Obama: No Gay Marriage

[MalloyLiberal]

Obama: No Gay Marriage
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: October 30, 2007 - 9:00 am ET

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa) Barack Obama continues to meet with tough questioning on his positions on LGBT civil rights and especially same-sex marriage.

In two appearances on Monday he said he still opposes same-sex marriage, preferring civil unions for gays and lesbians. His position is the same as the other Democratic frontrunners but the tone of the questioning is an indication the fallout continues from Sunday's appearance at an Obama gospel rally that featured outspoken "ex-gay" Donnie McClurkin. (story)

Both Obama events were in Iowa, where the issue of gay marriage is before the state Supreme Court. Over the weekend religious conservatives urged lawmakers to act if the court fails to uphold an existing so-called defense of marriage law. (story)

The first event was at Coe College and broadcast on MTV where the marriage issue was raised by gay student Alex Lamb.

Obama said that he believed same-sex couples should have the same rights as married couples but that their relationships should be called civil unions rather than marriage.

He also said stressed the importance of his Christian faith, but said there has to be a clear separation between church and state.

During a Democratic presidential candidates forum on Logo television in August the other frontrunners - Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson - also said they preferred civil unions. Only two Democratic candidates support same-sex marriage - Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. (story)

365Gay.com is owned by Logo which in turn is a division of MTV Networks.

Obama and Clinton are running neck and neck in public opinion polls in Iowa.

Following the Coe College appearance Obama was questioned about same-sex marriage during a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids.

Appearing at the Cedar Rapids Public Library, Abbi Swanson whose son is gay, asked what he would do to give him the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

"You want the word marriage and I believe that the issue of marriage has become so entangled - the word marriage has become so entangled with religion - that it makes more sense for me as president, with that authority, to talk about the civil rights that are conferred " he told her.

MORE: http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/10/103007obama.htm

[LeftyMom]

1. Obama is a bigot.

Screw him. Sideways.

[MH1]

17. Are all the other candidates except Kucinich and Gravel "bigots"?

Because those are the only two who support gay marriage.

[Clintonista2]

20. But Obama is supposed to be the candidate of "change"

And he's the only frontrunner who's denomination of christianity actually supports same sex-marriage.

[LeftyMom]

25. Yes. If you don't support equal rights, you're a bigot by definition. nt

[Scriptor Ignotus]

59. wow

just...wow.

[wndycty]

2. I don't agree with him but be honest what other candidates are against gay marriage?

:kick:

[incapsulated]

5. All?

This is the standard line for all of them.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. Not all of them...

Kucinich and Gravel are 100% for marriage for all, none of the separate but equal crap.

[incapsulated]

14. Yeah, I thought of Dennis

Well good for them. :)

[BOSSHOG]

8. Sadly

its a case of pandering by politicians. I doubt any democrats give a fuck whether gays can marry or not but they do need votes and who better to suck up to rather then "christians." I say fuck em. I would like to see the question asked at a dem debate, if homosexuals can not marry and can not serve openly in the military why should they have to pay taxes? If you think they should pay taxes please explain why.

[BOSSHOG]

3. If Gays can't marry then they should not have to pay taxes

and if a democrat must pander to "christians" who want to deny constitutional liberties to other law abiding tax paying productive citizens, then fuck him.

I stand by my pledge to vote for whomever the dems nominate, but hopefully the Iowans in the mob won't have much say in the matter.

[Bullet1987]

6. Obama has already stated that he was against

gay marriage at the LOGO debate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. They do not have to pay the marriage penalty that married heterosexual couples do

[More Than A Feeling]

4. Separate is inherently unequal.

the other candidates, including John Edwards (whom I support) need to learn this too.

[MethuenProgressive]

7. Coded double-speak.

"Obama said that he believed same-sex couples should have the same rights as married couples but that their relationships should be called civil unions rather than marriage."

translates to: Keep sending in donations, my Fundi and Evangelical buudies!

