How will they confront....

[american_punk]

same sex marriage. All the big candidates like Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman are against it. How do you think the candidates should handle this issue.

p.s. I'll go on the record and say that I am not for gay marriage. I am a traditionalist and I don't think we should have to redefine the word "marriage" just to appease a minority. I am however warm to the idea of a "civil union" in which the couple would get insurance benefits and stuff like that. I think most gays would be happy with this too

[La_Serpiente]

1. Hmmm

I am not even going to comment on this because this will be flamed in a couple seconds

[BayCityProgressive]

2. thankyou

for telling me what I should be happy with. Screw off biggot.

[american_punk]

3. hold on there...

I am not a bigot. I simply believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and appararently, so do alot of top Democrats. I said that I was for a "civil union". Look, I'm sorry if I'm not as liberal as you, bu that doesn't make me a bigot

[La_Serpiente]

5. we're a pretty liberal bunch here

sometimes, if things get too conservative, they get deleted.

Civil Unions is like "seperate but equal". GLBT don't want that at all. We just want equality. How can gay marriage threaten the instiution of marriage when it has been detriorating for years? half of all marriages end up in divorce and infedelity has been increasing throughout the years. I don't see how gay marriage is threatning to me at least.

This is a Republican wedge issue. Don't play into their trap.

[american_punk]

6. look...

I'm sorry if I offended somebody(I'm new here, gimme some time to find out where ya'll stand on the issues), but this happens to be something to feel strongly about. I have personal reasons for this. I think we should address the original question I posed about how the Democratic candidates will address this issue. Look, I'm guessing the guy who called me a bigot was a homosexual. I'm sorry if I offended you, but my opinion differs from urs on this subject and I hope you respect that.

[La_Serpiente]

8. My dream

is that we can frame this issue as a civil rights issue. Many people during the pre-civil rights era also framed interracial marraiges in a theological issue. What evidence is there? Take Bob Jones University, a college that banned interracial marriages only until a few years ago.

You can stay where you are, but myself and other are going to ram this through the minds of people. You can either stay where you are and allow GLBT people to be discrimnated minority (Yes, I say discriminated because that is what is going on here) or stick to your guns. GLBT are not infringing on religion. They are only asking for equality under the law. They only wanted to be treated with dignity and respect, and that is it.

[JohnKleeb]

9. Have you decided to support DK yet Sep?

because he said in that USA Today interview that it was about civil rights pure and simple that is gay marriage. I am all for gay marriage honestly, I am straight, I really dont care, if gays wanna get married so be it, it doesnt affect me, and its their right to.

[La_Serpiente]

10. Actually

lol...you know what, he's been on my mind this morning and last night. Like...seriously. I was for Dean at first, but then I switched to Kerry. Then I felt Kerry had issues of candor. Now, I am going for Kucinich as of two hours ago.

so yes, I am for Kucinich. You got me. :-)

[JohnKleeb]

14. Weird dude

It was in that USA today interview btw. I was for Dean unoffically last spring, then I heard about Kucinich, been there ever since, have had my highs and downs, right now I am feeling like I am on a high, he's continuing to speak out about what in fact needs to spoken out about. You switch candiates as quick as my bud leftistrebel does ;) heh the story behind that is that Lefty has supported like 4-5 of the candiates so far. It is about civil rights.

[american_punk]

11. how I hope it happens

if gay marriage doesn't go away, I think it should be a state by state issue, not a national thing. individual states should decide if they want to officially recognize homosexuals as a couple. and no, it ain't gonna affect me, but I doubt I'll be changing my mind on teh subject. I'm sorry, but I have my reason for feeling about this subject the way I do. I think it goes to show that while we are all on teh left side of the spectrum, there are varying opinions between us.

[no name no slogan]

15. The only problem is

if you live in Alabama, and you are GLBT and want your union to be "official", you're out of luck. If civil rights were left to be decided on a state-by-state basis, we very well could still have segregation today in some places. Or, if you get a Civil Union in VT, but move to Texas-- your rights are not recognized by Texas law, and you're back to square one.

Civil marriage is a civil rights issue-- equal protection for all, regardless of where you live, how much money you make, or what your sexual orientation is.

[lefty_mcduff]

4. How the issue of 'who marries who' ever became a political hot potato

is beyond me. And how the repukes think they can dictate 'who can marry who' is beyond me. And how people can claim that society will collapse if two people publically profess their love for each other. The repukes are trying to make this *the* issue of the election (get's the mouth breathers all frothy).

[LuminousX]

7. Semantic games

Marriage, Civil Unions, etc.

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, there are two elements at play. One is the religious element. Each religion gets to decide who it will allow to be married. Some religions don't allow it's members to be married outside of the religion. That is that religion's perogative.

The legal aspect, to me, is the more important aspect. Legally allowing two people to be recognized as being related to each other though there is no blood relationship. That is what this should be about - legal recognition of a union between two people. I personally want to see this apply to any two people. If two old widows want to be legally tied to each other, why shouldn't they be? Why does the relationship have to be one of sexual love?

So it boils down: Gay marriages (marriage as in religious ceremony) are up to the church. If the church doesn't allow it, find another church. Gay unions (legally recognized relationships) should be protected by the Constitution as the constitution should be blind to gender and should only be concerned with the pure legal aspect.

[musiclawyer]

12. Brilliant

I agree totally....Send your logical and clear analysis to your favorite candidate

[helleborient]

13. I would agree...

If it became law...that marriage was not used in legal terms.

It is called marriage by the government, even though it is a religious term.

If we're going to say civil unions are what gay people have under the law..then my heterosexual marriage should be called a civil union by the law as well...and heterosexual people should be getting a civil union license.

There are many more commonalities between my heterosexual marriage and many gay marriages than there are differences. Marriage is marriage, regardless of your gender in my mind.

If the law insists on calling the relationship between people of the same gender something different than that of people of opposite genders, then I think the law can simply insert the words heterosexual and homosexual in front of the word marriage.

[no name no slogan]

16. Exactly-- where in the IRS code does "civil union" appear?

That's the main difference with me. It may seem like "semantics" to some, but it could mean the difference between being recognized as a full human being or as having "separate but equal" rights.

Making gay marriage the law of the land eliminates this whole semantic song and dance and clearly states that unions between same-sex individuals have the same legal standing as those between different-sex couples.