So then how do you explain all of the liberals who voted for marriage definitions on the state level?
I think you mean “Democrats”, because anyone who did isn’t what I’d call a social liberal.
And I think you mean “voted for discrimination of gay couples”. The double-speak on the intent of the amendments in question is quite sickening.
I think you mean “Democrats”, because anyone who did isn’t what I’d call a social liberal.
And I think you mean “voted for discrimination of gay couples”. The double-speak on the intent of the amendments in question is quite sickening.[/quote]
that’s unfair. At issue is the distinction between state authority and federal authority. Marriage, in general, is a state issue, and many people want it to stay that way. They also know that some states will allow gay marriage and some won’t, but if it is left up to states at least SOME states will have it. This prevents a federal amendment from keeping any state from doing it. These same people are likely to believe that states should honor the public proceedings of other states, so that a person who gets married in Vermont must be seen as married by Tennessee. There may be exceptions of course, people who just want gays to be able to have rights somewhere rather than nowhere and don’t care if other states recognize it. But I think that is the general stance. At any rate, voting for states to make this decision is not the same as voting against gay marriage altogether.
It may be sickening, fair enough. However on a previous thread I asked about this and it appears that every single state in which this was on the ballot was voting “for” a definition, not “against” an action. I worded it that way in my above post, because thet’s exactly what it was.
By the way, I know social liberals who don’t support “gay marriage”. You may have heard of one, his name is John Fucking Kerry. Of course, he does support gay “civil unions” (which I also do, by the way, so that’s two social liberals so far if you’re counting). Clearly the wording matters.
But Robert, I don’t know if there has been such a vote (that marriage definitions should be up to the states), unless you mean the vote on the FMA.
And as of right now, a marriage between people of the same sex does not need to be recognised by any other state, thanks to the DOMA. Which is a bit off-topic, just wanted to mention it. Yet again.
Oh, not social liberals by my measure :)
Of course, by my measure my realpolitik stance of being pro-same sex marriage isn’t that socially liberal either.
Against:
Those may not be against an action, but I’d say they’re pretty negative in wording anyway. Of course, I’d say defining marriage to not include any damn faggots is pretty negative in the first place.
Well come on now bro, even your right wingers up there in Sweden look like the left to us in the US. :)
Those may not be against an action, but I’d say they’re pretty negative in wording anyway. Of course, I’d say defining marriage to not include any damn faggots is pretty negative in the first place.[/quote][/quote]
Huh. OK well those were pretty negative. I recall asking it here on QT3 earlier and didn’t see any like that.