NEWS: Democrats Think Gays Can Almost Be People

this subject hits really close to home for me.... my mother is in a long term committed relationship with a chick.... and my girlfriends mother is also in a relationship with a chick.. while totally seeing their point of wanting to get married and to have that right... i hold a different opinion on the subject... i do agree they should have the right to marry WHOEVER they choose.... but if this institution of marriage is pushing them away why would they want to be part of it so bad... because of this ive turned my back on the idea of marriage.. if its not good enough for my mom then i want no part of it.... i understand they want marriage.. but when the people who support this whole idea of marriage push back so hard... why not just say 'fuck em' and walk away from it.. i guess it can be thought of as cowardice and a defeatist type attitude.... but i hold no more weight or respect for a couple who is married than any other couple who love each other and have committed their lives to each other...

I understand where you're coming from here, and don't entirely disagree. But there's more to marriage than just being able to say, "I'm married to this person" - it comes with a whole constellation of legal rights and responsibilities, and that's why the battle's worth fighting.

i guess it boils down to the notion that i believe one day the whole (or as much as possible) of the country will understand that gays are not some far off people like an 'insurgent' but they are parents friends family teachers good people bad people just like the rest of us.... and i dont think that people should be forced into understanding this and accepting that, because that kinda breeds more and more divisiveness.. i just kinda cross my fingers and hope that bigotry and shit like that will die off naturally and the acceptance of gay marriage will come more naturally... BLEGH ..... but the human race has a history of needing strong words and action to get people to realize.. so fuck...

First on CNBC, anyone for equal rights of all people must be a fag.

Any homosexual who wants the Catholic church to recognize their lifestyle as valid and marry them in a Church is fighting a completely different fight than a homosexual who wants the same treatment as someone who is married, in whatever fashion, and receives benefits from it.

The former is a religious battle. It's a battle between homosexuals and the church about a lot of different things - the idea of marriage, the acceptance of homosexuality, etc.

The latter is a secular battle. It's a battle between state and federal legislatures and homosexuals about giving homosexuals equal benefits and equal treatment to a heterosexual couple who wants to get married.

They are two absolutely, completely different things, and people need to realize that.

If your complaint is that the Church is intolerant, and they aren't accepting of your lifestyle, and you don't understand how God could hate you for living this way, and you want the Church to marry you and recognize your relationship, etc. etc. then your beef is with the Church, and it doesn't really have a whole lot to do with marriage, except for the religious sacrament that the church conveys during their private and very optional ceremony. This is something that needs to be worked out between organized religion and their patrons, and no one else.

If your complaint is that, as a homosexual couple, you are unable to receive the same benefits and legal protections as a heterosexual couple, then your beef is with the state and federal legislatures. They can pass laws that would afford the same benefits and protections to you as a they do to a straight couple, and that would be that.

They are two completely different things.

I admit now, and apologize for the fact that I've not read this whole thread. If it's been stated before and I missed it, then please disregard what I have to say, but here's my question:

Is it possible that the politics working in this subject are not that democrats aren't advocating gay marriage, but that their hands are tied from choosing a harsh stance on the topic because of losing fringe votes?

Considering how the last two elections went, there are certain subjects which I just don't see politicians from any but the far right being able to give a firm definitive answer to, abortion and gay marriage being among them, without losing a substantial number of votes. The voting population leans to the right, so any votes a candidate from the left can get to sway the majority vote back to the other side are those votes from the middle.

Personally, elections make me hate people, because people decided that our system would be one of two and never three parties (at least in major elections). But our leadership has been so far skewed to the right for what feels like so long that even if Democrats have become more middle of the road than left, that sounds like an improvement.

Need to check your demographics. The American public leans decidedly to the middle on just about every issue. Most want good, efficient government that respects their privacy and deals with the economic issues that affect them.

Most do not want to deny civil unions to gay or lesbian couples. Most do not want abortion made illegal. But, most, because that is a religious issue, not a secular one, don't want the government telling their church who they have to allow to get married in their church.

Which is why this is a language issue and why we need to change the language. Forget about "marriage," what we need is equal protection under the law.

I agree with the first statement, but didn't know about the second. My impression is that it is the opposite situation. Care to cite any studies?

My point is that the politicians on both sides of the aisle may be taking the side of the majority of their constituants. That is, after all, what they are supposed to do. Yes?

