D'Amato pushes knife further into the gut of the NYGOP

[WalterMitty]

Do you really think they actually were opposed to gay marrriage and weren't just taking pragmatic electable positions?

Hell, Kerry voted against DOMA.

that is even more pathetic.  if i were a gay, why the hell would i support someone who really favors gay marriage, but runs around the country saying he is opposed to it.

that is kind of like someone in the 6th grade saying he will be your friend but doesnt want to be seen with you when the cool kids are around.

and by the way, im sure statesrights will claim that george wallace wasnt really a segregationist, but rather, a pragmatist.

[Lincoln Republican]

D'Amato's endorsement makes no difference.

Sptizer should stick to fighting crime.

His social views will lead New York only further down the road to moral bankruptcy.

Of course, I can't say Weld's social views are any better.

What a pathetic choice New Yorker's face.

Both leading candidates, Spitzer and Weld, are morally bankrupt.

Ahh you mean equality

No, actually, I mean moral bankruptcy.  From what I understand, both favor same sex marriage.  Marriage is not an equality issue.  Marriage is not a right.  Marriage is a privilege, for one man and one woman.

Only for another decade or two, civil rights will advance whether your church wants it to or not.

I knew when you were saying "moral bankruptcy" it was just a euphimism for seeing gays as filthy dogs. I'm glad you said what you really meant. You must have a lot friends in Rhode Island with that attitude.

BRTD is right, I knew that Kerry in favor of gay marriage, but he couldn't admit it or he would have done even worse in the South than he actually did. All of sudden Kerry is reasonable on an issue to you? Give me a break.

Pym Fortuyn, my friend, you are the only one I have ever seen refer to gays as "filthy dogs," to quote you.  I have never and will never use such a disrespectful term in reference to my fellow human beings, and I bear malice toward no one. 

Myself, I have the same respect for gay people as I do for straight people.  I believe gay couples should have the same rights under the law as do straight couples, as to matters concerning tax laws, inheritance laws, spousal benefits, etc.

Gay people should be permitted to pursue their lifestyle without harassment form others.

I draw the line at same sex marriage, however.  Marriage is not an institution created by man, and it is not an institution that can be changed by man, in the grand scheme of things, is what I mean.

If same sex couples feel they have to have some kind of a legal bonding, then call it "civil unions," and leave "marriage" where it belongs, as the union of one man and one woman.

Yourself and others are certainly free to disagree with this aspect, and I, and others, are free to hold this belief.       

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you really think they actually were opposed to gay marrriage and weren't just taking pragmatic electable positions?

Hell, Kerry voted against DOMA.

that is even more pathetic.  if i were a gay, why the hell would i support someone who really favors gay marriage, but runs around the country saying he is opposed to it.

that is kind of like someone in the 6th grade saying he will be your friend but doesnt want to be seen with you when the cool kids are around.

and by the way, im sure statesrights will claim that george wallace wasnt really a segregationist, but rather, a pragmatist.

Because he's still better on gay rights overall even with that position than the alternative.

What you're saying is gays should prefer someone who wants to amend the Constistution to ban gay marriage and opposes civil union and almost ever other gay rights issue over someone who supports almost every gay right issue, opposes the Constitutional ban, supports civil unions, because they claim to oppose gay marriage when they probably don't. That makes no sense.

As for the analogies, I'm sure most kids would prefer a kid like you mentioned over a bully, and if Kerry is George Wallace, well, what does that make Bush?

[WalterMitty]

Do you really think they actually were opposed to gay marrriage and weren't just taking pragmatic electable positions?

Hell, Kerry voted against DOMA.

that is even more pathetic.  if i were a gay, why the hell would i support someone who really favors gay marriage, but runs around the country saying he is opposed to it.

that is kind of like someone in the 6th grade saying he will be your friend but doesnt want to be seen with you when the cool kids are around.

and by the way, im sure statesrights will claim that george wallace wasnt really a segregationist, but rather, a pragmatist.

Because he's still better on gay rights overall even with that position than the alternative.

What you're saying is gays should prefer someone who wants to amend the Constistution to ban gay marriage and opposes civil union and almost ever other gay rights issue over someone who supports almost every gay right issue, opposes the Constitutional ban, supports civil unions, because they claim to oppose gay marriage when they probably don't. That makes no sense.

As for the analogies, I'm sure most kids would prefer a kid like you mentioned over a bully, and if Kerry is George Wallace, well, what does that make Bush?

john kerry voiced his support for states amending their constitutions to ban gay marriage (remember the missouri vote?)

one candidate wanted to ban gay marriage at the state level.  the other candidate wanted to ban it at the federal level.  how is one better?  if you ask me, they are both wrong.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you really think they actually were opposed to gay marrriage and weren't just taking pragmatic electable positions?

Hell, Kerry voted against DOMA.

that is even more pathetic.  if i were a gay, why the hell would i support someone who really favors gay marriage, but runs around the country saying he is opposed to it.

that is kind of like someone in the 6th grade saying he will be your friend but doesnt want to be seen with you when the cool kids are around.

and by the way, im sure statesrights will claim that george wallace wasnt really a segregationist, but rather, a pragmatist.

Because he's still better on gay rights overall even with that position than the alternative.

What you're saying is gays should prefer someone who wants to amend the Constistution to ban gay marriage and opposes civil union and almost ever other gay rights issue over someone who supports almost every gay right issue, opposes the Constitutional ban, supports civil unions, because they claim to oppose gay marriage when they probably don't. That makes no sense.

As for the analogies, I'm sure most kids would prefer a kid like you mentioned over a bully, and if Kerry is George Wallace, well, what does that make Bush?

john kerry voiced his support for states amending their constitutions to ban gay marriage (remember the missouri vote?)

one candidate wanted to ban gay marriage at the state level.  the other candidate wanted to ban it at the federal level.  how is one better?  if you ask me, they are both wrong.

Because the state level doesn't affect other states. They would still be able to have gay marriage in Massachusetts, and California which will once Arnold is gone, and New York which probably will once Spitzer's in office and the Democrats control the Senate. I doubt a President Kerry would be condemning those. Not to mention he was infinitely superior on all other gay rights issues.

[WalterMitty]

Do you really think they actually were opposed to gay marrriage and weren't just taking pragmatic electable positions?

Hell, Kerry voted against DOMA.

that is even more pathetic.  if i were a gay, why the hell would i support someone who really favors gay marriage, but runs around the country saying he is opposed to it.

that is kind of like someone in the 6th grade saying he will be your friend but doesnt want to be seen with you when the cool kids are around.

and by the way, im sure statesrights will claim that george wallace wasnt really a segregationist, but rather, a pragmatist.

Because he's still better on gay rights overall even with that position than the alternative.

What you're saying is gays should prefer someone who wants to amend the Constistution to ban gay marriage and opposes civil union and almost ever other gay rights issue over someone who supports almost every gay right issue, opposes the Constitutional ban, supports civil unions, because they claim to oppose gay marriage when they probably don't. That makes no sense.

As for the analogies, I'm sure most kids would prefer a kid like you mentioned over a bully, and if Kerry is George Wallace, well, what does that make Bush?

john kerry voiced his support for states amending their constitutions to ban gay marriage (remember the missouri vote?)

one candidate wanted to ban gay marriage at the state level.  the other candidate wanted to ban it at the federal level.  how is one better?  if you ask me, they are both wrong.

Because the state level doesn't affect other states. They would still be able to have gay marriage in Massachusetts, and California which will once Arnold is gone, and New York which probably will once Spitzer's in office and the Democrats control the Senate. I doubt a President Kerry would be condemning those. Not to mention he was infinitely superior on all other gay rights issues.

if kerry endorsed the missouri amendment, you would have to assume he is opposed to gay marriage in massachusetts also.

[HardRCafé]

that is kind of like someone in the 6th grade saying he will be your friend but doesnt want to be seen with you when the cool kids are around.

Sterling analogy; I am impressed.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

What happened to the Al D'Amato who was a fighting conservative?  Though he did start to flake liberal in the last term.

Senator Pothole should be ashamed if he sales out the NYGOP, NY Conservative Party, and the NY Right to Life Party which stuck by himthrough thick and thin.

[YRABNNRM]

Senator Pothole should be ashamed if he sales out the NYGOP, NY Conservative Party, and the NY Right to Life Party which stuck by himthrough thick and thin.

Fcuk the last two. It's the NYGOP who needs his help, not the joke parties.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Senator Pothole should be ashamed if he sales out the NYGOP, NY Conservative Party, and the NY Right to Life Party which stuck by himthrough thick and thin.

Fcuk the last two. It's the NYGOP who needs his help, not the joke parties.

Without those "joke parties" no Republican has won statewide in nearly 30 years, particularly Senator D'Amato who would have LOST each time (with the possible exception of 1986) without those votes.

[YRABNNRM]

Senator Pothole should be ashamed if he sales out the NYGOP, NY Conservative Party, and the NY Right to Life Party which stuck by himthrough thick and thin.

Fcuk the last two. It's the NYGOP who needs his help, not the joke parties.

Without those "joke parties" no Republican has won statewide in nearly 30 years, particularly Senator D'Amato who would have LOST each time (with the possible exception of 1986) without those votes.

They lost their purpose in NY a long time ago.

[Smash255]

Senator Pothole should be ashamed if he sales out the NYGOP, NY Conservative Party, and the NY Right to Life Party which stuck by himthrough thick and thin.

Fcuk the last two. It's the NYGOP who needs his help, not the joke parties.

Without those "joke parties" no Republican has won statewide in nearly 30 years, particularly Senator D'Amato who would have LOST each time (with the possible exception of 1986) without those votes.

Pataki had their endorsments, but he is FAR from a social conservative.  Bottom line as I said for a Republican to win statewide they need to win Long Island and Westchester.  That is a big reason why Pataki did well, not because the NY Conservative Party  endorsed him (which is pretty strange considering how socially liberal & pro-choice Pataki really is).  Any republican who plays the Conservative Party line and/or the Right to Life Party line would get absolutley obliterated on Long Island and Westchester and as a result get obliterated in the Govenor's race.

[Cubby]

D'Amato's endorsement makes no difference.

Sptizer should stick to fighting crime.

His social views will lead New York only further down the road to moral bankruptcy.

Of course, I can't say Weld's social views are any better.

What a pathetic choice New Yorker's face.

Both leading candidates, Spitzer and Weld, are morally bankrupt.

Ahh you mean equality

No, actually, I mean moral bankruptcy.  From what I understand, both favor same sex marriage.  Marriage is not an equality issue.  Marriage is not a right.  Marriage is a privilege, for one man and one woman.

Only for another decade or two, civil rights will advance whether your church wants it to or not.

I knew when you were saying "moral bankruptcy" it was just a euphimism for seeing gays as filthy dogs. I'm glad you said what you really meant. You must have a lot friends in Rhode Island with that attitude.

BRTD is right, I knew that Kerry in favor of gay marriage, but he couldn't admit it or he would have done even worse in the South than he actually did. All of sudden Kerry is reasonable on an issue to you? Give me a break.

Pym Fortuyn, my friend, you are the only one I have ever seen refer to gays as "filthy dogs," to quote you.  I have never and will never use such a disrespectful term in reference to my fellow human beings, and I bear malice toward no one. 

Myself, I have the same respect for gay people as I do for straight people.  I believe gay couples should have the same rights under the law as do straight couples, as to matters concerning tax laws, inheritance laws, spousal benefits, etc.

Gay people should be permitted to pursue their lifestyle without harassment form others.

I draw the line at same sex marriage, however.  Marriage is not an institution created by man, and it is not an institution that can be changed by man, in the grand scheme of things, is what I mean.

If same sex couples feel they have to have some kind of a legal bonding, then call it "civil unions," and leave "marriage" where it belongs, as the union of one man and one woman.

Yourself and others are certainly free to disagree with this aspect, and I, and others, are free to hold this belief.       

Fine, but to you its just a political/religious issue. To me its a slap in the face to say others can have a right but it is forbidden to me. I don't want civil unions, we have them in Connecticut and no one gets them, we are waiting for real marriage licenses, which actually mean something. Separate is not equal. As far as I'm concerned even Britain copped out, Spain and Canada have made the right decision.