|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:09 AM GMT
PORTLAND, Maine - Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.
Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.
With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the votes.
"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.
Gay-marriage supporters refused to concede, holding out hope that that the tide might turn as the final returns came in.
"We're here for the long haul and whether it's just all night and into the morning, or it's next week or next month or next year, we will be here," said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign. "We'll be here fighting. We'll be working. We will regroup."
At issue was a law passed by the Maine Legislature last spring that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it in a referendum.
The outcome Tuesday marked the first time voters had rejected a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians put a stop to same-sex marriage a year ago, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.
Five other states have legalized gay marriage — starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:13 AM GMT
Why do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:43 AM GMT
Oh dear.
Why do you let people vote on something that has absolutely no bearing on their lifes?
Loz
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 9:32 AM GMT
That is sad. I really thought that gay marriage would stay. I was wrong.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 9:32 AM GMT
Heartbreaking. As much as I love living in Germany, my German partner and I would like to move back to the States one day. Each of these setbacks makes us reconsider our plans. I just can't imagine taking the step backwards... much less risking the possibility he won't get a visa.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:18 PM GMT
Maine was a big disappointment, but we won in Washington and Kalamazoo last night, and Chapel Hill and (maybe) Houston just elected their first openly gay/lesbian mayors (Houston has to go to a runoff).
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:29 PM GMT
The civil rights of a minority should never be left up to a vote by the majority. We'd never get anywhere that way.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:30 PM GMT
On the other hand, we are one step closer to having the first openly lesbian or gay mayor of a major city in this country. if all goes well, Houston's next mayor will be Annise Parker, who is currently city controller.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:32 PM GMT
Lostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that. It's all right wing republican bull shit. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:33 PM GMT
It's easy for me to forget how most people in this country still think of us.... Stuff like this is a strong reminder.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:34 PM GMT
I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:38 PM GMT
kscott6671 saidLostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
It's all right wing republican bull shit. If i"m not mistaken, there are gay republicans. Just being a republican doesn't mean you are against gays getting married. It might have been just as accurate to have blamed it on Sarah Palin or George Bush. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:45 PM GMT
realifedad said I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled. The Sufferage movement and the Civil rights movement were both voted on by the states after being ratified was then added as amendments to the constitution. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:48 PM GMT
cestfort2000 saidIf i"m not mistaken, there are gay republicans. Just being a republican doesn't mean you are against gays getting married... I'm sure you've seen the T-shirt that says: "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is"
Gay Republicans can wear a T-shirt that says: "I'm not anti-gay, but the people I vote for are"
C'est la même chose, n'est-ce pas? |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:50 PM GMT
BeachBiMan saidrealifedad said I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled.
The Sufferage movement and the Civil rights movement were both voted on by the states after being ratified was then added as amendments to the constitution. Ummm....they were approved by state legislatures, not public referendums. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 2:53 PM GMT
medfordguy saidBeachBiMan saidrealifedad said I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled.
The Sufferage movement and the Civil rights movement were both voted on by the states after being ratified was then added as amendments to the constitution.
Ummm....they were approved by state legislatures, not public referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and didn't these issues become federal law ? Once that happened voting such things away in any state went away, so I think we need to take care of this problem federally. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:02 PM GMT
realifedad saidmedfordguy saidBeachBiMan saidrealifedad said I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled.
The Sufferage movement and the Civil rights movement were both voted on by the states after being ratified was then added as amendments to the constitution.
Ummm....they were approved by state legislatures, not public referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and didn't these issues become federal law ? Once that happened voting such things away in any state went away, so I think we need to take care of this problem federally. disagree, the federal government does not need anymore decision making power than it does. leave this up to the states. forget referendum, nothing progressive comes from referendums. let the state legislatures take care of it. the only reason it's going on the ballot is so the state can take a hand off approach. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:03 PM GMT
I still think all Republicans - gay and straight - should take a long jump off a short pier, but that's my selfish side talking. You know, the side that thinks all men are created equal. Crazy thinking on my part, according to the right.
This morning, a personal friend and mentor sent me an email on the subject. He's a retired Skadden Arps lawyer; wiser than any other man I know. His email reads in part:
"David, Your email is the first knowledge I have had that our side lost in Maine. It is sad but unsurprising. Legislatures and voters in referendums can’t be counted on to approve social change. Most legislators don’t have balls, and voters are generally for the status quo. All my adult life major change has been accomplished by courts interpreting the Constitution. That was true in the case of school segregation, and it has been true so far for the most part in the fight for equal rights for gays. (The Iowa legislature was an exception.) Thank goodness for the courts! (I exclude the present Supreme Court from my benediction.)"
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:09 PM GMT
What? Wiser than me? I said the same thing in another thread...  |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:34 PM GMT
damn them to hell.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:37 PM GMT
Yahoo news pops up when I first log on in the mornings. I saw this as the first news item. So depressing in so many ways. then I started reading the comments below from readers. THAT was way more depressing!
Such vitriol and evil and hate oozing out of their comments for the most part -- rejoicing in the loss by all us despicable, un-natural, disgusting-in-our-lifestyle-choice, unholy, and on and on.....but they "don't hate gays"....yeah, that's very obvious.
Again - this points out ever more the need for a Supreme Court decision ruling that state-by-state deprival of a minority's equality and legal standing across the country is unconstitutional, and force the recognition of contracts inter-state, the due process clauses, the equal protection clauses of the Constitution and anything else that (should) protect the minority from the oppressive rule of the majority and force the repeal of DOMA and DADT. IMO.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:39 PM GMT
Fuck Maine
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:49 PM GMT
kscott6671 saidLostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
It's all right wing republican bull shit. Yeah... ALL the Democrats support gay marriage, and ALL the Republicans are against it. It's all the fault of the Republicans. No Democrat voters had a hand in this defeat... Uh huh..... |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:49 PM GMT
realifedad said I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled. It's actually a matter for the Supreme Court to decide. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:50 PM GMT
Once again the Catholic church proves to be against us. Every time the issue of gay marriage comes up - there is the Catholic Church openly oppossing it. This happens not only in the USA, but in Europe as well. FUCK the Catholic church, and fuck even more the Gay Uncle Tom's out there supporting the Catholic Church!
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:50 PM GMT
Timberoo saidFuck Maine Where is Maine. Bring him here let me fuck him |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:55 PM GMT
When will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 3:57 PM GMT
Ok, I'm pretty disappointed with our neighbors. Actually I'm pissed. (The Maine border is seven miles from my place in NH.) For a while I'll probably size up every one I see in Maine trying to figure out if they're among the good ones or the haters.
It's very tempting to be disheartened. But I think we have to remind ourselves that - as stupid and evil as it is - the only group in America that has not had to fight for the rights guaranteed to all Americans is white, heterosexual males. Every other group struggled through years of setbacks before achieving what should have been theirs all along.
There is still a chance that a court in Maine will find the result of the referendum unconstitutional or that a federal challenge will achieve that result in the US Supreme Court (though the timing may not be right on that front given the Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts cabal).
In any case, I know the people who campaigned for our rights in Maine gave it their all. I hope that people smarter than me will find some lesson in the defeat to make the next campaign, wherever it takes place, successful. I, for one, will dust myself off and get back on the phone and knock on doors, and write letters and write checks until our rights as citizens and as human beings are protected. (Heck, if someone came up with a half convincing reason to do it, I would participate in well aimed acts of civil disobedience.)
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:04 PM GMT
IMO, the reason the gay marriage vote seems to fail is because it's really only the people who are against it that get out and vote on it. Voter apathy for public office is already common, people that don't really care if gays can marry or not aren't going to get off their ass and go vote for it if they aren't already going to the polls.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:09 PM GMT
bobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities. You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less. I happen to agree with you. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:13 PM GMT
Listen...this really has little to do with Republican, Democrats, crazy religious zealots.
It has to do with every day people, probably the coworkers and friends of many of us, who say and act one way to our face and then reveal their true feelings amongst their straight friends and in the 'ballot booth.'
For example, I have a couple of friends who are registered Republicans who like to hang out with me and a mutual gay friend. The 4 of us do dinners, birthdays, etc. They love to tout that they're fiscal conservatives but very socially liberal and open minded. Please. I'd bet a lot of money that they voted for Ohio's 2004 marriage amendment. Additionally I have a few coworkers who are extremely cool with me, we go to lunch, etc - seemingly open minded folks who will even talk sex stuff and never flinch at details - but I know they voted for that marriage amendment because of their religious affiliations and/or various other reasons.
Progress has been made, no doubt, especially with younger people. But I often wonder if the Millennials will, like the baby boomers before them, become more conservative as they age. For all their vaunted 60s and 70s progressiveness, many boomers seem to have retreaded as they age into the safe comfort of religion's uncritical blanket. I get that the prospect of looming mortality makes on fearful and in need of reassurances. But I worry that an increasing lack of critical thinking in this country is going to doom us.
I try to maintain hope..but you watch the ads wars in Maine and you see how the Democrats' Organizing for America did NOTHING to support No on Maine while it wasted energy trying to save ex-Goldman Sachs pres Corzine's job. That tells you who the political players REALLY want on their side: not a bunch of homos, but the money brokers.
EDIT: Apologies that this post jumps from point to point. Yesterday's various election issues has given me a lot of pause. I am happy about Washington's positive development. (Although it reinforces the crowd that believes we should be more incremental and push for civil unions over marriage.) But I am reminded that the world still isn't as accepting as the big cities and television might like us to believe.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:14 PM GMT
southbeach1500 saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less.
