If you can't have kids, then you shouldn't get married...

that's the only logical way you can possibly defend the male and female requirements for marriage as a protected institution - in my opinion.

And to correct all those out there who think Dean was against gay marriages. He was uncomfortable with them, but he was willing to let the courts decide. He gave this opinion after being asked about this after Canada basicly legalized Gay Marriages last year.

Is there anyway, I can get a copy of the radio interview (and link) where Dean is quoted about how he is so against Gay Marriages.

I hope the Kerry fans here could understand the danger of out of context quoting. I hope.





Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

snip from 12/20/2000

"Early assumptions following the Court’s December 20 decision were that domestic partnership is the only real plan of action. Governor Howard Dean has said on several occasions that he would support domestic partnership legislation, but is uncomfortable with the idea of actual gay marriage. Dean has recently clarified his position, declaring in a radio interview, “I’m against gay marriage.” "


http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/feb2000/news_centerstage.htm

snip

In the interview the Governor stated, "Since nothing is going to happen on this issue in the legislature until the court speaks there's no particular reason for me to take a public position on it." His attempt to link whether he makes his positions public to the actions of other branches of government is illogical and insulting. Failing any sense of responsibility on his part, the insistence of OITM and its readers' voting power should give him the "particular reason" he needs to decide to make his position public. Would environmental groups accept a refusal to take a position on clearcutting, NARAL a demur from supporting or opposing abortion, or even Wall Street a "no opinion yet" on capital gains taxes?

Clearly, Dean is either still waiting for the polling data to tell him his position, or he's seen it, and knows you wouldn't like it. But on an issue of fundamental civil rights, shouldn't "no position" or "secret position" be just as bad as the wrong position? The Governor is either with the GLBT community or he's against it. So far, he sure isn't with it.

More: http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul98/deanoped.htm



Where did Dean stand on gay marriage AFTER the court decision?:
“The Legislature will pass a domestic partnership bill and I’m comfortable with that,” Gov. Howard Dean said.

What was more interesting was what he was not comfortable with.

“It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said of gay marriage. “The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect. I think there are a lot of people in this state who are uncomfortable about the concept of gay marriage.”

There are thousands more who are not uncomfortable and at least some legislative leaders said they would be willing to consider enacting a marriage statute.

More: http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm

Governor Dean's Statement on Mass. Court Ruling 2-4-2004
MADISON, WI--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., commented on the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to support same-gender marriages today:
"I believe firmly that we must do everything in our power to assure that all citizens of the United States are afforded equal rights under the law -- and that includes gay as well as straight couples. As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today's decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court represents a different approach to the same goal. One way or another, states should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.
"Some in Washington will use this decision to justify the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This would be the first constitutional amendment to authorize discrimination, and I oppose it. Marriage is a matter of state law, and gay bashing has no place in the Constitution."


http://www.deanforamerica.com/press/2004/02/04/mass_court/

gay marriage. Your candidate supports one in his home state.

is against gay marriage. I provided some. Dean is against gay marriage and his words back that up. Dean is also for leaving the issue up to the individual states to decide, same as Kerry.

I think I have that right. Evidently Dean isn't in favor of passing them when he didn't have to. But I want to see where he sought to ban them as your candidate has. BTW you have on several occasions, and I will site some if you try to say you didn't, stated that Kerry and Dean have the same position. If they do, you should be able to produce what I asked for.

They are both for civil unions and against gay marriage.

Your candidate, and only your candidate, endorsed an amendment to his state's constituion banning gay marriage. That is a huge difference. The fact your rights aren't at stake may be why you can't see that but the fact you can't see it doesn't mean it is non existent.

please supply a better quote than "radio interview" for his "against gay marriage" quote.

No where in any of your quotes (other than the Radio quote mentioned above) does he say he is against gay marriages... uncomfortable yes... but not against. He was willing to let the courts decide.

d

but none of those are against gay marriages? He clearly is willing to let the courts rule.

I still wonder about the radio quote?

Have you actually heard the context from which he is quoted. You know how Kerry has been misquoted out of context in the past?

d

Can't be old (cause you can't have kids)
Can't get divorced
Can't be sterile...

Leaves out a lot of heterosexual couples.

Marriage historically has not been about love and family. It's been about property. If we're going to stand on historical president then wwe'd damn well better recognize the property aspect of it.

MzPip
:dem:

that source isn't the actual source of the Dean Radio Interview. It quotes Dean (one sentence - which is quite likely out of context), but doesn't give a link to the rest of the interview. A good indication that the quote is out of context.

How say ye,

d

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/feb2000/news_centerstage.htm

that source isn't the actual source of the Dean Radio Interview. It quotes Dean (one sentence - which is quite likely out of context), but doesn't give a link to the rest of the interview. A good indication that the quote is out of context.

How say ye,

d


sorry for continually posting this MD,

I think each state should decide whether or not people should be allowed to have sex for reasons beyond procreation.

should be heard from also,

d

If we could get an Amendment to the Constitution banning them, that would be awesome.

For one thing, I wouldn't have to go to work tommorow.

Goodnight, y'all!

d

or something like that,

I have every right to get married.

That, and the first amendment, slaughter any logical, legal argument against it.

After that I usually end up pointing out that by definition they're theocrats, and of course 100% so far were in favor of bombing the crap out of Afghanistan, or just generally hating Muslims, largely for that reason.

That, of course, reveals their hypocrisy, which usually pisses them off.

There's no logical or legal argument against gay marriage. It's what two consenting adults want to do and it doesn't hurt another living soul.

What we're dealing with is emotional zealously, bigotry. Which is the same thing that has worked against science, abolitionism, suffrage, and pretty much any civil/human rights movements.

it's mostly a homophobic agenda disguised as a morality issue,

d

you shouldn't fly

but we don't have wings and we do fly?

d

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin'.

Otherwise known as the "Please, won't SOMEBODY think of the children?" histrionic defense. I love this recent LTTE on the subject of the gay marriage flap, from the Oregonian. In case y'all are too lazy to click the link, here's the text:

There's a lot to be said for Jeff Kempe's notion that society define marriage to promote the best outcome for its children (Letters, Feb. 16). I would gladly relinquish the apparently meaningless license to my own childless marriage if we were to substitute a license to bear children. There would be rigorous coursework, testing and remedial training, if necessary. Passing on one's own prejudices would be grounds for annulment.

BTW, I am both anti-marriage license and anti-child license, since both give da gubbamint way too much control over what should be a private matter between two consenting individuals (of whatever gender). However, I am still deeply in love with the logic of this particular LTTE writer.