Michigan Court Rules Against Gay Benefits
CHICAGO – Same-sex domestic partners are not entitled to health benefits from public universities or local or state governments under the state constitution’s two-year-old marriage amendment, the Michigan Court of Appeals said in a ruling released yesterday.
In a reversal of a lower-court ruling, a three-judge panel found that the amendment, which bans same-sex marriage, also prohibited government agencies from recognizing “similar unions” such as domestic partnerships for any purposes.
“By officially recognizing a same-sex union through the vehicle of a domestic-partnership agreement, public employers give same-sex domestic couples similar status to that of married couples,” the judges wrote. Such action, they added, would “run directly afoul of the plain language of the amendment.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a supporting brief in the case, said it would appeal.
The Washington Times adds:
A constitutional amendment passed by Michigan voters in November 2004 made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.” Those six words led to the court fight over benefits for homosexual couples.
    Homosexual couples and others had argued that the public intended to ban homosexual “marriage” but not block benefits for unmarried opposite sex or same-sex domestic partners.
    The appeals court agreed with the Michigan attorney general, Republican Mike Cox, who said in a March 2005 opinion that same-sex benefits are not allowed in a state that does not recognize same-sex unions.
    The legal challenge was mounted by 21 homosexual couples who work for the city of Kalamazoo, universities and the state.
    ”The protection of the institution of marriage is a long-standing public policy and tradition in the law of Michigan,” Judges Kurtis Wilder, Joel Hoekstra and Brian Zahra noted In the unanimous ruling.
    Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a leading homosexual advocacy group in Michigan, said the legal sanctity of marriage was not in question.
    ”This ruling will result in families being robbed of their health care and other basic necessities that are fundamental to protecting their well-being,” he said.
    The case will be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, said Jay Kaplan, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
    ”We’re very disappointed by this result,” he said. “It’s a misguided analysis, and they produced a heartless result. It was never the voters’ intention in 2004 to take away health insurance benefits from families and children.”
Actually it was the voters intent to do this, and 59% of Michigan voters that went to the polls in November 2004, said so. 2,698,077 for vs. 1,904,319 against.  The language was not ambiguous in any way, and the peoplewere very clear in their intentions. It should also be noted that Michigan went to John Kerry in 04′ by a vote of 2,313,746 for Bush to 2,479,183 for Kerry. Here is the exit polling data and here is the county breakdown of the vote. Click on a county to see the vote.Â
I am saddened to see that gays are not afforded these rights, I voted no on the proposal, Â but it is disengenuous to say that the people didn’t know what they voted for.Â
| 2,313,746 | 2,479,183 |
February 3, 2007 - 04:57 PM on February 3rd, 2007
When you put organized marginalization up to “popular vote” this will be the end result.
Marriage right between same sex partners will be voted down in 2008 in Massachusetts too if out-going Gov. Mitt Romney has his way. Somethings must be mandated.
Putting same same marriage (or equal benefits) up to “popular vote” is no different than voting of forced bussing in Selma in the mid-1960s. Civil Rights are not something on which one can count on the decency of humankind in general. This thread is proof positive.
Somethings simply must be mandated.
Marriage between same sex partners has been legal now in Massachusetts since November 18, 2003. No one’s heterosexual marriage has suffered. The sky hasn’t fallen… yet still Romney’s made it his business to do his best to get it repealed by public mandate in 2008.
Thanks for this thread Peejz. But I don’t think the public generally is as informed as it ought to be with respect to measures (even devious ones) intended to have as their outcome the result of “seperate but equal”.
My faith in the decency of humankind is not terribly high anymore I’m sorry to say.
February 3, 2007 - 04:59 PM on February 3rd, 2007
Hey here’s an idea.
If we can’t get the same benefit as you guys maybe we should be “forgiven” income tax and having to pay for the offspring of heterosexual couples?
Yah. I like that idea.:roll:
February 3, 2007 - 05:29 PM on February 3rd, 2007
“Civil Rights are not something on which one can count on the decency of humankind in general.”
Could you provide proof that this is a civil rights issue, eben?
