I don’t see Obama running through the streets stark screaming naked demanding the rights of gays to marry each other.
That being said, I could see a gay person saying to himself, “Look, I don’t need a religion-based word like marriage to define my relationship. I can suck, fuck, and fondle the person of my choice without government interference whether McCain or Obama is elected. So I will vote based on other issues.”
What is so crazy about that?
Do you really think this is all gay rights is about?
What about the abode they are allowed to live in while sucking, fucking and fondling? What about the jobs they can still be fired from simply for being someone who engaged in sucking, fucking and fondling someone of the same sex? What about sharing in the medical benefits of the person they like sucking, fucking and fondling? What about being subject to being violently assaulted for whom they like sucking, fucking and fondling because this country hasn’t yet sent a clear message through the preceding that gay citizens are valued just as much as any other?
Let me add: being allowed into the hospital room of their sick or dying loved one, and being allowed to make the care decisions a spouse would normally make, rather than being excluded altogether by their loved one’s legal next of kin.
Gays can get married in the religious sense in any number of churches- various Episcopal, Anglican, Unitarian, even some Baptist churches bless gay unions. For churches that don’t they’re 100% in their rights to make any rules on marriage they want and it is imperative this must never change; the state must never be allowed to tell a church what beliefs they can or cannot have.
It’s not God’s law gays seek; it’s Caesar’s. Forget the word, I want the rights afforded by marriage, everything from not having to testify against a spouse (hopefully never needed) to automatic inheritance in event of an intestate death to Social Security benefits to legal next of kin status, etc. Marriage, gay or straight is saying “I take this person as my closest living relative”.
In addition to marriage, there’s non-discrimination in employment and housing (which McCain has voted against).
I agree that people can vote for any candidate or write-in a candidate for any reason they choose. They can choose the candidate by casting astrological charts and examining chicken innards if that’s what floats their boat, it’s a free country, but I don’t have to respect the intelligence of their decision.
He could be bi. My sister is serially monogamous, but the gender of the partner has been known to change.
[quote=“Sampiro, post:124, topic:463854”]
Don’t forget Jews. My aunts were married by a rabbi. Some 20 years ago. And more recently by Caesar (does happy dance).
I don’t know if this has been addressed yet, but here goes:
You can be gay and be a Republican at the same time if the gay issues are not your big major issues. It might be a little dotty, but I’m a Christian who believes in greater personal responsibility and huge welfare reform and I’m technically a Democrat, so I’m a little weird too.
But identifying as specifically a Log Cabin Republican seems like an indication that gay rights matter to you. If I joined a group of, say, Video Game Players for Obama, I would infer that video games were important to that group and would be a focus of that group.
I’m not sure that “Log Cabin” is quite as obvious in its connotation (here) as “video game players”.
Anyway, I suspect that from an LCR perspective, the point is quite the opposite- that they’re denoting the fact that they’re Republican, not that they’re gay. In other words, the point is to get gays to vote with Republicans, not to get Republicans to vote with gays. Otherwise, they’d be Conservatives for Gay Rights (or whatever).
Think of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms. The point of the name is to make the organization appealing to Jews, not to make gun owners embrace Judaism. If they were just Jewish people who happened to like guns, they’d join the NRA, presumably.
The Green Party
The Green Party
I know, I know, voting Green is dangerous in this country, because elections can so easily be stolen. But I just wanted to point this out. There is a political party that not only thinks we deserve full civil rights, but also wishes to introduce legislation that would get us those rights.
The Greens include gay rights in their platform. And not vague “we support civil rights for all citizens” either, but an actual section in their Social Justice plank that is specifically devoted to LGBT rights:
I understand the fear around voting Green after the 2000 election. And I also understand that many don’t agree with all of the Green platform, so I’m not pushing the Green Party here; that’s not the purpose of my post.
But the questions above . . . I didn’t know if they were rhetorical or if you really didn’t know the Green Party’s stand on civil rights for the LGBT community.
Here’s a Dallas news station story on the topic:
Of course not.
As far as I know, gay people are allowed to own homes.
True, they are not protected by federal civil rights laws in their jobs, but in practice which companies actively discriminate? It would be foolish in this day and time, and would invite lawsuits.
Medical benefits are a good point, but again, I can see a rational gay couple saying, “My partner and I both have health benefits through our jobs, so it is not a deal breaking issue for me.”
