Civil Rights & Democratic Cowards

[Billy the Great Khan]

The problem, as I see it, with ending DADT is directly tied with the change of gay marriage. If DADT is ended, which I'll state again that it should be, eventually gay military couple will be eligible for spousal benefits. Increased pay, base housing, Etc. And I can state for a fact, there would be wide spread abuse of this policy. Any two guys that didn't want to live in the BEQ and wanted to collect their COMRATS would 'marry' for those benefits. And frankly, I can't think of a solution to that problem.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The idea that it would be better and easier to do something that has an actual impact on all married couples (transforming their marriages to civil unions and allowing gays to marry) than to do something that has no impact on anyone other than gay people (allowing them to marry) is just stupid.

And the only reason that you propose that nonsensical "solution" is because the religious right jackasses are stupid and cannot differential between secular marriage and religious marriage. Why go through all that just to appease people like Dixie who will never be appeased anyway?

Let me explain why I am opposed to "Gay Marriage" in America. It is because of a little thing called the Constitution, and the provision we established long ago, for equal protection under the law. If you change "marriage" to something that is defined by sexuality, sexual lifestyle, or sexual behavior, you must afford "marriage" to anyone who has a similar sexual-based propensity. You can't exclude them, you have established "marriage" to be defined by those parameters, and the Constitution says you must grant the same rights to all.

Now, I don't care if you want to scoff at that and call it the "slippery slope" argument, or lament that it's preposterous to think this or that would ever happen, because there once was a time we would have thought it quite preposterous that men would want to marry other men. Things change, times change, people change, culture changes. At some point in time, our future ancestors would be grappling with all sorts of similar quandaries, and no doubt, there would be a contingent of pinheaded nutjobs, who would be advocating it and leading the parade.

None of this is necessary. Gay couples can obtain the same 'rights' and benefits of traditional married couples, religion can maintain sanctity of marriage, and the government removes itself from the business of defining 'marriage' based on sexuality or sexual behaviors, as it should be.

My proposal for comprehensive Civil Unions did not involve "changing traditional marriages into" anything. It involved removing the government from the marriage business entirely, and instead, issuing contracts between any two consenting adults. People who are already married, wouldn't have to change anything, their traditional marriage would simply be recognized under the law, and by government agencies, as a CU contract. The only "change" would be, homosexual couples would have a means to obtain the benefits and perks they wish to obtain, and this entire issue would be settled once and for all.

Those who oppose my suggestion, are not interested in that change at all, this has nothing to do with helping gay couples, or rights, or anything other than activism for the sake of activism. You like having the issue to bash the right with, to bash religion with, and to give you an excuse to call people names and act incredulous. It's more important to you, to have the issue to argue about, if the issue is settled, you can't trash religious believers anymore, you can't call people homophobes, or bigots. So, while gay couples live out their lives together, never obtaining the benefits and perks they desire, they can have people like you to thank for it, because reasonable people could resolve this issue to the satisfaction of everyone involved in a matter of months.

 

[apple0154]

You sound like a hippie! Oh I don't need a piece of paper to know I love you baby. LOL I bet you have said that!

That's what the Freedom Revolution was all about. The freedom to love whom one chose.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Let me explain why I am opposed to "Gay Marriage" in America. It is because of a little thing called the Constitution, and the provision we established long ago, for equal protection under the law. If you change "marriage" to something that is defined by sexuality, sexual lifestyle, or sexual behavior, you must afford "marriage" to anyone who has a similar sexual-based propensity. You can't exclude them, you have established "marriage" to be defined by those parameters, and the Constitution says you must grant the same rights to all.

Here is a link to the US Constitution. I would like you to read it so you can show me where the federal government has any power over 'marriage'.

http://constitutionus.com/

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here is a link to the US Constitution. I would like you to read it so you can show me where the federal government has any power over 'marriage'.

http://constitutionus.com/

Article XIV

1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

IF the Federal Government establishes that "marriage" can be the union of homosexual partners, then it HAS to "equally protect" other sexual partnerships, whether you and I are comfortable with those or not. By defining "marriage" on a Federal level, to include a sexual behavior, you open the door to ALL sexual behavior being afforded the SAME privilege. You have ordained "marriage" as a "right" under the law, and thus, created a precedent for other sexual preferences to stake a claim for equal protection, pursuant to Article XIV.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Article XIV

1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

IF the Federal Government establishes that "marriage" can be the union of homosexual partners, then it HAS to "equally protect" other sexual partnerships, whether you and I are comfortable with those or not. By defining "marriage" on a Federal level, to include a sexual behavior, you open the door to ALL sexual behavior being afforded the SAME privilege. You have ordained "marriage" as a "right" under the law, and thus, created a precedent for other sexual preferences to stake a claim for equal protection, pursuant to Article XIV.

Now let's examine my proposal under the same scrutiny. The government gets out of the "marriage" business, and instead, grants Civil Union contracts. Those can be made available to any two consenting adults, regardless of their sexual behavior, regardless of relationship, regardless of their intent or purpose of such contract. The CU contract would simply be a partnership agreement between two people, and equally enforceable under any and all circumstance, providing the parties are of legal age to sign a contract.

An added benefit to this idea, is how it could afford tax benefits and other "married" perks, to couples who are not in any sort of 'romantic' relationship situation. Like a daughter caring for her elderly mom, or two sisters living together. Many households in America fall into this type of arrangement, and it isn't really "fair" to them, that they don't get the advantage of tax breaks and things typically given to the traditional married couple. From the aspects of giving homosexual couples the benefits and perks they desire, it is a way we can do it, and not create a 'Pandora's Box' with other sexuality having to be given "equal protections" under the law. We would still have laws forbidding polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, etc. Those people would simply have no legal argument for "equal protection" of their sexual behavior, unless we CHANGE the meaning of marriage to include a sexual behavior!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The problem, as I see it, with ending DADT is directly tied with the change of gay marriage. If DADT is ended, which I'll state again that it should be, eventually gay military couple will be eligible for spousal benefits. Increased pay, base housing, Etc. And I can state for a fact, there would be wide spread abuse of this policy. Any two guys that didn't want to live in the BEQ and wanted to collect their COMRATS would 'marry' for those benefits. And frankly, I can't think of a solution to that problem.

the two guys have to demonstrate their 'gayness'???

 

[Phantasmal]

With polls showing consistent, super-majority support for the overturning of DADT, it’s been a real struggle to figure out why President Obama has so stubbornly insisted on his nebulous path of “It’ll be overturned on my watch” while his Justice Department continues to appeal judicial decisions overturning the policy.

Politically, it seems asinine. There is no political price to pay for overturning this, TODAY. It would excite the base, get out the vote, and Independents and even many Republicans support it. Oh, and it’s the right thing to do.
It dawned on me rather suddenly that it’s not out of “arrogance” or stubbornness” that Obama chooses this path. It’s because the overturning of DADT isn’t the end.

It’s the beginning.

What happens when gays and gay advocates succeed in overturning this policy? Do they go home and spend the next ten years happily voting Democratic and saying “oh no, you’ve done enough”? No. They continue the march for full civil rights and after DADT the next stop is marriage equality.

And the Democratic party wants no part of that. Too cowardly to take a stand, petrified that they will be forced to before the 2012 election, they are attempting to let DADT stand as long as they can in order to delay the inevitable; the battle for marriage equality.

Personally I don’t believe this administration has earned the votes of gay rights advocates. And if they stay home, they are well within their rights.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/24/gay-voters-angry-at-democ_n_773184.html

CHICAGO — Kate Coatar is seriously considering voting for Green Party candidates instead of Democrats, whom she normally supports. James Wyatt won't cast a ballot at all because he no longer trusts anyone to fight for causes important to him.

If Democratic candidates are counting on long-standing support from gay voters to help stave off big losses on Nov. 2, they could be in for a surprise.

Across the country, activists say gay voters are angry – at the lack of progress on issues from eliminating employment discrimination to uncertainty over serving in the military to the economy – and some are choosing to sit out this election or look for other candidates.

This is one area I am deeply disappointed in the Obama administration.
I am deeply disappointed in America.
This is so foolish, but it is one of those wedge issues that get Republicans elected, so in spite of how many of them are gay, they will not change it.