|
 |
December 20, 2003 GAY MARRIAGE....The New York Times has a headline up right now that says this: After reading through a bunch of gobbledygook the story finally tells us the basic numbers: 55% are in favor of a constitutional amendment, 40% are opposed. I'm not sure this is really such strong support, though, especially when it comes to a constitutional amendment. It's worth remembering that the Equal Rights Amendment also had public majorities in favor and passed both the House and Senate by margins of over 90%. Based on this, my guess is that a constitutional ban on gay marriage doesn't have much of a chance. But I'm not sure that really matters anyway. What everyone really seems to care about is not so much whether a gay marriage amendment can actually pass, but whether it will be a good political issue for Republicans in 2004. Sadly, I think it will be. Karl Rove has made it clear that he thinks it's critical to get a big turnout among the conservative Christian base, and this issue is tailor made for that. I suspect that Bush will come out in favor of the amendment, but do it in a "more in sorrow than in anger" kind of way that doesn't hurt him much with swing voters. Democrats, meanwhile, will once again be forced into a more complicated position: in favor of civil unions but not in favor of gay marriage. Hard to make a bumper sticker out of that. And what's worse — and surprising to me — is that the New York Times poll found almost exactly the same opposition to civil unions as to gay marriage. Fasten your seatbelts. Stormy weather ahead. Posted by Kevin Drum at December 20, 2003 11:15 AM | TrackBackComments
This is an issue that can swing either way. It will ultimately depend on who gets to define the issue. Is it a matter of defending marriage or defending civil rights? I can assure you of one thing though: Democrats will lose this battle if they are perceived to be avoiding it (actually, I think the same applies to Republicans). Posted by: Chris Andersen at December 20, 2003 11:19 AM | PERMALINKI wonder which side of that poll Dick Cheney's daughter would find herself on?
Posted by: Sovereign Eye at December 20, 2003 11:24 AM | PERMALINK I don't think this issue must necessarily be a thorn. The democratic candidate need only massage the issue by saying something like this: The movement towards gay marriage is revolutionary. Clearly many Americans are hesitant to have their culture sped too quickly on this course. Their concerns are legitimate and need to be addressed. Clearly also the concerns of the gay americans need to be considered. After all, they go to war, pay taxes, support their communities and love their beloved just as much as you and I do. Therefor I am in favor of all the rights of civil union be immediately granted. This is the middle ground, the compromise that asks both groups to give a little so that we might all live together a little better. The Dem candidate needs to say something like. Reasonable and rational. Making clear that we are talking about cultural evolution here...and that such changes need time in which to decide their growths. Posted by: -pea- at December 20, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINKSullivan and Frum both think that Bush is positioning himself to take
a Cheney stand on this - that it's an issue for the states and their
legislatures, but that the FMA is unwise. Sullivan's happy about it,
Frum is unhappy, but they agree. (I personally suspect that Bush will try to stay quiet about it to
avoid making promises to the far right, and will let a few moneyed
loudmouths run deniable ads in the heartland states). That would accomplish everything that a judicial restraint/federalism
conservative would want, and it might pass. The FMA, like the flag
amendment, is just pointless grandstanding. I'm with Chris. The thing we absolutely cannot do is be wimpy or apologetic about this. The Republicans are proposing to amend the constitution to specifically take away even the possiblilty of future rights from a law-abiding, tax-paying group of Americans. There is no way to equivicate about this without losing the respect of all sides. Posted by: EmmaAnne at December 20, 2003 11:35 AM | PERMALINKMarriage should not be regulated by the government. It should be regulated by the religions themselves, seperation of church and state. I peronally dont care if some gets married or not. I also dont care if you have one or more spouses, as long as everyone is over 18. This is just an atempt by the religious right(while being wrong) to get there religion to be the officeal state religion. I also dont care if Rick Santorum wants to have sex with his dog. That is his proublem. Sorry about the rant chef Posted by: chef at December 20, 2003 11:52 AM | PERMALINKMy favorite quote from those interviewed for the piece: "Minorities always tend to get more than your average person does." Now where do you suppose he got that idea? "Marriage should not be regulated by the government. It should be regulated by the religions themselves, seperation of church and state." Sorry dear, but marriage is a contract with the State. And nothing more. Religion supplies only the mise en scene. You can get married by a priest, a rabbi or an Elvis impersonator in Vegas. It's all the same. When it comes to divorce, the priest, the rabbi and the Elvis impersonator play no role whatsoever. It's a legal matter. Period. End of story. (And please get that simple fact through your thick skulls!) Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 20, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINKI think the politcal strategy of it is unimportant. Democrats must loudly condemn any attempt to strip a large portion of the populace of rights enjoyed by everyone else. This is a simple right-or-wrong issue. The Republicans are wrong. Dems must stand up and say it if they have any chance. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 20, 2003 11:59 AM | PERMALINKAs I was saying just last month. . . Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 20, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINKTo me, the most distressing figure quoted in the NYT piece was at the end, where it said that the percentage of respondents expressing "disapproval of homosexuality" has actually increased from an earlier poll to the most recent. For whatever various reasons, dislike of homosexuality/homosexuals remains one of the last "respectable" prejudices in American public life. No matter how much it can be spun as a discrimination/civil-rights issue, when there is a sexual component involved, too many people "out there" get freaked out and become reactionary (including, as the NYT poll indicates, many Democrats). Posted by: Jay C. at December 20, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINKI can marry two people and it is a contract between them and God. The state has nothing to do with it unless I fill out a marriage contract with the state. They are two sepparet things in my opinion. No i am not a minister by trade, although I have been ordained. I am a carpenter by trade with long hair and a beard that likes to wear sandles. Why do i scare christians? Posted by: chef at December 20, 2003 12:06 PM | PERMALINKThe problem ain't whether two people want to enter into a contract before God. Hell, you wanna do that, you don't even need a minister. You just need a blanket. The issue will be one of government (federal, state, and otherwise) benefits being handed out. And there will be a lot of people saying "I don't want my tax dollars to pay for a lifestyle that I don't agree with!" (or something similar... no, I don't hold this view, I'm just imagining the ads). This is one of those wacky issues where both sides are going to take damage. Posted by: Jaybird at December 20, 2003 12:11 PM | PERMALINKWhatever happened to the notion that the government was supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority? But lets run those homosexuals out of town because we'll thump our bible all the way to the voting booth. Weeeeeeeeeeeeee Posted by: dstein at December 20, 2003 12:39 PM | PERMALINK"Whatever happened to the notion that the government was supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority?" What are you -- a Communist ?!?!!! Don't you know it's Survival of the Fittest? Excellence in Broadcasting! Score all the Blue Babies you can get your hands on! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 20, 2003 12:47 PM | PERMALINKMinorities always tend to get more than your average person does. we're all minorities. Posted by: Troy at December 20, 2003 12:49 PM | PERMALINKLatest national poll I saw (ABC, I believe) shocked the heck out of me, as it showed more dems against gay marriage than for it. Posted by: Joe Baby at December 20, 2003 01:04 PM | PERMALINKClarification time: here's what I read-- "Only 21% of Democratic primary voters would like to see a nominee who supports gay marriage, while more than one-third would prefer the nominee oppose it. 41% say the candidate's stand on this issue would not matter to them. " It's from a recent CBS poll: This issue is a winner for the Repubs. Any Dem of conscience should address it anyway. Democracy doesn't mean that a mojority of ignorant f*cks can suspend the rights of whoever the new enemy is. Posted by: gimmeadollar at December 20, 2003 01:25 PM | PERMALINKI could be wrong, but this issue is not going to be one of the top four or five keys to the Presidential election in 2004 unless the Dem candidate tries to make it so. 1) War in Iraq I suspect the Dems fighting to prioritize this issue into the above mix would be seen by much of the electorate as an example of misplaced priorities. I'm a propronent of gay marriage, but I think it would be an example of misplaced priorities as well. Posted by: spc67 at December 20, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINKTo think that our constitution could be amended to include a provision restricting a public good to a particular group of people -- to turn a document so important to the history of human rights on its head like this ... it's enough to make me leave this country, and I'm hetero. Posted by: David at December 20, 2003 01:51 PM | PERMALINKTwo thoughts on this. When I read the proposed amendment the first thing that struck me about it was also appears to ban common law marriage. Do we have a lawyer out there who can comment on this? Second we need to take control of the framing of the debate. The democrat candidate should propose a "Family Responsibility Act". It should be described as insuring that gay and lesbian couples have the same obligations to each other under the law as hetrosexuals. Obligation for child support, mutual economic support, make your own list... If the act is percieved as constraining the behavior gay and lesbian couples it will be more palatable to the mainstream of Americans. The main point of morality for many of our more conservative citizens is that they don't want anyone having more fun or less responsibility than they are. Posted by: Stuart at December 20, 2003 01:56 PM | PERMALINKPlease remember the genesis of this issue. W and his crew were doing badly in Iraq, the attacks on American servicemen were increasing, and out of the blue W announces that he hates the idea of gay marriage and is not going to take it any more - Smoke Screen!!! Posted by: bookace at December 20, 2003 02:05 PM | PERMALINKI actually agree to a certain extent with Andrew Sullivan on this -- although I disagree with him strongly on the war. The Republicans are divided to some degree. Some of them simply don't want to muddy up the Constitution with bogus amendments. But they will try if that's what it take to win in '04. Where I disagree with Sullivan is that, even though the Republicans are somewhat divided, over the short term this is a winner issue for them. No Republican won't vote for Bush over this issue. I even doubt if you could pull together a decent amount of independents who won't vote for Bush AT THIS POINT IN TIME over this. Having said that, this could, over time, become an albatross around the Republican's necks. Being an advisor to a fraternity, I can tell you the younger generation is of an entirely different mindset than those of us in our late 30's. With them, this is EXACTLY the type of thing that will brand Republicans as intolerant extremists. Rove and his crowd remind me of heroin addicts. They're looking for the next fix. I guess what I'm saying is that I think this'll punch their ticket TODAY, but will cause them trouble on down the road a bit. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at December 20, 2003 02:12 PM | PERMALINKI also don't understand why the FMA people won't settle for half a loaf. Because by endorsing civil unions, they'd have to admit that gay people aren't the boogeymen that they've made us out to be. Posted by: Jeff Barlow at December 20, 2003 02:21 PM | PERMALINKThe other aspect here is the Constitution and--gasp--state's perogatives. (States don't have "rights." Persons have rights.) If Vermont wants to acknowledge a contract that Virginia will not, it's up to Virginia to agree, so long as the reciprocal is valid. That's the sum of the "full faith and credit" clause. Welcome to the United States, and stop sweating it. It's about personal freedom. Posted by: Brian C.B. at December 20, 2003 02:40 PM | PERMALINKKevin: "And what's worse — and surprising to me — is that the New
York Times poll found almost exactly the same opposition to civil unions
as to gay marriage." Good call, Mr. Shifflet. Even if this issue is a loser in the short run it's undoubtedly a winner in the long run. Posted by: Will at December 20, 2003 02:49 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, the accurate term is "same-sex marriage," not "gay marriage." See footnote 12 in Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993): "'Homosexual' and 'same-sex' marriages are not synonymous; . . .
Parties to 'a union between a man and a woman' may or may not be
homosexuals. Parties to a same-sex marriage could theoretically be
either homosexuals or heterosexuals." If I eat a steak every night, am I harming vegetarianism? If the gay couple living next to my wife and I have gay sex, does it detract from our hetero-sex? If the Muslim down the street fasts on Ramadan and gives out no gifts on Christmas, does that harm the practice of Chistmas? If a judge is lenient, does that harm the judge who is stringent? If I watch all movies on our 35 inch TV does that somehow diminish six track Dolby Stereo? I guess I am saying that I am trying to figure out is why take marriage away from gays or prevent them having it? It makes no sense whatsoever. What possible harm could come of allowing gay people to marry? This boggles my mind, especially now, at a time when the country and the world is filled with so much trouble, for us to go about wasting time restricting people's rights. There are literally millions of Americans who sleep in the streets at night. There are millions who cannot find employment. Millions of Americans literally cannot afford to get sick. And you know the Republicans are in power when despite all this shit going on, all they can think to do is go after some minority group, or shove the Bible down everyone's throat. Jesus H Christ. Fuck the middle position. Fuck polls. It's time to stand up for people's rights. Posted by: Maccabee at December 20, 2003 03:18 PM | PERMALINKThe democrat candidate should propose a "Family Responsibility Act". It should be described as insuring that gay and lesbian couples have the same obligations to each other under the law as hetrosexuals. Obligation for child support, mutual economic support, make your own list... Stuart- that's a great idea! Posted by: Matt le W. at December 20, 2003 03:22 PM | PERMALINKLet's follow the hugely successful democratic leadership plan on issues like this and agree that those HOMOsexuals should roast in hell. That way we get the issue off the table and can concentrate on the more important issuses. We should do this with the tax cuts (don't dare demand full repeal), the war in Iraq (we would be fools to stand on principle here, we'll alienate the sacred middle of the road moron vote) and every other issue where there is ANY risk that right of center folks might, maybe disagree with us. We don't stand for anything! We just want to win by offending the fewest number of people possible! Vote democrap! Posted by: OBE at December 20, 2003 03:27 PM | PERMALINKDo people think that if gay marriage is legalized their church can be forced to perform them? If so, we need to fix that, fast. The Democratic candidates' talk about why marriage is too far and civil unions are the way to go may be creating more confusion on that score. Posted by: Katherine at December 20, 2003 04:00 PM | PERMALINKThe religious conservatives pretty much have to act now. Their support, until very recently, had been steadily eroding year after year and generation after generation. There's a short bounce that's coming their way because of Vermont, because of Massachusetts and because of presidential politics and they're taking advantage of it. If they don't succeed now, it's a near certainty that they never will. The trouble is that they may very well succeed. A Republican Congress may pass this abomination. And the number of states that have passed DOMAs is, I believe, damn close to the number of states needed to ratify such an amendment. If the Democrats don't find a way to frame this debate properly, they are in trouble and so is every gay man and woman in the U.S. I'm saddened by this poll. I had thought that people would think a little more carefully about amending the Constitution like this. Posted by: PaulB at December 20, 2003 04:03 PM | PERMALINK"I'm saddened by this poll. I had thought that people would think a little more carefully about amending the Constitution like this." You must live in a city or along a coast. Sorry, but your opinions don't count. This is America, right of center paradise, where southerners and texans count, and no one else. I'm wondering whether Canada will offer asylum? The GOP is such a hateful party and this is becoming such a hateful society. Who would have thought that the USA would look like a red neck hick next to Canada on social issues. If the amendment passes, we'll either have a civil war in this
country, or people are going to start leaving in droves as it turns into
a playground for the wealthy and a sweatshop for everyone else, and a
bigot's paradise, too. Canada is looking better all the time. Democrats can keep bringing up Cheney's lesbian daughter, over and over again, as a talking point. Maybe they can take a note from Rove's playbook and give speeches with backdrops that have got "Cheney's Lesbian Daughter" written all over them. There is an alliance between fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives in the Republican party that Dubya has forged. The Democrats could really seize on this issue to destroy the unity of the Republican party. If they focus on talking about gay fiscal conservatives by name, and talk about how Dubya doesn't care about them, and the intolerance of the Republican party, it could really blow up in the Republicans' faces. Posted by: DanM at December 20, 2003 04:50 PM | PERMALINKIncidentally, the Democrats could also borrow a page from Rove's playbook by criticizing Dubya for distracting the country from the War on Terror by bringing up such a divisive issue as gay marriage right now, when Americans need to pull together. They can also talk about the gay troops out there dying for our freedom, trot out some retired gay generals, and ask the president how he could be doing this to these brave men and women who are fighting the War on Terror. Posted by: DanM at December 20, 2003 04:55 PM | PERMALINKThe Dems should absolutely not touch the issue of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with the presidential election and it will kill us -- totally kill us -- in the red states. We need to win a red state or two to win! Posted by: grytpype at December 20, 2003 05:13 PM | PERMALINKSeriously, if the Dems lose in 2004, it will be because of gay marriage. The Repubs will make the election all about fricking gay marriage and the holy sanctity of the sacrement the Dems want to befoul. And they will win. The election has to be a referrendum on the last four years, and on George W. Bush personally. If that's what the election is about, and the Dems are tough and skillful campaigners, the Dems can win. Posted by: grytpype at December 20, 2003 05:16 PM | PERMALINKWhy do I get the impression that the only conservatives who show up around here - thinking of spc67, for example - never seem to be social conservatives? I mean, we've all had vicious arguments here about Iraq and tax policy and all but nobody ever takes the social conservative position (as defined by the Christian Right) on anything. Why is that? Are all Bush-supporters here really just libertarians and hawks? Just curious. Posted by: Elrod at December 20, 2003 05:49 PM | PERMALINK>Democrats can keep bringing up Cheney's lesbian daughter, over and Democrats could do that but this would immediately justify the jesus this is fucking depressing. All the talk about freedom (just read an article about the 'freedom tower'...), then you turn around and tell gay people that they are so wrong and so evil that we need a constitutional amendment to take away their rights reguarding something as fundimental and personal as your love life... the hipocracy is absolutely vile. ps: dems not endorsing full on gay marriage is equally vile. Infact, if the dems had some balls they should make it a dead on battle where they finally claim the moral highground. Instead we get a 'safe road' compromise...and you wonder why the left has been losing ground for the last couple decades.
