Scroll For Updates..The Gays Are Angry: Unhinged Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics ..”You’re a HomoPhobe, Niggah!!”
Mario suggests: “And were you thinking about skiing in Utah this year? Hmmm, Colorado’s looking pretty appealing these days.Yet somehow an economic boycott doesn’t feel direct enough; those who team up against gay people must learn that there are consequences. Please join us as we seek to strip the Mormon church of its status as a religious organization.”
Well, I am not sure what Obama’s win and Colorado’s jubilation over the win, do to boost his argument, but did he forget about the marriage ban that passed in 2006?
Hey, here is a novel idea, sure to win the hearts and minds of those opposed to them; burn down churches and hunt down people of faith who supported the ballot measure:
Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches.
“Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers,” wrote “World O Jeff” on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.
The amendments in all three states essentially limit marriage to one man and one woman. In California, the measure states the only marriages “valid and recognized” in the state are those between one man and one woman.
Thirty states now have adopted marriage amendments. However, in California, the vitriol appeared especially high since the state Supreme Court in May created same-sex marriage for homosexuals. Proposition 8 overruled the court decision, readopting the marriage definition California voters adopted in 2000.
On a blog website, “Tread” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.”
Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, “While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve.”
A contributor identifying himself as “Joe” said, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”
Or they could beat up the old people next door:
accused of punching an elderly couple because they had Yes On Prop 8 signs in their yard says he’s innocent.
Thursday, Lawrence Pizzicara pleaded not guilty to attacking his neighbors on Monday allegedly during an argument over Prop 8 signs.
The couple suffered numerous injuries.
Pizzicara is being held on $200,000 bail.
I think Michelle has a great idea:
Since blacks and Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Prop. 8, I fully expect to see gay zealots marching onto South Central and East L.A. and threatening to burn down houses and businesses there.
“You’re a HomoPhobe, Niggah!!”
The backlash is upon us, and it’s going to get uglier unless our organizations step forward and say something. The desire to scapegoat blacks for Prop 8’s defeat has exposed the now not-so-latent racism in our movement.
Identity politics at its best!
November 7, 2008 - 02:18 PM on November 7th, 2008
I’ve linked to your post from Prop 8 Challenge
I still can not stopping thinking about the fact that they have domestic partner ship laws in California giving them every right of marriage.
November 7, 2008 - 02:29 PM on November 7th, 2008
That’s the thing I have been trying to figure out, Wayne. I read the text of Prop 8 and it consisted of one line: “Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.” That’s it!!!
Prop 8 doesn’t take away any of their rights under civil unions. All Prop 8 did was to keep them from co-opting and destroying the institution of marriage.
And yet all of these liars were babbling about how it was wrong and unfair, and would take away their rights. They lied, again, as usual.
The so-called gay rights issue has gone way too far, imo. They just wanted to be equal, that’s what they said. Well now that they have what they said they wanted, they want to destroy anything and everything that doesn’t look like them that doesn’t embrace them. Well they DO NOT have the right to infringe on other people’s rights, and they have been doing that.
November 7, 2008 - 03:26 PM on November 7th, 2008
Yes.
“the gays” are angry.
Unbelievably they don’t like being denied their Constitutional rights.
Not too difficult to understand.
The Mormons were the largest contributors to get Prop 8 put on the Calif. ballot and how seriously can we truly take an entire religious cult based on the findings of Joseph Smith and his erstwhile discovery of gold plates in the New York State woods in the 1830s?
The Mormons only allowed blacks to join their “priesthood” in 1978. Women still hold an entirely subservient role in their midst.
The denial of gay rights is simply the “prejudice du jour”. In a generation it will seem as preposertous as The Federal Supreme Court having to mandate forced bussing in the South in the 1960s.
Wayne wrote:
” still can not stopping thinking about the fact that they have domestic partner ship laws in California giving them every right of marriage.”
No you’re mistaken. There exist key differences in the rights of a civil union versus a marriage.
November 7, 2008 - 03:33 PM on November 7th, 2008
For Wayne:
Here’s the truth of it:
They’re very differnt.
In a same sex civil union your partner is injured and on an ambulance: if you tell the paramedics ‘that’s my husband/wife’, and you’re on the ambulance. There’s no question.
If you tell them ‘that’s my registered domestic partner!’, you may…or may not… be allowed on.
Same goes with dealing with estates after death. Married people don’t have to worry about it. Civil unions can be challenged and brought to court with the biological family often winning inheritance rights.
But DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act does not require states to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states. So either way, they probably need to stay in California, unless their state is willing to recognize their marriage.
Robert writes:
“That’s the thing I have been trying to figure out, Wayne. I read the text of Prop 8 and it consisted of one line: “Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.” That’s it!!!”
No, that’s not “it”.
Religionists have no patent on the word “marriage”.
Change is difficult as the struggles of all minorities over the generations will prove. But I think it opportune that we learn sooner rather than later from the mistakes of the past.
November 7, 2008 - 03:41 PM on November 7th, 2008
Your quote from “Michele” is especially pertinent.
You see when people are oppressed and denied the same rights others take for granted it tends to make “the gays” angry.
Yup it does. Think of the riots in the South in the 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement. Recall the Black Panthers and Angela Davis. Yes …. marginalization is a rotten thing for us as a nation to impose on others since no one in THOSE groups is imposing anything on the majority.
I’m confident with an Obama Presidency (and the appointments he’s making) hatemongering and an exclusionary notion of things Constitutional will fade into an unpleasant memory before too very long.
The times they are ‘a changin’.
November 7, 2008 - 04:12 PM on November 7th, 2008
Eben – it goes beyond civil unions. People who are in a ‘civil union’ are recognized as a married couple.
My husband and I were not married in a church, nor were we married by a preacher, priest or any other ordained person. We were married in a beautiful outdoor ceremony by a justice of the peace.
Is that not a civil union? And are my husband and I not recognized as a married couple? Of course we are. In any state in this union, my husband and I are considered married. There is no difference between our “civil union” and my parents “church marriage”, in the eyes of the law.
He and I were married in the same exact way that Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi were married – - outdoors, by a civil servant.
What’s the difference? Sex.
Personally, I’m not against gay marriage at all. But, until the majority in this country ceases their victorian-esque mentality of getting upset about what people do when we’re not looking – - the gays will just need to fight harder for their rights..just like any other minority group in this country has done since the beginning. It’s the American way, right?
Oh, and don’t think that an Obama administration is going to change it. Obama and Biden have both stated that they are against gay marriage and both of them have said they believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Same as the republican stance on the issue.
November 7, 2008 - 04:14 PM on November 7th, 2008
Eben when gay extremist activists stop trying to destroy everything that does not accept them, then this will be over. But until that day I won’t give them anything. They have too much now…
November 7, 2008 - 04:29 PM on November 7th, 2008
Neither Biden or Obama would support a federal marriange ban, imo, but I believe they will allow the states to handle the issue..in other words, don’t look to them to ask for legislation to overturn any of these states rulings.
November 7, 2008 - 04:31 PM on November 7th, 2008
So Eben,
I take it that you agree with Michelle and we should expect the gays to also march into South Central LA and start rioting there?
November 7, 2008 - 07:45 PM on November 7th, 2008
No matter which side “won” on the 4th this was going to be just round 1. Both sides had their appeals already written and ready to file. Ultimately this will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court and I really think that the “pro-heterosexual marriage only” crowd have thought that through. Ultimately the word “Marriage” has been so fully absorbed into our legal terminology that it is no longer a religious term, it is a part of law, and more importantly a part of contract law since a marriage is really a contract between two adults. Because we have legal protections in the system that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and age (for those old enough to legally enter into a contract). Because of this I strongly expect that all the non-Californians who stuck their noses…and their wallets…into a fight that would have kept gay marriage pretty much a California only deal…will find themselves with gay marriage being allowed and recognized nationwide, because anything else would be discrimination in the eyes of the law. Many voters may not like the California Supreme Court’s ruling…but it is the correct legal stance.
November 7, 2008 - 07:49 PM on November 7th, 2008
The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage crowd ran ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a “lie.”
However, the same groups who said it’s a lie – “public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not” — were in court in Massachusetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don’t have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“(parents have) no right to remove the books now in issue – or to impose an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“ parents do not have a constitutional right to override pedagogical judgment of the school …King and King.” [p 9]
Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?
November 7, 2008 - 08:33 PM on November 7th, 2008
W I L- Let’s not forget the field trip the kids took to a gay marriage..Now, if you want to invite your class to your wedding that takes place after school hours..that’s your business, but we are producing more stupid kids than we know what to do with. How about we devote school to the old time basics of reading, writing and arithmetic!
November 7, 2008 - 10:29 PM on November 7th, 2008
regarding
If you look at the domestic partner law, you are legally given the same treatment … So may I suggest if you partner gets injured and you tell them that is my same sex marriage partner, you may … or may not … be allowed on having a marriage and a domestic partner does not double your rights.
November 7, 2008 - 11:30 PM on November 7th, 2008
Liberals are such a bunch of whinny sniveling bunch of snoozies snozzers talk about being arrogant and stupid JUST BOYCOTT SAN FRANCISCO and LOS ANGELES
November 8, 2008 - 01:38 AM on November 8th, 2008
Yikes. Bigoted much?
Lisa (the outdoor civil union ceremony wife), ah no. it’s not the same thing. Just because you were unionized outside does not mean the difference between becoming married or unionized. I assume you went to your local county court to get issued a “marriage” license, no? This was a right of Californian’s now taken away from gays.
