GOP: Gay Marriage Our Nation's Greatest Threat

[lemaurolia]

Posted: 11/1/08 at 9:23pm

According to the GOP, we have a crisis in this country. No it's not economic. It's not a terrorist threat. It's about family values. That is, who will defend this nation against the gay marriage:

http://www.airfarceone.net/frontvsback.html





Updated On: 11/14/08 at 09:23 PM

[KathyGriffinLovesYou]

Posted: 11/1/08 at 9:50pm

"DEFEND this nation against the gay marriage".

Dandy.
Updated On: 11/1/08 at 09:50 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/1/08 at 10:14pm

Ain't no democrats standing up for gay marriage. Civil unions and hospital visitation rights, sure, but few are brave enough to suggest gays actually should have the right marry.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 11/1/08 at 10:18pm

Joe Biden actually said in his debate he was against it.

[KathyGriffinLovesYou]

Posted: 11/1/08 at 10:19pm

Jesus Christ Superstar what is happening in the world?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/1/08 at 10:21pm

It's just showing its true colors, as it is wont to do.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 11/1/08 at 10:58pm

Updated On: 1/10/09 at 10:58 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 8:48am

Joe Biden sat with Ellen on her TV show and said, "I'm not going to take away your marriage."

If he's against gay marriage (which I've heard him say before), then what exactly did he mean by saying that directly to Ellen?


And here's the sad truth. And it is SAD ...

If either side were to "come out" and say they were for gay marriage in these last few months, they would lose the election.

Period.

Not worth the risk.

I say let's win the election first, with the candidates most likely to "change their minds," and then work on changing them over the next four years.

One battle at a time.

[Li'l_Devil]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 10:25am

well put best12bars, you're abso-f*ckin-lutely right!

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 12:24pm

I think that way the California Supreme Court wrote its decision made it very difficult for any reasonable people to be for Proposition 8. My mom was initially for 8 because she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But, after she read the reasoning behind the SC decision, and I explained what really was going on, she changed her vote to a No. She still thinks that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but she does not think we should allow the state constitution to be amended to allow for discrimination.

Building discrimination into the state's constitution runs counter to what many believe to be right and appropriate.

When 8 loses, which it will, it will, in part, be due to the language of the California Supreme Court Decision - when those in the middle really think about it, taking away someone's rights is far different than protecting your own personal view of marriage.

The Samuel Jackson narrated ad was very effective at stating this point, as was the way that Jerry Brown put it on the ballot.
Updated On: 11/2/08 at 12:24 PM

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 1:00pm

Bah. I'm a Republican, but I am pretty disappointed with my party's view on gay marriage. When are we going to learn that America being free for all people means just that?

[Jilani]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 2:58pm

Ain't no democrats standing up for gay marriage. Civil unions and hospital visitation rights, sure, but few are brave enough to suggest gays actually should have the right marry.

Give credit where credit is due - Senator Dianne Feinstein recorded a TV ad against prop 8 in California, and Obama is also on the record opposing it, calling it "divisive and discriminatory." Obviously, it hasn't been a focus of his presidential campaign, and it would be great if he would record and ad against it, but I understand why that hasn't happened. And I second best12bars' post - one battle at a time!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 3:00pm

Bah. I'm a Republican, but I am pretty disappointed with my party's view on gay marriage. When are we going to learn that America being free for all people means just that?

When you and others like you give up clinging to your Republicanism.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 3:16pm

New YouTube video about Prop 8.

It goes after the Mormon Church for funding the effort...
No on 8

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 4:29pm

I know I tend to go against the grain in my thoughts on this, so I just want to preface it by saying that I don't discount anything anyone else is saying. My perspective is clouded by a lot of things, from personal feelings to simple geography. That said...

One battle at a time is fine when you're talking about the election, but when people keep throwing around "gay marriage" it's clear we're all talking about different things. To me, marriage is marriage. Plain and simple. We are talking about a legal status that should have no relevance to a ceremomy done is one's chosen place of worship. If the real is issue is that it's simply semantics, then reclassify all civil marriages as civil unions and let them all be subject to the same rights and restrictions that a heterosexual marriage is.

The continual willingness put to this off as a state issue ignores the facts that full marriage equality will never occur when it's treated as a state by state thing. Great, California marriages will be recognized in New York, but you can't get married there. If a married Californian moves to a state that doesn't recognize it, their marriage is invalidated. Not to mention the fact that it's not federally recognized, doesn't hold provisions for people who want to marry someone from another country, etc.

