<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Don't be so sure till you have checked out just how tight the Gay and Lesbian comminties/groups are with organizations such as NAMBLA.</font>

What is being forced on them?

Eh??? What is implied here, that generally Gay and Lesbian organizations support pedophilia, is simply incorrect, not to mention quite disgusting and shameful.

I notice the claimed being made, but no proof offered to back it up. It is plainly clear that it is a claim made for no other reason than to incite ill-will.

[ 11-04-2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Thanks for backing my point, which was that each of the States, counties, and cities are free to make their own laws and impose or alow actiona, activities. The Federal Gov't insures that we the people are free to move if we don't want to live under the rules our State, County, City has legaly passed. Each State is a seperate intity(sp?) not bound to follow the laws/rules of another State. We are a highly orginized Confederation of seperate States joined together for the greater good of all, yet free to ban/alow inside our own borders what we the people of each State believes should be baned/alowed. Maine is not bound to follow the laws of Alabama, Alabama dosen't have to listen to Iowa. A States gov't is made up of the people that live in the State and are legaly elected.

Society's freedom is lessened by any laws that are passed, a natural born murderer like Ted Bundy had his freedom lessened by laws that make murder illegal. The vast majority of people wouldn't have a problem with lessening a natural murder's freedom. but what happens when the legal process is followed and all of a sudden one our pet freedoms is outlawed? Do we accept it, do we try and change it legally, or do we become outlaws? questions we must each ask and answer for ourselves.

What proof do you have that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice"? Even if you could prove it were a lifestyle choice ( I have seen many try and fail) how can you reconcile the fact that we protect the civil rights of people based on thier religion- which is certainly and unequivocially a lifestyle choice?

We also do protect civil rights based on gender- which is what the gay marrigae issue is really about. If two people of different genders can marry, than to be equal for all, two people of the same gender can marry as well. It is basic logic.

[ 11-04-2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color = lightgreen>Because homosexuality is not genetically encoded and no one holds a gun to another's head forcing them to be homosexual. Were I to be homosexual, I would want my partner to love me because he wants to, not because he has to.
The difference between sexual preference and religious choice is due to the fact that freedom of religion is stated in the Constitution.

Marriage is a very ancient social contract between men and women so that heirs could be properly identified; a man's estate was divided among the offspring from his legal wife, not the offspring from any mistress or concubine. It was also a way to celebrate the continuation of the society.

Personally, I support homosexual marriages because if two people love each other then they should be allowed to show their relationship outwardly. However, I have still not heard any compelling argument as to why homosexual marriage should be legally enforced other than "gender equality"; unfortuntaely, there is no inequality issue here, at least until a male can bear children like a female.
If homosexual males want the same privilege to marry another male just like a female could, then to keep up the idea of "gender equality" shouldn't homosexual males be allowed full access to female restrooms and shower rooms? </font>

<font color=plum>No, <font color=orange>Chewbacca</font>, homosexual marriage is NOT about civil rights based on gender. It is about demanding equal rights based on sexual orientation. It is also about re-defining the term "marriage", which our society has decided should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.

And your "basic logic" about providing "equality for all" is flawed, because it incorrectly assumes that "same gender marriages" is the only addition needed to the definition of "marriage" to provide equality for all. But what if a person wants to marry two people instead of one? What right do you have to say that 3 people can not love each other as deeply and meaningfully as two people? But if you limit the definition of marriage to just two people, then by your own argument, you are violating the civil rights of those who love two people equally and don't feel they should be forced to choose one over the other as their life partner.

And once you change the definition of marriage to include that sub-group, the door is opened for even more additions and revisions to the definition of marriage.</font>

[ 11-04-2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

<font color=plum>No, <font color=orange>Chewbacca</font>, homosexual marriage is NOT about civil rights based on gender. It is about demanding equal rights based on sexual orientation. It is also about re-defining the term "marriage", which our society has decided should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.

And your "basic logic" about providing "equality for all" is flawed, because it incorrectly assumes that "same gender marriages" is the only addition needed to the definition of "marriage" to provide equality for all. But what if a person wants to marry two people instead of one? What right do you have to say that 3 people can not love each other as deeply and meaningfully as two people? But if you limit the definition of marriage to just two people, then by your own argument, you are violating the civil rights of those who love two people equally and don't feel they should be forced to choose one over the other as their life partner.

