Poll question: Are you for or against civil unions...?

[wyldwolf]

Do you only begrudgingly agree with it when you're forced to, like Howard Dean, or do you agree that people in love, regardless of sexual orientation, should be given equal rights with heteros.

How about this one:

Are you rated A+ with the NRA and think gun control should be a State issue (like Howard Dean) or do believe in sane federal gun control laws...?


(have nothing against Dean, but these kind of threads can go both ways...)

***sorry, I haven't donated (YET!) so I can't make polls...***

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. I

support civil unions and responsible gun laws....

[wyldwolf]

2. Congratulations! You DISAGREE with Howard Dean!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. He Ain't A Bad Guy

I'll support the Dem I think has the best chance of beating Bush....

[wyldwolf]

4. Oh, yeah! me too...

...and I like Howard Dean. But this thread was to show that the Iraq war should not be the make or break issue for which you vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I Believe Most Politicians Are Trimmers

Conviction politicians don't fare very well....

No politician is 100% untainted....

[wyldwolf]

14. Correct, so all the bashers of other candidate need only look at...

..their own guy before they cast stones.

[newsguyatl]

86. hey wyldwolf

as much time as you spend on here (bashing dean), don't you think you could muster at least a measly 10 dollars to donate to DU?

or are you really =that= cheap?


nevermind, i think i know the answer.





why don't you take a poll on how CLARK feels about certain issues?


oh wait, he doesn't HAVE a stand on issues. silly me.



though we KNOW how he stands on the war now don't we.

[wyldwolf]

94. Hey newsguy... are you really a news guy...

...not that I need to defend myself but:

I donated quite generously to DU before the software switch over and and before I adopted a new handle.

I need no star to validate myself.

Show me threads where I have bashed Dean (and this one doesn't count since I've only presented facts about his positions.)

And we're not talking about Clark, are we? Start your one Clark thread.

The war is not the end all of all issues.

Silly you!

[Brucey]

67. I agree with DemocratSinceBirth, but also think it's okay for Dean

to have different views. I hope nobody claims to have divine knowledge about everything. We are looking for a candidate who can advance a Democratic, liberal agenda in principle, and get some work done to advance jobs, health care, civil rights, environmental protection, international cooperation, improved quality of life especially for the needy, a responsible budget, diplomacy, and an end to capricious invasions of other countries. Dean might be the best at that end, differences not withstanding.

[Malikshah]

70. *baaauuuggghh* Sorry Wrong answer

Go to the issues page, he does not disagree w/ dean--

[wyldwolf]

81. baaaauuuugh! Sorry! WRONG response...

... Dean feels gun control is a state issue. Kerry is for federal laws.

Dean only "supported" the civil union issue AFTER the decision was made in Vermont and he STILL thinks that should be a state issue.

He is AVOIDING these issues.

[REP]

5. How Disingenious

Not.

"{H}ave nothing against Dean" but yet you've managed to bash him twice!

[wyldwolf]

8. How have I bashed him?

He DID only begrudgingly agree with civil unions when they were forced on him. He is rated A+ with the NRA and thinks gun control should be a state issue.

Documented facts. Those are HIS positions. How is that a bash?

[REP]

10. The Snide Insinuations

"He DID only begrudgingly agree with civil unions..."

He signed the fucking bill. I don't care if he was crying when he did it.

"believe in sane federal gun control laws..."

State laws can't be "sane" is the implication, but provides no support for it.

[gdwill]

11. I think it just means that he doesn't want insane federal gun laws...

...whatever those are.

[wyldwolf]

12. Take it as you will...

... but he DID only begrudgingly agree with civil unions. If it had been left up to him, it would not have happened.

...and, no, gun control laws left up to states can never be sane. What would legal one place would be illegal someplace else.

Sorry. Dean conflicts with the Democratic party positions on these issues.

[gdwill]

15. Unless you have a gun that can shoot over state lines...

...who cares?

[wyldwolf]

21. EVERY gun can shoot over state lines...

... And I would feel much better if I knew someone couldn't go to one state and buy a gun that he COULD NOT buy in my state.

[gdwill]

26. no one cares about your feelings...

...if you're having paranoia problems, a political discussion forum is not the place to go.

I'll be right back, I've got a Hawaiian in my cross-hairs.

[wyldwolf]

30. If you can't stick to the meat of the issue, why bother?

MY feelings are very important on political issues. That is why people can VOTE.

If YOU have a problem with that, Cuba is short trip away.

And yes, your silly Hawaiian reference didn't go unnoticed, but it is still true. EVERY gun can shoot across state lines.

Not EVERY state line, but still "state lines" in the plural.

[gdwill]

34. My point with the Hawaii thing was the point out that the squaballing...

..about who should regulate guns is irrelevant. It's still regulation. The question we should be discussing is should they be regulated at all.

Cuba? I thought everyone was treated equally there? Oh yeah, that's why it ended up so crappy in the first place. You'd think that real communists would be all about the people voting.

As far as your feelings, sorry, I only took issue with them because they're unrealilistic.

[wyldwolf]

43. I believe guns should be regulated... federally...

..and that is the Democratic position.

So if my feelings are unrealisted, then so is the DNC postition.

[gdwill]

45. Guns are regulated federally...

...you can't use them to commit crimes.

[wyldwolf]

48. Then, by your reasoning, EVERYTHING is regulated federally...

...you can't use a writing pen or a salt shaker to commit crimes, either.

What a silly point you made to defend even more silly points.

[gdwill]

50. That's right...

Silly? You're the one who thinks that guns aren't just inatimate objects like writing pens and salt shakers.

But then again, I guess I'm just looking into it too deeply.

On with the unprincipled, petty squaballing!

[wyldwolf]

53. Where have I said that?

Oh, by making the point that guns are inanimate objects like writing pens and salt shakers, are you going to say some foolishness like, "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

[gdwill]

56. Is that not true?

Even if it weren't....even if guns were running around by themselves shooting at people, unless congress is going to let us all take shelter in the capitol building, I'd sure like to be able to shoot back.

[wyldwolf]

59. No, it is not true...

people are indeed ultimately responsible for pulling the trigger, but the national murder rate would surely fall if widespread gun availability didn't make it so incredibly easy to kill another human being.

In actuality, the first half of this slogan is demonstrably false; guns do indeed kill people. But the point that the gun lobby is surely trying to make is that they do not kill people by themselves; they require a human to pull the trigger.

This argument is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that guns make it much easier to kill people. Guns do this in two ways: enhanced ability and feasibility. We can see the enhanced ability from suicide statistics: the most successful suicide attempts are those that involve firearms. And this greater ability also makes murder feasible in a greater number of circumstances. To anyone entertaining murderous impulses, a gun makes it feasible to attack larger people, multiple people, people from a distance, from secrecy, etc. No one in their right mind would try to rob a bank with a knife. But a gun inspires confidence of success in a would-be bank robber, allowing a crime to occur when it wouldn't have otherwise.

Gun control advocates argue that a certain, extremely small percentage of the populace is actively contemplating murder at any given time, and would if they could. They argue the murder rate would drop if these would-be murderers did not possess the enhanced ability and feasibility provided by guns. The above pro-gun slogan responds to this argument illogically, by making an irrelevant point.

A wit once described this irrelevancy thus: "Fingers don't kill people, bullets do."







Thanks to Steve Kangas.

[gdwill]

61. You're right about everything there.

Please consider this:

"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative."

"If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it." — Ayn Rand

And this:

The field of battle on which gun control should be fought is exactly on this issue: man's rights. Statistical arguments on gun control are a red herring -- as the leftists' appeals to hungry children or the environmentalists' appeals to clean parks are also meant to distract their opponents from the fundamental issues at stake. While the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other defenders of the right to bear arms argue over statistics and interpreting the Constitution, the real issues remain untouched and are sacrificed to the enemies of our freedom.

As stated, the gun control debate should be addressed as a debate over man's rights. A man's right to own a gun is based on his right to self-defense. This right itself is not a primary, but rather is a corollary of the right to life. Clearly, if a man has a right to his life, then he necessarily has the right to defend that life in times of need, i.e., against those who act to violate his rights. This is the "ten-second outline" of the source of the right to self-defense.

Given the prior acceptance of an individual's right to his life and his corollary right to self-defense, the conclusion that weapons should be privately owned follows logically. To argue otherwise is to drive a wedge between our moral rights and the physical means by which these rights are implemented. If a man chooses to argue for a right, but denies its reality, then he has stepped into an explicit dichotomy between value and facts. The ultimate conclusion is that man has no rights at all. This was best illustrated in Nazi Germany, where businessmen had the "right" to their property, but the state controlled every aspect of its use and disposal, e.g., setting wages, prices, production levels, etc. Thus, in reality, there were no such rights under the Nazis, regardless of the pieces of paper providing for deeds and titles to property. For the same reason, the rights to life and liberty are meaningless words without the right to control and use the tools necessary to protect these values.

In sum, the moral sanction for why man has the right to own firearms is the right to self-defense. Why? Because a man who possesses the right to defend his life must have the right to possess the means for defending that life: weapons.

[wyldwolf]

65. You're defending from rightwing perspective...

NO ONE has said one cannot defend themselves. No one has said one cannot defend themselves with guns.

We're discussing gun laws. Regulation. Not gun banning - as rightwinger want people to believe.

[gdwill]

68. What's the difference?

I'm allowed to own a gun but I can't do this with it, I can't do that with it, I can't take it here, I can't take it there. I have to have it locked in there, I have to have this part taken apart at this time. I can't own this type, I can't own that type. I can't have this size magazine, I can't have this modification. What's the point in owning it then.

Criminals, by definition don't obey those laws. They have the edge.


Once again: the rights to life and liberty are meaningless words without the right to <b>control and use</b> the tools necessary to protect these values.

[wyldwolf]

72. Here is the difference....

...you are again using rightwing talking points.

If you're defending yourself, what difference does it make what kind of gun you have. Handgun? Shotgun. Semi-automatic. Automatic.

Fact is, unless your home is being invaded by multiple ninjas are something, you do not NEED a highpowered weapon.

But if you WANT a highpowered weapon, you should not have a problem having it registered. Registering it doesn't prevent you from using it but it does assist law enforcement if the weapon is ever used in the commission of a crime.

You yourself insist that defense is the major reason for owning one.
So, restrictions on the ballistics and type shouldn't be an issue with you.

One shot to the heart or a thousand shots peppered into an intruder achieves the same thing. He won't be any more dead.

[gdwill]

76. Need?

I'll decide that thank you very much.

As for your ballyhoo about one shot, one kill: if there was a one-size-fits-all firearm for defense, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the firearms industry would virtually not exist, much less the need for regulation.

[wyldwolf]

78. No, the government will decide for you, thank you very much...

And your irrational emotional "ballyhoo" is just that, pointless.

I was saying that one shot/one kill is just as effective as multiple shots/one kill. But I guess you want to be Rambo and shoot up the entire neighborhood just to fend off a burgler.

[gdwill]

85. Just as effective huh?

If little wussy handguns and highpowered automatic rifles are just as effective against each other, why do you care if I own the rifle then. In fact, why do you care if the criminal has the rifle either?

And if all guns are equally effective at killing all attackers in any type of situation, why bother to aim? why bother to even load the gun?
why bother to even buy it? It will just appear when I need it. Actually, forget that, the police will just appear when I need them and they'll have the guns to defend me with. Actually, even better, there will just be one guy with one gun in a basement somewhere in Washington D.C. and he'll magically use it against every criminal in America.

That is the logical conclusion of your absurd claim.

Look, things don't happen in a theoretical vaccuum. You can't just make rules and expect them to apply to every context. You have to establish principles (for example: people have a right to live their lives) and shape the rules around the principles making sure that the rules don't make it impossible to defend the principles.

A government of principles and a government of rules is the difference between a nation of sustained liberty and a nation of successive tyrannies.

[wyldwolf]

90. You just proved my point.

"If little wussy handguns and highpowered automatic rifles are just as effective against each other, why do you care if I own the rifle then. In fact, why do you care if the criminal has the rifle either?"

You just made my point - and defeated yours. Highpowered automatic rifles can cause multiple deaths by one person very quickly. In fact, that is what they are designed for.

For all you rightwing talking points and "logical conclusion of your absurd claim" rhetoric, you still have not made your case.

But rightwing talking points never do.

[REP]

18. Say Wha...?

States already have different laws, like mandatory waiting periods and "parental consent" laws for abortion; for Sunday liquor sales; even for what must be done to register a car!

Gun control is a losing issue. Dean's answer - state regulation - is just about the only proposal that makes sense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I Believe In The Tenth Amendment Too...

but fundamental rights are guaranteed by the U S Consitution and through the 14th Amendment....

