"Charlie C." wrote in message
.4...
"Vox Humana" wrote in
:


"Wil" wrote in message
...
Homosexuals are not married. They are partners of a different kind,
like room mates, or other kind of sex partner but can not legally
enter into
the
marriage contract. They have rights as individual but not as a couple
who
is
in a marriage contract between a man and a woman. It has to do with a
legal
contract. The contract says between a man and a woman.


I don't think that is being questioned. The issue is that same-sex
couples SHOULD have the right to enter into the same contract. It's
simply a legal matter. If churches don't want to "marry" same-sex
couples, that's their business. Remember, at one time marriage was
only open to two white people of opposite genders. People in mixed
race marriages were criminals in many states. People saw that as a
partnership of a different kind. Things change.



Bush and Kerry are both for civil unions among gay couples that would give
them the same legal rights (and punishments!) that married couples
receive.
Both Bush and Kerry are against gay marraige saying that "marraige" should
be between a man and a woman. So, if you're gonna complain about Bush you
need to complain about Kerry as well. BTW, Edwards (the REALLY liberal
Democratic contender) was against gay marraige (and for civil unions) as
well.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/work.../JohnKerry.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...bush.marriage/

No doubt that I am not happy about Kerry's position. Here is the
difference. Kerry is NOT for amending the constitution. Kerry has an
excellent record in the Senate in regards to gay rights. Bush wouldn't even
meet with the Log Cabin Republicans, and as governor supported the
prohibition of gays to adopt children and favored the sodomy law struck down
in the recent Lawrence vs.. Texas Supreme Court Ruling. Bush has
demonstrated that he is good about talking "compassion" but doesn't deliver.
Kerry has demonstrated that he does deliver by his voting record. Bush is
beholding to the religious-right and will, under no circumstances, promote
civil unions. He is just walking a tight rope, trying to please his base
while not alienating undecided voters who are much more moderate.
Therefore, I think we can work with Kerry, but not with Bush.

Like may things in life, there is no absolute good or bad. I would much
rather be voting for Dean, but if the choice is Bush or Kerry, I will vote
for Kerry. I'm sure that in fifty years people will be fighting over this
issue just as they do now about civil rights for blacks. Same-sex marriage
will have been in existence for years. Life will be largely unaffected for
most people and better for some. The Democrats will be pointing fingers at
the Republicans for trying to amend the Constitution and the Republicans
will point to the fact that Clinton signed DOMA and candidates like Kerry
and Hillary Clinton were also against same-sex marriage. There will be
plenty of shame to go around. It is just too bad that we have only a choice
between sort of bad and really bad.