I call out liars when I see them......

John Edwards came out very clear and said he does not support gay marriage.

So people bash him.

So let's see who else does not support gay marriage. Notice how Obama bullshitted his answer and did not give a Yes on MARRIAGE.

Who supports it?

Kucinich.

Gravel.

Who else?

......
Clinton? NO.
Obama? NO
Dodd? NO
Biden? NO
Richardson? NO

Guess that rules out everyone but Kuicnich and Gravel.

Stop attacking Edwards when YOUR candidate (this is not the Dennis Kucinich Fan Club, not everyone here loves him) does NOT Support gay marriage. Because they don't, no matter what bullshit they spew.

They don't.

Edwards for Pres.

Edwards because he's not convinced? :shrug:

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

light, insight, and great company.

I resent your calling her names. You should apologize.

From the way he comports himself, his handle ought to be SchultzLiberal.

occasionally do.

I'm not shy at all with coarse talk, but let's save it for the Rethugs.

Howdy, Jeff. Nice to see ya on DU as always.

apparently there are those who want to use everything as an opportunity to scream louder.
:shrug:

He said it very clearly with recordings.

HE SUPPORTS FUCKING CIVIL UNIONS. GRASP THAT YET?

bump into.

She is owed both respect for that contribution and courtesy from all of us.

Re Edwards: I'm quite solidly in his camp already.

Way to win people over to your candidate. Nice to know it's not just HRC supporters who can act like prime jackasses in their advocacy...

We should separate Church and State by giving everyone the right to a civil union (regardless of genitalia) and leave marriage as purely religious. That way, two Catholic guys can get a civil union and enjoy the same rights as every other legally bound couple even though their Church won't recognize them as "married."

This would actually make it easier on liberal Catholic churches, because they can recognize committed couples without having to violate the Magesterium of the Church. (Whether that's OK with the gay parishioners is up to them.)

The bottom line is that by separating these two types of union, you no longer have to argue with people who say, "marriage is between a man and a woman." It would no longer matter what the definition of "marriage" is; everyone wishing the legal status could get it. I really think this could work, because I've actually heard some "defense of marriage people" concede to "civil unions" with the same legal rights. Hanging on to the "M" word entails decades of battle with religious extremists that could be side-stepped with a split between civil and religious unions.

one of them.
We don't need to talk to each other like that. That's for Republicans.

you are. And also, to new friends!


:hug: :hug: :hug:


:toast:

but quite a few more than a few years ago, and I assure you, quite a HELL of a lot more than when I was growing up way back when.

By citing the upward trend, I'm in defiance of fundies, who would surely describe it as a downward trend.

But the difference between my position and theirs is that I'm right and they're wrong.

!

Back to the trend -- the upward trend. I want the world to be configured in exactly the way I want it, and especially I want its political profile to match my specific demands. Now. In the OFF-CHANCE that I don't have that scenario realized, I'm left to navigate in the world as it is, and all we can do with good causes -- and there are many of them -- is fight the good fight.

By degree, we win victories. Some are as local as your local high school prom and others are as global as world-wide human rights initiatives. I think they're the same movement and I think they help the same people.

True enough that not all our candidates are as clear or as vocal as we might prefer, but set any of them next to Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee or Duncan Hunter and the ghost of Jesse Helms appears. You scientists will scoff at that idea of a visible apparition over the far-right Republicans.

But I've seen it. And the truer path is to vote against the party from whose grave it arose.

Everyone on that stage would say that.

He just was honest rather than pandering like the other candidates about it that he doesn't support "Marriage".

Like it or not this country is homophobic, racist, sexist, and a broad spectrum of unfavorable characteristics

But lets also get real, what is the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING US NOW

Is it gay marriage?

No.

Its the Iraq War, jobs, our debt, healthcare, education, and a wealth of other issues that will affect people regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation

Yes, prejudice because of race, gender, or sexual orientation is important and must be dealt with, but when the house is on fire, that this should be at the top of the list amazes me

The "my candidate's a slimeball - but look over THERE - the OTHERS are slimeballs too!" doesn't win my vote for Edwards.

Sorry, you lose....

Try the local bar.

Get lost...

I like all our Democrats pretty well, in fact.

And plan to vote accordingly.

