Today's Poll: Do you support gay marriage?
Back in the 60's many states had laws prohibiting mixed races from marrying. Thankfully, we are a country that progresses and evolves when we have it wrong. Thankfully marriage equality rights have moved exponentially in favor of equality fairly quickly and painlessly in a country where change often comes much harder.
This is simple -- equal protection, equal rights under the law. If you don't like gay marriage -- don't marry someone of your own sex.
Only Tea Party members should be allowed to marry other Tea Party members - if they are of the opposite sex, belong to the same tribe, avoid miscenination, believe in the same God, and each own a gun.
Lorie - - ABSOLUTELY AGREE !!!!! I STILL don't understand how any OTHER marriage is diminished when gay people marry.
I support getting the state out of all marriages. Consenting adults should be free to enter into contracts with whom ever they see fit. What exactly does your $40 get you besides a file in a cabinet some where?
This shouldn't be a federal issue one way or the other, it is clearly a State Government issue in the first place.
What amazes me is that people fail to see that this is nothing more than a diversion away from real issues, like the economy, a business environment that fosters jobs growth and dismal economic numbers.
New York State allows gay marraige, as does most of the states in the North East, 30 States ban gay marraige, 4 more have upcoming votes IN THIER STATE.
Personally, I care not, religiously, marraige should be between Man and Woman, politically, not everyone shares my religion so if a gay couple wants to marry, that is between them and the state within which they reside.
In the end, The Obama campaign will get more money from Gay Rights groups because of his 4th evolution on this issue,Reporters will continue to ask Romney about it when he wants to talk about the economy. It will have no bearing on the election, and voters in each state will either Ban or Allow gay marraige on a state by state basis.
So I say, live and let live and let's spend our time discussing things that really matter.
Let the religious have the word "marriage". They can control who they decide to bestow that title to. Let the true law of the land handle civil unions.
And to keep things truly separate (as they should be), just because you are married by a religious figure does NOT make that a legal civil union. Why should a guy (or gal) with a funny collar or hat have the right to determine a legal contract?
I didn't exactly say it that way Tim, a marraige perfomed by the clergy DOES infact equal a civil Union BTW. But on basic premis we agree
I agree with Thomas and Mark, the government has no business defining marriage. If someone hadn't sought to do so long ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. It should be a civil union legally between 2 adults, no children, which protects the rights of the union. If one wants to have their personal religion sanctify the union, that's great. I don't dislike traditions, just don't like them forced upon others.
This is what scares me about this discussion;
This will once again morph nationally from what should be a simple States Rights Issue to an attack on religion and personal belief.
Those who get married in a church, usually do so because of thier faith, not because of the contractual ramifications. Likewise, if as parents we choose to send our children to parochial schools to educate of children not only academically, but also as a continuance of our personal faith, that should not be the governments business either.
My viewpoint is this shouldnt be an issue at all.... Atheists are allowed to marry, there are marriages that occur outside the set boundaries of the church. If a couple wants to get married by a secular authority then they must follow the tenets of that particular faith. However if they want a civil service then the sexes of either side of the couple shouldnt make a difference.
Its very disingenous of state or federal Govts to on one hand, remove God from public buildings, oaths and remove religious symbols from the same, based on their claims of separation of church and state. But then turn to the church for justification in not allowing same sex marriages, at least in civil ceremonies.
You don't get to pick and choose when it comes to civil rights. Everyone has them or your not living in a free society.
Because you are born black, yellow, red or white, you have no choice, therefore, you have basic rights.
Marraige, civil union and sexual preference are a choice (I know some believe otherwise, I do not agree) it is not a right it is a privilage.
It is moot in NYState, Gay marraige is acceptable under the law.
I stand by my original statement, this is merely a political diversion at this point.
Mark, since you can't read minds, you couldn't possibly know if it's a choice. I believe your born gay or straight, there is no choice. I always wonder why people care? How can it possibly effect you? Why try to enforce your sense of morality on another person? It's simply none of your business. Why devote even a second of time to thinking about how another person wants to live?
