To my fellow Republicans  about gay marriage?
967651
Mankind uses words to convey ideas and specify meanings. A marriage is not a same sex union! I believe that the word "marriage" is ALREADY defined as a union between man + woman.I don't really understand why the Gays' seem to want to use the term "marriage"- when a lifelong civil union w/ equal government /economic recognition is what they want. I believe that same gender couples should be able to obtain a Same Sex Union Certificate which would entitle them to the same economic and rights of survival benefits AND difficulties if they seek a divorce from their mate/spouse. They too MUST be required to file for divorce,settle their shared assets, change their wills, redesignate beneficiary status etc. \n\nThe government is NOT really concerned about WHO your spouse or pardner/mate IS. The IRS has to apply the correct proceures/ formulas based on the "status" -->individual/ joint/ age etc. \n..Now "gay" unions are off the books; The Same Sex Union Certificate would provide the same documentation as a marriage certificate. As for the states and individual companies, they will have to decide whether they will change their policies on many items..i.e. payment of a pension to the deceased spouse(married) or non divorced pardner(same sex union). \n---The gay lifestyle is another topic....some people do not believe that same sex unions are \n"normal"...they do not produce the next generation..they are in conflict with their religious beliefs.  Thier beliefs are AS STRONG as the belief held by gays that they are not  abnormal,..they should be able to have an intimate relationship and seek happiness with whoever they want ...\nSO simply put..a piece of paper (same sex union) can achieve economic equity BUT individual Humans can and do  choose what they want to accept or believe in. Heterosexuals and homosexuals need to recognize this concept...NO ONE IS guaranteed that they will be liked and accepted.
148222
First of all, I hope I'm open-minded enough not to give a rat's ass about a person's sexual preferences (provided it involves consenting adults) no matter what job they're seeking. So yeah, I could vote for a gay president if I agreed with most of his or her policies. What the hell do I care what they do in their private life? And why do YOU care?\n\nP.S. For the record, we've likely already had a gay president. James Buchanan, widely considered one of the worst and most ineffectual presidents in US history (some blame him for failing to prevent the Civil War), never married but rather lived for 16 years with an Alabama senator named William Rufus King. Seems harmless enough -- except for the fact that he referred to King as "Nancy" amid rampant rumours of their having had a homosexual relationship.
879812
I love that the first guy said he doesn't believe gays should have MORE rights than the average citizen. That gave me a good chuckle here at work.\n\nI live in Virginia, and voters today are deciding on the most unconstitutional and just plain hateful peice of legislation in the United States.  I think the amendment is drawing a lot of people to the polls. This amendment doesn't just ban gay marriage (gay marriage has been banned in Virginia for 30 years, so that would be redundant,) but it specifically disallows same parent adoption, hospital visitation rights, and rights of survivorship. Its been on the minds of Virginians for over a year now, and today we'll see.\n\nIf you aren't concerned about the way gays are being treated in this country, than you just aren't paying attention. Equal rights mean rights for EVERYONE.  That said, I'm about to pack up and move to Vermont. It might be cold, but at least I don't have to worry about my neighbors voting for legislation that takes away my power of attorney or my kids.
1155642
1) Wow, you need to learn to spell. Then perhaps people will take your rantings seriously. \n\n2) We do have other things to worry about than gay marriage. However, the gays are forcing the issue on the American public, whether the public is ready for it or not. \n\n3) Some of your rant doesn't even make sense. \n\n4) Unemployment, preJudice, economy, global warming are areas that the federal government shoudl NOT be involved with anyway. This is not their purview as granted by the Constitution. \n\n5) As for your views on immigration, I agree with you that people can come here and pay taxes AS LONG AS they are NOT taking anything out of the system (welfare, housing, education, health care). Kids joining the military to "pay off" their parents debt is not going to happen; our military is a PAID force. \n\nFLOOZIE: Get off your duff and start paying attention to what is going on around you! This affect  you, your loved ones, and your children!!!\n\nI appreciate the fact that you took the time to think out your opinions. However, a little research and education would do you wonders. You're on the right path to becoming a nice conservative though!
