Hi folks. I am a gay-friendly, hetero-gal but am curious about something. Does Obama automatically get the gay vote this year? Please let me know your views, as a gay person. Thanks! 
Curious
- Thread starter LostVapeMonster
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'm sure you'll get a lot of yess's, but for me, no.
I'll be voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Gay or straight, I want the government involved in my life as little as possible. I'd rather they not have a say so at all when it comes to defining who my family is - husband, mother, father, cousin, sister, brother, whatever. They should not get to make that call.
So whether you're a Dem who "supposedly" supports same-sex marriage (my rep Ben Chandler, Dem, voted twice FOR a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man, one woman) or a Rep who supports the government not recognizing same-sex marriages but recognizes opposite-sex marriages - you want the government involved one way or the other.
I want neither. Take government out of marriage & defining personal relationships. And many other aspects - decrease its size, lower taxes, and let the citizens keep more of their hard earned money in their pockets.
I'll be voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Gay or straight, I want the government involved in my life as little as possible. I'd rather they not have a say so at all when it comes to defining who my family is - husband, mother, father, cousin, sister, brother, whatever. They should not get to make that call.
So whether you're a Dem who "supposedly" supports same-sex marriage (my rep Ben Chandler, Dem, voted twice FOR a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man, one woman) or a Rep who supports the government not recognizing same-sex marriages but recognizes opposite-sex marriages - you want the government involved one way or the other.
I want neither. Take government out of marriage & defining personal relationships. And many other aspects - decrease its size, lower taxes, and let the citizens keep more of their hard earned money in their pockets.
Damn DJ! I could not agree with you more! Who the hell is the government (or anyone else for that matter) to say who can get married and who can't?
Thanks for the response. No one else took the time. Is it heteroism? Am I being discriminated against on this thread cuz I'm straight?
J/K!
I have a daughter who came out to me a few years back and I would really love to see her have the right to marry the person she loves when that day comes for her.
Thanks for the response. No one else took the time. Is it heteroism? Am I being discriminated against on this thread cuz I'm straight?
J/K! I have a daughter who came out to me a few years back and I would really love to see her have the right to marry the person she loves when that day comes for her.
I think if you were to take a poll (if that were even really possible) of all gay people in the country, "Democrat" would be the *vast* majority vote. But there are groups like the "Log Cabin Republicans" and "GOProud" that are staunch Republicans, even though their own party really gives them no respect.
On the marriage issue, one of the fundamental reasons for government to exist is to regulate and enforce legal contracts between persons. Marriage is basically a legal contract. There are, of course, the warm-and-fuzzy side and the religious side (if applicable), but primarily it's a legal contract with rights, responsibilities, and a helluva lot of perks attached. When anyone in this country talks about gay marriage, it's that contractual relationship they're really talking about.
In many other countries a couple goes to the state authorities and gets married. Only then do they go to the religious authority to have the marriage "blessed." Our country has done a terrible job blurring this distinction by allowing religious authorities to handle both sides of the equation.
Saying you want the government out of contract enforcement is a very dangerous proposition that not only *could not* happen, but would lead to some pretty oppressive situations if it were allowed to happen.
On the marriage issue, one of the fundamental reasons for government to exist is to regulate and enforce legal contracts between persons. Marriage is basically a legal contract. There are, of course, the warm-and-fuzzy side and the religious side (if applicable), but primarily it's a legal contract with rights, responsibilities, and a helluva lot of perks attached. When anyone in this country talks about gay marriage, it's that contractual relationship they're really talking about.
In many other countries a couple goes to the state authorities and gets married. Only then do they go to the religious authority to have the marriage "blessed." Our country has done a terrible job blurring this distinction by allowing religious authorities to handle both sides of the equation.
Saying you want the government out of contract enforcement is a very dangerous proposition that not only *could not* happen, but would lead to some pretty oppressive situations if it were allowed to happen.
Respectfully BT, I disagree.
A contract is exactly what is needed - not a marriage license. A contract that 2 or 20 people are a party to could be written up for property rights, custody rights, etc. and filed with the local courthouse for when disputes arise or other necessary times for the document to be referenced.
This would not only be beneficial to gay couples but also the very diverse make-up of families we have these days that are not comprised of blood relatives or marital in-laws. People should be able to make any and all familial connections they feel are necessary to live this life, and the government should not have the right to legally define or constrict those families to a very small set of rules/regulations that it feels is right. We, The People, should have that right - and then draw up any legal contracts we feel are necessary for these relationships and call it just that - a contract.
A contract is exactly what is needed - not a marriage license. A contract that 2 or 20 people are a party to could be written up for property rights, custody rights, etc. and filed with the local courthouse for when disputes arise or other necessary times for the document to be referenced.
This would not only be beneficial to gay couples but also the very diverse make-up of families we have these days that are not comprised of blood relatives or marital in-laws. People should be able to make any and all familial connections they feel are necessary to live this life, and the government should not have the right to legally define or constrict those families to a very small set of rules/regulations that it feels is right. We, The People, should have that right - and then draw up any legal contracts we feel are necessary for these relationships and call it just that - a contract.
My vote isn't just a gay vote.
It's my Single, White, Agnostic, Female, Lesbian, American, Veteran, and member of the Human Race VOTE.
All of those are equally important and yes, President Obama gets it, because he "gets it".
Perhaps you don't remember:
Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson
National History Day 2012 Documentary - The Sharon and Karen Case - YouTube
But this wasn't so long ago, and they had all the paperwork in place.
Page 2: Obama Orders Hospitals to Allow Gay Partners Visitation, Health Care Rights - ABC News
It's my Single, White, Agnostic, Female, Lesbian, American, Veteran, and member of the Human Race VOTE.
All of those are equally important and yes, President Obama gets it, because he "gets it".
Perhaps you don't remember:
Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson
National History Day 2012 Documentary - The Sharon and Karen Case - YouTube
But this wasn't so long ago, and they had all the paperwork in place.
Page 2: Obama Orders Hospitals to Allow Gay Partners Visitation, Health Care Rights - ABC News
I didn't vote for him in the last presidential election. He lost my vote when he called the issue of marriage equality "semantics" - he clearly didn't "get it", and so he didn't get my vote. I also didn't vote for McLame/Psycho, so I didn't cast a vote for president.
I was raised a Republican, but moved on when the Republican Party became the White Christian Dominionist Party. I would belong to the Libertarian Party, if it wasn't filled to overflowing with racist asses who want nothing more than a return to the Jim Crow south. Oh, and I don't hate government - I think there's a useful role for it - just not all the role it has given itself. I can't be a Dem, because they're spineless, pathetic wusses who stand for nothing and pander to everything.
So I hold my nose and vote for the least worst candidate I can find. If I can't stomach any of them, I don't place a vote for that office. It may be Obama this year, but there's lots of time for him to screw up again between now and the elections. It certainly won't be Candidate Etch-a-Sketch.
I was raised a Republican, but moved on when the Republican Party became the White Christian Dominionist Party. I would belong to the Libertarian Party, if it wasn't filled to overflowing with racist asses who want nothing more than a return to the Jim Crow south. Oh, and I don't hate government - I think there's a useful role for it - just not all the role it has given itself. I can't be a Dem, because they're spineless, pathetic wusses who stand for nothing and pander to everything.
So I hold my nose and vote for the least worst candidate I can find. If I can't stomach any of them, I don't place a vote for that office. It may be Obama this year, but there's lots of time for him to screw up again between now and the elections. It certainly won't be Candidate Etch-a-Sketch.
While I think it's great that Obama came out in favor of gay rights I feel as though it was cheapened by the fact that he had to be pushed into a corner to do it. Off-topic but I'm more upset about the increase in DEA raids in the last four years.
My vote is going to Gary Johnson. I'll be happy to see the day that the government gets out of the marriage business altogether.
My vote is going to Gary Johnson. I'll be happy to see the day that the government gets out of the marriage business altogether.
As a lesbian, I will definitely be voting for Barack Obama again. Repealing DADT was a big deal, and I'm glad he kept that difficult promise. He has taken a lot of heat for his support of the GLBT community, and I will support him in return. While I don't believe in a two party system, and have seen independent candidates that I respect, this is not a time where I can do that. The Republican party has moved so far to the right that it is frightening. As a lesbian, and more importantly as a woman, I cannot cast anything but a pro Obama, anti Romney vote. Women have fought too hard for the rights they are attempting to take away. I respect your right to disagree, but this is where I stand in this incredibly important election year.
I'm a lesbian, but I'm not a one-issue voter. I've supported Obama from the beginning, for a number of reasons, and I still do. I certainly don't support everything he's done -- have frankly been appalled by a couple of things -- but I strongly believe that everything he has done has been in the service of this country. His formal declaration of support for marriage equality may have been forced, but his history of support for the gay community speaks for itself, as does his support for women, the middle class, the poor, the elderly, immigrants, students, veterans and the environment, i.e., everyone and everything that Republican policy would sacrifice for the benefit of a handful of rich white guys.
Although I would vote for Obama even if the policies and the ideology of the Repubs were not so repugnant, the fact that they are makes it all the more urgent that he be re-elected. Romney has shown time and time again that he will cave to any pressure from the radical, fundamentalist faction that seems to have hijacked -- actually, infested is more accurate -- the Republican party, and honestly, they scare the hell out of me. What's particularly frightening is fact that this group will almost certainly seat at least one new Supreme Court Justice -- Ginsburg is 79 -- and quite possible two -- Kennedy, often the swing vote in cases of conservative / progressive deadlock, is 76. If that were to happen, overturning Roe vs. Wade will be the least of our problems. Although I certainly understand the impulse to cast a symbolic vote or to sit this one out altogether, I would urge you to reconsider if for no other reason than to prevent this scenario from occurring.
Although I would vote for Obama even if the policies and the ideology of the Repubs were not so repugnant, the fact that they are makes it all the more urgent that he be re-elected. Romney has shown time and time again that he will cave to any pressure from the radical, fundamentalist faction that seems to have hijacked -- actually, infested is more accurate -- the Republican party, and honestly, they scare the hell out of me. What's particularly frightening is fact that this group will almost certainly seat at least one new Supreme Court Justice -- Ginsburg is 79 -- and quite possible two -- Kennedy, often the swing vote in cases of conservative / progressive deadlock, is 76. If that were to happen, overturning Roe vs. Wade will be the least of our problems. Although I certainly understand the impulse to cast a symbolic vote or to sit this one out altogether, I would urge you to reconsider if for no other reason than to prevent this scenario from occurring.
- Status
Similar threads
