Comments on: Mccain Campaign Managers Endorsement Of Gay Marriage

By: Mccain Campaign Managers Endorsement Of Gay Marriage | FrumForum « RSS Search Engine

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:44:22 +0000

[...] Continue reading here: Mccain Campaign Managers Endorsement Of Gay Marriage | FrumForum [...]

By: Carney

Carney — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:22:38 +0000

Calling normal marriage laws “unconstitutional” is breathtakingly ignorant. Any writing means what its writer meant, not what random or mendacious spin a reader can twist out of it. And no one who wrote any portion of the constitution meant to impose homosexual “marriage” on the federal government or any state. QED

By: Realist

Realist — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:12:19 +0000

Prohibiting gay couples from enjoying the benefits of marriage is not only outright bigotry, but borderline unconstitutional. On what grounds does the nation deprive two people committed to each other of the same tax benefits and other spousal rights like hospital visitation that traditional marriage allows?

By: esurience

esurience — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:03:26 +0000

There's a misunderstanding among some of you about how France does marriage. France has both marriage and civil unions, but the difference is that in France _heterosexuals_ are also allowed to join civil unions (and gay people are barred from marriage). France is a great model to follow if you really want to diminish and discourage the institution of marriage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021303365_pf.html

Heterosexuals in France are opting to get civil unions INSTEAD of marriage, because they come with all the benefits but none of the responsibilities! (No shared property, much easier divorce...) Yay!

How about just ending marriage discrimination, rather than destroying the institution in an attempt to keep gays out of it, as France is doing?

By: esurience

esurience — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:57:05 +0000

Mike K,Uhh, you seemed to have missed the point about the New Jersey thing being about anti-discrimination laws and not marriage law. New Jersey does not allow gays and lesbians to marry. So that issue should have nothing to do with your support or lack thereof for marriage equality. Religious folks wanting a special right to discriminate against gays and lesbians, even while taking our tax dollars, has nothing to do with the marriage debate. Again, it was about anti-discrimination laws. Anti-discrimination laws. I need to repeat myself since you ignored that last time

By: mlindroo

mlindroo — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:14:13 +0000

Mike K., thanks for the tip about France! http://brittany.angloinfo.com/countries/france/marriage.aspThe process seems to be that you first register your relationship with the government … let’s not needlessly offend religious sensibilities so we will use the term “civil union” for this. This is followed by a religious ceremony which is optional, has no legal status and you & your church can call it whatever you want. Brilliant!MARCU$

By: Mike K

Mike K — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:08:45 +0000

"Chekote: One more thing. Surveys have also shown that when liberal young people grow up, they may become more conservative on economics or foreign policy, but they don't suddenly embrace social conservatism. Instead, they can mainstream their liberal social attitudes."

Having looked at my youngest daughter's course material on US History this year, I wonder if these kids will know enough economics to learn the real facts. Have any of you seen this:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KD21Ad01.html

I'm not very optimistic about this generation. I suppose that has always been the complaint of the older adults but this time I wonder. I Keep thinking of the Chinese proverb: "First generation-coolie; second generation-merchant; third generation- rich man; fourth generation-coolie."

By: Mike K

Mike K — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:03:39 +0000

"Should a private group really be given taxpayer money to own & operate a facility, and then be able to discriminate against some of those very same taxpayers who are providing those funds? The only "freedom" being infringed here is the freedom to be subsidized by taxpayers while simultaneously discriminating against a certain group of them."

This is exactly the argument that prevents moderates on the issue, like me, from saying,"Oh, heck. If it's that important to them, let them have it." That's why the Miss California thing was significant. The pro-gay marriage side is far less tolerant than the other side. The Yes on Prop 8 was a large majority on the same ballot that gave Obama a big majority of the popular vote. What does that tell you ?

I agree that there is little to be gained by Republicans on this issue and the less said the better. However, now that AIDS s more or less under control in the affluent gay community, this seems to be the activist issue of the day. Take a look at the number of gay marriages in Canada where it was never an issue (is anything ever an issue in Canada ?) and tell me how important this is.

I tend to agree that a separation of civil and religious marriage, as is done in France, is the probable compromise.

By the way, I've sent five kids through private school over the past 35 years. Do I get my property tax money back ?

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:31:31 +0000

Chekote: One more thing. Surveys have also shown that when liberal young people grow up, they may become more conservative on economics or foreign policy, but they don't suddenly embrace social conservatism. Instead, they can mainstream their liberal social attitudes.

The baby-boom generation of the 1960s succeeded in mainstreaming premarital sex (just try to find a virgin over 17), cohabitation, miscegenation, smoking pot, etc.

Today's young people are more tolerant of homosexuality than their parents or grandparents. They're not suddenly going to become gay-bashers when they turn 20 or 25. And a political party like the GOP, that tends to indulge gay-bashing by its base is going to turn off these young people, long after they become adults.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:23:12 +0000

Chekote: The reality is that when today’s youth grow up, there will be other youth to replace them.The GOP’s election strategy has been based largely on hopes of exclusion: Young people didn’t traditionally vote in large numbers, so the GOP’s success with older voters would carry the day. Obama has certainly changed that dynamic with young people–they turned out in massive numbers, to vote for him. And that will almost certainly happen again in 2012. Whether it is a long-term trend that will last beyond Obama’s glamorous presidency, who knows.