600135
Why, gay man here, can be fired for being gay at any job in the country, can't have a civil union with my partner of 9 years, no domestic partnet rights, hell if it were up to some I would be better of on some deserted island with like kind........not free for me.......but still grateful to be an american and for those fighting for what rights i do have
708735
I do. You have me tagged right at the nail. I would have been a Republican because I admire their tough stances on crime and their fiscal responsibility. However, the evangelicals have taken a hold of the GOP alienating many potential members who aren't pro-life or anti-gay. I'm a Democrat because of many reasons but I disagree with them on some things, especially with the liberals. I'm a Goldwater conservative at heart and would like to see many people embrace fiscal conservatism. I do believe in God but I abhor how the Republican party has used Christianity to get ahead in the political arena and the evangelicals meddling in politics it's simply wrong. I feel sometimes like I have no party.
527916
I think there are plenty of legit conservative republicans out there, but I think many people get so worked up about issues like gay marriage and abortion they ignore everything else and vote republican cause they dont like boys kissing.\nElection time they roll out what works for them, hot button social issues that only get attention every 2 years to get their base riled up and out to vote.\n\nOh yeah, this is from rnc.com, their 2004 platform.  I guess they havent rolled out 2006 officially, but I expect it to be almost exactly the same.\nhttp://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf
850864
Congrats on coming out!!...Although I totally agree with gay people being allowed to marry, we have to examine the political climate of what we're dealing with.  Anytime another group is pushed into a corner they are gonna be on the defensive.  This is what's happening with gay marriage.  Christians (being riled up by the Republicans) feel it's an attack on the "sanctity" of marriage.  I won't even try to get into all the ironies of that statement, but it is in fact how they feel.  The gay community feels that a fundamental right is being taken away and so the push for legalized marriage intensifies.  \n\nThe only solution for this situation is for the gay community to back off for "marriage" and to push for civil unions.  Having all the same legal rights, benefits, and legal consequences (divorce) as marriage..but not calling it marriage.  This would be a true separation of church and state, it would ease the Christians minds of marriage being on the attack and essentially take away any arguing points on the issue. It would allow the gay community to benefit form what straight people have been enjoying for centuries.\n\nUnfortunately we live in such a political charged atmosphere that such compromises have to made to get a solution.  It isn't necessarily right...but it's the best way for us to realistically achieve our goal of legal rights.  If the marriage push continues by the gay community it's only going to cause increased tensions  and our ability to enjoy equal rights will be a long time away.
1098779
With three notable exceptions, I am pleased to see so many intelligent and rational arguments against the idiotic, discriminatory and deeply offensive attempts by this hateful administration and (most of) their "repugnican" allies to further divide the American people over the issue of gay marriage rights. Honestly, do we really need to pursue a Constitutional amendment to define marriage?! This is the theatre of the absurd writ large.\n\nI am sick and bloody tired of intolerant people trying to impose their narrow-minded views on me by wielding political power and threats of Constitutional amendments. Gay marriage and flag burning are so far removed from priority issues to sane and rational -- to say nothing of tolerant -- people that I almost have to laugh at this farce. But I am not laughing, because these people are serious -- and seriously evil.\n\nThankfully, they will fail in their shameful efforts to divide and distract the American people from the REAL issues of the day. But that doesn't make their gross misconduct any less reprehensible. Please vote in November and remember ALL of this when you consider your ballot. We have the chance to send a message to these hateful people and to show the world at large who we are and what we stand for. So please, let's get it right this time around.
814877
I am a conservative.\nI do NOT support sanctions and laws against gays marrying and women having abortions.\nThey are definently moral  AND political issues.\nThe reason it is a political issue is the fear of change and the fear that someones morals are not going to be the same.  If it was just a moral issue there would be no laws abridging the issues.\n\nWhat you are looking at is the Republican party platform.  There are real conservatives out here and we want real change.
183286
I'm not gay.  I'm not liberal, either.  If they want to get married, that's fine.  How did I develop this idea?  I know some.  One in particular holds a place of laughter in my memory; and that is a very good thing.
