Now who do I vote for?

[deezire1900]

I thought Kerry and Edwards approved and supported gay marriage...i was dead wrong. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard it, but Edwards said that he and Kerry believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, he said it like 6 times! I know...he also stated that the constitution should not be amended to hurt people...but Chaney at least said, he believed Freedom means Freedom for all people.

I am hurt...weird.

 

[Regis2001]

I believe they support Civil Unions with exactly the same status as a marriage. It's a lot less controversial, and achieves the same effect without pissing off a lot of people.

Really, if it has the same effect, what's the big deal over one 8-letter word?

 

[human_male]

Vote for the one who starts fewer wars.

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

I believe they support Civil Unions with exactly the same status as a marriage. It's a lot less controversial, and achieves the same effect without pissing off a lot of people.

Really, if it has the same effect, what's the big deal over one 8-letter word?

The big deal is that if they create cival unions instead of marriage that leaves things open to revise what a Cival Union means in the future (to something worse) without affecting straight marriages. Also it's what the word means to a lot of people. Cival Union is not what someone wants to do with their loved one, they want to get married to the person they love. Controversial or not the uptight section of this country needs to get their head out of their ass and realize there is no reason to prevent this other then their own ignorance. Allowing them to give us something seperate then actual marriage sets up up for them to continue a seperate but equal standard (which they also tried with african americans, we all know how well that went over).

-Zergplex

 

[College_geek]

Good point about them trying to change the definition later on, but most of me wants to say that at least it's a step forward, albeit a small awkward one, in the right direction.

 

[Regis2001]

Hmm. Interesting points, Zergplex. I have come across them before in debates, and I have to say that the concerns you raise are valid. However, if you think about it, they are also open themselves to question.

You say that the 'separate but equal' institution of a Civil Union will be open to interference. Well, the same is true of marriage. The moment it became a political issue, it became open to interference. I admit that having a separate institution means that it will be easier to discriminate, but any reasonably careful politician will legislate to prevent any significant erosion of the rights appertaining to this particular issue.

As for the connotations of the word marriage, this is an issue not for the politicians but for the people involved. The attachment to the institution of marriage is sentimental - the real importance is practical. Gay couples can refer to 'getting married', refer to being married, talk however they like about their legal and emotional status. As long as they have the same legal rights as their heterosexual counterparts, it's a minor issue.

In conclusion, I leave you with this thought: better to get somewhere with the minimum of effort than to get nowhere with an enormous amount of fuss.

 

[EJFan]

I thought Kerry and Edwards approved and supported gay marriage...i was dead wrong. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard it, but Edwards said that he and Kerry believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, he said it like 6 times! I know...he also stated that the constitution should not be amended to hurt people...but Chaney at least said, he believed Freedom means Freedom for all people.

I am hurt...weird.

one note: they BELIEVE marriage is between a man and a woman... they don't OPPOSE same-sex marriage (like the republicans do). there's a difference between belief and writing legislation.

i think the bottom line here is that social change comes slowly (whether we like it or not) and catalyzing change has to be done a little at a time. it's politically sound and more widely acceptable.

if same-sex marriage is a key point for you, i'd have to suggest you support any un-bush you choose.

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

Hmm. Interesting points, Zergplex. I have come across them before in debates, and I have to say that the concerns you raise are valid. However, if you think about it, they are also open themselves to question.

You say that the 'separate but equal' institution of a Civil Union will be open to interference. Well, the same is true of marriage. The moment it became a political issue, it became open to interference. I admit that having a separate institution means that it will be easier to discriminate, but any reasonably careful politician will legislate to prevent any significant erosion of the rights appertaining to this particular issue.

As for the connotations of the word marriage, this is an issue not for the politicians but for the people involved. The attachment to the institution of marriage is sentimental - the real importance is practical. Gay couples can refer to 'getting married', refer to being married, talk however they like about their legal and emotional status. As long as they have the same legal rights as their heterosexual counterparts, it's a minor issue.

In conclusion, I leave you with this thought: better to get somewhere with the minimum of effort than to get nowhere with an enormous amount of fuss.

Yes but having two seperate standards will itself cause more problems down the road then if marriage was kept as the single standard. As you said that the sentimentality of the word marriage is the only in the mind of those who want it, I argue back that the unwarrented opinions of those against gay marriage are the only thing making civil unions a viable option. There is no reason to complicate things by introducing a second standard other then the 'sentimentality' of those who are against gay marriage. Can you really argue that homosexuals wanting to be truly married rather then having a civil union is any more sentimental then those who are against it gay marriage simply because it goes against their beliefs? I think both are equal feelings, and neither should be taken into regard. If this was strictly a legal issue of a persons rights, as it should be, the case would be over already. People pushing their beliefs on others are what turned this into a huge debate, and buckling to that will close the door on ever getting real marriage in my opinion. If Civil Unions become the standard union for Homosexuals then any fighting afterwards to get actual marriage will be completely ignored, in my opinion at least. Sorry for the rant, and you did a good job refuting my previous comments. It's always nice to have a good debate.

