GOP weighs anti-gay plank for '04 platform

Another door opens...

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Gautum--
Illuminate the phunny, please! Love to hear your perspective.

(20% may be an exaggeration... I'm curious. Going to see if I can find a stat.)

Having never been to the US - I really cant comment Sofia.

0 Replies

um... ok.

0 Replies

HBob - Are you bisexual? Hmmm. So, if they had a marriage license and a partnership license, could you have one of each with 2 different people?

0 Replies

Two spouses might lead this little hobbit to the big bottle! Shocked

0 Replies

hahaha

0 Replies

lucky hobitbob !

0 Replies

If nothing else, hobitbob will never lack dating oportunities on a Saturday night.

0 Replies

I do not see "promoting the traditional notion of marriage" as being "anti-gay".

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Allowing these people the right to marry doesn't have to signify our personal approval-- It just means we won't expend any energy denying them equal rights under the law.

Take a bow Sophie.

0 Replies

Lest my terse response above lead anyone to draw the wrong conclusion about my position on the issue, I support the creation/recognition of some form of civil union analagous to marriage and available to any number of consenting adults without regard to their gender, and likewise support the right of the members of any church to choose to recognize whatever unions the church chooses.

I also recognize and support the right of others to promote the traditional "notion" of marriage.

0 Replies

I agree with what scrat said above.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Allowing these people the right to marry doesn't have to signify our personal approval-- It just means we won't expend any energy denying them equal rights under the law.

I missed this first time around.

For some reason I am distracted when reading your boobs....ahhh...posts.

But since Craven called it to our attention, I would like to say: Well said!

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I do not see "promoting the traditional notion of marriage" as being "anti-gay".

Scrat - why is it that you - and, it seems, so many others, believe the "traditional notion of marriage" (which is, in its modern form, a fairly new tradition, but anyways...) needs promoting?

I may be wrong in your case, but this thought always seems to co-exist with a belief that only heterosexual sex/love is "natural" - if something is natural, why would it need to be promoted?

0 Replies

How about promoting a traditional get married and don't get divorced campaign? Oops, some politicians have also decided that was the governments business, too. Why would the 50% who stay married need to promote what they already have? I'm afraid with the clery and their political counterparts that it isn't easily camoflauged -- it is not promoting traditional marriage, it's promoting denying marriage to those who are gay.

0 Replies

perhaps we should return to the practices of early Massachusetts and Connecticut. In the 1630's and 40's marriage was a civil contract and was arranged by lawyers and approved by a judge (usually a JP). The clergy, who dominated the society at that time, complained, and they were finally given equal standing to conduct marriages. They now claim that by "tradition" they have the only right. Returning marriage to a civil contract would not only be a revival of early American "tradition", but would solve a lot of this problem.

0 Replies

Eggsactly, Acquiunk -- everyone that is so hell bent on tradition better trace those traditions carefully.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Scrat wrote:
I do not see "promoting the traditional notion of marriage" as being "anti-gay".

Scrat - why is it that you - and, it seems, so many others, believe the "traditional notion of marriage" (which is, in its modern form, a fairly new tradition, but anyways...) needs promoting?

Did I write that? I don't recall writing that. What I recall writing was that I don't think doing so is anti-gay, and (in a subsequent response) that I recognize the right of individuals to promote it if they choose.

0 Replies

Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem as though there's a lot disagreement here. How refreshing!

As to the question: The GOP would be making a big mistake to add an anti-gay plank in their platform. I don't think Rove would permit it. Why alienate one group (gays) to placate another group (The Christian right) who will vote for Bush anyhow?

0 Replies

Scrat you point is well taken, but marriage comes with a number advantages such as work benefits, reduced insurance costs, inheritance rights etc. A legally recognized marriage makes those benefits available.

0 Replies

GOP weighs anti-gay plank for '04 platform

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know