1011563
The following is an interesting little factoid you may interested in:\n\n \nJune 4, 2006 -- More on George W. Bush's "Sanctity of Marriage" gay marriage constitutional ban. \nGeorge W. Bush's marital problems have just taken another turn for the worse. Apparently, Mr. Bush has not only engaged in an extra-marital affair with a member of the opposite sex who is also a senior member of his Cabinet, but also a member of the same sex. WMR received the following  release this morning from Leola McConnell, Democratic candidate for Governor of Nevada (who has been endorsed by WMR). McConnell is a one-time professional dominatrix.\n"President Bush's speech to the nation Monday. If he doesn't say he's a gay American or at the least a bisexual one then he shouldn't be making one at all. And the notion that it would be in regards to writing bigotry into our nation's Constitution is reprehensible. Too bad it isn't me doing the rebuttal because in 1984, I watched him perform (with the enthusiasm of homosexual male who had done this many times before) a homosexual act on another man, namely Victor Ashe. Victor Ashe is the current Ambassador to the nation of Poland who should also come out like former Governor McGreevey of New Jersey and admit to being a gay American. Other homo-erotic acts were also performed by then private citizen George Bush because I performed one of them on him personally. \n\nI am the woman this website (bushssecretlifein84.tripod.com) speaks of that has been posted on the net nearly two years now. None of this would be the business of anyone but President Bush's little ruse to save his failed presidency by using DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] to divide Americans one from the other has to be exposed as the act of a desperate closeted homosexual man. The only crime in being GLBT is in the hiding. The President needs to come clean with the American people about his own past sexual behavior before he tries to besmirch the humanity of people in search of sincerely committing to the same bonds of matrimony he's afforded. He violated his own vows of monogamy having a homosexual affair with a long time family friend of whom his wife had no knowledge. His hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. \n\nI had planned to run for governor of Nevada without going into any of this but his planned nationally televised address to the nation makes it necessary for me to address his attempt at division in as public a way as he picked to try this Bushification of reality regarding same sex marriages.\n\nSincerely,\nLeola McConnell\nLiberal Democratic candidate for Governor of Nevada\n --------------------------------------\nNow, aint this special!?
607353
>>>How does two gay people forming a union affect you?<<<\n\nIt doesn't, but its effect on me personally is not the only reason for keeping marriage "as is."\n\nAfter all, whether or not drugs are legalized doesn't affect me either.  Whether they're legal or not, I'm not going to take them.  \n\nBut according to your logic, I should not oppose the legalization of drugs because it doesn't affect me personally -- whether it affects me seems to be your litmus test on whether I should oppose it or not. \n\nA very solid majority of Americans are against legalized gay marriage -- and we should not have to justify that opinion by appealing to whether or not it affects us personally.   \n\n>>>Why are you opposed to it? Is it because you feel it's your job to determine their morality?<<<\n\nNo, it's because marriage is under enough assault as it is -- through high divorce rates and the like.  Legalize gay marriage, and the divorce rate would skyrocket, given the promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle.  \n\n>>>If that's not the reason, then what is?<<<\n\nBecause, again, the fundamental man-woman union of marriage is under enough assault as it is, and we need not intensify that assault by changing its defition to suit a small percentage of people who engage in a historically promiscuous lifestyle.  \n\n>>>I can see no logical reason why you should oppose two people committing themselves to monogamy, even if it's homosexual...<<<\n\nAnd I can see no logical reason why homosexuals have to push for legalized gay marriage in order to encourage monogamy within their ranks.  Surely they can commit to monogamous relationships without seeking to hijack the concept of marriage to justify their sexual behavior.  \n\nHomosexuals are just as physically capable of monogamy -- without legalized gay marriage -- as are heterosexual people.  But the fact that gays are notoriously promiscuous compared to heterosexuals means that though they are capable of monogamy, they're not necessarily willing.  \n\nWhy should we fundamentally change the definition of marriage in order to encourage monogamy among homosexuals, when they've as a group displayed little willingness to live such monogamy in the first place?
