Gay love

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm shocked he had the courage to stick his neck out. I'll give him credit, because the fact that gay marriage is rejected everywhere, tells me he isn't making as many friends as he's losing.

Well, it's not rejected everywhere and interestingly enough polls seem to show much more support that state constitutions or laws would indicate.

Bryan nails it, any of us can go online get ordained as a minister and be performing as many perfectly "legal" weddings in 48 states as we'd like. 50% will end in a divorce...

Gay rights is one of those issues where I think the dems come out ahead by leading the charge.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it's not rejected everywhere and interestingly enough polls seem to show much more support that state constitutions or laws would indicate.

-spence

I think part of the fact that polls show one thing, voting another is, that the folks for it (not the activists) are less passionate to vote on an issue like this than folks against it, largely based on religious beliefs (not a judgement on folks beliefs FYI).

Turn-out pro then, tends to be less than turn-out con, even though they tell a pollster on the phone they think it should be legal.... Jim should be able to marry Fishbones without any problem, even in Texas

Again, to quote Jon Stewart from many years ago, "Gay Marriage must be mandatory, why else would anyone give a #^&#^&#^&#^&" (And I use the quote recognizing a churches right to define marriage as they see fit)

[likwid]

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I think part of the fact that polls show one thing, voting another is, that the folks for it (not the activists) are less passionate to vote on an issue like this than folks against it, largely based on religious beliefs (not a judgement on folks beliefs FYI).

Turn-out pro then, tends to be less than turn-out con, even though they tell a pollster on the phone they think it should be legal.... Jim should be able to marry Fishbones without any problem, even in Texas

Again, to quote Jon Stewart from many years ago, "Gay Marriage must be mandatory, why else would anyone give a #^&#^&#^&#^&" (And I use the quote recognizing a churches right to define marriage as they see fit)

In the 2008 election, Obama won California by a huge margin. In that same vote in California, gay marriage was on the ballot. It was rejected. The same folks who came out for Obama, said "no" to gay marriage. I cannot explain that, but it's fact.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In the 2008 election, Obama won California by a huge margin. In that same vote in California, gay marriage was on the ballot. It was rejected. The same folks who came out for Obama, said "no" to gay marriage. I cannot explain that, but it's fact.

I don't think Specne is wrong in saying Polls say one thing. the results of elections saw another. I proposed one idea. Maybe in California it wasn't the case of turn-out, but I do still believe it may be the case in so-called special elections...

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In the 2008 election, Obama won California by a huge margin. In that same vote in California, gay marriage was on the ballot. It was rejected. The same folks who came out for Obama, said "no" to gay marriage. I cannot explain that, but it's fact.

I think there are two reasons.

1) Demographics. I'd wager that younger people are more tolerant of same sex marriage yet they don't turn out in as large of numbers. They also have much less influence over the political debate.

This obviously, is changing.

2) Unity. I'd wager that anti-same sex bills have had less opposition because politicians have tried to distance themselves from the debate. It's also easier to rally against something than rally for it...

That's what's fundamentally different this time around, with the POTUS advocating for equal rights you're likely going to see a lot more Congress people and state representatives coming out of the closet to join Obama. Already today Jack Reed did just that.

Same sex marriage laws have been approved via legislation in Vermont, the District of Columbia, Washington (pending) and Maine where it was delayed.

Yes, in other states it's been through the courts but remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think there are two reasons.

1) Demographics. I'd wager that younger people are more tolerant of same sex marriage yet they don't turn out in as large of numbers. They also have much less influence over the political debate.

This obviously, is changing.

2) Unity. I'd wager that anti-same sex bills have had less opposition because politicians have tried to distance themselves from the debate. It's also easier to rally against something than rally for it...

That's what's fundamentally different this time around, with the POTUS advocating for equal rights you're likely going to see a lot more Congress people and state representatives coming out of the closet to join Obama. Already today Jack Reed did just that.

Same sex marriage laws have been approved via legislation in Vermont, the District of Columbia, Washington (pending) and Maine where it was delayed.

Yes, in other states it's been through the courts but remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree

-spence

Gay marriage wasn't delayed in ME. The approved gay marriage law was struck down by public referendum. The law asn't delayed, it was defeated.

"with the POTUS advocating for equal rights you're likely going to see a lot more Congress people and state representatives "

We'll see. While I agree with you on gay marriage, I dobn't think this POTUS has as much weight (especially with non-liberals) as you suspect.

"remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree "

Not in my case.

i think this hurts Obama slightly more than it helps him. Which means one of two things. Either he is politically brave, or he has stupid advisers.

The only issue I have with gay marriage is this...if you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, by what logic do you not include groups of 3 or 4? Where do you draw the line?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Gay marriage wasn't delayed in ME. The approved gay marriage law was struck down by public referendum. The law asn't delayed, it was defeated.

After it was signed into law, it just wasn't implemented.

We'll see. While I agree with you on gay marriage, I dobn't think this POTUS has as much weight (especially with non-liberals) as you suspect.

Politically Obama needs issues he think can motivate the middle. If Romney moves Right on the issue it will irritate independent voters.

The only issue I have with gay marriage is this...if you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, by what logic do you not include groups of 3 or 4? Where do you draw the line?

Modern ethics in the Western World has clearly settled on monogamy as the norm. In this context it would make no difference if you were taking multiple same sex partners vs heterosexual ones.

They're different issues entirely.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

After it was signed into law, it just wasn't implemented.


Politically Obama needs issues he think can motivate the middle. If Romney moves Right on the issue it will irritate independent voters.



Modern ethics in the Western World has clearly settled on monogamy as the norm. In this context it would make no difference if you were taking multiple same sex partners vs heterosexual ones.

They're different issues entirely.

-spence

"After it was signed into law, it just wasn't implemented."

As usual, you are 100% wrong on the facts. Do you know why it wasn't implemented, in Maine? Because after the politicians signed it into law, the public said "not so fast, we want to vote on this." It went to a public vote, and the public, like they have every single time they have been given a say on this, rejected it. Again, you are not entitled to your own facts. Look it up. I'm right. The politicians didn't decide on their own to delay implementation - the public said "hell, no". And that's in liberal Maine.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maine...ory?id=8992720

A key quote, if you are interested in truth...

"Voters rejected a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. The repeal comes just six months after the measure was passed by the Maine legislature and signed by the Democratic Gov. John Baldacci. "



"Politically Obama needs issues he think can motivate the middle."

I agree. However, if gay marriage has been voted on 32 times, and it has been rejected 32 times (32 for 32, that is incredible), please tell me how openly supporting gay marriage helps Obama with independents. You cannot tell me that only radicals oppose gay marriage, not if it has been summarily rejected 32 times in 32 attempts. Few issues have such a consensus. North Carolina is hardly a hardcore conservative state - Obama won there in 2008 - and homosexual marriage was shot down in a rout.

"Modern ethics in the Western World has clearly settled on monogamy as the norm"

I cannot imagine what planet you live on if you think that. I support monogomy, but that puts me in a very small minority. Rick Santorum was crucified for his traditional Catholic beliefs. More than 50% of marriages end in divorce, abortions are up, infidelity is up...Spence, I sincerely wish monogomy was the norm, but that's one of the most demonstrably false things you have ever said. Your side, the liberal side, gets a lot of talking points from Hollywood. Tell me how common monogomy is out there, and in other liberal places.

One other thing about homesexuality. And again, I'm in favor of gay marriage. But a homesexual relationship is not the same thing as a heterosexual relationship, there is a huge, huge difference. One of those unions can produce life, the other cannot. Society cannot exist without heterosexual relationships, therefore society has a vested interest in protecting heterosexual relationships. I do not see homosexual marriage as a threat to traditional marriage, but I can see where someone else might.

And I asked a question that you - once again - chose to ignore. If you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, how can you exclude a threesome? What if 3 consenting adults genuinely love each other? Who are you to say they can't be married? Why don't they have the same rights as the rest of us? Every single argument in favor of gay marriage, every single one, can just as easily be used to support the right of a threesome to be married. I'd love to see you refute that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Same sex marriage laws have been approved via legislation in Vermont, the District of Columbia, Washington (pending) and Maine where it was delayed.

Yes, in other states it's been through the courts but remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree

-spence

wrong...it's judicial activism when you legislate from the bench circumventing the voters and/or their representatives as you've pointed out...doesn't have anything to do with agreeing or disagreeing, it has to do with respect for the law and understanding the limits and proper role of your office......

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it's not rejected everywhere and interestingly enough polls seem to show much more support that state constitutions or laws would indicate.

Bryan nails it, any of us can go online get ordained as a minister and be performing as many perfectly "legal" weddings in 48 states as we'd like. 50% will end in a divorce...

Gay rights is one of those issues where I think the dems come out ahead by leading the charge.

-spence

" it's not rejected everywhere "

Spence, in the first 32 states that voted on it, it was shot down. As far as I know, not one state has approved it by vote, it is only legal in places (like CT) where the courts odrered it. They won't vote on it in CT because even here, as blue a state as you can get, it would get shot down.

So when you say it's "not rejected everywhere", I think (I may be wrong) you made that up. Please tell us where it has been approved by voters, not where it was rammed down the public's throat by activist judges?

"polls seem to show much more support "

What polls? Spence, it was rejected in 32 consecutive states, and that includes California and Oregon, for God's sakes.

I actually agree with you on the issue, I'm just stating the facts. You seem to be making stuff up...

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it's not rejected everywhere and interestingly enough polls seem to show much more support that state constitutions or laws would indicate.

Bryan nails it, any of us can go online get ordained as a minister and be performing as many perfectly "legal" weddings in 48 states as we'd like. 50% will end in a divorce...

Gay rights is one of those issues where I think the dems come out ahead by leading the charge.

-spence

There ar 16 million baptists in the south and midwest that will not vote for Obama to the person. Ohio and those other swing states are not going to be labeled in the majority for gay marriage under any circumstances. And its not just the baptists who will swing anyway but for Obama. Maybe here in the east and on the very west coast it will work out well for the dems with the gays and lesbians, not in middle America.

[spence]

Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?

Originally Posted by Swimmer

There ar 16 million baptists in the south and midwest that will not vote for Obama to the person. Ohio and those other swing states are not going to be labeled in the majority for gay marriage under any circumstances. And its not just the baptists who will swing anyway but for Obama. Maybe here in the east and on the very west coast it will work out well for the dems with the gays and lesbians, not in middle America.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by spence

Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No.

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

No.

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by spence

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you're hardly in a position here to question anyone else's facts.

I agree Obama did this to get votes. That was his intent. But I think it's a boneheaded move that will cost him more votes than it gets him. Obama already had a lock on the gay vote. IMHO opinion,supporting gay marriage hurts him with independents, as gay marriage has been almost universally rejected.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you're hardly in a position here to question anyone else's facts.

Based on your continued use of the word I really don't know what a fact means to you.

I agree Obama did this to get votes. That was his intent. But I think it's a boneheaded move that will cost him more votes than it gets him. Obama already had a lock on the gay vote. IMHO opinion,supporting gay marriage hurts him with independents, as gay marriage has been almost universally rejected.

The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

The objective is to position Obama as forward leaning and in contrast to Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters.

I'd wager this is part of a larger strategy and we'll see more ideas similar to this in the future.

-spence

[Piscator]

[QUOTE=spence;938224]Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?

QUOTE]

The historian Elaine Frantz Parsons describes the membership:

Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen