5/6/12 meet the press

[Guest]

taken from the transcript of 5/6/12 meet the press []May 6: Joe Biden, Kelly Ayotte, Diane Swonk, Tom Brokaw, Chuck Todd - Meet the Press - Transcripts - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47311900/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/may-joe-biden-kelly-ayotte-diane-swonk-tom-brokaw-chuck-todd/)

[from the roundtable discussion]
DAVID GREGORY:
All right, point taken. Final one on our hot topics this week: the vice president on this program talking about same-sex marriage. He made news on this, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD:
He did. He went far, he's gone farther. I mean basically, he came out and supported gay marriage. And that was clear in your interview. What's interesting there is the vice President's office reached out to me to say, "Yes, we know that the vice president was speaking about himself. He's not speaking for the administration." And they pointed out, like the president, he's evolving on this issue."

will the old 'flip-flop' become the new 'evolving'?

[Guest]

P-L-E-A-S-E "Say it ain't so Joe"

[Guest]

What I like about Biden is he sometimes slips out of political mode and speaks what HE THINKS about a subject!!!! How refreshing and very, VERY RARE.

Just see the WH scurrying around today to do damage and save a vote control.

Good old Joe helping Obama again...

btk

[Guest]

taken from the transcript of 5/6/12 meet the press []May 6: Joe Biden, Kelly Ayotte, Diane Swonk, Tom Brokaw, Chuck Todd - Meet the Press - Transcripts - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47311900/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/may-joe-biden-kelly-ayotte-diane-swonk-tom-brokaw-chuck-todd/)

[from the roundtable discussion]
DAVID GREGORY:
All right, point taken. Final one on our hot topics this week: the vice president on this program talking about same-sex marriage. He made news on this, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD:
He did. He went far, he's gone farther. I mean basically, he came out and supported gay marriage. And that was clear in your interview. What's interesting there is the vice President's office reached out to me to say, "Yes, we know that the vice president was speaking about himself. He's not speaking for the administration." And they pointed out, like the president, he's evolving on this issue."

will the old 'flip-flop' become the new 'evolving'?

Same sex marriage is a very tough issue for politicians. You lose a voting block no matter what position you take up when taking a side on this issue.

Having worked along various gays/lesbians while living in Minneapolis and before that near San Francisco, being able to marry and get the rights set up for married couples, seems like a human right that should be available to anyone. On the other hand, though, I do see a freedom of religion argument here that certain churches which are against gay/lesbian marriages should not have to allow such unions within their church.

[Guest]

good post, tal...but do you think that politicians of any flavor will begin to use the word 'evolving' instead of 'flip-flop' when thay get caught up in an issue where they have reversed/modified their stance on any given issue?

the concept of 'evolving' seems, to me, to be much more acceptable than 'flip-flopping'. flip-flop has had a long history of being used - and it seems to have developed a very negative connotation.

personally, as a woman, i could never understand why changing one's mind is so difficult for some to accept! i always thought that it was one's prerogative ;)

[Guest]

Evolving is definitely a better word than flip-flopping. With flip-flopping, it means you can go one way to another way and back and forth several times. Evolving, I think, means you have changed your mind on the issue after studying it and moving forward with it.

Very rarely do things evolve backwards. There are a couple of examples in the animal kingdom. The Galopago igauna is evolving backward to become a sea creature once again after millions of years on land. The blind cave fish has evolved backward without eyes or pigmentation because of living in complete darkness.

Forward evolution goes on, too. Rabbits around California have begun to develop natural protection from the hemotoxin of the Western Pacific rattlesnake and now the snakes in a certain region of California have actually begun to evolve their venom to be both hemotoxic and neurotoxic.

[Guest]

good post, tal...but do you think that politicians of any flavor will begin to use the word 'evolving' instead of 'flip-flop' when thay get caught up in an issue where they have reversed/modified their stance on any given issue?

the concept of 'evolving' seems, to me, to be much more acceptable than 'flip-flopping'. flip-flop has had a long history of being used - and it seems to have developed a very negative connotation.

personally, as a woman, i could never understand why changing one's mind is so difficult for some to accept! i always thought that it was one's prerogative ;)

Well, here is agreement.

I find it just fine to "evolve". In our personal lives we do it all the time. As we get older, more experiences and supposedly wiser we see some things differently and in politics where everything seems to be defined as black or white, I think evolving is not a bad thing.

I didn't agree on all the tags placed on Kerry in this regard, as I could see on specific issues how minds can be changed (evolved)

[Guest]

Gov Romney has "evolved" from being the first governor in the country to sign a law allowing same sex marriage to being vehemently opposed to same sex marriage. Stay classy Mitt.

[Guest]

If there is to be open, honest, adult conversation on this forum, lets at least get the facts straight....

......Gov Romney never signed such a law as you have said. It was decided by the Massachusetts court system, as opposed to any move by the legislature or then-governor Romney in the statehouse.

.....He is still opposed but while Governor Romney advocated for benefits for same-sex couples, such as health insurance and family leave time.

This seems like a fair and reasonable approach to a touchy subject on which he opposes the marriage !

BUT lets at least discuss FACTS

[Guest]

Actually, being firmly against gay marriage is good for Romney.

Seems even Dem Ed Rendell is telling him to "man up"...his words....

Ed Rendell: Obama Should Man Up & Say Position on Gay Marriage - Political News Video (http://townhall.com/video/ed-rendell-obama-should-man-up--say-position-on-gay-marriage)

Those years in Illinois voting "present" instead of taking a stand got him spoiled !!! Actually Secy Clinton was the one who said ""In the Illinois State Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present,'" Clinton said. "That's not 'yes.' That's not 'no.' That's 'maybe.'"

[Guest]

janmcn, not to hijack my own thread [but i guess i can]...do you not think that it is possible for ANY politician [or anyone else for that matter] to hold a personal belief while at the same time believe that they must act in the best interest of their constituents? can a politician NOT support legislation that is seen as good for their town, county, state, country while holding personal beliefs that are different?

to me, a politician that can separate their job responsibilities from their personal [and perhaps interferring] beliefs in order to act in the best interest of their constituents is more honest than one who claims not to have an opinion or to have an opinion that is "evolving". not being able to have an opinion is like not beaing able to make a commitment.

[Guest]

As usual, Mitt Romney has been all over the place on this issue. In an Oct 1994 letter he said "If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians our mainstream concern".

In his 2002 campaign for governor, Romney declined to back a proposed state constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriage. Read all about it:


Mitt Romney's Massachusetts history with same-sex marriage - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/29/nation/la-na-romney-gay-marriage-20120430)

[Guest]

janmcn, not to hijack my own thread [but i guess i can]...do you not think that it is possible for ANY politician [or anyone else for that matter] to hold a personal belief while at the same time believe that they must act in the best interest of their constituents? can a politician NOT support legislation that is seen as good for their town, county, state, country while holding personal beliefs that are different?

to me, a politician that can separate their job responsibilities from their personal [and perhaps interferring] beliefs in order to act in the best interest of their constituents is more honest than one who claims not to have an opinion or to have an opinion that is "evolving". not being able to have an opinion is like not beaing able to make a commitment.

Yes, I believe they can and that is exactly what President Obama is doing on this matter.

[Guest]

As usual, Mitt Romney has been all over the place on this issue. In an Oct 1994 letter he said "If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians our mainstream concern".

In his 2002 campaign for governor, Romney declined to back a proposed state constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriage. Read all about it:


Mitt Romney's Massachusetts history with same-sex marriage - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/29/nation/la-na-romney-gay-marriage-20120430)

All true !!! He was/is against same sex marriage. He does want to protect their rights. He opposed the constitutional amendment..thus the courts made it law. He then right before leaving said ok to the amendment, but he never changed his mind on where he stood versus same sex marriage...always against.

All his actions were to protect the citizens even though he opposed what the court had done !

[Guest]

The issue being discussed here has implications that will change life as we know it now. So I want to know before I place my trust with someone just how they feel about that issue.

[Guest]

The issue being discussed here has implications that will change life as we know it now. So I want to know before I place my trust with someone just how they feel about that issue.

Are you talking about same sex marriage? If that is what you mean, how does it have implications that will change life as we know it now?

Personally, I am for civil unions which would give gay/lesbian couples every right that a married couple has under federal and state laws.

As for calling it marriage, a civil union means the same thing in my book if it is not performed in a church. There is nothing to say anywhere that a marriage has to be performed in a church. How is a civil union performed by a Justice of the Peace or a judge in city hall any different than a marriage between a man and a woman that is performed by a JP or a judge in city hall?

[Guest]

being lawyer trained he is merely protecting his deniability....pedigreed politician not taking any risk position on anything. The mark of a non leader, validated time and again....and again.

btk

[Guest]

Private behavior that causes public harm is everyone’s business.

If you do not believe that same sex marriages will not have an impact on children (total confusion), taxes (filing taxes will change), morality (check the stats on MA since they legalized it with), workplace laws, etc. then you have not researched it much.

Everyone has their own moral compass,and just from myself, in this country JUST 10 YEARS AGO, it was illegal for two men to have sex and now we want to allow marriage. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that fact alone allows for a lot of intimate and cultural gain. The message this would send to satisfy a few who have rights, but together, in my opinion, do not make a MARRIAGE.

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

A national referendum on this would put it to rest in my opinion.

[Guest]

being lawyer trained he is merely protecting his deniability....pedigreed politician not taking any risk position on anything. The mark of a non leader, validated time and again....and again.

btk

This is his training....tough decisions...just abstain ! Then blame somebody for the results.

[Guest]

Private behavior that causes public harm is everyone’s business.

If you do not believe that same sex marriages will not have an impact on children (total confusion), taxes (filing taxes will change), morality (check the stats on MA since they legalized it with), workplace laws, etc. then you have not researched it much.

