohabitation;
2 - Untying the concept of "marriage" from religion;
3 - Enforcing interstate same-sex marriage rights under Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution.

How do we do this?

We could make all secular weddings into Civil Unions with all the rights afforded to religious "marriage", regardless of sexual orientation (meaning my marriage would also be a Civil Union) and religious "marriage" would only be valid for government purposes with an accompanying Certificate of Civil Union from the state thus making marriage and civil unions equal except in terms of religion. Then on forms like taxes, instead of "married", it would say Civil Union and apply to everyone. However, that only addresses point 3 above and leaves the door open to the religious/right wing nutjobs who would still want to mandate that "marriage" is one man-one woman.

Edit: Yes, I realize this solution hearkens back to "Separate but Equal". One term for religion, one term for secular, regardless of sexual orientation. I never said it was an ideal solution, just a potential solution.

[TechBear_Seattle]

284. The law has never recognized weddings, only marriage

Please do not confuse the ceremony with the civil institution. Also, please note that marriage in the United States is and always has been a civil institution, no matter that religious organizations use the same word to describe a religious institution. We do not have laws that regulate who may or may not be confirmed, there are no legal benefits for having a bar mitzvah and being ordained clergy does not automatically come with hundreds of rights, protections and priviledges guaranteed by statute and court precedent. The law cannot and does not recognize or reward religious rituals such as confirmation, bar mitzvah or ordination; that the law DOES recognize and reward marriage should be proof that legal marriage is not religious.

[Captiosus]

398. Not accurate.

And my family bible heirloom bears me out.

The only thing my relatives - Kellum by name - in the 1800s had for "legal" marriage was this book. This was their proof of legal marriage. And it was only legal because it was signed into a Holy Bible by a pastor who performed the ceremony.

Marriage in the United States, until the expansion of Government, was joined at the hip with religion. You got married by an ordained minister, or member of clergy, or Rabbi and that was the sole legal proof of marriage and that proof of marriage was in your family bible and valid so long as you could show it. The concept of marriage as civil didn't happen until the very late 19th or early 20th Century.

And this is what brings us to the problem today. Marriage is still viewed as being tied to the religious ceremony even if it hasn't been for several decades. People will not support same-sex marriage because they tie it directly to religion which speaks against homosexuality.

Case in point: I just got done talking, for four hours, with a friend whom I haven't spoken to in many years. He's not hyper-religious, but when we talked about politics, this is what he said, almost verbatim:"I'll never recognize a gay 'marriage' because homosexuality is against Christianity and marriage is religious institution." Yet when I asked how he felt about Civil Unions with equal rights in regards to tax law and benefits, he said: "I don't have a problem with that, even though I don't like gay people, but if they want to live together and get benefits that's fine."

See? Marriage, in the mind of many, is a religious term because originally legal marriage was only legal because it was certified by a religious institution. Yet this exact same person who wants marriage defined as one man/one woman has absolutely no problem with equal rights under the name "civil union" - even though doing so would be, essentially, a secular "marriage".

The entire mindset needs to be change of quite a lot of folks.
The question is, how do we change it?

[TechBear_Seattle]

411. YOU are wrong, and the Constitution backs me up

You have heard about the First Amendment, I assume?

There have always been marriage done by judges and justices of the peace. Clergy are authorized under state laws to officiate at marriage, and churches have often doubled as the despository of public records. But that is very far from saying that marriages were authorized soley by virtue of being a religious ceremony. A large number of weddings are performed every year without "benefit" of religious ritual or clerical blessing, and this has been the case since before the Constitution was written.

[Zuiderelle]

181. BIDEN SAID A STUPID THING AND THREW US UNDER THE BUS. PERIOD.

He said all the right things up until that point. When Ifill asked him directly "Do you support gay marriage?" His direct answer was "No."

Stupid and thoughtless and saddening.

We are not just an issue to debate about. We are citizens who deserve full equality. I know Biden agrees with that, and I wish he would just fucking say so.

Good for you to send your money to support No on Prop 8. That is where OUR money belongs.

[ronnykmarshall]

191. That's were mine is going from now on.

I've sent my share to Obama. Now I gotta fight to keep my marriage legal.

Sounds like the majority of people in this thread don't give a fuck.

[Zuiderelle]

194. Yep. My next contribution goes to fight Prop 8 as well. It's time we stopped being doormats for

the democratic party. Biden needs to step up and clarify his answers, or all he gets is my vote. Why the hell would I throw my money at someone who so easily dismisses my equality?

No more. I'm tired of it.

[ronnykmarshall]

202. Bottom line is that Obama is going to win this election.

He has my support and he's gotten my money.

Prop 8 is MY fight, OUR fight and once again it seems that we get shit on for standing up for ourselves in DU.

[Zuiderelle]

224. Yep. Ditto.

It would be so easy for people (there are a few on this thread at least) to just say "Yeah, that sucked. We understand your pain."

Instead we get shit on. Really annoying.

[ronnykmarshall]

238. It really shows who your freinds REALLY are.

I know deep down that Obama and Biden support gay marriage but can't say so. That sucks. I totally get where the OP is coming from. And look where it got him? Attacks, attacks, attacks.

What a load of shit.

