Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

This is really starting to annoy me

Election 2004 LGBT same sex marriage Politicians

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 05:43 PM

I'm talking about politicians (especially the ones who are campaigning for an election this year) who keep side-stepping, or half-answering questions about gay marriage.

As much as I vehemently dislike Bush, I do applaud him for at least stating his opinion on the matter--something few other politicians seem willing to do.

I understand what a political hot-potato this is, but c'mon folks!  Gay marriages are being performed in new places every week.  Regardless of how you feel about it, THIS IS AN ISSUE.  IF YOU JUST IGNORE IT AND PRETEND IT ISN'T HAPPENING IT WILL NOT SIMPLY GO AWAY.

Edwards: "Leave it to the states" (translation :"(humming with fingers in ears) I'm not listening! I'll just pass the buck!")

Kerry: "I support civil unions, not marriage" (translation: "It walks like a duck, sounds like a duck--but it isn't a duck! (ducks question)")

And this gem from FL senator Bill Nelson after I sent an e-mail to his office asking him not to support Bush's stupid amendment:

Quote

Thank you for contacting me about proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.

      I support civil rights for all, but am opposed to gay marriage.  I prefer that the issue not be addressed in the U.S. Constitution, because there is a Federal law giving states the legal right to enact a ban.  In Florida, there already is such a law on the books.

      As congress further considers this issue, be assured I'll keep your views in mind.



      Sincerely,
      Bill Nelson

Yes, and I support pro-civil rights senators, but am opposed to actually voting for them.  :grr:

Will someone please slap these people?

-Nick

#2 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 05:51 PM

Quote

Kerry: "I support civil unions, not marriage" (translation: "It walks like a duck, sounds like a duck--but it isn't a duck! (ducks question)")

This is the position I supported before it came out of Kerry's mouth.  It is a compromise, that may not make either side happy, but it doesn't favor one side over the other.  (Another plus being that this solution was agreeable to both Drew and I who are on opposite sides about this).  I am not seeing why that would be a problem.  Seems like the smart thing to do.  The country is divided enough, while not a perfect solution it can work.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#3 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 06:10 PM

It depends on who's defining the civil union here, and if it will be recognized by all of the states.  A Vermont-style civil union setup won't cut it.  It still leaves out way too many of the benefits granted to heterosexual couples.

Unfortunately, all Kerry's site says on the matter is:

Quote

John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples.

Quote

John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need.  He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees.  He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

So . .
-Healthcare
-Inheritance
-Social Security.
-Pension
-FMLA
-Hospital Visits.

Okay, that's some of it--what about taxes? Will there be a 2 new checkboxes on our 1040s "Civally Unionized, Filing Jointly"

I'm sorry, but Kerry saying that he supports "Civil Unions and not Marriage" is a cop-out, IMHO.  He's hiding behind a euphemism.

-Nick

#4 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 06:39 PM

In other words the silence from the Democrats is because are scared stiff on this issue.  Either way they go they will lose support that they need to beat Bush.   He has them stuck between the rock and the hard place either way they go.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#5 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 06:57 PM

Generally I agree with you Nick.  However, Kerry's position IS a stand.  He supports same sex civil unions, which would confer upon same sex couples the same legal benefits enjoyed by heterosexual civilly joined couples, which would arguably take care of the equal protection argument.  The problem with the word "marriage" is that, like it or not, it is a word that is irrevocably associated with religion.  Which raises all manner of issues regarding separation of Church and State.

Lil
Posted Image

#6 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 07:02 PM

Agreed, Lil!!  He is taking a stand and civil unions can (if handled right) solve most of this mess. Marriage does have the touch of religion to it, while civil unions do not. That can make them easier for middle class America to handle. Now, all we need to do is be sure that the laws see them as equal.

Does this sound funny coming from a Christian/Republican? :)

#7 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 07:09 PM

Lover of Purple, on Mar 5 2004, 12:00 AM, said:

Agreed, Lil!!  He is taking a stand and civil unions can (if handled right) solve most of this mess. Marriage does have the touch of religion to it, while civil unions do not. That can make them easier for middle class America to handle. Now, all we need to do is be sure that the laws see them as equal.

Does this sound funny coming from a Christian/Republican? :)
*shakes LoP's hand throughly....so throughly he'll have tennis elbow for a month*

That, sir, we can agree on!!!!!!!!  Watch out - or I'll kiss your cheeks next!

Of course when CU are the standard, I may well be down at the courthouse with my sweetie asking for one - cause I wouldn't want a conventional civil marriage - I want the same CU that gay couples have!   :hehe:

#8 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 07:12 PM

But Nick is right  Kerry is comming off the wishy washy spot is going to cost him support.   And I love it.

Edited by G1223, 04 March 2004 - 07:13 PM.


#9 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 07:20 PM

I won't even get started on the separation of church and state issue, Lil. :D


As far as the current issue about gay marriage is concerned, about a third of the politicians are waffling on this, about a third had a defined stated opinion, and the other third can't even make articulate sentences on the subject it seems.

For all I like Bush (although there are several things I strongly disagree with him on), I feel he is definitely wrong on this issue in trying to support a Constitutional Amendment.

As much as I disagree with Edwards, I think he has the proper stance on this one.. This is a matter for the states to decide for themselves... That is not passing the buck, it's a matter of separation of powers between States and the Federal government.

The only way I can see this being a Federal case is for someone to bring a suit against the government to equate the gay marriage issue with the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the US Constitution.  

Until the courts rule on that issue I think that ANY thought about an amendment is extremely premature to the point of being ludicrous and extremely reactionary.  

If the courts did rule that it should be handled under constitutional law, and felt an amendment might be necessary, then I can see the impetus to present the Amendment.. .

Keep in mind, that in order to amend the Consititution, 2/3 of the states must ratify it (I am going off of memory here, so I might be wrong).

They will certainly get my vote on it, and that vote will be No Way.

But I'm certainly getting very sick of the whole thing.



Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#10 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 07:35 PM

Corwin, on Mar 5 2004, 12:18 AM, said:

For all I like Bush (although there are several things I strongly disagree with him on), I feel he is definitely wrong on this issue in trying to support a Constitutional Amendment.



As much as I disagree with Edwards, I think he has the proper stance on this one.. This is a matter for the states to decide for themselves... That is not passing the buck, it's a matter of separation of powers between States and the Federal government.

"pursuit of happiness" clause in the US Constitution. 
Agreed the document does not need these altertaions.



Edwards was correct as this is a powert the federal Government did not reserve for it self. So till the matter comes up for federal appeals court there is no federal case.(If the appeals court is even willing to see it)




There is no such clause. The phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence.

#11 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 07:43 PM

G1223, on Mar 4 2004, 06:33 PM, said:

Corwin, on Mar 5 2004, 12:18 AM, said:




"pursuit of happiness" clause in the US Constitution. 


There is no such clause. The phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence.
DOH!  

How about promoting domestic tranquility or promoting the general welfare instead?

Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#12 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 08:39 PM

Nick, on Mar 4 2004, 04:41 PM, said:

Gay marriages are being performed in new places every week.
Not really. Since there is not yet any such thing as that in most of these places, they can't be getting performed. What's really happening is a con job, a fraud perpatrated against innocent homosexual couples, in which rogue local officials or clerks claim to be doing something they have no power to do. Marriage documents, or any other government documents, that are supposed to represent a government that does not endorse them, are null, void, counterfeit. It's just like if I were to steal some blank licenses and go around declaring people married. Since I have been granted no such powers, my officiating is unofficial and meaningless, and nobody actually gets married as a result of my fakery.

#13 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 08:43 PM

Nick, on Mar 4 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but Kerry saying that he supports "Civil Unions and not Marriage" is a cop-out, IMHO.  He's hiding behind a euphemism.
Take another look. What he's talking about is THE solution, not just because I declare it to be so as my decision, but because it's something that most people on BOTH sides would be satisfied with.

#14 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 09:20 PM

Delvo, on Mar 4 2004, 08:37 PM, said:

Not really. Since there is not yet any such thing as that in most of these places, they can't be getting performed. What's really happening is a con job, a fraud perpatrated against innocent homosexual couples, in which rogue local officials or clerks claim to be doing something they have no power to do. Marriage documents, or any other government documents, that are supposed to represent a government that does not endorse them, are null, void, counterfeit. It's just like if I were to steal some blank licenses and go around declaring people married. Since I have been granted no such powers, my officiating is unofficial and meaningless, and nobody actually gets married as a result of my fakery.
Well, in some of those places there are no laws expressly forbidding or allowing it--so until they're tried in court, they're valid.

-Nick

#15 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 09:25 PM

Delvo, on Mar 4 2004, 05:41 PM, said:

Nick, on Mar 4 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but Kerry saying that he supports "Civil Unions and not Marriage" is a cop-out, IMHO.  He's hiding behind a euphemism.
Take another look. What he's talking about is THE solution, not just because I declare it to be so as my decision, but because it's something that most people on BOTH sides would be satisfied with.
Once again *sigh* ;) I have to agree with Delvo.
Posted Image

#16 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 10:19 PM

The only solution for Kerry is to attempt a middle ground.

He says gay marriage is okay and the religious American votes for Bush.

He says gay marriage is out, and he doesn't differentiate himself from Bush.

What he needs to do is something similar to what Harry Truman did in 1948. Only better. Since this time he's not just potentially alienating the South, he's potentially alienating everyone who thinks "in God we trust" means "in God we trust to defend us against gays".

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#17 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 10:58 PM

the'Hawk, on Mar 4 2004, 07:17 PM, said:

The only solution for Kerry is to attempt a middle ground.
Is coming out in favor of same sex civil unions (provided they provide the same legal benefits as today's civil "marriages") really a middle ground though???

Isn't the real issue the denial of legal recognition to these unions?  I mean it's not like Congress has the right to force the Catholic Church to "marry" gay couples...

Lil (contemplating a poll along these lines)
Posted Image

#18 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 11:06 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 4 2004, 08:56 PM, said:

Is coming out in favor of same sex civil unions (provided they provide the same legal benefits as today's civil "marriages") really a middle ground though???
It is, since it polls so much better. If gay marriage polled better, I do believe Kerry would be in favour of it. If civil unions polled at ten percent, then he'd be against them. Again, it's just my opinion, but I do believe he's 'evolved' on several key issues.

Conversely, I do believe that Bush would be against gay marriage no matter what; it would just be a degree of emphasis.

I disagree with Bush's position-- I'm for gay marriage, largely on the basis that it's none of my business in any case-- but from where I'm sitting, he's the only one of the two who stands for something.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#19 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 11:14 PM

Define "gay marriage" though.  Are you talking about the civil ceremony?  If so then what's the problem with changing the name to "civil union"?  If you're talking about marriage in churches then you are wrong because the State has no right (or legal basis) to impose it's view of "marriage" on churches.  So, define "gay marriage" as you understand it.

Lil
Posted Image

#20 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 11:21 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 4 2004, 11:56 PM, said:

Isn't the real issue the denial of legal recognition to these unions?  I mean it's not like Congress has the right to force the Catholic Church to "marry" gay couples...
...and the law doesn't technically force the Catholic Church to preach about the joys of contraception, but at the same time, it's charities have to pay for it.

Yes, I know, a different thread, but there are linkages.

You can't pretend that there is going to be no effect on a religion when the government gets involved in a social situation like this.  

Another example is abortion.  A good Catholic woman (or other sort of anti-abortion person) may have the right to *not* get an abortion, but as soon as it's sanctioned by the government, they can tax religious people and send that money to abortion clinics and as foreign aid to other countries to secure abortions.  If the people who are taxed complain about what they consider having to pay for murder, they can't ask that their money be not spent on that.

In an ideal sense, I have no issue with gay civil unions and such.  As it stands right now, with some legal work, you could contract for many of the benefits of marriage without any law in existence.  Tax breaks could then be extended to people who adopt or have a praticular sort of contract, instead of having to include gays into the "Married" class.  That doesn't bother me in the slightest.  

However, when you take a legal union already in existence, which has already taken a lot of blows from the undermining of it's social underpinnings in the last 40 years, and then bust it wide open to a group that it simply was never intended to include, and I seriously challenge you to show where in Western culture that mariage was meant for gays until the present day, you are going to undermine that institution to no good effect.  

There are also movements inside of churches that want gays to be accepted.  Laws can be used to threaten religious groups indirectly into accepting situations that they simply don't believe in, like the contraception situation.  Gay groups inside certain churches can also use the similar laws as a bludgeon as well.  Seperation of Church and State works, but only on the level of seperating the government's organization from a religious organization.  Otherwise, the influence of government is still there.  If we exclude people who believe religiously from exercising their beliefs in making policy, the the pushing only goes one-way, from the government.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election, 2004, LGBT, same sex marriage, Politicians

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users