[terrya]

9. Well.

I wish those questioners would have grilled him more about McClurkin's appearance. And asked him how he could so cavalierly disrepected the pleas of the GLBT community to drop McClurkin from that event. And I wished they would have asked Obama if he really, truly understood how offensive we considered his appearance at that event. And I wished they would have asked Obama if he understood the anger we had about a candidate professing to be for GLBT equality hiring a person like that. I don't think the Senator really understands how upset we were.

[joeybee12]

60. Exactly!

He needs to know he's not off the hook for this offensive event, and his offensive reaction to the reaction.

[goodgd_yall]

85. Yes, some follow-up questions were needed.

The very ones you state.

[Lord Helmet]

10. no different than any of the other leading candidates

[FredScuttle]

16. Which doesn't exactly distinguish him

or show any hint of that wonderful "change" he was going to bring.

Same ol', same ol'. Every flash in the pan regresses to the mean and panders to bigots, eventually.

[Lord Helmet]

19. in your opinion

not everybody has that kind of scorched earth opinion

[FredScuttle]

26. Of course not

Hillary Clinton thinks it's A-OK.

[FreeState]

34. Still doesn't change that he's wrong and a bigot N/T

[Lord Helmet]

40. again, that is your opinion

Some share your opinion, but many, many others do not because they know this is an election and bowing to these kind of demands would be crazy.

Obama isn't a bigot. That's a big smelly smear. You object to some people that performed at a concert he sponsored, and your scorched earth response in the form of a broad-brush smear is what happens with that kind of unfocused rage.

[FreeState]

43. Do you know what a Bigot is?

big·ot (bĭg'ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

He is a bigot because he believes he is entitled to different rights than others because he is straight. He believes only straight people are entitles to marriage and all others must use some other form of it. Thats a bigot.

Where did I say anything about his concerts? I don't remember posting to those threads at all - I read them though. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

52. Is everyone who believes that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed

a bigot? If a person supports civil unions that confer ALL of the rights of marriage - including adoption - just how bigoted are they?

[FreeState]

56. Yes

As long as someone believes that marriage, the union of two people, should be restricted to their own group only and all others must have a different system is a bigot IMO.

Civil Unions will never be equal. They will never give the respect and common decency that heterosexuals enjoy with marriage in society.

[sandnsea]

11. Protect civil rights

leave marriage to the churches. That's the best we're ever going to get on the issue, at least in the next 20 years. I'm sure there are many gay couples in Oregon who are glad our state has legislated to protect their civil rights with both civil unions and anti-discrimination laws.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. I don't think anyone is calling for...

churches being forced to marry G/L couples - that would be against our constitution and the freedom of religion

They are saying that they want civil marriage, as currently offered to straight couples.

You cannot offer straights a civil "marriage" and G/L a civil "union" -- that too would be against our law. Either everyone gets a civil "marriage" or everyone -- including straights -- gets a civil "union".

[sandnsea]

24. They're doing it here

:shrug:

I don't have a problem with everyone having a civil union.

Regardless, my point is that Obama has repeatedly said he will confer all the federal rights, thinks states should do the same, and let churches decide whether they marry or not. It's a way of introducing the idea to separate the religious from the legal, so everybody eventually ends up with a legal license and religious whateverthefucktheywant.

[FreeState]

35. I want all the Federal and State rights including the right to call it a marriage N/T

[sandnsea]

38. Protection not perfection

Usually change happens a step at a time.

[goodgd_yall]

86. Right n/t

[Bjorn Against]

71. If you leave it to the churches then you are arguing that gay marriage should be legal

I have attended a church that marries gay couples, but guess what the state won't recognize those marriages. The whole argument that gay marriage should not be legal because marriage is a religious institution is a pile of steaming bullshit. There are churches who want to marry gays and the state won't recognize them if they do, plus if marriage were a religious institution then why is it that atheists can get married?

Those who say that marriage is purely religious have no clue what they are talking about. For a politician to claim they can't allow gays to marry because it would be infringing on the church are really violating the separation of church and state because they are favoring certain religious beliefs over other ones.