February 3, 2007 - 05:49 PM on February 3rd, 2007
1- Mitt’s gone. I don’t have children, but I too pay taxes for the schools..has nothing to do with sexual orientation. This is a states rights issue..and it shouldn’t be mandated.
No Eben, we have discussed this privately, but this vote is not the same as forced bussing and homosexuals have not gone through what black Americans have. I don’t feel it is right that gays are not afforded the same rights as hetrosexuals, but it does not mean that mandating is the answer. Forced bussing wasn’t the answer, it just took 30 years for the powers that be to admit it…There is a way to make it happen, but at this point, there needs to be some common ground found and the foundation to progress laid…
I brought up the MI stats to show that this is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue…This is going to take people coming together without all the baggage of politics…
February 3, 2007 - 05:54 PM on February 3rd, 2007
“If we can’t get the same benefit as you guys maybe we should be “forgiven”income tax and having to pay for the offspring of heterosexual couples?”.
How have you paid for my children?
If you are referring to schools, both single folks and married hetero folks have to pay for schools also. It is viewed as a vested interest in the betterment of their community, just like roads and bridges.
February 3, 2007 - 08:25 PM on February 3rd, 2007
#3 to Ted:
Could you provide proof that this is a civil rights issue, eben?
Sure.
I was born. I live. I contribute to society. I am an American citzen. I pay my taxes.
There.
re #5 Ted?
It’s called hyperbole.
And as far as the “vested interest” thing goes with what I’m seeing of the rampant homophobia being sanctioned in American schools and homes I’m not all that tickled my tax dollar is going to YOUR investment.
Keep it zipped up please.
February 3, 2007 - 08:28 PM on February 3rd, 2007
#4 to Peejz.. (I knew I’d need to repeat myself)
No Eben, we have discussed this privately, but this vote is not the same as forced bussing and homosexuals have not gone through what black Americans have. I don’t feel it is right that gays are not afforded the same rights as hetrosexuals, but it does not mean that mandating is the answer. Forced bussing wasn’t the answer, it just took 30 years for the powers that be to admit it:There is a way to make it happen, but at this point, there needs to be some common ground found and the foundation to progress laid:
Verbatim from my email to you:
I don’t agree with your critique of the lack of truth to my comparison of
the struggles of blacks and gays. I ‘make no mistake’. I see our struggles
for inclusion (separate from the color manifestation) as identical. Many of
my “brothers” are so effeminate they stand out as much as a person of color
would I might add.
Indeed I have a home in a very metropolitan place where many of my neighgors
are black and when we bought here I (foolishly and naively) believed that
my partner and I would enjoy immediate inclusion because of similar minority
status. Not so. For the first five years we were nearly shunned.
Much as I see the present battle for gay civil rights precisely as that in
the 1960s of the segregation situation in the South waged by many who
believed in equality for all peoples, I’m amazed when black detractors run
to the Old Testament to cite those several “key” passages to discredit
homosexuality when it’s clear the Bible condones slavery many more times
over.
February 3, 2007 - 08:29 PM on February 3rd, 2007
and part #2
Easily blacks couldn’t ‘drink at fountains’ or sit in the same section of
the theatres or restaurants… but it’s my understanding there was no legal
interracial marriage until the late 1940s. It’s simply a matter of how the
disclusion MANIFESTS itself … beyond that I see “my kind” as often
needing to be more closeted and less out -as it were- since blacks were
(though in an inferior way) at LEAST human. They could procreate and there
was no getting around the fact that they inhabited the same space. We
(gays) had to be more subversive to hide.
I have a gay uncle who’s in his late eighties. His is a remarkable story
of a hidden life lived in nameless cocktail lounges with too many partners
to count. I’ve encouraged him to write a biography but his comment is “I’m
too tired”. I think he is too. But his struggles in a time when it was
“the love that dare not speak its name” is something around which I’ll never
fully be able to wrap my brain. I am SO BLESSED I know him.
Again- sorry for the digression – It shows pretty clearly to me that the
marginalization or “second-class citizenry” of black people was being
promoted by the establishment much as my “kind” are now with the focus on
gay civil unions versus gay marriage.
We’re going through our growing pains as it were. But there’s real
progress about which I’m immensely encouraged.
And all those things like “housing”, and being out in the workplace, etc.
that you cite? I’m not ‘kidding myself’. I LIVE IT and I’ve witnessed it.
It’s real and there’s no difference. Simply because my skin is white and I
don’t speak with a lisp or mince my steps does not make me “drop into
society better” when my innate right is to be as proud and open about my
sexuality and beliefs as the next guy.
February 3, 2007 - 08:30 PM on February 3rd, 2007
And in some ways we’ve suffered differently but worse at the hands of a Patriachal Male Society.
MAKE NO MISTAKE.
February 3, 2007 - 09:40 PM on February 3rd, 2007
8- Eben, interracial marriage was the least of the civil rights struggle for blacks. For the most part, blacks were without the most basic rights that you as a gay person are afforded. Law enforcement turned a blind eye to crimes committed upon them. Housing? Could they own homes? Could they own homes wherever the wanted to? How about schools? College? Pay? Was that equal? Gays are not able to marry and their partnerships are not recognized in most states, beyond that, they are free to live anywhere they wish, go to any school they want and they have special rights under the law, ie hate crimes legislation and dicrimination protection, you can legally set up estates but from a tax point, you’re screwed… Yes, you do have a big struggle, but it is nowhere near that of the blacks.
Whatever gave you the idea that because you were gay, blacks would accept your lifestyle..that is actually a very presumptious statement…You really don’t seem to grasp the concept of people that live their faith(kinda like Rosie lives her truth), and they come in all colors, some don’t approve of gay marriage, yet some do..
You are free to be open and proud about your sexuality, but what is it that you are asking of those that live and work around you? Exactly how open are you? Why exactly does one need to talk about their sexuality? It kinda sounds like you want people to bow down to you because you are gay..could it be that your sexuality has nothing to do with why people shun you in your neighborhood or at work?
You keep trying to demonize the religious aspect but it only serves to alienate. Take the word marriage out of the fight and you may see the movement move toward benefits…
February 3, 2007 - 09:43 PM on February 3rd, 2007
P.S.- How much do you think it helped the cause when you had militant gays outing members of Congress? It all came about during the Foley scandal..The only thing people remember about that is Foley is gay and a molestor, therefore all gays are molestors…both of us know that not to be true, but the majority doesn’t…it’s the majority that needs to come around!
February 3, 2007 - 10:13 PM on February 3rd, 2007
And you know how those liberal wackos react when gays and lesbians dont get speciial rights:roll:
February 4, 2007 - 01:16 AM on February 4th, 2007
Quit calling ‘em “Theocons” They are mainstream Republicans, you self hating fool!
When will insight trump ideology Andy?
We should just give each employee money and they can spend it the way they want. And if it’s not enaough to pay for insurance for family/religious folks with 5 kids, tough luck!
When that happems the chickens will have come home to roost. And guys like you, Andy, will blame it on the left! Fool!
February 4, 2007 - 07:50 AM on February 4th, 2007
When you put organized marginalization up to “popular vote”this will be the end result.
Totally true. Can you imagine if the south had waited for a popular vote to desegregate? There are times when the majority is, quite simply, wrong (the Jim Crow South, Germany in the 1930s, etc.) After the desegregation laws were passed, however, people (mostly) came around.
The question of who’s suffered worse (blacks, gays, women, etc.) is immaterial. Should we have first established that blacks had suffered as much (or more) than american indians before we let them use the same drinking fountains, intermarry with whites, etcetera?
I’m glad that there was a mandate in the 1960s; why shouldn’t there be a mandate today?
February 4, 2007 - 09:16 AM on February 4th, 2007
14-The question of who suffered worse is not immaterial, because she and I were talking about it, prior to you joining the conversation.
Mandate huh? So who is going to do it? It doesn’t look like the Dems are in any hurry on this one does it? So who, but the grassroots is going to do this?
February 4, 2007 - 12:51 PM on February 4th, 2007
Mandate huh? So who is going to do it? It doesn’t look like the Dems are in any hurry on this one does it? So who, but the grassroots is going to do this?
I guess that I’ll have to put my faith in those pesky activist judges.
February 4, 2007 - 02:27 PM on February 4th, 2007
Looks like the that isn’t working out though either…
February 4, 2007 - 05:26 PM on February 4th, 2007
17. So is your argument that we shouldn’t want a mandate or that we should want one but we’re not going to get one?
Earlier in the post you wrote “This is a states rights issue..and it shouldn’t be mandated.”
Now you’re saying things like “Mandate huh? So who is going to do it?”
Of course the two positions aren’t exclusive. If you do hold the first position, could you explain why? Was it wrong when Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock in ‘57? Should it have remained a state issue (even if it meant continued segregation into the present)?
February 4, 2007 - 05:46 PM on February 4th, 2007
This is really sad. I’m sorry for Michigan, which is already struggling economically, as this ruling less makes the state even less attractive for businesses to locate/relocate to. And that’s not even including the exodus of talent the state will see.
Ohio’s amendment, as terrible as it was, at least hasn’t stopped employers from providing domestic partner benefits, if they choose.
February 4, 2007 - 07:00 PM on February 4th, 2007
Let’s keep in mind TT that this ruling affects employers that are funded by taxpayers money, State employees, State universities……there isn’t anything in the ruling that says private employers can’t offer it…
February 4, 2007 - 08:36 PM on February 4th, 2007
18? What are you talking about? You stated that you “have to put my faith in those pesky activist judges”…looks like the activists judges aren’t working out so well in MI..Where did you even get that I was for a mandate?
Do you even have any concept of how Supreme Court rulings work? Are you even familiar with the Little Rock Crisis? I am thinking you aren’t that well versed, or you would not have brought it up…The SCOTUS ruled in 1954 on the issue of segrated schools. The ruling in Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education stated that segregated schools are “inherently unequal.” Translation, segregated schools unconstitutional. In September 1957, the Little Rock Nine, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Jefferson Thomas, Terrence Roberts, Carlotta Walls Lanier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed-Wair, and Melba Pattillo Beals had enrolled at Central High, and were attempting to attend classes on the 1st day. Governor Orval Faubus, in defiance of FEDERAL law, which a state can not do, ordered the National Guard to prohibit them from entering. The POTUS, federalized the NG, as is his constitutional right, and sent the 101st Airborne Division in as back up, to force the Governor, state, and local school system to insure the safety of the nine, and to uphold the COTUS.
Please cite a SCOTUS ruling on Gay rights, that would even come close to allowing gays to marry, let alone receive benefits…here is a little hint
February 4, 2007 - 08:49 PM on February 4th, 2007
21- Gotcha. I misread the article/ruling. Well, I guess the state doesn’t need to compete for qualified workers. That’s all good though. I mean, who wants homosexuals educating your college students or working on your roads. Icky. This should encourage them to go to VT or Mass. or Canada or wherever they don’t hate gay people. Sooner they get out of Michigan, the better.
February 4, 2007 - 09:22 PM on February 4th, 2007
“Sure.
I was born. I live. I contribute to society. I am an American citzen. I pay my taxes.
There.”
No, not “there”. That provides no arguement that it is a civil rights issue.
“It’s called hyperbole.”
It was a poor place to use it then, if at all.
“And as far as the “vested interest”thing goes with what I’m seeing of the rampant homophobia being sanctioned in American schools and homes I’m not all that tickled my tax dollar is going to YOUR investment.
Keep it zipped up please.”
Yes- there are several instances where tax payers do not like the way their tax dollars are used. There are several ways that I don’t like how tax dollars are used either, but that has no bearing that as long as you live in the district your tax dollars will be used for said schools. You’ve said nothing to argue against the fact that schools are a vested interest in the community that they are in.
February 4, 2007 - 09:26 PM on February 4th, 2007
“I’m glad that there was a mandate in the 1960s; why shouldn’t there be a mandate today?”
It was a mandate then because racial rights is a civil rights issue. Sexual preference is not.
February 4, 2007 - 09:48 PM on February 4th, 2007
22- I wouldn’t get too comfortable with that TT.. See here, here
February 5, 2007 - 12:42 AM on February 5th, 2007
DO I have to once again explain that Mandates coming down from on high will NEVER result in gay marriage being accepted in this country? WHY? Because judges die and then new laws can simply be brought before new judges for consideration. Social revolutions come back to bite themselves in the ass. If you want to be accepted as a GAY couple, act like a couple and show people that you don’t intend to molest their children, or any of the other BS that people try to attribute to gays, only that you want to be treated just like everyone else. NOT SPECIAL, just the SAME. When you go running off to the courts demanding a mandate from 9 black robed attorneys, you are trying to force people to do things that they perceive to mean giving you special treatment. That’s one of the things that really pisses people off.
Want to hear an actual argument that does make the whole gay marriage argument a Constitutional law case? Here’s one I brought up to a lesbian I know who has been with her partner for years. Here’s an argument that noone has tried yet. Everyone claims that you are supposed to fall in love based on the person inside, not based on the physical appearance, correct? What determines a person’s sex? Their DNA. Seeing as a person’s DNA determines their sex, why is it that a person who has had gender reassignment surgery may marry a member of their original gender? While the 8th amendment of the Constitution prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment for people who commit even the most heinous of violent crimes, why would it not prohibit the requirement that someone undergo painful mutilation of their sex organs (gender reassignment surgery) just so that they could marry the person that they had fallen in love with, simply because they both been born the same gender? THAT folks is the argument to take to the streets with. Don’t be overly militant, simply state that you don’t think it’s right that you have to undergo painful cosmetic surgery just to marry the person that you love. Really want to turn the screws a bit tighter? Liken it to requiring Liposuction, breast augmentation, or rhinoplasty for those who are fat, flat chested or big nosed before allowing them to marry. The sheer ludicrous nature of the anti same sex marriage argument will be on full display. If a person’s gender can be changed by plastic surgery, and their marriage be thereby legitimized, why shouldn’t there be a requirement that fat, flat chested or ugly people have to have cosmetic surgery to fix their cosmetic physical problems as well? Get the people on your side and you’ll get the Gay marriage legislation you want. Get 9 judges in black robes on your side and you’ll get nothing but problems.
February 5, 2007 - 04:54 AM on February 5th, 2007
21. Please cite a SCOTUS ruling on Gay rights, that would even come close to allowing gays to marry, let alone receive benefits.
There isn’t one, yet. If there were, then we’d have a “mandate from on high.” We don’t, and I’m saying that it would be good if we did. I’m still not sure how you’ve actually argued against a mandate, though, except to say that there isn’t one. Before there was a mandate in the area of racial civil rights, there wasn’t one. Now there is and I think that we’re better for it. Understand?
24. It was a mandate then because racial rights is a civil rights issue. Sexual preference is not.
Ted, I’m not sure how you’re using “civil rights”here. As I understand the term, it arose in 17th and 18th century natural law theory (Hobbes, Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke, etc.) and was originally to be distinguished from “basic human rights.” While the latter are those that all individuals share by the basic fact of being human (or being created by God, depending on your dogma), the former refer to those rights afforded citizens by the nation that they live in. Among these would be any sort of right to equal protection under the law. The term has gotten a bit more technical in the last 50 years or so with the intervention of political philosophers like Rawls and Nozick, but the core meaning (the distinction I noted above) remains pretty constant.
The question of rights afforded regardless of sexual preference would, then, be a civil rights issue even if it is not yet recognized as a civil right. We’d need something like a SCOTUS decision for the latter. What we have now is a struggle for civil rights, just like we had until the nation in which we reside recognized right to equal protection regardless of race as a civil right.
26. DO I have to once again explain that Mandates coming down from on high will NEVER result in gay marriage being accepted in this country?
Why not? Mandates from on high were successful when Truman desegregated the military in 1948. They were successful in 1954 when Brown v Board of Education reversed Plessy v Ferguson. In 1967, Loving v Virginia was a success. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 was a success. None of these were the product of a popular vote, and in the first three cases they were fought by those they affected every step of the way. Nonetheless, they improved the situation almost immediately and now we take them for granted. Why should gay rights be any different?
Your argument about cosmetics is great, but the side opposed to gay marriage doesn’t seem tremendously logical (another similarity to the legal cases I noted above).
