Once again Becky, the Girl in Short Shorts, has the scoop. Not only does she take you through the nearly uniform anti-gay positions of the major presidential candidates, she also lays out the issues that are critical, especially to gay and lesbian couples.
She ends up with the conclusion that gays have no other choice than to vote Libertarian.
[No, sorry, Ron Paul doesn't come out very well.]
[Outright Libertarians has already endorsed Libertarian presidential hopeful George Phillies. I don't know much about Phillies as a candidate, but I do remember him as the original dominant American player of Avalon Hill's Stalingrad game back in the 1960s-70s.]
Beyond the gay/lesbian issue, this situation raises a fundamental question about a two-party system, as opposed to a more open multi-party system.
With only an either/or choice pragmatically available, we are virtually guaranteed to elect least common denominator candidates. No serious candidate for national office can afford to oppose the prejudices of the great mass of the electorate. If 75-80% of the American population opposes gay marriage, then guess what?
She ends up with the conclusion that gays have no other choice than to vote Libertarian.
[No, sorry, Ron Paul doesn't come out very well.]
[Outright Libertarians has already endorsed Libertarian presidential hopeful George Phillies. I don't know much about Phillies as a candidate, but I do remember him as the original dominant American player of Avalon Hill's Stalingrad game back in the 1960s-70s.]
Beyond the gay/lesbian issue, this situation raises a fundamental question about a two-party system, as opposed to a more open multi-party system.
With only an either/or choice pragmatically available, we are virtually guaranteed to elect least common denominator candidates. No serious candidate for national office can afford to oppose the prejudices of the great mass of the electorate. If 75-80% of the American population opposes gay marriage, then guess what?
Comments
All a candidate has to say is maybe the public's not at marriage yet, but in the meantime, here's the rights gays ought to have in common with everyone else. It's the question no one has been asked so far. Short of marriage, what rights do you think gays should have?
The answers could be really illuminating.
Why would gays, or anyone else for that matter, want the government involved in their marriages? A marriage should be a contract between two individuals sealed by whatever ceremony they care to hold. It is a basic right dating back to the dawn of civilization.
Marriage licenses were originally a racist institution designed to prevent intermarriage and mixing of races. They were never necessary for white people. After the 14th Amendment and several Court decisions, such as Loving v Virginia, they should not be able to be considered necessary for anyone.
I have no idea how the general public has been deceived into believing that they need permission from the government to exercise as basic a right as getting married. Especially when marriage is the one and only reference to common law that most people are familiar with.
If being denied benefits commonly associated with marriage is the actual concern, there are perfectly valid legal & financial tools to solve most if not all of those problems (eg: wills, living wills, binding power of attorney, naming of beneficiaries, joint accounts, ...)
To answer Hube's question, I think gays have exactly the same Rights as everyone else, and I think they are fools if they want to cede those Rights to the government in exchange for Privileges.