Will there ever be a Republican landslide again?

[Gabu]

Both Rudy and Arnold could pull it off.

Rudy and Arnold are Republicans?


I thought Republicans were against Abortion and Gay rights. When did their platform change? When did Arnold get the Republican nomination for something?

let''s be honest.  do democrats support gay rights.

refresh my memory on the kerry/edwards position on gay marriage.  was it my imagination, or did kerry voice support for state amendments (like the one in missouri) to ban gay marriages.

what president signed the defense of marriage act into law?

dont give me this democrats are for gay rights bs.  the record shows otherwise.  they just conceal their bigotry better.

Kerry and Edwards both feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but want the issue left up to the states and very strongly support civil unions as legal equals to marriage.  Bush, meanwhile, wants to ban everything at the federal level.

[Gabu]

bush is wrong for wanting to ban it at the federal level.

kerry/edwards are just as wrong for wanting to ban it at teh state level.

civil unions?  is that some kind of consolation prize?  it reminds me a whole lot of 'separate but equal'

They would only support a state ban if it included a legalization of civil unions.  Their main reason for supporting civil unions over same-sex marriage is because too many people dislike it when you call it a "marriage" (and that they don't personally like the idea, either).  Their idea of a civil union would basically be exactly the same as a marriage with regards to legal benefits, only not religious in nature and not called "marriage".

I would prefer that they voiced support of full same-sex marriage, but really, can you imagine what would happen if they did?

[Gabu]

bush is wrong for wanting to ban it at the federal level.

kerry/edwards are just as wrong for wanting to ban it at teh state level.

civil unions?  is that some kind of consolation prize?  it reminds me a whole lot of 'separate but equal'

I agree actually. I also think that Civil Unions is second citizenship. It is like trying to say, we are going to free the slaves, but they still won't be equal to the rest of population.
But, civil unions are step in the right direction. Just like getting rid of slavery was a step in the right direction.

As I said in my above post, civil unions, as they want them, would be exactly the same as marriage, only not called "marriage".  Given how many Americans are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage, I think that their stance makes sense, really.

[Gabu]

bush is wrong for wanting to ban it at the federal level.

kerry/edwards are just as wrong for wanting to ban it at teh state level.

civil unions?  is that some kind of consolation prize?  it reminds me a whole lot of 'separate but equal'

I agree actually. I also think that Civil Unions is second citizenship. It is like trying to say, we are going to free the slaves, but they still won't be equal to the rest of population.
But, civil unions are step in the right direction. Just like getting rid of slavery was a step in the right direction.

As I said in my above post, civil unions, as they want them, would be exactly the same as marriage, only not called "marriage".  Given how many Americans are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage, I think that their stance makes sense, really.

Separate but equal is not acceptable. Furthermore, it is not possible, that has been proven. There will be rights left out. Just refusing to call someone by the same name is disrespectful. You are saying that their love is not the same. I think that is wrong, and classifies people in society and generates social discrimination.
This is not about religion. Christians are not challenging the legitimacy of Jewish Marriages, or Atheist Marriages. This is about bigotry. Married people and single straight people think they are better, and their love is superior. It is that simple.
The reason that Kerry/Edwards take the Civil Unions stand is because Kerry would lose votes, and Edwards, I don't think gives a crap about the issue at all and was badly misinformed about DOMA, is taking his stand so he doesn't contradict Kerry as his VP.

Nonetheless, their position is 180 degrees in the direction of Bush and haters inc. of wanting to constitutionalize (not sure if that is word, but you know what I am saying) bigotry.

Well, which do you want: a candidate that stands 100% for full same-sex marriage who will therefore have no chance in hell of winning or a candidate that stands for a compromise who does have a chance of winning?

Things like this need to be done incrementally or they will fail.