Posted on 07/29/2003 7:58:09 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Americans have become significantly less accepting of homosexuality since a Supreme Court decision that was hailed as clearing the way for new gay civil rights, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found.
After several years of growing tolerance, the survey shows a return to a level of more traditional attitudes last seen in the mid-1990s.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Candidates bend over backwards to please the homosexual lobby.
Three candidates endorse ‘gay marriage,’ all support ‘gay adoption,’ ending military ban
The Democratic presidential field is solidly pro-homosexual, with three of the nine candidates embracing "gay marriage," and most other candidates endorsing other homosexual planks such as "transgender" nondiscrimination laws, homosexual adoption of children, and ending the ban on open homosexuals in the military.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a homosexual pressure group, held a forum Tuesday for the Democratic hopefuls. It was marked by each trying to one-up the others on support of pro-homosexual policies. Participating were: Carol Moseley Braun, former U.S. senator from Illinois; Howard Dean, Vermont governor; Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri; Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio; Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut; and Al Sharpton of New York.
Two no-shows were Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina and Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, both of whom are less liberal candidates who are moving in the pro-"gay" direction to compete in the Democratic primary.
The three candidates endorsing legal homosexual "marriage" are: Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton.
Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Family Institute of CWA, said the Democrats’ near complete embrace of pro-homosexual activism "leaves a wide open door for President Bush to expose their extreme social agenda. I hope he doesn’t listen to those timid advisors in the GOP who will be telling him to ignore these issues or, worse, go pro-‘gay’ like the Democrats."
"The fact that most of these candidates would even force corporations to accommodate cross-dressers shows how far out these guys are," he said.
Knight added:
"Whatever party or candidate reaches out to the American people as the defender of marriage and family, and speaks out against the idea of exposing young children to homosexual messages in schools, and defends our heroic fighting men and women against Clinton-type "gay" experiments, stands to gain in this election."
Prior to the forum, which was aired by C-SPAN, HRC sent out a questionnaire to all the candidates. Here are their survey responses to the question of federal support for homosexual couples. All survey questionnaire answers are taken from HRC’s website:
6. If a state has taken the steps to recognize same sex couples (and their families) for purposes of state-based benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities, should the federal government recognize the state’s legal recognition of such couples and families for purposes of federal benefits and tax treatment?
BRAUN: SUPPORT.
DEAN: SUPPORT. Comments: The federal government should recognize state sanctioned civil unions for the purposes of federal benefits and tax treatment.
EDWARDS: Comments: I support the extension of partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples in committed, long-term relationships.
GEPHARDT: SUPPORT. Comments: I support federal government recognition of staterecognized benefits for same-sex couples.
GRAHAM: SUPPORT. Comments: The federal government should be respectful of state governments and decisions made by the elected legislatures and elected officials of those states.
KERRY: SUPPORT. Comments: The aftermath of September 11th, in which same-sex partnerswere denied federal benefits, made it terribly clear that benefits for gay and lesbian couples and families that do not extend to the federal level are not enough. I support affording same sex couples and families the same basic rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, and survivor benefits.
KUCINICH: SUPPORT. Comments: Representative Kucinich is a co-sponsor of HR 2426, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2003, a bill to provide federal benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. Additionally, Mr. Kucinich supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). He believes the repeal of DOMA would set the groundwork to provide federal benefits to same sex couples who have already been recognized for state-based benefits, rights, privileges, and responsibilities.
LIEBERMAN: Comments: I believe that each branch and level of the government should decide for itself which benefits and responsibilities to extend. Just as I don’t believe it is appropriate for the federal government to tell states that they may not recognize civil unions or create similar arrangements, I don’t think it is the role of the states to decide such issues for the federal government. With that said, I do believe that the federal government should take steps to recognize long-term committed relationships, which is why I cosponsored the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act to extend to gay and lesbian federal employees the same employment benefits for their domestic partners that heterosexual employees have for their spouses.
SHARPTON: SUPPORT. Comments: Article IV, Clause One, of the Constitution - known as the full faith and credit clause - obligates states to fully recognize each others acts and proceedings, and Congress has never passed a law permitting states not to recognize certain "Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings" of another state. The Tenth Amendment states, in essence, if a right is not in the Constitution, it resides with the state or the people. It seems logical to me that the federal government should be supportive of local control (i.e., in this instance, state law).
The following are the survey responses on "gay adoption."
8. While 47 states allow gay and lesbian people to adopt children, some legislators are pushing to prohibit capable, committed adults from adopting because of their sexual orientation. As president would you support giving appropriate judicial authorities the full authority to make decisions on adoption based on the best interest of the child, without bans based solely on sexual orientation?
BRAUN: SUPPORT.
DEAN: SUPPORT. Comments: Children need nurturing, supportive and committed guardians to insure that they are safe and healthy. If guardians meet these criteria, they should not be prevented from adopting children on the basis of their sexual orientation. EDWARDS: SUPPORT.
GEPHARDT: SUPPORT. Comments: I support equal adoption rights. The focus must always be on giving the children who are waiting to be adopted the opportunity of stability in a permanent and loving family. To achieve this goal it is important to widen the pool of potential adopters to find suitable parents for children who are waiting to be adopted.
GRAHAM: SUPPORT. Comments: I believe that judicial authorities should make adoption decisions based solely on what is in the best interest of the child and not on extraneous political factors.
KERRY: SUPPORT.
KUCINICH: SUPPORT.
LIEBERMAN: SUPPORT. Comments: Yes, I believe that judicial authorities should be able to make adoption decisions solely on the basis of the child’s best interests and that sexual orientation should not be a bar to adoption.
SHARPTON: SUPPORT. Comments: Equal protection under the law.
The following are the candidates’ answers to a question on a pro-transsexual and pro-"transgender" employment bill:
As president, would you support and work for passage of a federal bill that outlawed discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and expression?
BRAUN: SUPPORT. Comments: When I was the United States Ambassador to New Zealand, Georgina Beyer—a transsexual—was elected to Parliament there. She works hard for her constituents, and has earned the respect of her peers. Georgina’s gender identity does not matter in her difficult job in New Zealand; why should an American citizen’s gender identity matter here?
DEAN: SUPPORT. Comments: As President, I will support legislation to remedy this gap in federal law.
EDWARDS: Comments: I believe discrimination is wrong. I am an original cosponsor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination based on real or perceived sexual orientation.
GEPHARDT: SUPPORT. Comments: As president, I would ensure gender identity is included in any federal measure designed to outlaw discrimination in the workplace.
GRAHAM: SUPPORT.
KERRY: Comments: I oppose discrimination of all kinds and my office policy prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and expression. I believe that we should focus efforts on getting ENDA passed and signed into law, and I am concerned that adding gender identity and expression to the ENDA legislation is likely to significantly hinder that effort.
KUCINICH: SUPPORT. Comments: In May of 2000 Representative Kucinich signed a Gender Public Advocacy Coalition pledge to publicly affirm that an individual’s gender expression or identity is not a consideration in the hiring, promoting, or terminating of an employee in his office. Mr. Kucinich reaffirmed this pledge in March of 2003.
LIEBERMAN: UNDECIDED. Comments: I do not believe that gay men or lesbians should be discriminated against simply because they do not precisely meet society’s traditional stereotypes of how men or women should behave or appear. I would support a law making clear that the ban on sexual orientation-based discrimination cannot be evaded by claiming that, for example, a man was fired not for being gay but for being effeminate. As an employer myself, I have taken a pledge not to discriminate in this way, and would follow through with this pledge as president.
As for the broader category of gender identity, I am now studying it and have pledged to work with ENDA’s other cosponsors to explore the issue and whether and the extent to which federal law should address it.
SHARPTON: SUPPORT. Comments: No American should be discriminated against on the job because of their gender identity or expression.
The following are the responses to a question about a bill that would open the door to immigration based on homosexual relationships:
9. Would you support the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (H.R. 832) which would enable an American citizen to petition for immigration sponsorship for a same-sex partner, and the INS would treat the relationships between opposite and same-sex couples in the same manner under the immigration code?
BRAUN: SUPPORT. Comments: As a United States Ambassador, I know the difficulties immigration laws may impose on a loving and committed couple. There are enough obstacles for couples of differing nationalities without the arbitrary, discriminatory failure to recognize same-sex couples.
DEAN: SUPPORT. Comments: Current law authorizes family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to obtain immigrant visas, but the Immigration and Nationality Act's definition of family does not include same-sex partners. I support enactment of the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (H.R. 832) to add the term "permanent partner" to the statutory list of family members eligible to obtain immigrant visas.
EDWARDS: UNDECIDED. Comments: I would consider such legislation.
GEPHARDT: SUPPORT. Comments: I am a cosponsor of H.R. 832, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act because I believe the measure helps end discrimination in our immigration laws.
GRAHAM: SUPPORT. Comments: As stated above, I believe that committed same sex couples should have the same legal protections as opposite sex couples.
KERRY: SUPPORT.
KUCINICH: SUPPORT. Comments: Representative Kucinich is an original co-sponsor of HR 832, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act.
LIEBERMAN: UNDECIDED. Comments: As with other federal benefits, rights and privileges, I will promptly review immigration policy to decide how we should take concrete steps toward recognizing rights and responsibilities under federal law of same-sex couples in long-term committed relationships.
SHARPTON: SUPPORT. Comments: Equal protection under the law.
All the Democratic candidates favored ending the military’s ban on open homosexuality:
10. Would you support a congressional repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which would allow gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers the right to serve openly in the military as is currently the policy in nearly every NATO country?
BRAUN: SUPPORT.
