[Chinasaur]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Get over it! He said she was a Lesbian. She Is. Next. Move On!

Compared to the things that draft-dodging, foul mouthed Dick you call a husband said about Kerry during the Campaign...I'd say "What a freaking whiner!!!!!"

"Whaaaa...John Kerry called my daughter a Lesbian. Oh....wait a minute..."

Nice failure at a smokescreen though. Didn't work..but you tried and failed.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Get over it! He said she was a Lesbian. She Is. Next. Move On!

Compared to the things that draft-dodging, foul mouthed Dick you call a husband said about Kerry during the Campaign...I'd say "What a freaking whiner!!!!!"

"Whaaaa...John Kerry called my daughter a Lesbian. Oh....wait a minute..."

Nice failure at a smokescreen though. Didn't work..but you tried and failed.

That wasn't the point. Why would Kerry bring her up in the first place? Does he even know her? How does Kerry know what she would say? Why not Bring up I believe it's Daschle's daughter who is also a lesbian? Why not bring up people like Rosie Odonnell.

[icruise]

Originally posted by typoon:
Why not Bring up I believe it's Daschle's daughter who is also a lesbian? Why not bring up people like Rosie Odonnell.

Because they aren't fighting against rights for gay people, but the Republicans are. That said, I thought it was a mistake for Kerry to mention her again.

[MATTRESS]

I wasn't aware that Republicans were for codifying into law laws which prevent gays from voting, owning homes, having jobs, owning cars, obtaining passports, etc.....

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by typoon:
That wasn't the point. Why would Kerry bring her up in the first place? Does he even know her? How does Kerry know what she would say? Why not Bring up I believe it's Daschle's daughter who is also a lesbian? Why not bring up people like Rosie Odonnell.

What made Kerry look so stupid was that he brought it up again. What's he trying to do? Does he think that some idiot redneck Republicans will hear this -- as if they haven't already -- and decide not to vote for Bush? If you take the transcript or the soundbite, remove that portion, you'll see it added NOTHING to his answer whatsoever -- outside of making him look like a nitwit.

What's the motivation behind picking Cheney's daughter out of all the other, more public lesbians? Because Kerry's a slimeball and he saw another opportunity to try and get it a low-blow. What's sad is that he thinks it will help him, because that's the only reason he could for using her. Not only that, but the Kerry campaign has already described her as "fair game."

Maury

[SimeyTheLimey]

Well, I have a question for Kerry. Last weekend he told the New York Times that his position on gay marriage is basically the same as president Bush's. That is, as he has often stated, he thinks that gays and lesbians should be forbidden by law from from marrying one another. He puts it as marriage is for a man and a woman, which is how Bush puts it too. Substantively that means discrimination.

I understand that last night Kerry also said he thinks that gay people are gay from birth. I believe he said because he thought there was a genetic cause.

So what does this tell us? He thinks that gays and lesbians are born gay but nevertheless he thinks we should be second class citizens? Forgive me if I am not very impressed with his moral clarity.

[Logic]

But you are impressed with Bush's?

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


So what does this tell us? He thinks that gays and lesbians are born gay but nevertheless he thinks we should be second class citizens? Forgive me if I am not very impressed with his moral clarity.

Well, then you have the option of voting for the guy who wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, additionally. Take yer pick.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So what does this tell us? He thinks that gays and lesbians are born gay but nevertheless he thinks we should be second class citizens? Forgive me if I am not very impressed with his moral clarity.

Kerry's position isn't exactly ideal. But he does support civil unions and opposed DOMA, IIRC.

[Chinasaur]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I wasn't aware that Republicans were for codifying into law laws which prevent gays from voting, owning homes, having jobs, owning cars, obtaining passports, etc.....

Not yet...that will come after they modify the Constitution to be exclusionist rather than inclusionist.

Then the Brown Shirts will REALLY begin to have some fun.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
Well, then you have the option of voting for the guy who wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, additionally. Take yer pick.

It isn't going to make any difference either way. The federal constitutional amendment is as good as dead. So this issue is a wash to me as between these two candidates. They are both pandering, the only difference is that at least Bush is pandering with a bit of consistency. Kerry seems to be trying to pander to both sides.

I just find it amazing when people try to convince me that the guy is pro-gay when his position is the opposite.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I just find it amazing when people try to convince me that the guy is pro-gay when his position is the opposite.

From what I've seen from Kerry it seems like he is personally against gay marriage but he understands that he no right to forbid it. Don't exactly see what's so inconsistant about that......

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Logic:
From what I've seen from Kerry it seems like he is personally against gay marriage but he understands that he no right to forbid it. Don't exactly see what's so inconsistant about that......

He supports state amendments banning gay marriage. The difference between state amendments and the FMA Bush supports is that state amendments have a better chance of getting passed.

[vmpaul]

I thought Andrew Sullivan had an interesting take on the issue. He's becoming more of a habit in my daily read list. He's one conservative that doesn't feel the need to push an agenda at every opportunity.

Anyway, this is quoted from his blog:

The Mary Cheney thing really is a fascinating Rorschach test. Many conservatives are appalled and cast their anti-Kerry opinion as a defense of Mary. Here's one:

"Last night he allowed his obsession with his own selfish desire to win a point overshadow the appropriate boundaries of taste, compassion, and kindess. Lynne Cheney has the right to call him a bad man. And woman across the nation have the right to see for themselves that he is willing to victimize THEM if it comes to padding his advantage, reputation, position, or standing."

Victimize? All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form.
...
Let me give you an example of the double standards here. I remember once being driven around by a charming woman on a stop on a book tour. We talked about my book, and she averred, after chatting all day, that she had nothing against gay people, she just wished they wouldn't "bring it up" all the time. I responded: "But you've been talking about your heterosexuality ever since I got in the car." She said: "I haven't. I've never once discussed sex." My response: "Within two minutes, you mentioned your children and your husband. You talked about your son's work at high school. You mentioned your husband's line of work. And on and on. You wear your heterosexuality on your sleeve all the time. And that's fine. But if I so much as mention the fact that I'm gay, I'm told it's all I care about, and that I should pipe down. Don't you see the double standard?" Candidates mention their families all the time. An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters. Mentioning Mary Cheney is no more and no less offensive than that. What is offensive is denying gay couples equal rights in the constitution itself. Why don't conservatives get exercized about that?

[bolded by me for emphasis]

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It isn't going to make any difference either way. The federal constitutional amendment is as good as dead. So this issue is a wash to me as between these two candidates. They are both pandering, the only difference is that at least Bush is pandering with a bit of consistency. Kerry seems to be trying to pander to both sides.

I just find it amazing when people try to convince me that the guy is pro-gay when his position is the opposite.

Fine, both pandering. Bush is pandering for something loathsome. But, he's consistently loathsome! On that basis, he's your guy.

As for Lynne Cheney, I don't understand what she's embarrassed about.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
Fine, both pandering. Bush is pandering for something loathsome. But, he's consistently loathsome! On that basis, he's your guy.

No, not on that basis. On that basis neither of them are "my guy."

I disagree with Kerry on other issues. But people tell me fairly constantly that I should overlook those issues and vote for him solely because of Bush's pandering to the anti-gay lobby. Well, I am with that argument as far as Bush's pandering goes. Bush gets no credit from me on his stance on gay marriage. But I don't see how that makes it logical to vote for Kerry when he is pandering in essentially the same way and when neither of their pandering stances will change the fact that the constitution isn't going to be amended.

Really it just makes this issue a wash for me. So I make my decision based on other issues that aren't a wash.

[itai195]

I think the president's pandering certainly has an effect on public opinion trends across the country.

As far as Mary Cheney goes -- I think I said in another thread that I felt the way Kerry brought it up was crass. It came across in such a style that I immediately thought Kerry's meant to say, "hey rednecks, Cheney's daughter is a lesbian!" But I don't see what's so inappropriate about the reasoning behing bringing it up. I've never met a homosexual person who thought their sexuality was a choice, and I think it's hypocritical for Bush to waver on that issue when his own running mate's daughter is a lesbian.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
and I think it's hypocritical for Bush to waver on that issue when his own running mate's daughter is a lesbian.

But you don't see it as hypocritical for Kerry to support discrimination even though he is clear it isn't a choice? Isn't that kind of discrimination worse coming from someone who thinks there is no choice than it would be from someone who thinks perhaps it is a choice?

After all, if it were a choice, then an argument could be made justifying discrimination to discourage that choice. But if you know you can't dissuade people, there is no point in that kind of discrimination other than to be an ass.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But you don't see it as hypocritical for Kerry to support discrimination even though he is clear it isn't a choice? Is't that kind of discrimination worse coming from someone who thinks there is no choice than it would be from someone who thinks perhaps it is a choice?

I do see that, and on the whole I am disappointed with Kerry's position. But I think from a pragmatic standpoint it's the better of the two positions. As long as Americans believe homosexuality is a choice, gays will never receive equal rights.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, not on that basis. On that basis neither of them are "my guy."

I disagree with Kerry on other issues. But people tell me fairly constantly that I should overlook those issues and vote for him solely because of Bush's pandering to the anti-gay lobby. Well, I am with that argument as far as Bush's pandering goes. Bush gets no credit from me on his stance on gay marriage. But I don't see how that makes it logical to vote for Kerry when he is pandering in essentially the same way and when neither of their pandering stances will change the fact that the constitution isn't going to be amended.

Really it just makes this issue a wash for me. So I make my decision based on other issues that aren't a wash.

Whatever Kerry's election-year rhetoric, do you really think it would be a wash? I think the odds of improved conditions for gays are considerably better under Kerry than under Bush. I would venture to say that a Kerry presidency would create a more tolerant atmosphere which, in turn, would encourage rather than discourage change. Kerry might say he's against gay marriage but I don't think he means it and even if he does I don't see it as something he's going to fight over.

Kerry would probably also say that he's against legalizing pot, but I'm willing to bet that things would be a good deal more tolerant under him than under Bush.

I'm not saying it should be determinative for you, but I don't think it would be a wash.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by itai195:
I do see that, and on the whole I am disappointed with Kerry's position. But I think from a pragmatic standpoint it's the better of the two positions. As long as Americans believe homosexuality is a choice, gays will never receive equal rights.

The larger problem is that I don't think Americans as whole believe that one's behavior dicates Constitutional protection.

[The Mick]

If Cheney and his wife didn't want their daughter's sexuality to be an issue then they should not have brought it up during a speech back in Iowa on August 25th:

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with. With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

People act as though Kerry somehow "outed" Mary Cheney when that is not the case. She's a lesbian, we all know it. Cheney has openly stated that he does not agree with the administration's agenda on gay marriage rights. It's a valid political point for Kerry to make.

[zigzag]

Kerry could have been more tactful, but shouldn't people be more angry at Bush for supporting a constitutional amendment than at Kerry for making a valid point? Shouldn't people be more angry about the fact that Mary Cheney couldn't join her family on stage at the Republican National Convention? Kerry was saying that Mary Cheney has nothing to be ashamed of - can Bush say the same? Apparently not.

[tie]

Originally posted by The Mick:
If Cheney and his wife didn't want their daughter's sexuality to be an issue then they should not have brought it up during a speech back in Iowa on August 25th...

Good point. This is a nonissue. Why should the Cheney's act as though it is a political attack to mention their daughter? Is there something shameful in her orientation? Of course not, so no need for indignation.

People don't seem to care anyway. Simey claims to be offended by Kerry's position, but has still managed to justify voting for a candidate who supports a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I think he might as well just say, the candidates' positions on gay marriage (or even gay rights) don't matter in the least.

[Mithras]

I was a little annoyed that Kerry had brought it up in his response to the question. But now I see that Mary Cheney is the Bush-Cheney 2004 "Director of Vice-Presidential Operations", i.e. campaign manager for her dad.

So she's not exactly trying to stay out of the political light -- she's on the campaign payroll for chrissakes! This is not someone's teenage daughter that should be protected by a veil of privacy -- and as noted above, Cheney himself has brought her up in public addresses.

So it's completely fair game to note in passing that she is someone who is gay, and, in the context of the question, probably did not "choose" it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Whatever Kerry's election-year rhetoric, do you really think it would be a wash? I think the odds of improved conditions for gays are considerably better under Kerry than under Bush.

Actually, I think the overall odds for an improved atmosphere of tolerance are high regadless of who is in the Oval Office. It's mostly a private social issue outside the control of politics and I regard the trend toward slowly greater acceptance as being pretty much unstoppable at this point. As a matter of fact, I think that is why social conservatives are making this desparate push for a marriage amendment now. They know that their position has been steadily eroding.

A Kerry Administration would probably have a few more token homosexuals than a Bush Administration. But the practical effect on my life would be nil. It's in private society where the changes are happening.

By the way, I think both candidates are probably lying. I don't think either one is really homphobic in any real sense in their personal lives. It is just that they are both more than willing to pander to intolerance, and I find that pretty disgusting.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
The larger problem is that I don't think Americans as whole believe that one's behavior dicates Constitutional protection.

Not having a choice in the matter is not a behavior that one can control.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science...eut/index.html

Study links genes, male homosexuality


LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Genetic factors, along with cultural and early experiences, influence male homosexuality, Italian scientists said on Wednesday.

Researchers at the University of Padua said the genetic components are linked to the X chromosome which is inherited only from the mother. But they are probably on other chromosomes and could partly explain male homosexuality.

"The key factor is that these genes both influence homosexuality in men, higher fecundity in females and are in the maternal and not the paternal line," Andrea Camperio-Ciani, who headed the research team, said in an interview.

More than a decade ago scientists in the United States reported that they had found evidence of a "gay gene" in men. But other researchers questioned the finding when they could not duplicate the results.

Camperio-Ciani and his team suggest there several genes could be involved, including those on the X chromosome.

In their research, which is reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, they found an increase in homosexuality in the maternal line of gay men they studied which suggests the X chromosome.

"We know that at least one of these genetic factors in on the X chromosome but that it not enough, there must be other genetic factors that are important but are elsewhere," Camperio-Ciani added.

The results are based on a study of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and about 4,600 of their relatives. The scientists compared the frequency of gay men on the maternal and paternal lines of the families.

Among homosexuals there were a greater number of gay men in the maternal line of the family, as well as greater fertility in the female relatives.

An early interest in sex before the age of 10 was also a predictor of homosexuality, according to the researchers.

"We can no longer say that is it impossible to have a gene that influences homosexuality because we found out that genes might have different effects depending on gender," Camperio-Ciani.

But he added that cultural and individual experience also play a part.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Not having a choice in the matter is not a behavior that one can control.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science...eut/index.html

Study links genes, male homosexuality

Beat me to it. I'm sick and tired of religious conservatives saying homosexuality is a "choice" one makes.

[OldManMac]

It's odd that Cheney seemed to respond with heartfelt sincerity when John Edwards mentioned Lynne, at their debate, yet now Kerry makes a statement that he believes answers a question, without any put downs, and now certain people want to make an issue of it.

Also, I believe that, if Bush is reelected, this issue will not go away, as the "Christian right" (which obviously is neither) will feel a new empowerment and push again for a federal constitutional amendment. Certain elements in this country would like nothing more than to turn America in to the mythical 1950s "Leave It To Beaver," which those elements are trying to use as an example of a reality show, when in fact it was not.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, I think the overall odds for an improved atmosphere of tolerance are high regadless of who is in the Oval Office. It's mostly a private social issue outside the control of politics and I regard the trend toward slowly greater acceptance as being pretty much unstoppable at this point. As a matter of fact, I think that is why social conservatives are making this desparate push for a marriage amendment now. They know that their position has been steadily eroding.

A Kerry Administration would probably have a few more token homosexuals than a Bush Administration. But the practical effect on my life would be nil. It's in private society where the changes are happening.

By the way, I think both candidates are probably lying. I don't think either one is really homphobic in any real sense in their personal lives. It is just that they are both more than willing to pander to intolerance, and I find that pretty disgusting.

Agreed - both are playing politics, and change is inevitable - but I nonetheless expect that a Kerry presidency would mean a more tolerant atmosphere generally. Presidents can set a certain tone, and the citizenry tends to feed off of it. Whether it's enough to justify a vote is something that everyone has to decide for themselves.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, I think the overall odds for an improved atmosphere of tolerance are high regadless of who is in the Oval Office. It's mostly a private social issue outside the control of politics and I regard the trend toward slowly greater acceptance as being pretty much unstoppable at this point. As a matter of fact, I think that is why social conservatives are making this desparate push for a marriage amendment now. They know that their position has been steadily eroding.

A Kerry Administration would probably have a few more token homosexuals than a Bush Administration. But the practical effect on my life would be nil. It's in private society where the changes are happening.

By the way, I think both candidates are probably lying. I don't think either one is really homphobic in any real sense in their personal lives. It is just that they are both more than willing to pander to intolerance, and I find that pretty disgusting.

I'm surprised at many of your statements. The overall odds for gays are not good at all, especially considering a number of states which seem certain to codify the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and which will also deny spousal benefits, and in some cases, even civil unionship, into their states' constitutions this fall. In Michigan, it looks like this is going to pass, and General Motors and other large companies will no longer be able to offer spousal benefits to employees who have enjoyed them for years. That's not progress! The social conservatives are not stopping at the federal level, and it looks like they will succeed at the state level in many instances, given them a majority of states, and they will not rest until every state joins in their cause. You seem to believe that these people have less power than they do, which frankly surprises me, given your situation. It may be that certain changes do occur in private society, but this is definitely a political issue.

I also believe that George W. Bush, with his constant references to his religious beliefs, is indeed a homophobe, who would like nothing more than to push gays back into the closet, and not just because that would appeal to his conservative base.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I'm surprised at many of your statements. The overall odds for gays are not good at all, especially considering a number of states which seem certain to codify the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and which will also deny spousal benefits, and in some cases, even civil unionship, into their states' constitutions this fall. In Michigan, it looks like this is going to pass, and General Motors and other large companies will no longer be able to offer spousal benefits to employees who have enjoyed them for years. That's not progress! The social conservatives are not stopping at the federal level, and it looks like they will succeed at the state level in many instances, given them a majority of states, and they will not rest until every state joins in their cause. You seem to believe that these people have less power than they do, which frankly surprises me, given your situation. It may be that certain changes do occur in private society, but this is definitely a political issue.

I also believe that George W. Bush, with his constant references to his religious beliefs, is indeed a homophobe, who would like nothing more than to push gays back into the closet, and not just because that would appeal to his conservative base.

The state level amendments are certainly not good, but they can be reversed much more easily than a federal amendment. For the most part also all they do is fix the status quo for a period. But ultimately I don't see the tide working in favor of the anti-gay intolerant side. Rather it seems to me that this is more in the nature of a rearguard action trying to prevent an attitudinal sea change that has been going on now for decades and which is working its way across the generations. I don't think ultimately that will work.

[BRussell]

My state has an anti-gay constitutional amendment up for this November. I saw a poll today that said 65% favored it. I've heard it suggested that these state amendments are a get-out-the-vote ploy for Bush more than anything else.

[mitchell_pgh]

At least you know where Bush stands. He is against it.

I'm not saying I agree with him, because I don't. I'm in the middle. I think gay people should have civil unions, but not marriage (a point of view that angers both sides). If nothing else, Bush has one stance and has stayed with it. Cheney respects him enough to accept that, and it's one of those (agree to disagree) situations.

I'm rather tired of the "Well, Kerry says he is against it, but I really don't think he is..." bull.

[OldManMac]

Kerry has consistently begin against the federal amendment, and has stated consistently that it is up to states to decide. He does not support the use of the word "marriage", but he does support civil unions, including spousal benefits, and has for a long time. No flip flops there.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Just a reminder that presidents have no role whatsoever in amending the constitution. It's done by congress and the state legislatures, or the state legislatures and a constitutional convention that the states call. The president can neither initiate nor block the process.

The president also has nothing to do with amendments to state constitutions. Yea or nay it is out of his hands.

[OldManMac]

Gee, thanks. I wasn't aware of that. He nonetheless can set a certain amount of the tone of the issue, as Dubya has not been shy to do.

[Atomic Rooster]

Mrs. Cheney is just politicking. Her husband told her to speak-up and say something and she did...like a good wench.

[BRussell]

Sully talks about Kerry vs. Bush:

Both Bush and Kerry oppose civil marriage for gays. True. But Kerry supports giving gays every single right that civil marriage has - on a state and federal level - and just wants to call it something different. Kerry also believes that the individual states should decide what their own policies should be. Bush opposes civil unions, and has supported a constitutional amendment that would forbid any state from granting the "incidents" of marriage to any gay couple. Kerry: 100 percent of the rights of civil marriage. Bush: none. I'd say that's a pretty huge difference, wouldn't you? Some say the president supports civil unions. Funny, I've never heard him say that in public and his FMA would ban them. If the president believes gay couples should have some limited rights - but not marriage rights - I'd love to hear him say it.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The state level amendments are certainly not good, but they can be reversed much more easily than a federal amendment. For the most part also all they do is fix the status quo for a period. But ultimately I don't see the tide working in favor of the anti-gay intolerant side. Rather it seems to me that this is more in the nature of a rearguard action trying to prevent an attitudinal sea change that has been going on now for decades and which is working its way across the generations. I don't think ultimately that will work.

I think you're ultimately putting too much faith in people. I don't want to sound pessimistic, but even in California we passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage, and it passed overwhelmingly (60% to 40% IIRC). This despite a well-funded opposition campaign, opposition from both Democratic presidential candidates at the time (Gore and Bradley), and in general our reputation for tolerance of homosexuality.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
I do see that, and on the whole I am disappointed with Kerry's position. But I think from a pragmatic standpoint it's the better of the two positions. As long as Americans believe homosexuality is a choice, gays will never receive equal rights.

It's just another indication of his willingness to do whatever is politically expedient. The flip-flopping issue isn't just a sing-songy fun accusation to cast at him like spitballs on the play ground.

Someone in the President's campaign took a serious look at the Senator's habits and behavior and distilled those findings into a memorable 2 word label that sticks in the mind.

THIS is a perfect example of that behavior right before our eyes.

Since Viet Nam he has sought to take any advantage, use any stepping stone to achieve his ambitions. He may not be a bad man, but when it serves his need, his instinct is to say or do whatever is necessary to take advantage of the political winds.

Even more illuminating is that Kerry's hypocracy, which Simey mentioned, went unnoticed by his team (any gays in top strategy posts there, Senator?) and by the Senator himself.

Anyone who now feels especially disappointed with Kerry should know he is long practiced at sensing which way the winds blow and positioning himself before them.

As surely as a sailor plots his course on the sea, John Kerry plotted his course to the Oval Office and set his sails on the breeze of dissatisfaction with the President.

Senator Kerry always seems to know which way the winds are blowing. And you can always read the winds yourself, just watch where he stands.

The little man behind the screen was never the wizard. The wizard was inside of you, all along.

[:dragonflypro:]

I seem to find it ironic that the DNC and crew are so often insisting the Republicans are out of touch with America, yada yada yada�yet, when a vast majority of the country comes down on a Republican issue the left kicks and screams like a rabid 2 year old.

The simple fact comes down to semantics. Civil Unions would make a lot more headway in many states, but there are the extreme militants on the pro-union side that flat out insist it be called marriage. I don't know if it is out of spite or out of some deeper bitterness. If the civil union or whatever affords gay couples the same recognition (not rights, btw) in a legal capacity, who gives a crap what it is called.

My guess is the amendment proposed is more or an effort to protect the definition of 'marriage' to a biblical one. Which it is since the very name is christo-centric. Further, I am not sure the amendment could prevent civil unions from being adopted as well. That said, the Constitution is not the place for it.

And as for Kerry, he could have pointed to any of a large number gay people that he knows to make his point. He did not. I have a hard time believing that it was not calculated on some level (at least not after it happened between Cheney & Edwards already). He has no business invoking the sexuality of Cheney's daughter, whether she is politically active or not. And, since when it sexuality a criteria to be recognized on? Isn't the whole point to be seen as a person and not as a classification?


T

[Xeo]

The thing that makes what Kerry said absurd is that he clearly was doing it just to make sure everyone knows. He said "Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian" which is directed towards the politician as his opponent's running mate, rather than the real person. He didn't just say, "I think if you were to ask Mary Cheney" or anything tactful like that. Or even better, he could have used an example from HIS life. "A friend of mine, such and such public figure, would say" etc, etc. I somehow doubt that he and Mary Cheney are like this. He just brought it up because he wanted everyone to know.

And to say that everyone already knows, or that it's not a secret, doesn't make sense. It's not about releasing a secret, it's about informing the thousands of people who didn't know but were watching this last debate. Many people don't follow politics that closely but will sit in front of the TV while the debates are on.

Does that information matter? Well Kerry apparently does or he wouldn't bring it up like that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
I think you're ultimately putting too much faith in people. I don't want to sound pessimistic, but even in California we passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage, and it passed overwhelmingly (60% to 40% IIRC). This despite a well-funded opposition campaign, opposition from both Democratic presidential candidates at the time (Gore and Bradley), and in general our reputation for tolerance of homosexuality.

I think our timelines are simply different. I'm not talking about where the numbers are right now, I'm saying that there is a trend that points to increased acceptance and tolerance. There is polling that has been done on this. Attitudes toward homosexuality are basically (and broadly speaking) generational. I don't think that trend which has been measured over about three decades is going to suddenly reverse. That's the real reason why anti-gay activists feel they have to act now, while they still have a majority.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
It's just another indication of his willingness to do whatever is politically expedient. The flip-flopping issue isn't just a sing-songy fun accusation to cast at him like spitballs on the play ground.

Someone in the President's campaign took a serious look at the Senator's habits and behavior and distilled those findings into a memorable 2 word label that sticks in the mind.

THIS is a perfect example of that behavior right before our eyes.

Since Viet Nam he has sought to take any advantage, use any stepping stone to achieve his ambitions. He may not be a bad man, but when it serves his need, his instinct is to say or do whatever is necessary to take advantage of the political winds.

Even more illuminating is that Kerry's hypocracy, which Simey mentioned, went unnoticed by his team (any gays in top strategy posts there, Senator?) and by the Senator himself.

Anyone who now feels especially disappointed with Kerry should know he is long practiced at sensing which way the winds blow and positioning himself before them.

As surely as a sailor plots his course on the sea, John Kerry plotted his course to the Oval Office and set his sails on the breeze of dissatisfaction with the President.

Senator Kerry always seems to know which way the winds are blowing. And you can always read the winds yourself, just watch where he stands.

The little man behind the screen was never the wizard. The wizard was inside of you, all along.

It's called CHANGING YOUR MIND. I know Republicans are unfamiliar with this concept since they seem to be so set in their ways they can never envision a change of position on ANY topic, especially if it might coincide with a "Democrat" point of view. Having an open mind and being willing to change your position or compromise is the sign of an intelligent person. Being completely closed off to other ideas or way of doing things is the sign of an idiot. The fact is that this "flip-flopping" label is just that, a label. It has no meaning whatsoever and no evidence to back it up. However, if you want to use that label use it with equal prejudice. Bush has "changed his mind" just as much as Kerry. And his changes have had a far more negative impact.

A prime example is Bush's support of the military. At one point he told troops that "help is on the way" in the form of financial aid. Here's what really happened:

"Bush's signature on the latest tax cut, which failed to extend a child tax credit to nearly 200,000 low-income military personnel; a $1.5 billion reduction in his 2004 budget, to $9.2 billion from $10.7 billion, for military housing and the like; and a cut of $14.6 billion over 10 years in benefits paid through the Veterans Administration."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Perhaps the most damning "flip-flop" and one which goes to the heart of the problem with Bush are these quotes on Osama Bin Laden:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

Then, when he took his FOCUS off Bin Laden and decided to invade Iraq he says this:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02

The Commander in Chief of the U.S., after our country was attacked by Al Queda, suddenly decided that the LEADER of that organization was "not a priority" and that he was "not that concerned about him." This after saying post 9/11 that "we will not rest until we find him" and that it was our #1 priority to find him.

I don't know about you, but Kerry changing his position on a few things over his years as a Senator is not NEARLY as bad as the above change in position by Bush. Why? Because this fundamental change in focus (this FLIP-FLOP) by Bush led us into a war that even he says we cannot win. If Bush had kept his eye on the ball Osama would probably be dead or captured by now. Instead, we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and thousands of our soldiers have died as a result.

When Kerry gets elected and he "flip-flops" on an issue, THEN you can come back and say that. Until then, why don't you look at your OWN candidate, without your Republican blinders on, and see that he is guilty of the same thing, only much, much worse.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by KarlG:

Not having a choice in the matter is not a behavior that one can control.

Choice or not, I don't believe that the choice to engage in certain types of behavior deserves Constitutional protection.

It's not a question, in my mind, of accepting a group of persons or not based on who they are but rather accepting their behavior and giving that behavior equal protection under law. I don't believe the law requires us to accept how other people behave and act when it comes to treating them equally or fairly.

[Troll]

I listened to the debate and it seemed clear to me that Kerry was saying that gay couples should have all the same rights as married couples. Clearly he doesn't intend to call it marriage but he intends to give the unions between homosexuals all of the attributes that marriage has.

That seem a heck of a lot more pro-gay rights than Bush who not only has no problem with the status quo but said he didn't know whether being gay was a choice or not!! I mean come on, to even admit the POSSIBILITY that being gay is unnatural and that people can choose to be gay or not? Is this man living in the stone age? And Bush still feels that he has to "protect" marriage against gays, that he has to amend the Constitution to entrench the discrimination.

These two guys are poles apart on this issue. If you vote for Bush you're voting for someone who wants to entrench discrimination through constitutional amendment, someone who thinks being gay is unnatural and sinful. Here's what was said with my emphasis.

Mr. Schieffer Mr. President, ... Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

Mr. Bush You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know.

I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored. But as we respect someone's rights and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change or have to change our basic views on the sanctity of marriage.

I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage. And the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution. It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.

I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and a woman. But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts. And I don't think that's in our nation's interest.

Mr. Schieffer Senator Kerry?

Mr. Kerry We're all God's children, Bob, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage, because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it. And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them. I think we have to respect that.

The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace, you can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people. You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.

Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws, and their proving today - every state - that they can manage them adequately.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I don't believe the law requires us to accept how other people behave and act when it comes to treating them equally or fairly.

It does with respect to certain core rights that are constitutionally protected. Marriage is one of them.

Here is an analogy. 12% of the population is left handed. As a consequence of being left handed they want to write with their left hands. You say you don't have any problem with them being left handed, but you just don't want them writing with their left hands. Because it so offends you to think that the government might have to recognize left handedness, you say that the government will not recognize any document, form, deed, will, etc. written with a left hand. Although you have not said you intend to harm left handers, in fact, you have placed them in an inequitable position with respect to their government. You may not single out a group that way.

Or equally, you could analogize it this way. Suppose you say you have nothing against blue eyed people, you just don't think that the goverment is required to allow them to engage in the behavior of travelling between states. You may say that being blue eyed isn't a protected trait, but interstate travel is a protected right. You may not single out blue eyed people that way.

[Troll]

Oh, and another thing. They don't invite their daughter and her partner onto stage at the GOP Convention or have her participate in finale after she's participated in the campaign? The Cheney's think there's something wrong with saying their daughter is lesbian on television?

I think that speaks more for the Cheney's prejudice than it does to any insensitivity on the part of Kerry.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Here is an analogy. 12% of the population is left handed.

I like the left-handled analogy you just laid out.