Dems: Opportunity As Gay Marriage Acceptance Grows

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Dems: Opportunity As Gay Marriage Acceptance Grows stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

LIZ SIDOTI | May 2, 2009 06:57 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
FILE - This April 28, 2009 file photo shows gay rights advocate Matthew Arnold-Lloyd of Albany, N.Y., right, meeting nose to nose with an unidentified man opposed to gay marriage during a rally outside the Capitol in Albany, N.Y. Gay marriage legalization in several states and the public's growing acceptance of same-sex unions have Democrats sensing political opportunity and some Republicans re-evaluating their party's hard-line opposition to an issue that long has rallied its base. (AP Photo/Mike Groll, File)

WASHINGTON — Gay marriage legalization in several states and the public's growing acceptance of same-sex unions have Democrats sensing political opportunity and some Republicans re-evaluating their party's hard-line opposition to an issue that long has rallied its base.

In recent weeks, Vermont and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage, while New York, Maine and New Hampshire have taken steps in that direction. Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant on the issue than are older generations. For now at least, the public is much more focused on the troubled economy and two wars than on social issues.

In addition, over the past decade, public acceptance of gay marriage has changed dramatically.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week found that a majority of people questioned, by a 55-38 percent margin, oppose gay marriage. But it also found that people, by a 57-38 percent margin, support civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights for same-sex couples, indicating a shift toward more acceptance.

With congressional elections next year, Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan analysts say the changes benefit Democrats, whose bedrock liberals favor gay unions, and disadvantage Republicans, whose conservative base insists that marriage be solely between a man and a woman.

"This is not a sea change. This is a tide that is slowly rising in favor of gay marriage," creating a favorable political situation for Democrats and ever-more difficulty for Republicans, said David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University in California.

Democrats have a broader base filled with more accepting younger voters, as well as flexibility on the issue. Hard-core liberals support gay marriage, while others, including President Barack Obama, take a more moderate position of civil unions and defer to states on gay marriage.

Conversely, the GOP base is older, smaller and more conservative. Republicans have no place to shift on the issue but to the left, because the party has been identified largely with its rock-solid opposition to gay marriage and civil unions. Also, the GOP has no titular head setting the tone on this or other issues.

Story continues below
advertisement

In recent months, proponents have used state legislatures and court challenges to legalize gay marriage, mindful that the majority of the public still isn't supportive and successful ballot measures would be less likely.

Because of high court rulings, gay marriage now is legal in Iowa, Massachusetts and Connecticut. A Vermont law allowing gay marriage will take effect in September. New Hampshire and New Jersey, where same-sex couples can enter into civil unions, are considering gay marriage legislation. So are Maine and New York.

Political insiders no doubt will pay close attention to developments in Iowa and New Hampshire, early presidential voting states, to see how the issue plays out in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

Despite the changes, gay-marriage opponents are buoyed by a voter initiative in California that blocked the state from allowing gay marriage, and by the 29 states where voters have approved state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

For years, the GOP and its conservative base has used its opposition to gay marriage to drive Republican turnout in elections and marginalize party moderates. Measures defining marriage between a man and a woman that were on ballots in a slew of states in 2004 were widely credited with boosting the number of conservative voters, giving Republican George W. Bush an edge over Democrat John Kerry.

But there's been conflicting evidence since then over just how much that contributed to Bush's victory.

What's certain is that opposition to gay marriage for decades has been a potent tool for the GOP in rallying social conservatives. They are critical to the party's grass-roots organizing and small-dollar fundraising.

But as more states accept gay and lesbian unions, there is a debate inside the party over how it should position itself on the issue. The dispute is just one part of a broader struggle within the out-of-power GOP over its identity and whether it should focus on rallying conservatives or attracting supporters from across the political spectrum.

Some prominent Republicans are backing away from cut-and-dried opposition, and some party operatives say it's only a matter of time before others follow suit because the country is changing.

Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, a Mormon who is a potential presidential candidate, backed a 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But he says he favors civil unions and extending some legal rights to gay couples.