February 5, 2007 - 09:34 AM on February 5th, 2007
27-No there isn’t a case that you can cite….Rulings from the SCOTUS are not activist judges, they are interputations of the COTUS. We have yet to see a case go before the court don’t we? It isn’t because they are refusing them either…Sexual preference is a mitigating factor in the case, therefore one can not say “The question of rights afforded regardless of sexual preference would, then, be a civil rights issue even if it is not yet recognized as a civil right.”
Truman desegregated the military? In addition to being POTUS, he was the Commander in Chief of the armed services.
Plessy v Ferguson argued the “separate but equal” doctrine. Although nowhere in the opinion can the phrase “separate but equal” be found, the Court’s rulings approved legally enforced segregation as long as the law did not make facilities for blacks inferior to those of whites.
Fast forward to Brown v Board of Education, as case brought before the court because the schools for the blacks were inferior to those of the whites. This is in direct violation of the COTUS.
Chief Justice Earl Warren:
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) :There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. 11 We have consistently denied [388 U.S. 1, 12] Â the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975? What SCOTUS case are you referring to? Yes we had an act, but do you have court cases supporting your claim?
You have cited cases that are examples of the SCOTUS following the COTUS. You have not shown us a case to use in a gay marriage case or a gay benefits case.Â
Â
Â
February 5, 2007 - 01:39 PM on February 5th, 2007
#10Whatever gave you the idea that because you were gay, blacks would accept your lifestyle..that is actually a very presumptious statement:You really don’t seem to grasp the concept of people that live their faith(kinda like Rosie lives her truth), and they come in all colors, some don’t approve of gay marriage, yet some do..
It’s ‘presumtion’ that I expect equal benefits under the law since I am a law-abiding American who happens to be gay?
I don’t give a rat’s ass how ‘approves’ of gay people. That’s their issue (and apparently YOURS too). Any and all of you who don’t approve of my sexuality can go shit in your hats. I think you’re subhuman if you believe that way and you’re part of what divides this country rather than unites it.
The only ‘presumption’ Peejz is that you’d fail to see the direct parallels between blacks and gays in their struggle for equality. Guess you kind of have to be one to know the struggle huh? What’s it threaten your reality to realize the Bible condone FAR MORE OFTEN the owning (enslavement) of people than it does mention homosexuality.
The abolitionists in the North combatted your kind of thinking when the Rebels tried to apply Bible rhetoric to the justification for enslaving those they deemed “lesser”.
I happen to think homosexuals are more evolved and if this site is any indication I’m convinced of it.
Do not presume to instruct my reality we’ll be fine.
Yes we come in all sizes and colors (hence our rainbow emblem) and it’s waaaaaaaaaaay overdue that the religionists and haters among us stopped “Bible-abusing” to justify mass marginalization and hatred.
You’re nothing but a thinly-veiled hater yourself.
“Oh Ellen’s fine. She keeps still about it… but OH THAT NASTY OLD ROSIE! She mentions her partner! KILL KILL KILL”
What the fuck threatens you people about homosexuality anyway? Is it something you recognize in yourselves or are you simply feeble-minded and unable to reason logically? Hell if I know.:roll:
With the free flow of homophobia and outright bigotry you allow at this site it’s a study in futility to attempt to teach the unteachable. Plus I’ve better and more productive things to do with my time than up your posting history…:roll::roll:
Your arrogance is obnoxious, condescending, and speaks to a basic flaw in your ability to treat all peoples the same .. ergo I’m brighter than you are so the rest of you can decide your OWN reality and leave mine the fuck alone.
No more playing nice from us queers… I’m all done trying to placate you bigots.
You argue it ’til the cows come home. I’ll be happily blowing my boyfriend and making love to the MAN in my life.
There. Done.
February 5, 2007 - 02:13 PM on February 5th, 2007
29- It is presumtious to assume that blacks would accept you because you are gay..in #7, that is what you stated:
Indeed I have a home in a very metropolitan place where many of my neighgors
are black and when we bought here I (foolishly and naively) believed that
my partner and I would enjoy immediate inclusion because of similar minority
status. Not so. For the first five years we were nearly shunned.
Neighbors are under no obligation to talk to you, let alone like you… Maybe they just don’t like you…it may have nothing to do with your sexuality.
I don’t give a rat’s ass how ‘approves’ of gay people. But you do and rightfully so…you have alot riding on it…
Yes we come in all sizes and colors (hence our rainbow emblem) and it’s waaaaaaaaaaay overdue that the religionists and haters among us stopped “Bible-abusing”to justify mass marginalization and hatred.
You’re nothing but a thinly-veiled hater yourself.
“Oh Ellen’s fine. She keeps still about it: but OH THAT NASTY OLD ROSIE! She mentions her partner! KILL KILL KILLâ€
Are you just ignorant? I can’t stand her because of her ignorance and hypocicy on a multitude of issues. Can you show us where we said Ellen is fine because she doesn’t meantion her partner? Nope, you can’t. What was said is that Ellen is intelligent and gay..gay is not the driving force in her being..she has so much more going for her..big difference.
With the free flow of homophobia and outright bigotry you allow at this site it’s a study in futility to attempt to teach the unteachable. Plus I’ve better and more productive things to do with my time than up your posting history:
So I should only allow one side of the debate? How about your attacks on religion..are those okay to keep or should I edit those?
Your arrogance is obnoxious, condescending, and speaks to a basic flaw in your ability to treat all peoples the same .. ergo I’m brighter than you are so the rest of you can decide your OWN reality and leave mine the fuck alone.
Being able to back up statements isn’t arrogance, it is intelligence..try it sometime
I’ll be happily blowing my boyfriend and making love to the MAN in my life.
Do you swallow?
February 5, 2007 - 02:14 PM on February 5th, 2007
29.
28.You have not shown us a case to use in a gay marriage case or a gay benefits case.
I wasn’t claiming too. My point was that none of these rulings (with which we presumably all agree) were decided by a “grassroots” popular vote. Ergo, in the case of gay rights struggles, we shouldn’t look to a populace that is all too often made up of small-minded bigots who can’t get over the “ick” factor of dudes kissing.
What’s the legacy of right-wing populism kids?
Rulings from the SCOTUS are not activist judges, they are interputations of the COTUS. We have yet to see a case go before the court don’t we? It isn’t because they are refusing them either:Sexual preference is a mitigating factor in the case, therefore one can not say “The question of rights afforded regardless of sexual preference would, then, be a civil rights issue even if it is not yet recognized as a civil right.â€
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. There seem to be some glitches with pronoun antecedents (honestly, I’m not trying to be cute). If it’s my definition of civil rights that you’re disagreeing with, could you provide your own definition? I’m at least confident in the historical grounding of my own.
February 5, 2007 - 05:37 PM on February 5th, 2007
31-My point was that none of these rulings (with which we presumably all agree) were decided by a “grassroots”popular vote. Well if that was the point you fail, as the point about the grassroots was simple..it will take a grassroots effort to get gay unions recognized legally, as it stands, there are no cases to fall back on. I am not even suggesting that the courts need to be involved in the onset. You brought up the fact that the courts, and not the people should decide this, yet when you chose your cases, they didn’t fit the arguement.
Brown V Board Of Education didn’t reverse Plessy v. Ferguson, it was used as and arguement in the Brown case. Plessy set the example of equal but seperate, while Brown argued that the “negro” schools were not equal to those of the whites…LOVING v. VIRGINIA was not about blacks marrying whites as much as it was about whites not being able to marry outside their race…blacks could marry anyone but whites..again, in violation of the COTUS. But in that case, the words are man and woman…
Ted said “It was a mandate then because racial rights is a civil rights issue. Sexual preference is not.” It rubbed me the wrong way when he said it, but after reading this, I saw what he was talking about. Unfortunately for gay people, there are going to be people that are “gay by choice” and hence,cause major setbacks for the movement…
I just know what my sil’s tell me they want: To have their union recognized in a death and dying situation(recognized as family or spouse) and to be able to leave pensions, estate etc., to each other just as her brother and I are able to do…I really think that is not too much to ask but I can see it not happening anytime soon. Why? Well let’s start with What’s the legacy of right-wing populism kids?
…you might want to read the original post again..this isn’t just the rightwing that is stopping this..states are passing these admendments by large majorities, it isn’t divided along political lines…