Well, your enemies don’t get up in front of the entire U.S. Senate and say,
And, if you don’t realize that, you are going to have a hell of a hard time finding many friends at all!
Oh yeah, and here is the endorsement by Human Rights Campaign for John Kerry. I think they take a very intelligent view on the matter:
Yes, but then he did:
Of course, I said that on page one. :rolleyes:
From your own freakin’ link:
But you are so blinded by the fact that he supports something with all the benefits of marriage but throws a bone to those who are offended by the use of the word “marriage” in this context that you are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Well, all I can say is I am glad that the people who run Human Rights Campaign are more sensible about this than you are.
The HRC ain’t too fond of his opinions either from your quoted link. I’m sorry that I don’t want to be treated like a dog that gets thrown a bone when it comes to equality. Maybe we should go and change the term of marriage for interracial couples to something else to pander to the racists too. :rolleyes:
Moreover, your baby and the bathwater isn’t applicable to me as I said in the OP that I’m voting for the schmuck anyway.
Sounded like a fairly enthusiastic endorsement to me. The difference between them and you is that they recognize that Kerry agrees with them on the most important issues and while they may disagree with him on this one issue, they don’t harp on it like you do.
Well, I am glad that you are. However, you also seem at the same time to be doing your best to undermine his getting elected with your over-the-top rhetoric in this thread.
Or to put it another way, I missed the part where they called Kerry an “anti-gay bigot” and such. Maybe I was just not reading between the lines enough when they said:
You know, “true leader for our community”, “anti-gay bigot”…they are all within the realm of subtle differences in wording. :rolleyes:
Ahh, you’re just like Apos then. Oy. I’m glad you hopped on the short bus with him because it does explain your motives. Forbid that ANYONE criticize Kerry for it may cost him the election. If Kerry has done anything wrong we’ll just stick a bucket over our head and our thumbs up our collective democratic asses and pretend it didn’t happen. Way to fight ignorance. :rolleyes:
By the way, stpauler, I think this is about the most heated discussion I have had on the SDMB with someone who I am really on the same side of the larger issue with. (The only possible exception might be in the lead-up to the 2000 election when I was arguing with those who said that Gore was no better than Bush…I voted for Nader but only because living in N.Y. state, I had the luxury of voting my conscience. And, even then, I have mixed feelings about having done it [mainly modulated by feeling proud that I argued strongly for the position that all those people in swing states should vote for Gore] and I sure as hell won’t be doing it this time.)
I understand that civil rights issues like this are really sensitive and it is easy to see any political compromise as selling out on a fundamental principle. But, for heaven’s sake, this just ain’t the way the real world works. That is why Human Rights Campaign is heartily endorsing Kerry. I am sure some of them too were offended by the fact that he didn’t support their view on gay marriage 100%. But, they recognize that what they will accomplish by harping on this is absolutely nothing but ensuring that they remain completely second class citizens for a hell of a long time to come.
Look, I am not endorsing not saying that you disagree with Kerry on some things. That is why I linked to the HRC endorsement. They took exactly the right tack in my view. They acknowledged differences but didn’t harp on them, but rather chose to emphasize the larger good. And, they didn’t resort to overheated rhetoric like “anti-gay bigot” to express their disagreement.
Politics ain’t all about ideals. It is about the most effective ways to move the nation in the directions you believe. And, that takes some compromise, even compromise in some areas where you find it difficult to compromise.
What HRC did by mentioning that they disagreed with Kerry on that one issue was “fighting ignorance”. What you did was, in my opinion, more along the lines of spreading it by using overheated rhetoric and failing to see the forest through the trees.
Boy, I do get a little post-crazy late at night, so I’ll lead you with one more thought along the lines of this that you said: Now, my guess is that if you go back and look into the writings of Abraham Lincoln, you will find things that show that he is a racist by our modern-day standards and sensibilities. Do you think it would have been useful to their case or even to the cause of “fighting ignorance” at the time if the Black leaders like Frederick Douglas had gone around calling Abraham Lincoln “a racist bigot”? I kind of doubt it…But, the real racist bigots would certainly not have minded one bit!
Well, if you notice, they don’t even call Bush or Falwell a bigot either. The HRC ain’t posting in the pit. I am. (And I’ve got issues with the HRC but that’s whole other thread).
I completely agree with you there. Of course when Kerry said " that he believes marriage — both legally and religiously — should be reserved between a man and woman", it really doesn’t leave remove for future compromise unless he flip-flops his position (again). He’s stuck there and won’t be able to support gay marriage.
Here’s the funny thing, you try and call marriage a civil union and you’ll have Polycarp on your ass: “But not by abolishing marriage in favor of “civil unions.” And not by legislating your own favorite definition to the detriment of others.”. Someone insinuates Bricker is a bigot because he supports state by state voting on gay marriage and the ability to amend a state’s constitution to stop it (something that Kerry is supporting).
And since Kerrry is apparently untouchable in this forum and above criticism, I can’t call him to task for the same bullshit? Umm…, no. I personally don’t want to live in a bubble and not know and vent and celebrate what’s going on.
Nope. It’s because of his gloating and the fact that he specifically said that gay relationships aren’t equal to heterosexual ones. Also Bricker would ban the recognition of gay marriages with no proviso that there be fully recognized Civil Unions. Kerry has specifically said he would only support the marriage ban if there were fully legally recoginized Civil Unions.
Ah, I missed that. Of course I did see him say this in the original thread that started this:
He also said this in the ensuing BBQ thread:
So, he’s written to his senator against the anti-gay law in Louisiana. He’s spoken out against a law forbidding civil unions and marriage in Virginia. I don’t see how he’s gloating that it’s passed.
