Please don't foster another prejudice-- the one against age.

I am 61 years old and have had many LGBT friends for over 40 years. 
This is not an age thing.  People of all ages choose to discriminate against LGBT's and other minorities.

August - fostering another prejudice is absolutely NOT my goal and I'm sorry if you got that impression. My point is that the younger generation is far more accepting of LGBTQs and their relationships than are / were their parents - in general.

I have stated elsewhere that I believe this tolerant attitude is due, at least in part, to the technological innovations that have fostered a certain degree of disconnect between kids and their parents. The kids feel isolated from their parents and are therefore more tolerant and supportive of those they see as societal underdogs - like LGBTQ seeking their civil rights.

hi Fester--
hee hee!
we said the same things about the disconnect between ourselves and our parents.  and they certainly weren't happy with us--army fatigues, bell bottoms and long hair, dontcha know.

my parents had a hard time with the fact that I had gay friends.  I think my mom did learn something, eventually.  I'm not sure my dad ever did.

We are already acting like that. We don't need to "start" acting like that. This is the way young Republicans are.

@ Connor - You're absolutely right! In my opinion tt was the young republicans that put Obama over the top.
Congratulations. :)

Yeah that wasn't us. lol at least not me. Not a fan of the man on any level.

I would think that Connor D's response should tell you all you need to know.

And that is NOT a positive statement. See my comment.

@ Old Florida Gal - My "Congratulations" response to Connor was a tad bit sarcastic. While Connor is obviously not a fan of Obama, I know several young republicans who are fans - and crossed party lines to vote Obama in.

Personally, I was a huge fan of McCain. I loved his honesty and "straight talk", and his courage. He did some very brave things while a prisoner in Hanoi. But then I watched with sadness as he sold out to the Rove / Cheney crowd. I still believe he's a man of great integrity - but he's certainly misplaced his moral authority.

Agreed.

Fester--
I, too, liked McCain for a while.  Right up until he closeted himself in a back room with a bunch of other old men and came out with a list of what did and did not constitute torture.  That's when he lost me.

And, during the campaign, the way he acted during the debates was absolutely disgusting.  First he refused to look at Obama.  And he shrank from shaking hands with him.  His belief that Obama should be holding his coat rather than running for president was glaringly obvious.

Dave, I've heard that about Mrs. Feinstein. I tend to agree with that. I think there's more there than meets the eye.

The majority of the Representatives in Congress for my state are Democrats who act like Republicans. Mark Pryor is my senator and he is basically a republican. Blanche Lincoln is somewhat progressive when it comes to gay issues but she knows if she wants to be reelected, she won't step TOO far out of line.

I believe that humanity requires respect. I do not believe that homosexuality is merely a civil rights issue in the traditional sense. Though, perhaps it becomes a civil rights issue as civics 'evolves.' There are layers to the issue of homosexuality which renders it a bit more complicated. I therefore believe that the homosexuality issue cannot be melded into the circumstances of "other minorities." If same sex marriage is actually morally sound, let it stand on its own feet.

I disagree, Mark--I think the rights of LGBT folks has *always* been a civil rights issue, from the Stonewall riot in 1969 onward.  When it comes to allowing an American minority the same rights as everyone else in this country, be that minority African-American (still between 11% and 17% of the total US population), Latino, Jewish, or what-have-you, it's a civil rights issue.  A lot of comedians make the joke that gay marriage should be legal because "the gay community should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us," but humour aside, there's really no good reason not to allow them that.  All the scare-rhetoric put forth by opponents is highly fallacious--how would anyone else's rights be taken away?  It's not a matter of giving rights to some and taking them away from others, it's a matter of allowing more people in our country the 3 basic human rights:  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Legislating what constitutes a hate crime and how it should be prosecuted has to do with life (no one should have to fear for theirs just because of their race, creed or sexual orientation), legislating anti-discrimination and the right of a same-sex couple to marry and receive the same benefits as a heterosexual couple has to do with the other two.

While the gay community represents a different sort of minority (cutting as it does across racial, religious and political--cf. the Log Cabin Republicans--lines), I disagree that it "cannot be melded into the circumstances of other minorities."  Varying anywhere from 1% to 10% of the US population, depending on whom you ask and/or believe, the gay community qualifies, AFAIC.  I really don't see how it could be more complicated, since how the LGBT community fits in could be represented in a Venn diagram with many circles representing America's different communities, and its own circle encompassing all of them.  That said, it's not as simple and basic as it would be if all LGBTs had the same colour of skin or worshipped the same God(s) in the same way.  But neither is it really beyond our understanding.  I, for one, believe same-sex marriage is as morally sound as hetero marriage, as there are many different kinds of families--what binds them all is the capacity to love.  If there are more layers to this issue beyond those I've mentioned, they're mainly legal, but even those are not difficult to understand--marriage carries certain benefits with it, including shared insurance and the ability to pass on one's property to one's beloved after death.

