Do you support the rights of same-gender people to marry?

[karlschneider]

I just saw a local poll on one of the local Tulsa TV stations, it was something like 80% no, 20% yes, which is hardly surprising here in wingnut land...

[kixot]

1. Ooops! My mouse slipped!

Take one from the "No" category and move it over to "Yes".

[E_Zapata]

2. Heck Yes........

I think all people should be afforded the same opportunity to get themselves either in a GREAT union or the most miserable and "impossible to get out of it alive and with a few bucks" experiences!

Just kidding......the whole kitnkaboodle........everyone should have the same opportunities and rights!

[Touchdown]

3. Why do other polls show the majority...

of respondents against gay marriage, and this one shows 26 to 2 (thanks to the first responder), on this site? Democrats are the majority party, and of course this shows that the majority of Dems on this site supports GM. Could it be that most other "mainstream" pollsters are asking more repugs than Dems or independants, or are we "soooo far left and out of step with the vast majority of mainstream Americans" as that alien Gary Bauer put it, that everybody else really thinks THAT differently from us?

[alcuno]

4. Ask the American people if they support civil unions.

They say, "yes." It all depends on the question.

[arewethereyet]

5. actually they say no but the margin is markedly smaller

civil unions can win, not so sure about marriage.

[Baconfoot]

10. Actually they'll agree individually to all the priviledges of marriage but

not to marriage itself or civil unions.

If you ask them whether a gay couple should have a right to X where X is a legal right of married persons they will respond in the affirmative.

If you ask them whether a gay couple should have an obligation to X where X is a legal obligation of married persons they will respond in the affirmative.

But "marriage"? Never.

[karlschneider]

6. I have no clue. Repugs/conservatives usually don't want government

interfering in their lives. I suspect they are like what are commonly called "salad-bar Christians", picking and choosing bits of what they like and ignoring everything else. And the analogy isn't really all that imprecise - I live among a nest of wingnuts...most of which eat meat and potatos and would never consider trying escargot, leeks, sushi, calamari, ...etc.
:eyes:

[Silverhair]

18. DUers are not a representitive sample of the general populace.

Remember that we had to agree that we are all progressives before we could post here. After all, 50% of the people approve of the job Bush v2.0 is doing, yet you will find NONE here that do. So any poll of us is going to reflect the feelings of the Democratic activist base, not the general population. The general popullation is indeed heavily against same-sex marriage.

[karlschneider]

24. You are right, of course and 13% of the vote even here is "no."

I'm not sure what that means.

[Pastiche423]

7. Sheesh

I truly do not understand why anyone would be against it. How does it hurt anyone?

Btw, I voted YES!

[WillyBrandt]

12. Pragmatism, conservatism, religion

Pragmatism: Progressives might think it better for people to become even more tolerant before we plunge into legalizing gay marriage. They might fear a backlash.

Conservatism: This would be a HUGE social change. Not in terms of it affecting that much (it wouldn't), but it'd be a big difference from what has happened over centuries. People are resistant to things on those grounds alone.

Religion: Progressives can be very religious (look at Carter). They might think that "marriage" differs from civil unions in that the former includes a convenant before God as opposed to merely secular and legal concerns, and that we should be loath to screw around with that institution.

I don't agree with any of those three--I voted Yes--but I could see a progressive view being the enforcement of equal rights for gays/lesbians, with the introduction of civil unions from the ground up (state-by-state)--and as attitude evolve, working on legalizing gay marriage.

[Pastiche423]

14. If it's the "before God" thing

then would that mean that any male/female union that did not "come together before God", not, in their eyes, be married? (As far as you can presume.)

[WillyBrandt]

17. I'm not saying it's rational

People can tread warily on what they consider the sacred. Saying that it is ultimately illogic misses the point: it's religion--it's frankly not about what makes logical sense.

[Pastiche423]

48. I'm more confused than before. lol

This is what I got out of your post:

Since it's a religious view, it cannot be seen as logical.

Am I close?

[frank frankly]

8. Yep

i mean, hell yes!

[youngred]

49. mistake, disregard

[ParanoidPat]

9. Hell YES!

People are people, male or female, they ALL have the same rights! :)

Sex is just.....SEX! :evilgrin:

YO! Mr. Gubmint man, STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS!

[quinnox]

11. civil unions, yes

marriage, no.

[Pastiche423]

13. Why not marriage?

I am agnostic, so the religious part of the equation is difficult for me to understand. Is it more for you?

[quinnox]

15. Because the term marriage is

associated with religious institutions. I don't think religions that view a practice as contrary to their teachings, should be forced to participate in a practice they don't agree with.

I don't understand what the difference is anyway, it's a semantic argument. Civil unions gives all the legal benefits, just like marriage. If people want to say they are married, it doesn't require a church to say it is ok for them to use that word.

