As you can see I'm a little frustrated about this :)

"They spend so much time challenging equal rights for gay Americans and trying to end the teaching of evolution in public schools that they have scant little time left deal with issues such as global warming, poverty, and racism."

No, they don't. They spend so much time worrying about homosexuality and aborton and evolution because in the big scheme of things they are meaningless issues. But for the last 2 decades  or so. Well..2 and a half. Since the Reagan revolution, they've been trying to keep morality OUT of the public sphere.

You heard me right.

These people do this for one, and one reason only. By limiting the moral debate to these sex related issues (and really isn't evolution about sex as well?), then nobody talks about things like poverty, or racism, or global warming with a moral tone. Nobody ever accused the CEO's of random razing and burning company X of being evil and going to hell. It just doesn't happen.

When liberal churches make pleas for those types of things, they take the form of VERY secular messages. There's none of the good and evil. None of the you're going to hell type stuff. It's just. Wouldn't it be better if we did this? That's like taking a piece of paper to a gun fight.

Over at Gillard's place, he said something similar. That Dobson's folks eventually are going to want their payment..a ban on abortion or something like that.

No, they're not.

These people are liars. Why take them at their word? Focus on the Family is a big lobbyist for ANWR. Think about it. WTF does that have to do with FAMILIES? Nothing. It has to do with investment, and money, and greed, and all that stuff. Dobson, Falwell and Robertson will speak. The sheeple will listen. They'll just blame lack of progress on the big bad Democrats, of course.

ahem

So let me just lay it down. Morality is NOT a sword for these people. In fact, they're not moral at all. They don't really care. The reason why they harp about sex, is to limit the range of acceptable moral debate. And they've been extremely sucessful. Look at the recent political history.

Reagan beats Carter. Greed over values
Reagan beats Mondale. Repeat above
Bush beats Dukakis. "No New Taxes"
Clinton beats Bush. "It's the Economy, Stupid". Playing off on people's greed.
Clinton beats Dole. Ditto.
Then you had Gore, who ran almost completly on a platform of moral stewardship of the economy, and Kerry who pretty much did the same thing.

It's all been lower taxes, screw everybody else..ME ME ME ME ME. Even with Clinton.

Sorry about the huge rant. This is very longish. Just that I'm prepping a book about this stuff, morality in the modern age..at least the lack there-of. (And guess what. My chapter on modern pop-culture is actually going to talk about positive influences and not negative ones. For every Grand Theft Auto, for example, there's about a dozen games that are about heros trying to do the right thing)

But, on a ligher note, this judgement shows that SF Mayor Gavin Newsom was 100% correct to go ahead and "break the law" in order to test and overturn it. Even if it later gets reversed on appeal, the fact that a Superior Court judge ruled like this shows that such action was necessary in order to bring the legal issue forward.  So Newsom is totally vindicated.  

It's also worth noting--as was mentioned on a local TV news broadcast here in LA, that the judge involved was appointed by Pete Wilson.  Although I know nothing about the judge, this is perfectly understandable, since it's not a liberal ruling. It's a straightforward consequence of liberal jurisprudence, to be sure. Equal treatment under the law is a radical political idea, eventually adopted into Constitutional law via countless court rulings by liberal judges. But that jurisprudence spans 70-odd years, and is, by now, fully established as integral to our understanding of civil and political rights. (It's the same broad body of law that the Supreme Court Coupster's tortured to select Bush in 2000. Even they felt obligated to pretend to ground their decision in this same broad body of law, which three of them had otherwise bitterly opposed.)

In the long run, gay marriage is inevitable. Nothing short of nuclear war or civilizational collapse due to global warming can stop it.  The logic is simply inescapable, once a certain level of fear has been transcended--and that level of fear was transcended way back in 1969 at Stonewall.  

It takes a while for the realization to sink in. But in the span of human history, a generation or two is barely a moment.  "Oh, yes, of course! Why didn't anyone see that before? Next...."

but I want whole heartedly to give gay partners

equal protection under the law..through civil

contracts...civil unions...domestic partnerships..

Christians want to own that word marriage and

I say let them....strengthen seperation of

church and state...gays can go to their courthouse

get hitched and religious fundys can go to there

church and get married.

So as a christian I am not a homophobe I personally believe gays are born gay and should
be accepted for who they are.

Religious right to moderate want to hang on to

that word (marriage) as uniquely theirs.

So they are not being homophobe if it is a question of semantics.

If you had parsed the question:

Should we call those who oppose civil rights for gay Americans homophobes?

I would vote yes.

You also can't use procreation as a reason to prevent this, since we don't ban infertile people from getting married.

So, the only way to support a ban on gay marriage is to get all religious and stuff, which is unconstitutional.

All this being said, this hurts Democrats badly in the court of public opinion-even though it is the correct and proper ruling.

At one point, most people accepted that blacks were sellable property.

At one point, most people accepted that married women were their Husband's property.

Just because most people accept something doesn't make it ethically or morally right.

I oppose the distinction because it creates seperate sets of people.  Even my suggestion above makes me a bit skittish, but at least everyone is playing with the same rules.

However, if the above civil unions is the only way to achieve the ultimate goal, this may have to be a fight done in baby steps.  

It doesn't make me completely happy, but at least it gives everyone the same legal rights as my wife and I.  It would be a partial victory.

They couched it in very similar terms - "Those Negros can go live on their own in peace.  We just don't want to see them.  And they better not be getting uppity and getting in our face about 'equal rights'."

The majority of "normal" Americans have been wrong in the past, and they are wrong today.  In 1912 a large majority of Americans were against interracial marriage.  Would you call those who fought for equal rights back then wrong because they insulted Southern Baptists who believed very strongly that God separated the races for a reason?

There are enough influences in our culture shouting that homosexuality is a sin.  TV shows and Hollywood attempt to counterbalance that.  Besides that, if those shows which do show gay rights do not get a viewership, they would be cancelled.  So obviously there are many who don't believe as you do.

The right is correct on one thing.  Morality matters a great deal.  Having a fuzzy "everyone is right" mentality is foolish.  I support equality for everyone because I know it's the right thing to do.  And I have no problem with saying that those who don't support equal rights for everyone are wrong, no matter if they happen to be a member of a religious group.

Tough choice, tough choice.

Power, true power, comes from riding the wave of genuine compassion, real values, deeply held beliefs. It's not that political realities don't exist, they do. It's that we cannot allow a cynical analysis of political realities to replace our values. Well... ok, we've already done that. We have to STOP.

There are people who hold prejudice against lesbians and gay men. Some dress it up with religion, some with tradition, some can't quite put their finger on the problem but they just feel icky when they think about it.

None of that is worth the littlest twitch of our fingers on the keyboard to argue with. As Syndey Smith said, "Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out."

When we dignify this prejudice with acceptance, however reluctant, when we give it credence by respecting it, we are in fact supporting it.

By all means, look at this in practical terms. But don't ONLY look at it in practical terms. Far too many so-called progressives are afraid of this issue, and that stink of fear is a sign of weakness and gives power and support to our enemies.

A person is not all of a sudden gay when they come out, whether they were in a heterosexual relationship beforehand or not. The difference coming out makes is that all of a sudden that person is "openly" gay. McGreevey was a politician and is of a generation that grew up in a more closeted time. The picture perfect wife was part of the package and part of the denial. He fooled others and he tried to fool himself. I have little doubt that he is and has always been gay. That now he is simply "openly" gay.

I am sure the straight super majority of Californians will be overjoyed that a judge has seen fit to overturn their proposition and side with the major of San Fransisco who publically encouraged people to break the law.

We need more people who don't like the law to take it upon themselves to break it.  The concept of democracy and rule of law can really get in the way at times and we need to encourage others to break the law when they really believe in something.

Again I would have thought this a very unfortunate event but I am stupid and just don't understand....Hope I can figure out who to vote for in the next election.

What many people on this site need to realize is that while it is good to expand legal rights to gay couples who want to live together, pushing for gay "marriage", over civil unions or some other compromise may do more harm to the cause than good.

Since Stonewall, or even before, the key thrust of the gay rights movement has been tolerance. In other words, what two consenting adults do in their own private life is their own business. I agree with this completely. However, the push for gay marriage turns the argument around because these couples explicitly want the Government to make their relationship its business. This changes the root of the argument from tolerance to approval, which is considerably more difficult.

Folks, like it or not, unless you can re-write the Bible, there will always be a large group of people who will NEVER approve of homosexual relations on that basis alone. Going about this without a certain degree of tact only alienates many of these people and further reinforces the "backlash narrative". Adding a religiously charged word like "marriage" to the debate doesn't help.

Because of it's emphasis on the legal rights, it would be easier to work an argument for fairness and equality and even tolerance with civil unions than with the religious and emotionally charged term of marriage.

No, it's not a perfect solution. (My personal perfect solution would be to give everyone civil unions and let "marriage" remain a religious term.) However, it is the most practical and realistic way of getting gay couples the legal protections they want, need, and deserve. Gay couples gain nothing if we force an unpopular issue and lose.

Meanwhile, gay people STILL can't serve openly in the military. This should be our #1 priority on gay rights.

while we're at it, let's drop the abortion thing. we're losing votes from pro-lifers.

and since we're also losing votes from business owners, let's forget about workers' rights, minimum wage, and environmental protections.

oh, we don't want to look soft on security. let's all support the continued presence of American troops in Iraq.

great! now everyone will vote for us, because we stand for... what was it again?

I think gays can win in the courts either way
the problem is the difference between a good win and a bad win in relation to the democratic party
and its ability to win elections.

Imagine a gay person stepping up to James Dobson
if they win the gay marriage moniker...the person
hands Dobson a 10 gallon can of gasoline..Dobson
(Republican Party) thanks the person then proceeds
to the burning embers to start a conflagration.

Part of there framing winning elections will be

"Minority oppressing Religious Freedom"
or
"Minority oppressing the Majority"
or
" They took prayer out of our schools now they
have taken marriage out of our churches"

you get my drift on how they would fear monger
and then box the democratic party in.

But a good win is to call for domestice partnership contracts...civil unions...equal
protection under the law. Then we can frame

the debate about gay taxpayers who pay taxes and
gays who die in war deserve civil unions.

Someone mentioned earlier about the emphasis on
civil contracts and moving away from the word
marriage in our society...that goes to my belief
in actually strengthening the role of seperation
of church and state. Let churches have their
ceremony and word "marriage" they have a point
that they can lay claim to it. It really can
be worked out in a civil society one is Christian
and the other is Secular. The naked truth
marriage within the new testament talks of
marriage as a man and a woman...IT REALLY DOES
NOT SPEAK OF IT OTHER WISE...let the christian
church have that by respecting their beliefs,
and I believe the christian churches will respect
civil unions by having support from liberals and
moderates within the churches(forget the fundys
they are extremists).

I like a lot of people want so much to actually
win an election and I am of the notion we need
to retable a lot of issues that have cost us
elections.(frustrated too like vote hillary)

If the above poll is any indication I am in the
minority within the democratic party..but this
is a good debate and we need to have it now so
we can all agree on a direction on how to beat
the republicans in 2006 and 2008.

sincerely: Aslanspal