[NMMNG]

13. He said there has to be a clear separation of Church and State?

Is that why he went had a "40 Days of Faith and Family" extravaganza as part of his campaign, and topped it off with a 5-homophobe gospel concert?

Is that why he refuses to support gay marriage in deference to the religious bigotries of certain people?


:eyes:

[FredScuttle]

21. And speaking of religion

How is it that Obama's own church (United Church of Christ) supports gay marriage but he doesn't?

[NMMNG]

27. Things that make you go Hmmmmm....

:shrug:

[eyesroll]

93. How is it that Kerry's own church (Catholic) opposes abortion and contraception but he doesn't?

Many people disagree with their churches on some issues.

(I am by no means condoning anyone's less-than-inclusive stance on same-sex marriage...just pointing out that there are better arguments than "his church supports it" for why Obama is wrong on this.)

[Maven]

28. Right. What a phony, all around. nt

[racaulk]

15. Wow

He said that there has to be a clear separation of church and state, but he has no problem with the state sanctioning a religious institution (and conferring the rights that it entails) for some of the population.

Will the hypocrisy never end?

[IntravenousDemilo]

22. Oh, would you look at that, Mavis! A black man who practises apartheid on other people!

Is this irony completely lost on the people in the Obama campaign, or are they just irony-challenged?

[wyldwolf]

23. U.S. sick of 'triangulation,' Obama says, then triangulates on gay rights.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. Those irony of those words...

coming from someone with a "Hillary" avatar is really too, too much.

[wyldwolf]

31. no irony at all. Has Hillary ever said she doesn't triangulate?

No, she hasn't. :eyes:

[hedgehog]

30. When the answer doesn't change with the audience, and it clearly

makes some people unhappy, then I don't think it's triangulation.

[wyldwolf]

33. that isn't the definition

The definition of triangulation is the act of a candidate presenting his ideology as "above and/or between" the left and right side of the political spectrum. Often call "Third Way."

[JerseygirlCT]

37. Exactly! And shamefully, he's got too much company among

our candidates.

[Ian David]

32. I believe in The Separation of State and Marriage.

Let the government license and regulate Civil Unions for everyone-- gay OR straight.

Leave marriage to the churches, but give it no legal weight.

We should start a group: Americans United for the Separation of State and Marriage-- AUSSM- (pronounced 'Awesome')

[Dhalgren]

41. Your suggestion is the only compromise I would be willing to entertain.

Make all religious "marriages" non-legal ceremonies that can be as exclusive as the particular churches want them to be. But all legal weddings must we conducted by civil authorities. This I could accept. Separation of State from Marriage! I like it...

[JerseygirlCT]

36. All of these people attempting to hedge on the issue

and keep a foot in the bigot camp will find themselves sorely embarrassed years from now, when the rest of the country has realized what injustice has been done to LGBT folks and has moved past discrimination.

Sort of like Byrd constantly having to deal with his KKK past...

[rinsd]

39. None of our Big 3 are stepping up to the plate for equal rights.

Its unfortunate perhaps this pressure will get them to change their minds.

[Lucinda]

58. Hillary has said that she feels the best way to change the situation

is for it to be a states issue. Protect the rights of gay partners, but let states handle it. She has commented on several occasions, that this is often the best way to make real progress. Once one state steps up to the plate, it helps others be moved in the right direction.

I thought she was right on target. We live in a time where people have drawn the line at the word marriage. It's absolutely stupid, but that is they way it is at the moment. As long as people have true protection under the law, it is progress.

[AX10]

42. Obama is not the anti-establishment maverick than many...

around here think he is.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Scriptor Ignotus]

62. Yes, beause we all know bigots are historically proud supporters of

African-American politicians...

:eyes:

[sniffa]

69. apparentLy so

you guys must be so proud that he's puLLing from that demographic. :applause:

[jenmito]

45. He wants to give gay couples ALL the RIGHTS of straight couples, including 1,200 rights

they currently don't have. He SHOULD use the word marriage, like ALL of them should, but at least he wants civil unions to have ALL the benefits married coupls have minus the name.

[FreeState]

47. Wrong

what about the right of equality? To call it what straight people call it - Marriage. Thats true equality, when everyone has the same system and rights - including the name.

You take the name out of it and you have zilch - its not equality and the rights are not the same. Separate is never equal.

[jenmito]

49. I said "he should use the name 'marriage'"...

Which candidate do you support?

[FreeState]

51. Kucinich

If he used the name marriage Id be happy - to bad he doesn't.

[jenmito]

80. OK then. That's fair.

:hi:

[midlife_mo_Jo]

54. But not everyone sees it as an equality issue

which is why they support civil unions. They don't see it as "equality," they see it as changing the definition of marriage (man and woman - husband and wife) It's not separate, but equal. It's "different," but equal.

When blacks fought for civil rights, they didn't have to change the definition of human, while the definition of marriage does need to change to get what you want.

[FreeState]

57. Who's definition of Marriage?

Look it up in the dictionary there is more than one definition. Never mind that the deffiniton of marriage has changed over and over throughout time, it's never been set in stone.

Just and FYI here is dictionary.com's definition:

mar·riage Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

61. Because the definition was changed

You cannot have gay marriage without a change of the very definition of marriage, so civil union isn't separate but equal. It's "different, but equal."

It's not like - for instance - the right to adopt. Gays should be able to adopt because gender has nothing to do with parenting. You're either a mom or a dad to the child. And we all know that lots of kids don't have a mom "and" a dad, so that shouldn't be a consideration. Gender just doesn't matter.

[FreeState]

63. Why can't the definition be changed then?

I would argue its already changed to include same sex couples (see MA).

Civil unions will never be equal - because they are not the same and they never will be as long as heterosexuals are allowed to call their legal relationship a marriage and gay people are not.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

66. I'm not saying it can't

I'm just pointing out that it is different than the civil rights movement for blacks, and therefore the appeal to fairness may not be as persuasive among people whom you wouldn't ordinarily consider bigoted or prejudiced.

Certain words just have certain meanings to people. Bush can declare every day that we are at war to protect the peace, but that still hasn't changed my definition of peace. (Hint: it doesn't involve war.)

[Solon]

65. So what? Marriage has changed in definition many times in the past...

Hell, there were even different levels of it depending on your class in society. Over 200 years ago, marriage was a property transfer contract between the would be husband and the father of the bride. This was the "constant" definition, especially for the higher classes of society, usually the nobility. For lower classes, further in the past, let's say from 200-4000 years ago, marriage was simply co-habitation, a man and woman would move in together, and were considered married for all intents and purposes, a ceremony of any sort may not be involved at all. Ancient Egypt is an example of this, so is Feudal Europe for commoners, anyways. Speaking of Feudal Europe, the Church wasn't involved, directly, in marriage ceremonies, until after about 1000 C.E., it wasn't considered a Sacrament and wasn't a requirement to get married. However, when it did become a Sacrament, there were also some same sex commitment ceremonies, that, while not called marriages, were called "Brotherhood" and "Sisterhood" ceremonies instead.

The fact is that Marriage wasn't given its "modern" definition in our culture until around 200 years ago, when the women's liberation movement started and women were starting for fight for the right to divorce and inherit from husbands. It wasn't until about 150 years ago or less that the modern definition actually had a force in law, even if only on paper, as an equal partnership between a man and woman, with equal rights within the marriage. So now marriage definitions have changed again, all I can say is its about time.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

67. In all those definitions

"marriage" still involved a man and a woman. Right? Contractually, marriage has changed a great deal "between" a man and woman, but it always was a man and a woman. That's the constant - not the quality of the relationship, whether they loved one another, etc.

[FreeState]

70. Tell that to my Great Great Great Grandfather

"marriage" still involved a man and a woman. Right? Contractually, marriage has changed a great deal "between" a man and woman, but it always was a man and a woman.