Jilani, your points are taken, but again, those are state specific, and yeah, it's nice to think about how what's good for California is good for all of us, but is it? Obama may call it divisive and discriminatory, but he's still not pro gay marriage.

Look at all the states that have never granted gay marriage, but have already banned gay marriage or are in the process of attempting to ban it. Where's the focus on those states?

One state a time doesn't cut it for me. Look at how well that works for abortion.

And best, I get your points that it's not worth the risk, but it's never going to be worth the risk. I'd love to be proven wrong there, but I doubt I'll see in my lifetime gay marriage that is the equivalent of heterosexual marriage, which, as I've said above, is simply that a gay marriage is subject to all the rights and restrictions that a heterosexual marriage is.

Continuing to allow people to get away with saying "marriage should be between a man and a woman" is still just a convenient way to use "morals" to make sure there never will be marriage equality for all.

I am personally thrilled for those of you who live in places where you can marry whatever partner you so desire. My roommate from college who lives in San Francisco just married his long time boyfriend and I couldn't be happier for them, except when I consider how worthless that marriage of theirs is should they ever move to almost any other state in the union.

If you believe gay people and their spouses have the right to the same tax breaks, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, etc, then it's time to stop letting people cling to their religious notions of "marriage." Until then, we're still just saying that separate but equal is okay (and the "equal" in that phrase doesn't even mean what equal really means).

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 4:32pm

"I say let's win the election first, with the candidates most likely to "change their minds," and then work on changing them over the next four years.

One battle at a time."

Didn't we do that with Clinton and we ended up with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"


Get some balls people.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 4:39pm

Updated On: 1/10/09 at 04:39 PM

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 5:16pm

PJ-

My choice of the Republican Party didn't have to do with whether or not they supported gay rights. I do support them, but that doesn't mean I should switch to being a Democrat. There were other factors in my choosing a party. That being said, even many Democrats don't support gay rights.

But I don't really want to get into a whole thing of political party bickering on here again.

[Jilani]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 6:36pm

PRS - of course, I completely agree with the substance of what you're saying, but the fact is that marriage is and always has been mainly a state issue - that's why, for example, some states banned interracial marriage, and others didn't, and the right thing had to happen on a state by state basis for a time before change could be enacted at the federal level. I'm not suggesting the pace of change should be as slow as it was on the interracial marriage issue, but I don't think it will be. I am lucky enough to live in Massachusetts, where we've had marriage equality now for four years, and the majority of the state's residents now don't even give it a second thought. Four years really isn't very long, when you think about how long other civil rights struggles have taken.

If the right side prevails in California, that will be a huge number of residents who will have marriage equality, and if you combine that with the number of people who live in New York and who can hop over to Connecticut and get married, and have their marriages recognized in New York, that's when you start approaching a significant, critical mass of people who live with marriage equality and see that it doesn't cause the sky to fall. Once that happens, that's when you can start thinking about amending federal law, perhaps first to define marriage as being whatever it is defined in the state in which a couple lives.

Unfortunately, legal and social change take time, which I understand can be frustrating. But I'm not sure what realistic alternative you think should be pursued. So far, it seems to me that the combined recent legal and political strategies that have been followed have resulted in significant gains in a relatively short period of time, with more on the horizon (especially if prop 8 fails).

[Elphaba]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 7:51pm

Today was our Gay Pride Parade/Festival in Palm Springs.....it truly was fun, I'll be posting pictures....but standing maybe 10 feet from me was this little old lady, holding up a wooden cross she made so all could see with a 'Yes on 8' sticker attached to it (yes is against gay marriage)

Rather than give the Beotch any attention we all ignored her. Now I wonder.....if I went to her church and sat in her congregation holding up a 'No on 8" poster what they would do....

ridiculous that this creep felt the need to go out of her way to attempt to piss people off.....amazing.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 8:09pm

More thoughts.

Nice post, Phyllis, but this thread IS about this election! Which is what my comment was about.

And in this election, you have a nice choice between the Republican Party who is NOT for gay marriage, and the Democratic Party... who is NOT for gay marriage.

There you have it, people!

It's not a "them" vs. "us" issue in this election.

Nobody on the two major tickets has come out in favor of gay marriage.

Nobody.

So... this isn't about "balls" (DIVA) or those mean, nasty Republicans (PJ)...

Unless you're telling me you're both pulling a "Mr. Roxy" and not voting for president at all this year. Is that how you have balls... "not vote" for either one? Or picking a third-party candidate who is so far under the radar that he/she would never even register a blip.

And just how smart would that be? How "ballsy?" Your vote would very likely put McCain and Palin in the White House.

That's not "balls," it's "stupidity."

I say let's put the guy in office that will most likely turn things around for us, instead of the guy that won't. That makes sense... when your choices are a non-supporting "rock" and a non-supporting "hard place."

But NEITHER candidate or party has said that they will support it.

Just a reminder.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/2/08 at 9:44pm

Jili, I really don't have a realistic alternative. That's why I started by saying I wasn't trying to piss on everyone's parade. I hope that my pessimism turns out to be baseless, and everyone on this thread should feel free to say "I told you so" should that happen.

I don't know much about miscegenation laws, so if anyone has any info on this question, it would be greatly appreciated. As those laws were overturned, were those marriages in states where interracial couples could marry recognized federally? I'd be very interested to know the answer if anyone has it.

Honestly, I'd really like to see a counter movement that holds they that wish to defend marriage to their word. Make divorce illegal. Nullify any second marriages. Prove both parties a capable of procreation or make them be put on an adoption waiting list before they can proceed. Stop unmarried heterosexual couples from taking advantage of domestic partner arrangements, when they can have the real deal.

And I'm with you, Best. I'm not a one issue voter (and if I were and this were the issue, my options - as you've noted - would be quite limited). I totally agree with your last post.

And I sincerely hope all the Californians who have requested help from the nation to defeat prop 8 do their part in kind for the rest of the country where this issue is concerned.
Updated On: 11/2/08 at 09:44 PM

[Peter]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 1:17am

I wouldn't be so sure this proposition will go down in defeat. That would mean that people in general are actually smart, believe in a Constitution (or actually know what one is..) and that people should be treated equally and not discriminated against. The absolute circus that this has become on a daily basis here in CA tells me otherwise.

I'm turning 50 this week and think I must be going senile because to me anyone with an inkling of intelligence would vote no on this issue just because it legalizes discrimination. But for the past month or so, I pass by these throngs of Prop 8 supporters carrying their signs. Today, I must have passed by 10 groups of yellow-shirted paranoid morons carrying signs reading.."Yes on Prop 8", "Parent Equality", etc. You see the focus of many of the yes for 8 tv commercials threaten these homophobic parents with the horror of their kids being taught about gays and gay marriage in school if this proposition is defeated and voila..groups of 100 parents scattered through town stand in protest..but of WHAT??? What is everyone so afraid of...Do these morons really believe their kids will turn gay if they learn about it in school?? And then they spend their free time holding up signs for something that should have no effect whatsoever on their own marriage or their kids...You just wouldn't believe all the Yes signs that are plastered all over...I got a phone call tonight from someone asking me to vote yes. The amount of money spent on this senseless, bigoted Proposition has to be mindboggling. All I have to say if this Proposition passes, not to mention if a Republican is elected after what this Republican Administration has done to this country, this will prove that this country is full of ignorant, bigoted morons and we will be even more..if that is possible...the laughing stock of the world.

Updated On: 11/3/08 at 01:17 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 3:45am

Jilani is correct. It took about 80 years for the first state to legalize interracial marriage until the Supreme Court ruling that ended the ban federally. State by state until it finally hit the SC. And, of course, there were states that never legalized it on their own.

From wiki:
"In the United States, the various state laws prohibited the marriage of whites and blacks, and in many states also the intermarriage of whites with Native Americans or Asians[5]. In the U.S., such laws were known as anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced such laws[6]. Although an "Anti-Miscegenation Amendment" to the United States Constitution was proposed in 1871, in 1912–1913, and in 1928,[7][8] no nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was ever enacted. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that still had them."



As for Obama/Biden, please click the link:

"Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples, or repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."

They can not SAY they are for gay marriage and expect to win. But their actions speak louder than words to me. ESPECIALLY by taking this stance against 8 four days before the election.
Obama Takes Gay Rights Stand Four Days Before the Election

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 9:49am

Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples

Simple way to do that. Let gay people wed. Any other way is going to awfully tricky to make sure that rights are equal.

Oh, and I take back comparing this to abortion as states isuee. If you live in a state where abortion is restricted/illegal/etc, you have the option to have it taken care of it in another state. When you return home you'll still be not pregnant.