Thread: FLIP-FLOP Kerry

Makes you wonder eh?

I could go on a rant here about Kerry, but let's sum up what is important.

VOTE FOR ME!!!!

Originally posted by kbm8795
A 5.6% unemployment rate does not take into account people who are no longer eligible for unemployment, or the large number of increasing people whose careers have been outsourced overseas and who are underemployed.

Kerry as a wuss on national security is just Republican propaganda...though it's interesting that you didn't visit the State Department's web site official biography of the President a couple of weeks ago...where his National Guard duty as a pilot was fabricated an extra couple of years. That was on site for three years - when the Boston Globe brought it to the Administration's attention, Bush's communications officer admitted it wasn't factual...go figure.

Let's not forget that Kerry might have come home from Vietnam and protested the War, but at least he served. President Bush said he didn't go to Vietnam for "political" reasons. . .so at least he does know something about security...for himself.

As for terrorism, that's become a bit of a buzzword for anything the Administration perceives as a threat. I can't vote for George Bush because I have no inclination to cast a ballot in support of the establishment of a theocracy.

When a political party is taken over by fundamentalist religious groups, it leave me little choice but to search out candidates who reflect what I consider an American tradition. Any time a President of the United States has to respond to the rantings of a 700 Club guru, including such musings as blaming 9/11 on feminists and homosexuals, suggesting that a tiny nuke should be used on the State Department, etc., I wonder why some of these people aren't hauled in as "terrorists."

Nobody seemed to be interested in those supposed people no longer eligible for unemployment when Clinton was in office and getting praises for the 5.7% unemployment rate. Statistics and where you get the data can skew the information. The unemployement rate doesn't account for a lot of information but it is a historical comaprision on the state of the economy.

What Busk and Kerry did 30 plus years ago in Vietanam isn't all that relavent in todays post 9-11 world. Lets talk about what they have done recently. Bush has been the president and Afganistan is no longer under Taliban rule, Irag is no longer being terrorised by Hussein, and Libya has stopped it nuclear program. Just to name a few. Kerry while in the senate voted against every new weapons program such as the Abrams tank, patriot missle, tomahawk missle, ... He also introduced an amendment to cut the intelligence budget by $6 BILLION over 5 years after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. When Kerry tries to weaken the American military and intelligence communities I will call him a wus on national defense.

Yes, Kerry served in combat. I give him credit for that but I also condem him because his actions hurt those that were still in country fighting. Do you know any one who was held as a prisoner by the North Viet Cong? I do. He was held for 6 year, beaten, and if the news reports are true read Kerry's speeches condeming them.

Tell the people in Spain that the word "terrorism" is just a buzz word. Also, Bill Clinton and the democrates always give political speeches in churches and no one ever cries "theocracy". What gives?

Considering that the Passion of Christ movie has taken in over more than $200 million in 2 weeks, I would have to believe that the American mainstream is religious and all of you anti-religion people are the extreme element. And no I haven't seen the movie, I don't plan on seeing it until its out on video, and I am not very religious. Just for the record I am republican, pro choice (until the age of viability), socially moderate, and fiscally conserative.

I don't blame 9/11 on feminists and homosexuals, but when people who push that agenda ignore real threats to our security I call them on it. Don't forget, the islamic terrorists want homosexuals KILLED and all women covered from head-to-toe and not allowed out of the house without a male relative as an escort.

Originally posted by LazyByNature
Nobody seemed to be interested in those supposed people no longer eligible for unemployment when Clinton was in office and getting praises for the 5.7% unemployment rate. Statistics and where you get the data can skew the information. The unemployement rate doesn't account for a lot of information but it is a historical comaprision on the state of the economy.

Using an unemployment figure as the sole basis of claiming job creation has only worked as a "historical" figure when that closely reflected the true employment nature of the population at the time. The difference between unemployment figures now and in the last Administration is that there wasn't a net job loss of 2.7 million and an acceleration of outsourcing (i.e. having workers in India processing American income tax returns.) The Administration's own estimates of job creation need to keep at a pace of over 100,000 a month; I believe last month the job creation figure was at 21,000. There are lots of statistics that go into the estimate of real employment figures.

