Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
patent leather
Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Pearl
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
cobl04
45:33
Crocodile skin.
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Either way, they'll be fabulous.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Its silly for the left to make these jumps. The argument about marriage is an argument about the legal status of that ceremony. Nothing to do with not regarding gay people as people. I don't think even the most right wing of the Christian right regards gays as 3/5ths of people.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
No. It's not about the legal status of THAT ceremony, it's the legal status thereafter that ceremony and how the state recognizes you.
If you are not recognized as an equal in the eyes of the law than you are not equal as a person. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I hear this a lot. But blacks were not 3/5 of a person. I believe it was Virginia and North Carolina that would not go along with the Constitution because they wanted more representation in Congress and votes in the Electoral College for selecting the President.
I am sure that they would have been happy to have slaves counted as 5/5 or even 1.5 persons for apportionment purposes.
deep said:
Yes, this is what they were pushing for. But of course, no one ever suggested that those slaves could vote. Heaven forbid that our saintly founding fathers allow for that.
Just one of many cases of the US government being designed in a way where some the votes of some people matter more than the votes of others. When it comes down to it, that's all that the electoral college does today.
Wrong.
It has to do with the plethora of rights that flow to each individual as a consequence of being legally married.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Well, looks like the people of Washington state will get the amazing opportunity to vote on whether or not some people can get married.
The Dark Side got enough signatures to get it onto the ballot.
The Dark Side got enough signatures to get it onto the ballot.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
did men ever get together and vote on whether or not women should be allowed to vote?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
yes
cobl04
45:33
Australian Christian Lobby (yes, that's their actual name 
) Fuckwit in Chief Jim Wallace likened the gay marriage "agenda" to Nazi propaganda, saying the media were a lot like Joseph Goebbels. Then he used the slippery slope argument. All live on national television.
Cue Cori in 3, 2, 1...
) Fuckwit in Chief Jim Wallace likened the gay marriage "agenda" to Nazi propaganda, saying the media were a lot like Joseph Goebbels. Then he used the slippery slope argument. All live on national television.Cue Cori in 3, 2, 1...
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Fuckwits are all over the globe.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Hehe.
Tends to make you wonder how those sorts of people manage to dress themselves every morning, huh?
Australian Christian Lobby (yes, that's their actual name
Tends to make you wonder how those sorts of people manage to dress themselves every morning, huh?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
NY Times
June 9, 2012
The G.O.P.’s Gay Trajectory
By FRANK BRUNI
Over the past year, the main story line in the push for marriage equality has been the ardor and success with which leading Democratic politicians have taken up the fight. The Democratic governors of New York, Maryland and Washington all promoted and signed same-sex marriage laws, for which President Obama expressed his support last month.
But the progress within Republican ranks has also been pivotal, not to mention fascinating. And a compelling character in that subplot just added a new twist to the narrative, one that suggests the rapidly changing political dynamics of this issue and its potential import to a party dogged by an image of being culturally out of touch.
That character is Paul E. Singer, 67, a billionaire hedge fund manager who is among the most important Republican donors nationwide. In just one Manhattan fund-raiser last month, he helped to collect more than $5 million for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
He steadfastly supports conservative candidates. He also steadfastly supports gay rights in general and marriage equality in particular. Along with a few other leading Wall Street financiers, he contributed and helped drum up the majority of the money — more than $1 million — that fueled the campaign for same-sex marriage in New York.
He has given nearly $10 million of his own money to gay-rights initiatives, including the same-sex marriage efforts not only in New York but also in New Hampshire and New Jersey. And that figure doesn’t include his assistance in tapping a broad network of donors for individual candidates. He was pivotal in rounding up about $250,000 apiece for the Republican state senators in New York whose votes for same-sex marriage provided its margin of victory in the Legislature.
Now, Singer says, he’s providing $1 million to start a new “super PAC” with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.
In an interview on Tuesday, he told me that he’s confident that in Congressional races, which would most likely be the super PAC’s initial focus, there are more than a few Republicans “who could be on the verge of support” or are “harboring and hiding their views.”
“And this kind of effort could be catalytic in generating some more movement,” he said.
Singer doesn’t court a high news-media profile. His willingness to meet at the Midtown Manhattan offices of his hedge fund, Elliott Management, and talk about marriage equality reflects the strength of his commitment to the cause. Although he is straight, he has a gay son and son-in-law who were married in Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2004.
Our conversation also reflected a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways. Many swing voters who find elements of Republicans’ limited-government message appealing and have doubts about Obama’s economic stewardship are nonetheless given serious pause by the party’s stances on abortion, birth control, immigration and homosexuality.
“There’s a feeling among some people that the Republican party is harsh on some things,” acknowledged Singer, whose extended comments can be found in a blog post supplementing this column. Referring to opposition to same-sex marriage, he added: “Atmospherically and tonally, it’s part of the landscape of so-called harshness.”
It also flies in the face of an irrefutable trajectory of increasing support for same-sex marriage among Americans, especially younger ones. In a CNN/ORC International poll released Wednesday, a whopping 73 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 said they favored marriage equality. That’s the clear future of this issue, and Republicans are keenly aware that while the party’s formal opposition to abortion rights, for example, doesn’t contradict the prevailing sentiments of a majority of Americans or buck voter trends, opposition to same-sex marriage does.
Ken Mehlman, the former Republican National Committee chairman who came out as gay two years ago and has since pressed the case for marriage equality, told me, “A political party that ignores demography or ignores broader cultural trends does so at its own peril.”
But even apart from that, Mehlman, Singer and many other Republicans say that marriage equality, which in fact gets the government out of the business of controlling and casting judgment on people’s private lives, is consistent with conservative principles.
Singer said that it “very well fits within my framework of freedom,” adding that it promotes “family stability” and is a tribute to an institution in need of one.
“Obviously, the institution of marriage in America has utterly collapsed,” he said. That gay and lesbian couples nonetheless want to wed “is kind of a lovely thing and a cool thing and a wonderful thing,” he added.
The shifting Republican reality was underscored when 119 Republicans joined 92 Democrats in the New Hampshire House of Representatives three months ago in a vote to keep same-sex marriage legal in the state. Just three years ago, when it was legalized, only nine Republicans supported it.
In Massachusetts, Richard Tisei, a gay Congressional candidate who supports marriage equality, was recently anointed one of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns,” signifying Republican leaders’ especially strong investment in his bid.
“I feel comfortable in the party,” he told me Friday.
Tisei is one type of candidate who might draw financial help from Singer’s super PAC, which, according to Singer, will soon have a budget “of a few million dollars,” factoring in expected support from collaborators and friends.
Singer said that more than a half-dozen Republicans who back same-sex marriage, who are contemplating it or who seem nudge-able have already attracted the super PAC’s attention.
I asked Chad H. Griffin, a progressive Democrat who heads the Human Rights Campaign, a leading advocacy group for gays and lesbians, what he made of Singer’s work on marriage equality.
“It’s absolutely necessary,” said Griffin. “We will never win marriage equality without bipartisan support.”
One Republican who unequivocally opposes marriage equality is the man Singer backs for president: Mitt Romney. Does that trouble Singer?
“I feel very strongly that Obama needs to be fired, and that the Republicans are right on most things,” he said, adding that with continued work on marriage equality, he expects to persuade more Republicans of its rightness, too.
“I think it would be naïve of me to take this issue and just upend everything else I believe,” he said. “Because I think we’re making progress.”
June 9, 2012
The G.O.P.’s Gay Trajectory
By FRANK BRUNI
Over the past year, the main story line in the push for marriage equality has been the ardor and success with which leading Democratic politicians have taken up the fight. The Democratic governors of New York, Maryland and Washington all promoted and signed same-sex marriage laws, for which President Obama expressed his support last month.
But the progress within Republican ranks has also been pivotal, not to mention fascinating. And a compelling character in that subplot just added a new twist to the narrative, one that suggests the rapidly changing political dynamics of this issue and its potential import to a party dogged by an image of being culturally out of touch.
That character is Paul E. Singer, 67, a billionaire hedge fund manager who is among the most important Republican donors nationwide. In just one Manhattan fund-raiser last month, he helped to collect more than $5 million for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
He steadfastly supports conservative candidates. He also steadfastly supports gay rights in general and marriage equality in particular. Along with a few other leading Wall Street financiers, he contributed and helped drum up the majority of the money — more than $1 million — that fueled the campaign for same-sex marriage in New York.
He has given nearly $10 million of his own money to gay-rights initiatives, including the same-sex marriage efforts not only in New York but also in New Hampshire and New Jersey. And that figure doesn’t include his assistance in tapping a broad network of donors for individual candidates. He was pivotal in rounding up about $250,000 apiece for the Republican state senators in New York whose votes for same-sex marriage provided its margin of victory in the Legislature.
