So that tells me that you don't know for a fact. Just as I thought.

You know, keryy doesnt support gay marriage either folks..... he supports throwing a couple of bones your way... thats about it.

Clinton 2.

So yousa thinka LCR are a reliable nonbiased source. In other words you have no proof.

Oh wait, LCR is relying upon Voter News Service data to make that assertion. You know, the guys who got it wrong on election day, the guys who no longer exist because their coverage of election 2000 and 2002 was so flawed every broadcast news outlet that was using them dropped them.

So in the end, we have no idea how many gay people voted for Bush, or Gore. We have no real numbers on how women, Latinos, African Americans, Jews, Christians or redheads voted.

[ February 13, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: jqueer ]

Well, gosh darn it, you know you are just so right. It's so simple and clear to me now. I'm voting for Bush. Golly, you are so smart. Thank you for opening my eyes to the real evil doer.

(Do I need to include the rolling eyes thing, or are you smart enough to catch the sarcasm. With you, I never know.)

So was he lying then? Was he just saying these things to try to get elected, then push Sheldon's agenda once he was in office? How long ago was it that he had given the money, and how did he explain it?

Bush the First/Dole 0.
Final score.
wink

Hmmmmm someone who supports gay rights and civil unions vs a chimp who wants to "monkey" with the Constitution, yeah, thats a tough call.

I'm certainly not a member of LCR, nor am I particularly a fan of the organization. But I do recognize that their very existence indicates a certain mainstreaming of the general gay community and that their presence is an integral part of an ongoing social and political dialogue inside and outside both the gay community and the Republican party.

However, several comments in this thread do point out the ultimate limitations of this type of organization. gmginsfo points out that as a Republican organization, LCR cannot endorse outside the party and cannot make public statements too outside the party norm or risk being expelled from the party. We know that gmginsfo himself is further limited because he has personal political ambition within the party himself. I'd rather have him elected to office than expelled from the party, personally.

But what that does demonstrate, is the need for there to be an advocacy group that is not beholden to the Republican party, but still upholds the fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism that LCR represents. That organization would be free to endorse any candidate necessary and if faced with a conservative candidate who is specifically against the interests of the gay community, could actively and openly campaign against the candidate.

I'm generally not one to advocate breaking up organizations without good reason, but I do consider the limitations represented both by being inside the party and outside of it to be reason enough to have an inside and outside organization.

This is what I have trouble with... they aren't IN the party to begin with. They aren't welcomed by the party, they aren't respected by the party, they aren't recognized by the party, and so on, and so on, and so on. So how can they be expelled from something they aren't a part of?

If the only issues in the campaign were gay marriage and gay rights, I'd be a Kerry fan.

But about the only two groups who think gay marriage should be the deciding issue are (a) the Christian right; and ( a lot of the people posting on Outsports.

For me, the important issues are the tax cut, the war on terror, and being able to work with Congress to get things done like the medicare prescription drug benefit and no child left behind. I happen to give Bush high marks on those issues, which are more important to my life than gay marriage.

That's why I intend to vote for Bush whether Log Cabin, an organization of which I am a member, endorses him or not. I understand the strategy Log Cabin is pursuing with its press releases, withholding endorsement of Bush's reelection, etc., and I have no problem with that. Indeed, I hope it succeeds in picking-up some incremental gay votes for the Republican ticket. But I suspect the overwhelming majority of GLBT Republicans, like me, have already made up their minds without waiting for a signal from the Log Cabin leadership.

Hulaboy, that's where we differ. I really don't care whole lot about the fiscal issues. The economy is cyclical. It goes up, it goes down. I really believe it's affected more by industry, business, banks, and other influences than which party is in power. Heck, hasn't Bush spent more on programs than Democrats? I figure I control my own economics. I can take a job, or not...invest in what I want, or not...buy what I want, give to who I want. I can pull myself by my own bootstraps, thank you.

What matters most to me are social issues. Things that either affect me personally, or the lives of my friends and family. When a particular party wants the government to deny equal rights to me and my partner, deny women a choice, make laws against how a person may choose to protest, wants to establish a particular religion over all others, then I will always vote against that party. Period. I want the government out of my life, so I will vote democrat.

It's quite condescending for you to say a lot of Outsporters are against Bush only because of gay marriage. Frankly, his administration's performance in just about EVERY SINGLE AREA has been nothing short of an absolute disgrace. THAT'S why I won't vote for him.

"You know, keryy doesnt support gay marriage either folks..... he supports throwing a couple of bones your way... thats about it." (PhillyFan)

Yeah, but at least Kerry won't suggest the likes of Charles Pickering be elevated to an important judgeship position! wink

Okay let me see if I can understand the reasons other the gay issues why we should vote for Bush.

Tax cut:

I posted this on another board but am not sure if it was read so I'll move it here.

First, I’ll assume the Republicans here believe that your party is more fiscally responsible than the “tax and spend” democrats. If that is not the case than you must support the government in our bedroom philosophy of the religious right. How a party can garner votes from libertarians and the religious right I’ve never quite figured out.

But back to the question of fiscal responsibility and your precious tax cut. If the democrats are guilty of “tax and spend”, than the republicans must be guilty of cut taxes and spend a hell of a lot more. As a person who has recently retired from a career of analyzing the financial markets, I feel fiscal responsibility and a business friendly environment is an extremely important issue. That being said I am completely unimpressed with the records of the republican administrations. The deficit does nothing but grow under their helm. During the Clinton years, when Dole and Gingrich tried blackmailing Clinton by holding up the budget compromise, they even went so far as to say “who cares if the US defaults on its debt, Mexico and Brazil have and they are still borrowing money”. Now I hope you don’t need an economics degree to understand just how egregious that statement is.

Tax cuts should only be allowed only when the government is running a surplus. I know it is a drag that we have to pay back money that we borrow but that’s just how the credit system works. The dollar has already collapsed against the Euro and $C, and is treading on thin ice against many Asian currencies. The Japanese and Chinese governments are doing everything in their power to maintain their currencies in order to support their exports. Nevertheless, the Euro is replacing the dollar as the safe haven currency and if this continues we will all be paying out of our pockets. So I would stop worrying about your itsy bitsy tax cuts and start worrying about your salaries and investments.

As for Republicans being business friendly, they are. But not to the small business that create most of the jobs but to the Oligopolies controlled by their elite (and some of their elected officials). Honestly guys I would probably vote to the right in Canada or most European countries but here it just doesn’t make sense.

War on Terror:

Another issue dear to me since I survived the WTC bombing in 1993 and was working across the street (although I was in Europe on business) on 9/11. I have one question. What ever happened to Afghanistan? Personally I don’t feel safer stirring up more hornets’ nests when Afghanistan is still not stable. As far as I am concerned the administration’s approach of pissing all of our allies off is not my ideal of diplomacy. As I just mentioned I spoke at a conference in Europe during the weak of 9/11. There was a tremendous amount of goodwill towards the Americans. I can guarantee you that Clinton would have been far better at harnessing that goodwill than Bush, who effectively chewed it up and spit it out like a wad of tobacco. I don’t like S. Hussein but that doesn’t mean I’m ready to sacrifice our soldiers’ lives and taxpayer’s money for a change of government. It is going to be a long time before that mess is cleaned up. So remind me one more time, why am I supposed to vote for Bush? BTW gay marriage is not a particularly important issue in for me but I’m sure the republicans will exploit it to their advantage.

How a party can garner votes from libertarians and the religious right I’ve never quite figured out.

People vote with their pocketbooks...it's that simple. How the GOP can garner votes from those groups now that they've shown absolutely no fiscal restraint is completely beyond me. The Democrats might spend more (and even that's not true if there's a GOP congress) but at least they won't drive the country into banana republic territory while they're doing it.

I've seen several responses along the lines of this one: "If W gives into the conservative right on this one and makes it part of his running platform, i will not vote for him. Then again, i can not vote for Kerry either because i don't like any of his ideas on the economy. I dont like his ideas on fighting terrorism."

My question is,if you disagree with Bush, why throw away your vote by voting for anyone other than the one person who has a reasonable chance of getting him out of the White House?

There may be betterpeople, but do they have any chance at all?

Winston Churchill, speaking of Stalin, said he'd make an alliance with the devilif that would help defeat Hitler. I don't think Ketty is quite in the devil catagory - but I intend to vote for anyone who seems likely to have any chance at all to show George the door.

Nat

Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, located, oddly, in the well-known Socialist stronghold of Charlottesville, Virginia.

The fine print says the website's homepage [Canadian: Page d'accueil] hasn't been updated since March 28, 2003. Maybe the Socialist influence of their surroundings proved too powerful.

And then there's the Outright Libertarians, affiliated with the political party of the same name.

JIP, Fong apparently gave the money to Sheldon at about the same time he was seeking and got an endorsement from LCR, but because of the timing of campaign funding disclosure reports it did not become known until several months later. Had we known of it at the time we would certainly not have endorsed him. Whether he would have made Sheldon's agenda his own had he won election is unknown.

Swimmer, you make some pretty bold - and tart - comments about LCR within the GOP, but what do you really KNOW about the work we've done in it? For instance, did you know that we have been steadily increasing our numbers on elected and appointed organizations within the party at all levels since LCR was founded in 1977? Did you know how I singlehandedly garnered support to delete langauge from part of our platform calling for the removal of gays from food service, healthcare and other personal contact jobs? Probably not; while it caused a stir at our convention a few years ago because so many people were surprised that I was able to gather support for such a "moderate" position, LCR's press release on the matter was ignored by the gay press and another chink in the armor of the radical right passed unnoticed.

Other examples, admittedly "small" by others' standards, occur regularly, but this is how we whittle down our opposition - one issue, one day at a time - even if it continues to go unreported and ignored - and often lampooned - by the gay press. Now that's not exactly fair and balanced reporting, is it?

The problem with your posts, besides their vitriol, is that they are uninformed. You can't be blamed entirely for that, as the example illustrates, but your credibility suffers when you lash out without knowing what you're talking about. You've every right to do so, of course - even if this is a private forum and the protections of the First Amendment don't apply to it - but others have the right to call you on your errors, and we will.

I think the LCR, in concept, fills a vital need in the gay rights movement, if only to counter the most vicious stereotypes and slanders from the anti-gay wing of the GOP. By their very presence the LCR challenges the most homophobic of their party, and shows that gay people cannot be neatly characterized, and certainly can not be automatically considered to have a negative effect on our society.

What has bothered me, and a lot of others, is the past tendency of LCR to try and spin any and all GOP actions/statements/policies/etc., even some of the most anti-gay ones, into something positive. Under Patrick Guerriero, however, LCR has clearly drawn a line in the sand with the overall GOP. A quick scan of their website's press releases demonstrates what a clear and principled stand they are taking on the gay marriage issue. I think its a great move for the integrity of the group.

At some point the GOP is going to have the decide if they are going to hold on to the religious Right base and continue on with this very conservative social platform. Given the social views of the up-and-coming generations, it seems the moderates have to win in the GOP, for the party to survive in the future.

Who knows, if Bush makes the FMA a very big deal in this election, trying to energize the anti-gay right, but in turn offends the moderate voters and loses, the religious right may have finally have had the failure that will start their inevitible downfall. Then the LCR, with links to other moderates, will be in good shape to weild real power. We're talking a LONG term view here, however.

getting back on topic to the proposed amendment.

I think it matters not whether W.Bush comes aboard to support its passge or not. The parties trying to push it through seem to be horribly disorganized. They can't seem to agree among themselves what they want or even what the wording of the amendment means.

Rep.Musgrave and others contend that the wording of the amendment would still allow for gay civil-unions. (and she should know since the amendment has her name on it)
However! Two of the principal writers of the amendment(both law professors from Princeton and Notre Dame) say that the amendment would bar gay civil unions (and They should know also since they wrote it)

so ..... what this seems like is a very disorganized, knee jerk attempt to get votes by using a "wedge issue" and energize the far right who have been less than impressed by the Cheney White House recently.

I mean.... everybody knows how incredibly difficult it is to pass a US constitutional amendment. Just ask the ERA people.

In the end.. I don't think anyone should be surprised by W's pandering to ensure his re-election. The best solution at this point is to vote the motherf**kers out of the White House

[ February 14, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

Little Consensus on Marriage Amendment

Oooohhhhh, that fills me with confidence!

Great post there, CPT.

Here's the people you rightwingers are in bed with on this issue: Klu Klux Klan's are anti-gay marriage:

Last I checked both Howard Dean and John Kerry were both anti-gay marriage too. Civil Unions are not the same thing. frown

[ February 15, 2004, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]

What's your point? Do you think the twats holding those signs and wearing the surgical masks give a shit about the distinction?

Re: the message in that pic. OT, I know, but don't these people realize that a) not all homosexuals are sodomites, and not all sodomites are homosexuals? Do they object to heterosexual anal sex, or just when the queers engage in it?

I'd like to add that 10% of the people holding those signs are most likely closeted gays.

Wow that is appauling to see the sign GAY Got Aids Yet? I mean really who are these people to judge us. For all the preaching about faith and love and God the religious right are actually preaching hate. Makes me sick.

And timber you are correct. 10% probably closeted. I've had a few very religious friends tell me that being gay is wrong and I'm sinning and guess what, they came out.

What is Shrub's opinion on civil unions? Does he even have one?

I thought I had heard that he favored Unions; but it does not matter! At this point I will settle for nothing less than full marriage rights.

I'm sure W.Bush has an opinion about civil unions. But he has been very careful to not let anyone know.

That way he can pander to the far right and still claim to be compassionate to the moderates.

Well, we know that he thinks sodomy laws "should be left up to the states" and he was all in favor of the one in Texas as governor. Marriage, on the other hand, the feds have to go in to "protect". I think it's pretty obvious what his intentions are

I think so too. But as his own words prove, he's trying to be everything to every side and that will be a mistake. his supporters still say he's a "straight shooter" but he stopped shooting straight a loooong time ago.

He hasn't shot straight about anything during his entire presidency.

Frankly, I think the guy supports civil unions, or at least the states' right to choose. George Bush may be a pawn of the social right now, but his views on abortion pre-'94 gubernatorial campaign suggest the guy isn't as Neanderthalic as his backers. It's just too politically damaging for him to take an anti-amendment stand in the current climate.

He's not sure, he'll have to check with Karl Rove.

Applying PhillyFan "logic":

PhillyFan - I wanna buy a case of Molson.
Democrats - Sorry PF, no can do, how about a 12-pack?
Republicans - Drop dead, homo.

PhillyFan - Democrats suck.

[quote]JC:
[QUOTE] Right-wingers have been frothing at the mouth about activist judges ever since desegregation. [/quote]Am I reading this right? Should the "activist judges" NOT have ruled for desegregation???

Not in my opinion (I'm very far from right-wing), but there were many who disagreed at the time, just as there are those who screamed judicial activism when the Supremes struck down the sodomy laws.

you're missing an important point.

when people scream "judicial activism", the implied meaning is that the judicial branch is over-reaching from what it is allowed to do constitutionally.
Many thought integration and the sodomy laws should not even have come up for consideration. But they were wrong. These issues ARE under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

In all the aforementioned cases, the common theme is discrimination and unequal treatment of whole groups of citizens by the law. That certainly fits the bill for judicial review, as this is a clear violation of citizens' constitutional rights. only if you disagree could you say "judicial activism"

[ February 16, 2004, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

Here's an analysis of the actual FMA language by a guy in Chicago. Maybe it's MIB? In any case, the legalese bored the f**k out of me after the recitation of the text of the FMA part, so could anyone with the patience to read the whole thing comment on its validity?

Thanks for providing the link, Jim Allen, to the proposed "Federal Marriage Amendment" as it has been written, and its analysis by Jacob T. Levy, Assistant Professor of Political Science and the College at the University of Chicago, in an article published by the (liberal) magazine The New Republic.

I won't pretend to be a Constitutional scholar, but I believe Jacob Levy is essentially saying that the precise wording of this amendment would not only ban gay marriage, it would also change the way State Courts are able to interpret their own State Constitutions. Levy makes the point that this has never been done before in the history of our nation and that it alters the balance between State and Federal powers.

My conclusion: this amendment is one of the most nefarious and malefic changes to the Constitution I have ever seen. And for what purpose? First of all, it's meant to throw the country into turmoil during an election year, mask the real problems and issues we face as a nation, and help re-elect George W. Bush as President. Second, if by some perversion of justice it is actually ratified, it utterly denies marriage rights to gays and even seems to severely limit the rights that can be granted under "civil unions". And third, it would really screw-up the relationship of State Courts and State Legislatures to their own State Constitutions, and the relationship of State Constitutions to the U.S. Constitution. All of this ferocious lawmaking aimed toward gay marriage, which, if it were universally adopted this instant, would have no harmful consequences. Thousands of gay couples have already been married in San Francisco without the slightest injury to America's integrity.

It astounds me what long-term damage extreme conservatives are willing to inflict on our system of government in order to achieve short-sighted rewards for themselves.

So here's the nasty thing, complete. It's like a virus they want to insert into the Constitution:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Bill Schneider was on a panel on CSpan discussing the upcoming election. The panel ws asked how gay marriage was going to play out in that context. Schneider said something very interesting, "Americans want to be seen as tolerant of homosexuality. Americans do not want to be seen as approving of homosexuality." This bothers me a great deal. Equal rights are not approval, they're justice. I don't approve of Christians. As a Jewish biblical fundamentalist, I find Christianity to be a perversion of the true faith that has visited great plagues upon our world and been the root of much of the evil of the last two millenia, but that's a personal religious opinion. I would never advocate that Christians should be discriminated against for their beliefs, nor would I say that priests whose minestierial lineage includes crusaders and inquisitors should not be allowed to perform marriages. No one in this country gets to make that sort of assertion as a matter of public policy, since we don't make our public policy based on our religious beliefs.

I am so f**king sick of puritanical tyranny. Anyone wanna run off to San Francisco and get married?

jqueer, I thought you'd never ask!

...OK, seriously now, I totally, totally agree: religiosity is creeping into national policy in a truly frightening manner.

Anyone concerned about whether/how evolution is taught, a woman's right to chose, sending kids to school where they aren't forced to say the pledge, etc. needs to pay attention to how this is shaking out.

If conservative Christians push this agenda thru, who knows what's next...

As I understood Levy's analysis, the Amendment would actually RESTRICT whether/how judges can now interpret law.

Hokey Smokes!!!

Is that legal?!?

Hello, checks and balances...???

Got your FMA right here.

Subject: In defense of Biblical marriage

This is beginning to disturb me more and more. The FMA and the general hysteria (a horribly sexist term, BTW, assuming as it does that irationality is the result of having a uterus) that is surrounding so-called activist judges is a dangerous smoke screen designed to shift power in this country. Because when they take the power away from the judges, it isn't going to dissappear, it's going to go to either the legislature or the executive branch. We have an independent judiciary because we don't trust the executive or the legislature to do the job without supervision, and while they each supervise each other, it would be far too tempting for them to ally together against the interests of the people they govern to preserve their power, so a third, comparatively weak, branch was created to be the ultimate break on power mongering. By further weakening an already weak branch of government, the president and legislators are making a power grab that can lead to disaster for civil liberties in this country.

President Weighs in On Kerry

CBS News reports in a breaking news e-mail that Bushitter is set to announce that he'll support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. What a compASSionate man!
CBS News

[ February 24, 2004, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Hes a Uniter, Not a Divider


I can hardly wait for the Log Cabin press release, that'll show him!

[ February 24, 2004, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

What an ass****! He made his pithy little speech then fled from the briefing room. Coward!

[ February 24, 2004, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]