Which way could you go? [Archive]

View Full Version : Which way could you go?

JamieSPC

11-08-2004, 06:42 PM

strandinthewind

11-08-2004, 07:20 PM

JamieSPC

11-08-2004, 07:25 PM

But Kerry wasn't your only choice.

I've voted third-party before, mostly because I ordinarily don't vote party lines. I like the Republican political platform, and position-wise I am pretty much a Republican, but have serious issues with the people that seem to end up on the ticket.

I have friends, Republican and Democrat, who say voting third-party or writing in is throwing your vote away. But when your head hits the pillow at night, what does your conscience tell you if you vote for someone who opposes something you so passionately believe in?

This has always, and will always, bother me.

Johnny Stew

11-08-2004, 07:38 PM

Oh crap, here he goes again.

But seriously...

Much of the hurt over the election seems to come from the far right's opposition, with the full support of "their candidate," to gay marriage. What comfort would someone take in voting for either candidate based on this issue?

I don't think anyone needs confirmation of W's stance here. But Kerry's is confounding:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_state_ban_on_gay_marriage/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4245324

And here's a great one:

http://boifromtroy.com/archives/002740.php (click with confidence; this ain't porn)

Seems an anti-war, pro-gay marriage voter had a very limited choice to truly vote with conscience: Nader, if he was even on the ballot in your state.

He was in Alabama, in the heart of Jesusland. :nod:

The only way I'll ever find a politician who shares my opinions 100%, is if I run for office myself.
So, I look for the guy who comes closest.

And while it's true that some of the independent candidates represented my opinions regarding gay marriage, more than John Kerry, it was safe to say that this election would not come down to a dead-heat between 4 or 5 candidates, but between two.

So even though I wasn't thrilled with Kerry's position on a few things (keeping this conversation solely about gay rights, and no other issues), I felt confident that he, unlike Bush, would at least not push to LIMIT civil rights.

See, I look at it this way... if I can't have a guy in office who's going to fight FOR me, I'd at least prefer not to have a guy who's going to fight AGAINST me.

estranged4life

11-08-2004, 07:46 PM

But Kerry wasn't your only choice.

I've voted third-party before, mostly because I ordinarily don't vote party lines.

in Oklahoma...For some "unknown" reason. Really disappointing since I am an Independent!

I cannot believe this was the first time an Oklahoman had to choose between the big 2 candidates without having the option for another candidate...Very sad :(

I also never vote along party lines...Voted for 3 Repubs & 2 Demos this past Tuesday (The Repubs won and the Demos lost :shrug: )

Brian j.

Johnny Stew

11-08-2004, 07:46 PM

I have friends, Republican and Democrat, who say voting third-party or writing in is throwing your vote away. But when your head hits the pillow at night, what does your conscience tell you if you vote for someone who opposes something you so passionately believe in?

That's a very fair question.
In this particular situation, I felt it was of the utmost importance to oust Bush. However, if I felt that Kerry was a threat to what I believe in, then I wouldn't have supported him either. So, I backed him despite the fact that he and I disagree on some issues which are important to me.

But, I want to make it clear that, while he came out on the side of gay marriage bans, Kerry did actively support the recognition of gay civil unions. And, for me, THAT'S the thing I cared most about. I don't need to own stock in the word "marriage"... I just want equal rights to the benefits afforded heterosexual couples through civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Bush, and the Republican party in general, don't even want to give us that much.

golddustwoman77

11-08-2004, 07:47 PM

First of all, I would like to start by saying, I'm a Christian, and I live in Tennessee (part of the Bible Belt). Having said that, here are my thoughts.

I want to know when religion and politics became intertwined! There is supposed to be seperation of church and state as stated in the Constitution. There is no place for politics in religion and no place for religion in politics. That is why churches do not pay taxes. They are non profit and supposed to be apolitical. Also, the government is not supposed to promote a religion, because we are supposed to be a country where we are free to worship as we choose, and EVERYONE is represented regardless of race, sex, creed, or religion. Isn't that why the Pilgrims and others came to America? It was for freedom of religion. They were tired of having their government telling them they had to go to the Church of England. That is why this is such an important value. It is a value that our country is founded on.

This has always been respected by Democrats and Republicans alike until the past few years. Now all of a sudden, we have a President (George W. Bush) on TV who is always trying to work religion into his speeches, etc. (This could be considered promoting a religion, which isn't the government's place. He is supposed to represent EVERYONE.) He wants everyone to know that he is a Christian. Why the change with this President? He saw the reaction to this by people of his faith. Some Christians started showing him support solely based on the fact that he is a Christian. They weren't looking at the other aspects of his presidency. He saw how this worked, and he started doing it more and more. It was a great way to build his voting base and take people away from looking at other issues. He and his party starts portraying the other side as immoral and not supporting Christian values. More and more Christians buy into this, and the churches even start to get involved in this. You have churches promoting candidates. Ministers telling their congregations who to vote for, and elders in the church handing out flyers of who to vote for. All of this happening during church. (I have seen it first hand here.) This is a very dangerous snowball effect!

What is this?! Government shouldn't be promoting religion, no more than religion should be promoting candidates. It doesn't mix, and it shouldn't. If religious groups/churches are going to support candidates, then they should be paying taxes. They are no longer apolitical. If the President is going to support a certain religious group, are we going to change the Consitution and jeopardize our country and divide us? My answer would be "NO!" Churches need to stop promoting candidates, and Presidents need to stop promoting religion.

Both need to focus on the real issues at hand. Terrorism, job loss, the war, the huge deficit, education, etc. The things that matter to all Americans. Things we can unite on and change together. We shouldn't be focusing on things that divide us, such as religion.

Also, I would like to shoot down the idea that the Republican Party is the only moral party and the Democratic Party is immoral. Here are the ideals that I have heard that make the Republicans moral: (1) Against abortion + (2) against gay marriage=morality. Well, I would like to point out that Roe vs. Wade happened on a republican's watch (Nixon was the President.) There have been five, Republican Presidents including George W. Bush and his father since the decision and not a single one of them have change or abolished abortion, nor have they appointed judges who have change the decision. We need to realize that this an issue that isn't going to be truely addressed by either side, because it is such a sensitive subject. Just look at the above. Gay marriage is an issue that the Republicans purposely brought up for election time, because they knew they could get many Christians up in arms about that. George W. Bush tried to bring up a consitutional amendment on this topic, and it didn't pass even with a Republican Congress and a Republican President supporting it. This isn't going to happen either. Besides, how is this going to effect the lives of people, except for the gay individuals that it pertains? Also, we, as Christians, are not supposed to judge people, as it states in the Bible.

The point is they are talking about Christian ideals, but they aren't enforcing them, which is why the Christians are supposed to be supporting them in the first place. Very stranged? Also, it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who came up with the plan and sent us to war where innocent men, women, and children are dying daily. Isn't a life, a life? I, as a Christian, believe that "Thou Shall Not Kill." Yet, most Christians are supporting this war and the President who sent us. They are supporting a President who is for the death penalty, etc.

Democrats are supposed to be the anti-Christ, but most of them didn't support this war. They aren't for the death penalty. They haven't voted to change abortion laws, but neither have the Republicans. Therefore, it is a draw on that issue.

In conclusion, the point is people shouldn't vote based on religion. They should vote on issues that the government is responsible for: creating jobs, decreasing the deficit, lowering government spending, preventing war and only going when necessary, stopping terrorism, etc., and they should vote for the candidate who is going to handle these issues the best. Things that affect everyone's daily life. Things that should concern all Americans, not just a few. That is the reason why so many people are disenfranchised right now, and some people are angry with some Christians. They just don't understand how people could believe President Bush is so moral, when only his voice, not his actions, say he is.

Therefore, I couldn't see myself not voting for Kerry!

strandinthewind

11-08-2004, 07:58 PM

strandinthewind

11-08-2004, 08:00 PM

Bush, and the Republican party in general, don't even want to give us that much.

Yep - I mean look at the language of all (I think it is all) of the unanimously passed 11 Const. amendments. They all prohibit civil unions as does the one proffered for the Federal Const. I mean that is just B.S. and against public opinion, which mostly favors some type of civil union. Yet, the R's wrote the Amendments with this anti-civil union lang. in the latter part and did not really tell anyone about it in the advertising. For example, in Georgia, on the ballot, the question (designed by the GA Legislature under the control and drive of the R's) read:
( ) YES

( ) NO
Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?"

BUT - the bill actually reads:

Recognition of marriage. (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties´ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship."

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/fulltext/sr595.htm

So, they left the people of Georgia no choice but to vote against gay marriage, which is widely unsupported, and simultaneously and somewhat clandestinely prohibit ALL civil unions of any type (hetero or homo) in the process.

Just bad, mean, vile, liars - the lot of them - and the D's signed onto this as well - jerks :mad:

dissention

11-09-2004, 10:07 AM

Oh crap, here he goes again.

But seriously...

Much of the hurt over the election seems to come from the far right's opposition, with the full support of "their candidate," to gay marriage. What comfort would someone take in voting for either candidate based on this issue?

I don't think anyone needs confirmation of W's stance here. But Kerry's is confounding:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_state_ban_on_gay_marriage/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4245324

And here's a great one:

http://boifromtroy.com/archives/002740.php (click with confidence; this ain't porn)

Seems an anti-war, pro-gay marriage voter had a very limited choice to truly vote with conscience: Nader, if he was even on the ballot in your state.

He was in Alabama, in the heart of Jesusland. :nod:

I'll go with the candidate who openly admits to attending gay weddings, voted against the Marriage Act of '98, says the federal government has no place to ban gay marriage, and who most likely supports it but doesn't say so publicly because it would kill his chance of getting in the WH. That's Kerry. :wavey:

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 10:17 AM

says the federal government has no place to ban gay marriage, and who most likely supports it but doesn't say so publicly because it would kill his chance of getting in the WH. That's Kerry. :wavey:

Sorry, dissention... you just broke your own rules: filtering to support your argument, and not citing a source.

The reason he said the federal government has no place to ban gay marriage is because the states are doing a fine job of it themselves... including Massachusetts, where he would HAVE SUPPORTED THE BAN!

Most likely supports it? Cite your source.

But, I want to make it clear that, while he came out on the side of gay marriage bans, Kerry did actively support the recognition of gay civil unions.

So did Bush, and it pissed off a lot of people. A lot of people that I happen to disagree with.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458

dissention

11-09-2004, 10:36 AM

Sorry, dissention... you just broke your own rules: filtering to support your argument, and not citing a source.

Hardly. Do a Google. I'm sick and tired of always being the one to research the facts for you lazy folks; Republicans have computers, too. ;)

The reason he said the federal government has no place to ban gay marriage is because the states are doing a fine job of it themselves... including Massachusetts, where he would HAVE SUPPORTED THE BAN!

Puhleeze. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that in 1998, barely any states were trying to ban gay marriage. This was the same time that the Defense of Marriage Act was voted on. Kerry voted against it and plainly stated then exactly why he didn't support it: he doesn't think the federal government should be regulating such things.

Most likely supports it? Cite your source.

I don't have one, it's my opinion. ;) Show me a person who is opposed to gay marriage and a federal ban on them yet attends a gay wedding and I'll sell you a swamp in Florida.

dissention

11-09-2004, 10:37 AM

So did Bush, and it pissed off a lot of people. A lot of people that I happen to disagree with.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458

He conveniently did it days before the election. :woohoo:

I see a flip-flop...

ShangriLaTroubl

11-09-2004, 10:40 AM

Hey JamieSPC, ever heard that song "Without a leg to stand on?"

Chris

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 10:44 AM

He conveniently did it days before the election. :woohoo:

I see a flip-flop...

Wrong again. "Do a Google."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/

Show me a person who is opposed to gay marriage and a federal ban on them yet attends a gay wedding and I'll sell you a swamp in Florida.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28118-2004May14.html

ShangriLaTroubl

11-09-2004, 10:44 AM

In a phone call, according to the press, with Kerry...Bill Clinton urged Kerry to support local gay marriage bans..

Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, 'I'm not going to ever do that."

Chris

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 10:46 AM

Hey JamieSPC, ever heard that song "Without a leg to stand on?"

Chris

Chris,

What else do you want? Kerry was not the man for this issue. You wanna say Bush flip-flopped on it? Fine. So did Kerry.

My point is the only option you had is a third-party candidate. On this issue, John Kerry's America is the same. There would still have been 11 states banning gay marriage, and he would have done nothing. He said so.

So did he lie? Prove me wrong.

dissention

11-09-2004, 10:47 AM

ALSO - Teresa Heinz Kerry supports gay marriage and the gay and transgendered community.

Kerry said last year that:

http://www.bankofknowledge.net/2004transcripts/archives/000023.html

"We need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are. It may well be that if we achieve civil union, if we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it. But at this particular moment in time, I don't believe that exists, and I want to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I want to pass hate crimes. I want to pass federal benefit partnership rights. I want to advance us as fast and as appropriately as I think we can, but I think that one has to respect the current cultural, historical, religious perception, and I respect it."

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 10:48 AM

ALSO - Teresa Heinz Kerry supports gay marriage and the gay and transgendered community.

SO WHAT? Barbara Bush was pro-choice. Her husband wasn't.

Teresa Heinz Kerry wasn't on the ticket.

ShangriLaTroubl

11-09-2004, 10:50 AM

In one of the 2000 presidential debates Bush let it be known that he thought the states should decide on gay marriage. Even said "The state can do what they want to do"

But later he opposed the idea :

"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country." [Bush, 2/24/04]

strandinthewind

11-09-2004, 10:51 AM

Well, that is a little bit of a misguided conclusion. What W said was:

“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” - so, he is not really saying he is for civil unions in that he advocated them. He merely says it is uo to the states, which is wildly different. So, what did the states do and who directed them to do it.

In I believe every single Const. Amendment in the 11 states that just passed there is language that prohibits civil unions. Again, here is Georgia's (emphasis supplied)
___________________________________________________________
Recognition of marriage.

(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.

(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties´ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.
____________________________________________________________

W's party, and in fact W himself up until that politically necessary, but vague statement, is clearly against any of the governmental benefits automatically granted to straight married peoplein any way going to gay people - he wants them to have to contract for it, which even he, at least for the moment, cannot stop. I mean I do not think a Democrat drafted any of these bills :shrug: - although sadly many voted for them, which I readily despise them just as well for. Moreover, the bill(s) Congress considered at W's insistance had similar language prohibiting civil unions and any effects thereof. So and again, W talks a good game, but in reality he is not telling the truth - his actions and the actions of his political party, of which he is the head, want neither gay marriage nor civil union. W is playing politics - sadly with people's lives. He knows the vast majority of gay people will never vote for a R candidate - so he can piss them off all he wants; and the numbers are against gay marriage but for some sort of civil unions (at least in theory). He also knows that he needs to energize his fundamentalist Christian base, who happen to think gay people are an abomination and some of which have openly stated they would kill any gay guy that hit on them and that gay people are one of the groups that caused God to remove his protection for the U.S. and allow 9/11 to happen. So, the facts suggest if not state that W never intended to allow civil unions, despite his meaningless rhetoric about states rights.

dissention

11-09-2004, 10:52 AM

ShangriLaTroubl

11-09-2004, 10:52 AM

Chris,

What else do you want? Kerry was not the man for this issue. You wanna say Bush flip-flopped on it? Fine. So did Kerry.

My point is the only option you had is a third-party candidate. On this issue, John Kerry's America is the same. There would still have been 11 states banning gay marriage, and he would have done nothing. He said so.

So did he lie? Prove me wrong.

Umm actually I think it would have been vastly different. I do not think Kerry would have sought out a Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, do you? In fact, just this week Karl Rove said that would be one of Bush's top priorities in his second term. Kerry might not have changed much, but he definetely would not have went out on a crusade AGAINST gay marriages.

Chris

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 10:52 AM

because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country." [Bush, 2/24/04]

Chris,

Again, marriage and civil unions are two different things. John Kerry makes the distinction: he's for one, against the other.

This isn't hard.

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 10:54 AM

Umm actually I think it would have been vastly different. I do not think Kerry would have sought out a Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, do you? In fact, just this week Karl Rove said that would be one of Bush's top priorities in his first time. Kerry might not have changed much, but he definetely would not have went out on a crusade AGAINST gay marriages.

Chris

Chris,

Now I've got some swampland in Florida for you. Neither Bush nor Kerry would have the votes to move either way on a Federal ban. The same reason no pro-life candidate has ever attempted to move on abortion.

Talk about "without a leg to stand on..."

strandinthewind

11-09-2004, 10:56 AM

Chris,

Again, marriage and civil unions are two different things. John Kerry makes the distinction: he's for one, against the other.

This isn't hard.

I agree with you. But, even considering that and as discussed before, who cares when you have W doing absolutly nothing for gay people and working against them. I think the bad guy is apparent here :shrug: and it ain't Kerry.

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 10:56 AM

In I believe every single Const. Amendment in the 11 states that just passed there is language that prohibits civil unions. Again, here is Georgia's (emphasis supplied)

You're absolutely right. And like it or not, the same amendment passes no matter who is elected president, and neither could do anything about it. In fact, both said "leave it to the states."

ShangriLaTroubl

11-09-2004, 10:57 AM

I agree it likely could never happen...BUT...it's the point that he would love for it to happen. Just my opinion..gotta go to class, so I will leave this to you all to argue..

Chris

dissention

11-09-2004, 10:57 AM

Wrong again. "Do a Google."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so."

Hardly support for civil unions. The 11 bans that were passed also prohibit civil unions, which the Republican party wholly endorsed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28118-2004May14.html

If you believe that, that's your choice. :woohoo:

strandinthewind

11-09-2004, 11:00 AM

. . . The same reason no pro-life candidate has ever attempted to move on abortion.

Talk about "without a leg to stand on..."

I submit we have one now. Every single judge W nominated to the Federal Courts has been against abortion in one way or the other, no exceptions and most IMO extremists. I think that speaks volumes. And - it is widely accepted that if he does not nominate Ashcroft (the pro-life inside favorite) - it will be be a pro life jusde. There is no way whatsoever W can get away with nominating a pro choice judge. He owes too much to the far religious right :shrug:

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 11:00 AM

I agree with you.

Thanks

But, even considering that and as discussed before, who cares when you have W doing absolutly nothing for gay people and working against them. I think the bad guy is apparent here :shrug: and it ain't Kerry.

Who cares? I do. This is the same kind of party-line blanket acceptance that underlines the whole problem with the stranglehold of a two-party system.

strandinthewind

11-09-2004, 11:02 AM

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so."

Hardly support for civil unions. The 11 bans that were passed also prohibit civil unions, which the Republican party wholly endorsed.

ITA agree - W is winking a the American public as a deception for him picking there pockets.

Ah the metaphor!!!! :cool:

strandinthewind

11-09-2004, 11:03 AM

You're absolutely right. And like it or not, the same amendment passes no matter who is elected president, and neither could do anything about it. In fact, both said "leave it to the states."

No, you are incorrect and here is why. Kerry would never have set those bills in motion like W and his crewe did. But, if you want to believe Kerry would have, I suppose that is your right :shrug:

strandinthewind

11-09-2004, 11:07 AM

Who cares? I do. This is the same kind of party-line blanket acceptance that underlines the whole problem with the stranglehold of a two-party system.

No - it is supported by fact. Let me put it this way, please show me anything positive W has done for gay people. Conversly, Kerry voted against the DOMA, said he would vote against the Federal Amendment, and came out openly for civil unions, all of which the Pres. never did. So, Kerry as opposed to W has done something proactive for gay people.

I am a little taken aback that you actually think you have a winning argument here :shrug:

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 11:08 AM

No, you are incorrect and here is why. Kerry would never have set those bills in motion like W and his crewe did. But, if you want to believe Kerry would have, I suppose that is your right :shrug:

strand, come on.

I'll leave the obvious alone... that Kerry didn't oppose the amendment in his own state, and even said he would support it.

It wouldn't have mattered one way or the other... did you see the numbers? There was OVERWHELMING support for these amendments in the states where they were on the ballot. I'm certainly not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying Kerry couldn't have... and according to his statements again and again... WOULDN'T have done a damn thing about it.

Think well of him if you wish. It's speculation no matter how you slice it. :rolleyes:

strandinthewind

11-09-2004, 11:10 AM

strand, come on.

I'll leave the obvious alone... that Kerry didn't oppose the amendment in his own state, and even said he would support it.

It wouldn't have mattered one way or the other... did you see the numbers? There was OVERWHELMING support for these amendments in the states where they were on the ballot. I'm certainly not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying Kerry couldn't have... and according to his statements again and again... WOULDN'T have done a damn thing about it.

Think well of him if you wish. It's speculation no matter how you slice it. :rolleyes:

You are spinning this into a Kerry bashing event to make W look better. How Roveesq. of you :laugh:

So, the hell with civil union promoting Kerry :laugh: - show me ONE thing W has done for gay people. As mentioned before, all of his acts are against gay people - period. You cannot and you know it. Thus, you cannot win this argument :shrug:

And - there was overwhelming support for overturning the Civil Rights Act and all of its progeny that eliminated segregation - that did not make it right :shrug:

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 11:11 AM

Kerry voted against the DOMA,

Which he promptly flopped on...

said he would vote against the Federal Amendment,

a symbolic argument on both sides, since it will never happen...

and came out openly for civil unions

... as did Bush.

YOU don't have an argument for Kerry here. At best, he did exactly what Bush did. At worst, he spoke out for a gay marriage ban IN HIS OWN STATE.

I can, and repeatedly have, cited both.

JamieSPC

11-09-2004, 11:15 AM

So, the hell with civil union promoting Kerry

Of course, abandon an argument you can't win.

As mentioned before, all of his acts are against gay people - period.

All his acts? Okay. Bush hates gay people. Believe what you want. :wavey:

strandinthewind

11-09-2004, 11:20 AM

Which he promptly flopped on...

No - he repeatedly said he supported it becuase it was hate legislation.

a symbolic argument on both sides, since it will never happen...

Nice try - but it is not symbolic because W called for it and supported it and this is about W not Kerry, despite your best efforts to make it about Kerry.

... as did Bush.

Nice try again, but as discussed above W never said such a thing. Please show me a statement from W that says "I support civil unions." You cannot because he never said it. Again, he said let's leave it up to the states and then worked very hard to get the states to include anti-civil union lang. in all amendments and the Fed. Amendment he called for and advocated also expressly was anti-civil union. So, no, you are incorrect here.

YOU don't have an argument for Kerry here. At best, he did exactly what Bush did. At worst, he spoke out for a gay marriage ban IN HIS OWN STATE.

I am not arguing for Kerry. I am pointing out that Bush, unlike the imperfect Kerry, has done nothing for gay people and has in fact worked against them and openly so despite urging Americans to be tolerant of the sinners :rolleyes:

In the end, I guess you will NEVER admit that W is an enemy of gay peoples' rights despite the glaring evidence to the contrary. Instead, you just want to talk about Kerry's imperfections and ignore that the facts clearly indicate he has a more pro-gay stance than W. So, this debate is pointless :shrug:

strandinthewind

11-09-2004, 11:22 AM

[QUOTE=JamieSPC]Of course, abandon an argument you can't win.[QUOTE]

Please show me when I agrued that Kerry was perfect :shrug:

Again, you are demeaning Kerry to take the focus off of Bush, whose gay rights record is horrible and in fact, W and his party want to give no rights of marriage, civil union, whatever to gay people - that is a fact that cannot be refuted with facts. That is why I was saying that.

And yes, W has not done one thing except talk a good game to help gay people. Many bad acts have already been cited. If you can find any good ones, I am all ears (no slight meant to W :laugh: )

GateandGarden

11-09-2004, 11:32 AM

DrummerDeanna

11-09-2004, 11:40 AM

And even Kerry were to support gay marriage bans in 11 states, wouldn't that be better than supporting a federal marriage ban?

Hillary

In the US Constitution no less....SO innapropriate....

Johnny Stew

11-09-2004, 04:08 PM

Nice try again, but as discussed above W never said such a thing. Please show me a statement from W that says "I support civil unions." You cannot because he never said it. Again, he said let's leave it up to the states and then worked very hard to get the states to include anti-civil union lang. in all amendments and the Fed. Amendment he called for and advocated also expressly was anti-civil union. So, no, you are incorrect here.

Jamie isn't entirely wrong.
Bush did say....

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what the state chooses to do.

I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

Of course, this comment came a mere seven days before the election (I incorrectly said four days earlier), AND it's important to note that President Bush still supports the amendment to the United States Constitution to classify marriage as solely for a man and a woman ("If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America").

John Kerry, while agreeing that "marriage" should remain between a man and a woman, was pointedly against the Federal Marriage Amendment, and was pushing for the recognition of civil unions/domestic partnerships.

There is a very big difference, Jamie.

strandinthewind

11-09-2004, 09:54 PM

Jamie isn't entirely wrong.
Bush did say....

Of course, this comment came a mere seven days before the election (I incorrectly said four days earlier), AND it's important to note that President Bush still supports the amendment to the United States Constitution to classify marriage as solely for a man and a woman ("If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America").

John Kerry, while agreeing that "marriage" should remain between a man and a woman, was pointedly against the Federal Marriage Amendment, and was pushing for the recognition of civil unions/domestic partnerships.

There is a very big difference, Jamie.

I know W said that - but my point is and was that is not the same as saying "I support civil unions and would be fine with them, so let's get the states on board with that" - instead, W and his crewe then went to the states and made sure the anti civil union lang. was in there. AND - W called for a Fed. Const. Amendment and the people that were drafting that bill also included anti-civil union lang., which W clearly knew. So, his words seven days before the election are meaningless. He KNEW the anti civil union lang. was in those amendments :shrug: I am at a loss to see how anyone can argue against that. But, my word is not law :laugh:

GateandGarden

11-09-2004, 10:16 PM

I know W said that - but my point is and was that is not the same as saying "I support civil unions and would be fine with them, so let's get the states on board with that" - instead, W and his crewe then went to the states and made sure the anti civil union lang. was in there. AND - W called for a Fed. Const. Amendment and the people that were drafting that bill also included anti-civil union lang., which W clearly knew. So, his words seven days before the election are meaningless. He KNEW the anti civil union lang. was in those amendments :shrug: I am at a loss to see how anyone can argue against that. But, my word is not law :laugh:Exactly! It was nothing but talk. I'm with you--I don't see how someone can argue against that.

Hillary

Moony

11-10-2004, 12:29 AM

--I don't see how someone can argue against that.

Hillary

Well, you see, some people have very thick skulls.
:shocked:

strandinthewind

11-10-2004, 11:22 AM

This article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution fully illustrates my point about the deception used by the R's (and some D's) in the wording of the ballots. I mean I just cannot see how the hollowness of W's words on this subject is not blatant and his disingenuness fully apparent. I think the actual intent as evidenced by his and his party's actions is crystal clear that his words are meaningless and hollow and impossible to follow ( :cool: )
______________________________________________________________

Marriage measure challenged
Suit charges amendment is unlawful

By SONJI JACOBS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/09/04

The fight over the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage returned to court Tuesday despite the widespread support it received from Georgia voters last week.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the Atlanta law firm of Alston and Bird, and Lambda Legal, a national organization that represents gays and lesbians, filed in Fulton County Superior Court a lawsuit claiming that the amendment is unconstitutional.

The legal team battling the amendment sued shortly after Secretary of State Cathy Cox certified last week's election results. In that balloting, 78 percent of Georgia voters approved the amendment defining marriage as "only the union of man and woman."

Jack Senterfitt, a Lambda Legal lawyer working on the case, said his team was not daunted by the broad voter support for the measure. A majority of Georgia voters supported the amendment in every one of the state's 159 counties.

"The courts are charged with the legal responsibility of interpreting the laws," Senterfitt said. "We believe very strongly that the Legislature, in wording the amendment, did not follow the Georgia Constitution. Upholding the Georgia Constitution is a solemn obligation of the court and should not depend on whether a particular measure passes and the margin by which it passes."

Sadie Fields, state chairwoman of the Christian Coalition, could not be reached for comment Tuesday, but she has said she expected opponents of the amendment to turn to the courts when they didn't win at the polls.

The lawsuit focuses on the language of the amendment, not whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

It claims that the amendment violates the Georgia Constitution's single-subject rule by pertaining to multiple issues. In addition to marriage, the amendment would affect civil unions and the ability of Georgia's courts to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, the attorneys argue.

The lawyers also contend that the wording of the ballot question that voters saw on Election Day was misleading because it asked only about marriage and not about the other issues the amendment might affect.

"I am glad the courts will finally hear the merits of the case," said state Rep. Karla Drenner (D-Avondale Estates), the only openly gay member of the state Legislature.

Drenner said she did not view the large number of people who voted for the amendment as a win for those who pushed the measure. "I believe Georgia voters were deceived," she said.

The essence of the lawsuit filed Tuesday is the same as legal challenges filed by the same group of attorneys before the election. In September, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell ruled that the court did not have the authority to stop the election. Her opinion was upheld by the state Supreme Court, which heard the case on appeal a few weeks later. Neither court offered an opinion on the constitutionality of the amendment.

"The judiciary does not have any jurisdiction to block further consideration of the proposed amendment at this formative stage in the legislative process," Justice George Carley wrote for the majority. However, Carley also wrote that the amendment "can be challenged in the event it is 'enacted' by virtue of approval of the voters."

Beth Littrell, a Georgia ACLU lawyer working on the case, said Tuesday she was confident the court would declare the amendment unconstitutional now that voters have had their say. "The ballot language affirmatively misled voters into believing the amendment was about marriage, when in fact it was about much more than marriage," Littrell said.

Opponents of the amendment argue that it will jeopardize domestic partnership benefits and such rights for gay couples as adoption, custody and inheritance.

Last month a Louisiana judge tossed out a constitutional amendment that the state's voters had approved to ban same-sex marriage. In September, 78 percent of Louisiana voters had endorsed a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But Judge William Morvant of the 19th Judicial District Court declared the amendment invalid because it pertained not only to same-sex marriage but also to civil unions.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/1104/10gaycourt.html

JamieSPC

11-10-2004, 11:56 AM

Of course, this comment came a mere seven days before the election (I incorrectly said four days earlier)

Nine months.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/

Bush WILL be beholden to the radical right to push some type of Federal legislation, but it won't happen (not enough votes, would never pass through Coongress). It WILL happen, and is happening, in the states, and it would be happening even if Kerry had been elected... he said so himself.

That's all I'm saying. If you felt passionately about this issue (and I agree with what Johnny said about civil union vs. "marriage"), then there was no where to turn in the two major parties.

strandinthewind

11-10-2004, 12:18 PM

Nine months.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/

Bush WILL be beholden to the radical right to push some type of Federal legislation, but it won't happen (not enough votes, would never pass through Coongress). It WILL happen, and is happening, in the states, and it would be happening even if Kerry had been elected... he said so himself.

That's all I'm saying. If you felt passionately about this issue (and I agree with what Johnny said about civil union vs. "marriage"), then there was no where to turn in the two major parties.

That is when he said "I support civil unions and push for them" - because you and I both know he never said anything like that and he certainly did not say it in that article or any other article you, me, or anyone else has posted. I mean if he is so for it, then why did the media call's Cheney's lip service to it directly contrary to W's policy and indeed Cheney himself recognized this fact by saying the Pres. set the policy, not him :shrug: So, though he danced around it giving the implication that he was for them, that is around the time when he called for the Const. Amend., the draft of which would have made civil unions illegal and then the R's in the states, I guess on their own :rolleyes: - drafted heinous Const. Amendments prohibiting civil unions and then put misleading and illegal wording about them on the ballots to entice and support bigotry.

Again, your point here is supported by no facts and certainly not W and the R Party's actions, yet you inexplicably keep making it :shrug:

SuzeQuze

11-10-2004, 12:43 PM

That is when he said "I support civil unions and push for them" - because you and I both know he never said anything like that and he certainly did not say it in that article or any other article you, me, or anyone else has posted. I mean if he is so for it, then why did the media call's Cheney's lip service to it directly contrary to W's policy and indeed Cheney himself recognized this fact by saying the Pres. set the policy, not him :shrug: So, though he danced around it giving the implication that he was for them, that is around the time when he called for the Const. Amend., the draft of which would have made civil unions illegal and then the R's in the states, I guess on their own :rolleyes: - drafted heinous Const. Amendments prohibiting civil unions and then put misleading and illegal wording about them on the ballots to entice and support bigotry.

Again, your point here is supported by no facts and certainly not W and the R Party's actions, yet you inexplicably keep making it :shrug:

And wasn't there an event at the DNC that Teresa attend where she said to a gay man who's mom wouldn't recognize him as her son anymore that if Kerry were elected he would always have a Mom in the White House? I would think this would indicate that they were supportive of gay rights. I can't even imagine Laura saying such a thing.

dissention

11-10-2004, 04:03 PM

And wasn't there an event at the DNC that Teresa attend where she said to a gay man who's mom wouldn't recognize him as her son anymore that if Kerry were elected he would always have a Mom in the White House? I would think this would indicate that they were supportive of gay rights. I can't even imagine Laura saying such a thing.

I was there. :D She was addressing a gay, lesbian, and transgendered caucus during the DNC and said that no matter what, they would always have a mama in the WH who loved them and then told them to "just call me Mama T." :D Love that woman to no end.

SuzeQuze

11-10-2004, 05:03 PM

I was there. :D She was addressing a gay, lesbian, and transgendered caucus during the DNC and said that no matter what, they would always have a mama in the WH who loved them and then told them to "just call me Mama T." :D Love that woman to no end.

Right, it was you I got that story from, it really stuck with me. :nod:

dissention

11-10-2004, 05:04 PM

Right, it was you I got that story from, it really stuck with me. :nod:

The crowd went WILD. I think it's the most refreshing and heartwarming thing a public figure like that has said in quite a long time.

sodascouts

11-10-2004, 05:56 PM

Yup. And he refused to speak to gay and lesbian groups in 2000; he even refused donations from Log Cabin Republicans.

Dole was the one who refused the donations, not George W. Bush, according to this fair-minded article in The Gay/Lesbian Times.
http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/print.php?id=3560

This is a long article, but if you scroll down you'll find that Bush enjoyed $500,000 of support from the LCR's various chapters, although admittedly on the NATIONAL level as a group they did not endorse him and donated mostly to McCain. The fact that they don't really want to donate to him doesn't mean he's refused them, though. lol Unless he's turned them down recently after this article was written in 2003? And after Falwell criticized him for accepting gay donations in an article I posted in the other thread? I looked online for an account of such a refusal and couldn't find one. Also, I learned something new reading the article - that Bush appointed 15 openly gay people to his administration and that he was the first Republican president to invite GLBT activists to the White House.

dissention

11-10-2004, 06:29 PM

Dole was the one who refused the donations, not George W. Bush, according to this fair-minded article in The Gay/Lesbian Times.
http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/print.php?id=3560

Yup, you're right. It was McCain who refused donations. Dole did take them, but then gave them back. But seeing as how the LCR did not endorse Bush this year, he didn't have the opportunity to take or turn down any funds. You should look up some of the articles about him and the LCR from this year, he ignored them as much as he ignored blacks. :cool:

This is a long article, but if you scroll down you'll find that Bush enjoyed $500,000 of support from the LCR's various chapters, although admittedly on the NATIONAL level as a group they did not endorse him and donated mostly to McCain. The fact that they don't really want to donate to him doesn't mean he's refused them, though. lol Unless he's turned them down recently after this article was written in 2003? And after Falwell criticized him for accepting gay donations in an article I posted in the other thread? I looked online for an account of such a refusal and couldn't find one. Also, I learned something new reading the article - that Bush appointed 15 openly gay people to his administration and that he was the first Republican president to invite GLBT activists to the White House.

Yet his administration thinks gays should be paid less. :shrug: Quite frankly, I could care less who he appoints, they've all proven themselves to be assholes with no respect for the men and women of this country for whom they work for. Take, for example, Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of Urban Housing and Development. At Pentacost 2004, he told an audience that being poor was "a state of mind." When he was done with his speech, no one clapped and one man jumped up and told Jackson what he was doing for people like a single mother he had met who worked as a prostitute at night because she couldn't afford to support her kids. What did Jackson say? "Well, I would say to you that you should ask a different question." This kind of stuff should not stand, Nancy, no matter if they were a Republican or a Democrat or a Green.