Posts with the tag marriage

Today Is A Very Special Day for Me

Frank Lynch — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:20:24 EDT

see why http:www.fluni.com

John McCain's Defense of Marriage

Jim Callahan — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:25:11 EDT

Wikipedia

In 1979,[57] McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[59] * * * His wife Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[57]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Wikipedia footnote number fifty-seven is a Nicholas Kristof February 27, 2000 New York Times column which puts the relationship in stronger terms.

but at age 42 he found himself with a stuttering military career and no base from which to go into politics.

On top of that, his personal life was a mess: Although he was still living with his wife, he was aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02EFDF1439F934A15751C0A9669C8B63

The Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) is funding an organization sponsoring an anti-elderly, anti-gay, so called "Defense of Marriage Act."

Now we know what John McCain's personal "Defense of Marriage Act" was.

Jim Callahan
Orlando, FL

Same Sex Marriage

Brian In NYC — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:00:11 EDT

This is why marriage matters, and civil union isn't enough.

Link

Isn't it time for one of the top tier Dems to stand up for true family values. Can someone explain why as a gay American I'm not entitled to equal protection under the law?

CA Legislature Approves Marriage Bill

Ron Suckle — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:27:13 EDT

National Stonewall Democrats
www.stonewalldemocrats.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact: John Marble
(202) 436-5966
johnmarble@stonewalldemocrats.org

Stonewall Democrats Comment on Democratic Marriage Victory
CA Senate Approves Bill 22-15 with the Support of 22 Democratic Senators

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, September 07, 2007

Washington, DC - Today, the National Stonewall Democrats issued the following statement of the passage of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act (AB 43) by the California Senate:
"We congratulate California Democrats for their overwhelming vote to protect the freedom to marry while safeguarding religious liberty. Our senators have again demonstrated the benefit of a Democratic majority. We hope that our Republican Governor will not choose to take away these freedoms, but instead join with Democrats in legally supporting California families by signing this legislation into law.

The California Democratic Party has a strong record of support for our families, including supporting the freedom to marry within our party platform. We are disappointed that Senator Dean Florez, a Democrat, voted against this vital protection for families. However, we are pleased that Senator Denise Ducheny and Senator Jack Scott chose to change their positions from previous votes to support our party platform and to vote to strengthen families across the state."

- Laurie McBride, Co-Chair, National Stonewall Democrats (Sacramento, CA)
The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act (AB 43) passed the California Senate today by a largely party-line vote of 22(22D - 0R)-15(14R - 1D). All Senators who voted for the legislation were Democrats. In June, the California Assembly also passed AB 43 by another party-line vote. The legislation now goes two the desk of Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who must act on AB 43 by October 14, 2007.

VOTE BREAKDOWN

Senate Democrats voting Yes: 22

Senate Democrats voting No: 1 (Senator Dean Florez)

Senate Republican voting Yes: 0

Senate Republicans voting No: 14

Two years ago, Democrats passed a similar bill - again along a party-line vote. Despite its support, and the legal ramifications for gay families, it was vetoed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

National Stonewall Democrats recognizes the work of statewide activists, including Equality California, which led to the passage of this legislation.

The platform of the California Democratic Party supports the freedom of same-sex couples to marry, as do the Democratic platforms of Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington State.

------

National Stonewall Democrats is the only national organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Democrats, with more than 90 local chapters across the nation. NSD is committed to working through the Democratic Party to advance the rights of all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

# # #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find out more at www.stonewalldemocrats.org.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 2007 National Stonewall Democrats. Contributions to National Stonewall Democrats are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

First Post, First Blog, Old man, Young at heart

Michael Knight — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:15:07 EDT

Okay, So I'm not a techno geek, but I and finding it easy to put down what I think and find out what YOU think. I respect all opinions and ideas.
I think Bush is a TOAD.
I think Immigration should apply to ALL people in America that came here by other than LEGAL means. ID cards should be required by everyone working or getting SOCIAL SERVICES.
A Social Security/Idenity Card with PHOTO and THUMB PRINT should be the law of the land and NOTHING GIVEN AWAY with out PROOF you deserve it. ie: You are LEGALLY IN AMERICA or a Citizen. The NEW DNC motto should be, "THE BUCK STOPS HERE".
I think the millitary should allow ALL people who what to server their country the ability to do so, no matter what sexual orentation you may have.
I think people should marry whom ever they wish, as long as it is not a relative. (There are Enough Republicans)
I think we should be more understanding to each other and inclusive in our daily living.
I think Democrats should come together and support Hillary Clinton, for the GOOD of AMERICA.

iowa flips after 4 hours

annie b (mcliberal) — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:32:27 EDT

we should have known this was too good to be true. again, courtesy of the ny times. please read and i thank you

Link

GLBT Outrage at Edwards Misplaced...

Douglas J. De Clue — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:35:03 EDT

Much misplaced outrage in the GLBT community has been expressed towards John Edwards over the following commentary from the Sojourners' religious forum over the following comment:

"EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I think what the governor did and what New Hampshire's done is a great example for the rest of the country. Not only civil unions, but all the partnership benefits, including, Senator Clinton talked about getting rid of this "don't ask/don't tell" policy.

I don't think the federal government has a role in telling either states or religious institutions, churches, what marriages they can bless and can't bless. I think the state of New Hampshire ought to be able to make that decision for itself, like every other state in the country. I think every church ought to be able to make that decision for itself.

