Initiatives against SSM routinely get 60 – 70% of the vote in favor. You can call those people “bigots” (and look like an idiot), or you can accept that they have a right to believe like tehy do, and then go to work to try to change their minds.

You can preen about how “morally superior” you are, or you can try to actually make your case to the people who you want to give you something.

You want to tell me why society benefits by extending marriage to same sex couples? I’ll listen.

Want to whine about “fairness” and “equality”? I’ll tune you out.

Your choice.

Agree with everything u just said.

‘cept just to be anal: its not that rights don’t require the participation of others, its that they cannot or they infringe on that persons liberty.

http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.144185.html

I was trying to make the point that demanding marriage as a civil right (and using the courts to “correct” a recalcitrant citizenry) was ineffective and is backfiring.

I still believe that a convincing case could be made that allowing SSM would benefit the society at-large. The courts’ short-circuiting of the political process has pretty well made the discussion moot.

You don’t seem to have read my comment (#22) above.

I’ve already told you about Rush Limbaugh. Now just what do you know about Bennett, Gingrich, and Malkin? You throw their names around without giving any specifics or providing any references.

And again, these gay Democrats think we don’t see what they’re doing.

Gays like Blake whine about Sarah Palin, but they clap and cheer and give money to Democrats who hold exactly the same positions and call them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

Correct me (with a link) if I’m wrong but every comment Sarah Palin has offered on gay marriage has been in response to a question. That’s quite the opposite of aggression.

And I don’t recall her ever, at least during this campaign, speaking out against civil unions.

ND30,

I do not, nor have I ever endorsed any liberal who supports the FMA. Where have I had said. Please do not insert words into my mouth.

Palin has made her claims quite clear that she supports an amendment to the US Constitution to make gays second class citizens. Palin spoke directly to James Dobson about this and her belief that she could persuade McCain to accept her position.

Now. Obama says that he is willing to compromise for rights and religious beliefs: gays get full rights of marriage but under civil unions.

Thus, members on the Left are willing to discuss the religious versus legal framework for domestic partnerships recognized by the state.

Now, can discuss with me similar prominent conservatives/Republicans who are willing to have those kinds of discussions? I can think of Schwarzenegger, but he’s a moderate and has been denounced like Powell as a RINO.

On the national scene, who is there? Limbaugh, Bennett, Gingrich, Malkin, Dobson?

So, let’s talk about how different legal positions and how the Left and Right are working to achieve some kind of equal protection for gay Americans.

I know that there are some moderates who have spoken out after loved ones came forward but they don’t seem to have much sway. Can you help me understand who others are?

Also, given that Palin has been aggressively stating her beliefs against gay unions, whether marriage or civil unions, do you think this might be a campaign tactic to reach out to the fundamentalists, evangelicals, and other hard right, anti-gay forces? If not, why do you think Palin has taken a position in contrast to McCain’s stated beliefs?

I didnt say being gay was a behavior. I said that marriage was a behavior. Marrying a person of the opposite sex is one behavior, a relationship with a person of the same sex is a different behavior.

I feel compelled to respond to your post.

You make a mistake common to people on the left: you identify the right with the Christian right. Your beginning your list with James Dobson illustrates this. While Republican politicians do an inordinate amount of pandering to conservative/reactionary Christians these people do not account for the entire American right.

There is no cohesive, unified American right that corresponds to the American left. The right consists of the various members of the anti-left.

I am not convinced that Sarah Palin and John McCain are opposed to any and all recognition of gay couples. And Colin Powell is most certainly a RINO as his recent endorsement of Barack Obama has shown.

Can you give us any names of major conservative figures who have tried to have a serious discussion about gay domestic partnerships to workout a compromise?

The whole point of GPW’s essay was that it is very difficult to discuss compromise with people who think any disagreement with them is pure evil.

Seriously, isn’t there more discussions on the “Left”? You do have more give and take on the notion of “marriage” versus “civil unions” by major figures.

The give and take you mention is by politicians looking for votes.

aren’t you ignoring deliberately the like of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Pat Buchanan, Franklin Graham

Dobson again? I don’t know about all of these people, but Limbaugh doesn’t oppose legal recognition and protection for gay couples. He just doesn’t believe a gay relationship is a marriage. See my post (#3) above.

Why not examine Palin’s increased, vocal support of a federal marriage amendment as part of an election strategy? Her recent interview with James Dobson indicates her view that her views will become McCain’s views and enacted.

No, it does not. Please note President Bush’s support for the FMA and Vice President Cheney’s support for same-sex marriage.

why should there be any discussion on people wanting to have some kind of legal marriage/domestic partnership rights?

Because in a democratic nation any change in law requires a discussion.

By not being forceful in one’s belief in equality, doesn’t one put oneself in a subservient role?

Probably. However, forcefully defending one’s opinions doesn’t require reducing other people’s reasonable concerns to irrational prejudice and hatred.

The rights for interracial marriage did not take place because of a conversation. It was a battle that the Supreme Court decided in Loving v. Virginia.

Loving was decided by a straightforward application of the 14th amendment as the category of race has nothing to do with the marital relationship. And because something was won in court doesn’t mean it could never have been won by convincing the electorate.

Similarly, the decisions striking down sodomy laws by the Supreme Court was needed.