What Busk and Kerry did 30 plus years ago in Vietanam isn't all that relavent in todays post 9-11 world. Lets talk about what they have done recently. Bush has been the president and Afganistan is no longer under Taliban rule, Irag is no longer being terrorised by Hussein, and Libya has stopped it nuclear program. Just to name a few. Kerry while in the senate voted against every new weapons program such as the Abrams tank, patriot missle, tomahawk missle, ... He also introduced an amendment to cut the intelligence budget by $6 BILLION over 5 years after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. When Kerry tries to weaken the American military and intelligence communities I will call him a wus on national defense.

Republicans are famous for claiming that military service and experience are part of the "character" issue. If you recall, that was a large part of their compaign when Clinton first ran for President. What happened 30 years ago is relevant in the context that it indicates ability to handle and understand the nature of military conflict. The larger question here is why the Administration would pad the President's military service resume and publish it on the Department of State's web site. Apparently his aides thought it was important, too.

Invading and conquering nations isn't something a free country should consider an "accomplishment." While the actions may have been necessary in Afghanistan (by the way, with a lot of military and financial support from other nations, too) we are still bogged down there, and unless the spring assault in cooperation with Pakistani forces bears fruit, we haven't found Bin Laden. In Iraq, the Administration's largest selling point was portrayal of an "imminent" threat - that was presented to both the United Nations and the American people. We haven't found an WMD, and the Administration has admitted that intelligence gathering was both faulty and skewed for political means. Hussein's regime, as repressive as it was, could have been dealt with in many ways for years previous to this invasion...on of which would have been by not selling billions of dollars of arms to the dictator.

By the way, I believe our Abrams tank losses in Iraq have all been attributed to Russian-made anti-tank weapons, which has pointed out some vulnerabilities in the design. Ditto for the Patriot missile - while we thought it was instrumental in destroying Scuds, it's hit and score ratio is much lower than previously believed. None of those weapons programs are ever sailed through Congress without a lot of other attachments. Unless Kerry gave a speech specifically opposing each one of the items, there can be a lot of reasons why a senator would cast a dissenting vote.

Yes, Kerry served in combat. I give him credit for that but I also condem him because his actions hurt those that were still in country fighting. Do you know any one who was held as a prisoner by the North Viet Cong? I do. He was held for 6 year, beaten, and if the news reports are true read Kerry's speeches condeming them.

I suspect this was during the time Bush was working on a friend of his daddy's political campaign in Alabama, skipping his physical because he didn't want to fly any longer and exiting the Guard early to pursue graduate school. What kind of speeches do you think he would have been making then?

Tell the people in Spain that the word "terrorism" is just a buzz word. Also, Bill Clinton and the democrates always give political speeches in churches and no one ever cries "theocracy". What gives?

I believe the Spanish government is still determining if this attack was caused by outside groups or by forces advocating independence for the Basque region of the country. Al-Quada has claimed credit through a message that the British received, and some indications point to the style and coordination of the bombings as in line with the organization's tactics.

Terrorism becomes a "buzzword" when it is overused and tagged to any number of activities that Administration officials deem contrary to their own political agenda. For example, a month or so ago, one Cabinet member referred to the National Education Association as "terrorists."

Yes, every president has made speeches in individual churches, usually in connection with memorial services or in celebration of a holiday. While there are occasions where a presidential campaign has made a political speech in a church, that isn't the most common venue. "What gives" here is the number of faith-based initiatives and legislation quietly being moved through Congress dealing with religious activity. For example, one proposal would allow churches to openly make political candidate endorsements and participate in campaigns. Another development was how one religious right group had a Virginia law restricting church property ownership dating from 1777 declared unconstitutional. Most of these proposals are pushed by fundamentalists, and the President sees them as his primary campaign and voter base.

Considering that the Passion of Christ movie has taken in over more than $200 million in 2 weeks, I would have to believe that the American mainstream is religious and all of you anti-religion people are the extreme element. And no I haven't seen the movie, I don't plan on seeing it until its out on video, and I am not very religious. Just for the record I am republican, pro choice (until the age of viability), socially moderate, and fiscally conserative.

Just for the record, I'm not necessarily pro-Kerry. Movie attendance figures hardly are an accurate reflection of religious persuasion, and there is certainly a difference between fundamentalist radicals and other churches and religions in this country. I certainly didn't say I was anti-religion, only that I don't like radical fundamentalist activists who are people that represent an extreme element. The majority of American people are religious, to be sure, but the two are not inherently interrelated, nor a litmus test for citizenship. A majority of religious Americans believe in traditional concepts of separation of church and state and a welcoming attitude within their churches; fundamentalists do not.

