Kerry Concedes

[Cerek]

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

That was how I understood it too.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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.

Thanks for the stats, J.D. 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.

[Timber Loftis]

DOMA explainified:

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

[Cerek]

Originally posted by aleph_null1: 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.

That's very true, aleph. 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.

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[aleph_null1]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: So, in both cases, there is no popular will to undo it.

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

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: DOMA explainified: http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/10/gay.marriage/

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.

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.

[Cerek]

I also found this snippet from Timber's article to be rather interesting....

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."

I love how anyone who opposes gay marriage (for whatever reason) is automatically classified as "right wing religious extremist" 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 "right wing religious extremists", 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.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Cerek: I love how anyone who opposes gay marriage (for whatever reason) is automatically classified as "right wing religious extremist" 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 "right wing religious extremists", 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.

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.