Mark--
you want the argument to stand on its own feet?
ok, here goes:

the fact is, gay marriage would harm no one -- as much as the far-right would have us believe otherwise.

it does not damage the 'sanctity' of marriage -- which began as a property contract, btw.  how 'sanctified' is that?

but, denying marriage to a group of people because they're not 'just like us' is immoral, plain and simple.
and Iowa's court found it to be unconstitutional, as well. 

yeah, I think it's standing all by itself.

No one wants anyone to "sell out". That's pretty un-American. But please explain how you feel that applying the consitution - namely protcting the minority from the tyranny of the majority - constitutes "selling out"?
You either support and protect the constitution or you don't. Which is it?

CO, that's bullshit and you know it. The LGBT community has "sold out" on MANY occasions. How many LGBT people have "sold out" and gotten married to someone of the opposite sex just to divorce many years later. We have been tolerating (selling out to) Republicans for YEARS now. And we have had ENOUGH of people like you who think it is okay for you to STEAL our tax dollars to subsidize YOUR rugrats. We are TIRED of being YOUR doormats and we are NOT going to SELL OUT or even TOLERATE it anymore!

You think we are pissed now? Just wait! Because eventually YOU and YOUR ILK are on the LOSING end of this issue!

God forbid you have any gay children because with a parent like you who needs enemies. Trust me, my entire family is exactly like you. That is why I will have nothing to do with them. They call occasionally, but I'm done with them. My FRIENDS ARE my family.

And as Fester said, you either support and protect the Constitution or you don't. Apparently you do NOT.

Sing it, Dave! Well said!
And CO apparently missed the first part of the last paragraph: "The heart of all of this, of course, isn't to be partisan.  It's simply to point out that there's common ground to be found on the issue of same-sex marriage."
...or he doesn't want to find common ground. Typical of the right wing gas bags.

no, co, we want the republican party to stop acting like they are better than everyone else, and embrace those of us who are demanding our civil rights, the same as you have!

From a capitalistic standpoint marriage equality is by in large a great thing. Granted that is it a "fundamental right" according to the supreme court, it is also a fundamental cash cow that should be exploited or embraced for all its worth. Marriage brings in huge revenues for not just the government but for small business, corporations, and even the church.

How does it bring in more money for a corporation? Easy. Most corporations now offer same sex couples duel insurence policies, and pension policies, because the couple cannot have their marriage legally recognized by the federal government, the company has to pay double for its employee, his or her husband or wife, and their children. If marriage for same sex couples is finally recognized they company can place their marriage with all the rest and would have to pay much lower premiums. In the end this saves a substantial amount of money in the long run.

It appears once agian that human/civil/equal rights, turn out to be another wonderful capitalistic gain for this country and should be understood as such.

"(sic)So you want all Republicans' to SELL OUT one's Principles just to APPEASE 1 small minority - Yet not 1 single dem on this forum has ever done such a thing but wants everyone else to "meet" them????????????????
You all are full of it."

No CO that's not it at all, but your failure to understand the impact of your statement is what will doom your political party to irrelevance. What you are saying in effect is that, in your view, there are some minorities in this country who do not deserve "equal protection under the law".

True enough, I am a Dem (as you say) but that choice was made after over thirty years of being a loyal Republican. What brought me over the "The Dark Side". The revealed attitudes of House Republicans during the ENDA (The Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act) debate in 2007. As a member of the LGBT community I did not deserve the protection of the basic civil rights that straight American enjoys without question or challenge.

So that is why your party is excluded from power and leadership and why when you continue to articulate your exclusionist rhetoric . . . you've already lost.

Here is what amazes me.  That both "sides" of this issue continue to miss the one polarizing component of this argument.  There are two primary objectives to the act of marriage (forget history; let's deal with now): 1. Civil/legal 2. Religious (Christian, primarily in the U.S., but other religions, as well).  I don't see anyone from "the right" arguing that same sex partners should not have equal civil rights.  What "the right" argues is the religious use of the term and ceremony called "marriage".  I think it's a huge mistake of the LGBT community to be missing that.  Any Christian, or Muslim, of strong faith is not going to be able to agree to a resolution of this issue that puts a same sex marriage on equal "ceremonial/religious" rights as a hetero marriage. 

