I am a straight man but it is frustrating for me to hear candidates say the support civil unions but are against gay marriage. They seem to expect thanks but it sounds to me like they are saying we support gay Americans beeing treated as near citizens but not full citizens.
2007-02-12 07:56:43 · 6 answers · asked by toff 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Yea, me too. I'm convinced that the liberal politicians that say this, including those in the states of Vermont and New Jersey do this in order to keep the gays voting for them while not upsetting the majority.
Remember that there is nothing in the world the republicans can do to stop the passage of a gay marriage in New York or California, but it is still banned in those states. And in Massachusetts, the politicians have the ability to affirm the courts ruling and make gay marriage the law. But they won't. Instead the voters are putting this issue on the ballot where it most likely put an end to the only state that allows gay marriage.
Clearly there are no differences between the parties on this issue, just how much lip service the give to their base.
And with the Supreme Court not making any decision on this issue, it looks like it will be a long time before there will be a change in the status quo. Gay's will have to get used to being second class citizens.
2007-02-12 08:18:36 · answer #1 · answered by radical4capitalism 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well, you can't exactly call this segregation because they're not designating anything different in our life. It's just a difference in the name of what our marriage is. It's fine to me because a lot of people consider the term 'marriage' to be highly religious, and since the Bible actually denigrates gays, they may not themselves dislike gays but you'd be marrying someone to a book that insults them; not exactly that wonderful when you think about it. Besides, nothing bans the ceremonies, it's just the legal aspect of it. Civil unions are exactly like marriage in every way and, although I personally support everything, including marriage, for gays, I don't mind when a politician supports only civil unions. What I can't stand is when a politician talks about us like we're filthy rats, like something that needs to be exterminated.
And once again to the person above me, there has only been a Democratic governor in New York for about a month, and besides, the New York State Senate has a majority of Republicans. As for California, the Democratic Legislature did pass a law accepting gay marriage only to have it vetoed by their Republican governor. Remember Schwarzenegger? Oh, and Massachusetts? The Democrats were going to ignore the ballot issue until former governor Mitt Romney stepped in and got the Massachusetts Supreme Court to condemn the Legislature for inaction on the issue. The ballot question isn't even supported by a majority at this time even if it does come up to a vote in 2008 and the only reason it has the support it does is because Massachusetts is very heavily Roman Catholic.
2007-02-12 16:43:05 · answer #2 · answered by guitarherofairy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's one of the oldest political sports played, it's called playing both sides. They truly want their cake and eat it too. God forbid a politician actually have principles, that would be too much.
You are quite correct. Politicians will say things like, give gays civil unions but not marriage, oh they'll have the same rights but not the word. Well if it walks like a marriage, talks like a marriage, why not just call it a marriage?
2007-02-12 16:08:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have to 'agree with you' on this one ... and I am a 'straight woman' who is married. I have many 'gay friends' who would LOVE TO GET MARRIED, but they 'can't' because their partner is of the same gender as they are. In the state of Washington, a 'pro-gay marriage' group has started a 'campaign' that would pass a law making it MANDATORY for any couple who gets married to 'produce a child' within three years of getting married. My husband and I were 'older' when we got married (my first grandchild was born 6 days after our wedding) so that if we had gotten married with a law like that 'in place' we'd be 'breaking the law' ...
I'm afraid, though, that there are 'enough' people who can actually 'believe' a law like that would 'prevent talk about legalizing gay marriage' and it could be 'passed' during the next election ... and I also think that the 'best way' for gays to become legally 'allowed' to marry is for straights, couples or singles, who agree, to 'protest for them' and to 'stand by them' ... and can anyone besides me remember when whites couldn't marry blacks in this country? I don't see that there's all that 'much difference' between color and gender when it comes to 'getting married' ... and there shouldn't be 'legal prohibitions' against EITHER!
2007-02-12 16:16:29 · answer #4 · answered by Kris L 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. I'm on the fence about them too. I most likely would not vote for them. Like John Edwards. He does this too, and I don't support him.
2007-02-12 16:11:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. We've all seen how well "separate but equal" worked out in history.
2007-02-12 16:07:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