I agree with you. But the Democrats don't think there are enough people out there supporting gay marriages to help them, (and worry that there are too many against the gays, so they avoid that issue as much as possible) and they waffle and tap dance.

I think that most Americans are against gay marriages, and dislike gays in general. That is truly sad. As I mentioned in another post, I hope that in a generation or less, that antipathy goes away. There's still a lot of ignorance out there.

Depends. Are you a Platonic Republican?

Well- and I realize the humorous intent- marriage is a very useful social institution. In England, social programs that essentially make it less viable and lucrative for the father to stay in the household in working class and poor families have been blamed for a variety of social ills like skyrocketing youth alcoholism and drug abuse, as well as the astronomical number of dropouts and expulsions.

In very pragmatic terms, marriage is very useful for providing a (hopefully) stable situation to raise people with a fighting chance to succeed as adults. Not that people from broken homes cannot succeed, just that it's alot easier in general with both parents around.

Bigotry and xenophobia.

I never use wiki as a reference...



State: Gay couples from New Mexico can marry in Massachusetts
By Jay Lindsay, Associated Press Writer | July 26, 2007

BOSTON --Gay couples from New Mexico can now marry in Massachusetts because their home state has not explicitly banned same-sex marriage, according to a decision by a top state records official.

Gay rights advocates said they had expected the decision on New Mexico, which comes after Massachusetts's highest court ruled last year that gay couples from other states could not marry here if their home state banned gay marriage.

Alexis Blizman, executive director of the pro-gay marriage group Equality New Mexico, said she was pleased by the decision. But she said the ability to marry in Massachusetts wasn't much different than marrying in other countries, which New Mexicans have done for years.

The instructions to give marriage licenses to gay couples from New Mexico was given by Massachusetts' Registrar of Vital Records Stanley Nyberg in a July 18 notice to city and town clerks.

"Effective immediately, Intentions to Marry completed by same sex couples who seek licenses to marry in Massachusetts may be accepted," the notice read. "Under applicable Massachusetts law ... , New Mexico's laws do not prohibit marriage between parties."

Pew Survey

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples?" N=2,003, MoE ± 2.5

Favor Oppose Unsure
7/6-19/06 54 42 4
7/13-17/05 53 40 7
8/5-10/04 48 45 7
7/04 49 43 8
3/04 49 44 7
10/03 45 47 8

As you can see, the trend is toward favoring civil unions. I am unaware of a more recent survey, but you can post one if you have it.

That's really nice and all, but it doesn't mean that gay couples can get married in New Mexico. They can't. You should read your own source. What's important here is that the "state officials" mentioned above are Massachusetts state officials, not New Mexico state officials. New Mexican gay couples who marry in Massachusetts have no protection for their marriage once they get back to New Mexico.

Since we can't use Wiki (and, for the record, it's a fine source for things like this), let's take a look at some other things, shall we?

Equality New Mexico, a statewide LGBT advocacy organization.

From the Sante Fe New Mexican

From the Boston Globe:

And finally...
From 2004, while a rogue county clerk was handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples for a short period of time, "A spokeswoman said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson opposes same-sex marriage."

Well, fuck. I was liking him before that.

Nice response.

NMGLBT Advocates talk about Gov. Richardson and his active role in the GLBT community.

We have openly gay city council members and cabnet members. And our state employees domestic partnership benefits are some of the most progressive in the country. And his
Speech at Pride really showed that he caresfor us.

He does support equal rights and has delivered more to us in the community then other canidates, and knows as well as I do that civil unions and domestic partnerships are as close as we are going to get to Gay Marrage in the next 10 years or so.

I think a lot of us in the GLBT community know that Gay Marrage is a pipe dream, but every step towards it is a step in the right direction, and i find (from working at NM's only Gay Resort) that most of us support richardson and his efforts to get us covered.

I think had the rest of my quote been shown you would see that my point is that he is very progressive, and while that spokesperson did say he was against gay marrage, he hasnt gone out of his way to make it impossible for us (and that article is a few years old, I believe)

Listen, I'm not saying he's not progressive, I'm just saying he's not the governor of a state where gay marriage is legal. He is not. I'm also saying that his stance is anything but "obvious", unless you mean "obviously for civil unions but against gay marriage".

Best

News

update

Ever

I really think the world is going to hell in a handbasket. oh shit