You're friends don't speak for all gay people. Most would not be ok with the proposal you keep suggesting. Because its NOT EQUAL!
Of course not :fp: although they are apart of a large extended group who do believe this.
But very true I can only speak from my experience, my opinion and what I know that those I love
would want.
If one removes marriage as part of a law and grants equal civil union rights for everyone
under the eyes of the government and legal laws with all the same rights, then it is equal.
Then as in the other thread it was mentioned ...
marriage is handled by the churches.
For my friends, marriage is in their hearts they have no other need but equal rights.
For some couples who have spent a lifelong commitment,
have had a ceremony, celebrated 30 anniversaries, all family and friends, coworkers, neighbors
revel in their marriage, the aspect that matters the most to them is the same civil rights.
You're friends don't speak for all gay people. Most would not be ok with the proposal you keep suggesting. Because its NOT EQUAL!
Of course not :fp: although they are apart of a large extended group who do believe this.
But very true I can only speak from my experience, my opinion and what I know that those I love
would want.
If one removes marriage as part of a law and grants equal civil union rights for everyone
under the eyes of the government and legal laws with all the same rights, then it is equal.
Then as in the other thread it was mentioned ...
marriage is handled by the churches.
For my friends, marriage is in their hearts they have no other need but equal rights.
For some couples who have spent a lifelong commitment,
have had a ceremony, celebrated 30 anniversaries, all family and friends, coworkers, neighbors
revel in their marriage, the aspect that matters the most to them is the same civil rights.
Churches have nothing to do with marriages. I just explained this.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
as someone mentioned in the other thread make all civil unions
and let the churches handle the marriages
The rights are equal, as my friends have said they want now,
they could care less they are already married in every way!
"Civil unions" for gays and "church marriages" for straights? This is segregation. You're not gonna get this one to fly, Pandora. My gay and lesbian friends who are couples are not allowed to be "married in every way". Your ideas would not settle well with them at all. You're either for gay marriage or you not... unless you're for gay marriage except when you're not (if you get my meaning).
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,379
I wonder, these folks who vote for these types of hateful legislation, in particular "defense of marriage" ( from what it needs defending I dont know) that are so up in arms about the sanctity of marriage , have honored this sacred pact by not cheating on, beating on, or other wise abusing their partners in some form or fashion.
Are they afraid they will been shown to be the hypocites that some of them surely are in this area?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
You're friends don't speak for all gay people. Most would not be ok with the proposal you keep suggesting. Because its NOT EQUAL!
Indeed. I know my gay friends wouldn't be.
Mine wouldn't either if gay marriage were not being fought but realistic they are!
They want rights now not decades from now, something that is feasible.
It does makes sense to me to make all unions civil as another poster mentioned, make them
equal in the eyes of the law, and let marriage remain with those who want to marry in their church.
You're friends don't speak for all gay people. Most would not be ok with the proposal you keep suggesting. Because its NOT EQUAL!
Indeed. I know my gay friends wouldn't be.
Mine wouldn't either if gay marriage were not being fought but realistic they are!
They want rights now not decades from now, something that is feasible.
It does makes sense to me to make all unions civil as another poster mentioned, make them
equal in the eyes of the law, and let marriage remain with those who want to marry in their church.
My friends want to have the right to be married, including all the legal bindings marriage entails. They do not want the right to have a 'civil union'. But I think CometoTx said it well:
Churches don't legally marry anyone. It's symbolic. You're not recognized as married until you file your marriage license with the state. I've been married for 6 years. Wasn't married anywhere near a church and god was never mentioned.
And if a homosexual couple is religious and would like to get married in a church, they should be able to do so.
as someone mentioned in the other thread make all civil unions
and let the churches handle the marriages
The rights are equal, as my friends have said they want now,
they could care less they are already married in every way!
"Civil unions" for gays and "church marriages" for straights? This is segregation. You're not gonna get this one to fly, Pandora. My gay and lesbian friends who are couples are not allowed to be "married in every way". Your ideas would not settle well with them at all. You're either for gay marriage or you not... unless you're for gay marriage except when you're not (if you get my meaning).
My friends were married in a church many are but it is not recognized by law.
Get the law out of church.
:fp: Do you read my posts :?
at length I have repeatedly said I am pro gay marriage.
Because of my friends I would like to see equal civil unions now
all unions civil and equal all can marry in church
is what we were discussing in the other thread
My friends were married in a church many are but it is not recognized by law.
Get the law out of church.
:fp: Do you read my posts :?
at length I have repeatedly said I am pro gay marriage.
