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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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…
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.
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?
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.
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?
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!
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.
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
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.
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?
@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.
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.
When homosexual activists stop attacking and trying to destroy others, then I will care about their rights. Until then, I don’t care.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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 ..
“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!
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.
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?
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
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.
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
.
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.
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.
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?
@ 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.
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.
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!
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.
Any comments on the hateful old lady?
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….
@ 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.
@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.
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..
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.
@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.
**please note in my last I intended to write “Same Sex Marriage has been Law in the state of Massachusetts since 2003…”
Thanks.