[Duncan Grant]

251. They don't give a fuck.

Thought you knew that already. :hug:

[ronnykmarshall]

257. I guess I keep holding out for things to change.

But I guess it doesn't. Oh yeah when you're out there supporting the ticket you're just A-OK .... but god forbid you express something other than the approved talking points.

My favorite attack I got today ..... the PUMA card.

Got that thrown in my face because of my past support of "THAT WOMAN".

[musicblind]

182. Obama and Biden are both lying. In private they would both tell you they support gay marriage

however, they cannot take that stance on such a policy because they have to win this election. Instead they say they do NOT support gay marriage but do support civil unions. It is a lie. But, it is a necessary lie.

[Zuiderelle]

198. He should NOT have answered the question at all then. There are no necessary lies in that venue.

She managed to skate by without answering things she didn't want to answer. But the ONE thing they agree on is NO GAY MARRIAGE.

FUCK THAT.

[marimour]

295. not answering the ? IS answering the question. McCain wold have had an add out by morning.

[Zuiderelle]

298. No he wouldn't have. He could have answered it by saying that he believes in full equality.

Or answer it by saying that he supports full equality for civil unions even. At least it's better than "No."

[Marrah_G]

183. I am incredibly disappointed in a number of posters on this thread

This is about Equal rights. Equal rights. There should be no argument. No one should be made to feel badly because they are upset that their RIGHTS are being violated. That they do not have the rights that everyone else has OR are about to have those rights taken away.

On the other hand........ I am incredibly proud of the majority who have not given up on our highest ideals.

[Zuiderelle]

200. Thank you. Someone who understands. That's really all we want right now.

Understanding that what he said was very hurtful to us.

[bullwinkle428]

221. Biden at least could have eased the blow by stating that their administration

absolutely will not write discrimination into the Constitution, unlike what Grampy & Mooselini plan to do!

[pecwae]

318. Good post.

Wasted on those who just think equal rights is a 'pet issue'.

[helderheid]

195. marriage is a religious ceremony that the government should have nothing to do with, gay, straight,

or otherwise. Legal protections of partners should be protected equally for all.

[mokawanis]

197. First - let's elect Barack Obama

withdrawing support because of a single issue, no matter how important, is not the way to correct the wrongs and prejudices in society.

[ronnykmarshall]

213. You DON'T get it.

I can't speak for the OP, but being a gay man that just got married in California I understand where he's coming from.

I support Obama/Biden. I hate the shit that democrats say about gay marriage. I KNOW what is at stake in this election, which is why after Hillary lost ... I got on board w/ Obama.

BUT it's not a "single issue" for the OP and myself. He HAVE same sex marriage in California .. BUT that could be taken away from us for GOOD! Which is why I agree with the OP and have to send more money to No on 8 and less to Obama.

If Prop 8 wins ... my marriage is GONE! GONE! This is my last chance to have a legal marriage.

THAT is what the OP is fighting for and what I am fighting for.

I am fucking sick and tired of being told to shut up about my little petty issue.

[mokawanis]

281. I never told anyone to shut up, and I DO get it

but withdrawing support from Obama because of this issue, which some, incredibly, have threatened to do is absurd. Sending money for No on 8 makes perfect sense but withholding contributions to Obama because you don't like his position on a given issue is flat-out stupid.

[grantcart]

290. BTW if Proposition 8 passes it would have no impact on anybody's marriage

you cannot retroactively take away something with a constitutional ammendment.



In any case we are going to defeat it in a great landslide and tens of thousands of Americans are going to come to CA get married and jam up their companies and cities with law suits.

One by one they will fold and with NY, CA and MA providing full civil rights protection the jeanie is out of the bottle and the country cannot go back.

[enigmatic]

205. Equal rights for our GLBT brothers and sisters are things that all Democrats should be fighting for

Period.


And I'm proud to stand beside them to do just that, no matter what.

[dudewheresmycountry]

206. well dickthegrouch

These are decisions you will make and that's what we all have to do, is weigh the pros and cons of voting or not voting for whomever or whatever reason. The issues you state you are correct all men are created equal and should be treated as such. So don't donate your money to the Obama cause which is fine Obama will be fine and thank you for donating your money to Equality for all, that is a just cause as well.
Be well and blessings to you and yours......In a perfect world I wouldn't need to write this......

[Basement Beat]

209. Looking at this thread and other threads, why are Black Americans...

always pulled into things. Someone say negative things about Gays, its countered with "If they said that about Blacks...". If someone say a negative thing about Jews.."If they said that about Blacks..". If someone said a negative thing about white women.."If they said that about Blacks...". I'm just a little tired of being used as a prop in an argument.

Now, back on topic...that moment about Gay marriage always worried me with the party. I would love to see my GLBT brothers and sisters with the same rights as me. It pisses me off that its such a taboo subject in this world. I wish the OP would continue to support Obama/Biden...but I can definately understand the reason not to at this point. But also keep in mind that we all will be going further back with a McCain/Palin adminstration.

[sui generis]

220. well I'm against interracial marriage

or allowing protestants to get married.

There, no particular color involved.

Why do the posters here think the conversation is about the gays here? It's about potentially every gay voter now, not just the posters on DU.

We got thrown under the bus by someone we trusted to have our back. If you think we shouldn't be mad as hell (collective you) I think you shouldn't be a democrat.

There are some comments here that have me seeing red - the browbeating and mocking is not a value of the democratic party, and I'll be happy to hold the door for them to shut up or get out, and hold my vote if that's what it's going to take.

