Hillary on Gay Rights: We Have to Make It Fair

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Apr 7, 2008.

  1. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
  2. Badandy macrumors 68040

    Badandy

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #2
  3. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #3
    What the hell did you expect her to say on Ellen's show? Her saying anything to the contrary of what she said would be akin to a klan member going on Oprah to promote white power.



    I'd like to hear what she'd say when discussing the subject with someone else who's straight.
     
  4. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #4
    she could have just ignored the topic and it was announced before the show.

    this means gay couples will be able to inherit property, hospital visits, get tax breaks etc
    all the same benefits of straight couples
     
  5. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #5
    Obama wants to do this too.

    but neither are willing to go as far as push for equal marriage for same sex couples, a major issue i have with him, and hillary.
     
  6. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #6
    I guess this will be one of the Republican cards played against the Democratic challenger, no matter who it is.

    In the end, though, this election will be about the economy, and the Repubs are the ones who got us in this mess. Most people, in the end, realize that gay rights don't affect them very much, but the economy affects everyone. If all the Republicans have to offer this year is anti-gay rhetoric, they're going to lose, big time.
     
  7. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    well unfortunately nobody is going to get elected with that position. i think gays just want eqaul rights(which hillary is promising), other than that, the word "marriage" is all that is at stake.
     
  8. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #8
    again. obama is all for the equal 'rights' as well.

    the thing is their not equal without marriage, so i don't know how either candidate can say that their for equal rights.
     
  9. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #9
    I assume you are referring to civil unions here?

    To be honest, I'm not up on exactly what the candidates have said, but anything other than same-sex civil unions would constitute a "separate but equal" solution and that doesn't work.
     
  10. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    Marriage is a religious concept and has no place in government to begin with. Equal rights should be given to straight and gay couples, with the government using some other word to describe it.
     
  11. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #11
    yes, i agree with your statement. and it just won't be full equality imo, but its progress, which i guess is better than nothing at this point.

    again, i agree. as it is right now, straight couples are allowed to be married. a civil union technically is not a marriage. (again technically.) marriage shouldn't be the government's business though since it is indeed a religious affair, and thus parity could be achieved simply by allowing both civil unions under the law. let the chruches sort out marriages.
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    A lot of religious people who don't like marriage being used for gay couples are happy to have civil unions for them which give similar legal rights, that has worked very well in the UK.
     
  13. Hawkeye411 macrumors 68000

    Hawkeye411

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Canada EH!!!
    #13
    Geez .. If I was single, I would become gay (or at least pretend to be gay) for that!!
     
  14. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #14
    Gay "marriage" in the strictest sense of the word requires only that a religious group perform a same sex marriage ceremony...

    Gay "marriage" in the more common sense of the word would be a civil union recognized by the state.

    Most people who are members of a religion are "married" in both senses. Part of that situation is a matter of religion and not something we can or should legislate...

    <Devil's Advocate>
    ...Although, we do legislate against polygamy and polyandry, religion be damned...
    <Devil's Advocate>
     
  15. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #15
    Many people's issues with gay marriage has to do with an inability to see the difference between religious and legal marriage. A simple name change of legal "marriage" to civil unions would solve this very quickly.

    You can go and get "married" in church and the civil union can be applied at that point as well. Otherwise the civil union alone is open to any two non-related consenting adults.

    The reasons to limit it to two are fairly obvious when it comes to inheritance, power of attorney and guardianship due to incapacitation.

    If we allow more than one consenting adult into the union and one of the adults ends up in a coma, there would be legal questions into who gets to make the decisions for the victim, limiting the agreement to two people eliminates that problem.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Exactly, I think the strict sense is their concern. I think they'd prefer it if straight couples who didn't marry in a church/mosque/temple/whatever got "civil unions" as well, which seems reasonable to me.
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    If anyone here believes either of them will do anything, I've got a bridge in Florida. It's cheap. Sorry, they won't do anything. That's really the best we can hope for. Let's hope neither of them end up doing what Bill Clinton did, for god's sake: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, DOMA. He gave conservatives everything they could have hoped for with that garbage.

    So here's to hoping that they just do nothing. Because the whole of the US won't let gays have equal rights, trust me. There will be blood in the streets before that happens.
     
  18. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #18
    i'm hoping that they push for civil unions at the very least, but neither look like they will, which is a damn shame.

    obama would seem more likely, after his 'race speech' though.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Believe me when I tell you this- neither of them will touch the issue if elected.
     
  20. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #20
    you don't think so?
    maybe i'm too optimistic.
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Nope- I don't. We're like the religious right of the left. They use us to get the base fired up, but when it comes down to it, we're expendable. Look no further than Bill Clinton for evidence. Clinton even told Kerry to drop his support for us in order to get elected, which to Kerry's credit, he refused to do. However, I have no doubt that we'd never have heard another peep out of Kerry had he won. I'm just being realistic.
     
  22. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    DADT/DOMA is where hillary says she'll depart from bill. at the time, DADT seemed necessary because of the tremendous witch hunt going on in the military but doma is just flat out discrimination, both of which hillary will do away with.
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    Like I said- if you believe that, I've got a really cheap bridge in Florida for sale. Those will be the very first two promises she'll break. And DADT was never "necessary" except to keep Billary in office for a second term. It was nothing more than politics. They promised to do away with discrimination in the military completely, but when it came down to it, they decided to make it even worse.
     
  24. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #24
    I suspect it will take a supreme court case to change the situation - pretty much any attempt to do it through Congress will result in a mire of partisan deadlock.
     
  25. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #25

    B. Obama is a deeply religious man. Not a chance he would abandon his base, and push for legislation allowing homosexuals to be legally married.
     

Share This Page