Keith Olbermann

[Master Mason]

And many considered segregation the states' right until the Supreme Court decided it was an equal protection 'n access issue under the US Constitution.

Actually it was always concidered under the equal protection clause. It was just at first they had determined that it was equally protected being seperate but equal, they then reveresed that decision.

 

[Missy1961]

I agree. I think folks are stuck on the civil union vs. marriage thing. But then that moves into the whole idea of separate but equal. The gay community wants equal legal recognition of their civil union, nothing more. I don't know of any that are demanding to get married in a church that otherwise wouldnt' allow it.

As for who voted for it, whether black, white or hispanic, I personally don't care what they're background is. Homophobia is color blind.

And I had to address your one comment that I highlighted and say in response. No, being gay isn't a choice, but being FABULOUS is.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[Nancyg56]

Well I don't have to accept that fact, because I do have what it takes. Long term committed relationship here. Going on 15 years! As apposed to ummm lets see, Rush, Ronnie, Newt or McCain...

How many X-wives do they have between them?

I think Rush has three. How sacred does he hold marriage?

 

[crazyforgoofy]

No, being gay isn't a choice, but being FABULOUS is.

I could choose to be FABULOUS but I couldn't pull it off . I'm envious of those who can.

 

[Master Mason]

Well I don't have to accept that fact, because I do have what it takes. Long term committed relationship here. Going on 15 years! As apposed to ummm lets see, Rush, Ronnie, Newt or McCain...

How many X-wives do they have between them?

Why do you only list divorced Republicans.

John Kerry Divorced
Tom Daschle Divorced
Ed Kennedy Divorced
Max Baucus Divorced
Christopher Dodd Divorced.

I can go on if you would like. Divorce is not a providence of the Republican Party, the Dems get divorced as well.

 

[RickinNYC]

Why do you only list divorced Republicans.

John Kerry Divorced
Tom Daschle Divorced
Ed Kennedy Divorced
Max Baucus Divorced
Christopher Dodd Divorced.

I can go on if you would like. Divorce is not a providence of the Republican Party, the Dems get divorced as well.

And all heterosexual. Would ya look at that?

 

[Master Mason]

And all heterosexual. Would ya look at that?

James McGreavy, divorced, gay, and democrat... hows that

 

[FergieTCat]

James McGreavy, divorced, gay, and democrat... hows that

But is he fabulous?

 

[Master Mason]

But is he fabulous?

I don't know, I'll defer to Rick on that one.

 

[Purseval]

18 years here.

Yet, 52% of tradional heterosexual marriages end in divorce before reaching their 15th anniversary.

So if it's such a wretched institution why are you so worried about being a part of it?

 

[LuvDuke]

Just an observation, but it could have been because the expected outcome in what is one of the most liberal states in the country, was for it to be defeated. It polled as going down until the vote. I think it is more the shock factor than anything.

As another aside, I personally know a number of people that voted for it simply in reaction to the CA supreme court over rulling the law that had passed back in 2000.




The reason it is concidered a states rights issue, is Marriage is not a constitutional right, it simply isn't in there.

Neither is having a job. Using your logic, you can refuse to hire someone solely based on their race for a job because having a job isn't in the Constitution.

However, But equal protection under the law is in the Constitution and I don't know how it can be any clearer.

So the next step is to go judge shopping and find one to put a stay on it and impose the tyranny of the minority. Has anything changed lately?

There is no tyranny when you don't violate someone's civil right. Tyranny is when you do.

If someone gets enough signatures to put it on a ballot then it passes, so be it. Someone else will go judge shopping to put a stay on it then others will try to get it overturned. I don't think the process was changed in any way just to attack gay marriage. Was it?

It is no different than the civil rights issues of 40 years. You don't get a chance to vote on who and who doesn't have civil right. That it happened again in CA and FL is a disgrace.

I think Rush has three. How sacred does he hold marriage?

That's different.

Why do you only list divorced Republicans.

John Kerry Divorced
Tom Daschle Divorced
Ed Kennedy Divorced
Max Baucus Divorced
Christopher Dodd Divorced.

I can go on if you would like. Divorce is not a providence of the Republican Party, the Dems get divorced as well.

I wasn't aware any of those Democrats favor discrimination against gay marriage because it would endanger marriage. The Republican party has made a career of it.

