Bill from NYC Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 I must preface this post by stating that I am not anti-gay. Moreover, I do not care who is gay, nor do I truly care if they marry. That said, I cannot imagine why they would want to get married and have to pay maintenance, give up their houses, etc. The point of this post is that even in Kerry voting states (Oregon is one) the people stll voted it down. The dems went down with this issue. They are out of touch with mainstream America.
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 I must preface this post by stating that I am not anti-gay. Moreover, I do not care who is gay, nor do I truly care if they marry. That said, I cannot imagine why they would want to get married and have to pay maintenance, give up their houses, etc. The point of this post is that even in Kerry voting states (Oregon is one) the people stll voted it down. The dems went down with this issue. They are out of touch with mainstream America. 99048[/snapback] Kerry said it should be left up to the states, as it was. He said he was against gay marriage, and the public generally said the same. So can you explain how the Democrats 'went down' with this issue other than being painted into a corner by religious zealots? On the contrary, I think the issue was used by the religious right to instill fear of fellow citizens and whip up the Republican base. It may have worked. One thing that I think was pretty low was that it seems in several states, exit polling revealed that a lot of people who voted for the measures did not realize they were also voting against civil unions and to strike down job benefits for partners offered by some companies, which more people are generally receptive to (though not sure about the figures as to whether it's a majority that is OK with them). Why was this necessary? It's just a further example of the right demonizing a minority and not recognizing them as people first.
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 It's just a further example of the right demonizing a minority and not recognizing them as people first. 99125[/snapback] Like those "religious zealots" you speak of....? Pot meet kettle.
erynthered Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 They are out of touch with mainstream America. 99048[/snapback] Nailed with that one Bill.
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Like those "religious zealots" you speak of....? Pot meet kettle. 99129[/snapback] Explain. If I said, a fervently religious voting-bloc spurred on by a campaign of fear would that make you feel better? I fail to see how the religious right is a persecuted 'minority' any longer, if it ever was. It is a serious force to be reckoned with, obviously. It's time for them to stop crying foul when they hold all the cards. And yet no one addresses that the Democratic candidates took the "mainstream" position, aligning with the states on this issue.
Tux of Borg Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 It's going to be a long time before the bible belt votes to legalize gay marriage.
Simon Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 I think the issue was used by the religious right to instill fear of fellow citizens and whip up the Republican base. It may have worked. It certainly worked on my wife and the vast majority of her extended family. They're all college graduates and succesful professionals yet they still eat that shlt up with a spoon.
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 The Dems didn't go down- the Right pushed these bills. Most gay people wanted no part of this balloting- they know the majority of America isn't ready to endorse gay marriage. I can't understand why America cares what adults do in their bedrooms, but I guess most people think it's their business who people love, who they will their property to, and who they spend their committed lives with. Further intrusiveness of big government.
RkFast Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Oh please. This issue is about MONEY, more than anything else. Its not about "love".
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Oh please. This issue is about MONEY, more than anything else. Its not about "love". 99217[/snapback] You mean getting benefits and being able to pass on property?
RkFast Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Yes...exactly. Firend of mine kept bending my ear about "what about love???!!??". Funny, nobody thought about this issue until homosexual couples were denied the FINANCIAL benefits of marriage. Until then, the word "partner" was just fine and dandy. I wish people would just admit the truth sometimes.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 SO WHAT?? This is an issue that should have never been one... it's the joke that continues to put us further behind in IMPORTANT issues that affect our nation.
MichFan Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 One thing that I think was pretty low was that it seems in several states, exit polling revealed that a lot of people who voted for the measures did not realize they were also voting against civil unions and to strike down job benefits for partners offered by some companies, which more people are generally receptive to (though not sure about the figures as to whether it's a majority that is OK with them). Why was this necessary? This point was well communicated in Ohio. I think the collective attitude was it was better to go too far but act quickly then to wait another 2-4 years. Don't be surprised to see a follow-up ballot initiative that relaxes the language on civil unions.
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Yes...exactly. Firend of mine kept bending my ear about "what about love???!!??". Funny, nobody thought about this issue until homosexual couples were denied the FINANCIAL benefits of marriage. Until then, the word "partner" was just fine and dandy. I wish people would just admit the truth sometimes. 99239[/snapback] So... why the hullabaloo then? Do you think the Right wing crowd is ready to approve same sex unions with benefits? If so, pass the pipe brother. The Right has made this into a moral compass issue, and deems it the government role to define the moral compass on this.
pdh1 Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Kerry said it should be left up to the states, as it was. He said he was against gay marriage, and the public generally said the same. So can you explain how the Democrats 'went down' with this issue other than being painted into a corner by religious zealots? On the contrary, I think the issue was used by the religious right to instill fear of fellow citizens and whip up the Republican base. It may have worked. One thing that I think was pretty low was that it seems in several states, exit polling revealed that a lot of people who voted for the measures did not realize they were also voting against civil unions and to strike down job benefits for partners offered by some companies, which more people are generally receptive to (though not sure about the figures as to whether it's a majority that is OK with them). Why was this necessary? It's just a further example of the right demonizing a minority and not recognizing them as people first. 99125[/snapback] The Right "demonizing a minority and not recognizing them as people first"? Since when does your preference of who you f**k make you a ethnic morority? Can we pass laws to protect the rights of people who like to use rubber latex in the bedroom, too? Maybe we can make fat people a oppressed moronity so Mike Moore can claim the victim status he want so bad. I bet you he hates the fact he was born white.
Recommended Posts