Now, Singer says, he’s providing $1 million to start a new “super PAC” with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.
In an interview on Tuesday, he told me that he’s confident that in Congressional races, which would most likely be the super PAC’s initial focus, there are more than a few Republicans “who could be on the verge of support” or are “harboring and hiding their views.”
“And this kind of effort could be catalytic in generating some more movement,” he said.
Singer doesn’t court a high news-media profile. His willingness to meet at the Midtown Manhattan offices of his hedge fund, Elliott Management, and talk about marriage equality reflects the strength of his commitment to the cause. Although he is straight, he has a gay son and son-in-law who were married in Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2004.
Our conversation also reflected a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways. Many swing voters who find elements of Republicans’ limited-government message appealing and have doubts about Obama’s economic stewardship are nonetheless given serious pause by the party’s stances on abortion, birth control, immigration and homosexuality.
“There’s a feeling among some people that the Republican party is harsh on some things,” acknowledged Singer, whose extended comments can be found in a blog post supplementing this column. Referring to opposition to same-sex marriage, he added: “Atmospherically and tonally, it’s part of the landscape of so-called harshness.”
It also flies in the face of an irrefutable trajectory of increasing support for same-sex marriage among Americans, especially younger ones. In a CNN/ORC International poll released Wednesday, a whopping 73 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 said they favored marriage equality. That’s the clear future of this issue, and Republicans are keenly aware that while the party’s formal opposition to abortion rights, for example, doesn’t contradict the prevailing sentiments of a majority of Americans or buck voter trends, opposition to same-sex marriage does.
Ken Mehlman, the former Republican National Committee chairman who came out as gay two years ago and has since pressed the case for marriage equality, told me, “A political party that ignores demography or ignores broader cultural trends does so at its own peril.”
But even apart from that, Mehlman, Singer and many other Republicans say that marriage equality, which in fact gets the government out of the business of controlling and casting judgment on people’s private lives, is consistent with conservative principles.
Singer said that it “very well fits within my framework of freedom,” adding that it promotes “family stability” and is a tribute to an institution in need of one.
“Obviously, the institution of marriage in America has utterly collapsed,” he said. That gay and lesbian couples nonetheless want to wed “is kind of a lovely thing and a cool thing and a wonderful thing,” he added.
The shifting Republican reality was underscored when 119 Republicans joined 92 Democrats in the New Hampshire House of Representatives three months ago in a vote to keep same-sex marriage legal in the state. Just three years ago, when it was legalized, only nine Republicans supported it.
In Massachusetts, Richard Tisei, a gay Congressional candidate who supports marriage equality, was recently anointed one of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns,” signifying Republican leaders’ especially strong investment in his bid.
“I feel comfortable in the party,” he told me Friday.
Tisei is one type of candidate who might draw financial help from Singer’s super PAC, which, according to Singer, will soon have a budget “of a few million dollars,” factoring in expected support from collaborators and friends.
Singer said that more than a half-dozen Republicans who back same-sex marriage, who are contemplating it or who seem nudge-able have already attracted the super PAC’s attention.
I asked Chad H. Griffin, a progressive Democrat who heads the Human Rights Campaign, a leading advocacy group for gays and lesbians, what he made of Singer’s work on marriage equality.
“It’s absolutely necessary,” said Griffin. “We will never win marriage equality without bipartisan support.”
One Republican who unequivocally opposes marriage equality is the man Singer backs for president: Mitt Romney. Does that trouble Singer?
“I feel very strongly that Obama needs to be fired, and that the Republicans are right on most things,” he said, adding that with continued work on marriage equality, he expects to persuade more Republicans of its rightness, too.
“I think it would be naïve of me to take this issue and just upend everything else I believe,” he said. “Because I think we’re making progress.”
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
It will be interesting to see if there is ever a divide, one between the money and a big portion of the Republican voters (conservative christians)?