He then further explains:
I don’t see how he’s gloating about something he sees as terrible because he says:
And actually Kerry has never mentioned amending the federal tax code to recognize civil unions.
Of course, after perusing all of the posts of the original thread, the bbq thread, and this thread, I’m showing no facts to support your claim that he “would ban the recognition of gay marriages with no proviso that there be fully recognized Civil Unions.” That might his position all along. I don’t know. So I’m going to ask you where you saw that or I’m asking Bricker to come forward and state his opinion for the record.
Sometimes people have opinions on other posters that have developed over the course of numerous threads rather than one or two that you’ve only recently read.
No, the Constitution
It’s just that Karl Rove takes a very literal meaning to the text! :smack:
Add Miller to the growing list as well…
I suspect that the list is longer…these are the posters who are just upfront about their reasons.
(And FWIW, to pre-emptively dismiss the partisan canard…I’m equally annoyed at Republicans who do a similar thing…and said so in that thread.
For example, not calling the Swifties out on what they are doing, even if they can smell the stench from where they are)
I think that constitutes the difference between the two candidates. George Bush wants to pass a constitutional amendment that would prevent states like Vermont and Massachussetts from recognizing homosexual unions at all. John Kerry supports those states’ recognition of those unions, but is not willing to insists that residents of other states do as well., whether because he honestly has a problem with it or because he already has MA and VT pretty much sewn up, and would like people in other states t vote for him. A civil union places no “Faith and Credit” demands on other states, so legislatures “opt in” by passing similar laws.
Come on, that comparison doesn’t wash at all!!! For the 96th billionth time, I am willing to say that I disagree with Kerry on this issue. However, I am also intelligent enough to recognize that Kerry’s positions on gay issues still put him among the most enlightened of the politicians in the U.S., or as the HRC puts it, “John Kerry is a true leader for our community.” And, I recognize that if you go around calling such people “anti-gay bigots” you only hurt your cause and muddy the waters by equating those who are actively fighting against equality for gays and lesbians with those who have done more than anyone of the people posturing on this messageboard to actually advance the cause for gays and lesbians, even if this has meant that they have compromised for whatever reasons (political or personal). Do you honestly think it is a useful descriptor to call nearly every member of the U.S. Senate an “anti-gay bigot” because 86 of them voted for DOMA and of the 14 that didn’t, I doubt many gave as eloquent a speech against it as Kerry.
Your analogy to the Swifties totally sucks! You are holding the Republicans to a standard of “You must condemn the worst among you” and the Democrats to a standard that “You must condemn anyone who does not live up to the absolute highest standards on this.”
It also puts you in the strange position of claiming you know better than the HRC whereas those people have done more to fight for gay and lesbians than you have ever dreamed of doing.
Except that’s not what he says at all.
This is getting pathetic. Of course there are gay rights activists that are more “pure” than Kerry. but none of them will ever make it anywhere near a race for national office.
I didn’t say that, and you are a habitual liar. I don’t think Kerry is 100% right. I don’t think he’s a bigot. I mentioned that to point out that far from “flip-flopping” on this issue, Kerry has maintained his stance pro-gay rights even though it may cost him the election. That’s part of your ridiculous smear against him. The link, originally, went to an ad that is running all over swing states slamming Kerry for supporting gay civil unions and being against the DOMA and FMA.
You lied when you claimed he flip-flopped his position on gay marriage. His position has been consistent. You’ve already been roundly demonstrated to be full of shit on this issue.
The rights are afforded to the union. And Kerry wants gay couples to have the same rights.
I only hope I don’t have to rely on someone as profoundly retarded as you to defend MY rights. It’s perfectly legitimate to think that gay couples do not fit the traditional concept of marriage. Plenty of gay activists agree. Jonathan Rauch, for one. Gay marriage DOES change the definition of marriage. You can support changing it, and I do, and he does. But the reality is that it is a change. Your bullshit about this being akin to calling blacks a derogatory term is worthless.
The fact is, your argument completely apart with any sincere examination of what you are saying, and any attempt to apply it globally. By your argument, millions of pro-gay rights people, including homosexuals, are anti-gay bigots. You have three times refused to address this point, and are trying to BS your way out of confronting it.
No, you answered a question I never asked (are they anti-straight). Of course, your answer to that was wrong too, but the fact is, you are refusing to confront the reality that by your own nonsensical definitions, thousands of gay men are technically anti-gay bigots.
I’ll defend anyone from outrageous slander, lies, smear. It’s fine to criticize Kerry. I disagree with him on the issue of marriage. But his stance isn’t bigoted at all. He’s been nothing but compassionate and a strong advocate for the struggle of gay people to win rights and acceptance in society. He has fought even though it costs him dearly, even when it was unpopular. To call such a man a bigot is disgusting. This isn’t about him winning: this is about decency and honesty and character, of which you have none. Kerry is fighting so that gay people like my son can live in a society that accepts them and gives them and their partners all the rights afforded to others. You are a disgrace to that society, contributing absolutely nothing but invective and hate to that hope.
Oh fuck you, at long last. Full civil union benefits for gay couples is not a “bone.” It’s EVERYTHING substantive that gay couples need, minus only a legalism. If I had to vote for Kerry or you, I’d vote Kerry 100% of the time, because Kerry would actually fight to win rights for gay people instead of holding it up for decades out of pure spite.
Bricker first of all doesn’t have the same position as Kerry, and second of all those positions alone AREN’T sufficient to call him a bigot.