This is the issue we are debating, it’s not about the ability to have a religious ceremony whatsoever, the issue is about receiving all the benefits of a married couple that does not come with a civil union (again, a completely different classification under the law) some 70 laws that are not allowed to a gay couple now in California.
hate is hate.
November 8, 2008 - 01:43 AM on November 8th, 2008
Lisa, you and your husband were married in a civil ceromony recognized nationwide. If something were to happen to either of you, the is no question as to rights of the other person. You are correct, what Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi did was get married…under the constitutional law that was applicable at that time. Same sex marriages are recognized nationwide. Actually, same sex marriage is a state issue, mandated, or not by each state. Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only two states that have same sex marriage. I also agree that Obama will not agree to same sex marriage…now. I do think it is going to take a fight for civil rights. If the right of me being allowed to own property as a single woman had been given to me then taken away after I bought the house, I would be tooling up for a battle. I asked my sis ter in California how she voted, she voted yes. I asked her why, she said they need to find another word. I said that is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Had Blacks settled for separate but equal laws, would that have been acceptable in todays socially conscious society. I would like to think not. If our nations constitution prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion etc.,then how can individual state constitutions supercede our nations directive?
November 8, 2008 - 02:50 AM on November 8th, 2008
@sinya – I couldn’t agree with you more, and I do break with the conservatives on the issue of gay marriage. I have no problems with it…although, I don’t see it as a personal battle that I’m willing to waste my energy fighting for — more power to the gays in fighting for their rights on it, tho.
I personally don’t see the correlation to the fight for gay marriage and the civil rights movement. I understand a great many do draw paralells. But I’m not seeing where gays are forced to the back of the bus, or have their own designated drinking fountains.. nor are they being hung by trees, or disallowed the right to vote. They don’t have their own bathrooms labeled “gay only” and schools aren’t being segregated. They have every right in the world to voice their opinion and they aren’t persecuted for it. Imagine if a black man, in the 40’s or 50’s, marched in protest of society and government? Where do you think that would have gotten him?
Yes, there is discrimination against gays – but discrimination is not nearly the same as what the black people have been put through in the history of our country – it’s not even in the same ballpark as the same. But there is discrimination every where you go for a variety of different reasons. Sexism. Ageism. Racism. There are -isms everywhere you go in life. Everyone fights for their own rights and equality in hopes of society giving an inch. And you’re asking for a society of people who fight their own battles on a daily basis to care about the battle the gays fight.
The problems the gays have? They want society to care about their rights – - and the majority of society does not care about gay rights. The poll numbers tell the story. Unless Obama flips his position, he doesn’t care either - you, and your sister, won’t be able to look to him for the change you want.
Unlike the economy – this kind of change does come from the ground up. Good luck with the fight.
November 8, 2008 - 08:16 AM on November 8th, 2008
I agree with Lisa, this is a battle from the bottom up. Sinya and Eben both make the mistake of comparing their struggle to that of the black civil rights movement. They are not even close to being the same. The gays keep trying to blame their defeat on the religious right, when in fact, this issue is spread across the board to people from all walks of life, from all political persuasions. You speak of wanting acceptance, you speak of wanting to stop the bigotry, yet project hate towards only a certain portion of those that are opposed to your cause. Matthew Shepard is cited as a reason for the need for inclusion in hates crime legislation, and somehow the religious right is blamed for his death. The truth is, money and drugs motivated that killing, the killers were not in any way shape or form, religious amd they were crack heads that drank alot! His homosexuality was not a factor. After the killers left him to die, they drove to town, and were involved in another fight and a victim had his skull fractured, but didn’t die..It didn’t matter what the truth was, your martyr was Matthew. The problem with that is that matthews death is also a sobering remnder of why gays are not included in hates crime legislation.
November 8, 2008 - 11:16 AM on November 8th, 2008
When homosexual activists stop attacking and trying to destroy others, then I will care about their rights. Until then, I don’t care.
November 8, 2008 - 12:40 PM on November 8th, 2008
Yeah, lets talk about constitutional rights. I suppose its okay for “Gays” to march, destroy people’s property, and beat up old people who disagree with their point of view; but its not okay to have a contrary point of view? Actually, this is a rights issue and “Gays” do currently have the same rights as I do. They can choose anyone they wish to marry regardless of race or financial background as long as they are of the opposite sex. Hmm, same right as me. Oh, I see, they want an additional and expanded right that I don’t have!!!
First of all, I’m not a homophobe so please save the name calling that usually occurs when a Liberal hears something they don’t wish to listen to. However, no matter how you spin it, homosexuality is unnatural, immoral, and destroys those who practice it no matter how loudly they try to proclaim something different. Everyone has perverse temptations at some time in their lives;the normal people (also known as the vast majority) control themselves so they don’t succumb to this kind of soul rot. I think its funny when I read how “Gays” don’t want the churches to impose their values on them when in fact its completely the opposite shenanigans going on from the “Gays” with the support of other evils in our society (ex: hollyweird). Being Gay is as unnatural a sexual drive as is being a pedophile or having incest urges. If we’re going to legitimize sexual sin why limit to homosexuality? which is just another perversion of a rather select class of immoral activity. Regardless, they’re free to destroy their sould if they wish, but they don’t need to destroy the ideal of “marriage” at the same time. So I voted yes for the ban, and apparently I wasn’t alone.
November 8, 2008 - 02:17 PM on November 8th, 2008
Lisa and Pam, pardon me if I was not clear. It actually was not my intention to compare the civil rights movement to the prop 8. However, that said, there are similarities. My example of separate but equal was to say some states “allow” gays to have civil unions, or domestic partnerships but not marriage. Same, but different. Language such as, “limited,” “provisional,” and “comparable” deems the law separate but equal, or Jim Crowish. Were these not the same words, and attitudes used to prolong discrimination based solely on race. You are correct in saying most straight people do not care, but many do which is why so much of the money in support of prop 8 came from Utah. I simply do not understand oppostion to all inclusive laws in this country, and that is were the similarity is focused. A right should be applicable and on even ground to all citizens not just those that fit certain criteria. While it does not effect me personaly, it does effect me as a citizen of a nation thought to be accepting. There were many non-Blacks marching for civil rights in the 60’s because they knew Jim Crow and the like were wrong. Pam I am not sure why you feel I projected hate in my last comment. There were religious groups Jewish and christian, teachers, politicians, and many of the large papers in California opposed to prop 8. There is some discussion now as to the legality of marriages performed prior to 11/4. I feel this is a separate but equal right as any American right which excludes a group of people otherwise covered by the US Constitution. For example, it is not okay if one of a same sex couple dies, the surviving partner could possibly lose half or more of thier assets to their partners family. Pam, sexual orientation is covered by the hate crime statue as of 2003. There have been many hate crimes commited based on sexual orientation just not as widely publisized as Mathew Shepard: ( http://tinyurl.com/652z9r)
I just think when we say , one nation and indivisable with justice and liberty for all, we should mean it.
November 8, 2008 - 04:16 PM on November 8th, 2008
Lisa wrote”
”
Eben – it goes beyond civil unions. People who are in a ‘civil union’ are recognized as a married couple.
My husband and I were not married in a church, nor were we married by a preacher, priest or any other ordained person. We were married in a beautiful outdoor ceremony by a justice of the peace.
Is that not a civil union? And are my husband and I not recognized as a married couple? Of course we are. In any state in this union, my husband and I are considered married. There is no difference between our “civil union” and my parents “church marriage”, in the eyes of the law.
He and I were married in the same exact way that Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi were married – - outdoors, by a civil servant.”
Yes. But civil though your marriage may be Lisa is still (by legislative vote in CA) constitutes a “marriage”. I assume you had to get a Marriage License to have your service performed?
Well they’re not handing them out to same sex couples any longer in California since the voters (for the time being) have had their way and no more same-sex “marriage” licenses OR ANY SORT OF LICENSE TO WED are being issued to same sex couples.
You’re still recognized by all the key governmental institutions as married. The tentative state of Ellen and Portia’s marriage is in limbo.
You’re aware of the disinction I’m sure.
**********************************************************
Robert wrote:
“When homosexual activists stop attacking and trying to destroy others, then I will care about their rights. Until then, I don’t care.”
Robert; Gay marriage has been LAW in Massachusetts since 2003. To date I’ve not heard one person say it’s negatively impacted heterosexual society or marriage.
Either you “care about” all the rights of Americans or you’re simply a misanthrope. It’s not up to you to “care” or “not care”. It’s up to you to butt out and mind your own bleeding business.
***********************************************************
Pam writes:
“Sinya and Eben both make the mistake of comparing their struggle to that of the black civil rights movement. They are not even close to being the same. The gays keep trying to blame their defeat on the religious right, when in fact, this issue is spread across the board to people from all walks of life, from all political persuasions. ”
Horse doody.
The largest single block of “yes” voters of Prop 8 were black Americans who’ve bought hook line and sinker into the Christian dogma hurled at them by the “man” when they arrived here in shackles. Not that I don’t understand the subsequent unifying affect of the church for social purposes for disenfranchised blacks. But it’s the very height of irony that those most oppressed would slam the door shut behind them the moment they perceive acceptance.
And the the battle for civil rights for all minorities are infinitely comparable Pam. Riots in the South in the ’60s and riots in LA over the passing of Prop 8 based in several vague passages in Leviticus is telling.
Where the Bible in the OT condones slavery many times over it references homosexuality but a few times. The anti-abolitionists used just those passages from the OT to attempt to keep the institution of slavery going strong in the years prior to the Civil War.
I always find it amusing when one minority resents the irrefutable comparison of its own struggles for acceptance to those of the “bias du jour” represented in the repeated attemtps of religionists (and YES it is religion based) to denounce and deny good gay Americans their civil rights.
You’d think people would learn… but no. There’s always got to be someon to “look down on”. It’s a rather sad statement about society at large.
November 8, 2008 - 04:20 PM on November 8th, 2008
Pam’s a very frightened woman.
Why one minority wants to slam that door shut after it gets a modicum of perceived acceptance is beyond me. The struggle for gay rights and those of blacks in through the generations is INFINITELY comparable. I’m always amused when blacks are so offended by the comparison.
Guys? Has it occured to you that by ratio the number of black homosexuals is identical to white ones?
And Lisa? You know perfectly well you got a MARRIAGE license in spite of your union.
They refuse to hand out Marriage Licencse applications to same sex couples now.
Same sex couple can no longer get them in Ca.
Portia and Ellen’s marriage is in limbo.
Same sex marriage has been LAW in Massachusetts in 2003 and to date I’ve not heard one person say “oh it’s ruined my heterosexual marriage!” or “they’re now recruiting our children and teaching it in our schools!!”
Are you nuts?
November 8, 2008 - 04:31 PM on November 8th, 2008
Yes, Eben – I do know perfectly well that I got a marriage license in spite of my union. I did say that the only difference between my husband and I and Ellen and Portia was the issue of sex. That’s the only real difference, unfortunate as that is.
How does that make me nuts and what’s your point?
November 8, 2008 - 04:35 PM on November 8th, 2008
Lisa wrote:
”
Oh, and don’t think that an Obama administration is going to change it. Obama and Biden have both stated that they are against gay marriage and both of them have said they believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Same as the republican stance on the issue.”
All in good time.
In his victory speech The President Elect said “gays and straights” when speaking of civil rights. I assumed you’d watched it. And by the look of his appointments to date it’s getting very interesting indeed.
November 8, 2008 - 04:39 PM on November 8th, 2008
Lisa wrote:
”
Yes, Eben – I do know perfectly well that I got a marriage license in spite of my union. I did say that the only difference between my husband and I and Ellen and Portia was the issue of sex. That’s the only real difference, unfortunate as that is.
How does that make me nuts and what’s your point?”
My ‘point’ is that it’s obvious people are threatened for the oddest reasons (I don’t see it in you particularly but definittely in Pam). Honestly. Nothing’s changed in Massachusetts since same sex marriage was made the law in 2003.
We’re the test lab. There’s been no backlash, no recruiting stations of teens by gay and lesbian citizens, no undermining of heterosexual procreation.
If this is about pure semantics then yes. It’s nuts.
Religionists have no patent on the word marriage. That’s my point.
I’m not calling YOU “nuts”. I’m calling the hoopla around a word “nuts”. And that word is the very difference between what’s afforded you (religionist though you may not be) and what gay people are now being denied in California.
There can be no separate but equal in these United States. That notion was struck down in a 1954 US Supreme Court ruling.
November 8, 2008 - 05:29 PM on November 8th, 2008
Ok – *I’m* not nuts – whew!
I do agree that people do find the concept of gay marriage threatening, and although I am not one of them, I do understand their feelings on it. From just a pure human nature standpoint, it’s different and that kind of “hearts and minds” changing doesn’t happen overnight, as much as the gay community would like it to. From a religion standpoint, it’s immoral – - whether you agree with that line of thinking, or not – and I’m not entirely sure how you will go about changing that particular viewpoint. That one is a toughie.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on the law – - but cannot gay couples protect themselves, and their assets through simple paperwork?
Life Insurance? Declare your partner as beneficiary.
Lifetime assets? Write a will, leaving everything you own to your partner.
Medial? Power of Attorney for Healthcare – if one partner is the Medical POA, then that is person who makes medical decisions in absense your inability to and medical institutions cannot deny that right. I could name anyone I want to be my medical POA.
Financial? Financial Power of Attorney assigned to the partner – - that way, it’s the partner to makes financial decisions in a time where the other partner may not be able to.
Maybe there is more to it than that? There are a lot of legal ways that gay couples can protect their assets and interests..is there more that I’m missing, except for the ability to say “we’re married” ?
I guess maybe there are tax benefits? Gay couples can’t take advantage of any credits afforded to married couples. And I suppose that gay couples probably cannot combine their assets in order to get a joint mortage loan (if finanical institutions are GIVING mortage loans at this point? lol).
As I said in a comment here earlier – - it’s a fight that the gay community needs to fight from the ground up. They haven’t won the fight yet, as the majority of society doesn’t want to give in on it. The gay community needs to find a different way to fight the fight until they ARE able to convince the majority that it is a right they should be afforded.
November 8, 2008 - 05:58 PM on November 8th, 2008
Lisa wrote:
“Yes, there is discrimination against gays – but discrimination is not nearly the same as what the black people have been put through in the history of our country.”
No there are differences but the homophobia and fearmongering directed at gays is as age-old as racism. It just manifests itself in more subtle ways .. and those subtle ways can be equally insidious as the over “back of the bus” ones. I’ve lived it I know.
I’m happy to read you support marriage equal rights for same sex couples however Lisa.
This should help you understand the key differnces:
Number of Legal Benefits:
Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits (see list)
Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. *No federal protection (see benefit example)
Tax Relief:
Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.
Medical Decisions:
Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.
Marriage: In the case of a partner’s death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.
Child/Spousal Support:
Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.
Immigration Rights:
Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members. (more on gay immigration rights)
These are some fairly crucial differences.
November 8, 2008 - 06:02 PM on November 8th, 2008
“The gay community needs to find a different way to fight the fight until they ARE able to convince the majority that it is a right they should be afforded.”
As in the case of forced school integration in the South in the 1960s one cannot rely on a heavily religiously influenced voting population to think in the objective.
That’s why the Supreme Court rules in this circumstances. They’ll rule again in Ca. too. It’s essential in Republic when a Constitutional “must” cannot be entrusted to the general populace.
Again the Civil Rights Movement:
Imagine putting up for “popular vote” the issues of desegregation in the deep South in the mid-1960s. There’d still be “white only” signs on bathroom doors ..
November 8, 2008 - 07:04 PM on November 8th, 2008
“Yeah, lets talk about constitutional rights. I suppose its okay for “Gays” to march, destroy people’s property, and beat up old people who disagree with their point of view; but its not okay to have a contrary point of view?”
Yes, that’s what they think!
November 8, 2008 - 07:36 PM on November 8th, 2008
Sinya,
You did not project hate. Eben projects hate, and for the most part, those that are vocal on the blogs project hate towards the religious right( I am not a part of that, and I support gay unions). I just wanted to clear that up. I have read you comments and you seem to be a very level headed person.
November 8, 2008 - 08:17 PM on November 8th, 2008
Eben wrote:
What is it that you have imagined that I am fightened of? Gays? Gay marriage? No..
No, the gays and the blacks have not had the same struggle nor is it even close. We had this discussion before. A gay man has never been designated 3/5ths of a man for cencus purposes. The gays were never bought and sold for slavery. Gays were not made to sit in the back of a bus, drink from a separate fountain, use a different bathroom, if any, eat in a separate dining room, or restaurant preferably, made to attend an “all gay” school, denied the right to vote, denied the right to run for Congress, denied the use of our court system, let’s not forget about the lynchings, etc., etc.,..Eben wants to talk about riots and call that the civil rights struggle of the blacks? No.. And then Eben wants to make it sound as if whites forced blacks into spirituality? Which religion were they forced into? Eben says he has never heard:
“they’re now recruiting our children and teaching it in our schools!!”
Really, how could you have missed this:
Is this appropriate for kindergarden?
November 8, 2008 - 08:21 PM on November 8th, 2008
Lisa,
My sisters-in-law were able to get a mortgage together, have both names on the deed, draw up their wills leaving everything to the other..Medical power of attorney’s were also put in place..the only thing that one can’t do, is leave their state pension to the other..Other than that, their names are joint on all accounts. with each being the beneficiary of the other
November 8, 2008 - 09:34 PM on November 8th, 2008
I don’t support gay marriage; nor do I support the wrongs of pedophilia, bestiality, incest, adultery, sadism or sex outside of wedlock. These things are all destructive to the participants, most are unnatural behaviors to boot, and they’re plain wrong. For me to proclaim any other way would be wrong on my part. I grew up to believe that if I don’t stand for what’s right (and no one else will either) I will wake up one day to a morally corrupt world. Some mornings I wonder. The definition of marriage should remain as being between a natural man and a natural woman. Any other definition is a lie and immoral.
To be clear: I’m not a homophobe, I don’t want to control the free choices anyone else makes (as long as all parties are legal participants), and I’m not afraid of Gays. But I believe to the depth of my core that homosexual activities are unnatural, an abomination to humanity, and is just plain wrong. The truth is what the truth is. No one is perfect, and a lot of people have done things they shouldn’t have. I don’t condemn them and in fact wish more than anything they can see the error of their ways and do something to correct their behavior. However, I also know how powerful evil can be especially through the use of rationalization to explain away wrong behaviors. What bothers me here is that Gays are so vehemently trying to push their immorality as “normal” behavior to our unsuspecting society when it isn’t. We really do live in a time when what used to be wrong is now right, and what used to be right is now wrong…
One day (hopefully) our current politically correct cultural era will start to swing back to a more normal “questioning” and problem solving one. When that happens the empirical data will show the destruction we’re causing with our lack of self-control and restraint in regards to our society. Life isn’t about self gratification at all costs. Its about helping other people reach their full potential. I don’t think helping people wreck their souls will count, not to mention the consequences these relationships will prove to have on the poor children dragged into their perversions.
November 8, 2008 - 09:44 PM on November 8th, 2008
BTW – I will definitely be skiing in Utah this year. I’m also now planning a summer trip to Bryce Canyon, and I think we’ll have to visit Salt Lake City. Never vacationed in Utah before but it feels like a good time to start
.
November 10, 2008 - 08:07 PM on November 10th, 2008
Mike K writes:
“First of all, I’m not a homophobe so please save the name calling ..”
Then Mike K writes contradictorally:
“But I believe to the depth of my core that homosexual activities are unnatural, an abomination to humanity, and is just plain wrong.”
Well that takes care of any issues around you being a homophobe Mike.
Conversely I think judging others solely on whom they bed is “just plain wrong”.
Mormons often (in spite of Federal law) have mulitiple young wives yet you find homosexuality “just plain wrong”? You’re very afraid that the patriarchy will lose its grasp on society aren’t you.
Too late bud. They already have.
November 10, 2008 - 08:13 PM on November 10th, 2008
Mike again:
“No one is perfect, and a lot of people have done things they shouldn’t have.”
Good GAWD man! You’re nothing but a religionist.
All your rhetoric is straight from the front and back covers of the Old and New Testamensts.
November 10, 2008 - 08:21 PM on November 10th, 2008
Note to Mike -
The word “homophobe” has morphed in meaning just so you know:
homophobia:
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
Merriam Webster
Pam? You’re way off on attempting to suggest that your sisters -in -law enjoy the same rights you do since you can marry. You even note several key ones yourself.
In my own situation were I to be civilly united with my male partner his family could easily contest the will since civil unions do not allow for the same inheritance rights as marriage.
And gee whillikers… don’t cha think that Pension one is kinda WRONG?
November 10, 2008 - 08:37 PM on November 10th, 2008
@ Pam:
“What is it that you have imagined that I am fightened of? Gays? Gay marriage? No.. ”
Yeah you are. On a very FUNDAMENTAL level.
And yes those black people we stole and hurled onto the auction block did NOT come here with Christianity as their innate religion. Christianity (the imposed faith of the oppressor) was their only recourse for community and spirituality. But boy oh boy did they evey buy it hook line and sinker.
It took to such a degree that many black males are more homophobic (since they equate homosexuality with being effeminate) than many of their white brothers.
Bottom line?
CHRISTIANITY is at the root of two millenia of oppression to many minorities (even to this day) and much of the moral damage to the growth of humanity as a species.
To quote Shakespeare’s Hamlet:
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
Pam writes too:
“Gays were not made to sit in the back of a bus, drink from a separate fountain, use a different bathroom, if any, eat in a separate dining room, or restaurant preferably, made to attend an “all gay” school, denied the right to vote, denied the right to run for Congress, denied the use of our court system, let’s not forget about the lynchings, etc., etc.,..”
See Pam if you can grasp the insidious nature of oppression. Gay people have not been vicitimzied in precisely the way blacks have but the battles for equality are the same. In a way black people have been more fortunate since they’ve had to wear their “blackness”. Outrageous gays show too… but the more subtle of us (and the vast majority) have had to resolve ourselves to ostrazation from family, friends, and the faiths of our choice since CHRISTIANITY (you know the very thing so advocated in the Old Testament?) has borrowed a few handy dandy passages from Leviticus to demonize an entire group of decent human beings.
Mike is just a blowhard spewing what his dada told him or some preacher or priest because he’s AFRAID of that which is not in his realm of experience. His posts above prove it to a “t”. But YOU? You seem brighter.
You ought to get that we’re not talking example or degree of persecution necessarily. You couldn’t know since you’re not a gay woman. But I know because I’m a gay man. And the ways this Heterosexual White Male society chooses to demonize (and the women who support them) a perfectly fine minority minding its own business is something I’d expect you to “get”.
Again: homophobia is simply the “prejudcide du jour”.
Look at what “Mike writes”:
“When that happens the empirical data will show the destruction we’re causing with our lack of self-control and restraint in regards to our society. Life isn’t about self gratification at all costs.”
Homosexuality isn’t about “self gratification”! It’s about living one’s sexual truth. My homosexuality defines me no more or less than Mike’s heterosexuality does him. Yet he seems to think he has the authority and ‘political RELIGIOUS correctness” to say that decent men and women like I am are akin to pedophiles and worse….
This, “my friends” is hatemongering at its insane best.
November 10, 2008 - 08:44 PM on November 10th, 2008
Note to Eben
I know what a homophope is and if you’ll note in my post I refer to homosexual activities, not the people themselves. I don’t hold any contempt for the homosexual people that I know, although I have to state their homosexual activities are wrong the same as I would have to say many other deviant behaviors are wrong. I appologize if this hits too close to home but the truth is what it is.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your Mormon satement, but I don’t know any real Mormons that marry multiple young girls – especially in regards to the Churches that are being assaulted by gay proponents… I believe you’re misinformed on this one.
My post isn’t about the people involved but the behavior itself. The definition of marriage should remain as being applicable only to a natural man and a woman. I really don’t care what choice you make personally in regards to your behavior. But I won’t support a law that accepts a sexual deviancy as “normal” in regards to corrupting the ideal of what marriage should be.
Oh – and I’m glad you noticed my “rhetoric” is from the old/new testament. You are correct that even God states homosexual activity is just plain wrong.
November 10, 2008 - 09:19 PM on November 10th, 2008
No, their battles are not the same, not even close.
Yes, Eben it is, and you should do something about that hate you have inside yourself..I am glad that you recognoze the fact that you are unhinged!
November 10, 2008 - 09:26 PM on November 10th, 2008
Can the will be contested? Any will can be contested, but it doesn’t mean that it will be successful..next of kin usually receive an estate if there was no will, but in the case of a will, the beneficiary is the recipient..There are tax consequences to the inheritance, but it is perfectly legal to leave your estate to the milkman if you want to.
November 10, 2008 - 09:57 PM on November 10th, 2008
Any comments on the hateful old lady?
November 11, 2008 - 07:22 AM on November 11th, 2008
Thanks Wayne! That video shows the hate that gays have towards anyone that disagrees with them! We know that it is not just the religious right that doesn’t support them, but people that have no religious affiliations, people that come from all walks of life, etc….
November 11, 2008 - 07:54 AM on November 11th, 2008
@ Pam;
You’re missing the point.
Of course the will can be contested. As you note any will can be.
But the likelihood of the courts finding in the favor of the biological family instead of the Civil Union partner is almost invariable in cases to date.
If you’re TRULY interested in the differences between Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships/and Marriage there are a myriad of responsible sites on the internet which will inform you to the reality of the thing.
I find it’s always better to be informed in these instances before going off half-cocked with pure assumption.
November 11, 2008 - 08:04 AM on November 11th, 2008
@Pam:
“Yes, Eben it is, and you should do something about that hate you have inside yourself..I am glad that you recognoze the fact that you are unhinged!”
I’m hardly ‘unhinged’.
Don’t make the foolish misaked of being resolute to being angry. There’s a world of difference. Try to look at the world in an inclusive way rather than an “us and them” one.
As I read you you’re immensely frightened of any change to the status quo… and we ALL know where that’s gotten us.
And Pam?
Lest you forget over one hundred and fifty thousand homosexual were rounded up and gassed in Hitler’s ovens at Buchenwald, Auschwitz, etc..
Though Jews don’t wear their “Jewishness” as a physical emblem of their subservient position in this society - six million lost their lives to intolerance too in “The Final Solution”.
Do you believe as Hutton Gibson does that the Holocaust didn’t happen? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (president of Iran) believes it didn’t. He also believes there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Are you seeing a pattern of oppression (irrespective of the manifestations of that oppression on the target minority) in all these biases?
Come on Pam. This isn’t quantum physics.
November 11, 2008 - 08:07 AM on November 11th, 2008
No Eben, that isn’t how the courts rule..don’t make stuff up to suit your argument..The courts are obligated to uphold the person’s wishes as written, signed and witnessed in a legal will. Rather than going all over the internet, pick up the phone and talk to an attorney. You would be amazed at how simple it is. You talk about cases involving civil unions, but fail to mention the thousands of cases that never went to court because there was no merit to contest the will. There are many more gays that are not involved in civil unions than are..
November 11, 2008 - 08:08 AM on November 11th, 2008
Note to readers: I’m having trouble with the edit feature on this board. Sometimes it works perfectly well. Others is just doesn’t let me edit typos.
My apologies.
November 11, 2008 - 08:13 AM on November 11th, 2008
@Pam
“No Eben, that isn’t how the courts rule..don’t make stuff up to suit your argument..The courts are obligated to uphold the person’s wishes as written, signed and witnessed in a legal will.
Utter and completely incorrect. You appear to be making this stuff up as you go along.
Pam also writes:
Rather than going all over the internet, pick up the phone and talk to an attorney. You would be amazed at how simple it is. You talk about cases involving civil unions, but fail to mention the thousands of cases that never went to court because there was no merit to contest the will. There are many more gays that are not involved in civil unions than are..”
You “fail” to do you homework. I have “spoken to an attorney” since this particular issue is at the very core of my rights under our Constitution.
What is it Pam that keeps you comin’ back for more when we’re simply talking about a word?
Semantics is at the root of this thing.
Again: MARRIAGE HAS BEEN STATE LAW IN MASSACHUSETTS SINCE 2003. The sky’s not fallen, the hew and cry from religionists has faded away. Children are not being targeted to “study homosexuality” in school systems, and I’ve yet to hear word one about a gay marriage impacting a heterosexual one.
The proof’s in the puddin’ and (per usual) Massachusetts leads the country in Civil Rights and the defense and upholding of what constitutes the Republic in the ideal.
November 11, 2008 - 08:17 AM on November 11th, 2008
**please note in my last I intended to write “Same Sex Marriage has been Law in the state of Massachusetts since 2003…”
Thanks.
November 11, 2008 - 08:24 AM on November 11th, 2008
Wrong Eben, although I tend to deal with Tier 1 Law school grads that are in the best firms, rather than Legal Aid, which is where you seem to hang out.
Hey how is gay divorce working out in MA and around the country?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-15-gay-divorces_N.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/25/local/me-gaydivorce25
The warning from back in 2003:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/12/03/for_gays_divorce_may_soon_be_a_useful_right/
November 11, 2008 - 08:26 AM on November 11th, 2008
@ Mike K:
“Oh – and I’m glad you noticed my “rhetoric” is from the old/new testament. You are correct that even God states homosexual activity is just plain wrong.”
I’m just using your antique “handbook for life” Mike. Indugle me.
The Old Testament states easily twenty-five to thirty times God’s condonement of slavery in vary ways and according to various legal rights of inheritance of those slaves. Yet do you support human bondage?
The OT also says in Leviticus that anyone who eats shellfish is an “abomination”
“But all in the seas or in the rivers that do no have fins and scales, all that move in the water of any living thing which is in the water, that are an abominaton to water and an abomination to you“ (Leviticus 11/10).
Eaten at The Red Lobster lately? If so dude.. see you in hell according to your logic!
Kindly don’t cherry pick you biases and ignore the other preposterous things that tome for the intellectually impaired promotes. If anything else Mike be consistent in your fundamentalism.
November 11, 2008 - 08:30 AM on November 11th, 2008
@Pam:
“Hey how is gay divorce working out in MA and around the country?”
Per capita slightly less in number to the ratio of heterosexuals.
There’s not a gay fellow or woman I know who profess to be better or more human than any heterosexual. You have no reason to hold homosexuals to a higher standard than you’d hold your own sexual orientation.
Your “warning from 2003″ shows its age doesn’t it Pam?
As I wrote earlier. Nothing’s changed.
The world goes on and even people who’d do a tarantella to avoid the reality of the thing (homophobia) when they try to discredit decent homosexuals are being proved wrong on a daily basis.
Look beyond the obvious Pam.
We’re no threat to you. Try to be less frightened.
November 11, 2008 - 08:36 AM on November 11th, 2008
Pam?
I sought this out for your team. Let’s try and be rational k?
http://www.divorcewizards.com/Divorce-Statistics.html
November 11, 2008 - 08:38 AM on November 11th, 2008
This url is one for YOUR team Pam…
Let’s try to be rational k?
[url]http://www.divorcewizards.com/Divorce-Statistics.html[/url]
November 11, 2008 - 09:56 AM on November 11th, 2008
The point wasn’t divorce itself, but the fact that they can’t get divorced as easily as heterosexuals..If a person leaves MA, their marriage, let alone divorce isn’t recognized in other states and the couple needs to sit in MA for a year..
November 11, 2008 - 12:17 PM on November 11th, 2008
“We’re no threat to you.”
Then why are homosexual activists determined to destroy everything that does not look like them, does not accept them regardless of the reason? Suing to prevent the Boy Scouts from meeting in public buildings, even though the Scouts families are taxpayers and paid for those facilities also, and have every right to use them.
When they stop trying to take away other people’s rights, when they stop trying to destroy everything that does not embrace them, then I will care about their rights. Until then, I don’t care at all.
November 11, 2008 - 01:36 PM on November 11th, 2008
Robert,
Please please PLEASE explain to me how gays getting married will “destroy” traditional marriage. Please, take me through how two men or two women down the street getting married instead of having a civil union will IN ANY WAY affect your marriage or the marriage of any other people on the block. PLEASE tell me how that works. I honestly don’t understand that claim you keep making.
November 11, 2008 - 02:41 PM on November 11th, 2008
Mike writes;
However, no matter how you spin it, homosexuality is unnatural, immoral, and destroys those who practice it no matter how loudly they try to proclaim something different.
However, no matter how YOU spin it, if you find homsexuaity so wrong I suggest you never engage in it. The definitions of normal and immorality is so very subjective no matter how YOU spin it. I find stealing, killing, greed, rape, incest, ,lying, immoral. Yet, these are adjectives prevelant, if not in word but in deeds, throughout the bible and seemingly acceptable in society. As Keith Olberman said, love is love.
Mike writes;
I believe to the depth of my core that homosexual activities are unnatural, an abomination to humanity, and is just plain wrong.
I would have to ask you, how do you know what, “homosexual activities” are, and if you deem them wrong, why? Gay partners are not out to harm anyone, their, “activities” are none of my or your business. I find “straight” people who condem gays are simply hypocrites. Just by going back in history, you will find a majority of REAL sexual perversions have been conducted by “straights, and I won’t even go into churches. I find your definition of norlmacy and vast majority is therefore false. As a society, we tend to gather and socialize with people like ourselves. Many think arranged marriages are wrong, bu they still happen. Many think mixed marriages are wrong, but they are accepted by most, not all.
Look, normal to me, I’m sure, is not normal to you and vice versa. Many religions, Black and White place women in a second, or subservient position within the home and society as a whole. I simply will not have it, but that for me. There are Muslim women in their countries treated like chattel and maimed or killed for behavior as minor as looking in the eyes of a male not her husband. That is normal for them, but I find it abhorrent. I would no more support the members of NAMBLA, than I do the numerous Priest that are pedophiles. .
Mike writes;
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your Mormon satement, but I don’t know any real Mormons that marry multiple young girls – especially in regards to the Churches that are being assaulted by gay proponents… I believe you’re misinformed on this one.
Lets just say Jerry Lee Lewis was not the first to marry a young cousin. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young practiced polygamy openly until the the early 1900’s when the church was challenged. It is still practiced today, just not openly, and by those consisdered Mormons, not members of LDS. I am sure the immigrants slaughtered in the Mountain Meadow Massacre could attest to the love of normalacy they received.
Mike writes:
Yeah, lets talk about constitutional rights. I suppose its okay for “Gays” to march, destroy people’s property, and beat up old people who disagree with their point of view; but its not okay to have a contrary point of view?
You know as well as anyone that there are evil, mean, and dumb people in EVERY walk of life. Do not lump folks together for sake of argument. No, violence of any kind is not acceptable, nor is voicing one’s opinion. FORCING one’s opinion on others in the name of normal, Christianity, or to preserve your definition of morality in this country is wrong.
Mike writes;
Actually, this is a rights issue and “Gays” do currently have the same rights as I do. They can choose anyone they wish to marry regardless of race or financial background as long as they are of the opposite sex. Hmm, same right as me. Oh, I see, they want an additional and expanded right that I don’t have!!!
The subject here is not nor should be religious based. The subject is simply rights. It really was not that long ago when Blacks and Whites could not marry. Step by step, this country WILL submit to the inevitable conclusion that rights for one, should be rights for all. And, no there would be no additional or expanded right to marriage that you don’t have. You also would be able to marry a same sex partner if you so choose.
Mike, I guess what really bothers me is the selectivity and narrowness of rights inherent in this issue. This country has slowly come around on totality in womens rights, minoritiy rights, special needs, equal pay, age, sex, religion, handicap, color, and yes sexual orientation is covered under Federal law. Heck, there are two amendments related to liquor, rights taken away and given.
This country IS NOT by some peoples account, a melting pot. We are more like a stir fry in a big ole wok. Our flavors enhance each other, and our colors and textures create an explosion of happiness for the pallet and the eye. Embrace it, nurture it and give it the freedom it deserves. Love is more than sex Mike. There are bad people everywhere. Committment to someone you truly love mind, body and soul is joyful and only adds to our fundamental equality shared by all Americans.
November 11, 2008 - 03:33 PM on November 11th, 2008
Sinya
I appreciate that you seem to have read my posts in their entirety.
However, you seem to be missing the point I’m making. I really am not condemning homosexual individuals, nor do I care what they do behind closed doors. You are correct that killing, greed, rape, incest, lying etc. are immoral too. Just because they’re prevalent in our society doesn’t mean that we should condone the behavior by changing the law to make them okay. I’m not forcing morality on anyone, but likewise I don’t want immorality forced upon me or our society.
I don’t believe that any immoral behaviors should be legitimized through the law of the land and that would be a step backward for our society in my opinion. Although I agree that some states had laws against black/white marriage, this is a completely different issue than what is being discussed with same sex marriage. For one, these laws were overturned because biologically we really are just one race – the human race. Thus legitimizing these relationships was the right thing to do. Black and white couples today have the right to marry as long as they are of the opposite sex, and are not married to anyone else. This is the same right as me. So you see, today we do have equal rights for all people who are U.S. citizens <period>. What is being asked for in the Gay case is an expansion of rights for a minority population based on their “sexual preference,” which is really just a nice way of saying sexual deviancy.
BTW – there are several men in my life that I love and that I would give my life for, but I don’t desire to have sex with them, nor do I feel the need to marry them to prove my love. If it really is just about love then that argument is moot.
And Eben – you are a confused individual in multiple ways, so I’m not even going to try…
November 11, 2008 - 06:39 PM on November 11th, 2008
@Mike K -
“And Eben – you are a confused individual in multiple ways, so I’m not even going to try…’
Probably wise. It’s always best to avoid a battle you know you cannot win. You’d have to use logic.
November 11, 2008 - 06:45 PM on November 11th, 2008
You would be wise to take your own advice Eben, as you lack logic, and you have never won a battle.
November 11, 2008 - 06:50 PM on November 11th, 2008
@Mike wrote wrote: ”
BTW – there are several men in my life that I love and that I would give my life for, but I don’t desire to have sex with them, nor do I feel the need to marry them to prove my love. If it really is just about love then that argument is moot.”
BTW – there are several women in my life who I love and who I would give my life for, but I don’t desire to have sex with them, nor do Ifeel the need to marry them to prove my love.
If it really is just about love then that argument is moot”
Moot? No.
Let’s see how I can explain this best Mike; There are varying types of love. One is familial, another is brotherly, some is even blind …
But the reason you wouldn’t marry a man is because you’re NOT A HOMOSEXUL.
Similarly I’d not marry a woman (to prove I love her) BECASUE I AM ONE.
See? Simple.
You’d marry a woman because there’s sexual attraction there. That’s precisely the reason I’d marry a male.
Moot? no… not moot at all.
But I begin to think you’re mute in your ability to process information even when it’s presented to you in the clearest possible way.
*an aside:
I’ve just skimmed the threads.
Tellingly this one has sixty-some posts now.
Why do you suppose that is?
November 11, 2008 - 06:52 PM on November 11th, 2008
@Pam:
“You would be wise to take your own advice Eben, as you lack logic, and you have never won a battle.”
My logic is impeccable Pam. Your problem is you don’t like that I have it.
Carry on.
November 11, 2008 - 06:54 PM on November 11th, 2008
Pam I have a question:
Is that you in your avatar?
November 11, 2008 - 07:47 PM on November 11th, 2008
Well how can that be Eben, you told us you have permanent brain damage from the gay bashing you received, but didn’t actually get the perps on a hate crime, due to the fact that it was a rogue cop that hated gays, and got fired, but not because you are gay, but because of his incompetence!
November 11, 2008 - 08:03 PM on November 11th, 2008
Here’s one of the better treatments of Prop 8: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html
November 11, 2008 - 11:00 PM on November 11th, 2008
Mike,
I just had an epyphany. What if Gay people established their own religion which included tenants of marriage. They would be covered by the first amendment. Pretty funny.
Mike writes;
I’m not forcing morality on anyone, but likewise I don’t want immorality forced upon me or our society.
I don’t believe that any immoral behaviors should be legitimized through the law of the land and that would be a step backward for our society in my opinion.
Mike, don’t you see, you are forcing YOUR definition of morality on folks by virtue of saying what they ARE not by preference, but by nature, is immoral. You are saying, “Immorality is bad. Being gay is immoral. Being a bad gay immoral person, you are not allowed to engage in the highly moral and honorable institution of matrimony.”
Further, I have got to say, WHEN gay marriage is legal, not legitimized, nothing, nadda, zelch, zero will be forced on you. Why yes on 8 people continue to personalise this is beyond me. It is not about you Mike. It has no impact on you. Gays are legitimate Americans and humans, don’t demean them. Gay marriage takes nothing from anyone, but does give equal rights to a segment of society.
Mike writes;
What is being asked for in the Gay case is an expansion of rights for a minority population based on their “sexual preference,” which is really just a nice way of saying sexual deviancy.
Mike, there are currently 27 amendments to the US constitution. Do you think the framers thought of Limiting Congressional Pay? The California State constitution has 35 amendments. Things can change. Constitutions are a living breathing, changing documents drafted to protect the rights of ALL citizens. Times, they are a’changing.
The only reason I keep bringing up history and past struggles for rights, is because the same tired arguments are being used to maginalize a segment of society.
Mike writes;
BTW – there are several men in my life that I love and that I would give my life for, but I don’t desire to have sex with them, nor do I feel the need to marry them to prove my love. If it really is just about love then that argument is moot.
What is it with men and giving their lives and left nut to prove their love? Is that a man thing? That is just odd to me. Death of a loved one just does not validate or prove depth of love. Sorry, not the ultimate sacrifice of love to me.
Sorry, I got off subject, it’s just I’m curious. Anyway, I am happy that you have men that are important to you. But as loving someone and being totally in tune with their very being is different. I lost my husband, and for a while my reason to live. That was many years ago and I have never, and do not expect to ever feel that for another. Trite, but true, he was the part of me, my essence, my soul. Much, much more than sex. We were different races so I know of what I speak. If I had not been able to marry him and commit to us, it would have hurt a lot. I never asked for proof of love, it was just there. I hate the idea of others being denied that elation, especially on the bases of false and selfish righteousness.
November 11, 2008 - 11:38 PM on November 11th, 2008
Sorry Sinya I still have to disagree.
What is being missed here is that this is about much more than Gay marriage. The Gay/Liberal agenda wants to destroy God in America. Look at Eban’s posts, its quite obvious who’s influence she is under and it isn’t God’s. Ever wonder then why she wants to adopt God’s code of marriage so badly?
How will Gay marriage hurt America? The same way the Gay militant agenda has already tried. As Robert notes in a previous post, Gays sued the Boy Scouts of America because that organization is a moral one that requires belief in God and doesn’t allow sexual deviants to be scout leaders (this doesn’t mean that evil people haven’t joined under false pretenses and subsequently been thrown out, I’m just establishing the basic tenants of the program). The truth is that the Boy Scouts of America have produced some of the finest Young men we have – so why does the Gay agenda seek to destroy it? and what does the Boy Scouts have to do with Gay marriage?
I’ll answer in a moment but notice that Pam has repeatedly tried to point out to Eben that there are many civil ways for a Gay couple to protect each other legally. However, the legal remedies aren’t good enough because Gays demand “marriage” which has always been attached to God since the inception of the Constitution. The answer is that once Gays have legal marriage they’ll be able to fill courtrooms with lawsuits claiming that Churches violate their Constitutional rights by descriminating against them if a Church refuses to marry them. And this will happen as it already has in MA. The Godless bunch will be one step closer to their evil goal, and if you don’t believe me look at the hatred they are inflicting on the churches right now. The majority of Californians vote to define a marriage between a man and a woman (which it has always been) and the Gays are blaming God and the good people who believe. Thats because the fight is really about God, so don’t be fooled. This isn’t about false and selfish rightousness; its simply about what’s right! And the average American believes similar.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And I reserve my right to worship any way I choose. And I will fight to maintain this right for all Americans. BTW – This actually is a Constitutional right and not one I have to force others to grant me over and beyond the rights they have. Marriage should remain limited to a man and a woman.
November 12, 2008 - 09:13 AM on November 12th, 2008
I’ve read through these posts and I must say its clear Satan exists and is happy with whats going on. Its funny how Pam, Robert and Mike state facts and their opinion based on these fact, and then are replied to with twisted facts, distorted quotes, and outright untruths.
I believe this isn’t about marriage at all but it is a good vs evil fight as Mike states and its obvious what side the GLBTs are on. If prop 8 had failed in California I don’t think we would now be seeing church people destroying property and beating up gays. The fact is Prop 8 passed by a majority of the vote IN CALIFORNIA their strong hold state. One of the few states that buys into their sexual perversions being okay. Oh – and there are a lot of studies describing homosexuality as a disorder. Its just suppressed through our biased media.
If you’re a darwinian: homosexuality isn’t a survival of the fittest producing behavior. An organism can’t pass on their genes by placing their reproductive organ where it can’t do any good biologically. So yes, this is unnatural behavior and attests to the defect of the organism. Nature would cull this defect and we wouldn’t have homosexuals today. So Gays are fortunate that the are mostly God fearing people in this country that have protected them because they are people (with a sexual perversion).
If you believe in God: Its obvious that homosexuality is a grevious and filthy sin…
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, its probably a duck. The GLBT look evil and their actions speak louder than my words. America will need to make a stand unless we want to hand our country over to evil.
Sinya – I do disagree with Mike on one thing: Eben isn’t the only one confused as you are as confused as she. Your responses are all over the place contradicting arguments you’re attempting to make. Its like your tactic is to baffle with BS.
November 12, 2008 - 02:16 PM on November 12th, 2008
Mike, I am happy to agree to disagree with you. I fully understand the first amendment, and welcome the open dialog. No worries.
Mike writes;
The Gay/Liberal agenda wants to destroy God in America.
I really do not believe this. I can not speak toward Eben’s feelings. I’ve gone to three gay weddings, two in California and one in Massachusetts. One in California was in a church, of the other two, one was in a home the other a yatch club. Two of the three were performed by an ordained ministers. Gay people do not hate God, nor are they godless. They are not out to destroy anything, and many are Christians.
Mike writes;
Ever wonder then why she wants to adopt God’s code of marriage so badly?
Mike it is not about God’s code, it is about rights. As I said above there are gay christians they already believe. This about constitutional rights being applied evenly to all Americans regardless of lifestyle.
Mike writes;
…there are many civil ways for a Gay couple to protect each other legally.
You and Pam are partially correct. Most rights can be purchased through legal documents, but the cost can be prohibitive. Conversely, why should people have to pay for what is rightfully theirs? Mike, please take a look at this article addressing that very issue. http://tinyurl.com/34kdgz
Mike writes;
The answer is that once Gays have legal marriage they’ll be able to fill courtrooms with lawsuits claiming that Churches violate their Constitutional rights by descriminating against them if a Church refuses to marry them.
While I am not certain regarding MA law, prop 8 specifically speaks toward churches not being required to change policies regarding same sex marriage.
Mike, are you adverse to the word “marriage” in same sex unions, or, are you relunctant to give gays the same rights, and responsibilities of marriage?
http://tinyurl.com/5whbsm
Mike writes;
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
I think that’s a wordgame, but I’ll bite. What about pagans and polytheism or would they not be covered because they are not christians? Would gay Muslims fleeing their countries be allowed to marry? If it trully is about God, which one? If freedom of religion is the case, then all religions should be recognized, right? There are some, not all, Natives, the true Native Americans that embrace “two spirits” and practice their original beliefs, not christianity.
I really believe that this law will change because it right. It may not be as soon as many would like, but it will eventually be a law. Perhaps not using the word “M” word as my sister says. Having the same legal rights, benefits and life coverage is more important. I would venture to predict that adoption laws will also change.
ImAnMD
Isn’t it wonderful to be able to have an open dialog with those whom you disagree. I may not agree with everything Mike says, but he is respectful in our conversation. If clarity is an issue for you, rudimentary classes are available…and free to the public.
November 12, 2008 - 06:55 PM on November 12th, 2008
@IMANMD-
“The GLBT look evil and their actions speak louder than my words. America will need to make a stand unless we want to hand our country over to evil.”
I agree with you. I see good and evil as vying forces.
Our differences lie in that we are juxtaposed in position. I see what you write as evil incarnate for your logic is based in that of which you know nothing.
You’re sort of thinking is satanic (or more logically “truly evil”) in the most profound way.
November 12, 2008 - 06:59 PM on November 12th, 2008
@sinya-
“If clarity is an issue for you, rudimentary classes are available…and free to the public.”
Bravo bravissimo! You write beautifully and logically. But I fear, sinya, logic and reason is wasted on them.
When one is as deeply entrenched as this IMANMD is in the absolutes of a religionist there is litte one can do to enlighten.
November 13, 2008 - 10:38 AM on November 13th, 2008
Normally I don’t comment on these threads, but I’m going to drop a message bomb on this one. This means I’ll say what I have to say, but won’t be following any replies.
Most people here state their opinion, provide support to that opinion, and provide their conclusion. I must say that there are a couple of commentators that should never be in a debate as they will lose for their team every time!
Eben, as soon as you regress to resorting to name calling, you have lost the argument. No matter what you have in your head, the rest of us observers will immiediately conclude you lost and your point is invalid. Hysterically declaring that someone is a religionist is a double edged sword too, because like it or not most of the US believes in God. You may think that you are stating a truth? but in the end how is this name calling any different than if imanmd would have called you a sexual deviant? which is also true. Nothing is ever gained by name calling, ground is only lost.
Sinya you remind me of a misinformed flower child. Imanmd stated his/her thoughts quite clearly and backed them up. Proposition 8 had no wording about churches, it simply stated that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Imanmd is correct that the GLBT has historically spewed lawsuits based on such extra right granting to force eithical instituions to adopt their culture. Based on their current militant action against old ladies, and peaceful churches, I definitely can see them forcing churches who believe homosexuality is a sin to marry them if gay marriage was to become legal. Thats their M.O. so far, although something I didn’t consider until reading these blogs. Freedom of religion is exactly what Mike states it is: freedom of religion. You can worship however you choose (even satanic) as long as you don’t violate the rights of anyone else.
Thanks everyone, I’m now convinced – Marriage should remain legal only between one man and one woman.
Have a great day!
November 13, 2008 - 03:57 PM on November 13th, 2008
@Spider W:
“Eben, as soon as you regress to resorting to name calling, you have lost the argument. No matter what you have in your head, the rest of us observers will immiediately conclude you lost and your point is invalid. Hysterically declaring that someone is a religionist is a double edged sword too, because like it or not most of the US believes in God. You may think that you are stating a truth? but in the end how is this name calling any different than if imanmd would have called you a sexual deviant? which is also true. Nothing is ever gained by name calling, ground is only lost. ”
In which case you’re a bafoon filled with nothing but natural unsavory gas.
There. I aim to please.
Your entire exhaustively redundant and lengthy posts screams “religionist” Spiderman.
And as for “peaceful churches”? That’s a contradiction in terms.
November 13, 2008 - 04:12 PM on November 13th, 2008
I agree that marriage should remain legal only between a man and a woman.
I hope some folks here get the medical help they need
November 13, 2008 - 06:21 PM on November 13th, 2008
..and I hope you “WASUNDECIDED” somehow magically get a one hundred point boost to your IQ.. but it ain’t gonna happen.
By the way no one’s “agreed” that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Watch the news. As this thread title will attest “The Gays are Angry”. Yup. It’s like the 1960s all over again.
We’re not your grandmother’s pansies .. not with our civil rights at stake.
So; en garde.
November 13, 2008 - 06:22 PM on November 13th, 2008
oh yeah:
HAVE A GREAT DAY!
November 13, 2008 - 06:58 PM on November 13th, 2008
The Nation has spoken, Eben. Votes in Kalifornia, Florida, and Arizona all confirm it: Marriage is between a man and a woman. You can jump up and down all you want; you can scream, you can hold your breath until you turn purple. Doesn’t matter; the people have spoken.
And as far as the violent, vindictive Gay activists referred to in this topic, if they keep this up they will just create a backlash.
November 13, 2008 - 10:06 PM on November 13th, 2008
Eben =
I forgot to mention – I’m convinced that the definition of marriage needs to remain as between a man and a woman.
November 13, 2008 - 10:29 PM on November 13th, 2008
Eben =
I forgot to mention that legal marriage should remain available only to a man and a woman.
November 14, 2008 - 06:38 PM on November 14th, 2008
@ INMANMD and Robert?
Do you think I don’t realize how predictable your take is going to be? Get with the program fellas.
The voters haven’t had the last word either.
This thing is huge and it’ll make the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s look like a skirmish.
You don’t get to legislate hatred into MY Consititution… either statewide or on the Federal level. Not on our watch you don’t.
The “ol’ boys club” is an overweight, beer-swilling, homophobic mass of control freaks but their numbers are dying off.
Better get over yourselves boys. The world’s changing before your eyes and it’s truly pissing you off.
November 14, 2008 - 06:47 PM on November 14th, 2008
Eben,
You mention on 11/10 that homosexuals are “a perfectly fine minority minding its own business.” Unfortunately, the homosexual movement has not been minding its business as it has decided to teach young public education students about homosexuality in the guise of civil rights and diversity–without parental notification. Since over 80% of Americans call themselves Christians, the passage of bans on “gay marriage” are not suprising. Parents and Christians are trying to preserve their parental rights and the right to practice and pass on their family religion. By the way, you may want to investigate the erroneous assumption that Christianity is a “white man’s religion”– the persons described in the Bible are a quilt of diversity in ethnicity and nationality…though that might be news to many Christians.
As a black female with many living relatives who have personally experienced the horrors of Jim Crow, I completely disagree with the misguided parallels of the African-American experience to the voluntary sexual practice of homosexuality. One is about existence the other about preference. Blacks have made a strategic error in aligning with the homosexual movement; Blacks have somewhat weakened their valid claim to the moral right…though that claim still exists — as it should.
November 14, 2008 - 07:15 PM on November 14th, 2008
The Prop 8 is as settled as the Presidential election..You don’t have a COTUS, Eben, we the people do..Time for you to face the fact that marriage is between a man and woman, and people from all political parties, all different races, colors and creeds, just don’t see anyones civil rights being trampled on..Why isn’t your movement going after any of the other states that have had the exact same ballot measures approved? Answer, because you know you can’t succeed…
November 15, 2008 - 07:23 AM on November 15th, 2008
Well first of all, see the New York Times article on the Mormon Church’s support of Proposition 8 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?hp). It is clear that the Mormon church played a disproportionate role in contributing to the effort to pass Prop 8. Thus, no one should be surprised or defensive at protests at temples, Mormon-owned businesses, etc. This is the price paid when churches enter the political arena, and they richly deserve it. These protests will continue to grow and will have an impact on the Mormon’s already-bad reputation as agents of intolerance. Now, regarding the fear that Mormon churches (or any other churches) would be “forced” to perform same-sex weddings, that is simply untrue. This has not happened in MA or CT, nor is there any pending lawsuit regarding this issue. Can’t happen, won’t happen. The issue was manufactured to scare people, along the lines of “your daughter could be forced to marry a black man.” Fantasy based on fear of the unknown.
So, I would say to the Mormons who are “shocked, shocked” that protests are occurring because of their role in passing Prop 8, “What on earth did you expect when you move to deprive a minority of civil rights?” Get over it.
November 15, 2008 - 08:10 AM on November 15th, 2008
Thomas, it isn’t your civil right, or we would not be talking about it..but the protest is in violation of the Mormons civil rights!
November 16, 2008 - 12:09 AM on November 16th, 2008
So why is it OK to go after the people who voted for prop 8? This seems like a hell of a way to convince people that they made a bad choice by supporting traditional marriage by harassing and threatening them. All you’ll do is make them even more sure that they made the right choice by their support of prop 8.
November 16, 2008 - 03:41 AM on November 16th, 2008
Why is it that the percentage of christians in this country seems to be increased in direct propotion to the need to win an argument. I’ve seen 50%, 60%, 70%, now Denise says 80%. I really don’t care it was just an observation. I think a lot of people profess to be christians as a convienence, nothing more.
The current administration has raped the right to privacy, bastardized the definition of the three branches of government, and laid a wasteland to the one document it swore to uphold. The convience of belief strikes again. The constitution separates church from state for obvious reasons, but those reasons are even more necessay today. I don’t remember the plaque on the statue of liberty saying, “Give me you tired, your weak and your christians” My point is, christians MAY be, and I say, May be the largest segment of the nation, but it is not the only religion in this country. No other religion has had the opportunity to influence this country as christianity has, and it is not the original belief.
Now, that said, religion, regardless of which one, should have no place in the laws of this country if we truly do have freedom of religion. Yes I know it is freedom of and not from, but if my religion is not considered, then I would lack that freedom that civil right,
That is the issue, civil rights not religious convience, or fervor. The right to pursue happiness within the same laws;civil rights.
Civil – relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens
Right – Conforming with or conformable to justice
Denise, denying rights based on convience is just wrong. The same arguments are being used now as were used during the Black civil rights movement. The same arguments and excuses that were used to deny womens rights. Do not take the candy and run, reach back and take the hand of those coming after you. Homosexuality is not a preference. Science has proven that it is present at birth, don’t demean what you may not understand. Call it something else, but gays should have the same rights and responsibilities, and opportunities as anyone else.
Eben, that picture really does not help your case dear.
Spider, you are a coward, and the California written decision did cover the issue of churches not performing weddings that conflicted with tenants. This will happen, I don’t gamble but within two years it will happen.
November 16, 2008 - 08:41 AM on November 16th, 2008
Raped the right to privacy? How so Sinya? How has the administration bastardized the definition of the three branches of government? Just because you don’t understand the COTUS, doesn’t make that statement true…Just wait until we see the One doing the exact same things that this administration did..will you scream as loud? I bet not.. You claim these things and then turn around and see nothing wrong with the judicial branch of the California Legislature, overturning the law of the land….all because it suited your needs.
As much as you want it to be true, there is no scientific evidence to prove that it is there at birth..none…wishful thinking, but no scientific proof.
November 16, 2008 - 10:58 AM on November 16th, 2008
@Sinya-
“Eben, that picture really does not help your case dear. ”
Someone privy to the inner workings of the place posted it to discredit I assume Sinya.
Beh… typical.
The text is mine. The photo is of the administration’s doing.
November 16, 2008 - 11:05 AM on November 16th, 2008
@Denise who wrote:
“As a black female with many living relatives who have personally experienced the horrors of Jim Crow, I completely disagree with the misguided parallels of the African-American experience to the voluntary sexual practice of homosexuality. ”
As a white gay man I don’t give a goodly f**k.
The parallels aimed at all minorites be they Jews, Muslims (in this country), or gay ppl generally are infinite. Though the bigots target specifics to the minority in question the parallels are undeniable.
Until fairly recently blacks were not allowed to marry whites in this country. Before that blacks couldn’t even marry blacks since they were deemed “a possession”.
New day different prejudice and new battle to wage.
**Your ancestors fought for naught.
I suspect they’re rolling over in their graves at your biased point of view.
You also wrote: “One is about existence the other about preference.”
You certainly don’t mean to call my sexual orientation a “preference” do you? Are you daft? My sexual orientation (as is that of your BLACK gay brothers and sisters) is as innately a part of who I am as your sexual orientation is yours.
Make no mistake in this.
November 16, 2008 - 12:19 PM on November 16th, 2008
Got that Denise?!?!?!
The bigot could care less about the struggle of the blacks..He isn’t even aware that it was whites that could not marry outside their race, but blacks could marry outside theirs…Watch how he tries to justify his homosexuality…the choice…
November 16, 2008 - 12:22 PM on November 16th, 2008
Eben your gay activist efforts are only going to cause a backlash. As the gay activist get more vindictive and more violent, you just might be driven back into the closet.
November 16, 2008 - 12:26 PM on November 16th, 2008
Eben you should claim that photo in your post as your own. It’s sooo cute, now isn’t it? Does it give you goose bumps?
November 17, 2008 - 05:01 AM on November 17th, 2008
Pam ;
Raped the right to privacy? How so Sinya? How has the administration bastardized the definition of the three branches of government?
Have you not heard of the violations condoned under the PATRIOT Act. Private intimate telephone calls, e-mails being read, and ACT 2 where DNA being collected all without any judicial review.
The constitution was rightfully set up with checks and balances for the three, not four branches of government. Cheney had tried to include himself in both the executive and legislative branhes when convenient. Judges appointed are approved by the senate; congress passes a law but the president can veto; judges can rule on a law but the congress can amend the constitution, checks and balances. Article 2 clearly places the president and vice president in the executive branch. This administration basdartised the constitution by 1)Invoking executive privilege (which does not exsist in the constitution) during the enron congressional hearings; 2) EO 13233 which totally re-writes records kept and available to the public of presidents and vice presidents. Thank goodness parts were eliminated. 3) Bush has signed hundreds of presidential papers or signing papers which pretty much ignores the spirit of the constitution, 4)In July of this year Cheney attempted to brow beat the EPA into deleting parts of a CDC report outlining the health effects of global warming…in favor of big business, just to name a few.
Pam writes;
Just wait until we see the One doing the exact same things that this administration did..will you scream as loud?
Since you couched this question as you did, I can assume you know this administration has done some vile things. To the second part of your question, while I do not think I am screaming, I will and have already voiced concern directly to President elect Obama regarding the use of presidential papers and Joe Lieberman. So yes, as is my constitutional right because I do understand it.
Pam writes
You claim these things and then turn around and see nothing wrong with the judicial branch of the California Legislature, overturning the law of the land….all because it suited your needs.
I made no claims, I stated fact. Since the Judicial branch is not a part of the legislature, I am really not sure what you’re talking about here. The law of the land was not affected by either prop 22 or prop 8 if it had stood. This was a state choice, one that every state in this glorious union can and will have to address. This has absolutely nothing to do with my needs Pam, this just right, not personal but civil.
Pam, there actually have been quite a few studies dating back to 1954 on the “nature versus nuture” issue. They have found and studied twins male and female twins and opposite sex twins where one was gay, the other not, or both were gay. I read a study where the male married. had children and came to grips with his homosexuality after 13 years. This guys twin sister had come out in college. There recently was a study on gene characters which may be the key. The signs are there and once science does have difinitive proof, there will still be those that will not accept it. Heck humans can’t decide if we came from apes, the big bang and primorial ooze or two naked people under a apple tree, but we’re still gere. But that’s okay, just let’s make sure all are treated with respect and equal under the law. Being gay is is a gene trait, prejudice against gays is learned
November 17, 2008 - 06:50 AM on November 17th, 2008
Okay Sinya,
The Patriot Act, authorized by the Legislative Branch, authorized intelligence gathering, so where is it that Bush has done anything illegal here, or overstepped his bounds? You haven’t given me a case yet..When The One in in GWB’s position, he will have these tools to use at his discretion…
No, Sinya, the COTUS does not clearly put the VP in the Executive Branch..isn’t the VP the President of the Senate?
So when GWB invokes EP, it bastardizes the COTUS, yet when every other POTUS has done it, it was their constitutional right?
Signing statements? What is the big deal about those signing statements? Oh I know, it gives the people a look at how MORONIC the Democrats are..Nothing illegal, not really an issue, yet the liberals didn’t like it..boo freakin hoo!
The problem for the past 8 years has been these lunatics on the left trying to throw charges out there to see what would stick, and they greatly underestimated this administration..Other than one part of hamden and an email snafu..this Administration has gotten everything it asked for from the Democrats and the courts..Thank a liberal for that Patriot Act that you love to hate!
No, Sinya, you really don’t understand the COTUS…
Being gay is is a gene trait? You just said “The signs are there and once science does have difinitive proof”..which it doesn’t…
November 20, 2008 - 05:45 PM on November 20th, 2008
@Robert:
“Eben you should claim that photo in your post as your own. It’s sooo cute, now isn’t it? Does it give you goose bumps?”
No. I prefer Jean-Baptiste Maunier. But it occurs to me Robert that that man in the photo the adminstration added to my post may appeal to you since you’ve just brought it up.
November 20, 2008 - 05:46 PM on November 20th, 2008
@Robert
“Eben your gay activist efforts are only going to cause a backlash. As the gay activist get more vindictive and more violent, you just might be driven back into the closet.”
I was never in one.
Are you?
November 20, 2008 - 05:47 PM on November 20th, 2008
Maybe that’s your problem
November 20, 2008 - 05:48 PM on November 20th, 2008
@Pam
“Watch how he tries to justify his homosexuality…the choice…”
Maybe Denise didn’t “get that” but you sure appear to have Pammy.
I don’t have to explain anything to the likes of a bigoted black woman. Your ancestors fought for nothing only so you could hurl the identical sorts of marginalization at gay folks as were imposed on your predecessors.
Shame on you. Those who went before would be appalled.
November 20, 2008 - 09:57 PM on November 20th, 2008
“But it occurs to me Robert that that man in the photo the adminstration…”
The person in that photo does not appear to be a man.
March 20, 2010 - 10:04 AM on March 20th, 2010
haha, Ellen is so wild! I love her.