DEAN: SUPPORT. Comments: It is ridiculous that last November, several Arabic and Korean linguists from the Army's Defense Language Institute were discharged for being gay despite the critical need for qualified linguists in the war on terror. That was wrong. Gay and lesbian soldiers should have the opportunity to serve our country openly.
EDWARDS: SUPPORT. Comments: As the recent discharge of Arabic language specialists demonstrates, the current policy does not serve our national security interests and should be changed. The military should review the current policy and change it so that it treats people fairly and protects our security.
GEPHARDT: SUPPORT. Comments: Sexual Orientation should not be a bar to military service. I believe the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy has been a failure, and I support its elimination. Gays and lesbians have served with valor in our armed services, and they will continue to do so under my administration.
GRAHAM: OPPOSE. Comments: I believe this matter should be a decision for military leaders to make. I support ending discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military and believe we should focus on the real problem of sexual misconduct.
KERRY: SUPPORT. Comments: In 1993, I was one of four Senators who testified before the Armed Services committee that it was fundamentally wrong to continue to deny gay and lesbian Americans the right of participate in the armed forces of the United States.
KUCINICH: SUPPORT.
LIEBERMAN: SUPPORT. Comments: The late Senator Barry Goldwater once said, "It’s not important if you are straight, just that you can shoot straight." I agree, and believe our current policy should be changed. That is why I opposed legislation banning gay men and lesbians from serving in the military and voted against "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" both in the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the Senate floor. In its present form, this policy violates fundamental American values of fairness, equality, and equal opportunity. It also denies us talent we greatly need. Replacement legislation must allow full opportunity of service for all who want to serve while maintaining the high levels of unit cohesion, and readiness that we have today. I will work with military leaders to craft a new policy that ensures fairness, equality, and equal opportunity and establishes legitimate standards of conduct necessary to maintain the readiness of the military that defends our nation.
SHARPTON: SUPPORT. Comments: Equal protection under the law. The military code of conduct should allow military people to live openly in the "truth" rather than to live silently or covertly a "lie."
LOL..tongur in cheek comment no doubt....was the author engaging in a bit of punmanship?
Exactly. The gay mantra used to be: "Just leave us alone!". Fair enough. Now, they won't leave US alone. Their constant fights to hasve homosexuality taught to little kids in schools, the constant appearance of gay characters on television, etc.
”44. In general, do you personally believe that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable or morally wrong?”
and found 58% morally wrong.
It would appear the trend started well before Lawrence v. Texas.
The poll results conflict with other polls, including a national poll released last week by the Pew Research Center showing 53 percent oppose gay marriage.
Religion and Politics: Contention and Consensus
Less Opposition to Gay Marriage
The issue of gay marriage recently returned to the public's agenda after the Supreme Court overturned a Texas anti-sodomy law and enunciated what many observers believe is a broad prohibition against government regulation of private sexual behavior. While a majority of the public continues to oppose gay marriage, support has been gradually building over the past few years and the intensity of the opposition has been declining. Overall, 53% say they oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, while 38% favor the idea. But support is up from 27% in 1996, and strong opposition now stands at 30%, down from 41% in 1996.
There is a growing gap of opinion on this issue along racial and religious lines. Opposition to gay marriage is widespread among white evangelical Protestants and blacks, and opinion within these groups has changed little over the past seven years. White evangelicals remain the most firmly opposed on this issue: 84% opposed it in 1996, 83% do so now. And opposition among African-Americans is also unchanged (65% opposed gay marriage in 1996, 64% today).
By comparison, seculars, white Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and Hispanics have become increasingly open to the idea of legalized gay and lesbian marriage. Opposition to gay marriage among white mainline Protestants dropped from 63% seven years ago to 44% today. White Catholic opposition also dropped 19 points (from 60% to 41%) over this same time period. Even among seculars, who were more supportive of gay marriage than most other groups in 1996, there is less opposition today: 46% opposed gay marriage in 1996, compared with only 30% who do so now. And while most Hispanics (54%) oppose gay marriage, this is somewhat lower than in 1996 (64%).
While most Americans remain opposed to gay marriage, fewer people now say they are strongly opposed. Strong opposition declined even among white evangelicals, from 64% in 1996 to 56% today, and it dropped even more among mainline Protestants, Catholics, and seculars.
This issue divides the public in many other ways as well. Young people are twice as likely as their elders to approve of gay marriage: 52% of those age 18-29 favor it, compared with only 22% among those 65 and older. Women are eight percentage points more supportive than are men (41% to 33%), and people living in the East (48%) and West (43%) are more supportive than Southerners (31%) and those in the Midwest (34%). Far more Democrats and independents (at 45% each) favor gay marriage than do Republicans (24%). Perhaps not surprisingly, people who have a gay friend, family member, or co-worker are more than twice as likely to favor gay marriage (55%) as those who do not (24%).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.