Here's my revolutionary thought - just stop using the word marriage for same sex unions.  After all - isn't it the civil liberties that are really important for same sex partners to achieve?  So guess what - no one REALLY argues against that!  The challenge stems from the word marriage, and it's religious implications that deem same sex relationships as a sin.  We cannot successfully pursue a path to resolution that expects the faithful to morally accept what they consider to be a sinful relationship as equally legitimate as one that is fully condoned by their faith.

Someone, somewhere, created the the civil union.  The problem remains that it's not equal, though.  That's what needs to be fixed.  The rights of a civil union (or whatever term anyone would like to come up with to describe it) should be completely equal to the legal, civil rights of the religious union we call marriage, today.

BTW: I'm a hetero-man of strong Christian faith, and I believe in the equal rights of same sex couples.  I also believe in the value and benefits of diversity in every aspect of our community and work, and I fully respect any human being of strong faith - whatever that faith may be.  Please don't paint all Christians or people of faith as not being supportive of gay rights.  Let's stop the emotional rhetoric, and get to the true problems that need to be solved in a fashion that does not stomp on anyone's faith or rights.  I don't think this is unresolvable, or requires anyone to sell out.

David,
I don't think people are 'missing' anything here.

1] As of this moment, the civil rights of same-sex couples are consistently denied.  There are people who want to keep it that way.

2] Seperate-but-equal has been shown time and time again NOT to work.
It didn't work in education, it didn't work in unions.

That is why people are holding out for the word 'marriage.' 
And why should they settle for less, anyway?

Right now, they can have church weddings [I've attended several] -- but the state does not recognize those unions.  They want them recognized and they want the same civil rights the rest of us enjoy, that's all. 

And it's not too much to want, no matter who says otherwise. 

And-- there ARE people who argue against civil rights for gay people.  They call them "special rights".  They're not special.  They're the same as for hetero's.  And that's what has a lot of people up-in-arms.

David, while the distinction is obvious, I believe the gay community wants the civil as opposed to the religious. The rights bestowed by civil authorities are what we seek. Frankly, the majority of those who seek same sex marriage really don't care about the religious part of it.
It's really very simple: civil authorities can give us things that we need and want: hospital visitation rights for injured or ill partners, the ability to transfer property, and other such things.
Historically - and I realize this is a broad brush - the church has offered us extremely little and what we have gotten was begrundgingly given.
All in all I think we'll stay with the civil authorities rather than the religious.

Fester and August (in particular):  I recognize that there are people who are against the civil rights equality, but they are not the majority of the opposition to same-sex marriage.  It wasn't the civil side of this that lead to the Prop 8 debacle in CA.  It was the religious implications.  Same-sex partners have gotten little from religion, and that is not going to change - that is exactly my point.  We have to focus this issue entirely on the civil side.  And the argument that focusing on the civil union vs. marriage creates a "separate but equal" scenario, and therefore, will fail, is invalid.  The only thing we are separating is the religious implications from the civil ones.  THAT objective is actually a founding priniciple of this country.  For same-sex couples - there really is NO religious side that can be argued, at all, yet that is where the majority of the opposition stems from - the deeply faithful.  To get that majority of opponents to agree, either with votes or other support venues, with the cause here, we must create focus on the civil side of this.  I'm telling you - most of the faithful I speak with have never made that distinction, at all.  It's all about what's in the Bible or the Koran.  WRONG!!  It's not about that at all, and that is the key, me thinks!

Thanks for the exchange.  Best always,
David

David,
imo, religion isn't the issue.
same sex couples can, now, be married in any church that is willing to do it.  I've been to several church weddings. 
the point is-- their marriages aren't recognized by the state and they have NO civil marital rights.

calling it 'civil unions' vs calling it 'marriage' DOES create a seperate-and-unequal scenario.
we've seen the results of that in the area of education.  I simply don't want to see it happen here, too.  and then we'd just have to keep on fighting the same battle.

bank on it -- people would find ways to discriminate unless we call all unions by the same name.

it would be fine with me if we call ALL unions 'civil' and adding the word 'marriage' if performed in a church. 
I still stand by my statement that 'seperate but equal' doesn't create equality.