Because of my friends I would like to see equal civil unions now
all unions civil and equal all can marry in church
is what we were discussing in the other thread
If your friends were 'married' in a church but it is not recognized by law, then they are not legally married. I would think that they would prefer to have the right to be legally recognized as being married; mine would. If you are 'pro gay marriage' then you should argue for that, not 'equal civil unions'.
My friends were married in a church many are but it is not recognized by law.
Get the law out of church.
:fp: Do you read my posts :?
at length I have repeatedly said I am pro gay marriage.
Because of my friends I would like to see equal civil unions now
all unions civil and equal all can marry in church
is what we were discussing in the other thread
If your friends were 'married' in a church but it is not recognized by law, then they are not legally married. I would think that they would prefer to have the right to be legally recognized as being married; mine would. If you are 'pro gay marriage' then you should argue for that, not 'equal civil unions'.
We can't wait around 2 decades we all will be dead!
We want change now and your state just passed a law to not even allow civil unions
that is some scary shit there.
"EmBleve"]Pandora,
My friends want to have the right to be married, including all the legal bindings marriage entails. They do not want the right to have a 'civil union'.
And if a homosexual couple is religious and would like to get married in a church, they should be able to do so.
And so they shall perhaps in decades as the NC law has set in place for your state. Or an amendment could be passed to make every union a civil union as the other poster
mentioned and all would have the same rights. And all can marry in churches as they do now.
It would unify everyone.
We can't wait around 2 decades we all will be dead!
We want change now and your state just passed a law to not even allow civil unions
that is some scary shit there.
No joke. Of course I voted against it, and people are in an uproar about it.
"EmBleve"]Pandora,
My friends want to have the right to be married, including all the legal bindings marriage entails. They do not want the right to have a 'civil union'.
And if a homosexual couple is religious and would like to get married in a church, they should be able to do so.
And so they shall perhaps in decades as the NC law has set in place for your state. Or an amendment could be passed to make every union a civil union as the other poster
mentioned and all would have the same rights. And all can marry in churches as they do now.
It would unify everyone.
I have already signed petitions to repeal the law, so I am doing my part. (and it's not 'my' state, I just live here. ). But as others have pointed out, the problem I have is with this 'civil union'. The term 'marriage' is not going away. It's semantics. Is marriage not a legalized civil union? They're one and the same. So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's a marriage. And I think it should be called that across the board for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
I have already signed petitions to repeal the law, so I am doing my part. (and it's not 'my' state, I just live here. ). But as others have pointed out, the problem I have is with this 'civil union'. The term 'marriage' is not going away. It's semantics. Is marriage not a legalized civil union? They're one and the same. So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's a marriage. And I think it should be called that across the board for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
I feel the same about Georgia, Wisconsin remains my home but Georgia has been good to us.
The word marriage would go away for everyone in the eyes of the law. All would be leagl for all unions straight or gay in the eyes of the law. Everyone would have a civil union.
Each church would then define its own description of marriage not the law because all
unions would be the same, legal with the same rights. The term marriage would not exist
only civil union regardless of sex as far as the law goes.
Or we can fight for decades to change the definition of marriage
one that will please everyone and that will be a long hard battle.
As I said we and many other of our generation from the gay unions
of the 60's and 70's don't have that luxury of time and would like to see the states
unified instead of a battle in each with basically the exact same outcome.
The duck thing...
and we want equal rights now as far as the law goes.
I have already signed petitions to repeal the law, so I am doing my part. (and it's not 'my' state, I just live here. ). But as others have pointed out, the problem I have is with this 'civil union'. The term 'marriage' is not going away. It's semantics. Is marriage not a legalized civil union? They're one and the same. So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's a marriage. And I think it should be called that across the board for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
I feel the same about Georgia, Wisconsin remains my home but Georgia has been good to us.
The word marriage would go away for everyone in the eyes of the law. All would be leagl for all unions straight or gay in the eyes of the law. Everyone would have a civil union.
Each church would then define its own description of marriage not the law because all
unions would be the same, legal with the same rights. The term marriage would not exist
only civil union regardless of sex as far as the law goes.
Or we can fight for decades to change the definition of marriage
one that will please everyone and that will be a long hard battle.
As I said we and many other of our generation from the gay unions
of the 60's and 70's don't have that luxury of time and would like to see the states
unified instead of a battle in each with basically the exact same outcome.
The duck thing...
and we want equal rights now as far as the law goes.
