Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:36 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

Would it surprise you to learn I agree that gay marriage will eventually become the law in the US? I wrote over a year ago in a response to a certain gay-obsessed member that I believe it will eventually be allowed. But it certainly does not mean that one should stop opposing what one is against. Just as I would expect those currently fighting for gay marriage in states that have constitutionally banned it will continue to fight for it. It is a matter of fighting for the type of society a person wishes to live in.


You're willing to fight for a society in which gays are treated differently than everyone else?

If it doesn't affect you, then why? What do you think the bad effects would be?

Cycloptichorn
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:40 am
@Cycloptichorn,
"a type of society a person wishes to live in."

Just what is this "type of society?" One that revolves around you? Are you dissatisfied that the actors on the stage aren't following your all-knowing, superb direction?
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:49 am
@Lightwizard,
How about a society whereby it's citizens believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

If I want to live in society where marriage can be between 1 man and many woman, I can live in the middle east.

If I want to live in a society where homosexual marriage is legal, I can move to Canada, Sweden, Norway or even S. Africa.

So as you can see, smartass, there are many choices available to those who feel homosexual marriage is vital to their existence.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:51 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

How about a society whereby it's citizens believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

If I want to live in society where marriage can be between 1 man and many woman, I can live in the middle east.

If I want to live in a society where homosexual marriage is legal, I can move to Canada, Sweden, Norway or even S. Africa.

So as you can see, smartass, there are many choices available to those who feel homosexual marriage is vital to their existence.


What about Americans who disagree with you? What gives you the right to tell them that they are not equal to you?

I don't think you have the right to demand that America remain a discriminatory society. Many Americans wanted to live in a society where Blacks and other minorities were unequal as well; do you think they were right to do so? After all, they just had a certain preference, and according to you guys, there's no moral judgment possible over people's preferences; it's just an opinion, right?

I maintain that holding certain opinions, and moreso, acting upon those opinions, make one a bigot. The opinion that others are lesser and deserve less rights based on your opinion of their sexuality, and based on your religious preferences, is a bigoted opinion. I know you guys don't want to hear that, but it's the truth.

Cycloptichorn
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:52 am
@Woiyo9,
You're saying that people should rather leave their country than try to change those aspects of society in their own country that they disagree with?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:55 am
@Woiyo9,
You don't live in a society where all it's citizens believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. So, when are you packing up?
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:00 am
A bit of perspective:

It may be worth noting that a rapid change in the U.S. occurred over a little more than four decades concerning interracial marriage:

In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry.

In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.

In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time.

The change averaged slightly less than 1 percentage point per year.

Copyright © 1996 to 2007 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally published: 1996-SEP-25
Latest update: 2007-DEC-23
Author: B.A. Robinson
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:01 am
@Cycloptichorn,
We disagree on lots of things. Let the Citizens decide how to form their society through a series of laws and constitutions.

Some want to abolish the 2nd amendment. I don't. You do not have the right to tell me if I can own a gun.

I love this quote from you.....

Quote:
I maintain that holding certain opinions, and moreso, acting upon those opinions, make one a bigot.


Another obnoxious opinion from the left who feels their opinions are superior to any others.

What you refuse to accept is that there is no discrimination against homosexuals. No one is taking any rights away from them.


0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:01 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cy, I'm not willing to get into a drawn out discussion of gay marriage and probably should have stayed out of this thread altogether. But for the record, I will state my objections. All may feel free to comment on what I write, but don't expect an answer back because we know going in that we will disagree and quite frankly no amount of arguing will change either my opinion or yours.

For the record, I am morally opposed to gay marriage since the blessing of gay marriage is tantamount to the state recognizing gay relationships as morally acceptable. That is a path I cannot consent to travel. It goes against all that I believe in. And, regardless of any argument to the contrary, will contribute to a further erosion of morality in our country.

That said, please read carefully what I next write before the name calling begins. I absolutely believe that each individual should be allowed to lead their life as they see fit. I would no more try to impress my belief on others than you would try to press your belief on me. On an individual basis, I have no problem with someone who is gay, black, white, hispanic, straight, bi, or just plain weird. But on a societal level, we have to make judgements as to what is best for the society as a whole. I believe it is best that marriage is supported for what it is, the union of a man and woman. But bearing that in mind, I recognize the need to protect those who wish to have the same civil rights of property and such that a marriage gives. Which is why I have no issue with a civil union that would grant those rights for those in a relationship that does not involve marriage. If you think this is a contradiction, fine by me.