I don't blame 9/11 on feminists and homosexuals, but when people who push that agenda ignore real threats to our security I call them on it. Don't forget, the islamic terrorists want homosexuals KILLED and all women covered from head-to-toe and not allowed out of the house without a male relative as an escort.

I don't think any members of either of those groups ignored real threats to our security, and I don't consider it un-American to seek redress for real material damages caused by inequities in the law. Most Americans feel the same way, if we are to believe responses to a variety of public opinion polls. While you are calling people out on their "agenda," don't forget to include the fundamentalists who made those blaming statements in the first place. What agenda do you think they were pushing?

The issue here is how the President framed that national marriage equality debate. Polls indicate that a large majority of Americans are in favor of extending some rights to same-sex couples, among them immigration status, inheritance rights and the right to make health decisions and funeral arrangements. The President, in making his endorsement of the constitutional amendment, failed to support individual measures that have floated around Congress for quite some time - some for several years, including an equal employment law. The Republican response to each of these measures has been the same "it weakens the family."

In blaming 9/11 on these groups, fundamentalists attempted to drive a wedge between Americans at a time when we needed to concentrate on a united response. One of the more positive things the President did at the time was call Pat and tell him that "this isn't the time" for those remarks. If you look at the groups "defending" marriage in lawsuits around the country right now, all of these have close ties with fundamentalist religious and political organizations with a wide range of political goals of their own. At least one of them has characterized these people as "feces eaters"; another group has previously cheered remarks construed as calls for extermination (though the proponent eventually retracted those statements); and another group gives coverage to a fundamentalist organization which is trying to force cities to erect a Matthew Shepard monument depicting the murdered young man "entering Hell." Thus far, they have only been prevented by a combination of city law and moderate religious groups.

We could go around and around on these issues forever. We are not going to change each others minds and we can pull individual occurences to support our own beliefs. So I won't argue with you anymore.

The last thing that I will write about this is that we seem to be on the opposite ends of the political sprectrum and disagree on the above mentioned topics and can debate them without name calling or extreme language. I believe that this is a result of the culture in the US that is the result of our form of government, a representative republic. Its the nature of our government that make this country the world's only superpower and the envy of many countries.

No matter who wins the presidency, checks and balances exist that will prevent major changes from being made in either direction.

Live free in Peace.

The issue here is how the President framed that national marriage equality debate. Polls indicate that a large majority of Americans are in favor of extending some rights to same-sex couples, among them immigration status, inheritance rights and the right to make health decisions and funeral arrangements.

What polls? I haven't seen any that say that. Every poll I've seen indicates the opposite.

Originally posted by kbm8795
Uh...I think you need to do a little more research beyond listening to conservative entertainers.

Try a Republican perspective on this issue....you can quickly upload the commercial on this subject:

http://www.logcabin.org

I see you are very liberal!

Originally posted by Stickboy
What polls? I haven't seen any that say that. Every poll I've seen indicates the opposite.

Me too. Just liberal wishing!

Originally posted by LazyByNature
We could go around and around on these issues forever. We are not going to change each others minds and we can pull individual occurences to support our own beliefs. So I won't argue with you anymore.

The last thing that I will write about this is that we seem to be on the opposite ends of the political sprectrum and disagree on the above mentioned topics and can debate them without name calling or extreme language. I believe that this is a result of the culture in the US that is the result of our form of government, a representative republic. Its the nature of our government that make this country the world's only superpower and the envy of many countries.

No matter who wins the presidency, checks and balances exist that will prevent major changes from being made in either direction.

Live free in Peace.

Actually, I believe that the goal of fundamentalists is to permanently alter our concept of checks and balances; hence the assault on the judiciary with claims that it is overly populated by "activist" judges, meaning those who don't subscribe to their religious interpretations. Three out of the four judges who issued the marriage decision in Massachusetts were Republican appointees; the County Clerk in New Mexico who started issuing marriage licenses was a Republican. The idea of checks and balances is altered when fundamentalists and the President call for weakening their power, a curious notion since it was the same Supreme Court that decided the 2000 election that also struck down the Texas sodomy law.