This makes no sense to me. So, only those who are married in a church can say they are 'married'? And it would be up to an individual church or doctrine for a couple to say they were 'married'? All others would have to say 'we got civil unioned'?? That's ludicrous.
But as others have pointed out, the problem I have is with this 'civil union'. The term 'marriage' is not going away. It's semantics. Is marriage not a legalized civil union? They're one and the same. So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's amarriage. And I think it should be called that across the board for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
The thing is, those 'marriage preservers' (or whatever they call themselves) who are voting against same sex marriage in order to 'preserve the tradition of marriage between one man and one woman' are not voting against the term 'marriage', they are voting against ANY same sex union. That's what bothers them. Does one honestly think that if one gets rid of the term 'marriage' and called all unions, whether between man & woman or same sex people, some other name those 'marriage preservers' will agree with this and vote for it? That defeats their purpose which is to keep legal unions (however they may be called) between MAN & WOMAN. That is their goal. Nothing less. They will not want 'their' union dumped in the same bin as same sex unions.
And when it comes to the church - maybe it should look closer at their 'traditions' as Pepe noted in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=189048
Maybe, if one DOES look and understand what is the REAL meaning, history and tradition of marriages, one would better understand what it's all about.
There is no reason to 'fight' to change the definition of marriage. Just change people's intolerance to those who do not have the same sexual orientation. One did not change the definition of 'vote' so women would be able to vote, did they?
as someone mentioned in the other thread make all civil unions
and let the churches handle the marriages
The rights are equal, as my friends have said they want now,
they could care less they are already married in every way!
"Civil unions" for gays and "church marriages" for straights? This is segregation. You're not gonna get this one to fly, Pandora. My gay and lesbian friends who are couples are not allowed to be "married in every way". Your ideas would not settle well with them at all. You're either for gay marriage or you not... unless you're for gay marriage except when you're not (if you get my meaning).
My friends were married in a church many are but it is not recognized by law. Get the law out of church.
:fp: Do you read my posts :?
at length I have repeatedly said I am pro gay marriage.
Because of my friends I would like to see equal civil unions now
all unions civil and equal all can marry in church
is what we were discussing in the other thread
did you honestly just say "get the law out of church"?? :? :?
how about we get church out of our laws and then we would not be having this discussion. or any discussion as it relates to bigotry and/or granting and witholding civil rights.
the CHURCH has waaay to much influence in this supposedly secular society...
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Below is a remarkable document. It's a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster, (he polled for George W. Bush in 2004), to various leading Republican operatives, candidates and insiders. It's on the fast-shifting poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and how that should affect Republican policy and language. And the pollster's conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.
Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they're not going to damage their brand for an entire generation:
here is the memo...
In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:
1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).
2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.
3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:
a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).
Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:
“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits."
Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:
“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”
Why public attitudes might be changing:
“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”
Conservative fundamentals:
“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.
The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It's advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney's formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that "freedom means freedom for everyone." And it uses David Cameron's argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.
And the walls came tumbling down.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
But as others have pointed out, the problem I have is with this 'civil union'. The term 'marriage' is not going away. It's semantics. Is marriage not a legalized civil union? They're one and the same. So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's amarriage. And I think it should be called that across the board for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
The thing is, those 'marriage preservers' (or whatever they call themselves) who are voting against same sex marriage in order to 'preserve the tradition of marriage between one man and one woman' are not voting against the term 'marriage', they are voting against ANY same sex union. That's what bothers them. Does one honestly think that if one gets rid of the term 'marriage' and called all unions, whether between man & woman or same sex people, some other name those 'marriage preservers' will agree with this and vote for it? That defeats their purpose which is to keep legal unions (however they may be called) between MAN & WOMAN. That is their goal. Nothing less. They will not want 'their' union dumped in the same bin as same sex unions.
And when it comes to the church - maybe it should look closer at their 'traditions' as Pepe noted in another thread: http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=189048
Maybe, if one DOES look and understand what is the REAL meaning, history and tradition of marriages, one would better understand what it's all about.
There is no reason to 'fight' to change the definition of marriage. Just change people's intolerance to those who do not have the same sexual orientation. One did not change the definition of 'vote' so women would be able to vote, did they?
Yes, I realize this, absolutely and 100%. And I absolutely agree with your last paragraph.
I have already signed petitions to repeal the law, so I am doing my part. (and it's not 'my' state, I just live here. ). But as others have pointed out, the problem I have is with this 'civil union'. The term 'marriage' is not going away. It's semantics. Is marriage not a legalized civil union? They're one and the same. So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's a marriage. And I think it should be called that across the board for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
I feel the same about Georgia, Wisconsin remains my home but Georgia has been good to us.
The word marriage would go away for everyone in the eyes of the law. All would be leagl for all unions straight or gay in the eyes of the law. Everyone would have a civil union.
Each church would then define its own description of marriage not the law because all
unions would be the same, legal with the same rights. The term marriage would not exist
only civil union regardless of sex as far as the law goes.
Or we can fight for decades to change the definition of marriage
one that will please everyone and that will be a long hard battle.
As I said we and many other of our generation from the gay unions
of the 60's and 70's don't have that luxury of time and would like to see the states
unified instead of a battle in each with basically the exact same outcome.
The duck thing...
and we want equal rights now as far as the law goes.
This makes no sense to me. So, only those who are married in a church can say they are 'married'? And it would be up to an individual church or doctrine for a couple to say they were 'married'? All others would have to say 'we got civil unioned'?? That's ludicrous.
I have a feeling everyone will call themselves married... just as my gay friends do
and have for thirty years but difference is under the law everyone will have equal rights,
which they have not, everyone will have the right to marry
in a church and the union is legal before they do so.
Shouldn't be a problem if we are all equal under the law all joined in civil matrimony
civil unions right?
You people who are in favor of same sex marriage??
You are going to have to try a little harder to convince me.....
hehehehehehehehehehehehe
if I had a body like those guys do, I'd be dancing in the streets in my underwear too.
seriously, though, speedy, it's not about how people portray themselves in public when having fun and showing support for one another. it's about tolerance and acceptance of all humans as equals.
there shouldn't be any convincing necessary.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The thing is, those 'marriage preservers' (or whatever they call themselves) who are voting against same sex marriage in order to 'preserve the tradition of marriage between one man and one woman' are not voting against the term 'marriage', they are voting against ANY same sex union. That's what bothers them. Does one honestly think that if one gets rid of the term 'marriage' and called all unions, whether between man & woman or same sex people, some other name those 'marriage preservers' will agree with this and vote for it? That defeats their purpose which is to keep legal unions (however they may be called) between MAN & WOMAN. That is their goal. Nothing less. They will not want 'their' union dumped in the same bin as same sex unions.
And when it comes to the church - maybe it should look closer at their 'traditions' as Pepe noted in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=189048
Maybe, if one DOES look and understand what is the REAL meaning, history and tradition of marriages, one would better understand what it's all about.
There is no reason to 'fight' to change the definition of marriage. Just change people's intolerance to those who do not have the same sexual orientation. One did not change the definition of 'vote' so women would be able to vote, did they?
Yes, I realize this, absolutely and 100%. And I absolutely agree with your last paragraph.
So, instead of thinking of wishy washy ways to appease some (which we know won't work), one needs to continue to 'work' for the legalisation of marriage between man/man, woman/woman, to be equal in all aspects with man/woman marriage. Just plain ol' 'marriage'.
As you said in another post anything else would be "ludicrous" (good word!).
So, instead of thinking of wishy washy ways to appease some (which we know won't work), one needs to continue to 'work' for the legalisation of marriage between man/man, woman/woman, to be equal in all aspects with man/woman marriage. Just plain ol' 'marriage'.
As you said in another post anything else would be "ludicrous" (good word!).
Thank you, and yes, exactly. What you said. Well stated.
Comments
But very true I can only speak from my experience, my opinion and what I know that those I love
would want.
If one removes marriage as part of a law and grants equal civil union rights for everyone
under the eyes of the government and legal laws with all the same rights, then it is equal.
Then as in the other thread it was mentioned ...
marriage is handled by the churches.
For my friends, marriage is in their hearts they have no other need but equal rights.
For some couples who have spent a lifelong commitment,
have had a ceremony, celebrated 30 anniversaries, all family and friends, coworkers, neighbors
revel in their marriage, the aspect that matters the most to them is the same civil rights.
Churches have nothing to do with marriages. I just explained this.
"Civil unions" for gays and "church marriages" for straights? This is segregation. You're not gonna get this one to fly, Pandora. My gay and lesbian friends who are couples are not allowed to be "married in every way". Your ideas would not settle well with them at all. You're either for gay marriage or you not... unless you're for gay marriage except when you're not (if you get my meaning).
Are they afraid they will been shown to be the hypocites that some of them surely are in this area?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
They want rights now not decades from now, something that is feasible.
It does makes sense to me to make all unions civil as another poster mentioned, make them
equal in the eyes of the law, and let marriage remain with those who want to marry in their church.
