Marriage Equality Defended in Massachusetts

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
The politicians who are chicken shit to say they support gay marriage are because they're afraid of the political consequences. When even so called liberal Democrats won't come out and say it (as opposed to "Bible thumping" conservatives) I think that's an indication of that. As soon as gay marriage becomes more widespread and mainstream the politicians will become less chicken shit about saying what they really feel. They are just chicken shit about most issues if you ask me.

Because a politician needs the backing of a party to gain power, so they must conform to that party's agenda.

There's only two things needed to become a politician: money and a willingness to conform.

[unico]

Originally posted by martha


And all presidential candidates are chicken-shit on this topic.

For once, I disagree with you. I don't see what is so chicken-shit about this...

I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice.

from www.kucinich.us

[martha]

Originally posted by unico


For once, I disagree with you. I don't see what is so chicken-shit about this...


from www.kucinich.us

I take it back. Happily!

[deep]

Over on this page I found my reason to consider voting for him.

[phillyfan26]

I have my doubts about him getting the nomination, but if he does, that's not a bad candidate right there.

[unico]

Originally posted by martha





I take it back. Happily!

YAY! Tell everybody how sexy this man is!

Originally posted by deep
Over on this page I found my reason to consider voting for him.

I have to admit, after our brief but intense encounter up against the wall, I thought we were meant for each other. Apparently he didn't think so. So when Elizabeth came along I was jealous. But after reading more about her, I'm glad they've found each other. She is lovely!

Honestly, Dennis' stance on equal marriage rights has not changed. Hopefully more people will pay attention to him now. You almost never hear about him. The media tend to dismiss him because *gasp* he actually speaks of REAL progress! I was pissed because I was listening to Democracy Now, and this guy who was an equal marriage rights activist was talking about his years of activism and whatnot. I was all about him, then he had to say something ignorant like "Not one single candidate is in support of total equal marriage rights." At that point I turned off my radio. For him to be so passionate about this issue, he obviously didn't do his research.

[MrsSpringsteen]

(CNN) -- A majority of Americans believe that gays and lesbians could not change their sexual orientation even if they wanted to, according to results of a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday.

It's the first time in a CNN poll the majority has held that belief regarding homosexuality.

Fifty-six percent of about 515 poll respondents said they do not believe sexual orientation can be changed. In 2001, 45 percent of those responding to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll held that belief. In 1998, according to a CNN/Time poll, the number was 36 percent.

In addition, 42 percent of respondents to the current poll said they believe homosexuality results from upbringing and environment, while 39 percent said they believe it is something a person is born with -- a close division that reflects the national debate over the issue.

However, those numbers are greatly changed from the 1970s and '80s, in which fewer than 20 percent of Americans said a person is born homosexual. In a 1977 poll, the number was 13 percent.

Ten percent in the latest poll said they believe both factors play a role in someone's homosexuality. Three percent said neither, and 6 percent had no opinion.

The sampling error for the results released Wednesday, in which the question was asked of a half-sample of 1,029 telephone poll respondents, is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday.

In a poll conducted May 4-6 that dealt with other issues regarding homosexuality, participants were asked whether openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, which currently has a "don't ask-don't tell" policy on homosexuality. Seventy-nine percent of poll respondents said openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military. Eighteen percent said they should not.

On the question of gay marriage, 43 percent of respondents in May said they would not support same-sex marriage or civil unions, which provide many, if not most, of the same legal protections as marriage. Twenty-four percent said they supported same-sex marriage, while 27 percent opted for civil unions.

But a majority of poll respondents -- 57 percent -- said gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to adopt children. Forty percent said they should not.

The sampling error for those questions was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[CTU2fan]

^ So according to CNN those folks who oppose both marriage & civil unions are now minorities...shoe's on the other foot now, I wonder how it feels?

Seriously though, the time of the anti-gay bigot is ending I think. Time just isn't on their side. I run into far fewer people who are openly racist than I did 20 years ago, I'd expect the openly homophobic to be in decline as well.