Part of the battle being waged by these religious groups is the belief that courts should not be allowed to interpret the Constitution when it comes to individual rights - even though they have been strongest at ensuring that the tyranny of the majority cannot abridge their own rights in the process of squelching someone else's. As strong and as traditional as our checks and balances system is in government, it isn't invulnerable.
Hence the knee-jerk reactions in Massachusetts by a legislature attempting to invalidate a Supreme Court decision and an attempt to push a discrimination amendment through the federal Congress. It will be rather difficult for us to convince this group of Americans that they are "equal" and have the same constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after this fiasco is completed.

Seeking redress for grievances is at the heart of a nation that believes in individual rights and freedom, including the right to worship as each of us choose. This is one reason why policy is not supposed to be determined by religious doctrine. When John Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, was asked about the influence of his religion on policymaking during the 1960 campaign, he told the American people that if there was ever a conflict between his faith and serving the interests of the whole country, he would resign. President Bush has not displayed the same kind of commitment.

We might not agree on the issues, and for now we are free to debate them in this country - but I wouldn't recommend we be too complacent about radical groups that advocate rule by strict interpretation of biblical scripture - freedom of speech is not one of their tenets, but a political tool. Just don't be afraid to ask a political candidate about their views on separation of church and state - if they waffle, you've got your first red flag.

Thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by kbm8795
Hence the knee-jerk reactions in Massachusetts by a legislature attempting to invalidate a Supreme Court decision and an attempt to push a discrimination amendment through the federal Congress.


President Bush has not displayed the same kind of commitment.

The Massachusetts law was a sate law-not federal.

Nor should Bush Resign. That is why we elected him!

Originally posted by dg806
The Massachusetts law was a sate law-not federal.

Nor should Bush Resign. That is why we elected him!

If you recall the last federal presidential election, the President lost in the popular voting by half a million. The conflict over Florida's recounts ended up in the Supreme Court. I don't think I suggested that Bush resign. . .only that he didn't make the same kind of commitment regarding religious beliefs that the late President Kennedy did. . .

Yes, the Massachusetts SJC was a court decision that directed legislators to prepare procedures under the Massachusetts Constitution to instigate same-sex marriages. In referring to the President's call to pass a federal amendment, the term "activist" judges was used not only in reference to the state justices in Massachusetts, but to the same U.S. Supreme Court justices that invalidated enforcement of state sodomy laws on the basis of privacy rights. In the latter case, the President was dismayed that the Supreme Court would hold that this group of Americans was entitled to the same right to privacy as other Americans. Fundamentalist groups framed this as an "activist" judiciary legalizing homosexuality rather than the context of the court's decision, which was based on discriminatory enforcement of the Texas sodomy law. That U.S. Supreme Court decision was cited as part of the basis for the Massachusetts judiciary court's ruling, thus suddenly causing them both to be tagged "activist."

If you look at the commercial on http://www.logcabin.org, you'll see statements by Vice President Cheney that indicate an Administration flip-flop on this issue from a Republican perspective.

The popular vote totals do not matter in a presidential election because the United States of America is a representative republic, not a democracy. That is why the electorial college is important. Thats why states with a larger population base have more representatives and electorial college points but the same number of senators. That way, small states are offered some measure of protection.

The battle over the FLA recount was lost by the democrats because they only wanted to recounts in the highly democratic counties, not in all counties and they had no standard method for counting the votes county by county. Of course every major newspaper has performed their own recounts and not one has said that Gore won. Not even the NY Times.

FYI. Kennedy was a roman catholic in name only. I believe there is something in the catholic religion about NOT cheating on your wife with everything in a skirt. There may also be some implied things about drug use too.

A change to the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both the house and the senate plus ratification by two-thirds of the states. I'm not sure if the states ratification require two-thirds in their chambers. So, the call for a constitutional amendment is easy but the actual implementation is difficult and could never be done by a small group of extremists.

Lets see, what else did you write.
The only way that the checks and balances built into our government could be weakened is if one of the 3 areas of our government was changed. Somehow I don't think that any president coould dissolve the legistative or judical branches. It's silly to even suggest it could happen.

I believe that most of the polls reflect that people are against "gay-marriage" but support a form of civil-union. I think that the reason is because the word "marriage" has religious origins and has always had a specific meaning (i.e. man and women). You shouldn't change the meanings of words that have been around for hundreds/thousands of years.