-Zergplex

 

[John Doe]

Re: Zergplex Says

Yes but having two seperate standards will itself cause more problems down the road then if marriage was kept as the single standard. As you said that the sentimentality of the word marriage is the only in the mind of those who want it, I argue back that the unwarrented opinions of those against gay marriage are the only thing making civil unions a viable option. There is no reason to complicate things by introducing a second standard other then the 'sentimentality' of those who are against gay marriage. Can you really argue that homosexuals wanting to be truly married rather then having a civil union is any more sentimental then those who are against it gay marriage simply because it goes against their beliefs? I think both are equal feelings, and neither should be taken into regard. If this was strictly a legal issue of a persons rights, as it should be, the case would be over already. People pushing their beliefs on others are what turned this into a huge debate, and buckling to that will close the door on ever getting real marriage in my opinion. If Civil Unions become the standard union for Homosexuals then any fighting afterwards to get actual marriage will be completely ignored, in my opinion at least. Sorry for the rant, and you did a good job refuting my previous comments. It's always nice to have a good debate.

-Zergplex

The thing you mentioned about attempting to push beliefs on others works both ways, though I recognize you haven't said anything to the contrary of that. What I mean is, extremists on both sides want it thier way and no other way. Unfortunately for them, society doesn't work that way and rightly so.

Anyway, the idea is not to add a second standard, but to replace the old one. The rest is merely squabbling over nomenclature.

 

[deezire1900]

Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but I am one to know that unless it goes all the way...the law will always be challenged. I have lived for 10 years with my partner, and I have been denied access to her in the hospital, We had to pay a ton of money to get our wills set up perfect so that our families could not interfer, and we were told they still can. I have to use after-tax dollars for her medical coverage. We pay taxes as two single people, we pay the two single persons rate on vacations, we have to hear the taunting of others.

Don't tell me it is the same, I am living it, breathing it, and knowing it.

 

[EJFan]

Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but I am one to know that unless it goes all the way...the law will always be challenged. I have lived for 10 years with my partner, and I have been denied access to her in the hospital, We had to pay a ton of money to get our wills set up perfect so that our families could not interfer, and we were told they still can. I have to use after-tax dollars for her medical coverage. We pay taxes as two single people, we pay the two single persons rate on vacations, we have to hear the taunting of others.

Don't tell me it is the same, I am living it, breathing it, and knowing it.

it's not the same thing (civil unions & marriage) but i tend to think that marriage is a dated concept. many places in europe are already letting marriage die and i think that it'll die all together in a matter of a few generations.

marriage was designed to pass a woman from being cared for by her father to being cared for by her husband. women are now less "property" and more individuals with their own ideas, professions, goals, etc. this leaves the purpose of marriage to be solely what you want and need... the legal rights of a spouse (for medical care, property rights, tax purposes, etc.) once society moves away from marriage, however, we'll see these rights and benefits conveyed to partners in other ways, through other legislation.

(the obligatory humorous segment)
"the only people hot on the concept of marriage right now are gay people. i say, 'why not?' gay people have the same rights to lose half their shit as the rest of us."
- richard jeni

"marriage is the leading cause of divorce."
- me

 

[Etoile]

It occurred to me today that the question put forth in this thread - "who do I vote for?" - isn't quite what we're discussing. The debate was between Edwards and Cheney, but the election is between Kerry and Bush. We barely saw Cheney at all for a couple of years, so the vice-presidential job seems unimportant anymore. It's the presidents who make the policy, therefore it's the presidents we need to pay attention to and vote for.

I dunno if that helps.

 

[fille]

This is, unfortunately, the fence sitting position that Kerry and Edwards have been taking all along. Disappointing as it is, I don't see that it makes the other choice any more appealing. At least they are in favor of moving the ball forward, rather than wanting to amend the constitution to ensure that people continue to be deprived of their basic civil liberties.

You have to hope, at least, that they view it as a first step that is doable, and believe that it will ultimately lead to the availability of marriage to all those who want to make the commitment.

 

[Queersetti]

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

 

[sigh]

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Would you become a woman and be my lover?

Damn, boy, you are good. It would have taken me six paragraphs to say that.

 

[glamorilla]

i've always believed that when dealing with elections the goal is to vote for the lesser of two evils. i am disappointed in this turn of events but i know i'm also going to vote for the people i think will do the best job running this country.

 

[deezire1900]

Even though this thread started out as a blurted question...I am proud people have posted to it. It give me something else to read besides cum, cocks, and am i gay?

Anyway, I completely disagree with you Etoile...If Kerry is Killed while doing his job...guess who gets to take the reins...but I do like the fact that Edwards wife is a "real" Woman....She is curvy and mom like.

 

[69forever]

Look...IMHO there are two choices here. Kerry has bent and wavered from his principles. He had a lot of them at one time. The game of politics does that to you.

Bush never had an ounce of principle in his life. Not a gram.

There is more at stake in this election than gay rights. We as progressive people need to get our priorities straight.

If Bush gets re-elected the constitution as a whole is up for grabs.

THAT is a scary proposition.....

 

[south_florida_bicur]

Vietnam

and dont forget which president brought us into the currrent Vietnam war.

This week the current government FINALLY told us what we already knew - they went into Iraq even though they knew there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Remember, We still have the man that killed thousands of people on 9/11 out there and gaining strength but the current government decided to go after someone that was not a threat to us.

PLEASE: Whenever you see a military personal, show your respect and say thank you to them. Over 1000 men and women died for what?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Who Won the Oct. 8 Presidential Debate?
71628 votes since Oct 7 2004

Bush 32% 22249 votes
Kerry 66% 47040 votes
Tie 4% 2339 votes

 

[april-wine]

I just wanted to say, it's nice to see an actual exchange of ideas and opinions WITHOUT denegration to name calling....

I watch with interest from Canada, my girlfriend is American and she fills me in on all the tidbits....I am proud to have this right in my province, however there are still provinces fighting this change....Pierre Elliot Trudeau said it best, "The state has NO business in the bedrooms of the nation." He was a politician ahead of his time...."We wish nothing more, but we will accept nothing less. Masters in our own house we must be, but our house is the whole of Canada."

 

[Northcountryguy]

It occurred to me today that the question put forth in this thread - "who do I vote for?" - isn't quite what we're discussing. The debate was between Edwards and Cheney, but the election is between Kerry and Bush. We barely saw Cheney at all for a couple of years, so the vice-presidential job seems unimportant anymore. It's the presidents who make the policy, therefore it's the presidents we need to pay attention to and vote for.

I dunno if that helps.

Cheney unimportant? Although it is the presidential position we vote for, the reality is that this VP has tremedous influence over this president, especially when it comes to the neo-conservative agenda to radicalize our relationship with the world. The only reason he has taken a step away (and not a very big one) from Bush on the issue of gay marriage is the existence of his lesbian daughter. The Bush/Cheney agenda is still based on fear, civil and sexual bias, and almost open social warfare on the lower classes.
The person who has become particularly unimportant in this debate is Colin Powell, who as Secretary of State has allowed himself to be silenced to the point of irrelevance. It is especially unfortunate as his was the only voice of moderation in an extremely radical administration.

Great discussion, folks!!

 

[69forever]

Cheney unimportant? Although it is the presidential position we vote for, the reality is that this VP has tremedous influence over this president, especially when it comes to the neo-conservative agenda to radicalize our relationship with the world. The only reason he has taken a step away (and not a very big one) from Bush on the issue of gay marriage is the existence of his lesbian daughter. The Bush/Cheney agenda is still based on fear, civil and sexual bias, and almost open social warfare on the lower classes.
The person who has become particularly unimportant in this debate is Colin Powell, who as Secretary of State has allowed himself to be silenced to the point of irrelevance. It is especially unfortunate as his was the only voice of moderation in an extremely radical administration.

Great discussion, folks!!

Oh, now I totally agree with you here. Cheney IS the power of this administration....whether Bush wears the crown or not.
His agenda, his cronies who are raping the Treasury and reaping the profits from this war. You hit the nail on the head there.
Cheney is corporate America personified in all it's evil intentions of bringing us back to serfdom.

 

[south_florida_bicur]

Oh, now I totally agree with you here. Cheney IS the power of this administration....whether Bush wears the crown or not.
His agenda, his cronies who are raping the Treasury and reaping the profits from this war. You hit the nail on the head there.
Cheney is corporate America personified in all it's evil intentions of bringing us back to serfdom.

Another person that totally agrees with you!

 

[webshooter]

Constitution, et al

Let's see....Last night Kerry said, in response to a request to name a new Supreme Court Justice (stupid question, anyway)...

"I would be sure that the Justices interpreted the Constution of the United States according to the law."

Funny, I always thought the reverse was true....laws had to stand up to the constitutionality test.....but then John will change his mind in a day or two anyway, so it's nothing to fret about.

 

[SweetErika]

it's not the same thing (civil unions & marriage) but i tend to think that marriage is a dated concept. many places in europe are already letting marriage die and i think that it'll die all together in a matter of a few generations.

marriage was designed to pass a woman from being cared for by her father to being cared for by her husband. women are now less "property" and more individuals with their own ideas, professions, goals, etc. this leaves the purpose of marriage to be solely what you want and need... the legal rights of a spouse (for medical care, property rights, tax purposes, etc.) once society moves away from marriage, however, we'll see these rights and benefits conveyed to partners in other ways, through other legislation.

(the obligatory humorous segment)
"the only people hot on the concept of marriage right now are gay people. i say, 'why not?' gay people have the same rights to lose half their shit as the rest of us."
- richard jeni

"marriage is the leading cause of divorce."
- me

Excellent points, EJFan! I doubt it would ever happen, but I still hope we will convert the entire system to one of civil unions. Every couple will have the same rights, and those who choose to get married or blessed by a religious authority will be free to do so. Religion had no part in our ceremony, so we basically consider it a civil union.

Regarding who to vote for, I agree, we need to look at all of the issues, even though this is one is a good example of the fundamental differences between the candidates. I'm going with the team who isn't going to take away rights...the right to legal equality, choice, freedom, a good education, affordable health care, environment, advances in medical research, relations with other countries, cheaper prescriptions, a liveable wage, and the like.