Hopefully the above gives you a rough idea of where I am coming from. I have not perfectly explained my belief nor have I gone into any great detail. There is no need to do so since you and I will never have a meeting of the minds on this issue no matter how much detail I use in backing my belief. You and others are of course entitled to your belief and I would expect no less than to have you fight through proper channels to see society move in the direction you believe to be best for this country. I only wish we could all do so with civility.

Take care Cy. Have a good day. Oh, on another note, when are you leaving for Hawaii and your date with the alter. Cool
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:02 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:
But it certainly does not mean that one should stop opposing what one is against. Just as I would expect those currently fighting for gay marriage in states that have constitutionally banned it will continue to fight for it. It is a matter of fighting for the type of society a person wishes to live in.

I will accept and happily go about my business in our society when gay marriage finally does win, as I believe it will. But until then, my personal beliefs about the morality of gay marriage will continue to guide me. It has nothing to do with fear, because as has been pointed out more times than I can count, someone else's marriage has no affect on me.


You wish to live in a society wherein you may impose your personal views concerning "morality" on others and thus oppress an entire segment of society? America, the land of the "morally" superior who are FREE to oppress those whom they disfavor? Why would you "fight" to live in a society where some people are free to oppress other people based on their alleged moral superiority?

It is not immoral for one human being to make a marital commitment to another human being--for them to pledge to love, honor, cherish, and support each other through sickness and health, in good times and in bad times. When society encourages familial commitment, that encouragement leads to societal stability. Depriving an entire segment of society of the right to have the familial stability that you reserve for yourself causes civil unrest. It's called OPPRESSION of disfavored groups.


Quote:
In fact, if there is any fear on my part, it is something that my friend mentioned last night. She believes (although she hopes it does not happen) that once gay marriage is legal, someone will bring a lawsuit against a church for refusing to marry them. And while some here claim that won't happen, or that courts will not back it, I would bet a good bit of money that it will happen. But that's an argument for the future. lol


Everybody in the entire nation knows that there will always be someone somewhere who brings a frivolous lawsuit. So what? Frivolous lawsuits get thrown out of court all the time. Churches are not required to perform any marriages that they do not condone. You fail to understand this basic concept:

Quote:
. . . Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF


Tax protestors are notorious for filing frivolous lawsuits all the time. But our society doesn't deprive tax protestors of the right to marry. Nebraska State Senator Chamber sued God. His lawsuit was thrown out. Our courts are capable of dismissing frivolous lawsuits. Your fear that someone somewhere might file a frivolous lawsuit does not justify the oppression of an entire class of people.

Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:03 am
Whatever you do Yo Yo Woiyo, when you have to pack up, don't move to beautiful Rhode Island:


Poll: Majority of RI voters favor gay marriage law

May 17, 2009

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) " A survey released Wednesday shows that more than half of Rhode Island voters favor a law allowing gay marriage, leading advocates to point out to state leadership that it's what residents want.

A Brown University poll showed 60 percent of registered voters in the state said they would support a law allowing gay couples to marry, and 75 percent said they would support a law allowing civil unions. Thirty-one percent said they would oppose a gay marriage law.

"Even if they're not hearing constantly from constituents or people they work with about what they feel about marriage equality, it clearly gives the decision-makers something to look at when supporting marriage equality," said Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island.

While 77 percent of Democrats polled said they would support gay marriage, only 28 percent of Republicans shared that view.

Results also showed younger voters more heavily favored gay marriage. Eighty-seven percent of voters ages 18-29 supported it, as opposed to 32 percent of voters 70 and older.

The poll was conducted May 18-20 with a random sample of 593 registered voters statewide. Overall, the margin of error was plus or minus about 4 percentage points.

Christopher Plante, executive director for the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage, pointed out that polls showed California voters supported same-sex marriage, which they banned in the November election.

"The same-sex marriage movement is about a small minority of people trying to radically alter the historic definition of marriage to suit their lifestyle," Plante said in a statement.

The push to legalize gay marriage has encountered difficulty in Rhode Island. Almost half of Rhode Islanders identify themselves as Roman Catholic, a larger percentage than any other state, according to a recent survey by Trinity College in Connecticut. Religious leaders have continued to voice opposition to gay marriage.

"Given the intense lobbying efforts by proponents of gay marriage, no one should be surprised by the findings of this particular poll," the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence said in a written statement. "While there is clearly a lot of work to be done, we will renew our efforts to explain the dignity of marriage as designed by God."

Bills legalizing gay marriage have been introduced in the Statehouse every year since 1997, but none has been approved by a legislative committee. House Speaker William Murphy and Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed, both Democrats and Catholics, oppose gay marriage, and Republican Gov. Don Carcieri " another Catholic " would likely veto such a measure.

This year, bills are in committee in both the House and Senate, with the House Judiciary Committee recommending the measure be held for further study, effectively killing the bill.

Still, Rep. Frank Ferri, a Warwick Democrat and former chair of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said the poll shows officials the growing support for gay marriage in Rhode Island.

"Gay marriage is just like any other marriage and the more we talk about it and the more we read about it just reinforces that," Ferri said.

Four of the other five New England states have legalized gay marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine. New Hampshire lawmakers are working to pass a gay marriage bill that will be signed by the governor.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:03 am
@Lightwizard,
Remember this ???? It's called FEDERAL LAW.

http://www.domawatch.org/about/federaldoma.html

If and when Federal Law is changed, then I can decide.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:06 am
@Debra Law,
Why do you insist on shoving YOUR MORALS on someone else?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:15 am
@Woiyo9,
You just might get your wish:

* LAW JOURNAL -- Wall Street Journal
* MAY 21, 2009

The Battle Over Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses
Lawsuit Seeks Same Rights Straight Couples Possess; Opponents Fear Campaign to Advance Gay Marriage Nationally

By PHILIP SHISHKIN

BOSTON -- In October 2006, Gerry Studds, the first openly gay U.S. congressman, took his dog out for a morning walk and collapsed with a blood clot in his lung. He died a few days later.

Ever since, his widower, Dean Hara, married legally to Mr. Studds in Massachusetts, has been trying in vain to collect survivor benefits from Mr. Studds's federal pension and health insurance -- tens of thousands of dollars he says he would be getting if he were straight.

Now, in a lawsuit, Mr. Hara, two other gay widowers and seven gay couples also wed in Massachusetts are challenging the law that keeps them from getting federal marital benefits.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman. That means the government must ignore same-sex marriages even if a state chooses to recognize them, as Massachusetts and four other states have done. A recipient of many federal benefits must be either an opposite-sex spouse or, in some cases, a child.

Although DOMA has been unsuccessfully challenged before, the new lawsuit is different because of the number of plaintiffs, its sharp focus on the marital-benefits issue and because the plaintiffs all are legally married or survivors of legal marriages.

A victory for them would increase the financial benefits of gay marriage, which could help spread the practice. Though legal experts say courts would be reluctant to invalidate laws set by Congress, supporters hope a victory will put pressure on Congress to repeal DOMA, a rescission that President Barack Obama says he favors even though he opposes gay marriage.

A victory for the government would strengthen the hand of gay-marriage opponents, who view the law as the last line of defense against a practice that they consider immoral and damaging to the institution of marriage. Some conservatives fear that this lawsuit is part of a Trojan-horse campaign to make gay marriage a reality nationwide over the will of voters. They see the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court here in March, as an important one. "It's very significant because the ramifications are extraordinary," says Brian Raum, an attorney at the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.


The lawsuit also comes after many companies have been extending health-care and other benefits to same-sex couples and domestic partners. Human Rights Campaign, a gay-advocacy group, says that over half of Fortune 500 companies provide health benefits to the gay partners of employees.

Plaintiffs say DOMA means they pay higher taxes because they can't file a joint return, and they can't collect spousal Social Security benefits, among other restrictions. Their lawsuit argues that the government discriminates against their marriages and infringes on their constitutional right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

The suit also advances a federalist argument, saying that marriage is a matter for states to define, not for Washington. It doesn't attempt to make gay marriage legal nationwide or force the practice on 42 states that ban it.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the litigation, and hasn't yet responded in court. Lawyers on both sides say President Obama's position on DOMA doesn't mean his Justice Department won't vigorously defend the lawsuit.

"It's far from a slam dunk, but it's a powerful and plausible case," according to Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor who says he's sympathetic to the plaintiffs but isn't involved in the lawsuit. "It's a surgical attack on DOMA rather than trying to hit it with a bludgeon."

Lynn Wardle, a professor at Brigham Young University law school who specializes in family law, says the notion that the federal government must defer to the states' definition of marriage is wrong. Mr. Wardle, who is opposed to gay marriage, says that in cases that predate the gay-marriage debate, the government has overruled state definitions of marriage when it alleged couples created sham marriages to gain citizenship for one of the parties, or for tax benefits. Preventing activist judges from redefining marriage is precisely why DOMA was enacted, Mr. Wardle says.

Harvard's Mr. Tribe says that while the U.S. government isn't constitutionally obligated to follow the states' definition of marriage, it has historically done so, and would need to justify why it departed from this practice in the case of gay marriage.

In a 2005 case, in which a lesbian couple in Florida challenged DOMA, the government argued that straight marriage fosters procreation, encouraging the "stable generational continuity of the United States." In that case, a federal judge in Tampa upheld DOMA and said there was no precedent to "acknowledge or establish a constitutional right to enter into a same-sex marriage."

While gay-marriage advocates don't expect Congress to take up DOMA anytime soon, they acknowledge the lawsuit is in part designed to nudge Congress toward action. "We are hoping this will prompt Congress to take a closer look at these issues," says Mary Bonauto, civil-rights project director at the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which represents the plaintiffs.

The group filed the 2004 case that made Massachusetts the first state in the country to allow same-sex couples to wed. Ms. Bonauto also won a similar case in Connecticut last year. Since then, three more states -- Iowa, Vermont and Maine -- authorized gay marriage.

Plaintiffs say the constitutional arguments are overshadowed by the nitty-gritty concerns of daily life. "I work with people every day, we are doing the same job, but they all are making more money just because they are in a straight marriage," says Mary Bowe-Shulman, an attorney at a Massachusetts state court.

When Ms. Bowe-Shulman added her spouse, Dorene, a cancer survivor, to her health plan, the government started taxing her on the value of Dorene's insurance, she says -- a tax that doesn't apply to straight married couples. Combined with other federal taxes assessed because they are single in Washington's eyes, the Bowe-Shulmans, who have two daughters, say they paid $3,332 in extra taxes in 2006 alone.

Congressman Studds and Mr. Hara got engaged in 1991. Mr. Hara, who is 51 and works as a financial adviser, remembers watching the congressional debate on DOMA from the visitors' gallery. "I don't think we ever thought we'd be married," he says. The pair were among the earliest to wed after the 2004 Massachusetts court ruling.

By then, Mr. Studds had retired from Congress and was receiving a pension and federal health coverage. In June of last year, an administrative judge put an end to Mr. Hara's attempts to get survivor benefits, saying "a same-sex marriage in any jurisdiction cannot be recognized for benefit entitlement purposes," according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Wardle acknowledges that the "equality argument" advanced by plaintiffs "seems to have some legs." One solution to the benefits debate, he suggests, would be to redefine the rules of awarding the benefits so that committed gay couples are entitled to them, while still keeping a federal definition of traditional marriage intact.

Write to Philip Shishkin at [email protected]
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:15 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

Cy, I'm not willing to get into a drawn out discussion of gay marriage and probably should have stayed out of this thread altogether. But for the record, I will state my objections. All may feel free to comment on what I write, but don't expect an answer back because we know going in that we will disagree and quite frankly no amount of arguing will change either my opinion or yours.

For the record, I am morally opposed to gay marriage since the blessing of gay marriage is tantamount to the state recognizing gay relationships as morally acceptable. That is a path I cannot consent to travel. It goes against all that I believe in. And, regardless of any argument to the contrary, will contribute to a further erosion of morality in our country.

That said, please read carefully what I next write before the name calling begins. I absolutely believe that each individual should be allowed to lead their life as they see fit. I would no more try to impress my belief on others than you would try to press your belief on me. On an individual basis, I have no problem with someone who is gay, black, white, hispanic, straight, bi, or just plain weird. But on a societal level, we have to make judgements as to what is best for the society as a whole. I believe it is best that marriage is supported for what it is, the union of a man and woman. But bearing that in mind, I recognize the need to protect those who wish to have the same civil rights of property and such that a marriage gives. Which is why I have no issue with a civil union that would grant those rights for those in a relationship that does not involve marriage. If you think this is a contradiction, fine by me.

Hopefully the above gives you a rough idea of where I am coming from. I have not perfectly explained my belief nor have I gone into any great detail. There is no need to do so since you and I will never have a meeting of the minds on this issue no matter how much detail I use in backing my belief. You and others are of course entitled to your belief and I would expect no less than to have you fight through proper channels to see society move in the direction you believe to be best for this country. I only wish we could all do so with civility.

Take care Cy. Have a good day. Oh, on another note, when are you leaving for Hawaii and your date with the alter. Cool


It is difficult to remain civil, when others display attitudes which are decidedly uncivil. You may not be insulting in your language, but your attitudes are insulting - extremely so. It tells a whole group of people that you don't accept them as equal to you. That they are inherently wrong and deserve to be treated that way, and that there is nothing they can do short of changing everything about who they are, to gain acceptance.

That's really wrong, man, and it's unchristian.

You state

Quote:
But on a societal level, we have to make judgements as to what is best for the society as a whole.


We have already done so, don't you realize that? Just look at our founding document -

Quote:
“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.


Your personal morality - your religious beliefs - are meaningless in terms of the decisions we make for society. What is meaningful is upholding our society's declaration of equality for all people, including gay folks, and upholding their right to pursue happiness.

As I said earlier, you wouldn't support laws that discriminated against you or your family - even if others fervently believed that those laws were morally correct. It's not how our society is supposed to work; questions of religious morality are not supposed to be the deciding factor under the Law. This is why you keep seeing SC's across the nation decide that gay marriage has to go forward: there is no legal basis for treating these people unequally.

When you state that gay marriage will contribute to a 'further erosion' of our country, I wonder in what way you think it will do so? Nobody ever explains this.

Cycloptichorn
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:17 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

Debra, kindly take your opinion of the content of the conversation with my friend and shove it up yours. .... So take your superior attitude and stick it elsewhere.




YOU divulged the content of your conversation with your lesbian "friend." You admit that your lesbian friend wants to marry her partner of 15 years. You admit that your lesbian friend believes that she has the right to marry the person of her choice. You disagree with her choice. That's fine. BUT you do not acknowledge that she is free to make that choice. You insist on abusing the power of the state government as a means to DEPRIVE HER OF THE RIGHT to make that choice.

You have a perverted sense of self-righteousness when YOU'RE the who is espousing the right to oppress other people bcause they do not conform to YOUR alleged morals. You're the one who needs to stick your own feelings of moral superiorty "up yours" and STOP oppressing people.



Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:22 am
@Debra Law,
The sex police will never leave this alone. They didn't leave it alone in "1984." Orwell knew what a real totalitarian government would do and there are still minds out there who don't realizing they are endorsing that. They're determined to visualize in their mind what same sex couples do in the bedroom and are appalled. Just as appalled as visualizing their parents doing it, their grandparents doing it, their children doing it, regardless of it being opposite sexes or same sex.

Of course, the males wouldn't mind a camera in the bedroom if two women were doing it. But two guys? Save us.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:33 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Well, I guess then that I will have to live with the fact that you believe my attitude is insulting. As of this date, gays are treated like everyone else in respect to marriage. They cannot marry someone of the same sex. Talk all you want about how they somehow are not treated "equally", the fact is that they are.

You have a mistaken view of christianity if you believe it is unchristian to point out sin and to resist it. Please explain how that is unchristian. I do not try to force my christian beliefs on anyone. You and everyone else are free to live your life as you see fit. My saying a particular lifestyle is sinful is just stating what I believe to be correct. You may not think it is sinful and that is fine by me. Sure won't stop me from calling you a friend and sitting down with you for a drink or two.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:38 am
@CoastalRat,
Well I hope your friend is not going to judge you for your sins and will sit down and have a drink or two. Are you pointing out your own sins and resisting them? Or do you have any? If so, why don't you work on your own sins and stop casting stones at those you believe are sinners.

Recognizing Same-Sex Marriage: Group Calls for Citywide Referendum
Putting the Issue to a Vote


Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 28, 2009; 12:00 PM

Washington Post staff writer Tim Craig was online Thursday, May 28, at Noon ET to discuss the controversy over whether the District should recognize same-sex marriage.

