Gay Rights in the United States - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Which do you think will most likely occur during the next president's administration?

Same-Sex Marriage
5
12%
Civil Unions
23
55%
Anti-Discrimination Laws
4
10%
No Change
9
21%
Other
1
2%
User avatar
By Todd D.
#1423170
"Gay Marriage" is still a big loser in most states, and the only way that it could get passed nation-wide is some Court Decision that applies the Full Faith and Credit clause to public policy (which it historically hasn't done). Given the makeup of the Supreme Court, that's not likely.

I'd say that any progress beyond "take it state by state" would have to come by way of Civil Unions.

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Civil Unions became the only thing that the States recognize, with "Marriage" being left to the religious.
By Zyx
#1423264
I think that the McCain/Obama Presidency would go for Civil Unions; and the Clinton/Gore would do the civil unions too . . . reluctantly after 7 years or so.
By Goranhammer
#1423298
I agree with Todd. Same sex marriages recognized across the nation will never happen because even Democrats have roots in Judeo-Christian values. Civil unions may exist on a state level by referendum, but that's as far as it will go.

Gays already have plenty of rights.
User avatar
By Nets
#1423561
I predict "Civil Unions" but nothing more. Gay Marriage is a long way off in this country. Too much of the country is opposed to Gay Marriage, even in the North.

And we already have anti-discrimination and hate-crime laws, I don't know why this was an option.
User avatar
By The Eternal Commie
#1423601
Not all the States have anti-discrimination laws, and there is certainly no Federal statute banning hate crimes against gays. Furthermore, I doubt that anyone would try to pass such a statute, given the Supreme Court's manhandling of the Violence Against Women Act.

Also, Civil Unions are very similar in most people's minds to marriage; I don't believe that any but a very few States will end up recognizing Civil Unions. In short...no change. :(
User avatar
By Nets
#1423625
Eternal Commie, Good News

Federal hate crime laws including sexual orientation have passed in both the House and Senate.

Unfortunately, Bush has threatened a veto. :(

Anyways, we'll see.
By Piano Red
#1423639
A smart Presidency in charge of the Federal Govt. would simply leave the issue to the states to decide (and i'm saying that as a Democrat), a petty like gay marriage really shouldn't be so high of a concern for the national government.

I can see civil union or possibly a national referendum on the subject if push came to shove, but in all honesty apart from the extremist wackos most of the country really doesn't give a shit about gay people wanting to get married IMO.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1423650
Isnt marriage and the various laws relating to it, a state issue?

In that is the case, then I think Todd nailed it.
By Arbiter Azariah
#1423735
Definitely anti-discrimination laws. Even the more conservative folks on the hill would find it appropriate/politically beneficial to make sure gay people don't suffer too much systemic bias. Take conservative Georgian Democrat Zell Miller; despite being opposed to gay marriage, he was happy to sign on gay bashing being considered a hate crime.

Civil unions are a maybe, and a I mean a maybe. You'd need an administration open to idea, combined with a congress that will let it through. If the Senate falls back to the GOP in 2008, and the freshmen are quite socially conservative, it probably won't get through.
User avatar
By Praetor
#1423979
And we already have anti-discrimination and hate-crime laws

19 states offer no protection regarding employment discrimination due to sexual orientation.
Isnt marriage and the various laws relating to it, a state issue?

As far as I'm concerned, states rights are void when it comes to fundamental rights like those associated with a civil marriage. If the federal government left integration to the states, it never would have happened.
By Goranhammer
#1424084
19 states offer no protection regarding employment discrimination due to sexual orientation.


Don't ask; don't tell.
User avatar
By Quercus Robur
#1424104
Civil Union and registration should be the base, with an additional religious marriage attached to that. People should all stop hijacking religion in general on that score :(

it is not for the state to say people are to not think homophobic thoughts or force them to hold back their nausea as they wed gays, except as far as the church acts as part of the state... which it really really shouldn't do. Various religions' monopoly on elements of the state should be utterly smashed, as it's bad for either to be connected to the other in any way.
User avatar
By Zagadka
#1424137
Marriage should be tossed out of gov't hands completely, replaced with legal civil unions. "Marriage" should be in the hands of whatever theistic flying spaghetti monsters they believe in.
By Manuel
#1424172
Zag has it right. Marriage is a religious institution and has nothing to do with government, whether heterosexual, homosexual, polygamy, etc. Legally, only civil unions should exist, and for everyone. Heterosexuals arn't really having kids anymore, so I fail to see the logic in only giving them tax-cuts.
User avatar
By Praetor
#1424177
In that sense, I completely agree. As long as homosexual couples are given the same legal rights and heterosexuals, I don't care what you call their union.
By Copernicus
#1424712
>>Zagadka
I know that when I settle down, I won't be getting married. I'll take a properly thought-out legal contract over a state-sponsored religious oath.

Even if that does break my mothers heart :*(

>>m4nu
I don't see the justification in a tax break for either. If the state wants to encourage more babies, it can offer tax rebates and child welfare for actual children, rather than a blanket 'award for being in a couple'.
By Donald
#1424904
Don't ask; don't tell.


Legalistic limbo. DA-DT should only really be regarded as a transitional protection.
By AmericanPatriot
#1424912

A smart Presidency in charge of the Federal Govt. would simply leave the issue to the states to decide (and i'm saying that as a Democrat), a petty like gay marriage really shouldn't be so high of a concern for the national government.


The federal government doesn't want to give the states any rights.......

--> The Civil War <----


The only things states really have the power of now is state elections and marriage laws. That's about it...Such a strong central government. Good in some ways, scary in others... :eek:

@Truth To Power You also ended up saying Sola[…]

No, it's completely according to law. You're try[…]

Turn, turn, turn

That is especially true of Trump, in case you for[…]

The point is that it seems to be newsworthy that […]