Last month, John McCain's chief campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, told the Log Cabin Republicans: "Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds ... that the party might be in the wrong on the question."

The shifting landscape is emboldening the gay-rights' movement, a pillar of the Democratic Party's left flank.

"We are at a tipping point moment," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading advocate of gay rights. "The lingering minority that continues to think that the way to win is to hold GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) people up as a wedge could not be more out of touch."

___

On the Net:

Log Cabin Republicans: http://online.logcabin.org/

Human Rights Campaign: http://www.hrc.org/

Quinnipiac University Polling Institute: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x271.xml

WASHINGTON — Gay marriage legalization in several states and the public's growing acceptance of same-sex unions have Democrats sensing political opportunity and some Republicans re-evaluating th...
WASHINGTON — Gay marriage legalization in several states and the public's growing acceptance of same-sex unions have Democrats sensing political opportunity and some Republicans re-evaluating th...
Filed by Nick Sabloff
 
Comments
1718
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next › Last » (12 pages total)
- MikeDu I'm a Fan of MikeDu 147 fans permalink
photo

Gay marriage is in the constitution. Read the 9th amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Doesn't that mean ALL civil rights are implied if not specifically prohibited up-front? Funny how the people who are willing to die for the 2nd (gun fetish) amendment act as though this amendment doesn't exist at all. What's the use of owning a gun if you can't use it to oppress somebody else?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:00 PM on 05/02/2009
- Idea1013 I'm a Fan of Idea1013 67 fans permalink
photo

Excellent point! People have long argued over the true meaning of nearly every line in our constitution- thank you for reminding people of its intent.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:18 PM on 05/02/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 154 fans permalink
photo

You may be assuming they can read, they do read and they read & comprehend the constituti­on...

Most don't seem to be familiar with the actual text of the second amendment when I bring it up...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

You must be talking about that "well regulated" part. They hate it when you bring that up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 PM on 05/02/2009

Very good point and argument. I saw earlier someone said civil unions for all, lets do that get rid of marriage all together.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 05/02/2009
- petera63 I'm a Fan of petera63 14 fans permalink
photo

Wrong.
"Marriage" is not it listed in the Constitution either as aright or a duty or anything else. Actually, the word "marriage" is not mentioned in the Constitution or in any ammendmends to it at all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

You really don't know what you're talking about.

The 14th amendment would strongly suggest that if these two people have a right to do something, then another two people have that same right. It's called equal protection.

I am starting to suspect you have never taken a Civics or Fundamentals of American Government course.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:01 PM on 05/02/2009
- Bafun I'm a Fan of Bafun 18 fans permalink

they are not reading the constitution but the bible

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

How can people get worked up about gay marriage when the real issue is never addressed. We are forced to pay the government for permission to freely associate with another consenting human being in a contractual relationship. Someone explain that to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 05/02/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 154 fans permalink
photo

Because people confuse civil marriage with holy matrimony.

If we had civil unions or civil marriage for all as in many countries it would be different.

If everyone had to go to the courthouse to be legally married, then they could also go to their church for a religious ceremony, it would be different.

Because we've muddled the two, people forget that we're talking about the legal contractual institution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

My point wasn't clear; why should the government be involved in the equation at all? Why should it matter to the government who lives with whom?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:29 PM on 05/02/2009

Good point

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 05/02/2009
- Spencaa I'm a Fan of Spencaa 14 fans permalink

Don't do it America! As you can see here in Canada, we legalized it and the whole country exploded!!­!....uh, right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:47 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

Ha, yep Spenca...o­ur country really went OFF the deep end when we granted marriage equality.

For some reason, many Americans don't seem to want to admit there is a WHOLE country right above that has bestowed equal rights and NOTHING HAPPENED..­.except our country became an even more civil minded and fair society.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 05/02/2009
- Bafun I'm a Fan of Bafun 18 fans permalink

Has Canada separation of Church and State?
It seems to be the American problem !!!! Here Church and State are not separated.­....
They want to know if the President goes to church and speaks with god...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 PM on 05/02/2009
- proggirl I'm a Fan of proggirl 90 fans permalink
photo

Fanned big time!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 PM on 05/02/2009

Anyone who doesn't think gay marriage is inevitable is delusional.