People have found ways, hence why States like Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire have forgone their "civil unions" for marriage. Many people refused to recognize the civil union, playing the ignorant card, during times of immense importance (aka dying husband/wife). Families still challenge the wills of "civil unioned" couples and often win because the justices either are ignorant of civil unions, and/or are prejudice against the LGBT family. Civil unions will never be accepted in the social world. The UK is a prime example of how civil unions are an absolute failure. We must look past the rhetoric of the theocracy that we are making our country into. Sexual orientation is no choice, however, religious opinion "IS" a choice, and we grant that choice so many special rights that proud business owners only wish they could have. If religion can have its many special rights, then LGBT people should have their "EQUAL" rights.

I agree, Luella - and I think they'll keep treating gays just like they've kept treating Blacks for the last 30 years. I'm not talking about individuals but the GOP and RNC. Still - in 2003 - the RNC was gerrymandering congressional districts in Texas to exclude Blacks and Hispanics. They've filed numerous law suits to block liberal candidates. Talk is cheap - their actions speak louder than their words.

And I fund it really sad when they trotted out their Black RNC chairman as a response to Obama - and the RNC chairman has been laughable ever since. That man talks out of three sides of his mouth!

to add to your point, Fester:
the GOP trotted out a Steele because Obama is black.

they trotted out Palin because of Hillary.

and they obviously still don't get it: having dark skin or having ovaries are not the point.  the point is to have a brain.

"to add to your point, Fester:
the GOP trotted out a Steele because Obama is black.

they trotted out Palin because of Hillary.

and they obviously still don't get it: having dark skin or having ovaries are not the point.  the point is to have a brain."

You're quite funny, should be a comedian.  I'll put up Steele against Dope!Bama any day in a debate, and take serious money on who'd win.  Too bad, Dope!Bama doesn't have the balls to do it though.  Well, at least not without his live teleprompter and professional debater behind the curtains.

name calling proves no point at all.

and when an adult can't name a news magazine she reads, I take that as disqualification to teach high-school---- let alone be vice president.

and you'd like to see STEELE debate Obama?
are we talking about the same Steele here?  he's been putting his foot in it ever since he took office.

I'm a registered independent myself, but libertarian is becoming more and more attractive.

I agree. However I always say never allign yourself with a political party allign yourself if your goal in life. Unfortunatly for me,reason, rationality and science has yet to make itself into a polical party so I guess I am screwed until it does. LOL

Amen and hallelujah, Courtney. LGBT people are really barking up the wrong two trees if they truly want to embrace their freedom and liberty. The Libertarian party is the best bet, in my opinion, and that's how this bi guy is registered.

Well, the Republican party SAYS it want's government 'off our backs' but what they mean is, they want government off corporations' backs -- not people's.

They're more than happy to insert themselves into the lives of people.  Remember Terry Schiavo?

Gay marriage, the abortion issue, stem cell research, death with dignity -- the list goes on and on.

EXACTLY!

It was just California that gave the rights and then voted them away with Prop 8. It's a completely different ball game with the federal government.

I believe that if the California supreme court upholds prop 8 then it will go to the US supreme court which will strike it down under the 4th (I think?) amendment.

Fester--
Missouri voted the rights away -- without even granting them first.
in 1996, in order to get the rethuglicans to the polls, they added an amendment to MO's constitution making marriage 'between a man and a woman.'

it got BOTH sides to the polls -- but there are more bigots than sane folks in MO.
still, we voted the R's out of Congress, at least.  but it was a hollow victory under the circumstances.

I was already getting ready to move away -- that episode helped me know I'd made the right decision. 
acourse, Florida has its own brand of craziness.  but at least the weather is good.  =)

Thanks for the kind words Gail.  My partner and I have been together for 18 years now.  It's funny...there is a straight woman that I work with that has been married legally THREE times since we have been together!  And yes...every time she "marries" she had had health insurance...federal tax benefits...and numerous other benefits.  Yet, my partner and I have none.

Regardless of what happens, we will still be together..  But, fair???  I think not.... 

Gail - you're absolutely right. I don't think God is upset with those who want to get married. I think he's far more likely to be pissed off at those who would deny the marriages.

Despite the rehtoric of the christian sects about God's love and compassion it seems odd to me that they exhibit little expression of these attributes themselves. While Jesus said many wonderful things about loving one's neighbor like one's self &c, I am greatly confused when these purported christians choose instead to display hatred and pejudice. And yet the christians are not confused at all!

What mind set allows this righteous dichotomy? How is it that the church cannot see the irony / hypocrasy in this dichotomy? I'll never understand that the theoretical God of love and mercy and compassion turns out in praxis to be a cruel prick. Or at least his followers are.

I have held the opinion for many years that God is so far above us that we cannot possibly comprehend him or his works - and to claim to "speak" for him is hubris of the very highest order.

You're welcome to have your morals and live by them, but legalized same-sex marital contracts, legal and civil contracts, do not infringe on others' liberties.

We live in a pluralistic society, and not everyone shares the Christian or Muslim viewpoint that homosexuals are evil incarnate. Not all religions consider that view, either. Therefore, Christian and Muslim belief need to be kept out of the law.

The only laws that should be on the books are laws against acts that infinge on life, liberty or personal property. Since gay marriage does not infringe on those three, leave it off the law books. Period.

And if you or your church don't condone gay marriages, mind your own business and don't engage in such marriages.

Pat - no one is going to force you to believe or disblieve anything. This is not Afghanistan and we do not have a Taliban.

By the same token, please do not attempt to dictate your morals to others. You obviously do not believe that same-sex marriages are OK, but you do not have the right to impose that moral belief on others.

Further, to make it personal for you: If you have children, you must be aware that at some point in the future they can and will have opinions and beliefs that are different than yours. I hope that you do not deny them that right nor support those who try to do so. The individual's ability to hold different opinions and, yes, have different morals, is the bedrock of this nation. At some point parental responsibility must give way to the responsibility of citizenship.

Well, Pat, that's because same-sex marriages ARE okay.  If you want to be close-minded on the issue that's your right, but letting two people who love each other deeply and just happen to be the same gender get married is fine with me.  Anything that brings more love and less hate into this world.

And BTW, you can't legislate based on your religion or your "common sense." A whole lot of people disagree with you.  And we're all free to think what we want b/c this is America, but you can't tell others how to live their lives.

Fester, I would have to disagree with you on one point. We DO have the Christain-Taliban that attempts at EVERY turn to control the private lives of others.

I would have to disagree with you on the name Dave. The Taliban is a trademark to the Muslim faith. Christians have the KKK, the NeoNazis, The Mormons, and James Dobson.  I would pick one of the four to categorize radical oppressive Christians.

P.S. I say Mormons are a radical oppressive group,not only because the vast majority pooled millions into prop 8, or the fact that they have tried stripping children from their loving same sex parents, but also because they have yet to be considered a legitimate christian faith by the Anglican church. Basically it makes them as much of a cult as the other radical groups, no matter how much money they can through around.

I would have to disagree with you on the name Dave. The Taliban is a trademark to the Muslim faith. Christians have the KKK, the NeoNazis, The Mormons, and James Dobson.  I would pick one of the four to categorize radical oppressive Christians.

P.S. I say Mormons are a radical oppressive group,not only because the vast majority pooled millions into prop 8, or the fact that they have tried stripping children from their loving same sex parents, but also because they have yet to be considered a legitimate christian faith by the Anglican church. Basically it makes them as much of a cult as the other radical groups, no matter how much money they can through around.

I sure do wish that being gay was a choice. Having a boyfriend and being bisexual, I chose to be homosexual. I should say, I TRIED to be one. I mean, I really tried. But in spite of all my efforts, I still desired women as well as men. Nothing I could do kept me from loving the opposite gender.

Now, assuming that your fantasy is true and it is a choice, stop trying to keep us from living our lives and forcing YOUR lifestyle on US. It's your choice to be straight, live with it!

Nobody's trying to push their lifestyle on you.  They just want the freedom to live their lives without having your lifestyle pushed on them.

Dan,

I honestly couldn't give a damn what you think in the privacy of your own mind (or in your Houses of Worship). But, bring that bigotry to a diverse and pluralistic "Public Square" as a bludgeon to attack we who disagree with you and you'll get the fight of your life.

We're finished with being told no - we'll have our rights because we're standing up and taking them.

Count me among the creatures God made as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior#Selected_mammals_from_the_full_list

it's been a long, long time since I heard someone brag about having a closed mind.  in fact, I think it was shortly after Rosa Parks made her stand -- by sitting down.

Dan-- you're 50 years behind the times and even then, being closed minded wasn't something to aspire to.
I feel sad for you.

Dan, if homosexuality were a choice I would have become a lesbian a long time ago. I am tired of being ignored or turned down by man after man and believe I would have a better chance of finding a date if I were a lesbian. Also, as a feminist I hate being attracted to the very gender that oppresses me. However, no matter how hard I tried, I simply could not find other women attractive. Sorry if you're out of touch with reality because your mind is closed to basic facts but don't expect the rest of us to think the way you do. 

Choose to be gay? lol yea I choose to be afraid to walk down the street and show affection to my lover as the "normal" heterosexuals do. I choose to not be able to marry the person I love and want to spend the rest of my life with. I chose to be gay so that I could go through school with the torment of not being able to experience love or the prom as the rest of my class did. I choose to be scared every time I want to approach someone that I find attractive.

OH wait.. I do choose to be gay. I did it so i could do hair and decorate peoples houses... and as silly as that sounds I'm SURE those are stereotypes that you believe since you are so proud to be close minded and proud to be raising more bigots to carry on your narrow minded and foolish views.

and btw did you think it was better when the slaves had no rights and just did what they were told instead of pushing to be free and have rights as everyone else did.

Louise - I agree with you, but want to add this. Homophobia, like racism, may exist in most people but both are learned attitudes. Watch little kids on a playground. The white kids do not care if their playmates have black skin, and the black kids don't care if their playmates have white skin. They just accept the differences as a difference.

Homophobia and racism enter when the kids hear the fear and hatred from their parents or grandparents or other adults. Kids learn to fear and hate just like they learn other social interactions: if the parents condone it, it must be okay.

You know, I've been telling my gay friends for years that the Democrats don't truly care about us. The "progressives" are show boats and the rest could care less. You just proved me right on both counts. Thanks.

Helen--
I'm profoundly offended by your comment.

I'm absolutely in favor of marriage for any person who wishes to marry.  Not 'civil unions' because separate-but-equal never works.  MARRIAGE.

I'm not trying to show off.  This is a deeply held belief for me.

I'm sorry you are so determined to hold onto your prejudices that you try to deny one group of people their rights and to dismiss any others who want to accept them simply for who they are.

"The only Democrats who are really for same sex marriage are the so called PROGRESSIVES who are progressive they just want to feel important so they find UNPOPULAR causes to sound off about.."

Now that's just mean.  And untrue.  And makes you come off as a know-nothing, cynical blow-hard.  I'm a Democrat and I'm all for same-sex marriage.  Let them be as miserable as the rest of us!! Seriously though, they deserve a chance at a happy life with the person they love.  That's a deep-seated belief, not just some "unpopular" cause I use to make myself feel important.  Thanks for saying that, though.  Really mature, really added something to the discussion.

I am neither republican or democrat, I am a person that adheres only to the philosophy of science, where does that lead me since my constituents support same sex marriage? Are we just progressives or are we just realist? I believe the latter to be the real answer. Realist... real answer? I crack myself up.

Either way I find your remark surprisingly truthful, whether a satire or a proud statement from another anti-science ingrate, your statement hopefully wakes up those that are complacent in demanding that their party fully supports equality, when in reality it is far from it.

However like the battle over evolution, sadly it has come to this with anti-science ingrates, this battle over equal rights for LGBT is going down the same road. So in the words of a great scientist and LGBT supporter I conclude my statement.

"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." -Richard Dawkins Evolutionary biologist.

If the Religious Right DID address those issues, it'd mean they actually have to take responsibility for being the key part of the problem. And, in the big picture, it has everything to do greedy CEOs.

@ Old Florida Gal - since I was in my teens (many years ago now!) I knew instinctively the difference between the Right and the Left.

The Right / Conservatives defend the entity of the Nation State at the expense of the nation's individual citizens. The existence of the State is primary.
c
The Left / Progressives defends individual citizens against the tyrrany of the State. The happiness of individual citizens is primary.

Regardless of rhetoric on both sides, I believe that's the fundamental difference from which all other differences obtain.

Fester wrote:
"@ Old Florida Gal - since I was in my teens (many years ago now!) I knew instinctively the difference between the Right and the Left.

The Right / Conservatives defend the entity of the Nation State at the expense of the nation's individual citizens. The existence of the State is primary.
c
The Left / Progressives defends individual citizens against the tyrrany of the State. The happiness of individual citizens is primary.

Regardless of rhetoric on both sides, I believe that's the fundamental difference from which all other differences obtain."

That's the most amusing thing I've read in ages.  The liberal left wing "statists" are running rampant shoving socialism down the throat of this country today, a soft tyranny if you will.  True conservatives are all about preservation of the liberties outlined by the founding fathers of this great nation.

