| Author |
Message |
    
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 797
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:11 pm: |     |
As far as I can see, Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Bush all are against gay marriage, but are open to civil unions/arrangements (Bush at the state level). Will this hurt the Democrats with their base? If it becomes a prominent issue, who benefits politically?
I've read Andrew Sullivan saying this will really damage Bush. If so, who does Andrew and those disappointed by Bush's stance vote for? |
Cato Nova
Citizen
Username: Cato_nova
Post Number: 36
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:32 pm: | |
How can you say Bush is open to civil unions on the state level? Isn't he supportive of a constitutional amendment to ban such state actions?
As I've said before, one day, hopefully not long for now, we will see this for what it really is: the only socially approved bias, akin to racism and anti-semitism, and equally pernicious. People who oppose gay marriage are either (1) opportunistic politicians more focussed on what their handlers say the electorate thinks it wants; or (2) evil, small-minded bigots who for some reason think that where their neighbor sticks their tongue or other bodily parts is any business of theirs. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 799
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
No...if you look at his state of the union speech, he did allow for civil unions recognized at the state level. He never explicitly said or called for a ban on gay marriage, just that a decision should be reached via constitutional actions, not judicial fiat. Various interests ran with what they believed he said and they all felt vindicated on both sides.
The question still stands. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2823
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
If you have to parse the words in the State of the Union, and look at them sideways, then he didn't really "allow for civil unions recognized at the state level". He won't say, "I support civil unions", because he wants his base to think that he will support a constitutional amendment (if necessary), to keep civil unions, or domestic partnerships, or whatever name is used, from being recognized across state lines. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 178
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
I don't know who gets the vote, but in 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton, signed it into law. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
|
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 454
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
cjc,
I think you're skipping one level-
I am familiar with Bush, Dean & Kerry's comments only- yes all oppose gay marriage, but Dean & Kerry have said, in so many words, that they would grant homosexual couples the same rights and protections as if they were married. I think Kerry's quote is "equal protection for gay couples".
W. is totally against giving marriage rights to gay couples (married or no), so that's where this issue will hurt him more.
I'm disappointed personally that these Dems don't support gay marriage, but it's matter of degree- their stance on rights for these folks vs. W.'s makes it a no brainer.
This will hurt W. (a bit) more |
Cato Nova
Citizen
Username: Cato_nova
Post Number: 37
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Defense of marriage. Snort. As if the fact that one's neighbors each ___ each other's ___ can threaten their heterosexual, recognized marriage. Are there actually idiots out there who actually believes that hetero marriage is somehow weakened or threatened, or is this just what it appears to be, a politically motivated cover for their bigotry? What, Bush and the right (and many Dems) think that if gay marriage is legally recognized, their wives will be leaving them? What nonsense. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 456
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
hopefuly this is a non-issue soon. (In my lifetime).
And bad laws should be and can be changed |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 801
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
Drewdix, I'm curious what benefits Kerry et al would extend. The Dems have punted enough on verbage so that I don't see anything concrete that separates them from Bush. You'd have to go by gut feeling, but legislation isn't done that way.
"Equal protection for gay couples" means they're for the "marriage rights" that Bush is against while Dems at the same time oppose gay marriage? Sounds like Kerry's explanation on the two Gulf Wars to me. It doesn't add up, and maybe by design.
Maybe it doesn't matter on the left. Who are you voting for, Cato? Or will you sit this one out in protest? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 802
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
While we're at it, here's what Bush did say about civil unions in the State of the Union -- courtesy of Reuters:
"The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it," he said. "The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight."
Bush had used similar language in a television interview last month, suggesting he would back constitutional amendment if judicial rulings "undermine the sanctity of marriage."
But he also left the door open to same-sex unions that stopped short of marriage, saying people should be able to make "whatever legal arrangements" they want as long as a state recognizes them. He appeared to be drawing a line between legislative action and judicial decisions.
|
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 458
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
you're clouding it (by design?):
No gay marriage + yes equal protection for gay couples = Dean/Kerry
No gay marriage + NO such rights to same sex unions = Bush
It matters on the left. It adds up to me. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4478
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:13 pm: | |
Vermont and more recently NJ have passed domestic partnership legislation that offers protections to gay and lesbian couples.
A few months ago I read an interesting article that cited a poll where a majority of Americans opposed gay marriage, but were in favor of domestic partnership legislation. These are two different concepts to many.
Bush in trying to split the middle in his address hasn't satisfied either side. Heck, he didn't even use the word "amendment" when talking about the subject.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 804
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Hey, no cloud here -- read the speech. And frankly, EVERYONE is pretty cloudy on this, hence the question. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 459
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
I read it.
Actaully, I think YOU believe everyone's cloudy on the issue.
You're assuming that the Dems say one thing, but aren't sure what that may mean going forward.
Even if that were true, I'll take that cloud(that's the "degree")over W.'s wrongheaded clarity any day.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 805
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Well...what do they mean going forward?
As to the political nature of this question, I think Kerry is the one that stands to lose the most if this becomes a big issue. Polling indicates that over 60% of black voters -- the must-have base for any Dem wanting a blue state -- are against gay marriage and/or unions. They have to be jazzed and enthused and show up, or Dems are in trouble.
|
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 460
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
I'm jazzed and enthused about 200,000 showing up in NH (far and away a record), no matter who they voted for.
Bodes well for the dems. |
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 59
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
In reference to Democrats' muddled stances on gay marriage and civil unions, I think many Dems are afraid to outright goad marriage for gay couples, out of fear they will be unelectable. Sad, isn't it?
As for judicial fiat, like it or not, judicial activism has spurned social changes that many of us are grateful for. |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 190
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
I think you have to be real about this issue - if the majority of the country is against it for whatever reason, it becomes a hot potato. The difference is that Bush, in courting the religious wing of the party has come out very clearly and very harshly against it. Democrats, while being "political" on the issue are a little more pragmatic - know that this will not happen overnight and that the slow approach will get them there eventually. There is a big difference between muddled/pragmatic and nasty/exclusionary. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 942
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 8:29 pm: | |
The politicians are acting like politicians. They are trying to offend neither the gays nor the anti-gays, hoping they can get the votes of both. All that is different from one pol to another is the emphasis.
I'm waiting for a reporter to ask a politician who is for civil unions but against gay marraige " so, you are in favor of sex outside of marraige?" |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4483
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 8:43 am: | |
This will be interesting. I think Bush shot himself in the foot with his comments during the State of the Union Address. The Dems aren't going to go any further than they have already on this and if Bush pushes on the subject he is going to have to clearly how he feels on the subject. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 806
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
Being on the right, I was encouraged by what Bush said on the issue. It's clear he personally doesn't agree with gay marriage -- and that's legit. But he also mentioned that the debate is important, that everyone has dignity and value in God's eyes, he didn't dump on civil unions. I know some will chafe at his or any reference to God in this, but in terms of where Bush comes from and what inhabits my side of the aisle (and yours) in terms of intolerance to anything that's "gay", I thought it was good and just a tad courageous. We have to start somewhere.
Kinda like those Democrats saying "we really ought to protect the right to vote for blacks" while the others in their party voted against the Civil Rights act of 1964.
Politically, I still think it hurts the Dems. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 461
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Why?
Bush's stance is legit-- to you.
the dem stance of "yes on equal protection but let's think about what that means" only hurts if you believe that their constituency thinks otherwise. I don't think that's the case.
what am I missing here?
and when do we bring this out of the religious context Mr. B, and into a human one? (chafe, chafe) |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 808
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 12:04 pm: | |
You're missing 60% of "intolerant blacks" that are key in Blue States who are against gay marriage and civil unions. You also kiss off the South. Latinos are also heavily against gay marriage and civil unions from what I've read in polling (admittedly dicey, as it's registered voter at this stage rather than likely voter).
I suppose it's just a big "we'll see."
|
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 191
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
Bush's opinion (and popular opinion for that matter) on this subject is just that - opinion. There is a big difference in doing what everyone will support and doing what is right. Regardless of what he says, Bush has proven again and again that you need to watch what he does, not what he says. That's where he falls down. Bush is not going to be the one to be "courageous" on this issue. And the God stuff - and we all have our beliefs - rightfully should stay out of governance. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4487
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
This is sure going to be a "fun" subject if Kerry gets the nod. He is one of a handful of Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. His explanation that he thought it demeaning and divisive I feel was correct and even courageous (this was like voting against God, motherhood and apple pie) but the GOP will sure have a ball with that vote.
It would be a shame if the election ends up being decided on such an issue what with the war, healthcare, the economy, etc. out there to be discussed. |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 192
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Exactly - thinking "big picture", this issue really shouldn't be even in the top 10. Part of the reason that it is, is that it brings money into the GOP...scary gay weddings! |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2828
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 1:12 pm: | |
Related news today:
quote:A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a Florida law that bars gay men and women from adopting children, maintaining Florida's distinction as the only state that bans any gay person from adopting.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with an earlier federal ruling that threw out a high-profile lawsuit filed by four gay men who said the ban violated their constitutional rights because, although they were allowed to be foster parents or guardians, they were not allowed to adopt.
"Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by" gay people, Judge Stanley Birch wrote in the court's unanimous decision, "and we found nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment."
...
Gay adoption also was an issue in the 2002 gubernatorial election. Republican Gov. Jeb Bush supported the law. Democratic opponent Bill McBride wanted to repeal it. "I am pleased by the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals today," Bush said in a news release. "The decision validates Florida's conclusion that it is in the best interest of adopted children, many of whom come from troubled and unstable backgrounds, to be placed in a home anchored both by a father and a mother."
Florida does permit single straight people to adopt; gay couples can be foster parents.
Source: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7822527.htm |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 810
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
It's a horrible law, but the court was right in that the legislature should be the place to end it, modify or write a new one, I believe. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2829
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
Maybe some enterprising newsman can ask the President his opinion of his brother's support for the ban. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 811
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Then, contrast it with Edwards and Kerry while they stump in SC and MO. In fact, I'd be surprised if they even mention it as an issue while those primaries are going on. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4489
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 1:53 pm: | |
Nohero, you forget that BushII doesn't do news conferences, to dangerous. LOL |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page