Mostly, there are millions of us who sadly are less likely to go out and vote now as a result, and there is NO WAY to reach those people in time now.

Biden hurt the democratic party last night.

[marimour]

233. were you ever informed about their position?

Their position hasn't changed on this at all since they have been running. Since this issue is important enough for you to stop contributing to the campaign why haven't you researched this before. I know that affirmative action is a do or die issue for me and I check every candidate I support's stance on this. Just seems odd that a gay person who cares so much about this issue never bothered to check it out before. Sounds fishy to me.

[sui generis]

239. stop the talking point. It's STUPID

And were you ever informed on my position? If they don't support us, they don't get our vote? Duh? THEY WORK FOR US. Not the other way around.

Does that sound fishy? It's reality. Our party is defined by the issues it supports. When we start defining our party by the issues we DON'T support, then we're just republicans. Sounds like Biden had a republican fart last night, and it didn't smell fishy, it smelled like shit.

The thing is, if a party wants our support it cannot claim to not support us. Their personal opinion on a matter CAN be different than their legislative position, but personal opinions don't hurt us. Laws do.

[Basement Beat]

252. I understand your point....

Don't be mistaken, I and many others here don't only agree with you being mad but is mad along with you. As I stated, I feel that each and every citizen should have the same rights. One of the basic emotion as love shouldn't be any different for anyone. And it should be recognized on a national level. My post was my verbal reaction for reading/hearing one group of Americans being faced off against another.

[gabby garcia]

216. I understand how this is hurtful

and unfair. And it totally sucks! But we HAVE to do ALL we can to get Obama into office so that at least our voices can be heard! McPalin will only turn a deaf ear - this much I know!!

[sui generis]

225. they need to be hearing our voices now.

not later. Throwing a hail mary to yourself is not a great field tactic in any sport, something our community explicitly understands.

Biden demonstrated that even when we trust our candidates to have our back, the feeblest excuse will do to rumblebumblejumble us under the bus. If it's that way now, why would it improve later?

If it was a political tactic, it was amateur and unworthy.

[ronnykmarshall]

229. One thing to note ...

Obama OPPOSES Prop 8 in California. He's on record with that.

I'd like to see Biden say the same thing.

[npk]

231. This was one of those issues in 2004

That I thought the right tried to define Kerry as someone who didn't care about traditional christian (read family) values. They just kept on it and on it, ignoring every other issue until they could paint John Kerry into a corner. I think Obama and Biden saw what happened in 2004 and they decided not to get involve in this issue, at least until after the election.

[crankychatter]

242. yup - nt

[crankychatter]

241. look at this thread - total deja vu - October '04 - I swear - the timing is fucking immaculate

there it is

what a snarky little madhouse you've created at the most critical period of the election process

congratulations

[ronnykmarshall]

243. yeah our marriages are SO last election.

[Zuiderelle]

247. That snarky little madhouse was created by people dismissing our concerns.

Like this.

[ronnykmarshall]

253. Did you see up thread ???

When some asshole could address the issue of WHAT Prop 8 is ... he threw in the PUMA card.

I guess I'm still "of suspect" by some.

[Hippo_Tron]

263. Not only that but unlike Kerry who opposed the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling...

Obama supports the California ruling. He just doesn't support federal legislation to re-define marriage. No it's not perfect but far better than any nominee we've ever had.

[ProSense]

279. That is completely false.

"If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," the senator said yesterday, stressing that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution. He has said he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position," he said Tuesday.

link

"John Kerry's position has been crystal clear. He opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts in the summer of 2002 because a sweeping proposal would have threatened civil unions, health benefits, or inheritance rights for gay couples that represent equal protection under the law," spokesman David Wade said.

"John favors civil unions, not gay marriage. It's that simple," he said.

<...>

The letter, organized by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., was sent on congressional stationery on July 12, 2002 as the Massachusetts legislature first considered a constitutional amendment that limited marriage to "only the union of one man and one woman."

"We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents," Kerry and 11 other members of the state's congressional delegation wrote.

link

Kerry's position has never changed.

[MNBrewer]

393. Interesting that you have an Icon of Paul Wellstone

Who voted to DEFINE marriage, which to that point had not been defined in Federal Law at least, as being between opposite sex couples only.

The idea that allowing it to also mean same sex couples is somehow "redefining" is ironic.

[Name removed]

297. Deleted message

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

[racaulk]

339. You know, you're right.

Perhaps we should just drop this issue and revisit it when it's more convenient for non-LGBT Democrats. When do you think that would be?

In the meantime, you have my sincere apologies for being a selfish fuck. I'll just continue to sit idly and quietly by the table anxiously awaiting whatever scraps my party decides to give me. So sorry to trouble you.

[crankychatter]

348. The War, Health Care, Neoliberalism, children suffering with no medical care or decent education

I walk out the door and find more suffering right here in my hometown, than I have ever, or WILL ever have to deal with.

I'd have to say, bringing that state initiative into the presidential arena at this precise moment is a display of supreme selfishness, yes.

It also indicates a certain social pathology... the utter inability to identify with the suffering of others

Yes, absolutely selfish, and frankly, VERY questionably motivated

I don't know about you personally, but some of these people are clearly Republican operatives

IF, you are endeavoring to dissuade Americans from voting for the Democratic nominee... I wouldn't dream of asking you to shut the fuck up

This IS America

I would however, invite you to GTFO

[racaulk]

356. Wow. Just wow.

First off, I don't disagree with you whatsoever that there are a multitude of issues that need to be addressed in our country RIGHT NOW. The suffering of so many people in our country is palpable, and I am just as saddened and angered by that as you are.

Furthermore, I am not trying to dissuade anyone from voting for Obama/Biden. Quite the opposite. I have donated to Obama, I have Obama/Biden signs on my car and in my yard, I talk to my coworkers and family daily in an effort to convince them not to vote for McCain/Palin, and I volunteer my time to canvas my local neighborhoods to assist in our GOTV efforts. And I do all of this, GLADLY so, because I know there is so much at stake in this election. And I do it all despite Obama and Biden consistently throwing me and my kind under the proverbial bus on a public stage in the name of political expediency...just like during the VP debate last night.

I'm an extremely socially conscious and empathetic person, it just that I choose to prioritize LGBT rights in addition to other causes.

Asking for (better yet, expecting) a spot of equality at the table of the party that I work my ass off for is not too much to ask. And because I dare to do so during the time of a Presidential election campaign does not make me, in your very callous words, a "probable fraud" or a "selfish fuck."

I'm glad your post that I originally replied to was deleted by the mods. It should have been.

[polichick]

249. I'm saddened that in 2008 this is still an issue. It seems Obama and Biden......

...believe that voters aren't ready to go there, but that they'll be able to bring them around over time.

[ronnykmarshall]

254. For us in California there will won't BE a next time

I support Obama/Biden will all my heart. But I can't stand back and wait for all the homophobes to drop dead. I could lose my marriage this November because of Prop 8. That's the fight I have to take up right now.

[polichick]

261. I remember your beautiful wedding pictures...

Maybe Obama and Biden are being too cautious about this. Hard for me to figure since I've been in favor of gay marriage all my adult life ~ can't even get my mind around the problem people have with it.

Good luck in California ~ I celebrated the day gay marriage was legalized in CA, and I have to believe that Californians will do what's right in November, both morally and according to our Constitution.

[ronnykmarshall]

379. God I hope a Yes on 8 troll comes to my door!

My wedding certificate is hanging on the wall right next to the door.

I'll shove that in their faces and then turn the hose on 'em !!!

[Fire1]

307. Obama is having a hard enough time convincing voters

'who aren't ready to go there' re: HIM, let alone something as controversial as this. I say, let's clear one hurdle at a time.

[David__77]

250. Both are good causes.

I commend you for giving to support marriage equality.

[amborin]

255. Win, First

then, let's worry about health insurance, equality, etc.............

[JerseygirlCT]

259. Both are supportive of the sort of incremental solution

where civil rights for gay couples match those extended to straight couples via marriage.

I don't like the position, myself. I want marriage rights - by that name - for everyone.

But their position would begin to make full civil rights (the ones available now to straight couples through marriage) available to gay people as well.

Though the inequality riles me, I'd still rather that than the GOPs virulently anti-gay agenda.

[Hippo_Tron]

260. You do know that Obama supports the California Supreme Court ruling, right?

Obama is more progressive on gay rights than any other major party nominee in history. I fully support equal marriage for all, but nothing in politics happens overnight. You can either take significant leaps forward with Obama and Biden or go miles backwards with McSame and Palin. If you want to donate your money to another cause then that's fine, but don't expect me to take your outrage seriously.

[marimour]

296. exactly. This reminds me of all the "concern" threads we've had lately.

[Thrill]

268. Do you actually want them to win this race? If they take any other position

Kiss the election

[XOKCowboy]

271. It might be the best use of your money

I mean that honestly and without snark. I'm hetero and am disappointed that my party isn't supporting LGBT issues more. It's politically expedient for them but you can be assured that they'll be the best candidates to ensure LGBT rights.

Donating the money to defeat Prop8 is a very good thing.

[unfrigginreal]

287. Not supporting LGBT issues?

Give me a fucking break. What planet are you on?

[XOKCowboy]

324. I misspoke. Let me clarify

Biden and Obama have both stated that they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Now that's not policy and I think that they have to keep saying it for political reasons. As true Democrats gender shouldn't matter when it comes to marriage. My point was that it would have been nice if they'd both come out and say it and make it policy.

[JPZenger]

276. All the same rights, just avoid legal use of word "marriage"

The Bible belt gets in a tizzy when the word "gay marriage" is used. Kerry, Obama and Biden all support the same thing - making sure gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples, except not having the government use the word "marriage." The couple can still use the word, and their place of worship can still use the word.

I think that is a fair compromise.

[uppityperson]

278. I agree. It is a church/state separation word term issue thingie.

I agree that the word "marriage" is part of the issue. Have the same rights, avoid legal use of that church term. For all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

[marimour]

302. exactly. If we committed ourselves like Obama/Biden to equal rights..

and gay couples called it marriage, then eventually, everyone else would call it marriage too. Case in point, my family. My great uncle has been calling his partner his husband for 20 years. Took less than 5 for the rest of my very religious family (including 2 preachers) to follow suit. Obama/Biden are committed to equal legal rights for all, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Feigning outrage because Obama/Biden wont commit political suicide by calling it what you want to call it is silly.

[catgirl]

286. Chill out

Things will change after the election. They're not going to be stupid
and help make this an issue this time around. Kerry suffered greatly
when Rove made gay marriage a top issue and caused an outcry from
supporters of GM. Not this time.

[question everything]

289. Then perhaps, you can contribute to the Red Cross that is broke

after the spring floods in the Midwest and after Gustav, Ike and the others.

[Freddie Stubbs]

292. Get over it. This is a state issue as opposed to a federal one

Obama isn't go to risk losing support of swing voters by weighing in on an issue on which he has little power to influence.

[IndianaJones]

299. yeah...like slavery and voting rights. nt.

[cboy4]

305. What a nauseating comment. Oh my Lord.

:puke:

[Chloroplast]

310. Uh oh.

:yoiks:

[unfrigginreal]

316. He's already weighed in

He supports equal constitutional and legal rights for gay partnerships. Sorry to disappoint you.

[sui generis]

328. well that's clear as mud, sorry to disappoint.

I'm against gay marriage but I support equal rights as long as you don't call it that. Vote for me, I'm going to be a GREAT leader. Change is a comin'. Tru-u-u-u-u-ust us.

Yadda, yadda, snore.

[racaulk]

342. You get over this.

[DevonRex]

306. I am a FERVENT supporter of gay marriage and I absolutely

want my LGBT brothers and sisters to have every single right that everyone else in the country enjoys.

I have a solution to this mess. I want all licenses issued to be called civil union licenses, I want all government certificates to be called Certificates of Civil Union. If a couple weds in a church, then that church may issue a Marriage Certificate in addition to the official Certificate of Civil Union. That Marriage Certificate would NOT be the legal document, but rather a ceremonial document intended as a keepsake or a show piece in their wedding album or framed to put on their wall.

In this way, different churches can still decide on their own whether to issue those ceremonial marriage certificates or not. If a gay couple wishes to have a marriage certificate in addition to the legally binding government-issued certificate, they may certainly have that done in a progressive church and I would certainly encourage them to do so. I would not attend a church that refused to issue a marriage certificate to gay couples and I know many here would feel the same way.

This is just my opinion. But I believe that government should not be in the business of religious ceremonies and I believe that churches should not dictate who can wed and who cannot. Churches already have the right to recognize or not recognize some unions. Catholic churches do not recognize MY marriage as being valid. That does not make me any less married in the eyes of the law and it does not preclude ME from calling it a marriage.

I hope I have explained my position on this well enough.

I also hope that this does not become a wedge issue right here on DU. We have a long way to go before we can claim to have achieved equality for our LGBT community. I do know one thing: McCain/Palin will take us back DECADES from where we are now. Palin is James Dobson's candidate, the Focus on the Family candidate. That should scare the HELL out of the LGBT community as it does me.

As far as donations, thank you for what you have already donated. And of course you have the right to do what you wish with your own money. I hope you did not intend to discourage other people from donating to the Obama campaign, since I believe that to be counterproductive to our purpose here.

[sui generis]

317. way to go sista!

It's not really a "wedge" issue - the surprise to the GLBT community is to see which of our "friends" here suddenly feels the need to browbeat us or tell us our lives are a "pet" issue.

It's surprising and disappointing for some - remember we trust the people who trust us to vote for them. When they get up and throw us under the bus for political gain, instead of supporting us for political gain, then they're playing the Ford Pinto game: go ahead and let the 1 in 1000 cars blow up and we'll pay the lawsuit and come out ahead. Go ahead and don't worry about losing the gay vote because we'll get all these conservative undecided voters to make up for it.

In practice the first lawsuit cost Ford millions of dollars and the problem was bigger than 1 in 1000. In practice there are more people who support equality than just "the gays", more people who were turned off than his carefully considered political strategy.

It was wrong of him to frame the "position of the party" as being against gay marriage, when he should have said that he personally is against it but not in favor of laws that restrict equality.

He's a politician, he should know how to couch an idea without scorching the earth. I AM willing to say I'm undecided now. Not between parties, but whether to vote at all, pending clarification from Biden AND Obama, and that's being too generous in my opinion.

I am a democrat. This exercise in this thread is enabling me to distill what I want to say in real political circles on this topic, and you can be absolutely certain that I will. The "counter" arguments so far have been pretty lame, and disappointing to hear from so-called Democrats.

:hi:

[unfrigginreal]

323. Yeah right

Where are you going to go? You and I are fucking lucky that we have a Democratic Party and nominees to stand up for our rights. Some morans are never satisfied.

[sui generis]

326. here's the thing that would have made it all better

if most of DU would have said - "that sucks. Biden was wrong on that point and we disagree".

But they didn't, which implies that most actually DO agree.

Well, I am a power unto myself like every voter. We don't have to "go" anywhere - we're here, we're queer, etc. These chimp brained (actually chimps are nicer) pretend Democrats who are telling us to shut up and vote couldn't fight for an issue to save their life.

WE stand up for our rights. If we expect someone else to do it for us, we might as well go find a tree and a rope and get ready for our "shut up and vote" fellow democrats to show up with the pitchforks and torches.

They're in for a nasty surprise.

[DevonRex]

327. It's all too easy for people to ignore an issue that isn't one of their

own, isn't it?

I do think Biden and Obama need to clarify their positions. Mostly I think it's a damned shame that in this day and age our politicians feel they have to dance around the issue. Hopefully all our voices will be heard very soon and real change will come.

I do think that a very clear separation of church and state might help in the long run. As it is, that line is blurred so much that it gives too much credence to the argument of religious nutcases.

Take death, for instance. The doctor or coroner pronounces death and issues the death certificate. But the funeral in many cases is a religious event, with pomp and ceremony and lots of fancy documents and signatures of those who attended. But you're officially dead even if you didn't have a preacher pray over you and sign the funeral book.

How's that for a creepy analogy? LOL. :hi:

[debbierlus]

312. The only thing I can say to you is that we must stop the bleeding

It is WRONG that Obama & Biden don't support gay marriage.

I wanted Gore or Kucinich.

My support for Obama only comes from the realization that change doesn't always happen quickly. I know his policies are corporately dictated.

[catgirl]

329. There you go again spewing your crap

Your "I never wanted Obama" righteous crap. Blah blah blah

[sui generis]

338. What's wrong is to have lawyers run for executive office.

Legislators suck as leaders. They're good at the politics of consensus, and more than willing to trade pork for substance.

A leader leads. Hackett and Feingold, and yes Kucinich, all have said that marriage is for all Americans. So every other turd brain here who can't swallow that fact is a lousy democrat and a worse American. AINO's.

And yes it IS wrong that Obama and Biden by not supporting gay marriage are saying some Americans are less American than others because of something you can't see, can't prove and can't deny.

I expect it from semi-conservative Biden, I'm not disappointed with tongue-tied Obama unable to speak directly, but I'm fucking ready to take apart some of the asswipes on DU who I expect more of than I expect of our lawyerly candidates. And they think we're easy pickin's for a smackdown . . . we've been fighting for our rights our whole fucking lives. Some of these beanie-brains have only just woken up and stopped playing Halo II long enough to borrow someone else's opinion.

:nuke:

[specialed]

319. You would do well

To follow Obama's example and apply the basic way he is having this success to your own cause. By acting in a calm, rational manner and working tirelessly to advocate for your position on sound principles will get your where you want to be. Acts like this will get you five minutes of chuckles. Big trade off for five minutes of chuckles.

[sui generis]

330. clearly 300 plus posts is more than five minutes of chuckles.

Some people think we shouldn't be offended or disappointed. If you were a wife who only gets beaten occasionally, I'm sure you would act in a calm and rational manner when your husband asked you for some money and your vote.

[racaulk]

385. Yeah, this whole thread has been one big fucking chucklefest.

And that's all I'm concerned about, getting a few laughs.

:eyes:

[PresidentObama]

334. Good for you. I'm gay, and I've given him hundreds of dollars.

[unfrigginreal]

337. lol..."get out of the way"

then you support this thread? :crazy:

[PresidentObama]

361. Umm, no I don't. I said good for you, I disagree--and have given him money.

[JuniperLea]

336. It's called politics...

We can hold his feet to the fire when he gets into office. Until then we just have to keep up the good fight where and when we can. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater has never been a good idea.

I understand how you feel, and I think it stinks too. But who do you think we can get to change? McCain or Obama? I think the choice is clear.

[sui generis]

349. holding his feet to fire now is also an option

:hi:

there are many ways he could have framed this. That was possibly the most hurtful (I mean strategically, not touchy-feelie). If a party wants to claim strength, it can't throw its own people under the bus to show solidarity and win votes from the other side, and it's not okay or there wouldn't be this many posts on this thread.

If he wanted to make a sound-byte, fine. Now that he's shaken our martini brother better put an olive in it, with the branch attached.

Something tells me that if there is no further clarification forthcoming to mitigate the cold-cock, we've been told our vote is being taken for granted, and to go ahead grant it would just prove that we're stupid cows who don't deserve better.

I'm angry Juniper, mostly at DU, not the candidates. I didn't expect much from them to begin with.

[JuniperLea]

350. I know... I'm sorry... wish I could change things...

Ignorance is bliss for far too many.

DU is whipped to a froth, and unfortunately, a lot of bubble heads are floating to the surface. Hillary got her ass handed to her here too. There are a lot of folks still doing that... but GAWD forbid you say anythng negative about Obama. I know. I know. I bite my tongue a lot.

I have a lot of issues with Obama, and his framing on a lot of issues is horrid. You can't please all the people all the time, so I think it's best to stick to your convictions.

I guess that goes for you as much as it goes for Obama.

:hug:

[Name removed]

343. Deleted message

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

[sui generis]

345. Sorry, I'm a democrat. We're here, get fucking used to it.

now Damian, it's only a circular firing squad if everyone here is a democrat. Since you are most clearly a recent or possibly current republican you should just go crawl back under your white pointy hat sheet and go scare some po black fokes or whatever your kind does for fun.

The gays are a bit tougher than you fairweather democrats and I'll be happy to prove it to you.

[TheKentuckian]

347. Gays are not being thrown under the bus at all

Here you have people actually taking hits to GET YOU RIGHTS, rights that most in the country don't have and where those that have them or better see them under constant assault.

Some may be jumping under the bus rather than getting on one that takes you towards your destination but no one is tossing you there.

If you don't see the tremendous change in status then you are blind and stupid. You want the word, well that's the next step but the rights are a GIANT LEAP forward that many gays refuse to take out of fear you might come up short. That's myopic.

[sui generis]

353. it's all about semantics isn't it

makes you wonder why calling someone blind and stupid and then asking for their vote is such a great strategy.

We're disappointed. We're let down. Being told we're myopic and blind and stupid is really not making friends.

[racaulk]

363. Myopic, blind, and stupid? Oh, that's NOTHING!

We were called "probable frauds" and "selfish fucks" upthread.

[ronnykmarshall]

370. and of course PUMA'S.

I must be still on "the list" for supporting Hillary in primary.

[TheDonkey]

360. As a gay man I am horrified by these preening 'supposedly gay' trolls

attacking Obama and Biden who have the most progressive and full-throated support for GLBT issues in our history of a nation. That is why we call this PROGRESS and not COMPLETION. Civil rights doesn't happen in the course of a campaign. African Americans are STILL fighting for equality some 60 years after the civil rights act.

[ronnykmarshall]

365. Supposedly gay troll?

Uh .... I don't think so.

[racaulk]

374. ROFL!

Come on ronny, fess up! Clearly your gay wedding, with pics posted here on DU, was just a clever scheme to troll and pretend to be gay on an anonymous discussion board. But now you've been found out!!!

:crazy:

[ronnykmarshall]

376. I know, right?

And all those guys I fucked over the years were all a part of my evil plan!!!!!!!!!

Oh that Donkey is so smart. He's just pissed because I threw him out of my apartment after the shitty sex we had.

[racaulk]

378. HA HA HA HA!!!

Thank you! After reading these shitty responses in these threads today, I really needed that laugh!!! :thumbsup:

:rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

396. Read this asshole!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7307374

[sui generis]

437. but Ronny

they don't care if our feelings are hurt, in fact they view it as blood in the water.

We expect betrayal from enemies, not from our friends. All we're hearing from asswipes like Mr. Donkey is people like him never were our friends to begin with, but and this is the biggest joke, they still want our vote.

He's a defective human, and no amount of reason can ever fix it. We have a right to feel the way we do, beyond anyone's right to judge. I'll bet you small fortune that Donkey has never had to fight for a single thing ever in his life, has never faced the tiniest bit of adversity.

He's beneath contempt and he can stay there.

[qwlauren35]

351. I think that is an Understandable Decision.

...

[and-justice-for-all]

352. Obama/Biden will not have a Constitutional Amendment

to BAN Same-Sex marriage. However, the two repig fascist will have a Constitutional Amendment to BAN same-sex marriage.

To Repigs, if your not a straight-White-christofascist, then your a second class citizen.

Buy not voting for Obama/Biden or not voting or voting instead for the repig fascist, would be national suicide.

[ronnykmarshall]

368. Where did he say he wasn't voting for Obama?

[Name removed]

387. Deleted sub-thread

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

[liberalpragmatist]

375. Obama has endorsed NO on Prop 8

I'm disappointed in him not publicly just coming out in favor of marriage equality too (it would be so much easier than the convoluted "yes-to-civil-unions-but-no-to-marriage" argument). But credit is due where credit is due...

http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6307

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

[quakerboy]

395. Informative

and worth a look. It does help put this longish thread in perspective. Thank you.

[CTLawGuy]

377. was it a shock to you that they didn't support gay marriage

they have ALWAYS opposed gay marriage!

[MNBrewer]

391. Ok, so they're consistent. Consistently bigoted.

[marimour]

399. So you honestly think Obama & Biden are bigots?

Throwing out the "bigot" card because they are publicly disagreeing with you on whether to call it marriage or civil union is petty. And it only leads people away from your viewpoint. Well thought out, non judgmental points persuade a lot better than anger.

[MNBrewer]

405. Ok, Fair enough, Not Bigoted

How about "not exactly fully committed to full equality for gay people". Bigoted is an extreme word. They're *mildly biased* against gays.

[Name removed]

381. Deleted message

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

[Fran Kubelik]

388. JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE. HE SUPPORTS OUR CANDIDATE!

I am willing to bet he's already given more to Obama's campaign than most of the assholes on this thread telling him to go fuck himself. He's no more a one-issue voter than people who give money to Planned Parenthood or the ACLU or SPCA.

Could you all please try to read and comprehend a post before you go attacking good posters?

:nuke:

[sui generis]

431. thank you Fran

it's astonishing how our "single issue" actually means visitation rights, property rights, the right to have both your same gender parents be legal parents and not just guardians, the right to define and insure our families, and a dozen other rights and privileges that go with our "single issue".

I am truly proud of our friends here who understand that and who agree that Biden said a stupid hurtful thing (the real reason for the anger here). On the other hand, there are some so-called democrats here who the party could absolutely be better off without, and if anyone wants I'll be happy to name names, break the rules, and call them out. Our party is about inclusiveness, equality (the basis for our desire to have a better economy and planet and healthcare system). So what part of equality are those people missing when the first test of equality is failed by our Veep, all other semantics aside?

I guess their motto for this election is "shut up and vote", which is not a "democratic" principle by any means. The values of the party supports the people who support those values. It's a two way street - why would anyone support a political platform that says it's "against" them?

[goodgd_yall]

392. Biden gave a clumsy answer to the question

I know neither Biden nor Obama believe in gay marriage. I also know Obama would not support a constitutional amendment to gay marriage and believes it should be left to the states to decide. But Biden did not give a thorough explanation of Obama's position and did him a disservice.

[Politicub]

400. That's ok

I'll donate $50 tonight to Obama tonight in your name.

I'm gay and my partner and I have been together for 13 years. I hope to have a legally recognized civil union or marriage with him someday, and I know my chances for doing that one day are far better under Obama/Biden than anything the GOP puts out there.

I trust Obama and Biden. The dialogue about gay marriage was fascinating to me last night, and actually gave me hope. The American people may be ready for a crumb of recognition for gay relationships, which means the full faith and credit of marriage may be possible someday to all couples in the union. Even Sarah Palin had to budge from her right wing perch - even if she was lying - in relation to gay relationships.

[marimour]

403. i agree. I saw it as progress. He made Palin commit to equal rights as well.

And he stated in no uncertain terms that gays will have equal rights in an Obama/Biden administration. That is the strongest statement on this issue that I've heard so far from a pres/vp nominee.

[RollWithIt]

404. Didn't Biden spend several minutes defending civil unions??

That's what I don't understand about this thread. Take for example Ohio, where I'm from. There is no way in hell that gays will be allowed to marry in Ohio anytime soon. Not gonna happen. HOWEVER, civil unions can and will be legalized there in the near future. So what is the point of fighting over union vs marriage. If they both afford the same rights, then what is the longterm difference for gay families in America? I mean real life on the ground.

BTW, the same holds true in Florida, where i currently live.

And before you jump down my throat on the fact that gay people should have exactly the same rights as straight people (marriage) I understand where you are coming from. The simple fact is that the Obama-Biden ticket has made it clear that they are not prejudiced against the LGBT community. They just can't spout off about supporting gay marriage in an American National Election. Compare Obama-Biden to McCrazy-Pain.

[TheDonkey]

407. But Biden didn't marry a gay couple on stage so there is NO WAY I'm going to support him

This is fauxrage of the highest order. Before the trolls lash out at me let it be known I am gay and I can see through this pettiness. Biden gave a very progressive stance for gay civil unions and gay rights. He said he wasn't for gay marriage, that's not a shock, none of the Democratic front runners were. Using actual logic and not knee-jerk flippancy the unions he and Obama seek to put in place are marriages.

[RollWithIt]

408. Well, ty for the thoughtful viewpoint, something that is lacking in this thread....

What has bothered me the most about this thread is the attacks on people for being "straight" and not understanding the problem. I'm straight. I fully understand the longterm problem. All Americans should have exactly the same rights. I know this. Obama knows this. Biden knows this. But sadly, now is not the time to allow the Republicans to define this election on gay marriage. They did that in 2004.

When all the dust is settled, Obama is President, the Senate is near a super majority, the House is +50, these things can be settled once and for all. But for now, I just don't understand the irrational viewpoints.

[swishyfeet]

409. Stop it with the thoughtfulness

The sky is falling - CAN'T YOU SEE??!!!!1111!!1!

Yes, there's nothing new here
Yes, Obama/Biden made the ONLY politically viable statement available in 2008
Yes, it's consistent with what they've been saying all along

Some people want to argue just because that's kinda what we do best here...

[sui generis]

430. well, there aren't a lot of gays against gay marriage.

hope that clears up the "irrationality".

Sorry for the generalizations though - they aren't fair I agree.

[Unvanguard]

406. Prop. 8 will fail. That's almost guaranteed at this point.

But Obama can still lose.

[crossroads]

415. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

I feel you are just over-reacting to this issue because of your extreme sensitivity on this one issue!

Think about it and ive change a chance! You have free will... but do you have another viable option here? Just my opinion!
CR

[Sugarcoated]

423. I'll give him an extra contribution to make up for you

[BlooInBloo]

427. (shrug) Ok.

[darius15]

429. Please change your decision. I don't agree with everything Obama says

but think of what would happen in a McCain presidency. That's what keeps me going everyday. This last month is when we need to pour it all out there to make sure that Obama gets elected.

[roughsatori]

432. Can you imagine the DU biased-heterosexual idiots

saying "vote for Obama" if he were against heterosexual marriage? It appears that many members of this site could give a shit about equal rights for all--as long as they have theirs.

[TexasObserver]

433. Why should anyone believe you've ever given any $ to Obama?

Are we to believe you just now found out that his view of gay marriage is not yours? Are we to believe you have been backing him and sending him money but THIS VP debate causes you to turn and run?

Yeah, right. I don't believe a word you said, and anyone who does is kidding himself or herself.

Thanks, but no thanks, Johnny Drama!

[sui generis]

436. why should anyone believe you are a democrat?

Can't you find something more along your personal interests to have an opinion about? It's kinda weird that a handful of self described mainstream *read "anti-gay"* so-called democrats just come here to poo poo us with childish phrases like Johnny Drama.

Do you really think browbeating works? Do you really think your derision is going get us to support assholes like you?

Seriously guy - isn't there a gunjeon or someplace you'd be happier?

[racaulk]

438. Wait a minute...I thought you were ignoring this thread!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7295995#7308177

You said you're ignoring this thread and now you're not, so why should we believe anything you have to say?

So you've come back to deride us some more? Nothing better to do? :shrug:




Oh, and just because I personally know you hate this... ---> :eyes: