Which way could you go?

[JamieSPC]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 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]

Originally Posted by dissention

"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!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by JamieSPC

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by JamieSPC

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

[JamieSPC]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by JamieSPC

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.

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

So, the hell with civil union promoting Kerry - 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

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

[JamieSPC]

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]

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by JamieSPC

Which he promptly flopped on...

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

Originally Posted by JamieSPC

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.

Originally Posted by JamieSPC

... 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.

Originally Posted by JamieSPC

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

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

[strandinthewind]

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

Please show me when I agrued that Kerry was perfect

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 )

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

I agree. And the fact that Bush made some vague comment about legal recognition of gay couples during an interview on ABC, the interviewer was quick to point out that his platform did not agree with that stance. Bush then said that he didn't agree with his own platform. You would think he would have some authority over what his own platform would say.

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

Hillary

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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 I am at a loss to see how anyone can argue against that. But, my word is not law

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 I am at a loss to see how anyone can argue against that. But, my word is not law

Exactly! It was nothing but talk. I'm with you--I don't see how someone can argue against that.

Hillary