"a" is equal to one.

My Great Great Great Grandfather had 7 wives. Guess he wasn't married.... nor were all those in the Old Testament or all of those in the Middle East now etc etc...

Also check out this link http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm that shows the history of legally recognized marriages way back...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

72. According the the United States government,

and the rest of the western world (from which we derive our laws and dominant religions), he wasn't. :)

And using that as an argument is NOT going to garner much support. Yikes! I don't know any progressive or modern woman who feels anything but loathing for that kind of arrangement, but I'm sure someone will pop into this discussion to tell me I'm wrong. :hide:

Peace.

[FreeState]

73. LOL

You do realize he was not living in the US at the time?

Also I believe the US Government has to recognize marriages from other countries when their citizens visit - that would include multiples.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

77. LOL

I don't think the U.S. has to recognize polygamous arrangements when people "visit." They're just visiting. They're not asking for recognition or rights, are they?

[FreeState]

81. Yes they are

hospital decision making etc...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

82. Polygamy is grounds for exclusion in immigration

There's no recognition of legal rights, although if a polygamist tourist (say that five times fast :) ), should need visition rights in a hospital, I can't imagine anyone being denied.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

83. Interesting article

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/nyregion/23polygamy.html

although we are off topic. :)

Peace.

[FreeState]

88. Thanks for the link

very interesting... when I look back on my family I can not even imagine living like that. Oprah had an episode about the different groups practicing it in AR and UT last week - it was very enlightening. There are a lot of people practicing it that are not what we think of when we hear the word polygamy.

I have letters from my GGGGradfather to his wives that are very eye opening - he controlled them like no other - they all had responsibilities and were to obay - sad...

[Solon]

74. Not A man, or A woman...

Polygamy and Polyandry were common for thousands of years, for at least the higher classes, also I limited my definition to Western European Culture, however, if you extend it to other cultures, for example tribal cultures in a Pre-Columbian America, then the definition is extended again, technically. Many tribes of Native Americans did recognize same sex couples, and in some cases considered them particularly blessed, in most cases these couples were considered no different than opposite sex couples, so, in some tribal customs, both types of relationships were marriages, even if they didn't have that word in their vocabulary.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

75. I realize that, but the examples given did not include

those societies.

Polygamy was never very widespread, even where legal for the simple reason that there just weren't enough women to go around. Sure, there were some men who had more than one wife, but it wasn't the norm, even if it was accepted.

I'd be interested to see the literature on indigenous people's acceptance of same sex couples. Very interesting!

[Solon]

78. Here's a history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

[midlife_mo_Jo]

87. Thanks!

:)

[pinto]

46. I realize change takes 1. Time, 2. Negotiation and 3. Persistence.

If 'civil unions' carry the same legal rights as 'marriage', I'm OK with not debating the terminology. I'm willing to compromise the point to establish broader legal rights for same-sex couples.

Vocal opposition isn't the death knell of equal rights movements. Never has been. Fear mongering eventually plays itself out, imo. Impediments, for sure, influential, at times, especially in the messy process we call legislation - but not the endgame.

History has shown that a rising tide of social acceptance eventually results in increasingly progressive legislation and legal safeguards.

There're some dangers in compromise. To get to one step and stall would be a failure, but if we all go in with our eyes on the final prize, and persist, I think we will be OK.

Just my two cents.

Our time will come, of that I'm sure.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

76. At the top of the list

should be a federal ban on discrimination when adopting. (Adoption is one of my issues. :) )

Peace.

[Yukari Yakumo]

50. To quote Jon Stewart

"This is not going to end well..."

[stray cat]

53. Is a religious marriage the key issue people want or equal right under the law

[yardwork]

55. Shouldn't every person have both those options?

For the record, I don't think that the government should have anything to do with religious marriage. Let individual places of worship decide their own polices. There's freedom of religion in this country - anyone can believe anything they please.

However, the laws are a different matter. Every adult should have the right to government-sanctioned "marriage" - whether you use that term or something else is immaterial as long as the rights are the same for everyone.

[Solon]

68. Many gay couples have had religious marriages, they just aren't recognized by the state...

THAT is the problem. Many religions, including some denominations of Christianity, recognize and perform same-sex marriages. So this isn't a question of either/or, if the state recognizes such marriages for what they are, and extend the benefits the same as they do for heterosexual marriages, I don't see why it should be the business of religions that don't recognize such marriages.

[Chovexani]

96. We are NOT fighting for the right to religious marriage!

FFS, this has shit all to do with churches. We are fighting for the right to civilly marry. If churches want to ban gay couples from getting married in their church they are perfectly free to do so.

This is about having the exact same rights and responsibilities as straight people, including the name. "Separate but equal" is not equality and it never has been.

[Musty]

64. Obama is clearly a homophobe, and...

...everything he has said publicly about Gay rights proves this. However, if he is the Dem nominee I'm voting for him. He has always rubbed me the wrong way, but none, ZERO of the Dirtpublicans would be a better president.

[ulysses]

79. get hitched at the courthouse. no religion. what's it called?

Marriage.

[ClarkUSA]

84. His position on gay marriage is no different than Clinton's or Edwards' or Gen. Clark's

Are they all bigots? I think not.

[FreeState]

89. Sure they are

if they feel that gay people should not have access to the exact same rights and privileges as heterosexuals via the same legal precepts they are bigots. That's the definition of bigotry.

[Odin2005]

90. Obama is for civil unions. Civil Unions = Marriage by another name.

Go ahead ideological purists, flame me, I don't care.

[bicentennial_baby]

91. Except that they aren't, at all...

What are some of the limitations of civil unions?

Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states. GLAD believes there are strong arguments that civil unions deserve respect across the country just like marriages. But the two appellate courts that have addressed the issue (in Connecticut and Georgia) have disrespected them based on the fact that their states do not grant civil unions themselves.


Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have no way to terminate their legal commitment.


Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

http://www.glad.org/rights/OP7-marriagevcu.shtml

-ideological purist

[Solon]

92. "ideological purists"? How about being factually correct? I don't live in your fantasy world, sorry.

Bicentennial_baby responded and I don't have anymore to add, just providing support!

[Chovexani]

97. They are NOT marriage by any stretch of the imagination

Just ask the gay and lesbian couples in NJ who found that out the hard way.

[Chovexani]

94. My love for my partner is not second class

Fuck you, Barack, and the homophobic horse you rode in on.

...and just so I'm fair, that goes to anyone else who thinks LGBT relationships are second class

[JackBeck]

95. The amount of times we have to register our relationship

each time we move has become a sad joke between my husband and I.

And how can people on this thread no understand that separate is not equal? There already has been problems with the recently enacted civil unions in New Jersey, not to mention how they don't even open up to us couples the myriad of federal rights we are being denied.

[Chovexani]

99. All these straight people who are just dandy with civil unions

Can go get one and see what kind of BS you have to go through with it. It's ridiculous. You only get a fraction of the benefits and the rest of it you have to go through mountains of legal red tape to cover, if you can even do so.

Straight people can just sign a single piece of paper and be set.

[Sparkly]

98. Isn't that the position of most Democratic candidates?

I don't think Obama should be singled out on this.

[ripple]

100. ALL marriages should be recognized as civil unions

by the government. Churches should recognize marriage as they see fit.

[Egnever]

101. Agreed!

IMHO it is the only answer to this debacle.

I completely understand the desire to be labeled the same as traditional married couples. The line in the sand being drawn over the name seems like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face to me however.

I think your suggestion is the only sane one . If it truly comes down to separation of church and state then by all means get the name out of all government involvement and relegate it to the religious arena where it belongs. I'll take a civil union any day. Couldn't really care less what you call it to tell you the truth as long as I am able to enjoy the benefits that come with it.