Everyone has their own moral compass,and just from myself, in this country JUST 10 YEARS AGO, it was illegal for two men to have sex and now we want to allow marriage. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that fact alone allows for a lot of intimate and cultural gain. The message this would send to satisfy a few who have rights, but together, in my opinion, do not make a MARRIAGE.

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

A national referendum on this would put it to rest in my opinion.

How archaic. :ohdear:

[Guest]

Yes, I believe they can and that is exactly what President Obama is doing on this matter.

except that we have not seen/heard pres obama actually endorse same sex marriage, right? [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-07/obama-campaign-says-biden-s-gay-marriage-remarks-no-change.html]. that is a position on which he is "evolving".

[Guest]

How archaic. :ohdear:

You are probably right. I am of the mind that there are IN FACT, some things sacred...sorry !!!

[Guest]

except that we have not seen/heard pres obama actually endorse same sex marriage, right? [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-07/obama-campaign-says-biden-s-gay-marriage-remarks-no-change.html]. that is a position on which he is "evolving".

President Obama has said over and over that he is for civil unions and is still evolving on same-sex marriage. Whether or not he changes his position before the election remains to be seen. There's little chance that the LGBT vote is going to switch to Mitt Romney, since he is vehemently opposed to all same-sex relationships. Mormons spent lots of money trying to pass Proposition 8 in CA which was later overturned by the courts.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

[Guest]

Private behavior that causes public harm is everyone’s business.

If you do not believe that same sex marriages will not have an impact on children (total confusion), taxes (filing taxes will change), morality (check the stats on MA since they legalized it with), workplace laws, etc. then you have not researched it much.

Everyone has their own moral compass,and just from myself, in this country JUST 10 YEARS AGO, it was illegal for two men to have sex and now we want to allow marriage. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that fact alone allows for a lot of intimate and cultural gain. The message this would send to satisfy a few who have rights, but together, in my opinion, do not make a MARRIAGE.

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

A national referendum on this would put it to rest in my opinion.

Instead of calling it "Marriage", would you object to "Civil Union"? Personally, I am for civil unions which would give gay/lesbian couples every right that a married couple has under federal and state laws.

As for calling it marriage, a civil union means the same thing in my book if it is not performed in a church. There is nothing to say anywhere that a marriage has to be performed in a church. How is a civil union performed by a Justice of the Peace or a judge in city hall any different than a marriage between a man and a woman that is performed by a JP or a judge in city hall?

[Guest]

Private behavior that causes public harm is everyone’s business.

If you do not believe that same sex marriages will not have an impact on children (total confusion), taxes (filing taxes will change), morality (check the stats on MA since they legalized it with), workplace laws, etc. then you have not researched it much.

Everyone has their own moral compass,and just from myself, in this country JUST 10 YEARS AGO, it was illegal for two men to have sex and now we want to allow marriage. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that fact alone allows for a lot of intimate and cultural gain. The message this would send to satisfy a few who have rights, but together, in my opinion, do not make a MARRIAGE.

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

A national referendum on this would put it to rest in my opinion.

Bucco., I wholeheartedly agree. forget man's law or religious law this act is an unnatural act and is repulsive and to attempt to legitimize it either as marriage or civil unions is unnatural. The Hollywood Community is pushing this agenda as are our liberal schools. These inititatives will open a pandora's box. While I believe these folks should not be ridiculed or that hate crimes perpetuated against them, to suggest this is a normal lifestyle is dangerous and confusing for young people. but then that's exactly why all the campaigning, whitewashing by powerful and influencial people...professors, actors, etc. We can only pray that the people of this country get the opportunity for a referendum but with liberals controlling don't bet on it.

[Guest]

President Obama has said over and over that he is for civil unions and is still evolving on same-sex marriage. Whether or not he changes his position before the election remains to be seen. There's little chance that the LGBT vote is going to switch to Mitt Romney, since he is vehemently opposed to all same-sex relationships. Mormons spent lots of money trying to pass Proposition 8 in CA which was later overturned by the courts.

California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8)

i thought the pres was in support of equal rights for the gay/lesbian community but had yet to come out with an endorsement for same sex marriage.
Obama Pressed by Rights Groups to Back Same-Sex Marriage - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-07/obama-campaign-says-biden-s-gay-marriage-remarks-no-change.html)

i don't find wiki resources to be creditable since they are prepared/modified by folks like you and me - i'll stick with the jaded/slanted reports of the media. thanx ;)

[Guest]

here this will help clarify where Obama stands on the issue:

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-05-07-18-24-15)

as usual waiting to see which way the wind (votes) will blow..

about as Crystal clear...as voting "present:...:1rotfl:

btk

[Guest]

here this will help clarify where Obama stands on the issue:

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-05-07-18-24-15)

as usual waiting to see which way the wind (votes) will blow..

about as Crystal clear...as voting "present:...:1rotfl:

btk

Billy I just wonder how folks who know him continue to support him unless its just the power part, but this IS Barack Obama......if you read, he will just muse until it is to his advantage.....good for politics....bad for President. That, as I recall, when he and Secy Clinton were debating who would do the best with the 3 am call....she mentioned that he would not make up his mind as one of the reasons she was batter. She nailed it.

Dont care what anyone says Biden was a test balloon !!!

[Guest]

here this will help clarify where Obama stands on the issue:

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-05-07-18-24-15)

as usual waiting to see which way the wind (votes) will blow..

about as Crystal clear...as voting "present:...:1rotfl:

btk

great article - thanx!

[Guest]

"Instead of calling it "Marriage", would you object to "Civil Union"? Personally, I am for civil unions which would give gay/lesbian couples every right that a married couple has under federal and state laws. Why would you discriminate against a gay or lesbian couple of a civil union to have the same legal rights as a married couple?

Not too many years ago in the USA, it was illegal for blacks and whites to intermarry. That was discrimination, too. Now, we have a President of the USA who is the child of a white woman and black man. Things evolve! And for the better, too!

The civil union of gay/lesbian couples is not really different from a civil ceremony of marriage as performed by a JP or judge. Why should they be treated differently?

[Guest]

"Instead of calling it "Marriage", would you object to "Civil Union"? Personally, I am for civil unions which would give gay/lesbian couples every right that a married couple has under federal and state laws. Why would you discriminate against a gay or lesbian couple of a civil union to have the same legal rights as a married couple?

Not too many years ago in the USA, it was illegal for blacks and whites to intermarry. That was discrimination, too. Now, we have a President of the USA who is the child of a white woman and black man. Things evolve! And for the better, too!

The civil union of gay/lesbian couples is not really different from a civil ceremony of marriage as performed by a JP or judge. Why should they be treated differently?

B1 - I wholly agree with you here (unusual as that may be). You are respecting both the rights of the church to have a monopoly on a sacrament, namely marriage; and the right of the individual to enjoy the equal privileges under another name, civil unions. I can only hope that this type of sanity will eventually occur to our politicians.

[Guest]

Bucco: So, infertile couples should not be allowed to marry? After all, it's all about procreation, by your stated standard.

Rubicon: So my uncle who married 4 women a total of 6 times - that's ok? By an aunt of mine who was with her partner for 17 years, raised a kid together, maintained a home together - that's NOT ok?

All of a sudden you "small government" conservatives are all over having the government refuse the privileges that everyone else gets.

Look, I get the "yuck" factor when it comes to certain aspects of sexual behavior. But why, all of a sudden does the "It's For The Children" mantra come out when you specifically HATE it when that term is applied to something else - like a social program?

So - all you conservatives who think it's about the children.. For the first time in over a decade, I'm truly happy. I remarried in 2010. I had a vasectomy after my 2nd daughter was born so I haven't been able to reproduce since 1992. Should marriage be out of the question for me?

For those conservatives I would say - get the hell out of my bedroom. And, by the way, IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THE SEX. It's about love, committment, and all those things that go along with it. It's about leaving whatever I have left to whom *I* want to leave it to. It's the fact that I have sympathy for gay families who have had their estates raped by the very so-called family members who rejected them - but, oh, they loved their money after they were dead.

It's about being refused admission to a hospital to see your loved one because it's "family members only".

Get your heads out of the porn movies and realize it's MORE than that.

Nobody questions that the *best* environment (on average) is a mother and a father. But having two fathers or two mothers beats the hell out of being an orphan or in foster care.

[Guest]

Well said.

[Guest]

List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homo sexuality)

There are a few churches in this list that probably would marry gays/lesbians.

Wikipedia articles often need to be checked for veracity though. Might want to do a search on the church in question's official position on same sex marriage.

[Guest]

Bucco: So, infertile couples should not be allowed to marry? After all, it's all about procreation, by your stated standard.

Rubicon: So my uncle who married 4 women a total of 6 times - that's ok? By an aunt of mine who was with her partner for 17 years, raised a kid together, maintained a home together - that's NOT ok?

All of a sudden you "small government" conservatives are all over having the government refuse the privileges that everyone else gets.

Look, I get the "yuck" factor when it comes to certain aspects of sexual behavior. But why, all of a sudden does the "It's For The Children" mantra come out when you specifically HATE it when that term is applied to something else - like a social program?

So - all you conservatives who think it's about the children.. For the first time in over a decade, I'm truly happy. I remarried in 2010. I had a vasectomy after my 2nd daughter was born so I haven't been able to reproduce since 1992. Should marriage be out of the question for me?

For those conservatives I would say - get the hell out of my bedroom. And, by the way, IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THE SEX. It's about love, committment, and all those things that go along with it. It's about leaving whatever I have left to whom *I* want to leave it to. It's the fact that I have sympathy for gay families who have had their estates raped by the very so-called family members who rejected them - but, oh, they loved their money after they were dead.