And I think it's very important that we stand up against intolerance and against discrimination.

But I want to add one thing on something that Governor Richardson sad, because it's been a tone of everything that's been discussed here today. The place that I differ with Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, and I guess, to some extent, Senator Obama, and I agree with Governor Richardson -- it is the job of the president of the United States not to legislate but to lead."

Hold the Bus

Max Gordon — Wed, 02 May 2007 09:23:37 EDT

At one point, 40 states in this country forbade the marriage of a white person to a person of color. Marriages between whites and persons of color were decried as "immoral" and "unnatural" and against God's will.

Thankfully, moral conscience and civil rights won out: in 1967 in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws across the country and declared that the "freedom to marry" belongs to all Americans, and that marriage was one of our "vital personal rights" and "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people." Forty years later, though, some of us are still being denied those vital personal rights.

Eleven years after the Loving decision, the Supreme Court declared marriage to be "of fundamental importance to all individuals," describing marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man'" and "the most important relation in life." The court also noted that "the right to marry is part of the fundamental 'right to privacy' " in the U.S. Constitution.

Note that the Constitution also mandates the separation of church and state, and that marriage is a Civil Right. Churches may add their blessings to state-sanctified unions, but religious ceremonies mean nothing in relation to tax laws, estate laws, or social benefits. They are important only as an affirmation of commitment before people of similar faith. The government has no right to tell churches who can and can't be joined in a covenent; but neither do churches have the right to deny American citizens equal protection under the law.

Republicans have tried to claim marriage as Conservative value, but it is in fact a universal desire--to pledge oneself to another with love and mutual respect. Republicans have tried to claim that they alone respect the sanctity of marriage. How can this be so, when Ronald Regan divorced the mother of his two children to marry Nancy, who delivered their first child, full term, just seven months later? And when Bob Dole divorced the mother of his childï¿½"a woman who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds? When Newt Gingrich divorced his wife, who was dying of cancer at the time? And when Rush Limbaugh, self-appointed voice of righteousness, and his current wife, Marta, have six marriages and four divorces between them? Which marriages are they defending? Which ones do they consider sacred, the first? The second? The last? (Democrats divorce too. But they are far less likely to trumpet their moral superiority in the face of contradictory evidence.)

We don't want special rights; quite the contrary. We want our government to join the growing number of countries who have abolished this groundless prejudice from their judicial systems. We want our government to respect the foundation of our wonderful country by heeding the words of the Constitution. Marriage IS something to be Defended. It is an amazing and wondrous thing to find someone you love so dearly, value so highly, and trust so implicitly that you would commit yourself in good faith to a lifetime together.

But these so-called "defenders of marriage" all ended their marriages: Representative Dick Armey; Senator Phil Gramm; Governor John Engler; Governor Pete Wilson; Ultraconservative pundit George Will; Senator Lauch Faircloth; Senator Alfonse D'Amato; Senator John Warner; Governor George Allen; Representative Helen Chenoweth; Senator John McCain; Representative John Kasich; Representative Susan Molinari (RNC Keynote Speaker!).... The list is so long that the running joke in Washington and elsewhere is, "Don't let gays destroy marriageï¿½"that's the job of the Republicans!"

Unfortunately, this "joke" is NOT funny: legalized discrimination by these hypocritical officials is a very real threat to the Constitution, to the moral conscience of America, and to the truly faithful everywhere. Denying same-gender marriages does nothing to "protect" marriage. Instead, it takes rights away from some Americans and grants them to others: the Constitution should not be used to make discrimiation legal.

Should my son feel less American than yours? Will you make him a "bastard" by taking away my right to marry, thus condemning him to a life where his parents are deemed second-class citizens? Will we be relegated to the back of the bus next, and forced to live as separate--but UNequal--Americans? Will we end up in separate schools, separate churches, with separate water fountains?

The "special privileges" offered to appease--civil unions, domestic partnerships, spousal unions, reciprocal benefits--are insults to the integrity of the Constitution, which declares us all to have equal rights under the law. Separating religious ceremony from the legal realities that the word "marriage" automatically conveys and bestows honors those words. I am proud that New Hampshire has taken an important first step in allowing civil unions, but that is all it isï¿½"a first step. We no longer have to sit at the back of the bus. But what good is that if they won't let us on in the first place?

Silly, Silly Gays

Progressive America Times — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:34:57 EST

America seems to gradually be going down the same path Canada did in regards to gay marriage. At first, the majority of Canadians were against it, and the parliament made a ruling reflecting that. Then, after a few court cases recognized some rights, public opinion started to change. Back in February of 2004, 63% of Americans were opposed to extending the right of marriage to gay couples. Now, the number stands at 51%, according to the same Pew Research Center poll. While a majority are still against gay marriage, that is a significant swing for just a two year time period. Today, Canada is much more open and accepting than America about gay relationships. But 2008 is just around the corner...

Same Sex Marriage, Why It Matters

Brian In NYC — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:25:20 EST

Every era has it's own polarizing issues, when I was younger the big issues of the day were Vietnam, civil rights (as pertaining to people of color) and equality between the sexes. Today we are dealing with Iraq and same sex marriage (civil rights for gay people). I guess the old adage it true, everything old is new again. It's sad for mankind that we have such short memories and are constantly having to learn old lesson over and over again. This country is yet again engaged in another chapter of the civil rights battle, the issue of same sex marriage is just the newest chapter to be written.