COMMENTS:
Since their position isn't based on hate and primitive prejudice like the Republicans, there is, again, unlike the Republican Party, a lively, and democratic, debate going on.
It would be interesting to know where the ballotmaker stands on this issue.
There is room for dissent on this topic and I am unaware of any formal plank being established. The Democratic party is not marching in lockstep on this issue ... unlike other parties I might mention.
Oh, the republicans are marching lockstep on this issue? Better tell those republicans who dissented on the gay marriage ban that. Better tell Dick "I support marriage freedom" cheney.
Better tell all the other high profile republicans who oppose it that they're supposed to be marching lockstep on this issue.
Anyway, I'd prefer a decisive vote that I disagree with over the democrats strategy of supporting and opposing it depending on whose microphones are aimed at them. That's called pandering, and it's not a good quality.
Unless you two are ok with a politician changing his stance on this issue every few minutes depending on who asks him?
Gee cranky... you are busy stereotyping again. We have a republican representative to congress where I live. SHE is very friendly towards the gay community and opposes any bans on gay marriage. HARDLY a lock step primitive prejudice.
herzog supports gay marriage. at least thats what he told me when he proposed.
proposed that the government should stay out of the bedroom and that two people who want to be together, should be able to.
From what I have seen, herzog is far less homophobic than certain other commenters on this ballot.
There is no formal stance.
Yes, I do support gay marriage.
Or more preferably, civil unions, as a legally binding contract, available for all couples. That'd get government out the religious ceremony entirely and relegate it to a simply enforcing a legally binding contract, as it does for all other contracts.
And unlike some "enlightened tolerant liberal" users, I don't routinely refer to homosexuals as 'queens'.
Cath: I notice you and crank made rather broad, sweeping generalizations about every member of a particular group. Don't you usually oppose that and criticize anyone who would do it? For instance: all christians don't go around blowing up schoolbuses, unlike some other religion I can think of.
Do you have a problem with that statement?
herz: Ca't say this issue bothers me. I am not 'a Democrat.' That is immensely freeing ... I can pay attention to actual issues and principles without having to serve as an apologist for a political party (exhausting, ain't it)?
But now cath, you did make a broad sweeping generalization earlier did you not?
Are generalizations ok if you really don't like the group of people you're stereotyping?
** Another anti-gay comment block **
^ you're like an annoying gnat. go away twit.
They're mixed on it. Some Democrats support it and some oppose it depending on their liberal/conservative scale. There is no exact stance on anything in either party.
why is smooth_diamond on this site? he's had like 10 usernames and is one of the most hated guys on here. so why does he keep draging his butt-ugly ass back? and he is one butt-ugly closet queen, thats for sure. davey, are you still wearing girlie lace panties on that fat pale ass of yours?
herz: Ah, but the difference is -- broad sweeping generalizations about set things (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) tend to be silly steretypes (IMO).
Generalizations based on group affiliations that are chosen by individuals ...
Still, you are right ... I should have qualified. All Republicans are not foaming, kool-aid drinking, KGB-style party loyalists.
Just the ones in power and their supporters. 
' Generalizations based on group affiliations that are chosen by individuals ... '
Like religion?
And would you be as supportive of stereotypes about liberals?
At least, none that *I* know of to date.
It might be instructive here to remember that "Equal Protection Under the Law" is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
What a creepy document to entitle anyone to marry anyone they choose, eh? We need to change that damned Constitution. It was obviously written by liberals!
"Unless you two are ok with a politician changing his stance on this issue every few minutes."
1) "Yes, I do support gay marriage."
2) "Or more preferably, civil unions"
How about a B&W poster changing his stance every few minutes?
"Cheney rejects gay marriage ban
US Vice-President Dick Cheney has said he does not support a federal ban on gay marriage, apparently contradicting President George W Bush's stance.
Mr Cheney was addressing a campaign audience in Iowa that included his daughter, Mary, who is openly lesbian.
He said the issue of legalising gay unions should be settled by individual states rather than by Washington.
However, Mr Cheney said he accepted the views of Mr Bush, whose opposition to gay marriage is well publicised.
President Bush recently backed a motion calling for a federal ban on gay marriage, prompted by attempts in some US states to have same-sex unions legalised. (BBC)
* * * *
While Cheney has said he is against a ban on gay marriage, he has never spoken out in support of gay marriage, preferring to dodge the issue by saying he "accepts" Uber-Bush's views on the subject AND that it should be left up to the states (two dodges in one!).
And the premise of this ballot, that Dean was pandering is false. Dean admitted he made a mistake. I'm sure that since Uber-Bush, the most incompetent president in the history of the Unites States never admits to any of his huge number of errors, neo-cons might not recognize the concept.
Below is Dean's statement: "I misstated the Democratic Party's platform, which does not say that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, but says the Party is committed to full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and leaves the issue to the states to decide. The Democratic Party remains committed to equal protection under the law for all Americans. How we achieve that goal continues to be the subject of a contentious debate, but our Party continues to oppose constitutional amendments that seek to short circuit the debate on how to achieve equality for all Americans."
When Republicans pander, they tell two audiences two different things, but never admit that they did. That's pandering, and that's very Republican, very Bush.
|