It's about being refused admission to a hospital to see your loved one because it's "family members only".

Get your heads out of the porn movies and realize it's MORE than that.

Nobody questions that the *best* environment (on average) is a mother and a father. But having two fathers or two mothers beats the hell out of being an orphan or in foster care.

With all due respect I find your post extremely offensive on so many levels.

I do not believe in homosexual behaviour. If that makes me old fashioned, so be it. Your reference to porn and other things that you say speak to you, although you aim it at everyone else.

10 YEARS ago it was against the law for having such homosexual behavior and now we want to sanction marriage.

NOW, having been honest on that, I do not believe that any group should be in any way treated differently ! I am a fair and honest human being. My religion and my moral code after all these years lead me to this, and despite a frenzied attack by you, that is how I feel. And my head is not in porn movies as you say. Now either you can accept that is my feelings or not......I certainly would never make such an attack on anyone who disagreed with me and again...you attack speaks to you !

I never asked this subject to be politicized......it has been made this way for a reason I do not understand and of course in your mind that makes me some kind of name that you will find. The government does not want to be in anyones bedroom so allow that to happen.

If you object to my moral code, so be it...but it gives you no more rights than I. I will not apologize to you for my moral code.

[Guest]

I try to think about the Golden Rule when it comes to gay/lesbian marriage. That's treat others how you yourself would like to be treated.

On a personal note, I find watching gays having sex very offensive. This shows up in various cable shows like Weeds, The Borgias, Spartacus etc. It is not porn per se, just part of the stories told by writers in these cable shows.

[Guest]

B1 - I wholly agree with you here (unusual as that may be). You are respecting both the rights of the church to have a monopoly on a sacrament, namely marriage; and the right of the individual to enjoy the equal privileges under another name, civil unions. I can only hope that this type of sanity will eventually occur to our politicians.

Bucco: So, infertile couples should not be allowed to marry? After all, it's all about procreation, by your stated standard.

Rubicon: So my uncle who married 4 women a total of 6 times - that's ok? By an aunt of mine who was with her partner for 17 years, raised a kid together, maintained a home together - that's NOT ok?

All of a sudden you "small government" conservatives are all over having the government refuse the privileges that everyone else gets.

Look, I get the "yuck" factor when it comes to certain aspects of sexual behavior. But why, all of a sudden does the "It's For The Children" mantra come out when you specifically HATE it when that term is applied to something else - like a social program?

So - all you conservatives who think it's about the children.. For the first time in over a decade, I'm truly happy. I remarried in 2010. I had a vasectomy after my 2nd daughter was born so I haven't been able to reproduce since 1992. Should marriage be out of the question for me?

For those conservatives I would say - get the hell out of my bedroom. And, by the way, IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THE SEX. It's about love, committment, and all those things that go along with it. It's about leaving whatever I have left to whom *I* want to leave it to. It's the fact that I have sympathy for gay families who have had their estates raped by the very so-called family members who rejected them - but, oh, they loved their money after they were dead.

It's about being refused admission to a hospital to see your loved one because it's "family members only".

Get your heads out of the porn movies and realize it's MORE than that.

Nobody questions that the *best* environment (on average) is a mother and a father. But having two fathers or two mothers beats the hell out of being an orphan or in foster care.

:agree: in my world, the gay/lesbian couples i know share a deeper and longer commitment to each other than some of my married friends do! separate but equal may not be the answer in all cases, BUT in this case it is the best answer to my way of thinking!

[Guest]

Obviously I am odd man out here. I may be too forward but I have made my statment.

Just to clarify, I DO in fact have homosexual friends...I have had a number of homosexual employees. They were never treated any differently than anybody else I know or knew. I do not think anyone, for whatever reason, should not have the same civil rights that I have.

I just do not believe in the marriage aspect and if you folks feel I am a bad person for believing it, so be it. I suspect I am not alone in my feelings.

I do object strongly to be verbally assaulted for my feelings on an issue that is not and should not be a political issue.

I would think that I will be the subject of lots of ridicule now.....and that is fine.

Just remember....being opposed to homosexual marriages or acts is NOT....NOT a symptom of hate of anyone. If you have a need, and it would be some kind of need, to make it so, then it is your problem. I certainly do not jump to those kind of assumptions about anyone, and make no general assumptions about anyone.

Telling me to "get the hell out of my bedroom" is not necessary. I never went there, YOU brought it out to me.

To even bring up the subject of porn is so offensive I cant even speak to it.

Much of what was layed on me and others have nothing at all to do with the issue at hand....you never asked if I thought two men or two women raising a child would be better than being an orphan so do not assume that you know the answer. This kind of rhetoric is, to me, simply unacceptable.

I will not criticize you for your morals....I would appreciate not making any assumptions about me or my life based on your morals and maybe then there can be some resolution on things.