[ret5hd]

20. no "church" is or would be forced to do anything...

any church at this moment can refuse to marry anyone...even the traditional 1 man 1 woman couple. A law stating that gay marriage is legal would not change this fact. The law can't and won't change any individual church's beliefs or actions regarding marriage.

[ulysses]

28. aren't you contradicting yourself here?

Because the term marriage is associated with religious institutions.

...

If people want to say they are married, it doesn't require a church to say it is ok for them to use that word.

:shrug:

No one is talking about forcing religious groups to participate if they don't want to, even if they could be forced, which they can't. Freedom of religion and all that.

[rbnyc]

29. We're straight atheists....

Should we be allowed to say we're married?

Actually, I'm bi, but I'm in a straight relationship. And I'm not an athiest, but my husband is, and so is his mom. And I have a very personal and un-religious relationship with the spiritual universe. We were married by a judge, and the word God was never spoken at our ceremony.

It just seems like people only talk about marriage being a religious term when it comes to same-sex couples. No one ever gives me our other straight couples grief about calling their civil marriages marriages.

[rbnyc]

30. Also...

...what about all the churches that want to perform gay marriages? There are many.

[democratreformed]

35. What about marriages that are performed

by people such as the JPs? What about alternative ceremonies? I disagree that marriage is religious.

When my daughter married, we searched long and hard for an officiant AND ceremony that was non-religious (at least in the traditional sense). What we ended up with was a Wiccan handfasting ceremony with a few old religious traditions thrown in (to appease the groom's mother).

By the way, I see very little difference in taking the step from calling it a civil union to calling it a marriage. I see no reason to deny these people the same things that others have.

[GinaMaria]

47. We had a similar ceremony

It was a Celtic Handfasting. Originally pegan but then adopted by the early church. Our ceremony was strictly secular. There was absolutely no mention of god, gods, goddesses, deities, what ever. The ceremony took place in another country. It is recognized by the government here.

I have difficulty with the argument that gay marriages somehow degrade or diminish heterosexual unions. Can someone explain this argument? Does anyone feel that another's marriage defines their marriage? If gay marriage degrades heterosexual unions then what do reality shows about marriage or that Darva 'winning' a rich husband on TV do to marriage. Maybe if we didn't make game shows out of marriage this argument maybe, might (though I doubt it) have a little more validity in my mind. However, I just do not accept that anyone else's marriage defines mine.

[democratreformed]

51. I love the point you made

about others' marriages not defining yours. That has been my experience as well and I completely agree. I don't understand all the hoopla against it either.

[GinaMaria]

54. Watched early AM TV today Mitt Romney

was on. The more he spoke about the issue, the more it came across as an elitist position. Almost like preventing others from having marriage somehow makes those that can marry more privliged or more special. It's really strange. All I could think was "keep him talking' that'll be the end of this. Unless there are that many insecure people in our country? I would hope not.

I also think the gop is doing a trial run with this today to see how it will fly as an election issue.

[redqueen]

42. Um, wrong.

Civil Unions do NOT afford the same benefits.

Where oh where did you get that idea?

"Civil Unions do not provide equal rights to LGBT Americans. According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage provides at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions are a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, and provision of insurance for families." -- Kucinich, in praise of the MA court decision.

[JohnKleeb]

16. YES

[xultar]

19. Why should Hetros be the only ones to suffer MARRIAGE?

Spread the GRIEF, HATRED & MADDNESS with everyone.

I bet once Gays and Lesbians get married all that style the gay men exhibit and the coolness the lesbians exhibit will evaporate. Cuz they'll be beat down and demoralized just like everyone else.

tee hee hee

[teevee]

33. hilarious...

[Zynx]

21. Marriage is no business of the state in the first place.

I support contracts and unions between any two people regardless of what sex they are sponsored by the state. Marriage should be no business of the state.

[funkyflathead]

22. Yes if they really want to

If they are hellbent on getting hitched, why not?

[Baconfoot]

23. One could take the view that marriage is inherently oppressive & should...

be prohibited.

Just saying.


O8)

[ScreamingMeemie]

25. You bet...equal rights for equal citizens.

What should it matter to anyone but those involved. We (the government) need to get our noses out of people's personal lives!

[Kitsune]

26. As I say every time this issue comes up...

Love is Love.

[ulysses]

27. of course.

[Brewman_Jax]

31. Absolutely!

What more is to say? :kick:

[teevee]

32. it doesn't affect anyone else.

so why should someone's happiness be prevented by another's opinion?

anyone who ever votes against this type of thing is seriously devoid of compassion.

[Character Assassin]

34. Indeed.

[sujan]

36. NO????

[supernova]

37. Yes of course

Gays and straights (and varients inbetween) should be seen as equal in the eyes of the law.

Various religious groups would still be free to uphold whatever restrictions on performing the marriage ceremony they wish. Some demons will perform GMs, others will not. That's as it should be.

Do I wish MY denom performed GMs? Yes, I do. It may take a long time, longer than my lifespan possibly. But it will happen.

[TLM]

38. To the end of rights and civil unions yes.

However when it comes to marriage, while the government should have to recognize same sex marriage contracts preformed by a church that is OK with it, they can't make any churches preform the marriage if they are not OK with it.

[Beetwasher]

39. Only Sick Demented Control Freaks Would Have A Problem With It

It's nobody's business but the people involved. Nobody is forcing churches to do anything. Churches can still maintain their right NOT to marry gay people. It's about how people want to define their personal, private relationship. If they want to call their union a marriage, and they can find someone to marry them, it's nobody's business but their own.

I'm not gay and this issue wouldn't effect me but it pisses me off anyway. Stay the fuck out of my personal, private life. Don't tell me how to define my relationships or what to do with my body or force YOUR religion and morals in my face. Only sick and demented people want to get involved w/ another persons private, personal decisions.

[xchrom]

40. it's about the same rights for all

it won't affect what goes on inside a particular churchs four walls.
it's about why we came together as a country -- and now it's time to extend those notions of equality to all.
dems have to stand very strong on this issue -- and not allow themselves to fall victim to superstion laden slandering and sexist demonizing.
a good offence is always the best defence. especially when it comes to political campaigns.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. I support equal rights for all Americans and can't imagine why any Dem

would not. For some insight into why we are losing perhaps we need look no further than those who would abandon civil rights in exchange for winning...winning what?

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Of course I do

I will say though that this country can't afford to allow Republicans to win any more key elections by effectively waging cultural warfare against us. They are VERY good at it. They have been at this for decades. Thir proaganda (which mostly gets put out "under the radar" in mailings and flyers at churches etc.) is not targetted for average voters, rather for those who can be manipulated into voting on emotions, and those votes swing elections.

My position I guess can be summarized as follows. Keep the ball moving steadily and rapidly forward, on increased freedoms, civil rights and full dignity for all Americans. No turning back. But don't march off into an ambush either when the ground work is not yet sufficiently prepared for full victory. The Republicans learned that lesson regarding their anti choice position. They are chipping away steadily at a womens right to choose, but are holding off on the final assault because it is premature and could cost them defeat if they move too quickly. The country is about ready for legal rights for gay couples (domestic partners/ civil unions etc), they are behind us on anti discrimination for the most part. The progress has been great. Let's keep it up without getting cocky (no pun intended).

[blindpig]

44. yes, of course, but.....

other than the obvious economic benefits I don't see why they should want to. I have been "living in sin" for 22yrs & don't require the approval of state, church or society. Although I really despise the term "commonlaw" as used here in the south as it has derogatory conotations. But if that's what folks want to do, fine.

[youngred]

45. Of course

there is NO legitimate reason to deny them the right to marry. None

[ThirdWheelLegend]

46. Yes and add an extra Yes vote from Dennis Kucinich

http://www.kucinich.us/

"As a candidate for president who publicly supports federal legislation for gay marriage, I applaud the Massachusetts Supreme Court for upholding the civil rights of citizens in their state by ruling it is unconstitutional for the state to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples. The historic Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health decision can light the way for equality for all Americans."

snip>>>>>>

"The right to marry is a civil right that should not be denied. I support federal legislation for civil marriage between same-sex couples. Civil Unions do not provide equal rights to LGBT Americans."

snip>>>>.


TWL

[Cocoa]

50. Straight people have the right to be married by an Elvis impersonator

so should gay people.

Great line by Margaret Cho on NPR this morning, commeting on the "sanctity of marriage." :-)

[DoNotRefill]

52. Yup....Equal rights and equal treatment for all...

regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, gender, whatever.

[cosmicdot]

53. those voting 'no' -wonder who they support for the Dem nomination?

[wadestock]

55. Don't care, shouldn't care.....

should have been an option....

This topic is right up there with all the other premier "non-issues"....all those subjects they hope we'll be involved with so we don't notice that we're getting ripped off.....

like abortion...
like guns....
like other convoluted religious issues that the repukes try to work...

The marriage thing has it's roots in a religious sanctioned event.
Other ramifications of the marriage in terms of tax implications (or whatever) are not of any practical argument. After all, it's been how many years and even now they're just considering the illogic of present marriage laws in terms of their practical real world tax implications.


My recommendation is don't waste time on these "non-issues"....

The biggest pressing problem in this country is that too much money is going to the top....and the dysfunctional work enviroment and destruction of the middle class and lower classes that are its byproduct.....

This has to be the guiding force behind the new democratic movement.
That power of money going to the top has ripped our morals to pieces and is creating an new generation of cynics and rip off artists like we've never seen.


- Freedom works when it works for the people -
- Freedom doesn't work when it's a free-for-all.....