Get the law out of church.
:fp: Do you read my posts :?
at length I have repeatedly said I am pro gay marriage.
Because of my friends I would like to see equal civil unions now
all unions civil and equal all can marry in church
is what we were discussing in the other thread
We want change now and your state just passed a law to not even allow civil unions
that is some scary shit there.
And so they shall perhaps in decades as the NC law has set in place for your state.
Or an amendment could be passed to make every union a civil union as the other poster
mentioned and all would have the same rights. And all can marry in churches as they do now.
It would unify everyone.
The word marriage would go away for everyone in the eyes of the law. All would be leagl for all unions straight or gay in the eyes of the law. Everyone would have a civil union.
Each church would then define its own description of marriage not the law because all
unions would be the same, legal with the same rights. The term marriage would not exist
only civil union regardless of sex as far as the law goes.
Or we can fight for decades to change the definition of marriage
one that will please everyone and that will be a long hard battle.
As I said we and many other of our generation from the gay unions
of the 60's and 70's don't have that luxury of time and would like to see the states
unified instead of a battle in each with basically the exact same outcome.
The duck thing...
and we want equal rights now as far as the law goes.
The thing is, those 'marriage preservers' (or whatever they call themselves) who are voting against same sex marriage in order to 'preserve the tradition of marriage between one man and one woman' are not voting against the term 'marriage', they are voting against ANY same sex union. That's what bothers them. Does one honestly think that if one gets rid of the term 'marriage' and called all unions, whether between man & woman or same sex people, some other name those 'marriage preservers' will agree with this and vote for it? That defeats their purpose which is to keep legal unions (however they may be called) between MAN & WOMAN. That is their goal. Nothing less. They will not want 'their' union dumped in the same bin as same sex unions.
And when it comes to the church - maybe it should look closer at their 'traditions' as Pepe noted in another thread:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=189048
Maybe, if one DOES look and understand what is the REAL meaning, history and tradition of marriages, one would better understand what it's all about.
There is no reason to 'fight' to change the definition of marriage. Just change people's intolerance to those who do not have the same sexual orientation. One did not change the definition of 'vote' so women would be able to vote, did they?
how about we get church out of our laws and then we would not be having this discussion. or any discussion as it relates to bigotry and/or granting and witholding civil rights.
the CHURCH has waaay to much influence in this supposedly secular society...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Top GOP Pollster to GOP: Reverse On Gay Issues
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... ssues.html
Below is a remarkable document. It's a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster, (he polled for George W. Bush in 2004), to various leading Republican operatives, candidates and insiders. It's on the fast-shifting poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and how that should affect Republican policy and language. And the pollster's conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.
Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they're not going to damage their brand for an entire generation:
here is the memo...
In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:
1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).
2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.
3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:
a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).
Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:
“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits."
Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:
“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”
Why public attitudes might be changing:
“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”
Conservative fundamentals:
“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.
The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It's advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney's formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that "freedom means freedom for everyone." And it uses David Cameron's argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.
And the walls came tumbling down.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and have for thirty years but difference is under the law everyone will have equal rights,
which they have not, everyone will have the right to marry
in a church and the union is legal before they do so.
Shouldn't be a problem if we are all equal under the law all joined in civil matrimony
civil unions right?
So I came to this thread, to hear from people who speak for same sex marriage rights....
But I was called an asshole and a bigot....
So then I figured maybe I will go to youtube, and check out the Gay Pride Parade, and see what those people have to say about Same Sex Marriage.....
But then I got this.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_SpZ7R ... CF33885C1C
You people who are in favor of same sex marriage??
You are going to have to try a little harder to convince me.....
hehehehehehehehehehehehe
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
this is me
:wtf:
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
chad, you're not the one who is confused
It's the week-end Chad.. your brain is having a bit of a rest....
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
if I had a body like those guys do, I'd be dancing in the streets in my underwear too.
seriously, though, speedy, it's not about how people portray themselves in public when having fun and showing support for one another. it's about tolerance and acceptance of all humans as equals.
there shouldn't be any convincing necessary.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I have no questions....
I am against same sex marriage....
Convince me to change my mind on the subject......
And do it without calling me an asshole or a bigot......
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
So, instead of thinking of wishy washy ways to appease some (which we know won't work), one needs to continue to 'work' for the legalisation of marriage between man/man, woman/woman, to be equal in all aspects with man/woman marriage. Just plain ol' 'marriage'.
As you said in another post anything else would be "ludicrous" (good word!).