States can regulate bar hours, speed limits, and state sales taxes but when they intrude on the right to choose they are encroaching on constitutional ground....

Up until the recent Supreme Court decision on sodomy you could go to prison in Georgia for going down on your wife but you were ok if you moved to say, New York and did it....

That stuff is wack....

[gdwill]

24. Why does state regulation make sense?

What magical quality is created when the tyrant is 100 miles away instead of 1,000 that is going to solve the gun problems in this country? And by the way, what are the problems anyways?

[wyldwolf]

27. So, you want Automatic weapons sells in your home town?

...or would you rather your neighbor dive over the state line for one?

Or would you rather deer hunters and people that just like to shoot have access to any weapon they want?

Comparing guns to Sunday liquor sales and car registration is short sighted.

[gdwill]

29. Why don't we compare guns to locks on door and security systems...

...and leave the sunday liqour sales and car registration comparisons for Nazi Germany and Brave New World.

[wyldwolf]

33. Look! I DID NOT MAKE the liquor sales and car registration comparisons!

...

[gdwill]

35. Did I say you did?

calm down.

[REP]

31. Cars Kill Every Day

and ANYONE can get a car - a lot easier than they can get a gun.

Semi-auto weapons can be bought anywhere. A special license is needed for full-auto. Do you know how much that license costs and what one must do to obtain one?

Didn't think so!

[wyldwolf]

37. What silly rightwing talking point you use...

..anyone cannot get a car... and not easier.

Cars are not created for purpose of killing.

You show a serious lack of knowledge on the issue. You said:

Semi-auto weapons can be bought anywhere.

Could not be furhter from the truth. For example, you can't purchase or own semi-automatice weapons in New Jersey.

And the reason you need a special liscense for automatic weapons is because of a FEDERAL law.

[dsc]

75. flat our false

It is not easier to get a car than a gun. It is much harder to get the car. Assuming you are financing the car you need a licence and insurance. In many states to get plates you need to show your licence. In some you need to show your insurance. You need to do none of those to get a gun.

[dsc]

73. Flat our wrong

Dean supported civil unions ONE HOUR, AS IN 60 MINUTES, after the decision was handed down (Source Out in the Mountains). Not only that both of his opponents in 2000 (Republican, Progressive) gave him credit for twisting the arms of Democratic and Republican legislators to pass that bill. You are either ignorant or lying. I don't care which.

[wyldwolf]

79. Exactly, so where am I wrong?

He didn't support it until after the decision was handed down. Before that he didn't support it.

[dsc]

82. Here is what you said

... but he DID only begrudgingly agree with civil unions. If it had been left up to him, it would not have happened.

...and, no, gun control laws left up to states can never be sane. What would legal one place would be illegal someplace else.

Sorry. Dean conflicts with the Democratic party positions on these issues.

end of quote

You also have said he came out against them (which is false). You also stated he opposed them at the time of signing which if false. He supported civil unions he is on record as doing so. You have stated the opposite. That makes you wrong.

[wyldwolf]

88. OK, at the very moment he signed it, he was for it...

...obviously, because he signed it. But he wasn't for it while it was in the legislative process, and he signed it after is was already a reality.

He also didn't support it until after the Supreme Court’s Baker ruling.

He said gay marriage makes him “uncomfortable like everyone else.”

He is STILL opposed to a national civil unions law.

[dsc]

93. more disembling

you really don't know when to quit. First he supported civil unions for four months. Second according to both of his opponents in 2000 he twisted arms to get the law passed. Third you are spinning hard on the national civil unions bill. He is in favor of making states make gay couples and straight ones equal (source HRC forum) but does want to let states decide how. And you did say, repeatedly, that he DIDN'T SUPPORT THEM WHEN HE SIGNED THE BILL. Words have meaning. Even when you wish they didn't.

[wyldwolf]

84. Here is what the Out in The Mountains Interview with Dean revealed:

He sided with th domestic partnership legislation only after the Supreme Court’s Baker ruling.

He said gay marriage makes him “uncomfortable like everyone else.”

He is STILL opposed to a national civil unions law.