And once you change the definition of marriage to include that sub-group, the door is opened for even more additions and revisions to the definition of marriage.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]The logic becomes flawed only when the equation is changed - like you have done by including unions of more than two people into the mix.

And whats this about "our society"? Two people of the same gender can freely marry here in Massachussetts where I live and many dictionaries include same-gender marriage as one of the defintions of marriage. Sorry, but "our" society hasnt made the last word yet.

And for this catastrophic redefining of the word marriage, well I have done the research on the history of marriage, it has been redefined before and that hasn't caused the end of the world. Recently Vermont added a new sub-defintion called "Civil Unions". They are called that, but civil unions are really just marriages- the lawful union of two people. So it really boils down to either a semantics game, OR we toss out the semantics and just let same-gender marriages, OR we create a situation where certain citizens are relegated to a second-class unequal status, a limitation of rights by law ,like several states have done just this week.

I found a link that goes through some of the science that's been done on homosexuality. It had this general bit to say after it discusses some research.

http://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/genet...sexuality.html

I'd say it, like anything else related to sexuality, is pretty complex, but has a significant biological component, which will be elaborated upon in the coming years. Note that psychologists used to identify homosexuality as a type of identity confusion. This is no longer the case.

Azred said:
There is truth to this, but it's more broad. Not only are the terms 'man' and 'woman' differently defined (ie, not always based upon biological sex) across cultural boundaries, but marriage is certainly rife with variety. Marriage is a universal trait, and gender is usually mimetic (sex=gender) in societies, but I just wanted to point out that any one definition of marriage isn't universal. You're right on that marriage is most often about property and lineage as far as I've read. I think it's interesting that it's even controlled by the state, and I do not think this would be the case if it weren't for the property aspect of marriage.

Note that no one here has refuted the illegality of some of the state constitutional amendments, such as Kentucky's, that not only ban recognizing gay marriage, but also ban giving any rights similar to marriage to any unmarried couples. That is where the real problem lies. Gays in Vermont do not complain, by and large, that the "civil union" is different from "marriage," they are content with the two being more-or-less equal, if different in nomenclature. As you may have seen from my previous posts, I think the gay groups went off the mark with their to-may-to, to-mah-to issue, and as far as the constitution is concerned, nomenclature is unimportant so long as substantive rights are guaranteed. And, I even outlined how the Bush/Cheney plan could allow for this.

But, banning the state from giving "similar" rights of marriage to unmarried couples (such as gays) does in fact offend the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution. And, I predict that even our conservative Supreme Court will prove me right on this in due time. Wait and see. And remember that I told you so.

Personally, I do not have a problem with the idea of two people of the same gender in an intimate relationship (as long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses). I do have a problem with the idea of Bigamy. However, if it makes some people happy, and as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, I don't see any need for Government legislation prohibiting it.
You are entitled to disapprove of homosexuality, but for people with your outlook on life to forbid homosexuals to marry is just as bad as if a country with a atheist majority were to ban Christianity. You are happy to limit other peoples freedom, but if somebody were to forbid you from living your life the way you wanted to, no doubt you would be complaining the loudest.

<font color=plum>Please show me where I have endorsed limiting the freedoms of homosexuals. Look over all my posts and provide quotes highlighting the part where I said homosexuals should not have equal rights.

If you actually do take the time to do this (and read what I actually posted rather than what you think I posted) you will find that I have not said homosexuals partners should not have the same rights as married couples. What I have said is that the general population of America disapproves of homosexuality and most of them do feel it is a "choice" (based on thier overwhelming support of amendments that were voted on).

When you look over my posts again, you will find that I actually stated I DO NOT support the proposed Amendment to the Constitution that would "officially" define marriage as being between one woman and one man. I stated that this matter should be decided by the individual states - as it has been.

And even though I DO disapprove of homosexuality based on my religious beliefs, I have no problem with gays being allowed to enter "civil unions" that grant them the same rights that married couples receive. I realize it's just a difference of semantics (and a bit silly), but the voting records on the amendments prove that most Americans have a problem with allowing gays to be "married" - so "civil unions" is a compromise that skirts that issue and still increases the rights that gay life partners can receive.</font>

<font color=plum>That may be true, but it is simply naive to think that others won't try to "change the equation" for their group once you change the definition for another group.