Hope that's not a grievous disappointment for ya.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

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

Discourse doesn't seem to be your long suit.

... to apologize to BabylonSister.

I am also asking, very nicely, for that apology to be rendered. Your remark was completely uncalled for - not to mention crude and downright childish.

:loveya:

"do I personally support gay marriage?

The honest answer to that is I don't."

He makes a judgment call based on his pandering to the "faith" crowd. If he truly believes what he said there, than it is even MORE frightening, because he lets a book of fairy tales tell him what to believe.

To draw a contrast to what Obama said, he didn't offer his own personal judgment of other people. Instead he made it clear that the government needs to recognize the equal rights of people. He also said that he wouldn't force a CHURCH to recognize a marriage if the CHURCH chooses not to, which is already the way it is in reality, as some churches don't "allow" divorced people to get remarried, but they do anyway.

What is further disturbing in Edwards' answer is that he didn't say he wouldn't allow states to ban civil unions, where Obama made it clear that all people MUST be treated equally by the government.

Its kinda like a President saying, "I don't believe in women having a choice, and I don't think the president should have a say in that"... which is code for let them decide it at the state level... which would overturn roe v wade.

In Obama's answer, a state can't ban civil unions, b/c he recognizes the rights under the constitution. In Edwards' answer, the states can ban away and he, as president, won't do a damn thing about it.

He would not support discrimination of any sort. Or any such type of ban.
Get the potatoes out of your ears.

EDWARDS: I think Reverend Longcrier asks a very important question, which is whether fundamentally -- whether it's right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we're president of the United States. I do not believe that's right.

I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. I want to do some of the things that I just heard Bill Richardson talking about -- standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, the thing that Chris Dodd just talked about. But I think that's something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as president of the United States.

But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke -- my wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.


Forgetting the obvious idiocy of his "personally not supporting it" (as if that is a call he has the right to make)... I again call attention to the fact that he doesn't really offer a plan (like much of his campaign), but he will just "stand up for equal rights". What does that mean? If the president isn't going to take action, then it is left up to the states.. that is the way our system works and that is what he said here.

So take the blinders off, listen to /read what he said and THEN try and put a thought together... it obviously didn't take the first time.

He would not allow people to discriminate. You left that part of the transcript out.

Please read more carefully.

Couple of things, Obama didn't give a BS answer, he said he supports equal rights but it is for each church to decide the gay marriage issue. Very clear, almost the exact same position to Edwards. (not my position by fine, they were both clear)
I give them both credit for being clear as was Kucinich.

Finally, I know you are a big Malloy fan hence the question if you were listening to him tonight and got fired up. Sometimes his style is over the top and too fucking angry.


And I will save you the typing ... Fuck you Rufus Dog!

"Couple of things, Obama didn't give a BS answer, he said he supports equal rights but it is for each church to decide the gay marriage issue. Very clear, almost the exact same position to Edwards. (not my position by fine, they were both clear)
I give them both credit for being clear as was Kucinich."

Obama actually took the step Edwards is too cowardly to take (or just too pandering to the faith based crew).. Obama made it clear that GOVERNMENT should not interfere in these rights

From the debate, Obama, "And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal."

Obama makes an important distinction that Edwards doesn't... he is going to get involved and make sure GOVERNMENT doesn't infringe on rights. Edwards simply promises that he won't stop civil unions, despite the fact that he is personally against it... that is a HUGE distinction, in which Edwards' allows states to pass anti-civil unions bills, where Obama's position does not allow such things.. Obama simply seperates CHURCH and STATE, saying that he can't force a particular CHURCH or DENOMINATION to "marry" people, that is up to them.

I read your post after I posted and stand corrected. I gave Edwards the benefit of the doubt that he meant the same thing as Obama, but after reading your post I clearly see that he left himself adequate wiggle room. Fool me once!

Edwards has said repeatedly he would not interfere with it.

It's extremely hard to believe that when an overwhelming majority of registered Democrats are pro gay marriage, that almost all of the people we elect to high offices are against gay marriage.

A vote for Edwards is a vote for homophobia. This may apply to others as well, such as Obama. Supporting homophobic candidates means supporting homophobia.

you are using in the current thread 08/04/07 re Landrieu et al.

Note that it was deleted.