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
I really hope there is a shift towards a more pro-gay attitude within the Republican party. The article's right, if they want to survive, they have to adapt their platforms a little more, make them more realistic.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
be careful what you wish for
we have a country that is evenly divided,
with the GOP being gay friendly, they could pick up 3-5 % more, then they would have a solid majority
they could cut spending, reduce welfare, aid to deadbeats, put those unions in their proper place, pass pro-business legislation and end the anti-business EPA, reform eduction, give everyone vouchers
we have a country that is evenly divided,
with the GOP being gay friendly, they could pick up 3-5 % more, then they would have a solid majority
they could cut spending, reduce welfare, aid to deadbeats, put those unions in their proper place, pass pro-business legislation and end the anti-business EPA, reform eduction, give everyone vouchers
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Republican Rep. Marsha Looper's Gay Son Outed By Campaign Manager E-mail
There are so many things wrong with this story...
There are so many things wrong with this story...
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Huffington Post
Add Carrie Underwood to the list of stars who've come out in support of marriage equality.
The country songstress, who was raised Baptist, spoke at length about the topic in an interview with The Independent, noting that her Christian upbringing is at the core of her attitude toward same-sex marriage.
"As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love, and want to marry," Underwood is quoted as saying. "I can’t imagine how that must feel. I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love."
The British publication also notes that while the 29-year-old Underwood was raised Baptist, she now attends a nondenominational "gay friendly" Christian church with her husband, pro hockey player Mike Fisher.
"Above all, God wanted us to love others," she noted. "It's not about setting rules, or [saying], 'Everyone has to be like me.' No. We're all different. That’s what makes us special. We have to love each other and get on with each other. It’s not up to me to judge anybody.”
How Underwood's country fanbase will take the news remains to be seen, but among those to praise the superstar for her faith-based support was the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
"We hope that other country music performers will join them in speaking (or singing) out for LGBT equality," GLAAD officials said in a statement on the group's website.
Add Carrie Underwood to the list of stars who've come out in support of marriage equality.
The country songstress, who was raised Baptist, spoke at length about the topic in an interview with The Independent, noting that her Christian upbringing is at the core of her attitude toward same-sex marriage.
"As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love, and want to marry," Underwood is quoted as saying. "I can’t imagine how that must feel. I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love."
The British publication also notes that while the 29-year-old Underwood was raised Baptist, she now attends a nondenominational "gay friendly" Christian church with her husband, pro hockey player Mike Fisher.
"Above all, God wanted us to love others," she noted. "It's not about setting rules, or [saying], 'Everyone has to be like me.' No. We're all different. That’s what makes us special. We have to love each other and get on with each other. It’s not up to me to judge anybody.”
How Underwood's country fanbase will take the news remains to be seen, but among those to praise the superstar for her faith-based support was the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
"We hope that other country music performers will join them in speaking (or singing) out for LGBT equality," GLAAD officials said in a statement on the group's website.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Um. What?
That e-mail makes no sense. And I feel for the son being thrown into the midst of this issue like that.
I also can't imagine what it'd be like to have your own mother vote against something that would benefit you.
Hey, my sentiments exactly.
I like Carrie even more now. I'm glad she gets it
.INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
cobl04
45:33
I only found out today that The Salvation Army is pretty homophobic 
from their website:
from their website:
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
It's funny, I always assumed the Salvation Army were basically a more serious version of the Pet Shop Boys.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
I'd heard about that before, yeah. Very unfortunate. An organization that's there to help people in need can't seem to extend its compassion TOO far, apparently .
It's a tough thing, though, because people are calling for a boycott of the Salvation Army over this. And I totally get why, of course, but at the same time...my family benefited from their help on occasion over the years, and other people get help through them. Is it fair to deny those people the help they need because of the political beliefs of the people in the organization?
. It's a tough thing, though, because people are calling for a boycott of the Salvation Army over this. And I totally get why, of course, but at the same time...my family benefited from their help on occasion over the years, and other people get help through them. Is it fair to deny those people the help they need because of the political beliefs of the people in the organization?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Dan Bucatinsky on leading 'Web Therapy' and being a gay dad - latimes.com
This was in the paper this morning. I found it very interesting and low-key.
This is just one part of it:
This was in the paper this morning. I found it very interesting and low-key.
This is just one part of it:
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
I'd heard about that before, yeah. Very unfortunate. An organization that's there to help people in need can't seem to extend its compassion TOO far, apparently
It's a tough thing, though, because people are calling for a boycott of the Salvation Army over this. And I totally get why, of course, but at the same time...my family benefited from their help on occasion over the years, and other people get help through them. Is it fair to deny those people the help they need because of the political beliefs of the people in the organization?
Wow, that's some moral quandary right there. I personally, in that situation, I'd think about it for maybe 5 milliseconds, then take the money.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