Look at the shifting attitudes towards homosexuality from one generation to the next over the last fifty or so years. 1950's, almost universal condemnation. 1980's? Big jump in acceptance. 2009? We already have gay marriage legalized in several states, and most people my age (early to mid 20's) have no problem with gay people or gay marriage. The kids growing up right now are going to be even more tolerant and accepting than my generation. Their kids are going to be even MORE accepting and tolerant. This trend isn't going to reverse. When those kids all reach voting age, gay marriage is going to pass with ease.

So gay marriage might not be nationally legalized within the next 4 or 5 years, but how about the next 20 to 25? There is no doubt. And, we are going to see a steady rise in the number of states who legalize it from now until then.

This is a trend you conservatives are powerless to stop. It's a mathematical inevitability as the next one or two generations of young people reach voting age. You will simply lose the electoral numbers to prevent equal rights from being law. It's over...you just haven't realized it yet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 PM on 05/02/2009
- JayJonson I'm a Fan of JayJonson 5 fans permalink

Unfortunately, I am too old to wait 25 years to get married (or to have my marriage recognized in my benighted state). I think that you are right that marriage equality is inevitable. What I think will happen is that in 5 years or so, a majority of people will live in states that have either same-sex marriage or robust civil unions or domestic partnership. At that point the Supreme Court will have to rule on the "full faith and credit" clause, and either force all states (including Utah, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, and South Carolina--likely the holdouts) to either allow same-sex marriages or at least to recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions or domestic partnerships performed in other states.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:37 PM on 05/02/2009

And, they will be severely penalized for even having such an Anti-American, bigoted, position in the first place. It's not a coincidence that African Americans and Women vote democratic more than forty years after the Civil Rights act ---Americans have a loooong memory!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:47 PM on 05/02/2009

And 70% of African Americans voted YES on Prop 8 in California and even Pres Obama has clearly stated he believes marriage is between a man and a woman! I'd like to see Perez and all the proponents go after him! Perez says that Ms CA can not represent the USA with this view, so does that mean that it is time to go after Obama too?? How can he represent the USA with the same views as Ms CA???

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:00 PM on 05/02/2009
- bernie12 I'm a Fan of bernie12 4 fans permalink

it's all a part of the much hyped "fierce urgency of now" that needs to be delayed from 4 to 25 years. wonderful.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

For all the advocates of marriage equality, using the term Gay Marriage is really not serving the cause. That phrase intentionally separates marriage b/w Hets and the GAYS.

Marriage is a marriage whether b/w two opposite or same gendered people.

For everyone who is opposed to marriage equality, try looking to a country that is so nearby....­in Canada, the world did not fall apart, men and women still got married, schools did NOT push any LGBT agendas, churches did not have to marry who they didn't want and our country became stronger and more fair due to the equal treatment of all its citizens.

It is crazy that people are paying their taxes from the time they start working in the U.S. and yet are not entitled to their partner/spouse's social security, their foreign-born spouse/partner cannot be sponsored for immigration, their is real estate tax etc etc. It isn't right.

MARRIAGE is a CIVIL institution--not a religious one--unless YOU (and your prospective spouse) want it to be!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 05/02/2009
- petera63 I'm a Fan of petera63 14 fans permalink
photo

Marriage is between Adam and Eve, not between Adam and Steve.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:22 PM on 05/02/2009
- luvobama I'm a Fan of luvobama 235 fans permalink

ZZZZZZZZZZ­ZZZZZZZZZZ­ZZZzzzzzzz­zzzzzzzzzz­zZZZZZZZZZ­ZZZZZZZZZZ­ZZZZZ

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

You can marry whomever you love. So should everyone else.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 PM on 05/02/2009
- petera63 I'm a Fan of petera63 14 fans permalink
photo

Yeah, my neighbor loves her pitbull. Marriage?!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 05/02/2009
- KeysE2S I'm a Fan of KeysE2S 29 fans permalink
photo