It is strange to compare the court review of non-enforced sodomy laws with review of actively enforced miscegenation laws. In any event, the perceived need for striking down anti-sodomy laws says nothing about the reasoning the Supreme Court used in doing so –something you seem to care nothing about.

Sorry if this is a repeat, but nowhere have I ever supported Democrats who support the FMA! You will never find those comments ever coming from me.

In fact, it’s fair to say that most of the people whom I admire as progressives would never endorse the FMA. I know that Obama, Biden, and McCain have all spoken out against the FMA.

So, where do you get off saying that I, personally, have endorsed any Democrat that supports the FMA?

Look, you said that there are no discussion on the Left. Obviously, that is not true if the leaders of the party have come out against the FMA and there are few conservative Democrats who do support the FMA. But, getting back to the main thesis of this posting, having a conversation of gay marriage and partnerships, aren’t those conversations mostly taking place in a civil manner on the Left?

Look Obama & Biden support civil unions with full marriage equality. That gives a nod to religious folks but gives gays FULL benefits of marriage before federal and state laws.

So, let me ask the question of you. What major figures on the Right are willing to have a conversation about offering marriage or full equivalent benefits of marriage to gays? McCain, Palin, Limbaugh, Dobson, Franklin Graham, etc. are all against any kind of legal framework for domestic partnerships for gays.

Republicans like Schwarzenegger and other moderates are being pushed out of the party when they question things. Giuliani, a moderate, tossed gays under the bus when he ran for the presidency.

Again, I’d like to have a discussion with you, but I would prefer if you, ND30, did not try to shove words or endorsements down my throat.

Gay deadbeats unite!

In short, since you endorse and support it when Democrats do it, you are being nothing more than a hypocrite when you criticize Republicans.

Our society and its laws treat us as SUB-Americans. Yet they expect us to pay taxes.
R-e-a-l-l-y?

I seriously doubt we will EVER have equality in other areas of life (military, adoption, hate crimes) until the US government starts to treat our families and children AS WORTHY AS other families. How do we expect to enlist in the military openly, adopt children without discrimination, or walk safely out and about in the world if our HOMES, our FAMILIES, are viewed as SUB-human in the eyes of the law?! What is more important than FAMILY?

Is SUB-American OK as a tax-payer? R-e-a-l-l-y?

I’m just saying…

It would be great to have discussions but who on the Right really wants to have a discussion about state recognized gay domestic partnerships? James Dobson? Sarah Palin? John McCain? All three are against any kind of state recognized domestic partnership. There are others like Schwarzenegger but he’s routinely called a “RINO” these days. Powell? Ditto. The people on the Right who might be sympathetic are the moderates who seem to be pushed out of the GOP today.

Can you give us any names of major conservative figures who have tried to have a serious discussion about gay domestic partnerships to workout a compromise?

Seriously, isn’t there more discussions on the “Left”? You do have more give and take on the notion of “marriage” versus “civil unions” by major figures.

As for the pretense of the unreasonable Left, aren’t you ignoring deliberately the like of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Pat Buchanan, Franklin Graham, and most others with large followings? Moderate Republicans like McCain, unfortunately, are pushed to the far right.

Why not examine Palin’s increased, vocal support of a federal marriage amendment as part of an election strategy? Her recent interview with James Dobson indicates her view that her views will become McCain’s views and enacted.

That said, why should there be any discussion on people wanting to have some kind of legal marriage/domestic partnership rights? By not being forceful in one’s belief in equality, doesn’t one put oneself in a subservient role?

The rights for interracial marriage did not take place because of a conversation. It was a battle that the Supreme Court decided in Loving v. Virginia. Similarly, the decisions striking down sodomy laws by the Supreme Court was needed.

Reading this thread, I am reminded of the discussions held between Dr. King and some fearful religious Civil Rights leaders who afraid that an aggressive push for their rights would be destructive. History proved King right. Just as did W.E.B Dubois’ position against Booker T. Washington’s.

Sometimes, it’s better to fight for one’s humanity because others just don’t want to give an inch.

Honestly, do you think that Mr. Dobson or Ms. Palin want to give you any recognized domestic partnerships? What do their words say?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/22/1582325.aspx

More to the point, there is no such thing as a right whose exercise requires the infringement of another. This is why there is no “right to healthcare,” or “shelter,” or “food,” or “a living wage,” because each of those requires that somebody be forced to provide it.

American Elephant, I wasn’t aware that being gay was a behavior…especially since homosexuality was stripped from the DSMIV as a mental illness…

It is not a right. Most people have heard the axiom, “your right to swing your arms ends at my face”, but precious few seem to understand what it means.

It means there is no such thing as a right that requires the participation of another. If you cant do it yourself, it isnt a right. You have the right to say what you want, but as liberals frequently dont get, you dont have the right to have anyone listen to you.

Marriage is the same way — gay or straight. Basically it is the societal approval and encouragement of a behavior. No one has a right to have society approve of them or their behavior.

In all seriousness, why should ANYONE listen to you? You don’t behave like a person worthy of people’s attention. Why should anyone listen to the gay left? They don’t behave like people who want to get along and be a part of civilized society.

They show absolutely zero respect to people they disagree with, they do everything in their power to insult, offend, demean, disenfranchise and railroad them.

Its people like you that guarantee that if gay marriage is ever to be, it will be because of people like us.