AFA Online Poll

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

The proof will be in the pudding.........

You can parse what "support" means all you want, but as time passes, you'll see Georgie boy jumping on the amendment bandwagon, for purely political reasons: pandering.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>but, bush has ONLY said as much as they have: that he

>would be in favour of it. he has never said he'd "push for"

>it.

Actually, Bush hasn't even expressed nearly as strong support for this amendment as most Democrats in this poll did.

Bush said he would, at some time in the future, support the amendment "if necessary" - meaning, he's not prepared yet to say it is necesary. He also added a rather important qualifier about how he beileves in states' rights on this issue - presumably meaning that if Massachuessets CITIZENS (as opposed to courts) decide they or any other state wants to have gay marriage, it's their right.

By contrast, most Democrats have GONE FURTHER THAN BUSH and, at least in this poll, said THEY DO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT NOW. Bush has not said this.

So, as far as the anti-gay constitutional amendment is concerned, the position of a majority of Democrats is more anti-gay than is Bush's position.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>By contrast, most Democrats have GONE FURTHER THAN BUSH and,

>at least in this poll, said THEY DO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT

>NOW. Bush has not said this.

>

Doogie:

Bill O'Reilly can't hold a candle to you when it comes to spinning. Can you attach names to those Democrats? There is a qualitative difference between some individual Joe Schmoe Democrat in Bumfuck, Alabama who claims to be a Democrat, and Dubya, who happens to be president. I'm sure that distinction is lost on you, since it serves your purpose to create this myth you're peddling.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>Can you attach names to those Democrats?

It's more than half the members of the party. Do you think that's significant?

Doesn't it bother you AT ALL that half of the members of your party want to amend the Constitution in order to prevent you from marrying - doesn't it bother you even more that half of the members of your party want to make it a crime for you to have sex?

We've been over a billion times that there are lots of anti-gay zealots in the Republican party. Now it's clear that there are a huge number in the Democratic Party, too - do you have anything to say about that?

As for "big names," if you want some big Democratic names who oppose gay marriage, just look at the major candidates for your party's nomination - they ALL oppose gay marriage.

There is

>a qualitative difference between some individual Joe Schmoe

>Democrat in Bumfuck, Alabama who claims to be a Democrat, and

>Dubya, who happens to be president. I'm sure that distinction

>is lost on you, since it serves your purpose to create this

>myth you're peddling.

I think Bush is awful on gay issues, no doubt about it, although he doesn't seem to care much about these issues; he certainly isn't preoccupied with them. And every time he is forced to speak on the issue, he tempers what he says - like pointing out that EVERYONE is a sinner in the eyes of God, and gay people aren't any different. That doesn't sound like pandering to the Christian Right to me.

But it is EXTREMELY revealing that half of the people in your party - those sainted, wonderful, civil-rights-loving Democrats- have staked out a more anti-gay position than has Bush. That's just fact- do you have anything to say about that?

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>

>But it is EXTREMELY revealing that half of the people in your

>party - those sainted, wonderful, civil-rights-loving

>Democrats- have staked out a more anti-gay position than has

>Bush. That's just fact- do you have anything to say about

>that?

Sure I do.....it looks like you're giving us more of the Doogie O'Reilly spin to make a claim that over half of the Democrats have taken a more anti-gay position that Bush. For someone who usually treats the New York Times as a commie pinko rag, suddenly you've seen the light and embrace it as gospel truth? Your modus operandi is well known here. Just wait until they publish a poll that goes against some pet idea of yours, and you'll revert to your normal level of contempt for NYT.

And what do we know of the people sampled in the NYT poll and how it was conducted? It's pretty evident that gays fucked up the AFA poll by skewing it. Do we all really live and die by poll results? I sure as hell don't. Considering that the attention span of the American public doesn't go much beyond 15 minutes, I don't place that much stock in polls. Don't bet the ranch on what people say they believe. Watch for what they do.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>The proof will be in the pudding.........

>

>You can parse what "support" means all you want, but as time

>passes, you'll see Georgie boy jumping on the amendment

>bandwagon, for purely political reasons: pandering.

you did the parsing, lefty. you're the one who gives dems a pass for supporting, but not "pushing for" such an amendment. if you're willing to at least admit that your logical reasoning is flawed, we can let it drop.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

i see... so NOW you're going to question the credentials of the times, when you have never done so before?

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>As for "big names," if you want some big Democratic names who

>oppose gay marriage, just look at the major candidates for

>your party's nomination - they ALL oppose gay marriage.

uhhh ... actually, that ain't true. Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton have come out (no pun intended) strongly in favor of gay marriage. Not just civil unions, but gay marriage. And Braun gave what I thought a very passionate response to the question of gay marriage during the last debate. Her point was that she herself remembers when it used to be against the law for two people of different races to get married. That was discrimination then (racial), and this is discrimination now (sexual orientation) ... and two adults who want to get married should be allowed to.

But why is this issue being debated? The FACT IS that there are substantial numbers of Democrats AND Republicans in favor of an ammendment to define marriage as one between a man and a woman.

The problem as I see it is that America is simply not culturally or politically ready (*yet*) for gay marriage. As soon as I saw the news of the Mass. ruling, I actually considered it bad news. Not because I oppose gay marriage (I'm for it), but because it was too soon. It is now forcing the issue to the forefront to be ultimately decided and energizing those opposed to gay rights to push for this amendment in response. Since there are still too many Americans (Democrats and Republicans) who are ignorant about what it is to be gay, I fear that we as such a small minority do not have the political support to fend off this amendment. I hope I'm wrong though.

On the bright side, I've seen interviews of people who are opposed to gay marriage also voice opposition to an amendment that would ban it. While they oppose the idea of gay marriage, they oppose amending the constitution even more. Let's hope there are a lot of these.

Bottom line:

We live in a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules. Gays, being such a small minority, are essentially at the mercy of the majority and can only hope that they do the right thing. Currently (and unfortunately), the majority are ignorant about what it is to be gay and therefore don't know what the "right" thing is. We need more time to combat this ignorance.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>>As for "big names," if you want some big Democratic names

>who

>>oppose gay marriage, just look at the major candidates for

>>your party's nomination - they ALL oppose gay marriage.

>

>uhhh ... actually, that ain't true. Kucinich, Braun, and

>Sharpton have come out (no pun intended) strongly in favor of

>gay marriage. Not just civil unions, but gay marriage.

I said "just look at the major candidates," who are all against gay marriage. I don't consider candidates with absolutely zero chance of winning who are hovering around 1% support - which is true for all 3 of the candidates you named - to be "major candidates." They support gay marriage precisely because they know they can't get Democrats to nominate them and so they can take whatever position they want becuase it doesn't matter.

All of the candidates with any real shot at winning - Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Clark, add Edwards if you want - are all on record AGAINST gay marriage.

And

>Braun gave what I thought a very passionate response to the

>question of gay marriage during the last debate. Her point

>was that she herself remembers when it used to be against the

>law for two people of different races to get married. That

>was discrimination then (racial), and this is discrimination

>now (sexual orientation) ... and two adults who want to get

>married should be allowed to.

Yes - all the more remarkable that these Democrats, who act as though they invented civil rights, are so vehemently opposed to making the marriage laws non-discriminatory.

>But why is this issue being debated? The FACT IS that there

>are substantial numbers of Democrats AND Republicans in favor

>of an ammendment to define marriage as one between a man and a

>woman.

The reason it's being discussed is because gay people have been manipulated into believing that they should pledge undying loyalty to the Democrats on the ground that this Party advocates their equality, when that is just false.

It also illustrates the folly of giving your blood to one of the parties, because then that party ignores you and takes you for granted and the other party won't care about your issues at all. Ask black political leaders about this mistake; they can go on for hours about it, because it's been screwing them for the better part of 3 decades.

>The problem as I see it is that America is simply not

>culturally or politically ready (*yet*) for gay marriage. As

>soon as I saw the news of the Mass. ruling, I actually

>considered it bad news. Not because I oppose gay marriage

>(I'm for it), but because it was too soon.

I agree - I don't think it's a matter of its being too soon. I think that we were winning the debate and persuading our fellow citizens that gay marriage was a good idea and was just. Then the courts came and said what everyone knows isn't true - that the 300 year old Massachusettes Constitution somehow compels gay marriage - and that's when people start feeling like their right to decide has been taken away, and they backlash, understandably so.

>On the bright side, I've seen interviews of people who are

>opposed to gay marriage also voice opposition to an amendment

>that would ban it. While they oppose the idea of gay

>marriage, they oppose amending the constitution even more.

>Let's hope there are a lot of these.

Yes - there are actually scores of conservatives now who are vehemently opposed to gay marriage who - on the grounds of federalism or just a disinclination to change the Constitution - are opposed to that amendment.

But in Bush's interview - where he expressly refused to say that he supports this amendment - he made clear that the only reason it's even being discussed is because of judges who are imposing their own personal views and masquerading them as constitutional rulings. Both he and Cheney have made clear that if the citizens of a state (as opposed to judges) want gay marriage, that is probably something they have the right to decide.

I think it's just lazy of gay rights groups to have embarked on this stragey. It's easier to find some 7 judge panel and convice 4 judges, rather than convincing the majority of citizens. But that is a huge mistake, and I think these polls, as well as this talk of a constitutional amendment, are a direct by-product of that mistake.

Current results:

I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and "civil unions" 32.79%

(243879 votes)

I favor legalization of homosexual marriage 59.24%

(440652 votes)

I favor a "civil union" with the full benefits of marriage except for the name 7.98%

(59332 votes)

Let's hold them to their statement of sending these results to Congress!!!

green ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grn)

n.

The hue of that portion of the visible spectrum lying between yellow and blue, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 490 to 570 nanometers; any of a group of colors that may vary in lightness and saturation and whose hue is that of the emerald or somewhat less yellow than that of growing grass; one of the additive or light primaries; one of the psychological primary hues.

Something green in color.

greens Green growth or foliage, especially:

The branches and leaves of plants used for decoration.

Leafy plants or plant parts eaten as vegetables.

A grassy lawn or plot, especially:

A grassy area located usually at the center of a city or town and set aside for common use; a common.

Sports. A putting green.

greens A green uniform: “a young... sergeant in dress greens” (Nelson DeMille).

Slang. Money.

Green A supporter of a social and political movement that espouses global environmental protection, bioregionalism, social responsibility, and nonviolence.

The America Family Association.... An online activist group Promoting

Traditional Family Values is conducting a marriage poll, which they are planning on giving to congress. So, lets give them our vote on their poll!!

http://www.marriagepoll.com

--EBG