posted
The delegates to the RNC got together a few days before the convention started and voted upon a "platform." That year's platform included support for a ban on gay marriage. It did NOT support a ban on any benefits for gays. It DID include a message of essentially saying, "We agree to disagree," on certain issues leaving that door open for Republicans.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is in response to something upthread that Vera said about 99% of Americans something something. No, I am not going to look and cut/paste it, I am just *that* lazy.
I live in a military community, one of the Republicanest of social groups, IMO, and even though the soldiers I know do not want to serve in a war with homosexuals, most of them are related to or know openly gay persons. Most of them are also okay with it, and don't care one way or the other whether two gendersame persons get married or have some other civil union ceremony. As long as they don't have to watch 'two dudes making out'.
*grin*
It's an actual quote, not me being facetious.
So yes, Vera, there ARE gay-accepting Republicans out there.
To Telp: I'm sorry, man. I hope it doesn't get voted through. And if it does, protest the law. Silence is political consent. *hugs*
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say 99% of Americans. I said 99% of the people I knew in my hometown. I know that America at large is alot closer to 50/50.
My hometown is also near a large Navy base. The sailors were actually a moderating influence on the town, being far more liberal than the people who actually grew up there.
I know there are Republicans who don't agree with this. I just think they are a minority in the party.
Anyway, Telp, you seem like a great guy and I REALLY hope this doesn't pass.
Feel free to ignore my doom and gloom. I'm pretty pissed off at the world today.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah... I have a diverse group of friends... one circle is the rough and tumble military circle. I met them through my brother who is a bit of a hoodlum. Five of my friends from this poor white trash group are in the military. And they are all fairly supportive. One or two might be a bit uncomfortable serving with gay folk but all the others said it was no big deal and can't see why it matters.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is what is "this." Is "this" anti-gay marriage or is it the equivalent of the KKK. If its anti-gay marriage I would agree that I am in the small minority of the Republican party. But if we're talking about wanting to create a forced emmigration of gays than I think I'm in the majority.
Anti-war protesters were far more vocal than pro-war advocates prior to the Iraq invasion, but a majority of people still supported the war.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: ELECTION 2004: Nader, gay marriage ban make Michigan's Nov. ballot
Court overrules elections panel September 4, 2004
BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF and ALEXA CAPELOTO FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
LANSING -- Putting Ralph Nader's name and a proposal to ban gay marriage on Michigan's November ballot is sure to infuse the election with emotionally charged questions of morality and wasted votes.
The Michigan Court of Appeals on Friday overruled a state elections panel and ordered Nader's name to be on the ballot as an independent presidential candidate. The court also ordered a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage to be on the ballot, an issue that likely will bring antigay and gay activist factions into a bitter public clash.
The marriage proposal is especially divisive, going to the core of voters' beliefs and lifestyles. Backers say the sanctity of marriage and family are under attack. Opponents say gays, lesbians and domestic partners are being treated like second-class citizens.
"It takes a man and a woman to procreate," said Marlene Elwell, chairwoman of the Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, which collected about 500,000 signatures to place the gay marriage ban on the ballot. "That's the way society goes on. That's the way it's been since the beginning of time."
Elwell said allowing same-sex couples to marry, or recognizing civil unions, is like "changing society for a few people."
But Susan Horowitz, a leading opponent of the proposal, said the beliefs of one group should not dictate life for another. She said the gay marriage ban effectively would write discrimination into the state constitution.
"Our opposition is welcome to have their beliefs in this country," said Horowitz, copublisher of Between the Lines, Michigan's largest gay and lesbian newspaper. "They're just not welcome to impose them on me at my loss."
Although Michigan already has a law prohibiting gay marriage, supporters of the constitutional ban say it's needed to prevent what they call activist judges from bypassing the current law and allowing same-sex marriages. A yes vote would change Michigan's constitution to ban gay marriage. If voters pass the ban, it is certain to face a court challenge.
Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said gay marriage is overwhelmingly opposed by African Americans. He said it will bring "tens of thousands" of African Americans and others who have never voted out to the polls in November.
But others say it's not likely to have an impact.
"If you're not going to vote for president, it's unlikely anything else is going to get you out to vote," said Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics.
On the other hand, Nader as a valid independent candidate has Democrats worried -- and Republicans hopeful -- that he will siphon votes away from Democratic candidate John Kerry. In the 2000 presidential election, Nader received less than 3 percent of the vote nationally, but was widely acknowledged to have drawn some votes away from Democrat Al Gore.
Michigan Republicans turned in 45,000 of the 50,500 petition signatures on behalf of Nader for a ballot spot.
In both the Nader and gay marriage cases, the appeals court ruled that the state Board of Canvassers overstepped its authority by not certifying petitions for Nader and the gay marriage amendment. The board had deadlocked on 2-2 votes in both cases, with two Democrats voting against the ballot placements and two Republicans voting for them.
Also, the appeals court dismissed a challenge against a third ballot proposal that requires a public vote for any new casinos or other gaming operations in Michigan. The ballot proposal was challenged by the Hazel Park Racing Association.
The judges in all three cases were Peter O'Connell, William Whitbeck and Donald Owens.
Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said Nader has sold out to the Republican Party by accepting the party's collected petitions. Brewer challenged the petition signatures, but they were ruled valid by the Secretary of State. He said Friday that the party would not appeal Friday's ruling.
"The court's decision opens a Pandora's box, where the state's major political parties can establish their own sham party aimed at disrupting elections and confusing voters," Brewer said in a release. "This entire charade is one of many examples where Michigan Republicans are willing to use any illegal or corrupt method to gain power."
But the court rulings on Nader and the gay marriage proposal Friday gratified Lansing attorney Eric Doster, who represents the group backing the gay marriage proposal and the voters who petitioned to get Nader on the ballot. He called the rulings a victory for the First Amendment.
"The public deserves choices and there is a right to have more choices on the ballot," Doster said.
Kelly Chesney, spokesperson for the Secretary of State, said the court rulings were welcome and would set a precedent for the Board of Canvassers in future ballot disputes.
Opponents of the gay marriage ban said they never contested the proposal's right to be on the ballot, but they did object because the ballot language could prohibit other arrangements, such as civil unions, domestic partnerships and partner benefits through employers.
The ballot proposal states that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
"What is the similar union and what other purposes are there?" said Dana Houle, political director for the Coalition for a Fair Michigan. "It's intentionally vague and open to interpretation."
Elwell responded that civil unions would be banned under the proposal, but "it doesn't talk about benefits, it doesn't talk about any of that."
She added: "This is saying marriage is between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, period."
Contact CHRIS CHRISTOFF at 517-372-8660 or christoff@freepress.com
quote:Pastor: Anti-gay marriage referendum's success not certain 9/5/2004, 12:40 p.m. ET The Associated Press
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) — At least one poll shows solid support among Michigan residents for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, but a clergyman says that doesn't guarantee voters will endorse the idea.
The state Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in Michigan as a union between one man and one woman should appear on the Nov. 2 ballot.
Opponents including the Rev. Doug Van Doren, pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church in Grand Rapids, fear the amendment will be used to take away benefits for same-sex partners at state universities or even private firms.
"We are talking real people, real families that would be affected by this," he said.
More than 80 west Michigan clergy have signed a statement opposing the measure, Van Doren told The Grand Rapids Press for a story published Saturday. "People like to paint Michigan and particularly west Michigan as far more reactionary than it is," he said. "I think there is a good chance it will not pass."
The group supporting the initiative, Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, gathered more than the 317,757 signatures required to place the issue on the ballot. The appeals court ruled that the ballot language was neither incomplete nor misleading.
"The historic definition of marriage has been one man and one woman," said Kent County Commissioner Harold Voorhees, who led petition-gathering efforts in western Michigan. "We think it ought to stay that way. It's best for society and it's best for children."
A poll of 600 people conducted in early July by EPIC/MRA of Lansing found that 61 percent supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage, 34 percent were opposed and 5 percent were undecided. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Michigan law already bans gay marriage. But supporters of the initiative want it written into the state constitution to protect it against contrary actions by what they call activist judges and politicians.
posted
NFL, how about this particular law? I think most Republicans would support it.
As you get more and more extreme (sodomy laws, employment restrictions, all the way down to forced emigration, since you brought it up) a smaller and smaller number of Republicans (and people in general) will support it. I'm not really sure where you reach the breakpoint where it's not a majority anymore. Since the 50/50 point for Americans in general is somewhere just to the right of Civil Unions, I suspect the 50/50 point for Republicans is significantly more to the right than that.
I know that the people I grew up with don't represent all Republicans. If they did we'd be living under the Southern Baptist version of Sharia law by now. But I know that there are a lot of them and they do wield considerable power.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There a still a LOT of dems that oppose gay marriage and civil unions so keep that in mind.
A lot of Republicans might support this law because they view extreme measures as the only way keep gay marriage out even if they don't agree with gays losing benefits. Some will not even consider that fact that gays will lose benefits because the law is so vague. Those who support will not do so because they are Republicans, they will just tend to be Republicans more often the Democrats.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telp, this may just backfire on the Republicans.
I'm in Missouri, where we already had our constitutional amenmdment vote. It was approved by a whopping big majority (70 or 80%, but not by me). Many Democrats voted for it. Why? I still can't figure that out.
Anyway, if the people for this ammendment, and the Republican party in general, sell this as a way to stop the goddless homo's from destroying marriage, then they will pull out a lot of conservatives to the polls, who will support Bush and may help him to the White House.
On the other hand, if some organization could raise appropriate funds, they could push the, "Jane and their daughter Julia could loose their health benefits if this passes, because Mary works for the state, and Julia is going to need a kidney" argument. Or the, "This amendment does not promote sexual promiscuity, it is the law" argument. Even, "Don't let our state be the first to promote the spread of Aid's by disallowing homosexual monogamy" could bring in some votes.
People may not want gays to get married, but I've not seen a majority that is against civil unions, or that want to punish gays for their life style. This amendment will do that. It may repulse many moderates into voting away from the Republicans (who are seen as conservatives) and it will bring out more liberals to vote.
posted
Hmm...good point. Maybe I meant to say they would prefer not to go to war having a homosexual 'battle buddy', but would accept him/her if it was a command decision. Still sounds like forced acceptance, but female soldiers (and sailors and marines etc) have been dealing with that for a couple of decades, and it IS getting better. My husband's Command Sgt Major just retired, and she has given stirring speeches on what she has seen over her thirty-year career.
Thanks for catching me on that one, Wussy Actor, I'll have to think more of what I meant and perhaps respond more fully later.
Oh, and Vera, sorry I misunderstood your "99%" earlier. Obviously not enough sleep on my part. Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Five of my friends from this poor white trash group are in the military. And they are all fairly supportive. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
One or two might be a bit uncomfortable serving with gay folk but all the others said it was no big deal and can't see why it matters.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