Your basic argument has been that two people should not be denied civil rights simply because they love someone else of the same gender and that expanding the definition to allow this union is the only way to provide "equality to all". I'm just pointing out that a logical extension of that logic is to say that the next step is to say it isn't fair to limit marriage to just two people when there are several citizens in our society that feel they love two other people equally and all three of them feel they should be allowed to marry and receive the same rights as married couples do. For the three people who feel this way, your expansion of "marriage" still does not provide "equality for all". Why should marriage be limited only to two people? Mormons can even bring in the argument that restricting marriage to two people is also a restriction on their religious freedom.</font>

<font color=plum>I never said our society has made the last word yet, but our society DID make a very strong statement on the how they felt marriage should be defined when they voted on the State Constitutional Amendments. So, YES, our society HAS spoken on this issue, you just don't agree with what they said. ;) </font>

On the contrary, Cerek, I think Chewbacca's statement reflects what J.D. Harris has been saying all along: The society of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts made its statement about how it felt on the subject.

The society of the rest of -- well, most of -- the nation, which regards the society of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a bunch of homosexual communists :D , has made its statement. Unsurprisingly, the statements were different.

I see no problem letting each state vote on the question either. I think our little confederation works wonderfully for these sorts of things, along with alcohol & tobacco taxes and vehicle registration [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Aleph, you have a great point...but the problem comes into play here is that We have this pesky federal thing that says that what one states laws permit...then all the other states have to abide by that law. Which is why you had tons of Gay couples streaming in from all different states to San Fran and Mass to get married...because they knew that what was legally binding in those original states had to be upheld in the others....a back door way of getting around the individual states laws....this is wherein the rub lays.
</font>

[ 11-05-2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Under the Full Faith and Credit Doctrine, the gay marriages in Massachussets and Vermont can be undone in other states. Most states are addressing this by passing legislation that specifically states whether or not such unions will be valid or null and void in the particular state.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Whereby all the ruckus is generated :D

</font>

T.L. you are correct that a ban on civil unions will most likely be ruled Unconstituitonal, States that went so far as to ban civil Unions will be in for a rude awaking. But not all the States did so some did some didn't. Should there be a legal statis for same sex unions or non married heto. unions? Legaly speaking there probibly should, and probibly WILL be, but the unions won't be called marriage.

Now for all you folks down on the religious right thinking they are to blame and that the marriage issue was what gave President Bush his victory. Do the Math in the vast majority of States that had marriage proposals on the ballots the proposal passed in the nieghborhood of 65-70% while President Bush won the state in the nieghborhood ot 51-60%, that means 20-40% of Kerry voters/Dem/Non Religious Right crossed over. Now I shouldn't do this but I'll help the Dems/Libs out here, not that they will listen anyways, the Dems better abandon the Hollywood/NYC crowd and understand they are not the end all be all of this nation. If the Dems don't change they're out of power for a generation or more.

[ 11-05-2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

I see you have stood in a DMV line or two ;)

Didn't the defense of marriage act make it so each State could decide for themselves? ie: Mass-Yea, Alabama-Nay

<font color=plum>That was how I understood it too.</font>

<font color=plum>Thanks for the stats, <font color=white>J.D.</font> This the point I've been trying to make throughout this thread - that it wasn't just the Republicans and their "moral mammys" that voted in favor of the amendments. Each of these amendments passed by an overwhelming majority - which means that Democrats had to vote for it too and probably even some NON-religious voters cast their vote in favor of banning the marriages.

And you're also right about the Dems needing to abandon the Hollywood/NYC crowd. Kerry won those states, but he lost every one of the Southern states. And the last 2 Democrats that won the office of President came from the South (Carter and Clinton). One of my college buddies put it very well. The Dem's need to regroup and figure out WHY they keep losing the South. President Bush just proved that - even though our electoral votes are small for each state - they add up quickly. I think the Dems DID make an attempt to gain the Southern vote by choosing Edwards as their VP - but now they see that gesture wasn't enough. So they need to actually give a serious look at WHY they keep losing down here. THEN they can come up with a strategy and a candidate that can win the office for them.</font>

DOMA explainified:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/10/gay.marriage/

<font color=plum>That's very true, <font color=lime>aleph</font>. And Vermont made the same statement as Massachusetts. That's 2 states out of 50. Meanwhile, the voters in 11 other states said they disagree with the decisions of Massachusetts and Vermont. Which backs up the point I've made that the majority of American citizens disagree with gay marriage.

BTW, did Massachusetts and Vermont allow the general public to vote on the gay marriage issue, or was it passed by the State Gov't's. I honostly can't remember, but it seems that they would have HAD to let the general public cast their votes on the issue before enacting the law. Just curious.</font>

In both VT and Mass the whole issue got adjudicated by the State Supreme Court first. VT's was first, when in 1998 or thereabouts the Supreme Court determined that under the State Constitution, you could not deny the basic rights of marriage to non-traditional couples, such as gays. Rather than do anything, the Court gave the legislature time to fix it. The legislature came up with the Civil Union, a parallel to marriage crafted to benefit gays and other life partnership couples (such as sisters living out their elder years together).

In Massachussetts, the court also determined the same sort of thing. The legislature then certified a legal question to the Court, asking it if a Civil Union would satisfy the Mass Constitution. The Court said no, it must be marriage.

In neither case was there a popular vote on the issue. However, the "take back Vermont" campaign to rip every legislator out of office who voted for the Civil Union failed pretty miserable -- though some folks did lose their legislature positions. As well, attempts in Massachussetts toward a constitutional amendment have also failed. So, in both cases, there is no popular will to undo it.

[ 11-05-2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

There could also just be no popular will to do anything.

Not gonna lie, if my state legislature passed something legalizing homosexual marriage, I think you'd have a hard time rounding up enough people who actually cared one way or another enough to do something about it ...

Also not gonna lie: I wouldn't be one of them :D

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">I find it a bit bemusing that the author titles the article as if it were about preventing Gays having fair access to Jobs when it is actually about gay marriages and not about employment....not very explanified if you ask me.
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Thats one of the things I have been pointing out lately, the average American is NOT agaist gays being able to enter into a "civil" union, what disturbs them and angers them is this insistance of usurping the term marriage. Had there been a consolidated Gay stance that they just wanted equal rights, things would have turned out differently...but that wasn't good enough, the demand was made to take the term MARRIAGE and change its generally accepted meaning. Marriage is a rather important part of many christian religions....you get bad results when trying to strip people of what they consider parts of their religion.

Im not defending it, Im just pointing it out.
</font>

<font color=plum>I also found this snippet from <font color=tan>Timber's</font> article to be rather interesting....

<font color=white> Paras said she was disappointed that President Clinton has promised to sign the bill, but she primarily faulted "right-wing religious extremists who are using this issue to try and divide our constituency."</font>

I love how anyone who opposes gay marriage (for whatever reason) is automatically classified as <font color=white>"right wing religious extremist"</font> or some similar label. It makes it seem as if any opposition to homosexuality and gay marriages is perpetuated by just a few religious fanatics rather than being the mainstream consensus of the general population. Again, the votes in 11 states on gay marriage amendments proves this view is NOT just held by <font color=white>"right wing religious extremists"</font>, but is actually held by a significant majority of the general population as well.

Still, the Gay Rights activists and many of their supporters simply refuse to believe this is really the case, so they "demonize" any who oppose gay marriage as religious fanatics and convince themselves that most "normal people" really do support Gay Rights and Gay Marriage.</font>

It's true, and unfortunate, that that labeling happens. Some of the Democrats biggest supporters, a large portion of the black community and the blue collar Union dudes, have the same stance as the religious fanatics on the issue.. the source of their stance might be different but it seems to be the same stand.

LOL. The NY Times has dreamed up a "Democratic Blame Game" that is supposedly taking place regarding Kerry's loss. Truth is, it's the NY Times that wants to play the Blame Game, and it is casting its net far and wide to find someone to blame for the fact that it didn't get the president it wanted.

