Is Gay Marriage Really That Big Deal?

doobnVA said:

African Americans only make up about 12% of the total US population. Many of these citizens cannot vote, and therefore do not make up a "large portion" of the group that voted for Obama.

Where I live, 25% of African Americans are unable to vote.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Hair-splitting does not further this debate, or take away from my point.

Regardless of their size, the blacks who voted did so overwhelmingly for Obama. That is a voting block which the Democrats cannot ignore lightly.

Did Blacks Tank Gay Marriage in California?

Johnnyorganic said:

Irrelevant. Hair-splitting does not further this debate, or take away from my point.

Regardless of their size, the blacks who voted did so overwhelmingly for Obama. That is a voting block which the Democrats cannot ignore lightly.

Did Blacks Tank Gay Marriage in California?

Click to expand...

Not irrelevant at all. If African Americans make up 12% of the population, and 70% of them vote - that means African American voters make up about 8% of the total US population. That's a generous estimate, too, because we all know that 70% of the population does not turn out to vote on election day. African Americans have traditionally voted for the Democratic candidate, even if it's a white dude. Less than 4% of African Americans consider themselves republican.

doobnVA said:

Not irrelevant at all. If African Americans make up 12% of the population, and 70% of them vote - that means African American voters make up about 8% of the total US population. That's a generous estimate, too, because we all know that 70% of the population does not turn out to vote on election day. African Americans have traditionally voted for the Democratic candidate, even if it's a white dude. Less than 4% of African Americans consider themselves republican.

Click to expand...

Are you stating that the Black vote is insignificant to the Democratic Party? To be used on election day only and disregarded afterward?

Many Democrats would take exception to such an opinion.

CrackerJax said:

Fiscally responsible is a bit too far right wing for you?....

Click to expand...

I only meant in the sense that they are a party that leans to the right, not directly to their fiscus responsibilities.

Johnnyorganic said:

Are you stating that the Black vote is insignificant to the Democratic Party? To be used on election day only and disregarded afterward?

Many Democrats would take exception to such an opinion.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's insignificant, I'm saying it isn't as "overwhelming" an influence as you're making it out to be.

doobnVA said:

I'm not saying it's insignificant, I'm saying it isn't as "overwhelming" an influence as you're making it out to be.

Click to expand...

The Democrats could have reversed Don't Ask, Don't Tell a long time ago. The Republicans are not standing in their way, but something is.

What could that be?

What I find hilarious is that this is an issue that you and I fundamentally agree on, however you choose to be adversarial.

I suppose arguing is more fun than finding common ground.

George W Bush supported DADT as a "good policy", whereas Obama made a campaign promise to reverse it. Therein lies the reason why there was never a significant push from Congress under the Bush administration to reverse the policy. Bush would have undoubtedly vetoed any free-standing legislation to reverse it.

EDIT: there has been legislation introduced (by Democrats) just about every year since 2005, to overturn the DADT policy.

doobnVA said:

George W Bush supported DADT as a "good policy", whereas Obama made a campaign promise to reverse it. Therein lies the reason why there was never a significant push from Congress under the Bush administration to reverse the policy. Bush would have undoubtedly vetoed any free-standing legislation to reverse it.

Click to expand...

Bush is not the President. It was in all the papers.

Nine months with a majority in both houses of Congress was plenty of time to reverse it.

Is is possible that reversing Don't Ask, Dont Tell is not a priority for the Democrats, all flowery, hopey-changey, rhetoric aside?

Johnnyorganic said:

Bush is not the President. It was in all the papers.

Nine months with a majority in both houses of Congress was plenty of time to reverse it.

Is is possible that reversing Don't Ask, Dont Tell is not a priority for the Democrats, all flowery, hopey-chagey, rhetoric aside?

Click to expand...

The Democrats have introduced a bill that would reverse DADT just about every year since 2005.

Each time it's introduced, it gains more support.

This year, there are 177 cosponsors to the bill.

In 2007, there were 140

In 2005, there were 120

In case you haven't noticed, the past 9 months have been pretty busy for Congress. It's in all the papers.

H.R.1283
Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Sponsor: Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] (introduced 3/3/2009) Cosponsors (177)
Latest Major Action: 3/31/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. COSPONSORS(177), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

• Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] - 7/29/2009
  Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 3/17/2009
  Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 7/8/2009
  Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 3/12/2009
  Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 6/16/2009
  Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 6/8/2009
  Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 7/9/2009
  Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] - 4/27/2009
  Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] - 9/9/2009
  Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Clyburn, James E. [SC-6] - 7/10/2009
  Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Connolly, Gerald E. "Gerry" [VA-11] - 7/14/2009
  Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. [PA-3] - 7/9/2009
  Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 4/27/2009
  Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 3/3/2009
  Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/3/2009
  Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 3/6/2009
  Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 3/3/2009
  Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] - 3/9/2009
  Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 4/2/2009
  Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Driehaus, Steve [OH-1] - 10/8/2009
  Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. [AS] - 9/22/2009
  Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] - 7/14/2009
  Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 3/6/2009
  Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 7/15/2009
  Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 7/30/2009
  Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] - 6/26/2009
  Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] - 4/29/2009
  Rep Himes, James A. [CT-4] - 7/14/2009
  Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 3/9/2009
  Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/9/2009
  Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 9/17/2009
  Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 3/5/2009
  Rep Kilroy, Mary Jo [OH-15] - 3/5/2009
  Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] - 6/9/2009
  Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 6/23/2009
  Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] - 7/8/2009
  Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] - 6/23/2009
  Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25] - 7/10/2009
  Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 3/23/2009
  Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 3/3/2009
  Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 3/3/2009
  Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 3/3/2009
  Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 3/3/2009
  Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/3/2009
  Rep McMahon, Michael E. [NY-13] - 6/9/2009
  Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] - 9/17/2009
  Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 3/23/2009
  Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Mollohan, Alan B. [WV-1] - 7/10/2009
  Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 9/17/2009
  Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 9/23/2009
  Rep Peters, Gary C. [MI-9] - 5/13/2009
  Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] - 6/2/2009
  Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 9/29/2009
  Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] - 3/17/2009
  Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 9/24/2009
  Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [VA-3] - 3/17/2009
  Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] - 3/12/2009
  Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 7/30/2009
  Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Titus, Dina [NV-3] - 7/22/2009
  Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] - 3/17/2009
  Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 7/17/2009
  Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 7/10/2009
  Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 7/31/2009
  Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 3/3/2009
  Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 6/9/2009

177 out of 258 Democrats in the House have signed on as cosponsors of this bill.

undertheice said:

then i would really like to know what your definition of socialism is. nazi germany was the epitome of the socialist state

Click to expand...

Are you comparing the German government from now to the Nazi regime? You may believe Nazi Germany was the epitome of a socialist state but many would disagree. I would say it was a corrupted socialist state lead by a dictator. I was saying that Merkel and her party, who are considered Democrats, are a right wing leaning party with some socialist ideals, but then you tell me a western government without some socialist ways.

krustofskie said:

Are you comparing the German government from now to the Nazi regime? You may believe Nazi Germany was the epitome of a socialist state but many would disagree. I would say it was a corrupted socialist state lead by a dictator. I was saying that Merkel and her party, who are considered Democrats, are a right wing leaning party with some socialist ideals, but then you tell me a western government without some socialist ways.

Click to expand...

I am one of those who disagree with the notion that nazi Germany was a socialist state.

A dictatorship is NEVER a true socialist state, simply because socialism is egalitarian whereas dicatorships are essentially the polar opposite.

krustofskie: I think you and I may be among a very small minority here who understand the TRUE definition of "socialism".

doobnVA said:

177 out of 258 Democrats in the House have signed on as cosponsors of this bill.

Click to expand...

Which begs the question: Why has it not been passed by the House, sent to the Senate, passed, and signed into law?

To put a finer point on it: Why does a bill with 177 co-sponsors lay moldering in a House committee?

krustofskie said:

I only meant in the sense that they are a party that leans to the right, not directly to their fiscus responsibilities.

Click to expand...

To the right only means they understand that destroying the business sector ruins everything for all. That's a good thing.
We could use a serious swing to the right here in the USA, unless you don't value the standard of living.

doobnVA said:

The Democrats have introduced a bill that would reverse DADT just about every year since 2005.

Each time it's introduced, it gains more support.

This year, there are 177 cosponsors to the bill.

In 2007, there were 140

In 2005, there were 120

In case you haven't noticed, the past 9 months have been pretty busy for Congress. It's in all the papers.

Click to expand...

Charles Caleb Cotton said, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Thank you!

Too busy to address an issue which has been steadily building momentum since 2005?

Then one could say it is not a priority, eh?

They have had a majority since February.... what's the problem?

Johnnyorganic said:

Which begs the question: Why has it not been passed by the House, sent to the Senate, passed, and signed into law?

To put a finer point on it: Why does a bill with 177 co-sponsors lay moldering in a House committee?

Click to expand...

You do realize we are fighting TWO wars, right now, don't you? I think the committee this bill was referred to has been a little busy this session.

Also consider that no companion legislation has yet been introduced in the Senate, which makes hearings in the House pretty much useless at this point.

Apparently you are confused as to what the word "priority" means. Is it the NUMBER ONE priority? Obviously not. Does that mean it is not a priority at all? No.

doobnVA said:

You do realize we are fighting TWO wars, right now, don't you? I think the committee this bill was referred to has been a little busy this session.

Also consider that no companion legislation has yet been introduced in the Senate, which makes hearings in the House pretty much useless at this point.

Apparently you are confused as to what the word "priority" means. Is it the NUMBER ONE priority? Obviously not. Does that mean it is not a priority at all? No.

Click to expand...

LOL! Changing the subject does not change anything.

Gay rights is not a priority. It's okay to admit. What is not okay is to claim it is then to do nothing.

One war, two theaters. By your standards, based on the inaction of the present Administration, the theater in Afghanistan does not appear to be a priority either.

I think we're done here.

Thanks!

Johnnyorganic said:

LOL! Changing the subject does not change anything.

Gay rights is not a priority. It's okay to admit. What is not okay is to claim it is then to do nothing.

Once war, two theaters. By your standards, based on the inaction of the present Administration, the theater in Afghanistan does not appear to be a priority either.

I think we're done here.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I didn't change the subject, perhaps you lost a contact lens and can't see clearly?

Either way, your argument is invalid.

Good day.

ink the world said:

Wow so many things to pick apart, this could take a while, but i'll give it a crack.

Your post is chock-full of typical Christian Neocon lies and misrepresentations. Children are not taught gay sex techniques, stop spreading the lies brought forth by "good Christian organizations" like the "good" people at "God Hates Fags" etc.

You know the group, they believe the Tsunami was a punishment from God, same as Katrina, and oh yeah they protest at funerals of dead American serviceman. Now thats a classy bunch of people right there.

And oh no, God forbid the gay community gets all "uppity" like those pesky blacks have, thats all we need..

The thing I enjoy the most from your side is the idea that ANYTHING that you dont agree w/ is not "mainstream."

If nothing else, the last election cycle proved that thankfully you bunch of Bible thumping hypocrites ARE NOT the mainstream, just an obnoxiously loud group that is unhappy over losing their grasp on political control in the USA.

You then go on to spout about how exposure to Gay people or Gay adoption would expose those children to abuse....LOL I thought the Catholic church had that market cornered. The decades of abuse, cover ups, lawsuits and now the Church is going broke. Your best bet is to leave the Church out of discussion concerning abuse of children.

Click to expand...

Too bad I'm neither religious or Christian.

My arguments are based on nothing but the law and our legal system. It is undeniable that redefining marriage will be immediately followed by a torrent of lawsuits by the ACLU and others. This is how they will force people to accept their lifestyle.

But, my point was never that Gays shouldn't have all the same rights as everyone else. I think they should.

What I do not agree with is them ramming their lifestyle down the throats of others. I personally find Gays affable and amusing in general, but I am also respectful of those that don't. If the term "marriage" is redefined, that is what will necessarily follow.

In the end, the choice of having gay rights or redefining marriage is a false dichotomy. The two simply are not mutually exclusive. You can have gay unions with all the same rights as traditional marriage without redefining marriage.

The one thing I will never support is the adoption of children. The APA is an ultra left organization and I remember when they insisted that divorce was not harmful to children. Now we have studies to show what rubbish this was. In fact, recently a massive Government sponsored study was released that showed that children from traditional households scored significantly higher in all areas of mental and social health than did children from all other backgrounds. I think the fact that boys especially, need fathers is a no brainer.