If folks are somehow offended by my morals, I will say tough.....and I say it that way because I do agree with you folks on one thing......my morals and my life are none of your business. If you need to read things in to statements that are not there, that is totally and 100% YOUR problem. I have never nor would I ever want anyone to lose civil rights because of a sexual preference. I do not see much of that happening. If hospitals need to change their rules on visiting, then so be it. If a will has to be structured differently then so be it. We already have laws on the books to protect folks.....not sure why the marriage issue even exists.

This is much more than I would usually say on something so personal...I do not bring my personal life in here but if forced I have no problem with being up front and honest.

If you see my moral code AND my feeling of protecting everyone's rights to be free, but excepting changing marriage as something vile and wrong, then so be it.

[Guest]

Bucco, North Carolina has now become the 30th state to ban gay "marriage", so I don't think you are actually the "odd man out" with the majority of the nation agreeing with you.

[Guest]

Looks like I touched a nerve.

I'll try to address this more specifically.

Bucco: You find my post offensive? (I'll admit it was more aggressive than I usually do but I have family members that this applies to and that can get me a little more heated than normal) I find it offensive that people make assumptions on a 'lifestyle' based on what they see in a Gay Pride parade. I find it offensive that in asking for some civil rights that others take for granted (especially inheritance and visitation), people are told "no" and that "it's an unnatural act". Yeah - love. How unnatural.

Nobody is asking you to marry within your gender, nor force your church to perform the ceremony.

You say you treat all groups equally, and that you're a fair and honest human being. I'll accept that on face value. You also say you don't believe in homosexual behavior. You complained at my 'get your head out of the porn movie' comment. So if your head isn't thinking of that, can you tell me what homosexual behavior it is that you object to? Holding hands? Making a commitment? Kissing? I'm not being facetious here. I want to take you at your word.

So, in all honesty, what behavior is it that you object to? What behavior is it that you seem to find so offensive to your *personal* moral code that you feel the need to deny someone a path to the same kinds of inheritance and visitation rights that you enjoy without thinking.

Ruch Limbaugh's multiple marriages are ok?
Brittany Spear's 48-hour not-a-marriage weekend is ok?
DINKs (Double-Income No Kids) are ok?
My aforementioned uncle - he's ok?
My remarriage - that's ok?

But my aunt and her partner. That's NOT ok?

I've yet to see someone give me one good reason.

God's Law? Well, we have civil marriages for that. Any JP will do them.
Marriage is for children? I just addressed that.
What marriage has always been? Well, not terribly long ago (and still in some places today) marriage is a business proposition with women treated like objects.

[Guest]

Bucco, North Carolina has now become the 30th state to ban gay "marriage", so I don't think you are actually the "odd man out" with the majority of the nation agreeing with you.

The majority does not agree. Polls now suggest 50% of Americans would support gay marriage.

[Guest]

In another generation or two we won't even be having this discussion, just like we're no longer discussing inter-racial marriage.

[Guest]

Looks like I touched a nerve.

I'll try to address this more specifically.

Bucco: You find my post offensive? (I'll admit it was more aggressive than I usually do but I have family members that this applies to and that can get me a little more heated than normal) I find it offensive that people make assumptions on a 'lifestyle' based on what they see in a Gay Pride parade. I find it offensive that in asking for some civil rights that others take for granted (especially inheritance and visitation), people are told "no" and that "it's an unnatural act". Yeah - love. How unnatural.

Nobody is asking you to marry within your gender, nor force your church to perform the ceremony.

You say you treat all groups equally, and that you're a fair and honest human being. I'll accept that on face value. You also say you don't believe in homosexual behavior. You complained at my 'get your head out of the porn movie' comment. So if your head isn't thinking of that, can you tell me what homosexual behavior it is that you object to? Holding hands? Making a commitment? Kissing? I'm not being facetious here. I want to take you at your word.

So, in all honesty, what behavior is it that you object to? What behavior is it that you seem to find so offensive to your *personal* moral code that you feel the need to deny someone a path to the same kinds of inheritance and visitation rights that you enjoy without thinking.

Ruch Limbaugh's multiple marriages are ok?
Brittany Spear's 48-hour not-a-marriage weekend is ok?
DINKs (Double-Income No Kids) are ok?
My aforementioned uncle - he's ok?
My remarriage - that's ok?

But my aunt and her partner. That's NOT ok?

I've yet to see someone give me one good reason.

God's Law? Well, we have civil marriages for that. Any JP will do them.
Marriage is for children? I just addressed that.
What marriage has always been? Well, not terribly long ago (and still in some places today) marriage is a business proposition with women treated like objects.

1. YES, I found your post offensive. I do not know what assumptions you are speaking of. I have never on this forum seen anyone post about a gay parade or any of things you mention. If, in your circle of friends that happens, then you should address it with them and not to people that you dont even know. You ask me a direct question on what I find objectionable and will give you a direct answer. My morals, my religion, my upbringing all reflect it as unnatural. Folks of your ilk always find the need to insert love, etc as if my objection ruled that emotion out. It does not...I have a number of men friends whom I love. If you are stating that homosexuals do not engage in sex acts, or that marriage between homosexuals does not include making love, then I am hearing that for the first time.

I realize you do not like the Catholic church, nor and this is from your posts any organized religion, that does not mean that others cannot enjoy and embrace religion. I will stay out of your bedroom..YOU stay out of my religion.


2. Your mention of behavior that is not acceptable has me a bit perplexed. What does Limbaugh, Spears or anyone have to do with this subject ??

I find abuse of children reprehensible and find it as serious the law siding with Mothers always (for the most part) in making rulings where child abuse is involved. I find drug abuse of all kinds to be terrible, but we are now trying to even legalize part of that.

None of these things have anything to do with making a homosexual union LEGAL and to be in the same light as my marriage to my wife. Does it mean they love each other less...NO....does it mean they should be punished in some way....NO...does it mean that the law should be used against them...NO

Thus far all I have heard you say that the problem is.....getting into a hospital room to visit and willls. Both do not need a marriage to have resolution.

Now, again...at no time has anyone on here or anywhere I have heard of say that the gay community should be punished or denied any rights !!!

3, I do not care how marriage is thought of in other places..not one bit. I know my marriage was not a business proposition as you mention.


Yes, I found and find your posts to be very very offensive. You are discussing issues not related to anything and if you are getting heated because of personal issues, then you should address those issues with those involved. I, as well as you, have issues in my life as does everyone here. MY issues are MINE...I dont share them because that is none of anyones business and I consider that to be really unfair, because everyone here and on earth has personal issues.

You keep forcing the issue of your aunt and others on people. Why can I not have my opinions without you and others making such strong assumptions about us.

Until you brought it up, I have never mentioned this. I am against same sex marriage and that fact does not make me any less loving, any less fair, any less for rights for everyone nor does it detract from my marriage as you allude to.

You keep saying to stay out of your bedroom....I respond again...stop bringing your bedroom into my life !!!

[Guest]

In another generation or two we won't even be having this discussion, just like we're no longer discussing inter-racial marriage.

My younger brother had a Jamaican wife. They often would get hostile stares as well as words from people in the Miami as well as the Tampa Bay area because of their mixed marriage.

This was fairly recently that they encountered these prejudices.

It is great though that we have a President who is a product of a mixed marriage. Cannot see us having a gay President in my lifetime anyway.

[Guest]

Bucco: I asked you, in all sincerity, what it was that you found objectionable.

Seriously - do you object to two men or two women being in love? And *nowhere* did I say they did not engage in sex, I said *it's not ALL about the sex*.

The reason I got heated? Because YOUR morals are interfering in MY family's PRIVATE life.

Allowing gay marriage doesn't affect you, your marriage, your home or anything else inside your personal rights.

Banning it means something completely different to members of my family.

What if you had fallen in love with a black woman in the south in the 1940s? Would you fall back on what so many were taught? (I can't say YOU were taught that but I think you understand what I'm trying to say)

And, yes, I mention inheritance and visitation because those are the top two things when it comes to some of the injustices I've heard of. But there was a government study back in the 1990s examining this issue and they found OVER SIXTEEN HUNDRED benefits to 'marriage'. I'll grant you, many of them were pretty damn obscure but there's a LOT more than one would think.

FTR - I didn't mention the Catholic Church anywhere here. My problems with how they handled pedophiles has NOTHING to do with this topic.

And yes, you yourself are denying gays the right of self-determination. The right to marry who they want. For you, it was easy - it was within the societal 'norm'. For me, my first marriage would have started a war (Irish Catholic marrying an Irish Protestant) elsewhere (yes, I thought I was Irish back then - didn't know I was adopted).

Like it or not, marriage IS, in some aspects, a business proposition. Tax laws, joint ownership and everything in that area is covered by it. No, it shouldn't be the PRIMARY aspect - but for my uncle that I didn't particularly care for, it was. He wanted the tax write-off.

You absolutely CAN have your opinions and, believe it or not, I respect you for being open about them. Some people don't have the guts to go against 'political correctness' for fear of offending someone (some might say that's how we got our current President).

I'm not asking someone to change their opinion of something. No matter what happens, for example, I'm never going to like the color 'avocado'. But if someone else wants to paint their kitchen that color, it's none of my business.

Likewise, I'm asking people to keep their opinions out of private lives.

I'll go a little further with some honesty. I used to believe the same as you, Bucco. The thought of two men getting married was positively LUDICROUS to me when I was younger. But I had someone come into my life, a good friend, who put some stretch marks on my horizons. Between that person and many others I've met over the course of my life, I changed my mind.

[Guest]

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html)

[Guest]

"Bucco: I asked you, in all sincerity, what it was that you found objectionable.

Seriously - do you object to two men or two women being in love? And *nowhere* did I say they did not engage in sex, I said *it's not ALL about the sex*.

The reason I got heated? Because YOUR morals are interfering in MY family's PRIVATE life.

Allowing gay marriage doesn't affect you, your marriage, your home or anything else inside your personal rights.

Banning it means something completely different to members of my family.

What if you had fallen in love with a black woman in the south in the 1940s? Would you fall back on what so many were taught? (I can't say YOU were taught that but I think you understand what I'm trying to say)

And, yes, I mention inheritance and visitation because those are the top two things when it comes to some of the injustices I've heard of. But there was a government study back in the 1990s examining this issue and they found OVER SIXTEEN HUNDRED benefits to 'marriage'. I'll grant you, many of them were pretty damn obscure but there's a LOT more than one would think.

FTR - I didn't mention the Catholic Church anywhere here. My problems with how they handled pedophiles has NOTHING to do with this topic.

And yes, you yourself are denying gays the right of self-determination. The right to marry who they want. For you, it was easy - it was within the societal 'norm'. For me, my first marriage would have started a war (Irish Catholic marrying an Irish Protestant) elsewhere (yes, I thought I was Irish back then - didn't know I was adopted).

Like it or not, marriage IS, in some aspects, a business proposition. Tax laws, joint ownership and everything in that area is covered by it. No, it shouldn't be the PRIMARY aspect - but for my uncle that I didn't particularly care for, it was. He wanted the tax write-off.

You absolutely CAN have your opinions and, believe it or not, I respect you for being open about them. Some people don't have the guts to go against 'political correctness' for fear of offending someone (some might say that's how we got our current President).

I'm not asking someone to change their opinion of something. No matter what happens, for example, I'm never going to like the color 'avocado'. But if someone else wants to paint their kitchen that color, it's none of my business.

Likewise, I'm asking people to keep their opinions out of private lives.

I'll go a little further with some honesty. I used to believe the same as you, Bucco. The thought of two men getting married was positively LUDICROUS to me when I was younger. But I had someone come into my life, a good friend, who put some stretch marks on my horizons. Between that person and many others I've met over the course of my life, I changed my mind.

I hope we now have a road to continue.....The issue is about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I think no...you think yes.


I am not intruding in your family, not is that an issue in my decision thus I am not interfering in your family at all.

I, and others keep saying that we have men friends we love....that is a bit different than suggesting marriage. So stop bringing up that question..it does not apply to anything.

When you were younger it was against the law not to marry but to have sex with the same ......so you feel you have come a lot further than I...great that is your opinion. I have not changed my mind thus I suppose I have no matured.

Lets keep it to the political aspect of the issue. I wont bring up that you are asking me to go against my religious and moral beliefs and I wont bring up your family !

[Guest]

Twitter is all abuzz today that President Obama is ready to announce his position on gay marriage in an hour long special on ABC News that was just completed at 2:00pm. ABC will have a special report at 3:00pm.

[Guest]

It appears that media coverage and politics speeds up ones evolving process !!!

[Guest]

It's a great day for civil rights in this country and a great day for America.

[Guest]

The majority does not agree. Polls now suggest 50% of Americans would support gay marriage.

The only poll I'm listening to is the voters in 30 of 50 states. That's a majority in my book.

As soon as more states vote on it the majority will be known to be larger.

[Guest]

The only poll I'm listening to is the voters in 30 of 50 states. That's a majority in my book.

As soon as more states vote on it the majority will be known to be larger.

However,the Democratic plan is to circumnavigate that pesky thing about voters......."Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to repeal the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

The vote that sends the proposal to the full Senate floor was considered symbolic because the measure has no chance of getting passed by the Republican-led House."

This from 2011.....and if they are succesful they can override the state citizens wishes

[Guest]

However,the Democratic plan is to circumnavigate that pesky thing about voters......."Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to repeal the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

The vote that sends the proposal to the full Senate floor was considered symbolic because the measure has no chance of getting passed by the Republican-led House."

This from 2011.....and if they are succesful they can override the state citizens wishes

It probably would not get past the Senate either.

[Guest]

"

I hope we now have a road to continue.....The issue is about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I think no...you think yes.


I am not intruding in your family, not is that an issue in my decision thus I am not interfering in your family at all.


Except you ARE interfering in my family.

You, and those who share your opinion, prevented my aunt from being able to marry her partner.

If it weren't for the fact that she lives in Massachusetts and the family IS accepting towards her, if she had died you would have prevented allowing her will to be executed. Families can contest the wills of gays in MANY states - marriage offers more protection to the surviving spouse.

As they had been unable to marry, they couldn't file taxes together and take advantage of the lower married rates - even though they had a better track record with their relationship than I had with mine (two failed marriages). This gave them additional hurdles to clear when they wanted to buy a house - hurdles a married couple don't have to face.

These reasons are just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head that DID affect my family - the reasons that gay marriage SHOULD be legalized.

And if my aunt got married, got the house on easier terms, etc.. How would that have affected you? What difference would it make to you or your church?

There's an old pagan saying "An thou harm none, do as thou wilt".

I mean, we have civil marriages, leaving religion completely out of the loop. Why shouldn't that apply here?