Any DUers believe marriage should be between a man and a woman?

[doubles]

Is there an official party position on this?

Could supporting gay marriage hurt us come 2K4 as the majority of Americans are strongly against this?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Anyone with half a brain

and any desire to not be a hypocrite would not believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. I believe in what I believe

and not what is politically expedient.

[DarkPhenyx]

3. In my case it should be.

*shrug* I can only judge what is right for me though. For others, their marriage might need to be between a man and a man, a woman and a woman....a woman, a man and another man...hell, whatever works for you.

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. Marriage should be between two people who love, respect and

care about each other, no matter the gender.

[GainesT1958]

5. Yes, that's what the institution of marriage should be...

HOWEVER, that does NOT in any way reflect the right of gay couples to join in a "union" between them, if they love one another.

I just don't think the 2004 election is going to turn on this one--it didn't in 2000.

B-)

[La_Serpiente]

6. We refuse to bow down on this issue

if the Dem. nominee doesn't talk about it, we'll make him/her talk about it.

[maggrwaggr]

19. oh gee, thanks. JUST what the 2004 election should be about

get real people. You must want Bush back for four more years.

It's their wet dream that "gay marriage" will be a big issue in 2004. They're the ones making it that.

Don't take the bait. Oh what the hell am I saying? The media's already doing it for them. And thousands of gays are gonna play right into their hands.

I'm moving ...

[SiobhanClancy]

26. That worries me,too

I don't want anything to distract from the goal of sending Bush back to Texas. I dread what a lame duck chimp would subject the world to. It's just too vitally important to let this be the "big issue" for the 2004 election...it's a good way to lose.

[PVnRT]

7. They are only against how it is framed

When asked whether they think that gay civil unions should be afforded the same rights as traditional marriages, a majority (slim but still a majority) say yes.

It's mostly semantics at this point. If legalizing it as civil unions is the first step, so be it. Blacks did not win their struggle in a day, nor is it over yet - why expect this issue to suddenly be resolved with everyone happy overnight?

[DarkPhenyx]

8. I still like my solution where noone has a "legal" marraige...

...but everyone can get a legal civil union

[PVnRT]

10. I agree

I personally think that marriage is a religious/spiritual ceremony - as far as the state is concerned, it should merely be a contract between two people.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. we don't have to support gay marriage

We, for this election cycle anyway, just have to keep it from being banned.

[theorist]

11. This is a Civil Rights question.

It has nothing to do with what anyone believes and everything to do with what our Constitution requires us to do. This is why we must fear the Christian Right; they are attempting to undermine freedom.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wickerwoman]

15. Interesting point but

you still need to distinguish between civil union and marriage. The government has no business in who marries who or how many or what gender. For practical purposes though, you have to be able to designate one person as your partner for the purpose of tax benefits, immigration, veterans benefits, etc. The problem with multipartner marriage is that people could go into business marrying people from other countries for a fee and bringing them over.
So I believe the government has a right to limit the number of people you claim as partners but does not have the right to define who those partners can be (within reason when it comes to minors- but the issue there is really that minors aren't capable of giving legally binding consent to a marriage.) You can marry as many people as you like, but you can only claim one as your civil union with all the benefits, etc.

[jody]

13. The Dem platfom position that could discuss this topic is:

2000 Democratic Party Platform at
http://www.democrats.org/about/platform.html/2000platform.html
QUOTE
Al Gore and the Democratic Party know that much remains to be done. We must remember we do not have an American to waste. We continue to lead the fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation. The Democratic Party has always supported the Equal Rights Amendment and will continue to do so, and we are committed to ensuring full equality for women and to vigorously enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act. We support continuation of the White House initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Because every American counts, we will continue to work toward a census that counts every American. We support continued efforts, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to end workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians. We support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of the nation. This would include an equitable alignment of benefits. We recognize the importance of new battles against forms of discrimination and disadvantage that stand as barriers to communities and families, such as environmental injustices and predatory lending practices. And we will fight for full funding and full staffing of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other civil rights enforcement agencies so they can do their job of ensuring that America lives up to its creed of equal rights and equal opportunity for all.
UNQUOTE

One should ask exactly what is meant by "We support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of the nation."

[hlthe2b]

14. Should marriage be limited to a man and a woman? Or

do we believe men and women should be excluded from marrying... :evilgrin:

Sorry, but I spend have my life editing other's writing (although my own posts don't always reflect that same accuracy--smile)

My opinion is treat everyone fairly. Let marriage be as inclusionary as possible in its definition.

[xultar]

16. yes if one is gay and the other is a tranny n/t

[opihimoimoi]

17. If I wanna marry Sonya, my Crab, das iz my business.

Lemme alone. I don't watch you, gimme and my crab a break.

[TexasMexican]

18. I do.

Just my personal belief.

Not based on religion even though I do consider myself a catholic.

I dont wish to argue it though since my argument has no merits.

[mmonk]

20. I don't care who marries who

and the government shouldn't either. It's recognition (gay marriage) is needed for things like sick visitation, inheritance and such.

[mike_c]

21. this is one of those issues in which the power of a closed mind...

...will always trump reasoned argument. As for the original question, the answer is not as simple as it might seem. I personally believe that anyone should be free to define their relationship with whomever they choose in whatever manner they wish. The problem-- and it is a real one, unfortunately-- is that marriage is a social institution as well as a condition existing between individuals. The social institution part is the issue that's not as simple as it seems-- changing social institutions is aways difficult, at the very least because it requires either broad concensus (not likely in this case), or imposition of new "norms", like the court rulings used to break racial barriers in the South during the civil rights movement. After 30 years of enforced integration, the latter hasn't yet been completely successful. Changing social institutions also has cascading effects through other social institutions.

The gay marriage issue is, in my mind, very much like the civil rights movement, although with the obvious differences where religious convictions are concerned. Not always of course. Nonetheless I think many aspects of gay integration into a joint gay/hetero society will be as difficult and as prolonged a struggle as the civil rights movement was (and continues to be) for Americans of non-european ancestry.

[hunter]

22. My marriage is between me and my wife.

We are married in the Catholic Church.

You know, I can yell and fuss all I want, but our local Bishop ain't going to be marrying gay couples anytime soon.

But I know a few churches that do.

My wife and I also have a piece of paper from the state of California that defines our legal rights as a couple, and the rights of our children. That's something else, and I think the state should call it something else -- seperation of church and state, and all...

I wouldn't freak out if the State of California decided my wife and I were "domestic partners" or something like that, and I strongly believe that same-sex couples have the same right to the same sort of legal relationships my wife and I share, and that there should be no stopping same-sex couples if they decide to go to the county courthouse and get a "domestic partnership" license.

But that won't ever fly. Some people seem to need the state to act as God's proxy, and to "sanctify" their marriages. I'm never going to figure out that kind of thinking. How the hell can the state "sanctify" anything? The state is, um, not supposed to be a religious institution, and is perhaps tainted. Imagine Governor Arnold "sanctifying" your marriage...

"You may now grope the bride."

Blecccccch.

Or imagine a pedophile priest "sanctifying" your marriage.

Bleccccch again.

Marriage is something between you and your spouse, and maybe your God, if you decide to invite Him to the party. My wife and I did, but that was our choice, our free will.

My wife and I are blessed to know a few same-sex couples, some who have children. It is horrible to witness the legal contortions they've had to go through just to protect themselves from those who would tear them apart.

As "heterosexuals" my wife and I simply went to the courthouse, paid a small fee, and signed a piece of paper. It was easy. We didn't have to hire lawyers with big teeth, or beg our families to intervene on our behalf if things ever got truly ugly -- say if the "biological" parent died in some horrible accident.

This DU'er is 100% yes on "gay marriage." Make it so.

[knight_of_the_star]

23. Marriage is

A union of two individuals who love eachother very much. IF that means a guy marries his pet rock, then so be it. Gay marriage doesn't offend me in the slightest.

[BiggJawn]

24. Sure i do...

Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.
Man and goat? No. absolutely NOT!

[KAZ]

25. As a country, it's in our best interest to promote....

... stable, long lasting relationships, regardless of the genders involved. And hey, I've been witness to so many disfunctional hetero relationships that the alternative life-stylers will have to go out of thier way to screw it up any worse. OK, a little over the top, but you get my point.

[dfong63]

27. i believe it "should be", however i do not favor legislation to make it so

[molly]

28. Marriage should be between 2 people who truly love each

other and have a committment of loyalty. Too many marriages these days are for convience or just because it's expected. I would much rather see an "unconvential" marriage between 2 people truly in love.

I don't give a flying "F" what 24,000 idiots think.