[dsc]

89. It isn't domestic partnership

those are different things. You claimed he didn't support civil unions when he signed the law. Words have meaning even when you wish they didn't. If you meant he didn't support them until the decision came down you should have typed that. You typed something else. Finally, he supports making states make gay couples equal to straight ones (source HRC forum) but letting states decide what to call it. Technically he doesn't support a national civil unions bill but to say that without the qualification I just supplied is spin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Agree With Both Of You....

All pols are trimmers or at least the successful ones...

I love Bill Clinton but his triangulation theory authored by that cretin Dick Morris was just a fancy word for trimming...


Hell, Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act in the dead of night with no fanfare...

[clar]

13. Wrong.

Sorry. After the decision in December of 1999, Dean spoke out repeatedly and strongly, in forum after forum, and on the air, in favor of the decision. I know, I live in Vermont. Knock him for other things, there are definitely positions he's taken that I disagree with and think were wrong. This isn't the issue with which to take him on.

[REP]

16. Bashers Don't Care

I'm more impressed by what a person does, say, like actually SIGN the legislation. I don't care if he did it joyfully, woefully, naked or in leathers.

I've heard Dean talk about the Civil Unions legislations, and I believe him when he says he supports it. Even if he were lying about liking it, he still did the right thing.

[wyldwolf]

17. Oh, c'mon!

He was AGAINST the bill but it went through and he begrudgingly signed it. OF COURSE he would defend it AFTER he signed it. Not doing so would make him look weak.

[REP]

20. Still Claiming You're Not a Basher?

What word am I thinking of? Ah, yes! Prevarication. I think you have mastered it.

[wyldwolf]

22. Yep, still am!

Stating a fact is not bashing - unless one gets nervous over the implications of the fact.

I believe you are a walking talking example of "reactionary."

[REP]

28. Sorry - I'll Use Smaller Words

You are giving your own negative spin on two Dean positions. Your negative spin is not fact - it's your opinion. You have negative feelings about this issues, but instead of saying why you think they're bad ideas, you criticize a candidate's mood and use words that make it seem as though you don't think state gun control is "sane" but you don't say why. That's bashing.

Dean signed Civil Union legislation = fact

He did it grudgingly = opinion

Dean is for state gun control = fact

Federal gun control is nicer = opinion

[wyldwolf]

42. I'm sorry, I'll talk to you as though you're a third grader...

Dean signed Civil Union legislation = fact
He did it grudgingly = fact. Went on record for opposition to it.
Dean is for state gun control IN PLACE OF federal gun control = fact

[REP]

52. Tee Hee

You're so cute when you're all het up!!

[wyldwolf]

54. and you're so obvious when you dodge the issue...

[dsc]

77. You need to cite that

as it is out and out false. I defy you to find a quote of him being against civil unions (he was against marriage). He came out in favor of civil unions an hour after the decision was handed down. Put up or shut up.

[clar]

32. Vermont under Dean

was the first state in the Union to recognize civil unions. Dean put his career on the line by signing that bill, and unless you were here and really understand how this issue tore apart our small state, you really can't understand it. Dean is well respected and liked by the vocal and sizeable GLBT community here. Most of them stand behind his Presidential bid. But don't let reality stand in the way of your disgusting and gratuitous bashing.

[wyldwolf]

47. I think it is you that needs the reality check...

you know as well as I do he was opposed to the bill.

And you know as well as I do that he has taken states rightest positions on matters of civil unions and gun control to mask his feelings on them.

Would you like examples?

[Malikshah]

71. Get a clue

You are spouting like some litmus-test impaired figure here.

The point is that he signed them into law, had to wear kevlar when discussing it due to death threats.

His position on guns is reasoned and nuanced, unlike those who wish to have assault weapons on the one hand, and to melt all guns on the other.

Wake up and smell the reality.

[wyldwolf]

80. You wake up and smell the reality...

his "leave it up to the states" is just a way for him not to have to take a stand on the issues.

[gdwill]

6. Why is it necessary for the government to recognize marriages at all.

The only difference between a marriage and a civil union is it's tax implications right?

Why does the government care? Seriously, if they weren't using extortion to get people to get married, and if only indidivuals and not organizations (ie: companies) nor associations (ie: a married couple), this wouldn't be an issue.

And as for some private company's policy about treating married couples, civil union couples, or unmarried/un-civil unioned people better or worse, that's their prerogative. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

[gdwill]

9. And as far as the social implications...

...I don't support social engineering. I'm not a facist, sorry.

[diamondsoul]

36. So what you're saying is-

Marriage should be voided as a legal term and all couplings should be viewed as civil unions, right? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly. If so I agree wholeheartedly. My real beef with all of it is the DOMA. I don't believe the Government has any business defining legal terms according to spiritual or religious dictates.

If I understand things correctly, though, isn't the right to adopt a problem with Civil Unions?? That's another beef I have, I don't much care for the notion that anyone with a decent ability to parent is denied the chance to adopt a child. That's just wrong. ANY decent, loving family is better than no family, and that includes single, married, civil union, gay or straight. We've got too many kids needing to be loved and provided for to be denying any adult capable of doing those things without abusing the kids.

I have to say I started to type "ANY family" and then realized I needed to be clearer about that. Obviously, an abusive family isn't better than no family.

[gdwill]

40. Well, you got what I'm saying for the most part...

...but if what you mean by "civil unions" is a regonition by the government, at any level, or a the formation of a new legal entity, then I'm against it. If it weren't for all of the other things that the government meddled into people's lives, there wouldn't be any advantage or diadvantage to having civil unions, much less marriages.

As far as the religious implications, I don't see what that has to do, or at least should have to do, w/ the legal system at all. I'd assume you agree.

And as far as the implications for adoptions, each individual in civil union or a marriage is scrutinized on an individual basis anyways, so in effect, what I advocate is already working there.

[gdwill]

41. vital typo correction...

...government, at any level, of* the formation...

[diamondsoul]

49. Actually Civil Unions recognized only by

a handful of States do not allow those individuals to adopt except in those specific States.

This is a basic problem with the situation as it stands, in relation to adoption. Gay couples can couple into a Civil Union, say in Vermont. Ok, they then go on to adopt a child, also in Vermont. If that same family decides to relocate to a State no recognizing Civil Unions, their child can legally be taken from them. The adoption is not valid any more than the union itself. That's why I say we need a civil union law across the board for all regardless of sexual orientation, and on a Federal level.

I understand what you're saying, though. You propose as little government involvement in private individual affairs as possible. I'll have to contemplate that a while in relation to this issue, I think. Part of me agrees with you, but there's another side of me that seems to be kicking up a fuss in the back of my brain. :D I'll have to listen to those two sides duke it out and get back to you with the results, I think.

[gdwill]

55. That fuss in the back of your brain is because you're not realizing...

...that the across-the-board civil union movement is a reactionary movement. You're treating the prohibition against certain types of free association as an unalterable fact of nature, rather than what it actually is: some politician's power lust incarnate.

As for whether or not a nation-wide, across-the-board civil union law or an abolition of government regonition of any type of social arraingment is the best way to go about making this issue a non-issue (once again), I don't know. But in the long term, the only thing that will do it is a clear understanding and a consistent adhearance to the principles of individual liberty.

[soleft]

25. I resent your exploitation of an issue that really concerns me

Just so you can Surreptitiously criticize Dean.

[wyldwolf]

44. Nope! Just to make a comparison for the Dean people...

..who are using the war as the make or break issue.

There are those who feel very strongly about the gun control and civil union issues.

And are offended at Deans position on them.

Just as many Dean fans are offended at Kerry's was postion or Clark's military background. I didn't say YOU were.

[diamondsoul]

62. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the intent.

But may I ask you how you feel about Civil Unions on a State by State basis? hat appears to be Dr. Dean's position on the issue, but if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.

I have to say this is an important issue to me as well, having several homosexual family members whom I love dearly.

If you have the time to spare, let me share something with you from my own family history. I was an illegitmate child of the 60's, an "accident of love" as my mother sometimes put it. I mention that only in passing as it meant I spent the first 6 years of my life living with my maternal Grandparents. They were an amazing and fascinating bunch. Roman Catholic and, interestingly, they had a strong tendency to buck Church dictates if it meant someone in their family might suffer.

We had the usual family crises I think, but the one most relevant was happening even before my birth and, for a long time after my birth, completely unbeknownst to me. I didn't connect the dots until I was 12 and accidentally walked in on a scene which is now etched permanently on my memory. My Grandfather's brother was adopted. I'm not sure it's relevant except that I've been a party to adopted children being treated differently than blood kin. That did NOT take place with my Great Uncle. I'm rather proud of that fact, and generally very proud of that branch of my family tree overall.

I've no idea when he officially revealed his homosexuality to his family, but it must have been long before I was born. I'll refer to him as "Uncle F" from here on out. Uncle F., for as far back as I can remember, was never seen without "Uncle M". That's what we called him, "Uncle M". He was Uncle F.'s life-partner, fully and lovingly accepted as family. I never made that connection because, for whatever reason, they were very cautious about open displays of affection in front of the entire family. Uncle M, when any of us kids asked, was classified as "Uncle F.'s very special friend". We never questioned that or what it meant, even if we thought it a little strange.

I can recall wondering, as much as they clearly loved children, why neither of them ever had any. Neither man had ever tried to live a straight life, as far as I know, never married or attempted to "fit in" to society. Uncle F. left the church around the same time he left home to live with Uncle M. The family rallied around him and his decision and declared that, church or no church, he was family and always welcome along with his partner. If one couldn't make a family gathering, the other was always invited to attend alone, just as if they were a married couple.

In any case, at the tender age of 12, I was at a family gathering. We're a gigantic bunch and it's not at all strange for a few of us to wander off from the main gathering for a few moments of quiet and a chance to regroup. Well this particular afternoon, the Uncles had wandered off into the now empty kitchen for a few moments alone. I wasn't aware of it until I went looking for a light snack in the form of fresh from the garden peas. I stepped through the door, and saw my Uncles holding hands and smiling at each other. I stopped dead in my tracks and I know my eyes were wide as saucers when the truth of their relationship clicked in my head. Now let me make clear, it was shock to an innocent and naive young girl, and nothing to be offended by.

I stood there gaping for a second or two, I'm sure. They, caught up in their private moment, never knew I was there and I did not make any move to reveal myself. I just watched them for a moment. I looked at their faces, and the one thing that causes me to remember that moment vividly, some 18 years + later, was the absolute clearly divine love between them. When I grew up and began considering what I wanted from a relationship, that memory was a defining force.

Now I look back on them, both deceased for a few years now, and wish they could have had everything they ever wanted, and most especially that they had been able to raise some children. I think it's a dreadful tragedy that I may well have been the only child ever touched by their capacity to love, and especially so when there were and are so many who need people like my Uncles to teach them about love and loving.

That memory is why I can't bring myself to support anyone who won't see to it that homosexual couples, like my Uncles, are entitled to everything heterosexual couples are entitled to. I don't see that as a "bash" against Dr. Dean, I see it as a recognition of a refusal to do things half-way. My opinion based on certain rights left unanswered is that Dr. Dean's position is a half-measure. It causes me to wonder if his intent is to placate the homosexual community. Probably not, but the seed is already in my mind, and it came from Dr. Dean himself.

[dsc]

83. actually that is wrong

He stated at the HRC forum that he was in favor of forcing states to treat gay couples and straight ones equally but letting the states choose how to do that. That is not state by state civil unions.

[Mairead]

38. I'm for civil unions conveying all the legal benefits, and marriage...

...conveying only religious ones. And I'm in favor of civil unions being open to any combination of freely-consenting adults.

[LWolf]

39. It depends.

On the definition.

I support equality under the law for all life partnerships. Whatever you want to call that.

[diamondsoul]

46. I'm not a Dean supporter anyway, but

you've brought up two things that made me look twice at his positions.

I'm in favor of Federally recognized civil unions for all, accepted and acknowleged in every State in the Union. I think what some fail to realize is that there is a lot more at stake than the right to marry. This nonsense about States issue is just that, nonsense. People have this notion it's all about the financial benefits of marriage, and it isn't. Marriage, right now, defines a family unit and I find that offensive. I want homosexual couples allowed to adopt, I want singles allowed to adopt, I want every capable adult allowed to adopt a child who needs a family, period. Civil Unions defined by the States won't make that happen.

My stance on this isn't about the public notion of morality, it's about taking care of our children and each other. If morality means thousands of children languish is a disgustingly flawed system of foster care, then throw it right out the damned window!