Unless, of course, any of the above Democrats do favor treating gays as second class citizens. I'm sure you'll give us a link.

 

[LuvDuke]

So if it's such a wretched institution why are you so worried about being a part of it?

So how would gays marrying do anymore damage to the institution of marriage than multi-divorce heterosexuals already do?

 

[Master Mason]

Neither is having a job. Using your logic, you can refuse to hire someone solely based on their race for a job because having a job isn't in the Constitution.

However, But equal protection under the law is in the Constitution and I don't know how it can be any clearer.

I could not hire someone based on the color of their skin right now, nothing requires me to hire anyone, it is at the sole discreation of the people doing the hiring.

I wasn't aware any of those Democrats favor discrimination against gay marriage because it would endanger marriage. The Republican party has made a career of it.

Unless, of course, any of the above Democrats do favor treating gays as second class citizens. I'm sure you'll give us a link.

Your fearless leader is against gay marriage.

 

[Master Mason]

So if it's such a wretched institution why are you so worried about being a part of it?

I honestly don't think he would care if you called it the purple nipple association, he is looking for rights and benifits which are being denied to him and his partner of 18 years.

Such as surviviour benifits, next of kin status for medical reasons, and a host of others.

 

[Purseval]

I honestly don't think he would care if you called it the purple nipple association, he is looking for rights and benifits which are being denied to him and his partner of 18 years.

Such as surviviour benifits, next of kin status for medical reasons, and a host of others.

You could get those things with civil unions but that apparently isn't good enough. Funny also how they keep bringing up segregation when it was white Christian evangelicals who first started the movement to abolish it. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Charade]

Since I don't make you quiver in fear, I will concede you don't have an irrational fear of homosexuals. Now, let's chit chat about your aversion and tendency to discriminate.

As for Obama, he is against gay marriage and supports civil unions. Do you support civil unions between two men/women John? If the wording was changed, would that fit within your mindset? If so, excellent.

I thought I made that quite clear before. So if there is still any doubt, I support civil unions between two (just two) men/women.

Glad we could finally get that cleared up.

Shake?

Since we're talking about marriage and only stating one's opinion, I think if you've been married once, that's it. So you better make sure that it's the right one. I have mixed feelings about people getting married a second, third or fourth time. Frankly, THAT is what puts the true sanctity of marriage into question.

I've never stated (at least I don't believe I did) that I was against divorce. Obviously since I've been married 3 times. But just a heads up, if this one doesn't work out, I've decided I'm going to switch teams and become a wedding planner.

 

[RickinNYC]

So if it's such a wretched institution why are you so worried about being a part of it?

Because I want to be as miserable as the married folks out there.

 

[RickinNYC]

But is he fabulous?

Nope. Ew.

But he is a perfect example of someone who chose to remain in the closet in order to pursue what society dictates is the norm. And then explodes in the process.

 

[RickinNYC]

You could get those things with civil unions but that apparently isn't good enough. Funny also how they keep bringing up segregation when it was white Christian evangelicals who first started the movement to abolish it. Ironic, isn't it?

How is it ironic? They wanted to play in the MLB and got told no also?

 

[brerrabbit]

I have read several pages of the discussion here and quite frankly I find some of it quite amusing.

First let me say that I have no problem what so ever with Gay Unions. I support it. If two people love each other and want to spend their life together I say go for it. Secondly, believe it or not I am a faithful Christian and still have those beliefs. Sure the Bible speaks against gays, but then again it talks about women subgegating themselves to men and slaves, but I don't agree with either one of those ideas either. Now where I do differ is that I did not say Gay marraige. That's because I do hold that that is in fact between a Man and a Woman. What amazes me is why a Gay couple would want to get married in a church that does not want them there to begin with.


I attended a Life Commitment ceremony over the weekend where two women I have known for years committed to one another for life. For years, they were roomates but we all knew different. They finally gave in and held the party. I wish the state of Texas would recognize the union because they had to pay the additional expense of setting up all the legal documents to do what marraige would recognize.

As far as the earlier discussions went I found it funny that some were saying the California vote was denying people rights (more liberal folks) while others were saying the people spoke with the vote and that's democracy so let it be (the more conservative folks)