How will pro-gay marriage/civil unions lose us votes?

explain. who is so bigoted that they will not vote for anyone who supports civil unions no matter what, who would even consider voting for a pro-choice Democrat, and isn't in the religious right's back pocket currently.

would NEVER vote for us anyway.

most americans don't approve of gay marriage. Civil unions would fare better. Some of those "most americans" would not vote Dem regardless. Others will despite their feelings on that lone subject. The problem is how many of the swig vote will that impact.

Presedential elections live and die on the swing vote. Whichever candidate can attract more of them wins.

I mean, what is the difference between "gay marriage" and "civil unions"? Americans really care what we call it?

They had no problem if it was called civil unions and they also had no problem with civil unions having all the same rights. In fact their church told them that gay couples alreayd have all the same rights as marriage and that the initiative to get married was an attack on the religious institution of marriage, which, apparently, since being prescribed by God as the only way to have sex and not wind up in the lower levels of heaven.

So it is all semantics to you and I, but to religious people like these mormons marriage is the last institutionalization of government that still stands and to them, it's something they want to cling to fervently.

I say we should do what they did in France. They made civil unions open to any two people of any gender configuration and gave them the same rights as marriage. It worked very well. And now most young straight and gay couples have civil unions instead of marriage, wanting to shy away from the religious overtones of it all.

And religious people have their hallowed relationships still recognized by the state. It's a win-win situation other than, of course, less people get married there now, preferring the secular civil unions.


Click Here For Hard Hitting Buttons — Visit The Cronus Connection

thanks for the explanation. It makes sense now, and I like the "solution" of offering civil unions to all couples.

I always wondered why people cling to the notion of marriage as a religious event, when you can get married in a courthouse, married by a judge, married by a notary public, even married by an Elvis impersonator. It would be find with me to do what France has done.

so is my marriage null and void? Can only religious people get 'married'?

its a connotation thing

It's only in the past weeks that this term "GAY MARRIAGE" has become the prominent meme. Some months ago we were discussing "CIVIL UNIONS." The change in semantics is "loaded" and designed to get people's thongs uncomfortaby lodged in their butt cracks. (WHERE IS Grendelsuncle when you need him)?

For my part, it's beyond me to wrap my brain around the "logic." Two PEOPLE entering into a partnership, recognized by law in terms of insurance, inheritance rights, etc. etc. is a NO-BRAINER. WHAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM? But I am aware of people's attachments to WORDS. LET THEM HAVE THE WORD "MARRIAGE." WHO CARES??? What I see is the semantics creating a shift in framing the debate. Can everyone who groks my point do me a BIG liberal favor and ALWAYS use the term "CIVIL UNION?" Otherwise we get hung up in all sorts of ridiculous tangents. :eyes:

Check it out. In Germany EVERYONE GOES TO THE COURTHOUSE AND HAS A CIVIL UNION THAT IS RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE. If you want to do the church thing afterward, that's YOUR business. The "bride" can be traditionally "kidnapped," you can spend what you wish and invite folks you never want to see again. It's YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

The point is that those who see anyone who is "different" from them co-opting their language will find ALL SORTS of ways to demonize the "other." IT IS GETTING RIDICULOUS, AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME VIOLENT!!! Leave those who believe in the "sanctity of marriage" in peace with their exclusivity.

Please repeat: CIVIL UNIONS, CIVIL UNIONS, CIVIL UNIONS

Can we simply remove the most superficial aspect of the flamebait? Thank you for your consideration.

July 31


Should gay marriage be outlawed?
* 8334 responses
Yes 52% No 48%
This is from the Poll yesterday on MSNBC.

.

When did we become so different from the rest of the population. Just because some right wing reporter asks the pREZ a question, now we become a liabilty or asset to the campaigns?

I think it's outrageous for anyone on here to suggest that gays are a liability.

...meanwhile, white collar urban professionals will tell us the most pressing issue is that gays and lesbians can't get married.

I support gay marriage, but politically, it's a loser. If you are going to lose on "principle" why not just vote Green?

its not like we can't multi-task

Why do you think that is?

so far they ain't getting it done. Public works projects have never helped. Thats all I've heard.

== Gay Marriage Icky Icky Ptew Aww Shucks ==
Shrub is watching two state court cases that could legalize gay
marriages as White House lawyers explore measures to ensure that
marriage is legally defined as a man-woman union because as soon as you
let those goddamn gay people have any sort of freedom to love who they
want and have the state actually recognize it, well, then it's gallop
gallop gallop as we all hear the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ride
down our sorry ass and we all burn Burn BURN because only ONE kind of
hollow 50-percent-divorce-rate love is permissable in this ridiculous
two-faced little pseudo-tolerant nation. But the top Senate Democrat
said that existing law already limits legal recognition to heterosexual
couples and that the GOP was essentially a bunch of niddering suckass
homophobes who need nothing more or less than an entire gut-scraping
psychological overhaul and maybe a nice anal bloop stick and a riding
crop. "We are looking at what may be needed in the context of the court
cases that are pending now," White House spokesman Scott McClellan
mumbled to reporters. "We are deciding, basically, between annihilating
the last vestigial remains of spirit of love and hope and decency in
the culture, and violently dry-humping the notion that anyone but our
angry self-righteous homophobic God as interpreted by some sexless
flabby white redneck congressmen can decide what love and true
connection actually means to the universal soul in the larger sense."

into shape again. There are people of all backgrounds and cultures who don't support gay marriage. Just enough of an issue to make them afraid of liberal support.

into shape again. There are people of all backgrounds and cultures who don't support gay marriage. Just enough of an issue to make them afraid of liberal support.

Bush will look somber and declare his support of "traditional values" and the "sanctity of marriage" and further gibberish.

Conservatives will nod approvingly, forget their alleged dislike of government interference and vote for the dimwit.

Moderate Republicans will nod approvingly and talk about being compassionate.

Moderate Democrats will say that the Democrats should stifle the issue in case the beloved "center" might not vote Democratic.

The liberals will try to avoid the issue completely.

No one would dare to advocate making "marriage" irrelevant by making civil unions the legal test of a union.

I'm an agnostic, my wife was a divorced Catholic so couldn't be married in the church. We were married by a protestant minister who was on the staff of hospital she worked for at the time because it was convenient. So far - so good. 22 years.

Bush is just playing to his rightwing bigot base.

Like gun control and abortion, where some people who are liberals on economic issues are conservative on social issues. Look at Western Pennsylvania, for example. There are a lot of union workers out there who have been voting for Republicans in recent years. Gun control is probably the biggest reason for this. These guys would most likely vote for a Democrat on economic issues, but when other issues, like gun control and abortion are in the mix, many of them will cross party lines.

It's getting to be that simple, what is our country based on.

Gay marriage. If it's a religious 'deal', then clearly it can't be outlawed because the Constitution cannot mandate matters of religion. Any gay couple can have a religious marriage right this minute if they find a religious person willing to do that. It cannot be outlawed.

Civil unions. It's a matter of applying legal rights of co-habitation to all couples under equal rights protections of the Constitution. People get licenses for this purpose all the time. These 'marriages' are not recognized by the Catholic Church for one, probably others as well.

Most people support Civil Unions, let's push to get these recognized. The only place an opinion on marriage matters is within their own church. Separating the two terms keeps the church/state argument in play and I believe gives gays more rights, not less.

I think it's that simple and that's the approach to be taken.

And yes I know I'm a damned opinionated person.