I actually do not care who a person shares thier life with Charlie. That aside, this really was prompted recent news events.
And like I said twice before, merely a diversion from real issues.
What struck me were the responses to this poll which bolsters my view that emotion at this point in our history is totally confused with the basis of law which should be guiding us in matters of government, but that is an entirely different topic for another day I guess.
On this matter, it is simply this, A right is something that we are born with and we die with and is endowed by our creator (Whether you believe that to be God, Mopther Nature or the Greek gods checker board)
A privilage is a right conveyed by an authority that can be granted and thus can be taken away. A maraige is a civil union, it has legal, finacial and tax implications therefore a contract that affects not only the couple in question but others around them, there are Church sanctioned marraiges which are still a civil union but sanctioned by a persons religion based on thier faith.
In NY State, gay marraige is legal, so be it, have at it if you like and I hope you (You in the general sense BTW) enjoy it. In other states that may or may not be the case, but because a marraige or civil union is Licensed, it is not a right, it is a priilage, and some may argue not necessary at all.
Just curious Mark - did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual (assuming you are)? Did you just wake up one day and decide that you were going to be straight or was it a long and arduous decision process?
Well Beth if I say yes, that would open the question as to when and how, if I say no well then an entire set of questions.
So I will say this, your question is exactly an example of what I said about emotion vs point of law. I will attempot this one more time.
Whether someone is gay or not absolutely makes no difference to me one way or the other, I do in fact have some very close friends that are gay and do live in a civil union.
As I stated three times now, a "MARRAIGE" is a civil contract, a religiously sanctioned marraige is a civil; contract sanctioned by one's church
Regardless, a civil union is a license granted by the State in which people reside and because of that, whether or not a gay marraige (Civil Union) is a matter that is as it should be decided by the voters of each individual state.
A religious marraige cermony is a matter of a civil union being validated in the eyes of one's church and not a question of legalalty at all,
Finally, this entire issue is being discussed because of the political gamsmanship of the President this week, which if you listenb to what he said, "I personal have come to believe that Gay Marraige should be acceptable and I also believe that it is a question that must beresolved at the state level"
Bottom line, the entire circus evolving around this was to placate some of his supporters that he needs donations from, and even Democrat Pundits on news shows this morning are echoing that.
Hear this please, I do not care one way or the other who a person shares his or her life with, that is thier decision and I respect that, I do not care what happens in any other state with regard to this issue because I live in New York State where the decision has already been made.
And if anyone thinks that this entire issue that came up this week is anything less than a well planned political distraction, they are politically naive.
Mark, you say this is a diversion from "real" issues. I think civil rights is a real issue. The recent primary exposed the GOP to be out of step on soical issues. These issues are going to be rolling out one by one over the next six months. That doesn't surprise me and I think that's the point your trying to make. I think for many of us, there are issues like this that are non-starters. Civil rights is a big one. The president obviously wants to remind us all of where he differs from his opponent.
The president coming out for this issue the same day a swing state voted it down, shows strength of character.
Mark: "On this matter, it is simply this, A right is something that we are born with and we die with and is endowed by our creator" You mean like Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If one person is not allowed to participate in decisions about say, end of life choices for someone they had pledged to share their life with and discussed that issue with because that person is not considered a legitimate spouse by the law where they live; is not their basic human right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness being infringed upon? Somewhere back in time it got decided that a government entity should define what is or is not a legitimate marriage and so therefor is stomping on somebody's rights. I'm sure it started with someone suing someone and a vague spot in the law found to squirm through for some nefarious reason, and so then it had to be defined. I'm always against government involvement in how someone lives their life, but unfortunately here we are dealing with the mistakes of the past.
If you believe that Charlie, fine, I don't.
Your assertion about GOP exposure, believe that too if you will that is fine, I don't
I totally disagree with you on tyhe President's take, it was too orchestrated, Sunday Joe Biden goes on meet the press and makes a statement supposedly contrary to the President's stated view.
Monday Arne Duncan makes similar statem,ent and White house says presidents view evolving
Wednesday President comes out with new position, which BTW he changfed several times since 1998, when he lost an election bid in 1998 and was for gay marraige, he came back in next race for Illiinois State senate against Gay marraige 2 years later.
This weeks and last weeks economic numbers HORRIBLE, gay rights issue. Soon a pattern developes you know.
You don't think it is a distraction? Well then why are we discussing this instead of dissmal economic numbers? Further, he said it is matter of each individual state himself, so why bring this up at all if not to distract?
This ios not going to be an issue at all in November,
And BTW , my gay friends, One is a Retired Marine Msgt that works for a GOP Senator.... the anti gay sediment you guys keep throwing around is only a product of www.talkingpointsmemo.com, not a reality at all.
You might say that Dave, or you might say that the Pursuit of Liberty and Happiness does not mean the right to Liberty and happiness, it is all in your take.
Anyone can live with whoever want, I am all for that. I am not even against Gay marraige legally speaking at all.
My observation was that this issue strikes emotion from all directions, emotion strikes debate from all directions, the economy is still slipping backwards again and no one is discussing it today.
Ironically as I type this Air Force 1 just took off taking the President to a fundraiser thrown by a gay activist. funny how things work out
Mark; My take is this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
I don't twist the words around or try to read anything into it. Pretty plain and simple even for a big dumb country boy like me.
Anyway, I disagree with the good Doctor on a very few points (I know gasp) this is one of them. States don't have the right to decide this, The Constitution of the United States already did (see above) so people can decide for themselves who to marry and it's nobody else's business. Legal unions can be entered into by anyone for any reason and all should be treated the same. I think You and I are on the same page at the end of the day. I believe there should continue to be laws governing the marriage of children, but other than that...................
And yeah, surprise, surprise, surprise. Obama is going to a fund raiser by a gay activist the day after his belief evolves. I highly detest what this political process of ours has become.
Dave, We aren't very far away from each other.
My take comes from the 10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Howard, did you take away the edit button?
I need to edit my comment # 23 . I referred to the "Unalienable rights" passage of the Declaration of Independence as being part of the Constitution. It is not. I should have referred to the 9th amendment which protects individual rights not specifically enumerated, or something like that. Anyway...........
Edit should still be available to you.
Sexuality is a choice? Wow, all of those gay teen suicides that come about because of bullying are because they made a choice to be gay. Keep it classy.
Enhance your calm Daniel Jones
The issue that I make is only that the legality of gay marraige should be decided by each individual state, and that this being in the news is merely a diversion from more pressing issues, no more no less.
I am calm, Mark, it's a sad, overused tactic that a disagreement on any issue (but especially this one) is indicative that the other person is flying off the handle. You yourself said that sexuality is a choice, the debate about marriage equality aside, I'd like to know how you know that is true?
Daniel I don't, and I hardly flew off the handle. I based my belief on many, and I mean many conversations with gay friends who I surprisingly also found divided on whether it was choice or birth,
And if you re-read all my post on this thread I repeatedly said I don't care about one's sexual orientation one way or the other. Frankly I choose my friends based on character.
But again, that is not the issue that I am debating, nor the basis of my argument.
(Enhance your calm was not meant as an insult or accusation eithert, it is a movie line simply forwarded for leveity.
The Movie "The Demolition Man"
Sandra Bulloch said to Sly Stallone when his charactor questioned a law,
"Enhance your calm John Spartan..............All physical contact between humans was deemed dangerous therefore all sex has become illegal"
Lorie makes an excellent point in this "Back in the 60's many states had laws prohibiting mixed races from marrying. Thankfully, we are a country that progresses and evolves when we have it wrong." Which is precisely what makes Obama's "historic evolution" (we used to call it flip flopping) such an insult to the gay community. If during that same period where mixed race marriages were illegal, a politician said that though he personally supported inter-racial marriage but thought it best left up to the states to decide, that person would and should be excoriated for such a hypocritical and political stance. If two American citizens are married, then they should be legally married in all 50 states. If Obama were true to his convictions (and not in an election year) he would have stated unequivocally that he believed that same sex couples should be able to marry and that he would see to it that it became the law of the land so that no two gay American citizens would be accepted in one state and devalued in another. That was the essence of the mixed race marriage battle. There is no difference, he showed zero leadership, he hid behind the "states rights" stance, he led from behind after President Biden set him up, and summarily threw those he claims to support into the wind. So in Obamas case, where is the progress? Where is the evolution? Where is the stand on principles? As far as I'm concerned he continues to patronize the gay community and treat them as political tools. They should be incensed, this is nothing more than his political "Don't ask, Don't tell"
Jeff - Yawn. Nice attempt at a straw-man with the 'evolution was based in political calculation' (when in reality it probably does him more harm than good on the surface) and the 'VP made him do it' argument, which simply isn't true, just another conspiracy like the birther movement. His convictions were the same, but his views on one particular matter evolved and changed into what he supports today. Quite frankly, this is a big risk and shows tremendous character heading into an election year. The notion that marriage laws should be decided at the state level is not an argument that your candidate, Rick Santorum, agreed with.
It is nice to be young and idealistic Daniel, enjoy it while it last. You said in the past that you wanted to work in politics if I remember,
If so, perhaps you should break th eyawn, dry your eys and read the Tea Leaves
Oh and Daniel, 2 minutes ago it was announced - $1 miilion raised from Gay Rights groups in 90 minutes immediately following the Presidents statement on ABC, risk NOT, calculation you decide
Mark - I do work in politics, and given the popularity of marriage equality in swing states (like North Carolina where it went down big) the fact that he took this stand makes it laudable. I do just fine, the tea leaves are pretty wide open with Obama leading Romney by 7 in Ohio, and 10 in Iowa, including having a 25 point lead among moderate voters in Ohio. The Republicans have spent the last few years chasing moderates away from their party, and I'm the idealist? Wow. That's a skewed definition.
In this election, the realists are the people who don't want to keep using a strategy that caused the recession. On gay rights, the marriage equality issue aside, those who believe that sexuality is a choice and use the bible as justification for it are void of knowledge about human nature, or the bible for that matter.
National tracking polls are worthless, anyone who is worth their salt in politics will tell you that. What matters is state by state polls. All of the aggregates of recent polls have Obama leading in Ohio, Pennslyvania and Virginia. Rassmussen also has a shaky reputation, the best pollsters I've found are PPP (D), Opinion Dynamics (R) and then Siena and Quinnipiac, which are objective. Perhaps you ought to look at the map.
I don't read the DNC talking points, believe it or not I just watch the news and form my own opinions, I don't need help from talking heads on either side of the aisle. They're good for factual analysis of current political events, but I don't need them to form my ideology.
Oh, and then there's this hilarious notion that Democrats are idealists from the people who nearly worship at the altar of Saint Reagan and continue the same policies that cause stock market crashes and recessions. Even Reagan would probably find the current crop of the GOP to be inert at best, and extreme at worst.
It is on some comments, but not others
Daniel, I can see you skimmed my post and made pre-drawn conclusions based on me and not the content of what I wrote. There is no straw man, he showed absolutely no principle, no character, no leadership. He hid behind the oft used political cover of "states rights". I reject both Republicans and Democrats who hide behind states rights on this and other politically touchy issues. If two American citizens are married, then they are married in all 50 states, period. Anything less is marginalization. That is why marriage should not be a states issue. Obama failed the gay community by not going the full in principled step of supporting federalization of marriage equality. Although I would disagree, I would at least respect the true show of principle. Believe what you believe and fight for it. Don't hide behind political hijinks and claim to support a group of people while at the same time marginalizing them. What Barack Obama said yesterday was exactly, EXACTLY what Dick Cheney said in 2009 on the issue and I don't recall him being hailed for his historic principled leadership.
