mondo joe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-08-04 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #43 |
| 45. Since you can't distinguish between those who are legislators and |
|
Since you can't distinguish between those who are legislators and those who aren't, allow me to help:
John Kerry and many others are actually dems with some power to influence and enact legislation. I am not.
Just the same, what I'm advocating is a compromise position on the majority concensus, even though it's not the solution I PERSONALLY find satisfactory.
I don't think civil unions are the ideal. But I do think they're a worthwhile compromise.
|
| -Dems Should Stake a Position on Civil Unions |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 06:09 PM |
#0 |
 -
we need to promote civil unions and expose the right wing for the haters |
JI7 |
Nov-07-04 06:17 PM |
#1 |
| -
your post seems to focus only on gay couples |
welshTerrier2 |
Nov-07-04 06:57 PM |
#2 |
| -
HEre's a better plan, get government out of the marriage business |
Walt Starr |
Nov-07-04 06:59 PM |
#3 |
 -
I support the principle, but it's not gonna' happen. |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 07:12 PM |
#5 |
 -
I think so. That's more bold. |
xequals |
Nov-08-04 12:50 AM |
#64 |
| -
Dems should take a position on something. |
kohodog |
Nov-07-04 07:07 PM |
#4 |
| -
DEMS should at least support civil unions and push |
bigwillq |
Nov-07-04 07:19 PM |
#6 |
| -
Defense |
Kammer |
Nov-07-04 07:52 PM |
#8 |
| -
I agree - it also unmasks the fundies as the homophobic haters |
rockydem |
Nov-07-04 07:22 PM |
#7 |
| -
I am going to explain my position one more time. |
tsuki |
Nov-07-04 07:54 PM |
#9 |
| -
Who the heck ever suggested forcing churches to marry ANYONE? |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 07:59 PM |
#10 |
| -
I guess it is the language I object to. Too vague. |
tsuki |
Nov-07-04 09:21 PM |
#15 |
| -
The record is 0-11 - And you want to what!? |
MrTriumph |
Nov-07-04 08:40 PM |
#11 |
| -
On gay MARRIAGE. Not CIVIL UNIONS. |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 08:49 PM |
#12 |
| -
Civil unions- in this atmosphere you can forget it |
MrTriumph |
Nov-07-04 09:00 PM |
#13 |
| -
But the atmosphere is in thirds. |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 09:13 PM |
#14 |
| -
Underestimating tenacity of opponents |
MrTriumph |
Nov-07-04 10:21 PM |
#17 |
| -
You're Understimating the American People. And math. |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 10:49 PM |
#18 |
| -
Easy |
MrTriumph |
Nov-08-04 08:35 AM |
#65 |
| -
The leaders on civil rights issues should be the DNC |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 08:56 AM |
#68 |
| -
No, I am not a Republican |
MrTriumph |
Nov-08-04 08:23 PM |
#70 |
| -
Why are civil unions NOT a viable option? |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 08:27 PM |
#71 |
| -
Because the momentum is heavily against the idea |
MrTriumph |
Nov-08-04 10:42 PM |
#73 |
| -
Where is your evidence that the momentum is against civil unions? |
mondo joe |
Nov-09-04 07:55 AM |
#75 |
| -
Here it is: |
p0X |
Nov-07-04 10:12 PM |
#16 |
| -
Haven't they ALREADY taken a stand on civil unions? |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 10:51 PM |
#19 |
| -
Failure to oppose is not taking a stand. |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:17 PM |
#20 |
| -
So I guess you can't answer my question |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 11:32 PM |
#21 |
| -
Here's the answer |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:35 PM |
#22 |
| -
You mean the Democratic Party Platform for 2004 didn't endorse CU's? |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 11:40 PM |
#24 |
| -
There is a reference. But I am, again, talking about USING the issue |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:44 PM |
#27 |
| -
So now you change your story |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 11:46 PM |
#30 |
| -
Never changed my story. |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:47 PM |
#31 |
| -
You've told several untruths |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 11:48 PM |
#33 |
| -
Please review. No untruths. |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:51 PM |
#36 |
| -