They won't be missed.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by CTU2fan
^ So according to CNN those folks who oppose both marriage & civil unions are now minorities...

it's true. support for civil unions, at a minimum, is the mainstream, middle-of-the-road position.

just like most people were fine with separate drinking fountains.

but, hey, at least they got drinking fountains!

[CTU2fan]

At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot...is there a difference between marriage & civil unions, legally, besides the name? I realize that even if there isn't, the separate but equal comparison is very apt. But it's funny that the majority favors one & not the other if the only difference is the name...

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by CTU2fan
At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot...is there a difference between marriage & civil unions, legally, besides the name? I realize that even if there isn't, the separate but equal comparison is very apt. But it's funny that the majority favors one & not the other if the only difference is the name...

i think it varies, state to state. i'd have to do more research. my guess is that a civil union has all the "rights" of marriage -- hospital visitation, power of attorny, adoption, etc. -- but might not provide the thousand or so tax breaks a married couple is entitled to.

[CTU2fan]

Ah so it's not even separate but equal...more like some people are more equal than others

I wonder how many people who support CU rather than marriage think, as I did, that the only difference is the name?

Of course we could just say marriage rather than screwing around with semantics and civil unions. If the Christian fundies don't like it then their pastors don't have to perform the services.

[martha]

So many people also conveniently forget that there are such things as civil marriages. They rail about "no one should be able to force the church into performing these marriages," when thousands of straight couples get married at the courthouse every year.

[MrsSpringsteen]

The Paua Zahn show tonight is about this and related topics

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/26...ity/index.html

[MrsSpringsteen]

Dear Abby is defending it too. She just seems so full of common sense. I don't know why she waited so long though and just waited for people to read between the lines.


AP Exclusive: 'Dear Abby' announces support of same-sex marriage

By LISA LEFF, The Associated Press


For years, rumblings have surfaced on the Internet, conjecture about her casual references to "sexual orientation" and "respect."

Now, the subject of the speculation is ready to make a statement, insisting the truth was there all along for anyone who cared to read between the lines: Dear Abby supports same-sex marriage.

"There should be gay marriage. I believe if two people want to commit to each other, God bless 'em," the syndicated advice columnist said in an interview with The Associated Press. "That is the highest form of commitment, for heaven's sake."

What Jeanne Phillips, aka Abigail Van Buren, finds offensive - not to mention of dubious intelligence - are homophobic jokes, phrases like "That's so gay," and parents who reject or try to reform their children when they come out of the closet.

Her views are the reason she's being honored this week by Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, a national advocacy group that provides support for gay people and their families. The original Abby, Phillips' 89-year-old mother, Pauline, helped put PFLAG on the map in 1984 when she first referred a distraught parent to the organization.

The younger Phillips, who formally took over the column when her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease five years ago, has continued plugging the group, as well as its affiliate for parents with children who identify as transgender, and a suicide hot line aimed at gay teenagers.

"I'm trying to tell kids if they are gay, it's OK to be gay. I've tried to tell families if they have a gay family memebr to accept them and love them as they always have," she said.

Alert "Dear Abby" readers may have noticed that the youthful attitude Phillips promised to bring to the column includes a decidedly gay-friendly take on some matters.

In a March 2005 column that touched a nerve with some readers, Phillips came down unequivocally on the side of scientists who say sexual orientation is a matter of genetics, not personal choice. She advised a mother who had cautioned her 14-year-old daughter to keep her feelings for other girls secret to "come to terms with your own feelings about homosexuality."

Last year, addressing a groom whose gay brother refused to serve as best man or even attend the wedding because he couldn't marry, she made it clear her sympathies lay with the boycotting brother.

"Accepting the status quo is not always the best thing to do," she wrote. "Women were once considered chattel, and slavery was regarded as sanctioned in the Bible. However, western society grew to recognize that neither was just. Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain have recognized gay marriage, and one day, perhaps, our country will, too."

Phillips, who lives in Los Angeles, said she understands not everyone agrees with her. She and her husband "argue about this continually." He thinks civil unions and domestic partnerships "would be less threatening to people who feel marriage is just a religious rite." She thinks anything less than full marriage amounts to second-class citizenship.

"If gay Americans are not allowed to get married and have all the benefits that American citizens are entitled to by the Bill of Rights, they should get one hell of a tax break. That is my opinion," said Phillips, who speaks with the no-nonsense tone of someone who is used to settling debates.

Right now, Phillips, who prefers to be called Abby, is writing a reply to a woman who wanted to know whether she should include childhood photographs of her transgender brother-in-law in a family album. The woman is worried what she will tell her children when they see pictures of their uncle as a little girl.

Phillips' advice to Worried Reader will be to include the photos, she says, and answer any questions the kids have honestly.

As far as she knows, Phillips' outspokenness on gay rights issues has never caused a strong backlash, said Kathie Kerr, a spokeswoman for Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes the column to about 1,400 newspapers. It's possible some editors choose not to run the segments dealing with homosexuality, but if so they have not complained to the syndicate, Kerr said.

"We get brouhahas all the time, and they haven't been about Dear Abby," Kerr said.

Phillips said that while it might be tempting to devote an entire column to why she thinks jokes invoking the anti-gay "f-word" are in poor taste, she does not plan to spell out her views on gay marriage any more directly than she has already.

"If they are my readers, they know how I feel on the subject," she said. "I don't think I'm a flaming radical. I'm for civility in life. I'm for treating each other with respect, trying to do the best you can."

[phillyfan26]

I remember this thread ... still sickening to read some of these posts.

[Moonlit_Angel]

I just went through it. Wow.

But yay for Kucinich's stance (and what a sweet link shared there, too. Awwwwww ). If I were a presidential candidate, you'd better believe I'd say straight out that I support same-sex marriage. It seems utterly ridiculous and incredibly immature to me to call one one thing and another something else-either you call them both marriages or you call them both civil unions. And yay to Dear Abby, too. I always like reading her thoughts...

As for whether or not being gay is a choice, honestly, while I don't think it's a choice, at the same time, I don't see why it should make a difference either way. The bottom line is that gay people deserve to be treated just like everybody else. Period. End of story. And I feel for that woman who was unable to be at her partner's bedside. First off, shouldn't that decision be up to the person who is ill-they'd know better than anyone else who they'd want to be with them, right? Second, there's a real comfort in being able to be surrounded by your loved ones in your final moments, and that dying woman should've been allowed to have that comfort.

People here are right, though, it seems the tide is turning. It seems a lot more people really just aren't bothered one way or another anymore, and I hope that trend continues.

Angela

[martha]

Hi Angela!

[Angela Harlem]

Originally posted by maycocksean


Actually, the white conservative Christian male position is quite understandable to me (though I don't agree with it).

They recognize that their ability to control over what is considered "normal" and "acceptable" in the United States is in jepoardy. Losing the ability to have society defined according to terms that are comfortable to you is a scary thing. It takes courage and selflessness to say "this is a good thing even though it takes me out of my comfort zone." Not many people have the guts.

This is the appeal of Rush and O'Reilly and Coulter and their ilk. They're speaking directly to that fear and confusion and saying, "Hey, there's nothing WRONG with you being the arbiters, the standards, of societal mores. Your comfort zone is a GOOD thing. You don't NEED to be ashamed of it. Your domination of society should be DEFENDED." And then they take it further. . .they imply that if white male Chrisitan America loses it's hegemony then they will become the oppressed. There won't be an equitable society. The white Christian man will become the new "n_____". It's a perfect storm of self-justification and fear.

If we can put ourselves in their shoes, you can see the power of such an appeal.

I've been asking this for years, and now finally have an answer which no conservative could ever provide before.

Thank you, Sean. It is so good to have you posting on here.