So then you are also in agreement with Steve Schmidt about preserving the rights that are denied to nearly 30 million americas because of their sexual orientation?

"So then you are also in agreement with Steve Schmidt about preserving the rights that are denied to nearly 30 million americas because of their sexual orientation?"

Absolutely, but not at the expense of denying the 200 million people who believe "marriage" is between a man and a woman.  Either eliminate marriage as a civil entity and keep it strictly religious or keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman and have civil unions for others, with full equality of civil rights.

What about civil marriages? Religion can keep their "religious" marriage, we deserve our equal marriages and for the many churches that support Same Sex Marriage, they too deserve their religious freedoms that are being denied. The opposition can do what it will until it comes to terms with its ignorance.

Also 42 percent of the US supports same sex marriage. Out of 304,059,724 that means 127,705,085 supports same sex marriage. 25 percent only support civil unions 76,014,931, and 28 percent say no rights at all 85,136,723. Hmmm lets see. 128 million vs 76 million or 85 million... Guess your figures are a little wrong.

So you believe same sex couples should only have their full human, equal, basic rights because if it hinges on the mere opinion of the majority? Well the majority now supports our rights. Better find another excuse to deny us our basic rights lol. And here I though Bush pronunciation of nuclear was interesting.

For your information Opinions of religion do not reflect reality. Facts of science do that. Religion then slowly chugs along after hundreds of years. Aka Pole John Paul II finally acknowledging Galileo's work and telling the church that they must finally start listening to science even if they might have to ratify their deeply held beliefs. The science community finds these opinions that lead to the continual denial of basic human rights for LGBT disgusting and has disproved every myth, misconception, and fallacy that plagues us. Its time people who stand for liberties, start listening to reality, and start standing for the liberties of all, not the liberties of those they favor. And you call yourself a real conservative... Bleh. To conclude I leave you with a message from our foundng four fathers.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

It's time we come together and end this long abusive cycle of intolerance. If religion can carry all their special rights that business owners could only wish for, then its time for LGBT people to recieve their EQUAL rights.

Link to Poll for marriage equality support.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4972643.shtml

so, Michael, you are for protecting the semantic sensibilities of one group of people at the expense of the basic human rights of another group.

thanks for clearing that up.

Chris,
Blah, blah, blah...Can you try being a little more succinct?  CBS is hardly an unbiased source in this debate.  Then again, I don't think any source is necessarily unbiased.  So, we disagree on the popular sentiment of the populace.  Guess the U.S. Supreme Court will be the deciding body.  We'll see how they vote.

"so, Michael, you are for protecting the semantic sensibilities of one group of people at the expense of the basic human rights of another group."

Geez August, that was really weak.  I shouldn't, but I'll bite.  Exactly what "basic human right" are you denied by my proposal?

To "marry," not civil union the person you live, and establish stability and commitment with your family, both economically and socially. Except... its not one basic human right its 1138 basic rights that we are denied and in them also states being able to marry the person of ones choosing.

Either way I like your style. The Judicial branch should be the only ones deciding on the factors of human rights, that is their constitutional power. As we both should know the Constitution guarantees protection from the majority if you are a suspect class minority. For the last 20 years LGBT have been documented as a minority class in the social world, since 1957 in the science world.

A great book to read is "Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution 2nd ED" by Evan Gerstmann. It argues only for our rights to be passed by the Supreme Court. If you want to read a copy send me a private message and supply your email and I will get it out to you as soon as possible.

Denise - thanks for your cogent (if somewhat cynical) argument. I wish we didn't have to be cynical but the Bush / Rove / Cheney administratons really forced us into that position.

And it's not just the catholic churches that have diverted from the Sermon on the Mount - the evangelicals have done the same thing.

Nuns were on the forefront of justice work - and still are in some liberal institutions. And they've always been treated like crap by the males only church hierarchy. I find it unjust and disturbing that the Vatican has launched a witch hunt for lesbians "lurking in the convents" - espcially now when there are so many fewer nuns than there were even 30 years ago. Very sad.

I wonder: If all the pearly gates / splendiferous afterlife is true - what surprises might await the church hierarchy of the last 70 years when they arrive at the pearly gates? How might they be judged by the God of righteousness and love?

hey, florida gal--
yeah-- I've had many friends over the years who were ex-nuns.  I've only known one ex-priest.  but there are fewer of them than nuns anyway, right?

or, at least, there used to be.  my understanding is that fewer and fewer are entering convents these days.