grytpype, are you suggesting that Democrats look the other way while Republicans attempt to amend the constitution to deny a minority group their civil rights? If so then what the hell do Democrats really stand for? Posted by: Gabriel at December 20, 2003 06:10 PM | PERMALINKgabriel, there's not going to be an amendment. It's all just talk. And what the Dems do or do not stand for will be irrelevant if Bush wins election. Getting rid of Bush is an absolute precondition for progress of ANY KIND, on ANY ISSUE -- gay marriage, or whatever. What I'm saying is, get rid of Bush, then start thinking about unpopular social reforms. Posted by: grytpype at December 20, 2003 06:22 PM | PERMALINKYet our good old friends at the American Family Assocation: their poll is showing the complete opposite! http://www.afa.net/petitions/marriagepoll.asp Posted by: Tom Morris at December 20, 2003 07:14 PM | PERMALINKgrytpype, I hope you're right. I'll start worrying about the GMA if it clears Congress, which can only happen with the support of quite a few Democrats. Republicans might push for it and force everyone to take a stand before the election but that's inevitable. We shouldn't forget the gays-in-the-military debacle. Sam Nunn and his cohorts forced the issue on Clinton in a way that subverted his authority, weakened him politically, divided the party and could have contributed to the 1994 loss of Congress. While this experience may lead us to believe that the gay rights issue is toxic, we must also ask ourselves if the Democrats' lack of cojones led to some voter apathy among the base. You can't win elections without the support of your base. Posted by: Gabriel at December 20, 2003 07:47 PM | PERMALINKWhat I'm saying is, get rid of Bush, then start thinking about unpopular social reforms. Bullshit. What democrats should do is take this issue, make it the centerpiece of their 2004 campaign, and attack, and attack, and attack. Point out the hypocracy. Explain logically and simply why this even being up for debate is a shameful moment in american history. Its as wrong as the jim crow laws were (not nearly as hurtful to those involved, but just as wrong). Posted by: nick at December 20, 2003 07:56 PM | PERMALINKSpeaking of the gays-in the-military debacle, remember: Clinton
promised to support the right of gays and lesbians to serve in the
military BEFORE the election, which he WON. It only became a debacle
when, as President, he reneged on that promise. The Democrats should NOT make this issue the centerpiece of the campaign, but whenever they are asked about it they need to say clearly and emphatically: "We support equal treatment under the law for all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution." (The quote is from a comment by Jennifer on Atrios' blog) Posted by: synykyl at December 20, 2003 08:39 PM | PERMALINKThe funniest part of the article was the bit in which they first mentioned that 87% of people thought that most other people would not support gays getting married in their churches, then mentioned the more relevant but less dramatic fact that only 60% of respondents actually opposed this. I guess the 87% were right, since 60% of people is most people. I
imagine that if they asked people whether they thought that most people
thought that most people thought that most people would object, they'd
get an even higher number. Only 21% of Democratic primary voters would like to see a nominee who supports gay marriage, while more than one-third would prefer the nominee oppose it. 41% say the candidate's stand on this issue would not matter to them. Undoubtedly, there are some sympathetic to same-sex marriage who would prefer the candidate oppose it, because such a stance is more politically viable. It's a loser of an issue, and that's why all the major Democratic candidates are against. Posted by: rachelrachel at December 20, 2003 09:19 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, the Democrats (or at least the presidential candidates) are united in their opposition to the constitutional amendment, the only important federal question on the topic of either gay marriage or civil unions. Bush, however, is waffling. He says he could support the amendment "if necessary." Posted by: rachelrachel at December 20, 2003 09:29 PM | PERMALINKElrod: I don't know if it is true or not, but I have heard that true social conservatives are very under-represented on the 'net. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 20, 2003 09:40 PM | PERMALINKDemocrats, meanwhile, will once again be forced into a more complicated position: in favor of civil unions but not in favor of gay marriage. The bumper sticker is that we're Pro-Marriage. Drop the 'civil union' equivocation. One party wants more marriage, the other wants less. Posted by: Andrew Edwards at December 20, 2003 11:00 PM | PERMALINKAndrew Edwards: "The bumper sticker is that we're Pro-Marriage. Drop the 'civil union' equivocation. One party wants more marriage, the other wants less." Yes. Democrats are the pro-marriage party. They're also in favor of responsible families and personal liberty so that people can order their private lives according to their conscience. Meanwhile the republicans are anti-marriage and for denying childrens' parents the right to marry and in favor of the State regulating people's private lives. Don't give an inch on this. Dems are pro-marriage and Repubs are anti-marriage (wanting to reserve it for the 'right' kind of people, doncha know?) Posted by: Michael Farris at December 21, 2003 01:42 AM | PERMALINKI think a key issue that you guys are missing is the way gay marriage is being pushed by the courts. In both Vermont and Massachusetts courts found a right to game marriage in constitutions that were clearly not written with any such concept in mind. I'm actually an agnostic on this issue but I do believe that it is one that should be decided by the legislatures and people. If the people of Massachusetts or Vermont want gay marriage they should elect legislators who will vote for it. It should not be mandated by judges reading a new right into 200 year old documents. Posted by: Mike at December 21, 2003 04:32 AM | PERMALINKMike: "In both Vermont and Massachusetts courts found a right to game(sic!) marriage in constitutions that were clearly not written with any such concept in mind." Actually I thought the courts didn't find anything in the constitutions that prohibited same sex marriage. That is they found nothing in the constitution that indicated that the state had any interest in checking out the genitals of those about to wed. That's very different from what you wrote. I take it you're a follower of the "unless it's clearly permitted, it's prohibited" school of government? Posted by: Michael Farris at December 21, 2003 05:27 AM | PERMALINKMichael, Read the analyses. The courts found that gays had a right to get married or to a substantially equivalent "civil union". Your interpretation of the court ruling is obviously incorrect since in both states the courts left open the option of prohibiting gay marriage but providing substantially equivalent civil unions. Posted by: Mike at December 21, 2003 06:07 AM | PERMALINKI suspect the Dems fighting to prioritize this issue into the above mix would be seen by much of the electorate as an example of misplaced priorities. Exactly right. Let the republicans bring their ammendment. The Democrat need only ridicule the republicans for obession with trivialites when people are out of work and boys are dying in Iraq etc... From my perspective, the idea of gay marriage is advancing organically, and doesn't need a push from the feds. I'd also bet that what most people don't want is for the federal government to come in and tell their communites to honor gay marriages, but that most people wouldn't mind so much if it *just happened* on it's own or at the state level. The Dem line should be "the federal government doesn't need to get involved with this".. The republicans will look petty, and maybe we can steal the state's rights language from the crypto-racists. Posted by: Boronx at December 21, 2003 07:57 AM | PERMALINKI like the "pro-marriage" spin. If the draft FMA that's been making the rounds is the one they continue to promote, we can use my observation that it's so stupidly worded that it seems to ban marriage entirely. Posted by: Matt McIrvin at December 21, 2003 08:12 AM | PERMALINKUh, the URL got lost there: it's http://www.livejournal.com/users/mmcirvin/70678.html Holland accepts gays and gay marriages. The country didn't go to shambles because gay people are allowed to marry. No one looks twice at a gay couple walking down the street hand in hand - it's just normal life there. It's a shame that Americans are so arrogant that they cannot look beyond their shores to recognize other countries and different ways of life. The American way isn't always the right way - but we like to pretend it is, or at least during the republican years. Posted by: Ajay Powell at December 21, 2003 09:05 AM | PERMALINKthe issue of gay marriage aside, i've noticed that when it supports the corporate-government position, any percentage over 50% is suddenly "stong support." awol has lowered the bar so much that now anything above half is a mandate. Posted by: skippy at December 21, 2003 01:25 PM | PERMALINKtwo useful factlets from the NY Times poll: I think a big part of the problem is that those folks in the red states don't realize they've ever met a real HOMosekshul.... Posted by: I.T. at December 21, 2003 01:35 PM | PERMALINKThis just in frrom Signorile: >Bad Reporting on Marriage at the NYTimes >Here's the headline -- the top story on the Web as of 1 p.m. Sunday (Tom >Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage >This article by Katharine Q. Seeyle and Janet Elder is one of the most >I thought I was reading the Washington Times -- not the New York Times -- >I wasn't aware that 55% support constituted "strong support," given >The actual results of the poll tell a much closer story. Of those groups >Also of significance in the article: >"The Times/CBS News poll was conducted from Dec. 10 through Dec. 13 in >So, that Democratic support for the marriage ban, pushed forward by the >Never mentioned in the story is the support for marriage equality by young >Then, there are the quotes. >Quote #1: President George W. Bush - supporting amendment >Quote #2: Rev. Lou Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition - "gay marriage" >Quote #3: Richard Waters, 71, Republican - "I just don't think it's right >Quote #4: Theresa Eaton, 49, Republican - "If I knew that we had a >Quote #5: U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Republican, Colorado - introduced >Quote #6: Jan LaRue, counsel for Concerned Women for America - "gay >Quote #7: Winnie Stachelberg, Human Rights Campaign - marriage equality >Quote #8: Sanford Levinson, con law professor at UT Austin - "The idea is >Quote #9: Ziad Nimri, 41, Democrat - "I don't want my children to start >Quote #10: Cliff Martin, 47, Democrat - "I think gays should be allowed to >How this can -- even in a laughing sense of the word -- be considered >Finally, the reporters -- meaning outside of others' quotes -- use the >This language issue is all the more surprising in light of the reporters' >This is a story about a slight majority's opposition to equality, but the >A very poorly done job by the Times. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 21, 2003 04:52 PM | PERMALINKA ink to a complete version of the above. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 21, 2003 05:11 PM | PERMALINKStuart's on the right track, assigning a pro-active spin with values points for words like 'responsibility'. Campaigns are about perception. I'd rather see a Dem win first, who then might be able to lead the country to a positive outcome, than to see a series of GOP Presidents on the way towards a social evolution that accepts gay marriage 50 years from now. Nick may be correct that it's unprincipled to waffle on a serious civil rights issue. But considering the history of slavery and suffrage for women, should the Dem Party choose the most principled course, I hope he's prepared for 70-90 years of frustration before the outcome. Personally, I'd prefer to see religious leaders in this country display a capacity for principles above purses, first. Them's the real roadblocks here, not the Dems. Posted by: Cowboy Kahlil at December 21, 2003 09:50 PM | PERMALINKNo i am not a minister by trade, although I have been ordained. I am a carpenter by trade with long hair and a beard that likes to wear sandles. Why do i scare christians? If I had a beard that liked to wear sandals, I suspect I'd scare a lot of people. Posted by: KDR at December 21, 2003 10:19 PM | PERMALINK>The Democrat need only ridicule the republicans for obession with trivialites Whilst at the same time emphasize the seriousness of amending the Constitution. They. Want. To. Rewrite. The. Constitution. One of the biggest bugaboos Americans of all political stripes share is discomfort with the idea of taking our Sacred Document and scanning it into Microsoft Word for a touch-up. >The country didn't go to shambles Unfortunately, it's generally understood by a majority of Americans and an article of faith in the Bush Base that all European countries are in "shambles." Regardless of the reality. Posted by: doesn't matter at December 22, 2003 07:44 AM | PERMALINKYou want to know what's really ironic about this whole issue? The American Family Association, a conservative organization who supports the constitutional ban on gay marriage, is conducting a poll on their website regarding the issue. They've promised to present the results to Congress. (Yeah right) Let's take a look at the current vote tally so far, shall we? These were the results as of 2:00 a.m. EST Tuesday, Dec. 23. I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and "civil unions" I favor legalization of homosexual marriage I favor a "civil union" with the full benefits of marriage except for the name American Famaily Association Poll on Gay Marriage Posted by: LoneStarMike at December 22, 2003 11:13 PM | PERMALINKLone Star Mike and Tom Morris (if you are different people): I suspect you know exactly why our good old friends at the American Family Assocation are getting skewed polling results too - how many times did each of you vote - and why exactly don't you want to discuss the relevant (and obviously more statistically reliable) NY Times poll, I wonder? God Bless. Posted by: Charlie at December 23, 2003 10:01 AM | PERMALINKI realize that because I'm 17 my opinions are irrational and don't matter. But please tell me: What happened to separation of Church and State? And when they say "save the tradition of marriage" "save the family" "protect the children" I know a few kids who are emotionally and socially stable, and they have parents of the same gender. As for civil unions. If all some people see is the name...the word..."marriage" then what do they care if gays and lesbians use that word?
Captain Stabbin Advertures Guy Lucky Day Her First Big Cock In The Vip Episodes Mikes Apartment Videos Posted by: mr skin at June 30, 2004 08:21 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 |
||||