On gun control, I definitely think we need some better across the board Federal controls, but please don't ask me what they might be. Once again, leaving it completely up to the states is a dangerous proposition, imho. There is one gun control group mentioned on that SelectSmart Presidential Selector I think goes entirely too far, insisting certain types of weapons must be kept in an unusable condition, and things like that. I understand the basis for it, but I personally feel it steps too far in limiting individual rights. There are extremely responsible and reputable gun collectors who have kept various types of weapons in usable condition without a sigle mishap. It's wrong to punish them because stupid people have not followed their examples.

Something else about guns, some people hate them, and I suppose I can understand that. I'm not one of those people. I respect guns and gun-owners. I also firmly believe there will come a time when future generations will look at guns as an archaic and strange item of little use in their own time. I agree with my candidate, peace is inevitable. I absolutely believe there will come a time when violence and war will be obsolete. Even so, I see no real harm in allowing people to keep weapons at this point in time, provided they are responsible and the weapons are properly accounted for for law enforcement purposes.

[wyldwolf]

51. But anti-gun control activists ...

...don't want laws defining what is "responsible" and they don't want weapons accounted for for law enforcement purposes.

In fact, the very meat of anti-gun control folks's arguments is to NOT have them registered because they're scared the big bad feds will come and take them away.

[gdwill]

57. Law enforcement purposes?

What about enforcing the 2nd Ammendment, that's a law.

[wyldwolf]

58. Do you REALLY want to discuss the 2nd Amendment?

... the belief that it grants everyone the right to bear arms never stands under scrutiny.

Care to debate it?

[gdwill]

63. absolutely...

...it's the militia that needs to be regulated, that's why the people reserve the right to keep and bear arms. To guard against and unruly, tyrannical militia/government.

[wyldwolf]

66. Exactly, so unless you're in the militia...

...or what the Militia became - the national guard - the 2nd Amendment grants you no right to own a gun.

Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress. Interestingly, even interpreting an individual right in the 2nd Amendment presents the gun lobby with some thorny problems, like the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons. Liberal Resurgence

Did I misunderstand you? Are you FOR gun control and do you believe the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT give citizens gun ownership rights? Or do you believe the opposite?

[gdwill]

69. What?

I'm saying that the people reserve the right to defend themselves, with guns if necessary, against the militia.

[wyldwolf]

74. That isn't what the 2nd Amendment says...

...or even implies.

[diamondsoul]

64. I think she was responding to MY comment

about weapons being registered for law enforcement purposes, and by that I meant for tracking weapons used to commit crimes. Myself, I believe it's important for the Police to know who has a properly registered weapon which might have been stolen and later used in the commission of a crime. It's my belief this aids in the tracking of the criminal rather than any real persecution of the law-abiding gun owner.

[dsc]

87. You are conflating two issues here

Singles can adopt in every state. They may be held to a higher standard than a couple is but they can adopt. In some states without civil unions gay couples can adopt. One example of that in New Jersey. Finally in a different post you said that adoptions in one state can be made invalid by moving to a different state. I find that hard to believe do you have any citation for that? Civil unions shouldn't be conflated with children. One of the main points that opponets of gay marriage make is that marriage is all about children.

[opstachuck]

60. in regards to civil unions...

the fact is whatever the circumstances were in Vermont for the civil unions bill he's making it a much bigger issue now than he has to and so i give him credit for that. i haven't seen anyone else speak so passionately about gay rights, so on this issue i think he's probably being sincere.

and, as to the gun control issue your statement is condescending and doesn't deserve a response. if you could articulate a "sane" argument on the issue, then you might actually get an interesting discussion, but as far as i can tell this isn't a serious inquiry.

[jonnyblitz]

92. its a backlash against anti-Clark threads disguised as serious inquiry. nt

[Mairead]

91. I didn't see the 'gun control' part when I responded

I think it should be obvious to anyone without an agenda that the entire Bill Of Rights --up until the last catchall-- talks about individual, personal rights that we, as citizens, did not surrender and that the ruling class cannot lawfully take from us. It's really not possible to make a rational argument that, of all the Amendments, only the Second doesn't refer to a personal right. That makes no sense whether considered in the context of the other Amendments, or in the context of other Founder writings, or in the context of the sociopolitical history of the time generally. In Britain at that time, 'gentlemen' were actually required to have personal weapons...and US law derived strongly from UK law.

Regretably, almost all our Constitutional Rights have been bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated over the years because, as Jefferson and others pointed out, the ruling class never lets up on its attempts to increase its power at our expense, but we resist those encroachments neither consistently nor well.