A group of ministers and same-sex marriage opponents filed a request Wednesday calling for a citywide referendum on whether the District should recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Earlier this month, the City Council and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) agreed to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.

____________________

Tim Craig: Welcome. Ready to take some questions on the same-sex marriage debate in the District and the news that opponents are gearing up to try to force the issue onto the ballot.

Fire away.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Has there been any polling in the District (i.e. not a national poll) on the level of acceptance for same sex couples being allowed to marry?

Tim Craig: I have not seen a recent poll, but a group of local gay rights activists conducted one in 2006.

According to an executive summary of that poll, four in ten DC voters supported same-sex marriage, while a third supported domestic partnerships but not marriage. Two in ten opposed any legal recognition.

But there was a racial divide between white and black Washingtonians on the gay marriage question. When people were asked how they would vote on a referendum to ban gay marriage, similar to referendums that have been held in other states, white voters overwhelmingly said they would vote against it.

African-Americans were more evenly divided. About half of black voters said they would support a ban on gay marriage while 42 percent said they would oppose it.

Again, this poll is three years old. And there is anecdotal evidence that attitudes about this issue have shifted since then even in the African-American community.

_______________________

Capitol Hill: The Council already voted to recognize gay marriage, so I think this question has been answered.

Better question:

Should D.C. allow pastors from Prince George's County to decide which of our residents will and won't have rights?

Tim Craig: This refers to the fact that Bishop Harry Jackson, a leading same-sex marriage opponent, presides over a church located in Beltsville, Md. This will undoubtedly become part of the debate as this issue moves forward. Several of the ministers leading the charge against same-sex marriage live outside the District. But they will argue they have every right to be involved in the debate because many of their congregants live in the District. They also see this as a regional, not a local, issue because the District remains the center of the Washington region.

There are also several D.C. ministers who are part of the vocal opposition. The question going forward is do they still hold the same clout that they may have a decade or two ago? Judging by the 12-1 Council vote in favor or recognizing out-of-state gay marriages, the answer appears to be no.

_______________________

Minneapolis,Minn. : Hi Tim -- Thanks for taking questions today. I find it strange and unsettling that the President has so far been pretty much silent on this issue (including the developments of this week in California). Can we expect him -- or the first lady, for that matter, given her plans to participate more in what's going on in D.C. -- to weigh in at all?

Tim Craig: There is lots of chatter on the blogs today about Obama not speaking out last night on Prop 8 during his speech at the DNC fundraiser in Hollywood. Unfortunately, I do not know the president's future intentions related to this issue.

But several conservative members of Congress have introduced a bill to block gay marriage in D.C. That bill probably won't pass, but if it did for some reason, it would land on Obama's desk, forcing him to take a stand.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: If a referendum passed allowing gay marriage, would Congress step in to remove it? I am not sure how much Congress would want to meddle in D.C.'s affairs...

Tim Craig: This is the $10 million question.

Later this year, the D.C. Council plans to take up a bill legalizing gay marriage in the District. If, as expected, it is approved, Congress will opportunity to block it. The convention wisdom is there is little appetite among Democrats on Capitol Hill to intervene on this issue. And even some Republicans appear uneasy about wading into the same-sex marriage issue.

Same-sex marriage supporters in the District believe the timing may be key. If they can get a bill to Hill sometime this year, it may easily survive the congressional review period. But what is next year? You guessed it, an election year.

If this issue hangs around until then, who knows what the political calculation will be on Capitol Hill. But there does not appear to be same fervor among conservative Democrats to intervene on this issue as there has been on attaching the gun control issue to D.C. voting rights legislation.

_______________________
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:46 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:
I do not try to force my christian beliefs on anyone.


LIAR

CostalRat wrote:
But it certainly does not mean that one should stop opposing what one is against. Just as I would expect those currently fighting for gay marriage in states that have constitutionally banned it will continue to fight for it. It is a matter of fighting for the type of society a person wishes to live in.


Despite your denial, you are indeed forcing your "christian beliefs" on everyone in society when you seek to abuse the power of the STATE to impose those beliefs on everyone in society through the operation of our laws.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 86
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/12/2021 at 03:15:41