“I may have been infected with society’s prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God.”Honestly, the closer you look at Obama the weirder he appears. If he doesn’t know what God’s rules are, how does he expect to be guided by His word? Maybe his faith is all posturing and triangulation after all.
Edwards approves of civil unions but can’t get his head around marriage for gays, while at the same time Elizabeth offers some cover on the Left by supporting them – the Edwards’ version of Obama’s God dodge.
Clinton supported the odious “Defense of Marriage Act” during Bill’s Presidency, and now says she supports civil unions but opposes same-sex marriage; what she really wants is for no one to ask her about her opinion so she doesn’t have to tell, because many in the GLBT community are unhappy with her position.
Clearly, running for President as a Democrat isn’t the place for someone who views all citizens as equal under the law, because that would be way too radical. If he were running, Gore couldn’t say this:
I think its wrong for the government to discriminate against people because of that person’s sexual orientation. I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women, to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage. I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians. Shouldn’t we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one’s partner regardless of sexual orientation? Because if you don’t do that then to that extent you’re promoting promiscuity and you’re promoting all the problems that can result from promiscuity. The loyalty and love that two people feel for one another when they fall in love ought to be celebrated and encouraged, and shouldn’t be prevented by any form of discrimination in the law.It is about time someone of standing spoke out, and it is long past time for this type of idiotic, bigoted discrimination to end. If the Constitution is to mean anything, the rights and protections explicitly preserved must be defended without equivocation and none more so than those of the 14th Amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.If any of us are denied our civil rights, all of us are diminished and the rights of all of us are at risk. Good on Al Gore for speaking up.
Video is from Current….









Front page
If we must have it in its current form
let it be a mistake open to everyone.
snort. i'm with the torch grrl
go for it, dykes and faggots! you’ll love just how much more drama will end up costing. (in this i wonder if indeed, str8 people aren’t more sophisticated)
i keed. if you want to, it’s silly for the gov’t to tell you not to be romantic and silly. it’s a ceremony, and it should be detached from the law, and the law itself should be clarified and applied equally to all. i don’t know why that’s so hard.
i think because
there are an awful lot of people who need a marriage to get hard… cheating is what gets them up.
can't really argue with that logic
but i will suggest that there is much, much more out there, and with a little practice, it can make some just as hard as ’cheating.’ or the idea of cheating, or whatever.
/snob/
the thrill of cheating is to the other end of the sexual practice spectrum as the thrill of riding a tricycle is to flying a space ship. the ’other end’ isn’t just and only about ’perversion’ and exotica, unless you count that greatest of perversions: real intimacy, which lies at the uttermost shores of human experience.