That rhymes, it must be true!
Here's another one:
The recent progressive gains
Happened because righties have no brains.
Oh snap! No whammies, no give-backs!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 PM on 05/02/2009
- proggirl I'm a Fan of proggirl 90 fans permalink
photo

Why- I never heard that before! You've convinced me with your impeccable reason and logic!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 PM on 05/02/2009
- petera63 I'm a Fan of petera63 14 fans permalink
photo

Good girl!
You're progressive and yet smart.
It's a rare combination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 05/02/2009
- CJ1 I'm a Fan of CJ1 16 fans permalink

Awww, lookie at Petie--bet he still believes in the Easter bunny too! And wow, he can parrot stuff! His mamma must be so proud...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 05/02/2009
- zest I'm a Fan of zest 14 fans permalink

I look forward to a time when we are past acceptance and in a place where it is no longer an issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 PM on 05/02/2009
- proggirl I'm a Fan of proggirl 90 fans permalink
photo

Exactly. And GLBT people will make many of the mistakes in our relationships and in our lives that straight people make, creating and trying to solve many of the same problems, for the same reason.
We're human.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 PM on 05/02/2009
- blukazoo I'm a Fan of blukazoo 11 fans permalink

AMEN! Sister. big fan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 05/02/2009
- Idea1013 I'm a Fan of Idea1013 67 fans permalink
photo

This same debate occurred not so long ago over interracial marriage. The last law against this was not dropped until 1966. People should try to keep this in perspective: 1) if you're not gay, why should you have a public opinion on the issue, 2) unless someone is trying to force you into a gay marriage, the subject doesn't really affect you, 3) and most importantly, this is debate of equal rights, not morals. This is something I have a hard time understanding- if it doesn't affect you (yes, you, all the religious conservatives that consider gay relationships sinful) then why do you think you have the right to inflict your moral views of the issues on others?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 05/02/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

I'm not gay and I have an opinion on the issue. All humans deserve equal treatment under the law. And if asked publicly, I'd give that opinon.

And, actually, a society which permits intolerance does affect me. It permits the demonization, oppression and disenfranchisement of minorities - and at any time on any given day, I may find myself in the minority on something important to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 05/02/2009
- Idea1013 I'm a Fan of Idea1013 67 fans permalink
photo

I agree that we should speak out against intolerance. What I am asking is this specifically: to the religious, hetero community against gay marriage, why should you have an opinion? My point is, it does not effect their lives or their marriages (unless they are hiding something from their spouse) so why act against it? It is illogical to me that people who will not be in anyway involved in a gay marriage fight so hard against it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 05/02/2009
- slaxx I'm a Fan of slaxx 37 fans permalink
photo

i also think that greater acceptance wpuld come if people were more educated as to why civil unions do not provide the same rights as "marriage.­"

gay marriage advocates also have to address the lies of the anti-equal marriage groups, including that it will force churches to perform gay marriages.

i live in new york and i don't see gay marriage happening unless some repubs agree to vote for it because dems have a slim majority and we have some DINOs in the senate who are strongly against gay marriage (and even held the senate hostage after the election, vowing not to elect a dem majority leader unless dems promised not to bring up gay marriage). a recent poll of new yorkers showed that the majority of people support it, with the traditional groups supporting and opposing it - most young people and women support it, while most men, blacks, and republicans oppose it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

there's a fear of sharing the same word with gays. no one complained that nonbelievers or buddhists got married in other than a church. suddenly the church want to own the word.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

As a Canadian, I am proud that my country has had marriage EQUALITY (quit calling it GAY marriage!) for over five years now.

It is a matter of bestowing the same legal rights/liberties upon all committed couples.

Marriage equality has not affected anyone's marriage and has only made my country a more inclusive one. Churches still get to decide who to marry but the gov't must grant licences to all couples.

Some in the U.S. need to truly understand the separation of religion from basic civil and legal rights.

Obama is on the wrong side of history on this one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 05/02/2009
- proggirl I'm a Fan of proggirl 90 fans permalink
photo

Oh, you poor thing. Five years of having marriage destroyed? Surely all the straight people must be divorced by now, and the mandatory conversion to The Gay is proceeding apace?
And everyone's religion is ruined, right? Nobody reads the Bible or the Talmud or the Koran or the Teachings of The Buddha any more, do they?
Five years of gay marriage. Canada must be in ruins.
It's not? Well, um, er, OK, then. Well done!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 PM on 05/02/2009
- Sepulchre I'm a Fan of Sepulchre 102 fans permalink
photo

Yes, and the sky didn't fall. However, people who argue against it, don't use reason.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 PM on 05/02/2009
- jobecky20 I'm a Fan of jobecky20 5 fans permalink
photo

I like that .... "marriage equality." I think we Americans need to start using this term because that's really what it is. After all, we don't say "heterosexual marriage."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:22 PM on 05/02/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

I don't think so. He view is clearly his own. He will never step in to impede the progress toward equality.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 PM on 05/02/2009
- hamchunk I'm a Fan of hamchunk 20 fans permalink

Just to put this point out there for discussion: Are the American people more accepting to gay marriage or is it being legislated to the American people? If people accept gay marriage on their own terms, that is one thing, but when state courts are legislating this (effectively force-feeding it to everyone, regardless of belief) to the populace, will there not be the inevitable backlash? And, as a side note, I do think this matter has great regional differences of opinion and while it may be accepted in certain areas, it will never be accepted in others.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 PM on 05/02/2009
- kforce I'm a Fan of kforce 17 fans permalink

Did you read the article?

"In addition, over the past decade, public acceptance of gay marriage has changed dramatically. A Quinnipiac University poll released last week found that a majority of people questioned, by a 55-38 percent margin, oppose gay marriage. But it also found that people, by a 57-38 percent margin, support civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights for same-sex couples, indicating a shift toward more acceptance­."

The judiciary doesn't "legislate­." They interpret. It's only called "Judicial activism," or "legislating from the bench" when the court does something that conservatives don't agree with. Like Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 05/02/2009
- Sepulchre I'm a Fan of Sepulchre 102 fans permalink
photo

First and this is important we are not a Democracy. We have representations government and the Electoral College that makes us a Republic, a Democratic Republic, but a Republic none the less.

A state has the right to put anything it wants in the state constitution as long as it does not conflict or violate the federal constitution. This is also important. Courts have the right to determine that an amendment to the state constitution is in violation of the federal constitution and have it thrown out. That is done by the State Supreme court. The Federal Supreme court can also rule that a states amendment is in conflict or violation with the federal constitution and have it removed.

Next is to address states that passed the gay marriage ban. For people who seem to favor majority rule, let’s take a look at it. The majority in the Bible at the time crucified Christ. During WWII the majority of Germans supported Hitler. Being in a majority doesn’t make you right; it just means there are more of you. If majority rule had, had its way women would not be able to own land or property, and there would still be segregation. Court intervention circumvented popular vote because it was deemed a violation of our Constitution and its guarantee of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

Excellent post. Thank you!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 05/02/2009
- JonShank I'm a Fan of JonShank 41 fans permalink
photo

Yeah, the same arguments came up about civil rights for African-Americans. If judges hadn't legislated from the bench, we might very well still have the vulgar Jim Crow laws. Strict -constructionists, as they are called, are dangerous.

And tell me again why gays and lesbians are expected to obey the same laws and pay the same taxes, yet don't get to enjoy the same rights and benefits? And please don't use 'god'. That's played, and lame.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

I think it's wrong to say judges have legislated from the bench. They have just (finally) applied the principles written down in the Constitution over 200 years ago.
I agree with the rest of your post, though.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

I don't think you can call it force-feeding if courts decide that 'marrying' the person of your choice is a human right guaranteed under the constitution(s). There is nothing to accept or reject here by anyone. Your human rights do not depend on the other people accepting that you have them, as other people's human rights do not depend on you accepting that they have them.
They are unalienable rights and on these self-evident truths the nation was built.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 05/02/2009
- slaxx I'm a Fan of slaxx 37 fans permalink
photo

wow, the legislature is forcing people to get gay marriages?

of course it's easy for straight people (who make up 90% of the population) to be against gay marriage. given that 57% of people support civil unions (whcih they believe that gays should have equal rights) and 38% support gay marriage, that's actually pretty strong support.

also, the majoirty of people would also say to abolish welfare and taxes, but do you think that that is right, just, and best for the country as a whole?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

If you are on the fence regarding your feelings about the validity of gay marriage here area few thoughts that might help guide you

Question: Do human beings marry another human being for the contents of their soul or for their genitals? Better to fall in love with what is on the inside and not the outside. For Christians when judgment day comes and the reward of eternal life begins I say we will be the essence of our souls and not male or female.

If marriage is solely for procreation does that make the union of childless couples any less valid? Can you imagine a law that would invalidate the marriage of a childless couple after say 5 years of not procreating? Or ban senior citizens from marring due to being not able to conceive children? We should fall in love with our hearts not our bodies. Don't get me wrong a good body helps! Some may disagree but we are not meant to breed like rabbits.

As a member of a large close knit traditional family I am constantly reminded that my not being able to marry makes me far unequal to my siblings. To this day I feel awkward at frequent family gatherings watching the interactions of the happy married couples and their children and realizing that society has excluded me from this part of the American dream. This is not equality. This has to be changed for future generations.

Still against gay marriage?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 05/02/2009
- luvobama I'm a Fan of luvobama 235 fans permalink

All truly thinking people realize that your rights are being violated. I look forward to the day I can attend all of my friends weddings and eat crummy chicken dinners and even crummier wedding cake!!! Keep the faith. It's going to happen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 05/02/2009
- Bafun I'm a Fan of Bafun 18 fans permalink

Marriage doesn't mean automatically "happy" relationship and ends so often in divorce. You can also be very happy with a partner and adopted or biological children without to be "married". The most important is to have the same rights what a civil union gives.
In Europe a lot of people live together without marriage but with equal rights. They are happy families. A lot of divorced people remarry but not in the church. Are they less happy?
The most important for you is to be accepted by your family with your partner as equal to your sibblings. A marriage will not change this.
By the way I am for same sex marriage, but don't "idealize" too much. marriage don't=happiness.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

"support civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights"

Marriage-like ≠ Marriage

Marriage is a human right anything less than that is discrimination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:46 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

This is supposed to be an inequality sign

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 PM on 05/02/2009
- proggirl I'm a Fan of proggirl 90 fans permalink
photo

We're all over the place. We're lesbians. We're gay, We're Bi. We're transgendered. We're liberals or atheists. We're progressives.
But contrary to what conservatives would choose to believe, we're all Americans, and have the same rights as they do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

Exactly. And, why any gay person would belong to the Log Cabin Republicans is beyond me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 05/02/2009
- SD Indy I'm a Fan of SD Indy 23 fans permalink

Although I disagree with much of the Republican Party Platform, I do understand why some are members of the LRC. Many of them feel that they can be agents of change from the inside (no pun intended - well maybe a little). And in very few cases they have. Look at Steve Schmidt (although Schmidt has been a long-time supporter of marriage equality), Meghan McCain, Evangelical leader Rev. Richard Cizik.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 PM on 05/02/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

I totally do not get that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

Will they seize it? Or will we be again be st@bbed in the back like Clinton

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 05/02/2009
- rich3324 I'm a Fan of rich3324 18 fans permalink
photo

So if gays can marry that will make heterosexuals want to marry gays? I really do not follow the logic. Other than relgious superstition what's the problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 05/02/2009
photo

It seems to me that many of the heterosexuals who want gay people to hide the fact that they or gay must want to marry gay people. By making it so horrible to be gay only serves to encourage gay people to pretend to be straight, and they end up marrying other straight people, with disastrous results!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 PM on 05/02/2009
- SD Indy I'm a Fan of SD Indy 23 fans permalink

Ending in divorce and hurting the wife and their children. A perfect example of this would be Governor Jim McGreevey.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 05/02/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next › Last » (12 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect