You misunderstand. The “rich and famous”–which is what Mary Cheney is or most certainly will be–don’t need protections such as marriage. It is only us gay plebes who might benefit, and they have made it clear beyon peradventure that they don’t particularly care for gay plebes.

Certainly Mary Cheney doesn’t. Otherwise, why would she go to work for the Coors family, which has made it quite clear that they oppose equal rights for gay people?

Of course. But then why are our gay legal organizations spending millions on fruitless lawsuits when they could be providing legal services at free or reduced costs to couples that need it?

While I can’t speak for every part of the country, I do know that LGBT organizations in GA, as well as LGBT attorneys themselves do offer legal guidance and services to couples are decent costs.

With Mass., I do recall reading of one of the attorneys who argued the case for marriage, who’d previously fielded legal calls from couples in an office that served the LGBT community there. Initially, she thought marriage was a nice long-term goal, but didn’t think it would happen in her lifetime. But, as she fielded more and more calls from couples, she noticed how an overwhelming number of the issues would have been resolved had the couples simply been permitted to apply for a marriage license.

In short, adoption laws will provide the necessary protections for gays with children; however, I wouldn’t suggest you try to use them against states’ will or to deprive the child’s biological parent(s) of rights against their will.

Exactly how will adoption laws provide necessary protections for gays with children if they do not do so universally among all of the 50 contiguous United States, as well as within her territories?

And I have the reverse question: how is that relevant to gay people?

You see, James, as you well know, Rosa Parks was black. Rosa Parks was systematically and legally prevented from living in certain areas, performing certain jobs, drinking from certain fountains, attending certain schools, you name it. She wasn’t just discriminated against — it was MANDATORY that she be excluded.

Now how does being gay even come close to that?

We cannot serve openly in the military, and as such would be excluded from being openly gay at our country’s military academies; we’re banned from donating blood, even if we’ve been in a monagamous relationship for years, and test negative for HIV; we are not covered under the Fair Housing Act; we’re not covered under present federal employment laws; the president pushes abstinence only sex education which leaves gay and lesbian teens out of the picture, and has had the CDC remove instructions on condom use from safer sex publications (that seems somewhat systematic); like my grandmother who was a fair-skinned black woman, gays and lesbians can “pass”, if they so choose, and thus avoid all of this discrimination.

Because the US isn’t Germany.

That’s hardly an excuse. The US is a great country, and has the potential to be even greater; but she is not the only country on the face of the planet. If opponents of SSM are afraid of what will happen to this country if SSM is legal, perhaps objectively observing other countries in which it is a reality may open their minds and hearts.

What were you and the rest of the Kerry supporters doing? Oh, that’s right….pumping more money into his campaign and endorsing his homophobic actions.

The truth is that the GOP engaged in immoral gay-bashing during the 2004 election and tried to do so against for this midterm election. To suggest otherwise is totally and utter bs.

Yes, subsequent exit polling showed that gay marriage was not “the” most important issue for heterosexual Americans. But that only goes to show you how out of touch the GOP is with mainstream America on many social issues.

Mary chose to accept a well paid and important position in her father’s re-election campaign. She did not resign or protest when the people she was helping get into power, we seeking to stip away what little legal rights she had.

First, the Supreme Court has made it clear (ironically, in Lawrence v. Texas and by letting appellate courts’ rulings to this effect stand) that states have the right to regulate adoption in this regard as they see fit.

Second, taking away ex-spouses’ right to sue for sole custody, especially when they are the biological or adoptive parent of the child in question, is patently unconstitutional. Adoption laws do not prevent that, nor should they.

In short, adoption laws will provide the necessary protections for gays with children; however, I wouldn’t suggest you try to use them against states’ will or to deprive the child’s biological parent(s) of rights against their will.

Regardless of what one thinks of her, she did illustrate an interesting point by asking the following question: What would life be like for African Americans today if Rosa Parks decided to sit in the middle of the bus?

And I have the reverse question: how is that relevant to gay people?

You see, James, as you well know, Rosa Parks was black. Rosa Parks was systematically and legally prevented from living in certain areas, performing certain jobs, drinking from certain fountains, attending certain schools, you name it. She wasn’t just discriminated against — it was MANDATORY that she be excluded.

Now how does being gay even come close to that?

The reason Jacques uses black civil rights as an example is because, drama queen that she is, she honestly doesn’t see a difference. She equates the possibility that one could be fired from a job for being gay with the certainty that, if one was black, one wouldn’t have been hired in the first place.

And what’s even funnier is that she channeled tens of millions of dollars and unqualified endorsements to a man who wanted her Massachusetts marriage to be invalidated. It’s like MLK was doing campaign work for George Wallace.

Gender is a difference between gay and straight relationships; the ease of procreation is a difference between gay and straight relationships. If either type of couple commits to stay together for a lifetime, is that commitment not the same?

Of course. But, given the constant efforts of society to erode the legal bonds around that commitment, i.e. no-fault divorce, why should it be recognized in the first place as a reason?

You and I have both used legal documents to ensure our partners can carry out our wishes, and vice versa. We’re very fortunate to have that option. Gay and lesbian couples other than us might have greater difficulty, depending on socio-economic status.

Of course. But then why are our gay legal organizations spending millions on fruitless lawsuits when they could be providing legal services at free or reduced costs to couples that need it?

There seems to be a great disparity between gay and lesbian couples and straight couples with regard to the right to marry. Liberals bash Bush, and many times damage any chances of effective debate. So what’s the public’s excuse for ignoring a country like, say, Germany? Germany offers very comprehensive rights to gay and lesbian couples, even given its role in persecuting gays during the Holocaust.

Because the US isn’t Germany.

My mother is visiting my partner and me this week, and will be attending her first Pride celebration. She’s come a long way since I came out to her in 1998, three days before my 21st birthday (dad took it much better).

Sunday night she told me about a visit to the doctor at a naval hospital. She was talking to a young sailor who worked there, and at some point, I came up as a topic of conversation. She told him I was gay.

The 19 year-old sailor looked around to make sure they were alone, then admitted to her that he, too, is gay. He told her he enlisted because he’d come out to his parents, and his father threw him out. He hasn’t seen his family since. With no money and no place to live, he joined the navy. Naturally, he can’t be open about his sexuality or it could mean a dishonorable discharge.

I truly hope that America moves past that, and learns to accept all of her children.

Re. Comment 73…Cheryl Jacques was in Atlanta in 2004. Regardless of what one thinks of her, she did illustrate an interesting point by asking the following question: What would life be like for African Americans today if Rosa Parks decided to sit in the middle of the bus?

Gender is a difference between gay and straight relationships; the ease of procreation is a difference between gay and straight relationships. If either type of couple commits to stay together for a lifetime, is that commitment not the same?

You and I have both used legal documents to ensure our partners can carry out our wishes, and vice versa. We’re very fortunate to have that option. Gay and lesbian couples other than us might have greater difficulty, depending on socio-economic status.

There seems to be a great disparity between gay and lesbian couples and straight couples with regard to the right to marry. Liberals bash Bush, and many times damage any chances of effective debate. So what’s the public’s excuse for ignoring a country like, say, Germany? Germany offers very comprehensive rights to gay and lesbian couples, even given its role in persecuting gays during the Holocaust.

It’s a two way street. Liberals need to work with conservatives to be open to constructive debate; you should care what “leftists” think, not to the point of those thoughts offending you, but in order to learn how to work with them, and the same applies on our end. And opponents of gay marriage must be open to expose themselves to something other than what they grew up believing.

Oh, now you’re making me laugh.

You and your fellow Democrats made it clear during the 2004 campaign that it’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and not playing on homophobia or bigotry to support stripping gays of rights via state constitutional amendment and the FMA.

Unlike you, I can call them as I see them — and have.

So keep making your accusations. Just remember….those tears of rage are smearing your charcoal-covered face.

None of John Kerry’s children are (to the best of our knowledge) gay. That is the point of this thread. Dick chose his career before his own daughter, and Mary seemed content to sacrifice respect for a nice campaign paycheck.

In the 2004 Presidential election, gay Americans only had two viable choices (I believe that we should have more, but that is a topic for another time). Neither candidate was perfect, but Kerry did have a better platform on gay rights then Bush did. The state anti-gay constitutional amendments came from conservative, GOP activists.

I do not give money (let alone millions) to any political party or candidate.

This is why we don’t particularly care about your opinions; we know leftists like yourself have no problems whatsoever with homophobia when it is used for political advantage by Democrats.

The GOP, through Karl Rove, pushed the issue at the federal and state level. They are trying to do it again this year. Subsequent polling is not important. Why? I did not comment on the public response to the bigoted GOP campaign plan.

We can debate how effective or successful this GOP camapign of homophobia was (or is) but that is another debate. Mary C worked to help eleect a President and a political party that used homophobia as a central campaign point.

I am curious about your opinion of the legislation in Virginia that would likely void and nullify some, if not all, of the arcane contracts you have in place to protect you and your partner (and your wallet).

The fact that the government chooses not to provide shortcuts does not in the least affect my dignity. You might as well argue that it’s demeaning to old people for them to not be able to instantly give their caregiver power of attorney, or to do it for free, or to have to have witnesses.

Then again, I’ve never hated myself because I don’t have those shortcuts. I’ve always accepted it as the decision of society to make one form of relationship, which does have societal benefits and is the largest means by which society perpetuates, simpler and easier than another.

In short, I don’t resent straight people because their relationships are easier to enter. But I don’t think that’s a sentiment shared by the vast majority of gay people.

Simple.

Whether or not a couple chooses to have children is one thing.

The fact that a heterosexual couple is in most cases capable of producing children that are biologically of both parents in the normal process of enjoying marital sexual relations, or even artificially, while a homosexual couple is not, is a fundamental difference relative to procreation.

Furthermore, the primary arguments against incestuous relationships involve the potential genetic defects of the offspring. Removing procreation as a relevant factor in legal recognition of relationships is a shortsighted tactic by gay leftists that ignores the obvious and opens the door to allowing incest.

These, in my opinion, have some importance but are secondary to other non-monetary protections that marriage provides.

The vast majority of which can be provided under existing law.

However, that then runs into this:

No, jumping through legal loopholes, paying lawyer fees, and settling for half-rights like you advocate is having no dignity.

No, jumping through legal loopholes, paying lawyer fees, and settling for half-rights like you advocate is having no dignity.

Additionally, with your statement about marriage contracts, you are confusing design with common use. Intention and use are not identical. Also, I hate to delve into the so obvious, but since you don’t think it’s broken, explain to me how the childless couples play into your procreation arugment for marriage? Is something wrong with these people? And what about married couples who do so only for the benefits without sharing love or committment? Should they not be allowed to marry? It’s none of your business what two people want to do in the confines of their marriage.

Finally, I do care about “getting benefits”. However, the only benefits you continue to acknowledge are those that are monetary. These, in my opinion, have some importance but are secondary to other non-monetary protections that marriage provides.

You want me to be honest and admit I have no dignity with a government stamp. That’s not the case. I want you to be honest and admit that you are an apologist and have a skewed appreciation for freedom and liberty. I imagine you disagree. We’re both entitled to our opinions. I wouldn’t call it whining.

What “threatens” me so are gay men like yourself who are so willing to lay down and play sycophant on this issue. Do I expect the American people to support gay marriage tomorrow? this year? this decade? No. But I won’t compromise my dignity and fundamental rights to get some half-baked consolation liberties.

So, in other words, unless the government validates your relationships, you have no dignity.

Right-o.

And I re-emphasize; since you don’t care about getting benefits, then stop whining about the fact that you don’t have them. It’s like a spoiled child who throws a fit and won’t eat his dinner because he doesn’t get unlimited candy afterwards. Suit yourself, but quit whining about how hungry you are.