Originally posted by LazyByNature
The popular vote totals do not matter in a presidential election because the United States of America is a representative republic, not a democracy. That is why the electorial college is important. Thats why states with a larger population base have more representatives and electorial college points but the same number of senators. That way, small states are offered some measure of protection.

The battle over the FLA recount was lost by the democrats because they only wanted to recounts in the highly democratic counties, not in all counties and they had no standard method for counting the votes county by county. Of course every major newspaper has performed their own recounts and not one has said that Gore won. Not even the NY Times.

FYI. Kennedy was a roman catholic in name only. I believe there is something in the catholic religion about NOT cheating on your wife with everything in a skirt. There may also be some implied things about drug use too.

A change to the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both the house and the senate plus ratification by two-thirds of the states. I'm not sure if the states ratification require two-thirds in their chambers. So, the call for a constitutional amendment is easy but the actual implementation is difficult and could never be done by a small group of extremists.

Lets see, what else did you write.
The only way that the checks and balances built into our government could be weakened is if one of the 3 areas of our government was changed. Somehow I don't think that any president coould dissolve the legistative or judical branches. It's silly to even suggest it could happen.

I believe that most of the polls reflect that people are against "gay-marriage" but support a form of civil-union. I think that the reason is because the word "marriage" has religious origins and has always had a specific meaning (i.e. man and women). You shouldn't change the meanings of words that have been around for hundreds/thousands of years.

Actually, constitutional amendments can and do serve as a basis that limit a judiciary's authority to examine and rule on issues, especially the matter in which they are framed. The judiciary can certainly be weakened in that manner when amendments which restrict the rights of some Americans are passed and instituted.

And you are correct, most polls reflect that people are against "gay marriage" but support a form of civil union. However, only one state has implemented a civil union law, and 38 states passed legislation at that time refusing to recognize those who created a civil union in that State. Since public opinion today is so different, what influences could be causing legislatures to drag their feet making any changes?

I believe the origin of marriage is not necessarily rooted in religious contexts, at least not in Christian religion. Concepts and customs of marriage existed long before the advent of Christianity, and took on a variety of forms. Even in the Christian faith, marriage wasn't about expressions of love but rather a familial arrangement designed for procreation and economic gain. The parties involved were not expected to be in love, at least until the Pope issued a statement supporting that consenting adult concept in the Ninth Century. Word meanings are often changed, along with concepts and even biblical interpretations as societies progress. What was looked at as "marriage" hundreds of years ago often took a different form than what we structure today, and that has been changed several times in American culture. Still, you are right - most people think of marriage in the context of their religion, and that is a motivating factor in their opinion.

With that said, I believe the failure of the President to support passage of individual benefit laws for those same-sex couples that have been sitting in Congress is indicative of his reluctance to recognize that public opinion considering civil unions. It also indicates he has an obligation to the fundamentalist element of his political party, which has resisted even the most elementary state or federal law granting a single civil right to these people.
The Pew Research Institute recently released information that showed how, when asked about certain individual rights for same-sex couples, the majority of Americans agreed they should be provided. Fundamentalists do not. And much of the amendment legislation under consideration in most states won't provide an avenue to achieve a single one of those rights.

As for the remarks about popular vote, I'm quite aware of the impact of the electoral college. I was referring to dg's remark that "we" elected Bush...which implied a connection to the majority of the popular vote rather than the electoral college system. In the end, the voting dispute was decided by the Supreme Court, and later attempts at counts indicate that Gore would have lost. This doesn't negate my argument that this is the same "activist" court that he is upset about over striking the sodomy law down in his home state.

I'm not interested in whether Kennedy was a Roman Catholic in "name only" since the Constitution prohibits candidates from passing a religious litmus test to be elected to public office. However, questions were raised during his presidential campaign because of that Catholic faith, including public fears that he would take direction from the Pope rather than what is in the nation's best interests. His adherence to his personal faith is a matter of privacy - the public's interest is in how devotion to that faith can interfere with upholding the Constitutional rights of ALL citizens.

Actually, a constitutional amendment is difficult to pass, which leads one to wonder if the President wasn't using this ploy as a matter of political posturing rather than moral commitment. However, in supporting that amendment without offering support for singular rights legislation that the majority of Americans favor, he negates the call for popular involvement in determining the fate of this issue. Extremists most certainly can manipulate information to gain popular support for amendments - Prohibition was one of them. Another way is to infiltrate the legislative bodies that are needed to endorse those amendments or by ignoring the wishes of the general public, especially if they are not in agreement with how biblical interpretation should be used to influence the rule of law.

If the majority of Americans reject equal marriage rights but believe in the creation of civil unions, then that should be reflected in the legislatures and in Congress. Instead, we only see campaigns for constitutional amendments restricting marriage; and no presidential or legislative support or passage of even one of the rights outlined for a civil union included in the process. The president has never indicated any support for 1000 federal rights and benefits that cannot be provided by states and aren't covered by couples joined in the Vermont civil union. Fundamentalists have successfully blocked legislation to enact any singular measures for a long time in Congress. Again, this group of Americans have every reason to be fearful that their constitutional rights have been abrogated and to seek redress through the courts. Most legislatures have failed to address their concerns without regard to public opinion. And since fundamentalists count on the idea that most Americans are not going to be overly concerned about the civil rights of these people, they don't expect to be challenged for that lack of effort by the general populace. They count on our complacency - that's why the groups filing suit in locations where same-sex couples have been married are fundamentalist organizations. Thus they can institute constitutional amendments in states, manage to permanently weaken the courts in recognizing individual rights to seek redress in these matters, and deny any rights, including civil unions, without regard to public opinion.

If you look at the overwhelming majority of amendment proposals in individual states, and the wording of the constitutional amendment that Bush has indicated a degree of support for, you'll see terminology that would prohibit even the basic rights of domestic partnership or civil union. That makes it rather hard for the rest of us to convince gay Americans that our opinions and our system will protect and treat them equitably.

Why do we need to convince gays of anything?

I don't agree with homosexuality, but it's really none of my buisness what people do in their homes or with their lives.

Then again, that doesn't mean people have to support or approve of the lifestyle either. Since most americans do not agree with the lifestyle, I seriously doubt that they would be generous with anything that would more or less validate homosexuality - that includes marriage, civil unions, etc.

If this is a known, then I ask again, why would americans need or want to convince gays of anything?

Well stickboy, that's certainly a good question - except we have to remember that just because people who aren't gay may not approve of who they are, these people are Americans, too...and aren't exempt from the responsibilities of citizenship that go along with that status. They tend to frame the current issue as a recognition of their constitutional rights as an American, things like freedom of association, the right to privacy and equal protection under the law.

What seems confusing for them is that they can form a relationship and live together for years, but even with a portfolio of legal documents to protect each other, they have difficulty in matters like making funeral arrangements when one partner dies, inheritance rights, being allowed to visit a sick partner in the hospital, etc. For some reason, most states worded their laws governing these matters to indicate "family" or "marriage" and instead of quietly recognizing each individual relationship and bending the rules to accommodate them, they would refuse or deny partner involvement because they weren't legally recognized as "married." Especially over the last 20 years, this has caused them to pay more taxes when they did inherit property, forced some to lose even their own personal property when one dies, and, in some cases, have a surviving partner denied attendance at things like a funeral. I think most of us don't think about those kinds of issues, but on the federal level they include being allowed to get a partner's social security benefits and health insurance coverage, as well as being allowed to sponsor someone they love for immigration into this country.

I believe the right to privacy for these people is what the Supreme Court addressed in it's decision that struck down sodomy laws in this country. Several states had laws that, although not often enforced, were occasionally used to enter a gay American's bedroom and arrest the parties. A lot of those states had the same laws on the books applying to straight people too, but they were never enforced in that manner. It was the arbitrary manner in which the laws were enforced that became a privacy issue. The Supreme Court basically stated that gay Americans had the same right to privacy as anyone else.

I think that is where the rest of the population gets confused. Most people didn't realize that those laws were enforced in that manner. It seems to me that the current battle now is centered on securing those general rights - and it looks like they've tried to secure the most important items one at a time but were told in most states that no recognition of their relationships means no right to make health decisions or burial decisions. They can make some legal arrangements, apparently, that partly alleviate those problems, but not all of them. So, they finally just demanded to get married.

I understand that most other Americans are uncomfortable about the concept of marriage, and that happens to be the fault of the federal government and many state legislatures. They really could have quietly reworded some singular laws to allow for things like funeral arrangements, etc....but most didn't even address those requests. Apparently, this becomes a really bad problem for those people, especially in states that have laws that indicate when there is no surviving (legally recognized) family member, the STATE can take the property.

From what I understand about the current issue, fundamentalists believe that they should have no access to any of these rights, as most Americans believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. At the same time, the Supreme Court has ruled over the years that marriage is an individual human right in which States must show a compelling social harm (likelihood of producing children with drastic defects) to prevent an individual's right to freedom of intimate association. Just not liking a person's lifestyle without showing inherent social harm isn't a compelling enough argument to abrogate those rights. If it was, it would give the State power to choose or approve of partners anyone selects - for example, they could pass a law that says your mother has to approve of your choice of a wife or you can't be married.

It's a rather interesting battle, actually - which is why I made the remark that it would be hard for the rest of us to convince gay Americans that they will be treated equally or protected under the law. Opponents have repeatedly said over the years that what they wanted were "special rights" and that our constitutions already protected them just like other Americans. Apparently they have reason to believe that isn't the case.

So we have the moral argument about how to handle that. While most Americans (and the Courts) believe in the right to privacy, especially in their own homes, we still don't want them to be "married." At the same time, most people (except fundamentalists) think that there should be some way we can let them have the right to hospital visitation, inheritance without a will, funeral arrangements, etc. and they based that on a moral belief in fairness. It gets even more confusing, though - straight people who live together don't have any of those rights, either, unless they live in a state that recognizes common law marriage. But since they have the choice to marry, their situation is one they have selected, rather than have imposed on them.

I think that's why I said that it might be fine if we say "look, most of us think you can have civil unions but NOT marriage" but if our actions in the legislature are to pass laws worded to prevent those unions, they aren't apt to believe we were too sincere. It would be kinda like saying "Yeah, we believe you should have some rights in these areas, but we are going to pass these laws so you can't have them and so the "activist" courts won't ever be able to address your grievances again."

I think that is the reason the President is having so much trouble making even gay Republicans believe him now. It might not have been his intention, but when he announced support for that marriage amendment, he failed to support individual measures in Congress (domestic health benefits, employment rights, an immigration act) that would have provided rights for those Americans in three areas. In my opinion, he would have had some credibility with those people if he had done that; instead he ended up sounding to them like a kinder, gentler Pat Robertson.

The problems with threads like this are the LONG posts!! I'm to lazy to read them

Originally posted by Stickboy
Why do we need to convince gays of anything?

I don't agree with homosexuality, but it's really none of my buisness what people do in their homes or with their lives.

Fundamentalists believe that it IS their business what people do in their homes or with their lives. Fortunately, the Courts agree with you on this point, which is one reason they are all fighting now.

Then again, that doesn't mean people have to support or approve of the lifestyle either. Since most americans do not agree with the lifestyle, I seriously doubt that they would be generous with anything that would more or less validate homosexuality - that includes marriage, civil unions, etc.

Of course people don't have to support or approve of their lives. But this raises serious questions about how life is conducted, which I addressed in my last post. Actually, the majority of Americans support some kind of legislation that addresses some of those issues, including the concept of "civil unions." When you form a relationship, the last thing you think or care about is whether some stranger or some religious person approves of your choice; and you also don't expect the State to interfere with that choice unless there is a compelling harm that relationship will cause. That means you don't have to select a marriage partner in order to please a Church, even if a church won't marry you because your selection isn't of that particular religious faith. It's also a reason why a State can't deny you a marriage license because a church doesn't want to recognize your marriage.

I think validation is a legitimate issue, but at the same time it's also a reality. If our refusal to validate them causes undue hardship (which wasn't our moral intention) then how do we address that? Most people are shocked to find out that partners are forced to be buried hundreds of miles apart, for example, or that a partner should be thrown out on the street because there was no will and a second cousin can walk in and take all property. It becomes complicated here - most of us don't intend to let that happen, but it does. So do we validate reality to prevent that harm? And if so, how do we do it without looking like an endorsement or establishing a lower class of citizens?

If this is a known, then I ask again, why would americans need or want to convince gays of anything?

Well, for one thing, they aren't separate from being Americans. They ARE Americans, and just like you, probably feel like they shouldn't consider it "generous" to receive the same treatment as other people or live under a different Constitution.

Originally posted by rock4832
The problems with threads like this are the LONG posts!! I'm to lazy to read them

Yeah, I get carried away trying to explain some things. That's what I get for having to write several articles this week about the topic.

I get your point.

However, I don't necessarily agree with it.

I simply will not agree to legistlation that "recognizes" gay marriage. If I'm out voted, then so be it.

Having said that, I am not homophobic, nor do I think others should belittle or attack gays. Bottom line for me, is that I don't believe that it is a moral, or correct way of life.

That doesn't mean others agree with me. By Americans, I meant the populace as a whole. Does the majority see it that way? Your stats just don't jive with the stats that I have seen. (Stats can be manipulated to reflect whatever the author wants to reflect). It's going to depend on your source.

I mean no offense to our gay members on this board, just telling it based on my own perspective.

Originally posted by Stickboy
I get your point.

However, I don't necessarily agree with it.

I simply will not agree to legistlation that "recognizes" gay marriage. If I'm out voted, then so be it.

Having said that, I am not homophobic, nor do I think others should belittle or attack gays. Bottom line for me, is that I don't believe that it is a moral, or correct way of life.

That doesn't mean others agree with me. By Americans, I meant the populace as a whole. Does the majority see it that way? Your stats just don't jive with the stats that I have seen. (Stats can be manipulated to reflect whatever the author wants to reflect). It's going to depend on your source.

I mean no offense to our gay members on this board, just telling it based on my own perspective.

I don't think you've said anything offensive at all - I'm not sure how I feel about the whole marriage issue myself, except that I'm a very strong believer in individual rights and if a fellow American can show me they are being wronged, I think it's our responsibility to see what can be done about it. I don't think being against the idea of marriage makes you homophobic - it's when those 1049 legal benefits are not addressed that I have a problem. If we, as a society, had invested more into finding out the reasons for homosexuality (nature vs. nurture), I think we'd have more to stand on in determining things. Unfortunately, it was less expensive to crucify them for years, so now they have a reason to be angry.

I believe the last polls that I've seen taken indicated that a majority of Americans (I believe 60%), were against same-sex marriages but the number in favor of civil unions topped 51%. This was reported in a Washington Post - ABC News Poll on March 10. The poll also indicated that 53% of Americans were against amending the federal constitution. This last poll indicates some movement toward more acceptance, but polls can be volatile during a heated debate on an issue, so things are certainly not set in solid concrete.

I think there isn't anything wrong with someone saying it doesn't seem moral - because I view that as an expression of how they feel about themselves rather than other people. I figure that if we've tried shock therapy, isolation, bullying, religious texts, and ostracization over the years and they are not only still around but have families, don't break the law and operate as good citizens, we have an obligation to make sure they are protected like any other American. As someone who has watched one couple become separated after a long and painful death and buried elsewhere, I believe that no state or religion has an inherent right to create that kind of grief for any citizen.

You know, back to the Kerry-Bush thing. There is something I read in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer that might serve as a better example of my hesitation to support one political party this year:

It was a letter to the Editor at the newspaper, written by an elected Republican precinct committeeman who related his attendance at a County Republican Lincoln Dinner last month. The event was attended by party members and major contributors. U.S. House Republican Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas was the keynote speaker.

In his remarks, DeLay talked about how all regulatory processes in the country should be "ripped out by the roots," and he said "we need to radically reform all social programs." The writer also related that Delay said the party's objectives act as "a shield for the defense of America's freedom and liberty and that we will never wander from the path." Not too bad (though some rather radical proposals) until this part:
"Lastly, he stated the leaders of the party, and particularly President Bush, have 'divine assistance and moral truth."
The writer, who described himself as a moderate Republican, went on to say:
"I have come to believe that my party looks and feels like a conservative-based religious movement. As a Republican who is a moderate and a fiscal conservative and has a social conscience, my concern is that our political leaders, who should serve us, are now on their own religious quest, using our civil legislative and judicial institutions."
That bothers me immensely.

Well....

He doesn't speak for all republicans (BTW, I'm not one, but share some of the parties views), and was obviously stating his own perspective.

I do believe though that we need to reform social programs. There is no need for multiple agencies that essentially do the same thing. More to the point, most of these agencies do their assigned mission poorly.

My problem with Kerry is that the guy evidently cannot tell the truth about his past voting record. Look at his record, then look at comments he's made recently about the same topic. They don't jive.