http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-wolfson...ee_b_82913.html

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Gore_endorse...iage__0123.html

Gore endorses gay marriage

01/23/2008 @ 4:11 pm
Filed by Nick Juliano



In a video quietly released on his Web site last week, former Vice President Al Gore came out strongly in favor of gay marriage.

"I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women, to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage," Gore said. "And I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians. Shouldn’t we be promoting that kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one’s partner regardless of sexual orientation?

During his unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2000, Gore said he supported domestic partner benefits for gays and lesbians but opposed "changing the institution of marriage as it is presently understood -- between a man and a woman."

Gore hinted that he would come around to support same-sex marriage as early as 2006, when speaking to a group of gay-rights activists, but his latest comments represent Gore's first formal endorsement of equal marriage rights.

The video was posted with little commentary to Current's Web site Jan. 17. It didn't receive much notice at the time, but Wednesday the video was picked up by Politico, Wonkette, The Huffington Post, DailyKos and others.

Plenty of supporters virtually begged Gore to enter the 2008 White House race, but the Nobel Prize, Emmy and Oscar-winning environmental activists demurred.

Gore had said he would endorse one of the Democratic contenders before the primary season is over, but some see chances of an endorsement fading.

Whether his latest video is simply an endorsement appetizer remains to be seen.

Well, surprisingly, that is one issue I disagree with Al on. I don't have a problem with civil unions, but looking at this from a religious standpoint, I believe marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman only. Don't mean to sound like a prude because I believe gay couples should have the same legal rights, but marriage? That's a hard pill to swallow.

Of course, I don't hold that against Al because I do agree with him on most of the major issues. :)

Why not marriage, it's their right if they love each other??? I'm not gay, but I sure don't feel like I have the right to stop or be against two people from the same sex if they truly love each and want to be married. It doesn't hurt my life in anyway.

"Religious standpoint"??? You sound a bit like a conservative bible-thumping republican????? :huh:

I agree with Al and full support gay marriage.

Especially since it is my life's goal to marry a lesbian. :laugh:

You know, AGIML, you think religious people are judgmental, yet it is you who is judging me for my moral belief. I simply stated my opinion - I believe people still have the right to do that. Yet I am labeled a "conservative bible-thumping Republican."

If you want to know the truth, I scored as a Libertarian on a survey I took in a college political science class. I've only voted Republican one time in my life and that was for Reagan back when I was young and dumb.

I don't disagree with gays or lesbians being together, I just stated my belief that I thought marriage was supposed to be between a man and a woman.

Frankly, even though I don't know anybody personally on this board, I find it a little hurtful that a fellow poster would label me that way. If you want me to stop posting on this board, just say so.

I didn't LABEL you anything, all I said is you sound a bit like a conservative bible-thumping republican.........big difference.

AGIML -

Nope.
That's a label alright.

Okay, so you didn't say I WAS ONE. You just said I SOUND LIKE ONE. Still sounds insulting. A person doesn't have to be a Republican or a conservative to have a particular stance on an issue. <_<

James, are you trying to be funny? :P

Hey I can dream, can't I?

OK I'm going to be serious about this issue now.

This is how I see it. No one is requiring any church or religion to recognize these marriages.

The marriage license issued by the government is a legal document only. Once you start to say one group of people because of their behaivor are not eligible to be issued a certain type of license then you can say that others depending on there behavior can not be issued other govenment licenses. You can say that left-handed people can't be issued a driver's license or that people who eat meat can't be issued a fishing license or that people who like to go to the movies on friday nights can't be issued a business license.

WRONG. I really don't want to argue about this, but saying someone is something is different than saying someone sounds a bit like......

Every one has the right to feel the way they do, but not to twist someone's words. If I said YOU ARE are conservative bible-thumping republican, than you would be right, but that is NOT what I said. Think about it.

http://current.com/items/88817757_gay_men_...the_same_rights transcript:

"I think it's wrong for the Government to discriminate against people because of that person's sexual orientation.

I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage.

And I don't understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians.

Shouldn't we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one's partner regardless of sexual orientation?

Because if you don't do that, then to that extent you are promoting "promiscuity" and you're promoting all the problems that can result from "promiscuity."

And the loyalty and love that two people feel for one another when they fall in love ought to be celebrated and encouraged and shouldn't be prevented by any form of discrimination in the Law."

AlGorefan, I am not blind. Was there a purpose for the large print? I have read how Al Gore feels about it, and while I think the world of him, that's one issue I don't agree with. But it is certainly not something that would make me turn against him.

Okay, James, I see where you're coming from , but a marriage license is not just a legal document. It is a religious one as well unless the couple is not married in the church. As a government license, I don't see anything wrong with it. But I'm looking at it from the standpoint of two people getting married in the church. You know, where they say "You are standing here before God to profess your love for one another..." or "And the Lord said, it is not right for man to be alone..."