You repeat your untruths |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 11:54 PM |
#39 |
| -
I'm sorry you can't get this - the platform references rights, but doesn't |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:56 PM |
#42 |
| -
You're being very wishy-washy |
sangh0 |
Nov-08-04 12:00 AM |
#44 |
| -
My support is personal. Kerry and the DNC had/have an opportunity |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 12:02 AM |
#46 |
| -
Your support for CU's is wishy-washy. You offer nothing but lip service |
sangh0 |
Nov-08-04 12:05 AM |
#49 |
| -
No, there are CUs because of the judiciary. |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 12:07 AM |
#52 |
| -
Can you name the court case that created CU's in NYC and San Francisco |
sangh0 |
Nov-08-04 12:08 AM |
#53 |
| -
NY's domestic partner registry (not CU's) were signed into law |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 12:15 AM |
#57 |
| -
You said it was the courts |
sangh0 |
Nov-08-04 12:19 AM |
#58 |
| -
The mayor created a domestic partner registry. The judiciary |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 12:21 AM |
#59 |
| -
You said it was the court, then the mayor, now it's back to the courts |
sangh0 |
Nov-08-04 12:30 AM |
#61 |
| -
The other localities didn't get CUs, they have domestic partner registries |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 12:32 AM |
#62 |
| -
Kerry supports civil unions...did you miss it? |
zulchzulu |
Nov-07-04 11:37 PM |
#23 |
| -
If he looked for it, how could he bash the Dems for not supporting it? |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 11:42 PM |
#25 |
| -
Again, failure to oppose isn't support. And it's not in the party platform |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:43 PM |
#26 |
| -
It is in the party platform |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 11:44 PM |
#28 |
| -
As I said in my post, rights and resonsibilities are referenced. |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:45 PM |
#29 |
| -
Kerry supported it on national TV. 60 million saw him endorse CU's |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 11:47 PM |
#32 |
| -
Don't worry sangh0. Kerry's lip service is duly noted. |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:49 PM |
#34 |
| -
Keep changing your story |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 11:52 PM |
#38 |
| -
Again, there is no change. CIVIL UNIONS are not in the platform |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:54 PM |
#40 |
| -
You said the platform said nothing. You said Dems did not support CU's |
sangh0 |
Nov-08-04 12:02 AM |
#47 |
| -
Please find the words "civil unions" in the platform. |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 12:05 AM |
#50 |
| -
You said the platform said nothing. |
sangh0 |
Nov-08-04 12:10 AM |
#54 |
| -
Methinks you are mistaken on Democrat platform on civil unions |
zulchzulu |
Nov-07-04 11:50 PM |
#35 |
| -
As I've said several times in this thread, the platform makes a vague |
mondo joe |
Nov-07-04 11:52 PM |
#37 |
| -
Wishy-washy? |
sangh0 |
Nov-07-04 11:58 PM |
#43 |
| -
Since you can't distinguish between those who are legislators and |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 12:00 AM |
#45 |
| -
Dem legislators HAVE passed CU legislation |
sangh0 |
Nov-08-04 12:07 AM |
#51 |
| -
Here's the exact verbage from the Democrat 2004 platform |
zulchzulu |
Nov-08-04 12:04 AM |
#48 |
| -
You might interpret it to mean civil unions, but |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 12:10 AM |
#55 |
| -
Dems PASS CU LAWS |
sangh0 |
Nov-08-04 12:15 AM |
#56 |
| -
But I heard Kerry say on CSpan that he supported Civil Unions. |
tsuki |
Nov-08-04 08:30 PM |
#72 |
| -
Someone may have mentioned this... |
sjbech |
Nov-07-04 11:56 PM |
#41 |
| -
Why focus on civil unions for just gays and lesbians? |
choicevoice |
Nov-08-04 12:21 AM |
#60 |
| -
how about we jus t leave it alone |
SoCalDemocrat |
Nov-08-04 12:42 AM |
#63 |
| -
We already tried leaving it alone. I'm suggesting exploiting it. |
mondo joe |
Nov-08-04 08:52 AM |
#67 |
| -
reframe the entire debate as Benefits Equality. nt |
MsTryska |
Nov-08-04 08:36 AM |
#66 |
| -
McGreevey.... |
hexola |
Nov-08-04 09:01 AM |
#69 |
| -
Time Mag's Person of the Year |
MrTriumph |
Nov-08-04 10:45 PM |
#74 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread