Rove: Bush to AGAIN Push Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[Arrian]

Just for the record, the three states whose initiatives last week refer only to the granting of marriage licenses are Montana, Oregon (the one place where the vote was very close), and Mississippi. The states that used marriage as a cover to mount an assault on contractual relationships of all kinds were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.
In pivotal Ohio, for example, the voters may not have realized it but they voted to strip people of the right to contractually arrange distribution of assets, child custody, pensions, and other employment benefits. They most definitely were not "protecting" marriage; they were attacking gay people. That is why the political and business establishment there, including Republicans, opposed the measure.
The evidence is that the voters who approved it also opposed its actual contents. In the official exit poll Tuesday night, 27 percent of the voters said they support full marriage rights, 35 percent supported civil unions, and only 27 percent oppose any legal rights for same-sex couples. In other words, to underline the importance of artifice and deception in our sound-bite culture, the voters approved a measure opposed substantively by 62 percent of the very same voters.

From a Boston Globe editorial. Link to full article:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/07/the_gay_marriage_deception/

What can I say? Boo, hiss, sigh.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's telling that in Ohio, the REPUBLICANS were against the anti-gay rights bill!

[Arrian]

In other words, the majority of those who were informed were against it, Republicans included. That *is* telling. So is the passage of the initiative.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

And THIS is why people get called stupid. Because, quite often, THEY ARE.

-Arrian

[mindseye]

Originally posted by CyberShy

I do oppose adoption by gay-couples btw.
In nature gay-couples do not get children. Keep it that way.

So, if it DOES occur in nature, you will support gay adoption???

Homosexual behavior - including parenting - is much more common in nature than many people realize. Homosexual parenting (by male couples, female couples, or both) has been observed in the following species:

BIRDS
Reb-backed Shrikes
Eastern Bluebirds
Hooded Warbler
White Storks
Blue Tits
Black-winged Stilts
Greater Rheas
Jackdaws
Sage Grouse
Geese such as Snow Geese
Caspian Terns & Roseate Terns
Black Swans
Lesser Scaup Ducks
Emus
Acorn Woodpeckers
Flamingos
Mallards
Many gulls including:
Common Gulls
Ring-billed Gulls
Black-headed Guls
Laughing Gulls
Ivory Gulls

MAMMALS
Seals such Northern Elephant Seals
Squirrel Monkeys
Lesser Scaup Cavies & Dwarf Cavies
Warthogs
Red Foxes
Grizzly Bears

That's just the animals I could find who do homosexual parenting - a small fraction of those who exhibit homosexual behavior of any sort (including courting, sex, and even monogamous lifetime pair-bonding).

If nature says that it's better for a child to have a father and a mother, don't mess up with that.

I nominate YOU to go and explain this to the lesbian grizzlies.

[alva]

Originally posted by Ming
Yep... the first of what I'm sure will be many ML DL's...

This one is toast... waiting for the next.

Great for registration numbers though.

[MrFun]

We need to rely on moderate Republicans in the legislature now, who still believe in the principles of fairness and integrity to defeat extreme-right proposals.

[chequita guevara]

VICTORY!!!!!

[GePap]

Hmmm, should we develop a game of finding the MLDL's?

[Arrian]

Don't encourage it.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Hmmm, should we develop a game of finding the MLDL's?

No need to... his posting style usually gives him away in the first post

[DanS]

A national agenda? It's difficult to imagine, in the same way it's hard to conceive of heterosexuals all lining up behind some sort of heterosexual agenda. The demographics work against it. There's too little in common.

While you may believe this is so, it is false. I live a couple blocks from HRC, so I've seen the demonstrations. It was clearly an organized political top-down campaign. They got big money from somewhere in the last couple of years.

[Last Conformist]

That doesn't make them representative of gays in general, however.

Or would you take fundamentalist protesters against gay marriage to be representative of "the heterosexual agenda"? If yes, you can consider the first place in my list of heterophobes yours.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DanS


While you may believe this is so, it is false. I live a couple blocks from HRC, so I've seen the demonstrations. It was clearly an organized political top-down campaign. They got big money from somewhere in the last couple of years.

What is so shameful about an agenda that concerns human rights?



But anyway, you are referring to only one segment of the incredibly diverse population of gays and lesbians.

[DanS]

What is so shameful about an agenda that concerns human rights?

Nothing at all.

Sure, gays are diverse. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an identifiable "gay agenda." It wasn't imagined into existence by some right-wing group. I see it every day in my neighborhood.