"***Don't fall for the same crap that put our country into this sorry economic state, people.***"

Yes, especially when we know all too well, it was the Dems that precipitated the disaster, and are feeding the flames more and more each day.

I want gay people to have the same rights to a messy divorce as the straight people do. You'd think lawyers would hop all OVER supporting gay marriage!

AMEN! lol I mean think of all the gay people that would get married ( and no offense to anyone ) but the majority of same sex relationships I know and have even been in dont even make it past the 7 year itch!! WOW your talking some major money for courts, and lawyers.

omg! Pat said that?  I hadn't heard.
not that I'm surprised -- except for the fact that any human being would think that, let alone say it.

and he's not even running for election -- so he doesn't need to pander.

I believe in reincarnation and karma.  I have some pretty good guesses as to what his next life is going to be like.

hey, Fester--
I'm not so sure that we'll manage to steer clear of a theocracy.  I'm pretty sure I have relatives who would love to see it happen.

btw-- have you read Margaret Atwood's _A_Handmaid's_Tale_?
leave it to a Canadian to glance south of the border and tell us where we're heading.  very scary reading.

and, I think the quote was 'wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.'

Fester, I understand, but I would still argue that the US does indeed have the Christian-Taliban. Just because they haven't taken over the government as the Taliban did in Afghanistan doesn't mean they aren't there. You are correct that many of those things are not condoned in this society, but I would say there is a word missing which would be the word "yet".

If they had their way, we would be living under Christianity's version of Sharia Law, which would be mostly based on Leviticus. The only rules that would not apply would be those surrounding divorce. Why? Because that would encompass the majority of their base.

Louise, it was the same with Native Americans. Before the invasion of White Eurpeans, the native population embraced, accepted, and celebrated their "two-spirits". It wasn't until after they had all been eliminated or taken to war to defend against the British that they had all been indocrinated with the white man's religion. Yep, one of the very reasons the early settlers used to break off from Britian, religious freedom. The hypocrisy in this nation pretty much took over as soon as white men landed on this soil.

Got that right, Dave. Thank you for bringing up the historical truth on two-spirits and their acceptance in the Native cultures. So many people, even those with Native heritage, have no clue about that.

You are totally right. The Obama campaign  said clearly that they did not approve of same sex marriage. And to be perfectly honest (I'm sure ill lose some points with my fellow crusaders here) as a Dem, I voted for mccain. I did not and still do not think obama is the best person to lead this country. Honestly in my opinion Palin is the only one in the entire shitting ass mess who had the experience and know how to lead the office. The reason I voted for mccain is because I thought there were much more important issues at hand in this country than same sex marriage and equal rights and not to mention I liked his policies a lot better than the flip flop style of Obama. But doesn't mean we cant still rally, protest, and make our voices heard while the rest of the country is being cleaned up and maybe get what we damn well deserve in the process.

Oh please, Louise,
You sound just like the typical Dem drone who believes everything the MainScream media spoon feeds them.  Try doing some honest research of the woman's accomplishments.  Quite impressive once you get past the hysterical liberal media's smokescreen.

Michael - When Palin came on the scene, that's exactly what I did; research.  I discovered she stood for everything I'm opposed to.  Further, she made it clear throughout the campaign that she hadn't even basic knowledge of the constitution.  We all SAW and HEARD who she was ...  there was no hysteria, there were facts.  She is a small minded person who would have her personal beliefs made into law.  Her accomplishments are few and she can hardly be given 100% credit for them.  She can take credit for her ignorance.
I guess you didn't see her being blessed by the witch doctor.....

Well, gee Louise,
Let me see, take someone who's had one blessing from a witch "hunter" (not quite the same as a witch doctor) vs. someone who sat in the pew of a racist hate monger for twenty years.  Tough decision there..

Louise,
Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. I merely said she was the only one with the EXPERIENCE to run the office. She had physical experience dealing with budgets, deadlines, economy, she had legislative experience, and had the experience of running an administration. however, i did NOT say that i thought she should have been the one to become president. I will agree with michael in that a lot of her negative image was perpetrated by the mainstream media. I have a lot of respect for her. I may not agree with most of her views, but that's why I'm a democrat and shes a republican. :-) during the campaign when the media did all they could to smear her and her family by making them LOOK like small minded pecker-wood rednecks, it made me realize that they are just another example of the type of families in this country.and again i would in NO WAY want her in the office of the president, i just simply was making the point that she was the only one with any real experience, except of course for Hillary Clinton, who I would have much rather seen in office( oops did i just open a door )