Ok I am not going to get hooked up in another 140 post thread.
1) 270 to win is a DNC sponsored site
2) I am well aware of state to state over national polls, follow some of Rassmussen links to follow trends
3) There is a 10% undecided vote in the key elector states, only once in the past 32 years has any president won more than 10% of the undecided vote, That was GW in 2004 and pretty much because of serious gaffs Kerry made in the final weeks of the election and some in the debates. Undecideds typically are not happy with the incumbant. So if undecideds break 6-4 for Romney, Romney wins election by 2 points in Fla, Va, and Ohio game over.
4)And this is the big one, it is going to ultimately be about the economy, which is exactly why the administration is diverting. The stars do not favor the president in the next 90 days for a multitude of reasons, and that 90 days fals smack in the middle of a crucial time for voters making up thier minds.
Now, this is something I am sure that we will debating often over the coming months. as for this thread. I have been pretty consistant on my stance.
This was a clearly and unequivably a two prong strategy, one to gin up support from those opposed to DOMA, and two to try and change the make up of the debate. Anyone who really understands politics can see that. Whether it works in the long term,. we will see
Normally I'm big on states rights, Jeff, but you make a very good point. And it's not even close to being a straw man under the proper definition of the term.
Jeff while I do not agree with you on states rights persee, I do believe that a state should honor a marital contract or civil union entered into in another state.
I totally agree with you that Obama is pandering
And I should have remembered the Chaney quote, you are absolutely correct it is almost verbatim
Ok Mark first I have to burst your bubble, but you said....""I didn't exactly say it that way Tim, a marraige perfomed by the clergy DOES infact equal a civil Union BTW. But on basic premis we agree""
Marriage is not equal to a Civil union at least it wasnt legally til 2000. Before you make your argument read up on the history of civil unions. Here is a little help...
A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Many people are critical of civil unions because they say they represent separate status unequal to marriage ("marriage apartheid"). Civil Unions are often viewed by same-sex marriage supporters as "separate but equal." Some opponents of same-sex marriage are critical because they say civil unions allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.
In the United States, civil unions first became available in Vermont on 1 July 2000. Connecticut legalized civil unions in 2005 and in 2007, New Jersey and New Hampshire followed suit. In December 2010, Illinois passed a civil union law, which became effective on 1 June 2011. Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Delaware enacted civil union laws in 2011, which have all gone into effect.
In addition, domestic partnerships in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and the District of Columbia are effectively civil unions in that they convey all (or nearly all) of the legal rights, benefits, obligations, honors, and privileges of marriage. Domestic partnerships from these jurisdictions are fully honored in states with civil unions and vice versa.
Well I am not perfect Kyle but I do appreciate you going to wikepedia to show me the errors of my ways.
I should have said civil marraige to be exactly correct, but that in no way changes the premise or my argument.
And again, remember, I simply do not care whether they exist or not, my arguement has been solely, steadfastly that this is just a diversion from matters that will truly have an effect on the election. Just political theater. My retort to to Tim was because he made that column about a "Funny Little Collar"
FOR THE FIFTH TIME TO EVERYONE. I AM NOT ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST GAY MARRAIGE.... MY ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS WAS A CALCULATED MOVE BY THE ADMINISTRATION TO CHANGE THE DEBATE AND TO RAISE MONEY!!!!!
Howard, I too am a big states rights advocate, but this is not an issue that fits. How is being 3/5 of a person any more or less offensive than being legally married in only 3/5 of your country of citizenship?
Now as to the question of Marriage being a right, well in the eyes of law, currently it is considered a civil right. Here is a couple of things from the internet which support it...
Many argue that marriage is essentially and necessarily a religious rite — they conceive of marriage in almost exclusively religious terms. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage constitutes a type of sacrilege and an unjustified intrusion of the state into what is necessarily a religious matter. Because of religion's traditional role in sanctifying marriages and presiding over wedding ceremonies this is understandable, but it's also incorrect.
The nature of marriage has varied greatly from one era to the next and from one society to the next. In fact, the nature of marriage has varied so much that it is difficult to come up with any one definition of marriage which adequately covers every permutation of the institution in every society which has thus far been studied. This variety alone ensures the falsehood of the claim that marriage is necessarily religious, but even if we focus exclusively on the West — or even exclusively on America — we still find that religion has not been regarded as a necessary component.
Although the details of marital practice varied widely among Revolutionary-era Americans, there was a broadly shared understanding of the essentials of the institution. The most important was the unity of husband and wife. The "sublime and refined...principle of union" joining the two was the "most important consequence of marriage," according to James Wilson, a preeminent statesman and legal philosopher.
The consent of both was also essential. "The agreement of both parties, the essence of every rational contract, is indispensably required," Wilson said in lectures delivered in 1792. He saw mutual consent as the hallmark of marriage — more basic than cohabitation.
Everyone spoke of the marriage contract. Yet as a contract it was unique, for the parties did not set their own terms. The man and woman consented to marry, but public authorities set the terms of the marriage, so that it brought predictable rewards and duties. Once the union was formed, its obligations were fixed in common law. Husband and wife each assumed a new legal status as well as a new status in their community. That means neither could break the terms set without offending the larger community, the law, and the state, as much as offending the partner.
[M]arriage is not merely a contract between two people. It is a contract between two people and their community. When two people approach the altar or the bench to marry, they approach not only the presiding official but all of society. They enter into a compact not just with each other but with the world, and that compact says: "We, the two of us, pledge to make a home together, care for one another, and, perhaps, raise children together.
In exchange for the caregiving commitment we are making, you, our community, will recognize us not only as individuals but as a bonded pair, a family, granting us a special autonomy and a special status which only marriage conveys. We, the couple, will support one another. You, society, will support us. You expect us to be there for each other and will help us meet those expectations. We will do our best, until death do us part.
Marriage in America is indeed a contract — a contract that comes with more obligations than rights. Marriage is a civil right that is not now and has never been dependent upon any one religion or even religion in general for its justification, existence, or perpetuation. Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant.
That seems pretty clear to me. Now as I said before marriage is something that everyone has had a right to since before recorded history, but today one can be atheist and still get married regardless of race, or religion. Now there is sexual preference to be considered. Does it seem very fair or American to deny it? I dont think so. Thats the way I feel and as I have stated before, state or federal govt are very disingenuous in taking away the ten commandments, and trying to separate themselves from religion to the point of making Merry Christmas politically incorrect to say. But then hide behind religious doctrine or dogma when it comes to marriage, you can't have it both ways.
Well Kyle, all of your dedicated research aside, and I mean that seriously because you really did do a very indepth bit of research,it changes not my essential argument. That the fact that we are discussing this right now, is because the President in a bid for re-election needed to appease his anti DOMA supporters and at the same time change the political debate to take attention of what is looking to be a very turbulent economic quarter. but let's be clear here, this is not really a DEM/GOP issue either.
As far as the gay activist Obama is courting are concerned, This is all about the repeal of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
The origins of DOMA however are quite bipartisan
In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."He also wrote that "raising this issue is divisive and unnecessary."
The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress, passing by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House. Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent), and Democratic Representatives voted for it 188 to 65, with 15 not participating. All Republicans in both houses voted for the bill with the sole exception of the one gay Republican, Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin.
Unlike Obamacare it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support not a mere 7 votes in the house and 3 in the Senate
On the day it passed the House, a White House spokesman called the legislation "gay baiting". Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996. The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation".
The president is giving us a real choice. Support those who would turn a blind eye to the rights of others or not.
There is no need for Mark or Jeff to agree. History will catch up and anyone who suggests we are not all equals is on the wrong side of it.