Well, today that Blame Game stretched to the opposite coast, and to the issue we're discussing here:

_____________________________________________

November 5, 2004
Some Democrats Blame One of Their Own
By DEAN E. MURPHY

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 4 - A year into his job, Mayor Gavin Newsom could hardly be more popular. A survey last weekend put his approval rating among San Franciscans at 80 percent.

Polls show that a mainstay of the Democratic mayor's support has been his stance on same-sex marriage. But with his party reeling from Senator John Kerry's defeat on Tuesday, Mr. Newsom's decision in February to open City Hall to thousands of gay weddings has become a subject of considerable debate among Democrats.

Some in the party were suggesting even before the election that Mr. Newsom had played into President Bush's game plan by inviting a showdown on the divisive same-sex-marriage issue.

Most of the talk has been behind closed doors. But when Senator Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat and Newsom supporter, answered a question about the subject at a news conference outside her San Francisco home on Wednesday, the prickly discussion spilled into the open.

"I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," Ms. Feinstein said of the same-sex marriages here. "I think it gave them a position to rally around. I'm not casting a value judgment. I'm just saying I do believe that's what happened."

"So I think that whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon,'' she added. "And people aren't ready for it."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who was a witness at the first same-sex marriage at San Francisco City Hall, said she received a flurry of angry e-mail messages on Thursday from people upset about Ms. Feinstein's public dressing down of Mr. Newsom.

The topic was also raised with Mr. Newsom himself at a news conference on Wednesday and when he was a guest on a radio talk show here Thursday morning. He said he had no regrets.

Some of his backers were less restrained. In an interview, Ms. Kendell accused Ms. Feinstein of looking for "easy scapegoats."

"Shame on Senator Feinstein and other Democratic leaders for latching to the most facile and shallow of explanations for the results," she said. "What Mayor Newsom did really accelerated the conversation and the movement, and I will never accept an analysis that says a leader who stands for equality and fairness and who has the courage of his convictions is doing the wrong thing."

One openly gay member of Congress, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, disagreed. Mr. Frank was opposed to the San Francisco weddings from the start and told Mr. Newsom as much before the ceremonies began. He urged the mayor to follow the Massachusetts path, which involved winning approval for the marriages in court before issuing licenses.

In a telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Frank said he felt vindicated by the election results. In Massachusetts, every state legislator on the ballot who supported gay rights won another term. By contrast, constitutional amendments against gay marriage won handily in 11 states - including Ohio, an important battleground - in large part, Mr. Frank said, because of the "spectacle weddings" in San Francisco.

Mr. Frank said Mr. Newsom had helped to galvanize Mr. Bush's conservative supporters in those states by playing into people's fears of same-sex weddings.

Had the Massachusetts approach been followed, he said, "I think there would have been some collateral damage'' in the election, but "a lot less.''

"The thing that agitated people were the mass weddings,'' he said, adding, "It was a mistake in San Francisco compounded by people in Oregon, New Mexico and New York. What it did was provoke a lot of fears."

"He created a sense there was chaos,'' Mr. Frank said of Mr. Newsom, "rather than give us a chance to show, as we have in Massachusetts, that this doesn't mean anything to anyone else."

Some conservative opponents of same-sex marriages concurred. Though the backlash against gay weddings was kick-started by court rulings in Massachusetts - and even earlier in Alaska and Hawaii - opposition resonated with a much broader group of conservatives after Mr. Newsom put San Francisco at the heart of the debate, said Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian group that sued to block the marriages here.

The California Supreme Court eventually declared the 4,000 or so weddings invalid, but the images of same-sex couples' embracing in San Francisco were permanently etched in the public's mind, Mr. Lorence said.

"The court decisions have been the triggers, but Mayor Newsom definitely accelerated the reaction," Mr. Lorence said. "I think we can get 10 or 15 more state constitutional amendments in the 2006 and 2008 election cycle, and maybe even more, because people feel so strongly about this."

In a telephone interview, Mr. Newsom acknowledged that he had taken some heat from fellow Democrats. But he said the criticism was off the mark. Mr. Bush decided to use gay marriage as a political wedge well before the weddings in San Francisco, the mayor said, and the issue had already been politicized by the court rulings in Massachusetts.

Mr. Newsom offered no apologies.

"If you think something is right,'' he said, "you have a moral obligation to act.''

In 4 States Civil Unions were banned.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Yeah 4 out of 50...oh the horror..... And it was in reaction to the "in the face attitude and snottiness" I expounded upon elsewhere.</font>

<font color=plum>And those particular amendments will most likely be challenged and eventually struck down by the Supremes.</font>

<font color=plum>That is funny. LOL. I have to agree with Mr. Newsome that the San Francisco weddings had little impact on the conservative voter turn-out. Seriously, it's San Francisco - who wouldn't expect gay marriages to be approved there?

No, I think it was the referendum (or whatever) in Massachusetts that "scared" conservative voters regarding gay marriages. Allowing gay marriages in San Francisco is one thing, but allowing them in Massachusetts and Vermont is another issue entirely. THAT was what made the voting public think "OMG, MY state could be next!" :eek:

Still, it is humorous to see the Times casting their net so wide in search of someone to blame. I know it's inconceivable to them that the majority of the American voters actually preferred Bush to Kerry. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Yeah 4 out of 50...oh the horror..... And it was in reaction to the "in the face attitude and snottiness" I expounded upon elsewhere.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Does the fact it was only 4 make it ok?

How do you know it was in reaction to the "in your face attitude and snottiness" that you expounded on?

Cerek, I hope you are right.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Mainly because I can read the news papers and watch the occasional discussion forum on the television, oh and some times I even participate in our local political discussion groups for our district in Maryland.....(we call them civic action groups and these are where our local Politicians get some of their ideas....I live in a heavily Democrat controlled area) perhaps maybe even, I live in the place we have been discussing and am not in a Coma?

Did I say it was ok? nope...but I did intimate that it wasn't the end of all life as we know it as well.
</font>

[ 11-05-2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color=plum>I have to back <font color=lime>MagiK</font> on this one.

Whether the Gay Rights Movement really is "in your face" or not is somewhat irrelevant - because that is how it is perceived by many people.

Orignally, they said they just wanted an equal voice and equal rights. While the equal rights might be questionable, it can't be denied that they have gained a very powerful voice. And now they are using their power to try and squelch ANY opposing views.

Dr. Laura has a popular radio talk show and her views are openly based on the Bible. She calls homosexuality a sin and a perversion (which - by a strict definition - it is). When Dr. Laura was offered a TV Show, the Gay Right Movement came out in force and demanded she be removed from the airwaves completely because of her "hate speech". Thanks to their power and leverage, her TV show never made it past a few episodes - though I beleive she still has her radio show.

So they went from just wanting an equal voice to saying "there should be no opposing voices". And this is seen by many to be an attempt to force acceptance of their lifestyle on the general population.

And that approach simply doesn't work.</font>

<font color=plum>Those are good points, <font color=tan>Timber</font>, but I have to agree with <font color=lime>aleph_null1</font>. I think it was more a case of "no popular will to do anything". After all, even if they did remove every legislator in Vermont that voted for the Civil Union, that wouldn't change the law itself. Yet some of the legislators apparantly still lost their positions over that one issue. I would guess that the ones who didn't lose their positions had other issues they could bring into the campaign to offset their vote on the Civil Union.

The case in Massachusetts where attempts at a constitutional amendment have failed is a little stronger indicator that the folks there aren't willing to undo the Civil Union. But I still submit that - had the issue been put to a public vote to begin with - the results would have been different. Once the law was on the books, I'm wondering how many voters said "Well, it doesn't matter now anyway. The law is there and our actions won't change that."

Of course, that's just speculation on my part and I admit again that the case in MA is more suggestive that the general public is not upset with the Civil Union. But I do find it interesting that the only two states that actually allow Civil Unions did not put the issue up for a public vote by the general population before putting the law on the books.</font>

I consider refering homosexuality as sinful or as a perversion, thereby refering to homosexuals as sinners or perverts, as like "hate" speech and I wish you would not repeat it here in these forums as it is antagonistic and creates hostility towards a group, of whom we have members here at IW, and thereby violate the rules. I doubt IWs gay membership appreciates it. I am personally distgusted by such language.

from the rules:
[ 11-07-2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]