McCain endorses marriage ban!

Just incase there was doubt, I did make my position and tell why I think that way.

 

First, one could ask who the heck are you to decree how we should be debating things? Did someone elect you EC President or Head Poobah while we weren't looking?

Second, people in glass houses? They shouldn't be throwing stones. Because it's not at ALL hypocritical to demand people argue their points rather than make ad hominem attacks when you start your post by calling people "emo children."

And how is "hating" hearing "t makes me very sad that any gay person would vote for a Republican" any different than the original statement? They're both opinions of personal feeling. He didn't call Log Cabin Republicans stupid or misled. He said it made him sad. He didn't even say "they" made him sad. It certainly makes me very sad that gay people, or women, or non-white people, would vote Republican. I'm sure it makes gay Republican supporters sad that people like me think it's inconceivable that all gay people don't vote Democrat. Or maybe it makes them angry. They're welcome to that opinion, and I should be welcome to mine.

 

I just wanted to reiterate this. This is a marathon people. Not a freaking 100-yard dash.

 

Ya... I figured you had made earlier comments... so I'm sorry about saying what I said. But I read the first page and a half, and found quite a few intense statements (not from you) that were what I was directing my post at. I then flickered to the last page and saw your comment, and then posted mine.

Anyways. I know you have lots to offer, so I'm sorry for taking that statement out of context from the rest of the discussion.

Muah.

Btw, I myself would not vote for Mccain. No Way Hosey!

 

And honestly, how is that an argument for electing someone who will slow the pace of change, if not reverse it? If it's a such a long struggle, shouldn't we (well, okay, US voters, and the gay ones in particular) be trying to elect the people who will speed it up as much as possible?

That was the argument, by the way, that a huge number of people who supported the Civil Rights movement somewhat passive-aggressively made: oh, society isn't ready for it. One day, but not now. Not yet. Funny how tomorrow never comes in that situation, until some people (some quite famous ones) said, "Not tomorrow, now. Not in the future, now. Not "someday," this day. We have waited and waited and waited and we are sick of fucking waiting." (Okay, they didn't likely say "fucking" but I'm taking artistic liberty.)

You don't get change by waiting for it to be handed to you on a silver platter, because there ain't no impetus for the powerful to share their power. You get change when you demand it and insist on it. You don't get change by meekly sitting at the back of the bus.

 

that is what happens when you have to pander to the narrow minded of your political party just to secure your parties nomination.

honestly, before evengelicals started to whine about mccain, causing him to change practically all of his publicly stated political views *be it subtly, or dramaticly*, i could have seriously considered voting for him, mainly because the many democrated canidates at the time hadnt truly got my support yet, and i was watching everyone closely.

mccain went from being a social moderate republican, to being a uptight, put the fear of god into all the jews and muslims far right repuglicant. he wanted to win so bad he changed his views just to get the evengelicals on his side.

honestly, the polls currently show obama having a general lead over mccain, and there is a huge part of me that hopes that it stays that way. I would love to see someone in the whitehouse who isent changing all his views to pander to a group of people instead of the nation as a whole. i think obama has done far less changing compared to mccain.

besides, banning gay marraige is a affornt to the constitution, and would require that many passages of the constitution are striken from the records and removed, otherwise it would contradict itself. people have tried many times, and time after time, it was left to the states to decide for themselves. what we are thankfully seeing is a slow methodic break down of the hatred towards gays. many chirstian groups and denominations are backing away from the arguement, and taking a good look at us, and what they are seeing is that we are just like them, we just have this difference from the heterosexual community.

slowly but surely, perceptions are being changed. it was never something that was going to happen over night, but it is happening slowly. civil union and domestic partnership laws are a example of progress, even if people want more. california and mass. are helping also, but we just have to as a community keep moving forward.

if bush, one of the world most famous fundamentalist chirstian supremicist, cant get the constitution changed, mccain isent going to have any luck.

 

That may be so, but gay people should DEMAND it be a 100-yard dash. African-Americans would never have voted for a white person who would continue to segregate their schools and force blacks to the back of the bus. We need to insist people treat us as equals, and not accept anything else. A gay person electing John McCain would be the modern day equivalent of a black person electing a segregationist.

 

This amazes me. Obama does not equal immediate equality either! In fact he has flipped-flopped (got to love this political term) on the issue of gay marriage numerous times. I guess that is different from someone stating things outright (McCain) instead of someone going wishy-washy and catering to the masses. Hell maybe the masses want to make it down right illegal for gays to exist. Period. Will Obama jump for that? The masses call for it. I know that is a bit ludicrous and very, very, very unlikely. Exaggeration at its best.

Didn't same-sex marriages get allowed during Bush's office.... Hmmm.

 

It is not the same. You cannot compare two different issues from two different time periods. We are not being denied our right to vote, but marrige. Which in the grand scheme of thing is not a hugely massive thing. Are you going to love your partner differently because you dont have the piece of paper that says your married. I do get it for the rights that go along with marrige, but lets say that you get all those rights, is your life really going to be altered is a life shaking way because your not "married" but "joined"

 

Hmmm, I was under (and still am) the impression that gay marriages weren't not recognized under federal law. Marriages only exist on the state level in two states, and you know that ol' George and his government did nothing to aid in the effort.

 

Its not, under Bush the federal goverment decared that states do not have to recogize the marriges of same sex couples from other states under the Defense of Marrige Act(DOMA)

 

Black people couldn't marry white people for the longest time...And, black people were allowed to vote, they were just either blocked with unfair taxes or in situations where they were completely outnumbered.

And you're right, we're not being denied our right to vote. But it's kind of hard to make your vote count in a state like Georgia where the majority of people vote differently than you, and liberal districts aren't given a fair amount of power. Our rights are being denied, and I think the two events are sufficiently comparable.

 

I'm kind of confused about what that really has to do with anything I said, but gay marriages aren't recognized under federal law. Gay couples who are married in California and Massachusetts don't get any benefits from their union on the federal level like straight couples are.

 

It means that if you would have to do something in a federal court your marrige wouldnt be recogized. Nor would other states have to recognized the marriage as required by the consitution

 

That's exactly what I said in my post, so I don't know why he reposted it like I hadn't.

 

Yes but lets say for the sake of argument that all rights were awared under a civil union. Something that California had before it legalized gay marriage. Are we all really going to whine over the wording

 

I know I wouldn't, but that isn't the issue. The issue is if we are going to get those rights, not the name of it.