1100940
I support governmental recognition of all marriages performed by recognized religious group, adn that is the secret about the gay marriage question.\n\nThe gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.\n\nOne of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.\n\nOf course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.\n\nOn the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faiths, which say it is ok to marry same sex couples?\n\nThe first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.\n\nEveryone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.\n\nSince I do not believe the government should be used to control religious belief -- I think that the government should recognize gay marriage, when performed by members of clergy -- and should create a civil union equivalent for those interested only in secular marriage.\n\nOtherwise we should stop saying we don't have an establishment of religion.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nhttp://www.rebuff.org\nbelieveinyou24@yahoo.com
447325
I REALLY don't understand what the big deal is all about.\nThis world is a weird and scary place. If an adult can find true love and wants to marry someone, I don't care if they are gay or black, or Hindu or little people or WHATEVER. That will have absolutly NOTHING to do with my marriage. I do understand that marriage is a sacred thing but, isn't it up to us to keep our own marriages sacred rather than poke around in someone elses business?\n\n  The divorce rate is around 50% in this country. What is so sacred about that? Since Gays and lesbians arn't allowed to marry, the high divorce rate and the lack of respect for marriage is an obvious sign that most straight people don't honor marriage. Maybe if we allowed gays to marry, they could teach us straights a thing or two.\n\n  Could it be at all possible that people are afraid to let gays marry because maybe the gays will be more successful at it? Just a thought.\n  And as for the people that quote bible passages against gay marriage, I can pop my head into the bible and find tons of quotes advocating slavery, incest and all that jazz.\nThe fact is that this country was founded on the principal of "Separation of Church and State" Look it up if you don't understand. I appreciate other peoples religous views but,\nIf we do not see eye to eye, it is because we have different opinions and NOT because one of us is right or wrong. To behave in a self-ritous way like that is ignorant and just plain rude.\n  Also, There are THOUSANDS of orphans and foster kids living in institutions. They are sent out into the world without a family once they turn 18. I bet dollars to donuts that if you ask these kids, they would much rather live in a nice home with a couple of  married gays than the orphanage. If gays could marry and adopt, it would give these forgotten children a chance to be a part of a loving and supportive family for LIFE. How happy they would be to have their own bedroom and parents to help with their homework and to see them in the school play? \nWe have already tried hating people for being different and it dosn't seem to have done much good. Maybe we can all try to be more loving or understanding to people different than us. Maybe we Christians can see past the hatred and fear to the TRUE word of Jesus Christ. I don't remember Jesus hating on "sinners" or people different than Him. I remember acceptance and UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. WWJD? In your HEART you know the answer. \nPlease forgive any misspellings, spellcheck is on the fritz.
114139
I think that with time, this will become the accepted norm.\n\nHopefully fifty years from now our current situation will seem as ridiculous as not allowing mixed race marriages.\n\nHow to acheive this goal is difficult, because most of us who are pro-gay marriage live in places where most of our neighbors agree with us.\n\nIt becomes incumbent upon pro-gay people in the so-called "red states" to get the word out, write their congress people and try to expand people's minds to accept that tolerance for gays is the only acceptable way to look at things.\n\nIn the meantime, just be vocal in your support. I think, and hope, that it is just a matter of time. \n\nWe need to stand up and say that people like Sam Brownback and Fred Phelps are *wrong* and that we will not stand for their intolerance.
1019944
Congratulations! This is one of the best questions you have asked so far.\n\nThere is good news that the federal amendment did not pass. The bad news is that there are still plenty of states that already have passed amendments and laws banning gay marriage. Perhaps, with this being a states' issue, we will see another sad chapter (one that happened a little closer to home) repeat itself.\n\nUnfortunately, you are getting some bad responses from people who don't see what you are seeing. Massive genocide, or even something not as extreme, doesn't happen overnight. We are seeing the beginings of the religious right's attempt to divide Americans. It won't stop here. If they had their ways, marriage wouldn't be the only right not allowed to gays. They would also not stop at gays.\n\nWhat we are seeing isn't rasicm so people can easily look past it. They believe that people are gay by choice and that makes it easier for them to discriminate. They also believe that people are Muslim or Jewish or atheist by choice and they think that these people should change their ways.\n\nThe person who said history repeats itself is right. The more the religious right is allowed to control politics and our culture and divide Americans, the further away we will go towards allowing all people equal rights and equal freedoms.