LGBT Inclusion at DNC

Comments

1
Maybe it's a kink? Love for passive aggressive, two-faced domination?

"Oh yaaaa..that's right...make me your little second class citizen...mmmmm...ya, that's just right. Tolerate the shit out of my presence if I vote for your party...mmmm..."
2
oh Danny...

what Civil Right are the mean old Republicans stripping you of?
3
We're so Proud that Obama was for homosexual "marriage".
Right after he was against it.
4
Who needs civil rights when you're a millionaire? And of course that's what we'll all be when the Republicans are in control! Millionaires all of us, each a CEO of our own company! Vote Romney, be a CEO!
5
Is Zachary Walls running for a position in Iowa?
6
@2 As much as i hate to feed the trolls, I suspect he means the rights to continue to be married and to continue to be a dad to DJ.
7
@2
I'd sure like the right to marry the person of my choice, the right for that marriage to be recognized by my state and national governments, and the 1100+ rights that would automatically go with that recognition.

These are rights that all my straight friends and relatives take for granted.

And they're rights I don't have.
8
@3 - There was a time I didn't care for avocados. Things change.

That said, whatever did or didn't change, I see no (political) problem with one stating a personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman so long as one is not vehemently defending a legal condition codifying that subjective belief. A person's subjective beliefs are his or her own to reconcile; as a Buddhist and a theater artist, I may certainly attempt to affect one's thoughts on the matter, but none of that is a matter of policy.

@2 - What @7 said. Of course, I'm lucky enough to have fallen in love with someone of the opposite sex, so I already enjoy those rights; I just happen to believe so deeply in marriage that I would like to invite all my brethren to enjoy it.
9
7

If you don't have them then they can't be Stripped!(whaaaa...) from you.

So relax.
10
8

Damn.

That is profound.

You've convinced The Troll.

We see no (political) problem with you stating a personal belief that marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman so long as you do not vehemently defend or advocate a legal condition codifying that subjective belief.

aka Keep your personal religious beliefs out of our laws.

That is all.
11
8

If you had been lucky enough to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex who was already married would you have enjoyed those rights?

If you had been lucky enough to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex who didn't love you back would you have enjoyed those rights?

What's love got to do with it?
12
It's worth noting that DOMA still exists, that DADT only ended when queer folk stopped donating to the DNC, and that this year's DNC ended with an anti-gay "prayer".

So, a pox on both their fucking houses.
13
"Or the people who back our full civil equality?"

Which party enacted DOMA? Oh, that's right.
Well, which party wised up and then repealed it? Shit, neither of them.

Oh.
14
Good point, Cow. Oh, except for the fact that the House and Senate were Republican when DOMA was passed. Oh, and except for the fact that Democrats are pushing a repeal, but getting no traction because Republicans run the House and have a filibustering minority in the Senate.

And oh, except for the fact that simply because neither of two things are perfect, doesn't make those two things equivalent.

Stop being intentionally obtuse.
15
It's interesting (is interesting the right word? Interesting is the polite word - disgusting is the right word) how people will vote against their best interest because they think they'll get a better deal going with the assholes. It's like the co-worker who reports you for union activity because he thinks it wins him favor irrespective of what might be won by unionization. These people, I suspect, don't really care about gay civil rights anyway. They're more worried about having to pay more in taxes. And if they are well-to-do (and again, I suspect they are or they wouldn't be worried about "fiscal restraint"), they can always afford to go where it isn't an issue. No one is going to knock down your bedroom door and arrest you while you're having gay sex in the penthouse of Trump Towers or at the Plaza. Am I right?
16
We see no (political) problem with you stating a personal belief that marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman so long as you do not vehemently defend or advocate a legal condition codifying that subjective belief.
To watch a troll attempt to reason is, as the old saying goes, rather like watching a dog walk on its hind legs. The thing is, the recognition of a marriage of which you disapprove does not codify a belief (in this case, my belief, though that is only relevant to those who are interested in what I believe) in any way that keeps you from functioning according to whatever beliefs you hold. That is, proscription--or, if you prefer, non-recognition--imposes subjective belief in a way that allowance--or, if you prefer, conferral of recognition--does not.
17
If you had been lucky enough to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex who was already married would you have enjoyed those rights?
Under current law? No. Do I think I should have such a right, if I were so inclined to access it (I wouldn't be), and both the woman and her husband were satisfied with and consented to the arrangement? Absolutely. As I've said, I support true marriage equality, across the board, though I don't believe it is necessary and desirable for any given movement seeking the recognition of rights to take any and all rights currently denied any and all other groups into account (that is, while I support both same-sex marriage and plural marriage--though I've no interest in engaging in either--I see no reason that the movement for same-sex marriage should have to account for plural marriage).
If you had been lucky enough to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex who didn't love you back would you have enjoyed those rights?
Consent is, in fact, the foundation of all rights; it is most certainly the foundation of contracts (and marriage is nothing if not a contract). So no, there are no circumstances under which someone could be held to a marriage contract to which that person did not consent.
What's love got to do with it?
Those of us worthy and capable of giving and receiving love find it rather central to the marriage contract, give all the sacrifices this contract demands of us. Here's hoping you find that kernel of humanity within you that allows you to experience such things.
18
17

oh you special people!....*sigh*....*love!*

you may find it central
but society,
who grants the marriage,
doesn't care if you love your spouse or not.

in no county, city or state will authorities ask you if you 'love' your intended as a prerequisite to getting a marriage license.

sorry.

19
16

that still provides no affirmative reason to change the law to reflect your whims.
20
@19 - So you protest every time a legislature codifies their religious beliefs (e.g., marriage is between a man and a woman, like the Bible says) into law, right?

Or is that wrong, too?
21
Haha, what's even up with this troll? It's like a performance art piece.

It definetly does seem like some of the GLBT rumblings a few months ago put some fear/motivation into the Dems. Or maybe they just kind of realized that their current stance isn't the heavy political baggage it would have been just 6 or 8 years ago. The politics of the issue are changing pretty rapidly.
22
20

thank you for your question!

actually marriage as a man-woman institution predates the bible.

or any other religion.

if one were to legislate biblical marriage they would legalize polygamy.....
23
20

thank you for your question!

actually marriage as a man-woman institution predates the bible.

or any other religion.

if one were to legislate biblical marriage they would legalize polygamy.....
24
ooops.....
26
@22: [citation needed]
@25: Haters gonna hate. You may not be impressed with the Democratic convention, but Obama got a much bigger bump in the polls than Romney got from his con.
Any questions, bitch? Too bad, keep them to yourself.
27
you may find it central
but society,
who grants the marriage,
doesn't care if you love your spouse or not.

The fact is, the state cares about very little when it comes to marriage . . . which is as it should be. It is not the state which defines marriage; it merely recognizes what is conferred by the community in which the parties live, worship, or do business. I suggest, indeed, that the state should care even less--that it should make no distinction with regards to gender (or number, or any of a number of other concerns) in the same way it makes no distinction with regards to love, or children, or joint bank accounts, etc.

As for what "love" has to do with it, I challenge you to ask the next dozen married couples you see why they married, and see if a single one does NOT mention love.
28
that still provides no affirmative reason to change the law to reflect your whims.
I've yet to see any affirmative reason for the law I wish to change. The default position of our whole system is liberty, except where the liberty of one threatens the liberty of another.
29
16- it's more like watching a dog walk on its FRONT legs
http://youtu.be/PAuigwcQeGI
30
28

The default position of our whole system is marriage between one man and one woman.
31
@30 That is not an affirmative reason.
32
@30 - Really? Where is marriage provided for in our founding documents?

Marriage has a long and illustrious history in our culture (though it has not always been bestowed with the well over a thousand special rights and de facto subsidies that my wife and I currently enjoy), but it's not a default setting in our system of law. It's a presumption on the part of the people that the law has been allowed, so far, to reflect.