Violent assault? I’m pretty sure that is illegal against gays or anyone else.
I mean, this thread wasn’t about debating every aspect of the gay lifestyle/culture/needs, but it was asked that “How could any gay person support Republicans?”
But if the title owner dies, his partner must pay the tax due for “inheritance by a non-relative,” rather than that for a spouse. If the deceased dies intestate, the surviving partner can be kicked out of the house by relatives of the deceased who hadn’t talked to Bobby since finding out that Bobby was gay. If one of the two is a foreign citizen, he can’t get the visas and accelerated citizenship track of an opposite-gender couple.
Ok, so if you’re gay you can’t be a stay at home parent, gotcha. Or have a job with no health benefits.
Sorry, but this particular point is so screamingly stupid it’s making my eyes bleed. I mean, more and more people are unable to afford insurance, and more and more companies are making it more and more difficult to GET insurance, and more and more companies are contributing less and less to their employees’ benefits… but you somehow think, even though straight people and their families are getting fucked from behind with no reach-around, gay people will have just as little trouble?
So if I stay at home with the kids while my husband works, if his insurance won’t cover me, it’s because we’re “irrational?” And if not, how would it be different if he was a woman?
Lawsuits on what basis? Employees can generally be fired at will. Barring (a) the employee being fired because of their race, religion, gender, etc., and (b) laws that render discrimination on that basis illegal, there’s no law to base a lawsuit on.
Once again, I am not saying that gays don’t suffer. What I am saying, in response to the OP, is that there are several gay couples who may not have the issues that others do, and as such put their own sexuality very low on issues which concern them as to their vote. That is all; I wasn’t arguing homosexuality in general, or anything else…
Nava, Hamadryad and RTFirefly have responded brilliantly to some of your points but I will also.
I wasn’t talking about home ownership, I was talking about rental situations. People still refuse to rent to gay people – singles and couples. A few years ago, my best friend (not gay) and I pursued becoming roomates. I called to inquire about an apartment and they answered a few questions. As soon as I mentioned that my potential roommate was another male, suddenly the apartment was no longer available.
Your answer is simply disingenuous. If your use of the phrase “actively discriminate” was meant to suggest these companies would come right out and say they’re firing you because you’re gay, we both know that’s not how discrimination of any kind usually works. I won’t even mention the good job I lost a few years ago because of this.
To keep it as simple as possible, just as it is in the case of a straight couple or family, sometimes circumstances warrant relying of the insurance and/or medical benefits of one member of the household. Right now, gay couples and families don’t have the range of options that heterosexuals have because of discrimination and incomplete efforts to eradicate it. Yes, there are those for whom this would not be a dealbreaker but for plenty it is – hence this thread.
This thread is about questioning that support and, ancillary to that, the inclusion or exclusion of gays in any given set of rights, protections and safeguards afforded straight citizens, by a political partiy who wants to lead this country for all citizens, is a part of that discussion.
But we still don’t have the same choices that straight couples do. Sure, my partner and I both have health insurance through our jobs but he has to pay for his. (mine is fully covered as part of my benefits) Any of my co-workers can cover their spouse or children on our plan at no cost. My employer will allow me to cover my same sex partner at no direct cost, but because we’re not married in the eyes of the federal government I would have to pay taxes on the value of those benefits.
In our case, this is a fairly minor thing but it still represents an inequality that should be addressed.
Which makes sense as it is a very Republican attitude to have.
“As long as we’re doing okay, fuck everyone else.”
…as long as they’re not the same gender as we are.
Seriously, though, this is one of the most-quoted and downright wrong memes about the Republicans. Some of the most caring and compassionate people I know are Republicans. Like most generalizations, it’s drawn from a few examples. I’m sure I could quickly find you examples of Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and American Communists who subscribe to the “As long as we’re doing okay, fuck everyone else” philosophy. Quoting it as if it somehow applies to all Republicans excludes you from being taken seriously in a debate.
I’m not debating … I’m pitting.
Fine, it’s a sweeping generalization, but it serves a point.
The Republican Party has always suffered from the stigma of being the Me First party … and for some basically sound reasons. The whole “personal responsibilities” … “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” … “keep your tax meat hooks out of my pockets” … it all goes toward the … “we don’t really care about the little guy” attitude.