I am just basing my opinion on my faith - that the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. If two people aren't getting married in the church, that's different. If it's strictly in the legal sense - which is why I mentioned civil unions and the fact that gays and lesbians should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, that's different. I am also looking at this as a parent. When you are raising kids and they see two women or two men together, don't you think it's kind of confusing to them? I'm sorry if this offends anyone. I'm not trying to. But when Al spoke out against the war, lots of people booed him for it, even though he had a right to speak his mind.

And I don't condemn gays/lesbians or look down my nose at them. In fact, years ago I liked a guy who turned out to be gay and I certainly didn't think any different of him, just disappointed that he was interested in men instead. But, oh well.

Being against an issue like this is no different to me than being against war. Some people are for it. I am against it. I don't resent them for being for the war but I would rather see problems solved peaceably.

Anyway, I don't want to argue about it either. I'm just asking that you respect my right to an opinion as I try to respect yours as well.

And by the way, James, they can't keep me from a driver's license just because I'm left-handed. :P

That was a transcript of what Al Gore said. No one else had posted it here.

A marraige license is a LEGAL DOCUMENT. It has nothing to do with religion or faith in the eyes of the government and court. People take the religious and faith attitude upon themselves but it has nothing to do with the LEGAL DOCUMENT. It is clear that Gore says that the LEGAL DOCUMENT should not be tainted "by any form of discrimination in the Law."

As I said in my previous post, no one is saying that any church has to recognize these marriages. And if they did I agree with you that it would be wrong. This would apply only to non-religious marriages.

The forces on the right have misrepresented this issue, making many beleive that their church would be forced to recognize these marriages. But that is just not true.

AlGorefan, I didn't say a marriage license wasn't a legal document. I said it wasn't JUST a legal document. When I got married, I got both a marriage license and a marriage decree (I believe is what it is called) from the church.

And James, I don't disagree with it in the eyes of the law. I was basically stating my belief in the religious sense.

It's taken me awhile to agree with Al Gore on this issue. Over time I think most Americans will move towards this position..

The government should not be forcing any religious group to accept gay marriages, divorces, or marriages of divorced people; that is for each religion to decide. But the state should not discriminate based on religious belief. I think citizens should have the right to form unions and have a civil marriage despite whether many, or even most, religions approve or not.

just my two cents

Maybe my lack of a religious persuasion is jading me, but I've never thought of this as a religious issue, always a civil rights issue. I was not 'less married' legally because I chose to have a magistrate perform the ceremony rather than having it in church. My religious relatives still considered us married.

I certainly still had to jump through all the legal hurdles when paying taxes and getting my divorce, and when trying to rid myself of the repo and other credit pleasantries that my husband left me with - even after the separation. More of a headache than it was worth really! So why should gay/lesbian couples not get to share the same "marital bliss"?!? :laugh:

My marriage was short (and not so sweet), but I could have at least visited him in the hospital (as next of kin) from day one, but another couple, who has been together for many years more, can't do the same? That's not right.

Marriage/civil union = tomato/tomato, potato/potato :Y:

Wayne, I'm glad I'm not alone on this issue. And tk, I don't view anyone as less married just because they didn't have a church wedding.

This is just one of those issues I've struggled with religiously. In the legal sense, I don't have a problem with it, but in a religious sense, I ask myself how God views homosexuality. So should I support it or be against it?

It's kinda like the issue of the death penalty. I work in the criminal justice field, so when someone maliciously kills or serial kills, yes, I think the death penalty is justifiable (though our Judge has never had to give out the death sentence, thank goodness). But when I look at it through my faith, I again ask how God views this issue. The old law says "an eye for an eye" but this changed in the new law. So should I support the death penalty or not?

These are issues I struggle with more internally than anything else.

Then I misunderstood what you meant here, I guess.

I don't see how a marriage outside the church is so different from a gay/lesbian wedding in the church so different? Why must they be called something different? It is still a union between two people who love each other, regardless of the location. If they are believers in God, why won't the church recognize their commitment to each other? If their choice of partners is a sin, why aren't they allowed to be a part of the church - shouldn't all "sinners" be welcomed?
Adulterers and murderers are allow to be recognized by the church as married, but not gays? Are all sins not created equal?

Sorry, but the devout agnostic in me just doesn't understand that discrepancy. It's things like this that make me so devout! :?: :wacko:


I liked a guy who turned out to be a lefty and I certainly didn't think any different of him, just disappointed that he wrote with his left hand instead. But oh well.
:?:
I liked a guy who turned out to be a murderer and I certainly didn't think any different of him, just disappointed that he was interested in killing instead. But, oh well.

I personally believe that all people should marry before a justice of the peace, regardless and that if people want a religious marriage, THEN they could do it separately at a later time

It always makes me wonder anyhow why religions try to ban anyone and anything?

Inclusion not exclusion

BRAVO AL!!!
:clap: :clap: :clap:

ReElect, I don't think religions are trying to ban anyone or anything. It just that some things are against people's religious beliefs. Why is that so difficult to understand? Like prayer in school - I don't expect everyone to start praying just because someone else is. But it's a two way street. Why should Christians not be allowed to pray at school?

And like the point Wayne made, the government should not be forcing any religious group to accept gay marriages, divorces, etc. That is for each religion group to decide.

Actually Christian fundamentalists have misinterpreted the meaning of 'an eye for an eye' in the old testament as a call for vengeance. It is really meant to advocate proportionality in sentencing, in other words let he punishment fit the crime.

prayer in school is not equal rights

Anyone can pray
Just close your eyes bow your head and pray

But equal rights is guaranteed by the constitution

Whereas separate of church and state is what this country was founded on, because organized prayer in school is unfair and singles out those that do not want to

again, just bow your head close your eyes and pray
(Most people in school do that beofre taking a test, or glancing over and copying someone else's test, and praying that the person they copy from is smarter than they are :laugh: :laugh:

You are absolute right. A marriage license is issued by the state and not the church. Everyone has the right to their own belief's and any church has the right to not marry anyone they choose. But just because this or that church will not marry a couple should not mean the couple does not have the legal right to marry.

In any church, whoever performs the ceremony must first have the authority to do so from the state or it is not a legal marriage. The Catholic Church will not marry a divorced person in the Church unless an annulment is obtained from the Church and a Jewish person must have a Get for the divorce to be recognized before marrying again. But in either case that person can legally remarry in another Church or outside of any Church and the state will recognize the union as legal.

The Church has the right to decide who it will perform the ceremony for but it should not claim the right to deny a legal union for a couple simply because they are gay. And I'm willing to bet there are some Churches out there that would perform the service if it would be accepted by the state. Let's not forget how broad a field the term Church now covers.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

As unbelievable as it may seem I'm going to agree with Clay here.

I went to public school and prayed before every test I took. No one ever stopped me.

The right as obscured the real issue here. No one is saying that private prayer isn't allowed just public, organized and school led prayer.

Well James, you're right. It is unbelievable seeing you and Clay agree on something. :laugh:

Anyway, I was talking about organized prayer. When I was in public school, we did have organized prayer. We had announcers and devotionalists and each morning we would have announcements over the speaker, long with a prayer to start the day. Now I don't believe in forcing people to sit there and pray. Perhaps just individuals praying on their own is the best solution.

And I was referring the phrase "an eye for an eye" as letting the punishment fit the crime.

Anyway, I think I've opened up a can of worms and I've said enough. I've managed to go from gay rights to the death penalty to prayer in school in this one thread!! And I don't want to read anymore of tk's sarcastic remarks. Sorry if that sounds rude, but I thought her comments were uncalled for.

Just my two cents.

:clap: Look, it's a shared view!! :clap:

I agree with both of you - during the roughly 6 to 8 hours a day that children are in school, the school should not force their differences to be publicly examined, possibly pressured or ridiculed for not participating, or for doing so differently.
We don't need to know a families income, marital status, sexual preference, heritage, etc. Assumptions are made, feelings hurt, violence sparked - why the need to wear our lives on our sleeves, and to urge others to wear our lives on their sleeves, too? The pressure to conform is strong.


"I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."
~ Thomas Jefferson ~

tk, I'm just expressing my opinion. Even back when I was in school, NO ONE ever forced anyone to pray, etc. I don't know where the issue of family's income, marital status, etc. came from.

Anyway, look at schools today. Why is there so much violence in schools? I worried about sending my kids to school with the prevalence of gun shootings and bomb threats so I at least sent them to a smaller school. I'm not saying the violence is attributed to less prayer in school. But I think the general decay in moral values, tv violence and the breakdown of families, etc., help contribute to the problem.

Just my two cents so don't sandblast me for my beliefs, okay? I am entitled to mine just like you are yours. ;)

Whoa now - I'm NOT being sarcastic! And I'm really not directing my comments to you directly. Which comments exactly were uncalled for - I'm truly unclear on that. I was just trying to make a point - labels are exclusionary.
Like you said we're just expressing our given views. I'm just trying to understand why prayer should be in a public school... the other issues were simply examples of some other things that should be taken into account when a child enters a school building. Religious persuasion is one of many.
I know that, here in NC, those who are more religious than others can be quite exclusionary and can also be vicious if their opinions are shared by all. I wouldn't want to be their target.

Sorry if I came across that way - not my intention. Merely stating the case for the other side, that's all. We'll just lay the topic to bed, OK?! :Y:

Sounds good to me. :Y: