DOMA: Denial of Minority Act

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 12:47 AM GMT
    We all are familiar with DOMA: the Defense of Marriage Act. Well, that name is loaded in favor of those against gay marriage. What if we changed the name to denial of Minority Act. This would change the argument from different bases:

    Denial...a big bad majority denying rights to a minority

    Minority: other minorities might think twice about denying rights to one minority because someday the majority might turn on them.


    What other terms are negatively emotionally charged and how can they be changed in our favor?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 12:52 AM GMT
    ok as much as I hate to say it.. but.. I have to anyway.. when did government become about pandering to a minority.. governments do as the majority want..

    although I'm not attempting to create an argument about how much support we have behind us how, or of if we do or not have a majority support.. its just what popped into my head when I read it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 12:54 AM GMT
    also because i Know someone will see this and think OOOOOH about there race, so, its not an attempted slight against black, asian, indian, mexican, any other race besides Caucasian cause gawd knows If I'm not absolutely one hundred percent clear on what I'm saying someone will grab the arse end of a hot guy and call it a roasting..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 1:04 AM GMT
    lilTanker saidok as much as I hate to say it.. but.. I have to anyway.. when did government become about pandering to a minority.. governments do as the majority want..

    although I'm not attempting to create an argument about how much support we have behind us how, or of if we do or not have a majority support.. its just what popped into my head when I read it.

    The "tyranny of the majority" was one of the fears of the Founders of the US. They knew that a democracy required majority rule, but would minority groups therefore be persecuted, their rights taken away? Were they in fact creating a "bully system" of government?

    In the late 18th Century there were few other examples of the kind of democratic republic being proposed, and so the outcome of this experiment was unknown. Proponents of a American monarchy used the "tyranny" argument to oppose democracy, on the grounds that only a supreme, non-political ruler would protect the rights of all citizens, majority & minority alike.

    It seems that debate continues today, with the US courts filling the role that the monarchists had envisioned for a King: the protection of disadvantaged minorities, who are otherwise at the mercy of the majority.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 1:22 AM GMT
    lilTanker saidok as much as I hate to say it.. but.. I have to anyway.. when did government become about pandering to a minority.. governments do as the majority want..

    although I'm not attempting to create an argument about how much support we have behind us how, or of if we do or not have a majority support.. its just what popped into my head when I read it.

    We have what is called the Equal Protection clause in our federal constitution. It was put there for just this reason.

    "The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection

    I search the Australian Constitution and I dont see an equal protection clause in there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 1:28 AM GMT
    I don't believe we have one..

    however, marriage I've never seen as a basic right, unlike food, clothing, shelter, safety.. which I've always viewed that amendment as, a right to the same basic rights as everyone else, that no man will be considered less then any other man who would get food when he is hungry, shelter when it rains, clothing when he has none and safety when its needed..

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 1:36 AM GMT
    lilTanker saidI don't believe we have one..

    however, marriage I've never seen as a basic right, unlike food, clothing, shelter, safety.. which I've always viewed that amendment as, a right to the same basic rights as everyone else, that no man will be considered less then any other man who would get food when he is hungry, shelter when it rains, clothing when he has none and safety when its needed..

    Equal protection isn't just for "basic" rights. It is to ensure that all members of society are treated equal in every way by the government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 1:41 AM GMT
    hmm can get that..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 2:50 AM GMT
    DOMA just boils down saying it is OK to discriminate against homosexual relationships or simply "gay relationships" are inferior to heterosexual ones.

    I suppose an all out same sex marriage ban would have been worse, but DOMA is still wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 2:58 AM GMT
    Ok, I was trying to get this thread to focus on how the phraseology of those opposing gay rights works to their advantage and how we could change those phrases to turn the tables on them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 3:21 AM GMT
    Well that is true, "Defense of Marriage Act" is just a euphemism. You could have just as easily changed it to "Denial of Marriage Act" to be more exact. I mean lets not be too nice with our discrimination. It in essence DENIED marriage (rights) to gays. As many have said, the only way to defend marriage is to outlaw divorce icon_redface.gif

    I will quote Coretta Scott King who said so succintly:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coretta_Scott_King#LGBT_equality"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 4:59 AM GMT
    Well, Obama denies us service in the miltary. Schwarzenegger denies us marriage in California. I guess denial is equal opportunity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:01 AM GMT
    Triggerman saidWell, Obama denies us service in the miltary. Schwarzenegger denies us marriage in California. I guess denial is equal opportunity.
    Yes.. Obama instigated the don't ask, don't tell policy, Obama is the only person, he is all the blame, so lets fucking blame obama..

    What a load of absolute horse shit..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:14 AM GMT
    Triggerman saidWell, Obama denies us service in the miltary. Schwarzenegger denies us marriage in California. I guess denial is equal opportunity.


    Let's see if I can educate you a bit:

    1. There is no rule barring gay men and women from serving in the military. D.A.D.T. does not do that. If you are in the military and are gay, it does bar you from being open about it. Obama has nothing to do with that except repealing by executive order or asking congress to so. As Calson has pointed out before and I have concurred in other threads, time is not of the essense right now, but I digress. Clinton signed D.A.D.T into law as a compromise, not Obama,

    2. Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in California was not done so by Arnold. It was done so by the residents of California

    You will be taken more seriously if you can post with actual facts when attempting to cite facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:14 AM GMT
    Uh, noooo, did I say that? Clinton signed DOMA. Clinton did not end discrimination in the military. Obama could end both.

    Obama has not ended either. He could. It takes his signature. He could do it. He has chosen not to. Why? Maybe you know and can enlighten us?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:16 AM GMT
    ActiveAndFit saidWell that is true, "Defense of Marriage Act" is just a euphemism. You could have just as easily changed it to "Denial of Marriage Act" to be more exact. I mean lets not be too nice with our discrimination. It in essence DENIED marriage (rights) to gays. As many have said, the only way to defend marriage is to outlaw divorce icon_redface.gif

    I will quote Coretta Scott King who said so succintly:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coretta_Scott_King#LGBT_equality"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage."


    ***

    A&F,

    I love your quote but I always find myself at a crossroads about this issue. In my eyes, marriage is a failed heterosexual institution that I do not want to mimic. It's part of a value system that has done nothing but reject gays but so many of us want to run off and get married, buy a house, and pretend we're just the same as June & Ward Cleaver. The only difference being two sets of pearls or two grey suits.

    I understand the rights, benefits and privileges that "married" couples receive but in terms of semantics-- I would be just as happy with the term "civil union" without all the religious baggage the word "marriage" carries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:17 AM GMT
    His executive order is only one way, a direct order. What you have failed to grasp is he tries consensus first and wants Congress to repeal it and that will take some time. Again you missed the point, D.A.D.T does NOT bar gay men and women from serving which is what you said. This not what this thread is about and I dont think Calson (OP) meant for it to go in this direction. There are multiple threads for this. Enlightened yet?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:18 AM GMT
    yes and he could fuck a dog while drinking V8.. but he doesn't..

    I'm sure if he wants too, he will, but your blaming him for something he's hardly at fault for, hell, gays could potentially not serve in the military at all..

    no, I have no information then you do, but I'm not going to blame the wrong person, hows about you judge him when he's done though, instead of what?? less then a year into a 4 year term that will hopefully be 8 years..

    Or maybe you'd like to put the opposition in.. cause there really gonna give you everything you've ever wanted.. they'd give you a fucking of a life time..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:19 AM GMT
    All I said is that Obama denies us service in the miltary. No one has proven that wrong. He is Commander in Chief and he can allow us to serve with a single signature. Is that not true? What have I said that is not true? I never said Obama signed DOMA. I never said anything like that. I said Obama can let us serve if he wants to. Show me where I am wrong on that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:22 AM GMT
    Triggerman are you daft? What part of D.A.D.T. do you know understand? It DOES NOT barred you from serving in the military. IT does give the military the right to kick you out if you come out or talk about being gay. No where does it say you can not serve if you are gay other than to say you can not be openly gay. Get it right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:30 AM GMT
    D.A.D.T. does not bar gay men and women from serving? Enlightened? Can you tell me why all the gay men and women have been kicked out of the military? Talking about being gay? Engaging in gay activity? Declaring themselves gay? What part of gay do you not understand? DADT does not affect you if you secretly knit sock puppets. Have any straight people been kicked out under DADT? I think, maybe wrongly, that being GAY has been a part of each and every DADT dismissal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:34 AM GMT
    Y to the A to the Y for the block icon_biggrin.gif

    ErikTaurean, he's not worth fighting, he's one of those who are to stupid to shut up..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:34 AM GMT
    Triggerman saidD.A.D.T. does not bar gay men and women from serving? Enlightened? Can you tell me why all the gay men and women have been kicked out of the military? Talking about being gay? Engaging in gay activity? Declaring themselves gay? What part of gay do you not understand? DADT does not affect you if you secretly knit sock puppets. Have any straight people been kicked out under DADT? I think, maybe wrongly, that being GAY has been a part of each and every DADT dismissal.



    The key word in that post is DISMISSAL...No one is saying D.A.D.T. is right. Clearly it's not. However, as has been said time and time again, you are not barred from joining and serving if you are gay UNLESS you openly say you are gay. Again, it is not right. If you can't see or understand the semantical difference (i.e. words) of this, pity. Now, I am done because obviously you are not going to get it and this is not what this thread is about. I have been a part of the hijack of this thread long enough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:35 AM GMT
    OOOOHHHH Erik, maybe I am daft. Openly gay. Not sure what that is but thank you so much for the clarification. I assume every openly gay person is gay, so when I say people are kicked out for being gay, openly gay fell under my definition of gay. So openly gay people that are kicked out of the military are not gay. What world do you live in?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2009 5:38 AM GMT
    Triggerman saidOOOOHHHH Erik, maybe I am daft. Openly gay. Not sure what that is but thank you so much for the clarification. I assume every openly gay person is gay, so when I say people are kicked out for being gay, openly gay fell under my definition of gay. So openly gay people that are kicked out of the military are not gay. What world do you live in?



    A world where the wording of rules and laws are easily understood by the vast majority of those who read them. Done. Yawn!!!icon_biggrin.gif Next.....