I happen to agree with you. and why exactly should we want something less than what other citizens have? |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:15 PM GMT
southbeach1500 saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less.
I happen to agree with you. Wanting equality in every sense - semantics included - does not make one hard core. But selling out does make one a pussy. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:18 PM GMT
^ what he said
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:20 PM GMT
GuiltyGear said
damn them to hell. Stronger words than those of GG don't exist. I may want to cuss, swear, and rant, but "Damn them to Hell" is a far more accurate expression. That's exactly what I want to do. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:22 PM GMT
Everyone should keep in mind that the issue isn't TOTALLY dead in Maine. This was a veto of a law passed by the Maine legislature and signed by the governor. The law can and probably will be passed again, and another referendum will probably happen.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:24 PM GMT
RunintheCity said
Progress has been made, no doubt, especially with younger people. But I often wonder if the Millennials will, like the baby boomers before them, become more conservative as they age. For all their vaunted 60s and 70s progressiveness, many boomers seem to have retreaded as they age into the safe comfort of religion's uncritical blanket. I get that the prospect of looming mortality makes on fearful and in need of reassurances. But I worry that an increasing lack of critical thinking in this country is going to doom us.
You're exactly right, and as someone who is both part-Indian and was raised as a Hippie, is still don't understand why so many who touted the Peace, Love, and Freedom of the '60's seem to have turned their backs on those very noble ideals and principles. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:26 PM GMT
[quote][cite]badmikeyt said[/cite] southbeach1500 saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less.
I happen to agree with you. Wanting equality in every sense - semantics included - does not make one hard core. But selling out does make one a pussy.[/quo What exactly are we selling out? I thought the fight was to get equal benefits that married people get. What does it matter what it's called? My partner is my husband and I introduce each other that way. We are not married, but he is my husband. I don't need everyone on this planet to call our relationship a marriage. What I need are the benefits that heterosexual married couples get. You probably think that I'm a sell-out for wanting to be a parent and live in the suburbs. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:28 PM GMT
Combined with Prop 8 in CA, we should now understand something pretty basic about the American people: we are still too far outside the mainstream to be socially acceptable. There are not enough of us to get anything through on our own, and our straight allies are at best lukewarm in their support for us. Those that oppose us are quite fired up in their opposition, and that intensity is not something that we are yet able to overcome.
What needs to happen is we somehow have to get our hetero friends to be more excited about our issues, and that won't happen until they actually know more of us and more about us. Staying in the closet is proving itself to be an increasingly self-defeating strategy...
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:33 PM GMT
Red_Vespa saidcestfort2000 saidIf i"m not mistaken, there are gay republicans. Just being a republican doesn't mean you are against gays getting married...
I'm sure you've seen the T-shirt that says: "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is"
Gay Republicans can wear a T-shirt that says: "I'm not anti-gay, but the people I vote for are"
C'est la même chose, n'est-ce pas? Unfortunately, most Democrats in office, including POTUS and VPOTUS, oppose gay marriage as well. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:39 PM GMT
jarhead5536 saidCombined with Prop 8 in CA, we should now understand something pretty basic about the American people: we are still too far outside the mainstream to be socially acceptable. There are not enough of us to get anything through on our own,
What needs to happen is we somehow have to get our hetero friends to be more excited about our issues, and that won't happen until they actually know more of us and more about us. Staying in the closet is proving itself to be an increasingly self-defeating strategy... Ding ding ding ding! Here is a million dollar aide to much of our troubles with this issue. There is strength in numbers and visibility. It's VERY easy for even thinking people to pay lip service in public to gay rights - so as to not appear uncool - and then vote against us in the ballot booth. zeebyaboi said
You're exactly right, and as someone who is both part-Indian and was raised as a Hippie, is still don't understand why so many who touted the Peace, Love, and Freedom of the '60's seem to have turned their backs on those very noble ideals and principles. It's called fear of death. All the old moral concerns about heaven and hell imprinted on their young minds come roaring back out of fear of death, of not knowing what will become of them at their mortal end. For many people death is SUCH a frightening concept. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:42 PM GMT
Sorry guys but I hope you see the handwriting on the wall from yesterday.The Militant gay movement is really overreaching these days and next year they are gonna find themselves bitchslapped hard.There is a tsunami building in the electorate that could wipe out much of the Democratic gains made in 08.The efforts by the Perez Hilton types and Daily Kos Wackjobs to harrass those who vote aginst gay marriage are bound to backfire.I am a Civil Unions supporter and I believe everyone has the right to their own opinion but I think hardball tactics by the left are really gonna have some unhappy results in 2010.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:44 PM GMT
bobrusso said What does it matter what it's called? My partner is my husband and I introduce each other that way. We are not married, but he is my husband. I don't need everyone on this planet to call our relationship a marriage. What I need are the benefits that heterosexual married couples get. He isn't your husband in most states, nor on your federal taxes. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:46 PM GMT
WickedRyan saidSorry guys but I hope you see the handwriting on the wall from yesterday.The Militant gay movement is really overreaching these days and next year they are gonna find themselves bitchslapped hard.There is a tsunami building in the electorate that could wipe out much of the Democratic gains made in 08.The efforts by the Perez Hilton types and Daily Kos Wackjobs to harrass those who vote aginst gay marriage are bound to backfire.I am a Civil Unions supporter and I believe everyone has the right to their own opinion but I think hardball tactics by the left are really gonna have some unhappy results in 2010. So you would have told Martin Luther King Jr to go home and be quiet? Yes, activism agitates, but that is what it is supposed to do. It FORCES people to confront their prejudices. They then either have to hide them, obscure them or own them. Which is why the most activist thing gay people can do is COME OUT and LIVE THEIR TRUTH. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:48 PM GMT
theantijock saidMaybe coming out isn't working. Maybe we should withdraw from our str8 friends the love they deny us. Coming out works. My parents have skated gay issues for years since I've been out, but not until my sister (their only daughter) came out last year and bore witness to her TEN YEARS and STRONG commitment with her partner has the issue come to a point of no return. My mother especially has had to confront her own feelings and address them in a critical way she had for many years avoided. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:51 PM GMT
This is one of the shortcomings of a democracy: the people can be real idiots in some matters.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:52 PM GMT
_chuck_ said
He isn't your husband in most states, nor on your federal taxes. You're right, and it doesn't matter. To me, he is my husband. We are a family, and fathers to our kids. We are not married to each other and probably would not have a church ceremony, even if it was an option for us to do it legally. I would love to walk into a county clerks office and register as a civil union (or whatever you want to call it), with all the rights and responsibilities of a marriage. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 4:55 PM GMT
Tapper said
This morning, a personal friend and mentor sent me an email on the subject. He's a retired Skadden Arps lawyer; wiser than any other man I know. His email reads in part:
[ . . . ] All my adult life major change has been accomplished by courts interpreting the Constitution. That was true in the case of school segregation, and it has been true so far for the most part in the fight for equal rights for gays. (The Iowa legislature was an exception.) Thank goodness for the courts! " Please tell the wisest? man you know that in Iowa it was the court, Vermont and New Hampshire were by legislature. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 5:01 PM GMT
bobrusso said[quote][cite]badmikeyt said[/cite]southbeach1500 saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less.
I happen to agree with you.
Wanting equality in every sense - semantics included - does not make one hard core.
But selling out does make one a pussy.[/quo
What exactly are we selling out? I thought the fight was to get equal benefits that married people get. What does it matter what it's called? My partner is my husband and I introduce each other that way. We are not married, but he is my husband. I don't need everyone on this planet to call our relationship a marriage. What I need are the benefits that heterosexual married couples get.
You probably think that I'm a sell-out for wanting to be a parent and live in the suburbs. Neither you nor sonofbeach speak for the other full-fledged American citizens who want equality in every sense of the word. You and all Americans should be free to define or seek whatever relationship status they want with their partners (be it marriage or civil union or domestic partnership or indentured servitude), but that freedom should not be limited under the eyes of the law. Gay people should not be told to stand at the back of the bus. I want to get married. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 5:06 PM GMT
Alot of heterosexuals are ignorant to what we're actually figthing for. Many of the ones that I've talked to have this idea that we're asking for religious rights, or a law that would somehow impact religion. Many of them don't even realize that we're only asking to be acknowledged by the State. I've had to be overly assertive in breaking down the barriers in many cases because most of them don't care enough about it since it doesn't apply to them. So the next time you think it's not worth your energy to dig into their ignorance, think again.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 5:10 PM GMT
bobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities. DOMA prevents any gay union from having all the same protections and securities as a legal hetero marriage, so that argument doesn't work. It was enacted to keep that idea from happening. So if you want to settle for less that equal rights and protections, then keep pushing for something other than marriage. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 5:13 PM GMT
Don't you think it would be better to win with the issue being about civil union and equal protections under the law then it is to lose with the issue being gay marriage?
Since it seems that voters are overturning the issue when they can, don't you think that rethinking the verbiage is mandatory?
You guys are right. But dead right is still dead.
Making change from the outside is a lot harder than making change from within. Win a state with civil union and equal protection issues.
And yes I am a fiscally conservative/socially moderate/liberal. And yes I have voted Republican many times as I have whatever party the other guy belongs to. So what? What does it prove,
Republicans didn't defeat this on their own.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 5:21 PM GMT
Timberoo saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
DOMA prevents any gay union from having all the same protections and securities as a legal hetero marriage, so that argument doesn't work. It was enacted to keep that idea from happening. So if you want to settle for less that equal rights and protections, then keep pushing for something other than marriage. Referedum 71 in WA state is a domestic partnership law that in effect does offer the same protections. It just stops short of calling it Marriage. Wikipedia
Ballot Measure Summary
Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 5:29 PM GMT
I too am saddened by the defeat in Maine, but we have to remember that almost half of voting Mainers voted to keep the law allowing equal marriage...and that's something.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 5:33 PM GMT
Never really been too pleased with the "voting" public either.
Frank Schubert is just a loser and will probably be deemed some sort of face of ignorance in the future. And I'm not even a psychic.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 5:44 PM GMT
WickedRyan saidSorry guys but I hope you see the handwriting on the wall from yesterday.The Militant gay movement is really overreaching these days and next year they are gonna find themselves bitchslapped hard.There is a tsunami building in the electorate that could wipe out much of the Democratic gains made in 08.The efforts by the Perez Hilton types and Daily Kos Wackjobs to harrass those who vote aginst gay marriage are bound to backfire.I am a Civil Unions supporter and I believe everyone has the right to their own opinion but I think hardball tactics by the left are really gonna have some unhappy results in 2010. How about some bitchslapping your way? In all cases, militant describes the efforts of the Republicans who put the marriage question on the ballot in the first place. All defeats came this way. In each case, a referendum was foisted on the public of each state. Gay marriage activists were on the defensive from the get-go. NOT THE SAME THING AS MILITANT. All victories came from legal challenges and progressive legislatures. This effort needs a concerted, federal, centralized thrust, and the pussying around defensive stuff has to stop. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:00 PM GMT
The problem is the word marriage has a religious meaning. Yes, it is a legal term as well, but problem here is that it also has the religious baggage to deal with.
The goal should be same legal rights as hetero. The sooner the "marketing" of this abandons the term "marriage" the sooner we will have the same legal rights as hetero.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:03 PM GMT
realifedad said I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled. I totally agree with you, man! |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:04 PM GMT
We have civil unions in NJ. It's not working out. People are denied the benefits enjoyed by those allowed to use the word "marriage".
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:06 PM GMT
jackofhearts46 saidrealifedad saidmedfordguy saidBeachBiMan saidrealifedad said I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled.
The Sufferage movement and the Civil rights movement were both voted on by the states after being ratified was then added as amendments to the constitution.
Ummm....they were approved by state legislatures, not public referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and didn't these issues become federal law ? Once that happened voting such things away in any state went away, so I think we need to take care of this problem federally.
disagree, the federal government does not need anymore decision making power than it does. leave this up to the states. forget referendum, nothing progressive comes from referendums. let the state legislatures take care of it. the only reason it's going on the ballot is so the state can take a hand off approach. If we wait for that to happen, we may all be wiped off this planet. Sorry about that. I am just getting tired of other people getting a vote on my happiness. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:08 PM GMT
Maine is still Appalachia.
'Nuff said.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:08 PM GMT
muscles4muscles saidThe civil rights of a minority should never be left up to a vote by the majority. We'd never get anywhere that way. Well said. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:11 PM GMT
A lot of good people in Maine voted No on 1. We should not forget that and we should thank them.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:13 PM GMT
The Maine vote is the most recent example of while democracy is evil. Once DOMA gets before the supreme court, it will be deemed unconstitutional. Until then, those in favor of gay marriage need to stop putting it to a vote. we need to go through the legislature. It's not going to be over night, but it will happen.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:22 PM GMT
WickedRyan saidSorry guys but I hope you see the handwriting on the wall from yesterday.The Militant gay movement is really overreaching these days and next year they are gonna find themselves bitchslapped hard.There is a tsunami building in the electorate that could wipe out much of the Democratic gains made in 08.The efforts by the Perez Hilton types and Daily Kos Wackjobs to harrass those who vote aginst gay marriage are bound to backfire.I am a Civil Unions supporter and I believe everyone has the right to their own opinion but I think hardball tactics by the left are really gonna have some unhappy results in 2010. Sorry, but I must disagree about the hardball tactics. If we felt the way you do, we'd have NO rights at all because Stonewall never would have happened. If ACT-UP had not acted out in public, we probably would still be in the closet about AIDS Awareness. No, the fact is, a subjugated group has NEVER been magically, or electorally, given rights that their society has denied them. Rights have only ever been granted after periods of turmoil, civil disobedience, and unfortunately sometimes, violence, as in Stonewall. Those who are subjugated, historically have had to wrest their rights from their populace or their legislators, often by force or by threat of unrest or at the very least enough civil disobedience to seriously disrupt daily life in their society and operations of their infrastructure. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:24 PM GMT
Aquanerd saidThe Maine vote is the most recent example of while democracy is evil. Once DOMA gets before the supreme court, it will be deemed unconstitutional. Until then, those in favor of gay marriage need to stop putting it to a vote. we need to go through the legislature. It's not going to be over night, but it will happen. Those in favor of gay marriage are NOT putting it to a vote. All referenda have been brought by Republicans. Stop blaming the gays. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:24 PM GMT
Part of me thinks the big problem is semantics, i.e., because we're calling it "gay marriage" people are against it; the other part of me says fuck it, we're equal citizens and our marriages deserve the rights AND the word.
I really think all these votes have proved that you can't leave a minority's rights up to voters...god knows the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have worked state-to-state.
What gays need to do is peacefully protest, increase our visibility, and channel our justified anger into putting pressure on the federal government to get us equal rights...the state's right fight is over, it's time to get serious about the shit now. We need to stay angry and to remind everyone voting "no" that we're here, we're queer, and they'd best get used to it sooner than later.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:31 PM GMT
I keep seeing in my mind, a variation on a scene from the film THE CORE:
The States: "Why should we give you Gays the right to marry like everyone else?"
Us: "Because we're Gay, and we have no sense of humor about this. And we're armed."
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:32 PM GMT
Paxton saidrealifedad said I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled.
I totally agree with you, man! I agree too but even heterosexual marriages aren't governed by federal law. DOMA was passed specifically to block gay marriages, not to govern heterosexual marriages. Do we expect them to pass legislation that would give our marriages federal governance while there's is still only governed at the State level? |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:41 PM GMT
ChojinXI saidPart of me thinks the big problem is semantics, i.e., because we're calling it "gay marriage" people are against it; the other part of me says fuck it, we're equal citizens and our marriages deserve the rights AND the word.
I really think all these votes have proved that you can't leave a minority's rights up to voters...god knows the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have worked state-to-state.
What gays need to do is peacefully protest, increase our visibility, and channel our justified anger into putting pressure on the federal government to get us equal rights...the state's right fight is over, it's time to get serious about the shit now. We need to stay angry and to remind everyone voting "no" that we're here, we're queer, and they'd best get used to it sooner than later. Unfortuately, peaceful isn't working that well. We need to find a way to really grab those who take away human rights by the balls, and do everything to the point of castrating them. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:42 PM GMT
southbeach1500 saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less.
I happen to agree with you. Perhaps there are some of us who do not care to be second class citizens? If you get your way, will you give us second class tax rates along with the second class rights you propose? |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:45 PM GMT
Hey... it's ~52% Yes 48% No
Just like California.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 6:47 PM GMT
I would highly suggest that anyone thinking of traveling to or vacationing to Maine to not do it. Don't give them any tourist money, or tax money.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:05 PM GMT
jackofhearts46 saidrealifedad saidmedfordguy saidBeachBiMan saidrealifedad said I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled.
The Sufferage movement and the Civil rights movement were both voted on by the states after being ratified was then added as amendments to the constitution.
Ummm....they were approved by state legislatures, not public referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and didn't these issues become federal law ? Once that happened voting such things away in any state went away, so I think we need to take care of this problem federally.
disagree, the federal government does not need anymore decision making power than it does. leave this up to the states. forget referendum, nothing progressive comes from referendums. let the state legislatures take care of it. the only reason it's going on the ballot is so the state can take a hand off approach. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that the state legislatures and the state Senate approved this then the Governor signed it into law approving gay marrieage. Now this referendum business reversed it. So how are you saying the legislature is going to take care of it. Maybe I have it wrong as far as how this all went. Correct me if I'm wrong on how the process went. I may be thinking of how things went in Vermont to get the Gay Marriage right to mary. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:08 PM GMT
OutdoorMutt saidsouthbeach1500 saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less.
I happen to agree with you.
Perhaps there are some of us who do not care to be second class citizens?
If you get your way, will you give us second class tax rates along with the second class rights you propose? It's not that simple. See, marriage is a religious institution. Religion does not change laws to fit its congregation. We shouldn't feel that we are second class citizens because our union isn't accepted by religion as heterosexual marriages are. That doesn't make us second class, just different. The term used shouldn't matter to us. The rights that come with said term is all that should matter to us. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:13 PM GMT
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as semantics. All the existing laws on the books at the federal level say MARRIAGE. Even if we had civil unions on the state level we'd be out of luck on the many marriage benefits at the federal level. Even if DOMA were out of play, the marriage laws could ignore civil union laws.
Yes, the word marriage might offend the sensibilities of some religious folks. Guess what? The Constitution calls for the separation of church and state! So they need to learn some basic junior high civics and get over it. Oh wait, they learn their civics from the pulpit now that they've taken over the school boards and gutted the curricula across the country.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:19 PM GMT
joeyveras said
See, marriage not is a religious institution. Corrected. It's a social construction and it existed long before any of these 'religions' did. --------------- Well this day just got worse... Reject from another job. great. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:25 PM GMT
^LOL, super screen name. 
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:26 PM GMT
RunintheCity saidHmm, I don't think it's as simple as semantics. All the existing laws on the books at the federal level say MARRIAGE. Even if we had civil unions on the state level we'd be out of luck on the many marriage benefits at the federal level. Even if DOMA were out of play, the marriage laws could ignore civil union laws.
Yes, the word marriage might offend the sensibilities of some religious folks. Guess what? The Constitution calls for the separation of church and state! So they need to learn some basic junior high civics and get over it. Oh wait, they learn their civics from the pulpit now that they've taken over the school boards and gutted the curricula across the country. That's our loophole, I think. The only federal law regarding marriage is the determination that it's only between a man and woman. To my knowledge, Federal law doesn't govern any other aspect of marriage and I think the only reason it's specified as it is on the federal level is because religious institutions were able to argue that marriage is a religious practice to begin with. If we call it something else but the protections are still the same, we still win. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:35 PM GMT
Slut_Bag saidjoeyveras said
See, marriage not is a religious institution.
Corrected.
It's a social construction and it existed long before any of these 'religions' did.
---------------
Well this day just got worse...
Reject from another job. great. No. Marriage was born out of organized religion, Sweety. That's a fact. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:36 PM GMT
joeyveras said We shouldn't feel that we are second class citizens because our union isn't accepted by religion as heterosexual marriages are. That doesn't make us second class, just different. The term used shouldn't matter to us. The rights that come with said term is all that should matter to us. And which rights are those? List and compare. You can only conclude that we are 2nd class citizens. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:42 PM GMT
I like the diversity of opinion here boys.As a Catholic I cannot support gay marriage.Thats my view and it aint gonna change.I am cool with Civil Unions or domestic partnerships like they just passed in WA state.For those who feel being militant and threatening opponents of gay marriage is the way to go well go for it .But remember this prediction for 2010.There is gonna be a voter rebellion that is gonna make 1994 look like a cakewalk.It aint over gay issues it is over taxes and overspending but it will impact the left in a huge way.So get ready!
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:42 PM GMT
_chuck_ saidjoeyveras said We shouldn't feel that we are second class citizens because our union isn't accepted by religion as heterosexual marriages are. That doesn't make us second class, just different. The term used shouldn't matter to us. The rights that come with said term is all that should matter to us.
And which rights are those?
List and compare.
You can only conclude that we are 2nd class citizens. Well, here in WA State where Referedum 71 (regarding the Expansion of Domestic Partnership Laws) was approved it is described as follows: Ballot Measure Summary Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.I see this as a win but I'm open to hear any objections. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:43 PM GMT
Red_Vespa saidcestfort2000 saidIf i"m not mistaken, there are gay republicans. Just being a republican doesn't mean you are against gays getting married...
I'm sure you've seen the T-shirt that says: "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is"
Gay Republicans can wear a T-shirt that says: "I'm not anti-gay, but the people I vote for are"
C'est la même chose, n'est-ce pas? Yes there are "Gay Republicans!" I'm sure many of who also have a male lover/boyfriend. But they just may not concede to the term marriage, being used for gay and lesbian unions, as " Marriage" is full of religus connotations. Also it would seem the gay republicans are more in tune with the American voters on this issue. [Red but you have already had access to marriage and had a wife for many years. Think of all the pure homosexuals, who are in a long term relationship, and never been married once.] |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:46 PM GMT
wrestlervic saidI would highly suggest that anyone thinking of traveling to or vacationing to Maine to not do it. Don't give them any tourist money, or tax money. But......could the same not be said for CA too, are all of the US of A for that matter. It seems religion still really matters in Mother America. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:47 PM GMT
joeyveras said
No. Marriage was born out of organized religion, Sweety. That's a fact. -needs citing. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:48 PM GMT
joeyveras saidIt's not that simple. See, marriage is a religious institution. Religion does not change laws to fit its congregation. We shouldn't feel that we are second class citizens because our union isn't accepted by religion as heterosexual marriages are. That doesn't make us second class, just different. The term used shouldn't matter to us. The rights that come with said term is all that should matter to us. Correct. But most guys on here won't get that point. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:49 PM GMT
WickedRyan saidI like the diversity of opinion here boys.As a Catholic I cannot support gay marriage.Thats my view and it aint gonna change.I am cool with Civil Unions or domestic partnerships like they just passed in WA state.For those who feel being militant and threatening opponents of gay marriage is the way to go well go for it .But remember this prediction for 2010.There is gonna be a voter rebellion that is gonna make 1994 look like a cakewalk.It aint over gay issues it is over taxes and overspending but it will impact the left in a huge way.So get ready! Who needs enemies with friends like this.  We are quite seriously entitled to individual beliefs...but what you've written is of little use to the struggle for equality. While a civil union/domestic partnership could in fact provide an equal legal status, the context in which the equality must exist makes them clearly separate but equal, which has been legally deemed inadequate under the Constitution on a variety of issues through our nation's history. Again, the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state. Your religious beliefs are to guide your life. Not mine or anyone else's. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 7:50 PM GMT
Slut_Bag saidjoeyveras said
No. Marriage was born out of organized religion, Sweety. That's a fact.
-needs citing. Yes I will second that one. marriage is a religious instertusion, that was born in religion. Lets not forget before those Christians come alone, mankind embraced homosexuality too. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:02 PM GMT
Lostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that. its called democracy, and since when is marriage a right- i always saw it as a privilege. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:02 PM GMT
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:07 PM GMT
leixguy said
its called democracy, and since when is marriage a right- i always saw it as a privilege. Marriage may have STARTED in civilization as a privilege but has become a right as it was co-opted by modern government to be a contract with legal ramifications. The fact that certain citizen are denied those legal RIGHTS is why it's an issue. Is this really that difficult for people to get? I mean, I have no intention of EVER getting married, but lord have mercy people should have access to all the same legal rights as the next person. Marriage USED to be a civil/social/religious ceremony and still is...but it has also become a LEGAL AGREEMENT between parties. Under the Constitution then all citizens should have fair and equal access to it in terms defined by non-religious determiners. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:09 PM GMT
joeyveras saidSlut_Bag saidjoeyveras said
See, marriage not is a religious institution.
Corrected.
It's a social construction and it existed long before any of these 'religions' did.
---------------
Well this day just got worse...
Reject from another job. great.
No. Marriage was born out of organized religion, Sweety. That's a fact. Stop being snippy. You're incorrect in your "facts" about the history of marriage. Do some serious research before you try to throw around your flawed "facts" which are based only on your own opinion. For thousands of years in North Africa and the Middle East, and into the time of Christ, marriage was NOT a religious institution (unlike among the European pagans, for whom it WAS spiritual in nature) but was an institution designed to bolster families and tribes. Marriage was a partnership for property rights, land ownership, and the passing of wealth onto male heirs, nothing more. Women were property. There was no "Love, Honor, and Cherish." It was a business transaction. The Church decided to consecrate marriages after Christ's death. And, by the way, even The Church approved and performed marriages between members of the same sex until somewhere around the 6th Century. (I could be wrong, but I think the beginnings of marriage as we conceive it today began with the Council of Nicea.) |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:12 PM GMT
leixguy saidLostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
its called democracy, and since when is marriage a right- i always saw it as a privilege. FUCK YOU, you disruptive tool! Go back to the Focus on The Family people who sent you here to lurk. You are not welcome. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:13 PM GMT
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:17 PM GMT
zeebyaboi saidjoeyveras saidSlut_Bag saidjoeyveras said
See, marriage not is a religious institution.
Corrected.
It's a social construction and it existed long before any of these 'religions' did.
---------------
Well this day just got worse...
Reject from another job. great.
No. Marriage was born out of organized religion, Sweety. That's a fact.
Stop being snippy. You're incorrect in your "facts" about the history of marriage. Do some serious research before you try to throw around your flawed "facts" which are based only on your own opinion.
For thousands of years in North Africa and the Middle East, and into the time of Christ, marriage was NOT a religious institution (unlike among the European pagans, for whom it WAS spiritual in nature) but was an institution designed to bolster families and tribes. Marriage was a partnership for property rights, land ownership, and the passing of wealth onto male heirs, nothing more. Women were property. There was no "Love, Honor, and Cherish." It was a business transaction. The Church decided to consecrate marriages after Christ's death. And, by the way, even The Church approved and performed marriages between members of the same sex until somewhere around the 6th Century. (I could be wrong, but I think the beginnings of marriage as we conceive it today began with the Council of Nicea.) Are you suggesting that religion didn't exist until after Christ??? These people you speak of were practicing religion. It just wasn't called Christianity. I'm not being snippy and you're right this is my opinion. Prove me wrong if you wish. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:17 PM GMT
leixguy saidLostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
its called democracy, and since when is marriage a right- i always saw it as a privilege. too fucked up to engage with seriously.  The rights of the minority should never be voted for by the majority. That is not democracy, that is tyranny. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:22 PM GMT
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:32 PM GMT
This is a prime example of why the founders picked a constitutional republic instead of a democracy. The Constitution was meant to be the supreme law of the land and the elected representatives were meant to enforce the Constitution and protect the rights of the citizens within their limited powers. The founders intentionally did not want majority rule. Unfortunately most people, including many of you, applaud the democratic principle of majority voting when the vote suits your purposes, then condemn it when things don't go your way. No doubt if this had gone the other way, the same people on this forum saying that it is a travesty that the public should be voting on such things would be elated at the "triumph of democracy."
Unfortunately, as marriage is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution, it is left to the states to decide their definition of marriage. In regards to the current institution of marriage, the federal government has little legal say.
What needs to happen for gay marriage is twofold:
1. The decoupling of legal marriage from religious marriage
2. The recognition that legal marriage is the same as any other contract
The first is a pure social issue in the states depending on the respective state constitutions, but on the federal level is legally assured. Combined with the second, there is a good case for gay marriage within the Constitution.
Now, I don't know much about contract law, but from what I understand, I'll try to describe the framework. Constitutionally the 14th amendment requires the equal application of the law among all citizens, and I believe case law has supported the use of this clause in regards to contracts as well. Therefore, the law requires that any two consenting adults may enter into any legal contract that any other two consenting adults may also enter. By barring two consenting adults from entering into a legal contract which does not violate the Constitution or any constitutional federal law (of which DOMA is not), the states are violating an enumerated federal right, which they are not allowed to do. Not only could this invalidate state barring of gay marriage, it could also be used to declare DOMA unconstitutional as it violates the right to equal treatment under the law as stated in the 14th amendment and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, this method would require a gay couple to attempt to enter into the marriage contract, be denied, then appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Since the Court now regards the Constitution as a living and completely interpretable document, it completely depends on the politics of the current Court as to whether that case would be decided on constitutionally or even heard in the first place.
If you want to regard marriage as a true civil right, this is really the only legal recourse besides constitutional amendment (which our side is not likely to come out the winner.) Otherwise, we just have to deal with the issue state-by-state and attempt to separate the religious affiliations of marriage and convince a majority of the population or the individual legislatures to support it.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:44 PM GMT
bsubioguy saidThis is a prime example of why the founders picked a constitutional republic instead of a democracy. The Constitution was meant to be the supreme law of the land and the elected representatives were meant to enforce the Constitution and protect the rights of the citizens within their limited powers. The founders intentionally did not want majority rule. Unfortunately most people, including many of you, applaud the democratic principle of majority voting when the vote suits your purposes, then condemn it when things don't go your way. No doubt if this had gone the other way, the same people on this forum saying that it is a travesty that the public should be voting on such things would be elated at the "triumph of democracy."
Unfortunately, as marriage is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution, it is left to the states to decide their definition of marriage. In regards to the current institution of marriage, the federal government has little legal say.
What needs to happen for gay marriage is twofold:
1. The decoupling of legal marriage from religious marriage
2. The recognition that legal marriage is the same as any other contract
The first is a pure social issue in the states depending on the respective state constitutions, but on the federal level is legally assured. Combined with the second, there is a good case for gay marriage within the Constitution.
Now, I don't know much about contract law, but from what I understand, I'll try to describe the framework. Constitutionally the 14th amendment requires the equal application of the law among all citizens, and I believe case law has supported the use of this clause in regards to contracts as well. Therefore, the law requires that any two consenting adults may enter into any legal contract that any other two consenting adults may also enter. By barring two consenting adults from entering into a legal contract which does not violate the Constitution or any constitutional federal law (of which DOMA is not), the states are violating an enumerated federal right, which they are not allowed to do. Not only could this invalidate state barring of gay marriage, it could also be used to declare DOMA unconstitutional as it violates the right to equal treatment under the law as stated in the 14th amendment and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, this method would require a gay couple to attempt to enter into the marriage contract, be denied, then appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Since the Court now regards the Constitution as a living and completely interpretable document, it completely depends on the politics of the current Court as to whether that case would be decided on constitutionally or even heard in the first place.
If you want to regard marriage as a true civil right, this is really the only legal recourse besides constitutional amendment (which our side is not likely to come out the winner.) Otherwise, we just have to deal with the issue state-by-state and attempt to separate the religious affiliations of marriage and convince a majority of the population or the individual legislatures to support it.
Very scholarly. Maybe you should represent us in court, as that argument is actually pretty well-conceived. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:45 PM GMT
kscott6671 saidLostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
It's all right wing republican bull shit. You can keep saying this over and over all you want until the cows come home but it doesn't make it true. It's the average everyday American that keeps voting these referendums down and they cross a broad political, racial, religious, age, and gender spectrum. It's such an easy scapegoat to blame Republicans but that argument simply doesn't hold water. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:50 PM GMT
CuriousJockAZ saidkscott6671 saidLostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
It's all right wing republican bull shit.
You can keep saying this over and over all you want until the cows come home but it doesn't make it true. It's the average everyday American that keeps voting these referendums down and they cross a broad political, racial, religious, age, and gender spectrum. It's such an easy scapegoat to blame Republicans but that argument simply doesn't hold water. I'm not so sure that I like when I have to agree with you  |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:57 PM GMT
CuriousJockAZ saidkscott6671 saidLostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
It's all right wing republican bull shit.
You can keep saying this over and over all you want until the cows come home but it doesn't make it true. It's the average everyday American that keeps voting these referendums down and they cross a broad political, racial, religious, age, and gender spectrum. It's such an easy scapegoat to blame Republicans but that argument simply doesn't hold water. Please, do go look up at what segment of the population is voting against our rights. Let's use last year's Prop 8 exit polling82% of Republicans voted against us. 85% of Conservatives voted against us. Those represent the two demographics who most voted as a unified block. Ya, you can paint a pretty, pretty mural and say that they represent a rainbow of ages, races, religions, and genders. But really, they are just right wingers. The argument holds so much water it needs to wear diapers. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 8:58 PM GMT
Blackguy4you said
I'm not so sure that I like when I have to agree with you Come on now, free yourself, go with that feeling  |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 9:32 PM GMT
If everyone keeps saying that marriage is a religious institution, then why does our government recognize it?
Not trying to sound stupid in any sense, but if America is really based off of separation of church and state, then marriage should just be kept within the institution.
I am VERY VERY PRO MARRIAGE, but if everyone wants to have a civil unions, heterosexuals too, then i wouldn't mind a civil union, everyone is equal, but you can't just not offer a government recognized deal to one group then not to another.
Why did my dad move to this country again? hmph.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 9:46 PM GMT
shake_n_bake saidIf everyone keeps saying that marriage is a religious institution, then why does our government recognize it?
Not trying to sound stupid in any sense, but if America is really based off of separation of church and state, then marriage should just be kept within the institution.
I am VERY VERY PRO MARRIAGE, but if everyone wants to have a civil unions, heterosexuals too, then i wouldn't mind a civil union, everyone is equal, but you can't just not offer a government recognized deal to one group then not to another.
Why did my dad move to this country again? hmph. Because elected officials on the rights pushed for it guided by their religious "convictions". It can be argued that it's unconstitutional given the fact that marriage laws are governed by States. While Marriage is historically a religious practice, it is recognized by each State in accordance with the States marriage laws for the purpose of taxes, property, custody rights, etc. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 10:16 PM GMT
Again, the right for legal recognition has to be fought in the Courts because it's apparent that equality can't be voted in favor of!!! When did this country ever vote in favor of equality with the popular vote? Never have, never will. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution will eventually be our saving grace. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 10:20 PM GMT
Paxton saidjackofhearts46 saidrealifedad saidmedfordguy saidBeachBiMan saidrealifedad said I think this is going to continue to happen until some federal law makes it a right that cannot be taken away by voting that right away. that's what it took to give blacks freedom from slavery and for voting rights for blacks as well as wemon. Its a right for gays to marry, it shouldn't be a voting issue, so I think this is the point from which the subject should be tackled.
The Sufferage movement and the Civil rights movement were both voted on by the states after being ratified was then added as amendments to the constitution.
Ummm....they were approved by state legislatures, not public referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and didn't these issues become federal law ? Once that happened voting such things away in any state went away, so I think we need to take care of this problem federally.
disagree, the federal government does not need anymore decision making power than it does. leave this up to the states. forget referendum, nothing progressive comes from referendums. let the state legislatures take care of it. the only reason it's going on the ballot is so the state can take a hand off approach.
If we wait for that to happen, we may all be wiped off this planet. Sorry about that. I am just getting tired of other people getting a vote on my happiness. sorry about that, but that's how our system works, for better or for worse. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 10:30 PM GMT
"Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." - Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 10:39 PM GMT
At least nobody can blame the black voters now
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 10:41 PM GMT
PipHop saidAt least nobody can blame the black voters now LOL ...i was waiting for this. but you are wrong we can certainly blame someone black - OBAMA |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 10:42 PM GMT
joeyveras said
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm Me: Your first citation does not support your opinion. joeyveras saidYou: How so? Me: According to the article you cite, marriage being a religious institution is mentioned only in these paragraphs: "The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32)." And "The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, 'If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void'" The rest of the article discusses marriage as property and procreative arrangment. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 10:46 PM GMT
shake_n_bake saidIf everyone keeps saying that marriage is a religious institution, then why does our government recognize it?
Not trying to sound stupid in any sense, but if America is really based off of separation of church and state, then marriage should just be kept within the institution.
I am VERY VERY PRO MARRIAGE, but if everyone wants to have a civil unions, heterosexuals too, then i wouldn't mind a civil union, everyone is equal, but you can't just not offer a government recognized deal to one group then not to another.
Why did my dad move to this country again? hmph. Marriage privitization. All for it: marriage should not be a state function. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 10:58 PM GMT
I don't care about gay marriage anymore. Not like we are dying. What is the point of getting married and not having kids? If I love this person so much and want to make (kids) or start a family, then I will get marry. Marriage is all about making family. That is what the Bible said. If you rather be with a guy you love so much not having kids... Then it's better to stay as boyfriends or call him whatever you want (husband, honey, dear.)
Sorry gay couples out there. I have my own opinions.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:03 PM GMT
sxydrkhair saidI don't care about gay marriage anymore. Not like we are dying. What is the point of getting married and not having kids? If I love this person so much and want to make (kids) or start a family, then I will get marry. Marriage is all about making family. That is what the Bible said. If you rather be with a guy you love so much not having kids... Then it's better to stay as boyfriends or call him whatever you want (husband, honey, dear.)
Sorry gay couples out there. I have my own opinions. There are legal and economic advantages given to couples in a marital contract, a contract which the federal government is required to uphold equally for all persons (see my above post.) |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:09 PM GMT
sxydrkhair saidI don't care about gay marriage anymore. Not like we are dying. What is the point of getting married and not having kids? If I love this person so much and want to make (kids) or start a family, then I will get marry. Marriage is all about making family. That is what the Bible said. If you rather be with a guy you love so much not having kids... Then it's better to stay as boyfriends or call him whatever you want (husband, honey, dear.)
Sorry gay couples out there. I have my own opinions. You fail to recognize that marriage is not about a name or a status, but about legal recognition, which goes to the core of equal rights. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:10 PM GMT
mickeytopogigio saidjoeyveras said
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
Me: Your first citation does not support your opinion.
joeyveras saidYou: How so?
Me: According to the article you cite, marriage being a religious institution is mentioned only in these paragraphs:
"The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32)." And "The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, 'If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void'"
The rest of the article discusses marriage as property and procreative arrangment. I don't see how that cannot still be established by religion. I don't see it as a this or that issue as you seem to conclude. Can you find a civilization that practiced marriage but did not practice religion? I think that would put an end to the argument. I have yet to find that civilization. Marriage IS a property and procreative arrangement. From my understanding the marriage laws were established by society and born out of traditions and customs (i.e religion). I didn't say Marriage was born out of Christianity. I said it was born out of organized religion. In addition, the first paragraph talks about Hebrew marriage laws. Are you suggesting the Hebrews were not a religious people? |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:13 PM GMT
I have just finished the second season of Brothers and Sisters, and homosexuality plays a big roll in this sitcom. But I don't agree with the gay brother jason's selfish and hatful attatude to Republicans. I feels he has no right to hate and abuse them, because their vote is stopping him for getting what he wont's, the right to the intrusion of marriage.
But he fails to see how selfish his abuse is, because he gets one vote, if he wont's to use it. But one vote only. Him feeling he has a right too dictate how others should vote, for his own self gain, is just plane wrong, because he gets one vote, and all the Republican, Mormons, the black fella, Catholics and Jews, and democrats, all get one vote too, and have a right too do with it, as they wish, anther does not have a right to abuse, or attack another for not using their vote, they way Jason wonted it used.
One vote per person. Freedom and safety of choice, as to how you use it, and in the US of A, it is a choice, if you use it at all, but it is you rigt too use it as you wish.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:14 PM GMT
sxydrkhair saidI don't care about gay marriage anymore. Not like we are dying. What is the point of getting married and not having kids? If I love this person so much and want to make (kids) or start a family, then I will get marry. Marriage is all about making family. That is what the Bible said. If you rather be with a guy you love so much not having kids... Then it's better to stay as boyfriends or call him whatever you want (husband, honey, dear.)
Sorry gay couples out there. I have my own opinions. So how about couples who are infertile? |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:15 PM GMT
coolarmydude saidsxydrkhair saidI don't care about gay marriage anymore. Not like we are dying. What is the point of getting married and not having kids? If I love this person so much and want to make (kids) or start a family, then I will get marry. Marriage is all about making family. That is what the Bible said. If you rather be with a guy you love so much not having kids... Then it's better to stay as boyfriends or call him whatever you want (husband, honey, dear.)
Sorry gay couples out there. I have my own opinions.
You fail to recognize that marriage is not about a name or a status, but about legal recognition, which goes to the core of equal rights. Why not gay couple come up something different than marriage? I agree that gay marriage should be equal rights like heterosexual marriage. But what about Bisexual marriage (why not marry a man and a woman?) or Transsexual marriage? Gays or Lesbians aren't only people that are struggling for equal rights. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:16 PM GMT
Actually, marriage started as a public act that became a religious act. You're thinking too much along the lines of Judeo-Christian traditions. Before Christianity, people worshipped many different gods and still got married in an act of public decree. Religion had nothing to do with it, except that they offered gifts to their gods in order to receive blessings for fertility.
Judaism and Christianity got involved in all pagan and other god-worshipping practices in order to legitimize itself and move people towards a monotheistic society.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:20 PM GMT
sxydrkhair saidcoolarmydude saidsxydrkhair saidI don't care about gay marriage anymore. Not like we are dying. What is the point of getting married and not having kids? If I love this person so much and want to make (kids) or start a family, then I will get marry. Marriage is all about making family. That is what the Bible said. If you rather be with a guy you love so much not having kids... Then it's better to stay as boyfriends or call him whatever you want (husband, honey, dear.)
Sorry gay couples out there. I have my own opinions.
You fail to recognize that marriage is not about a name or a status, but about legal recognition, which goes to the core of equal rights.
Why not gay couple come up something different than marriage? I agree that gay marriage should be equal rights like heterosexual marriage. But what about Bisexual marriage (why not marry a man and a woman?) or Transsexual marriage? Gays or Lesbians aren't only people that are struggling for equal rights. Bisexuality is an attraction to both sexes. When you marry one person, you marry one or the other sex. Homosexuals marry those of the same sex. Heterosexuals marry those of the opposite sex. Transgenders marry those of either the same or opposite sex and enter either a homosexual or heterosexual relationship. When people get married in the church, they MUST get their civic marriage license before the religious ceremony in order for it to legally proceed. The precedent already exists that defines marriage as a civic act before it is a religious act. Again, marriage is about legal recognition in the most basic form. People already can get married by the Justice of the Peace and don't have to have a religious ceremony. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:24 PM GMT
coolarmydude saidActually, marriage started as a public act that became a religious act. You're thinking too much along the lines of Judeo-Christian traditions. Before Christianity, people worshipped many different gods and still got married in an act of public decree. Religion had nothing to do with it, except that they offered gifts to their gods in order to receive blessings for fertility.
Judaism and Christianity got involved in all pagan and other god-worshipping practices in order to legitimize itself and move people towards a monotheistic society. My argument is that religion was the fundamental base for establishing marriage laws. Can you point to a civilization where marriage laws were established and practiced while no religion in place? One thing to note, early civilizations didn't have a government. Religion was there government. Religion was their order. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not really sure why this argument is so important to some because we aren't asking for the religious institution to acknowledge our union. We're asking the government and the institution of government came long after religion and marriage practices. Bottom line, we should not be concerned about it being called Marriage. We should be focusing on the laws that protect us. |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:24 PM GMT
Well, maybe there is non-religious marriage like atheist. You think heterosexual atheists want gay marriage? lol Canada is always open for all gay couples that want to get marry.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:31 PM GMT
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:34 PM GMT
Ok, so every women will change their last name if they get marry. What the gay guys going to name their last name? Mr. and Mr. Smith?
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:39 PM GMT
sxydrkhair saidOk, so every women will change their last name if they get marry. What the gay guys going to name their last name? Mr. and Mr. Smith?
How is that remotely an issue, especially when many women celebrities keep their maiden names after getting married and their husband keeps theirs as well. And if someone wants to change their name, who cares? Marriage law doesn't require someone to change their name. http://www.lucystoneleague.org/ |
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:48 PM GMT
BOLD TEXT GOES HEREcoolarmydude saidHere you go joeyveraa:
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
Marriage in Ancient Rome: "Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval."
People should practice their Google experiences at least 10x a day. First of all, if you're only going back as far as Rome (an advanced western civilization) you haven't gone back far enough. Religion existed long before that. The first line in the paragraph in that link proves my point but you missed it. Here it is again: Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient culturesAdditionally, you make yourself look like an ass when you post an article that doesn't counter but instead aids my argument while offering a snide remark suggesting that I haven't done my research. You can save that stuff because I don't get offended by text in a box or animated gifs. Either we're gonna have a mature conversation or end it right here. How about this. Name an ancient civilization that allowed gays to marry. My point is, why do we give a shit about the word Marriage??? Hell, the word itself is from 13th century France. People, Fight for your rights not for a label.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:53 PM GMT
You asked for any civilization. You asked, "Can you point to a civilization where marriage laws were established and practiced while no religion in place?" I thought you wanted to know if there was ever a time in which marriage was practiced without a religious tradition.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:53 PM GMT
Marriage existed as a social construct a long time before the bible was written. It's not a religious institution only.
And whoever above said this was correct: A majority voting to deny the same rights they have to a minority is not an example of democracy, it is an example of TYRANNY.
|
|
|
Nov 04, 2009 11:55 PM GMT
And it's so mature of you to retort to my snide remark by calling me an ass. Good job at upholding your end of your expectations in holding a mature conversation. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 12:02 AM GMT
coolarmydude saidAnd it's so mature of you to retort to my snide remark by calling me an ass. Good job at upholding your end of your expectations in holding a mature conversation. I didn't call you an ass. I said your comments make you look like one but I digress. I'm getting hungry. At the end of the day we all want the same thing. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 12:07 AM GMT
My bad. That just makes all the difference in a mature conversation. (facepalm)
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 12:09 AM GMT
coolarmydude saidYou asked for any civilization. You asked, "Can you point to a civilization where marriage laws were established and practiced while no religion in place?" I thought you wanted to know if there was ever a time in which marriage was practiced without a religious tradition. My mistake. I wasn't clear. In my mind I was hoping to hear of civilizations that started the institution of marriage rather than those societies where marriage laws evolved. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 12:13 AM GMT
Well, as I understand it, marriage was an economic or business arrangement between families before it was ever organized as something social or religious.
There is an indigenous tribe in South America that still operates in a primal society to this day and their form of marriage is very much like what I state as a business arrangement between families.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 12:22 AM GMT
PipHop saidAt least nobody can blame the black voters now LMAO ------- Wow, this topic (Maine) is so heated that it requires THREE threads just to contain it. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 12:40 AM GMT
Look, I would love for legislation to pass acknowledging gay marriages and cementing our rights on the federal level but I'm a realist. I don't see them ever establishing laws to protect us on a federal level yet keeping heterosexual marriages governed by the State. I don't see that happening in my lifetime and I think putting money into a campaign for that would be a big waste. You're talking about a major overhaul of marriage laws in this country for both gay and straight couples and that's not even touching on State specific issues such as property rights.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 12:48 AM GMT
sxydrkhair saidI don't care about gay marriage anymore. Not like we are dying. What is the point of getting married and not having kids? If I love this person so much and want to make (kids) or start a family, then I will get marry. Marriage is all about making family. That is what the Bible said. If you rather be with a guy you love so much not having kids... Then it's better to stay as boyfriends or call him whatever you want (husband, honey, dear.)
Sorry gay couples out there. I have my own opinions. Interesting- what about couples who cannot have children. Do you then dissolve the marriage? Declare it null and void? |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 12:56 AM GMT
sxydrkhair saidI don't care about gay marriage anymore. Not like we are dying. What is the point of getting married and not having kids? If I love this person so much and want to make (kids) or start a family, then I will get marry. Marriage is all about making family. That is what the Bible said. If you rather be with a guy you love so much not having kids... Then it's better to stay as boyfriends or call him whatever you want (husband, honey, dear.)
Sorry gay couples out there. I have my own opinions. Sorry but... Wow. I am surprised you haven't gone off and killed yourself... According to your 'Bible' homosexuality is a sin... or at least that's how modern day people are interpreting it.... Shame on you. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 12:56 AM GMT
I want to see maine put up a civil unions vote just to see how people choose. Are people really that opposed to gay rights, or is it just marriage? I think it scares them a bit, but it's not their fault.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 1:22 AM GMT
leixguy saidLostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
its called democracy, and since when is marriage a right- i always saw it as a privilege. Actually, in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, the Supreme Court (Justice Potter Stewart, if I remember correctly) called marriage a 'fundamental right'. This is the ruling that overturned all laws banning interracial marriage. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 1:23 AM GMT
Mepark saidI want to see maine put up a civil unions vote just to see how people choose. Are people really that opposed to gay rights, or is it just marriage? I think it scares them a bit, but it's not their fault. It IS their fault. Ignorance can only be blamed for so much. Complacency is just as disturbing. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 1:25 AM GMT
CuriousJockAZ saidYou can keep saying this over and over all you want until the cows come home but it doesn't make it true. It's the average everyday American that keeps voting these referendums down and they cross a broad political, racial, religious, age, and gender spectrum. It's such an easy scapegoat to blame Republicans but that argument simply doesn't hold water. Geez, Todd, is there nothing a Republican can do to piss you off? Are they all perfect each in his own way, like little right-wing snowflakes? |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 1:31 AM GMT
Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another indeed.
Jesus fucking Mary Joseph and five or six Judases, some of you are so selfish and frankly ignorant/deluded.
I think I need to stop reading this thread. Today has not been good for those of us who'd like to have a little faith in the decency of the human race.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 1:44 AM GMT
Tapper saidMepark saidI want to see maine put up a civil unions vote just to see how people choose. Are people really that opposed to gay rights, or is it just marriage? I think it scares them a bit, but it's not their fault.
It IS their fault. Ignorance can only be blamed for so much. Complacency is just as disturbing. by not their fault I mean their religious leaders are the ones that are spreading false threats like "your marriage will be under attack." and "your children would be indoctrinated." I don't consider that "their" fault, as stupid as they may be to fall for it. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 1:49 AM GMT
You're right, God DAMN them. I seen this somewhere else.. if they are so worried about the sanction of marriage, then why not make a law where getting divorces are banned.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 2:18 AM GMT
joeyveras said
My argument is that religion was the fundamental base for establishing marriage laws. Can you point to a civilization where marriage laws were established and practiced while no religion in place? One thing to note, early civilizations didn't have a government. Religion was there government. Religion was their order. Do you see what I'm saying?
What color is the sky in your world? On Earth, it's blue. I used to know a few people like you in college. They always did poorly in their classes because they simply refused to acknowledge the facts of life which they were presented with. Much like the Flat Earth Society. Or the Mormons. You want to see examples of societies that did practice marriage without religion? The early Arabians. The Egyptians (who were NOT bound by organized religion, but practiced polytheism). The European Pagans, who were spiritual but not religious. There is a difference. And since when did early civilizations not have a government? Egypt had a government that lasted for many hundreds, maybe even a few thousand, years. Before Christ. What about the Roman Empire? How about the Greeks, the Mesopotamians? The Phonecians? Maybe you should go back to high school and study again. You're clearly not college material. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 2:51 AM GMT
I never felt a strong urge to go to Maine on vacation, and you can bet your ass now I won't unless this gets repealed.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:04 AM GMT
Timberoo saidI never felt a strong urge to go to Maine on vacation, and you can bet your ass now I won't unless this gets repealed. Why? Who will you be hurting? The legislators and the Governor favored marriage equality. Almost half the voters did. Unless they released the names of those that signed the petition to get on the ballot, there's no way to target the "bad" ones without hurting the good people there. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 4:06 AM GMT
Timberoo saidI never felt a strong urge to go to Maine on vacation, and you can bet your ass now I won't unless this gets repealed. Yeah, Timberoo, what 1969er said. Almost half of Maine voted for us. That's pretty amazing for a state that has 2 republican senators. I can see limiting your trip to coastal Maine, though. After all, that's where all our support came from (Portland, Ogunquit, Kennebunkport, etc.). The anti-gay votes came mostly from northern Maine. But I think the coastal areas deserve our thanks and support. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 4:30 AM GMT
Here's a paragraph from George Orwell's 1984 that cuts pretty close:
"All marriages between Party members had to be approved by a committee appointed for the purpose, and---though the principle was never clearly stated---permission was always denied if the couple concerned gave the impression of being physically attracted to one another. The only recognized purpose of marriage was to beget children for the service of the Party. Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema."
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 4:41 AM GMT
Whoa! Whoa!Remember 46% were for gay marriage and 53% against. And that was just among those that voted. The plain fact is that it was conservative voter turnout that helped those figures. So don't go cursing Maine because for such a small minority that gays are, we are gaining friends and allies. According to polls done at a university in Maine gay marriage was supported by 81% http://bill-in-portland-maine.dailykos.com/Final numbers are in from [University of Maine]-Orono campus- 81% No, 19% Yes Things will shift towards gays as the old bigots die off.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 7:23 AM GMT
OK, same sex marriage from long ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Same-sex_marriage "Same-sex marriage Main article: Same-sex marriage#History While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, recent publicity and debate over the past decade gives an impression that civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples is novel and untested. There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[42] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex marriage was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome,[42] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[43] A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in AD 342 prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[44] |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 7:27 AM GMT
...and a little early christian history to round it out:
" From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Marriage in sixth-century Europe has been characterized as political polygamy. The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquired four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother's wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king.[24]
In the twelfth century, aristocrats believed love was incompatible with marriage and sought romance in adultery.[24] Troubadors invented courtly love which involved secret but chaste trysts between a lover and a beloved.
In fourteenth-century Europe, ordinary people could no longer choose whom to marry. The lord of one Black Forest manor decreed in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants—including widows and widowers—marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner had to pay a fee.[24]
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 7:35 AM GMT
meninlove saidOK, same sex marriage from long ago Don't tell NOM and the homophobes this .. facts cramp their style |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 8:06 AM GMT
meninlove said
...and a little early christian history to round it out:
" From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Marriage in sixth-century Europe has been characterized as political polygamy. The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquired four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother's wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king.[24]
In the twelfth century, aristocrats believed love was incompatible with marriage and sought romance in adultery.[24] Troubadors invented courtly love which involved secret but chaste trysts between a lover and a beloved.
In fourteenth-century Europe, ordinary people could no longer choose whom to marry. The lord of one Black Forest manor decreed in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants—including widows and widowers—marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner had to pay a fee.[24]
It is not like the "European history" invented the gay marriage. Don't forget Saints Sergius and Bacchus they both were Syrians and was an early Christian gay couples and had same-sex unions. Jesus was their best man in their wedding. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 8:51 AM GMT
zeebyaboi saidjoeyveras said
You want to see examples of societies that did practice marriage without religion?
The early Arabians. The Egyptians (who were NOT bound by organized religion, but practiced polytheism). The European Pagans, who were spiritual but not religious. There is a difference. And since when did early civilizations not have a government? Egypt had a government that lasted for many hundreds, maybe even a few thousand, years. Before Christ. What about the Roman Empire? How about the Greeks, the Mesopotamians? The Phonecians?
Maybe you should go back to high school and study again. You're clearly not college material. . I'm not gonna stoop to your level. Below you will find definitions and links that show some of the things that I've researched. I'm not gonna spend anymore time on this sidebar because it really doesn't play a major role in whether we should get the protections and benefits that we deserve. All of the early civilizations you speak of had religion intertwined within their societal structure (if you want to call it government) which guided their laws, including marriage laws. Polytheism is still religion and in fact was the most commonly practiced in the world before the West colonized most of the world and Paganism is also a form of religion. DEFINITION: Paganism Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as the equivalent of Polytheism (q.v.). It is derived from the Latin pagus, whence pagani (i. e. those who live in the country), a name given to the country folk who remained heathen after the cities had become Christian. Various forms of Paganism are described in special articles (e.g. Brahminism, Buddhism, Mithraism); the present article deals only with certain aspects of Paganism in general which will be helpful in studying its details and in judging its value. Polytheism Belief in many gods. Though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic (see monotheism), most other religions throughout history have been polytheistic. The numerous gods may be dominated by a supreme god or by a small group of powerful gods. The gods originated as abstractions of the forces of nature such as the sky or the sea and of human and social functions such as love, war, marriage, or the arts. In many religions the sky god is powerful and all-knowing (e.g., Dievs), and the earth goddess is maternal and associated with fertility. Gods of death and the underworld (e.g., Osiris and Hel) are also important. In addition to many gods, polytheistic religions generally also include malevolent or benevolent spiritual forces or powers. See also god and goddess. The following links show that these early civilizations were in fact guided by religious beliefs. early Arabians (otherwise known as Canannites) http://history-world.org/canaanite_culture_and_religion.htmEgyptians http://www2.sptimes.com/Egypt/EgyptCredit.4.3.htmlPhoenicians http://phoenicia.org/pagan.htmlMesopotamians http://www.dl.ket.org/humanities/connections/class/ancient/mesopreligion.htmRoman Empire: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/romanempire.htmlAncient Greece: http://library.thinkquest.org/28111/newpage2.htmFor the longest time I couldn't find any information about homosexual marriages in ancient civilizaitons until today. I found this one and while I'm not sure how credible the evidence is at this time, It's still fascinating: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-17-2004-56743.aspLook, we all want the same thing but for the life of me I still can't understand why it needs to be called Marriage. Can't we atleast agree that what's most important is the protections and benefits that come with the law we fight for. I feel that it's a much longer road to victory if we try to change Marriage to include same sex unions rather than fighting for the expansion of domestic partnership laws. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 8:55 AM GMT
sxydrkhair said Don't forget Saints Sergius and Bacchus they both were Syrians and was an early Christian gay couples and had same-sex unions. Jesus was their best man in their wedding. er, probably not. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 11:35 AM GMT
joeyveras saidOutdoorMutt saidsouthbeach1500 saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less.
I happen to agree with you.
Perhaps there are some of us who do not care to be second class citizens?
If you get your way, will you give us second class tax rates along with the second class rights you propose?
It's not that simple. See, marriage is a religious institution. Religion does not change laws to fit its congregation. We shouldn't feel that we are second class citizens because our union isn't accepted by religion as heterosexual marriages are. That doesn't make us second class, just different. The term used shouldn't matter to us. The rights that come with said term is all that should matter to us. I do not agree with your claim, and here is why. If marriage really is a religious institution, then why do people go to the government for a license? Baptism is a religious institution, no one goes to the government for a license to get baptized. No, marriage is a legal institution with a legally defined set of rights and responsibilities that go with it, and enforced by the power of the state. It is not about the "term" as you put it. If I have a civil union, and go out of the country with my partner, to say, Canada, and he gets hurt, we have no legal relationship to protect us, since we are not married. If we were married, then we would have that protection. Ask any of your straight married friends, if they would willingly trade in their marriage for a civil union or domestic partnership. Better yet, ask your parents if it matters to them if they are married or not. Would they say that it does not matter to them? I am glad we did not listen to those who think like you, that we should shut up and accept second class citizenship, when we worked hard, and passed full legal marriage equality here in Vermont earlier this year. So even though you do are OK with not having marriage equality, feel free to come to Vermont, or Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or Iowa, or soon to be, New Hampshire, and get legally married. Of course, there is always Canada, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden and South Africa. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 2:34 PM GMT
1969er saidTimberoo saidI never felt a strong urge to go to Maine on vacation, and you can bet your ass now I won't unless this gets repealed.
Why? Who will you be hurting? The legislators and the Governor favored marriage equality. Almost half the voters did. Unless they released the names of those that signed the petition to get on the ballot, there's no way to target the "bad" ones without hurting the good people there. Almost half the voters that turned out, how many didn't do bother to vote? IF they couldn't turn out at polls to vote, why should I feel bad about not wanting to go there? |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:09 PM GMT
Timberoo said1969er saidTimberoo saidI never felt a strong urge to go to Maine on vacation, and you can bet your ass now I won't unless this gets repealed.
Why? Who will you be hurting? The legislators and the Governor favored marriage equality. Almost half the voters did. Unless they released the names of those that signed the petition to get on the ballot, there's no way to target the "bad" ones without hurting the good people there.
Almost half the voters that turned out, how many didn't do bother to vote? IF they couldn't turn out at polls to vote, why should I feel bad about not wanting to go there? Feel free to spend your vacation dollars in a place that welcomes you as equal, and help their economy. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:13 PM GMT
I think the only way to handle this is going to be on a federal level and make all these states abide by gay marriage.
I think alot of states would still be against interracial marriage and all that jazz if they had not passed that federally also.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:14 PM GMT
Actually, these losses are progress beyond belief. When I first came out in the late 1970's, gay men were considered worse than murderers, depicted as depraved by mainstream media. The fact that we are even having these votes with close counts is miraculous. The rights of people are meant to be enshrined in the Constitution and beyond the reach of popular will. We haven't reached that status yet. However, popular will is gaining, which is a good thing.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:20 PM GMT
Timberoo said1969er saidTimberoo saidI never felt a strong urge to go to Maine on vacation, and you can bet your ass now I won't unless this gets repealed.
Why? Who will you be hurting? The legislators and the Governor favored marriage equality. Almost half the voters did. Unless they released the names of those that signed the petition to get on the ballot, there's no way to target the "bad" ones without hurting the good people there.
Almost half the voters that turned out, how many didn't do bother to vote? IF they couldn't turn out at polls to vote, why should I feel bad about not wanting to go there? Timberoo, the turnout was actually huge for an off-year election, and far exceeded the Secretary of State original estimates for voter turnout. People in Maine cared deeply about this on both sides. And we have a lot of allies there: Bangor voted for us 54%-45%, Rockport voted for us 58%-42%, Kennebunkport voted for us 61%-39%, Bath voted for us 65%-35%, Oqunquit voted for us 67%-32%, Bar Harbour voted for us 71%-29% and Portland voted for us 74%-26%. And those are all the places you would want to go on vacation anyways. Who the heck would want to go to Aroostook County anyways? |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:31 PM GMT
Another thing the Maine results underscore again is the same thing that we found in the Prop 8 vote post-mortem. Education, education, education! All the areas where the population tends to have higher income levels, a younger, more dynamic population, and a higher percentage of people with college degrees and better educated overall are the areas that voted for us. The areas of Maine that voted against marriage equality are the ones where the majority of people probably never went beyond high school, if even that. That's exactly the same as what happened in California. Dissection of the post-Prop 8 vote showed that level of education attained was the single best predictor of how a person voted on Prop 8: the less educated a voter was, the more likely they were to vote for Prop 8.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:32 PM GMT
OutdoorMutt saidjoeyveras saidOutdoorMutt saidsouthbeach1500 saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less.
I happen to agree with you.
Perhaps there are some of us who do not care to be second class citizens?
If you get your way, will you give us second class tax rates along with the second class rights you propose?
It's not that simple. See, marriage is a religious institution. Religion does not change laws to fit its congregation. We shouldn't feel that we are second class citizens because our union isn't accepted by religion as heterosexual marriages are. That doesn't make us second class, just different. The term used shouldn't matter to us. The rights that come with said term is all that should matter to us.
I do not agree with your claim, and here is why. If marriage really is a religious institution, then why do people go to the government for a license? Baptism is a religious institution, no one goes to the government for a license to get baptized. No, marriage is a legal institution with a legally defined set of rights and responsibilities that go with it, and enforced by the power of the state.
It is not about the "term" as you put it. If I have a civil union, and go out of the country with my partner, to say, Canada, and he gets hurt, we have no legal relationship to protect us, since we are not married.
If we were married, then we would have that protection.
Ask any of your straight married friends, if they would willingly trade in their marriage for a civil union or domestic partnership. Better yet, ask your parents if it matters to them if they are married or not. Would they say that it does not matter to them?
I am glad we did not listen to those who think like you, that we should shut up and accept second class citizenship, when we worked hard, and passed full legal marriage equality here in Vermont earlier this year.
So even though you do are OK with not having marriage equality, feel free to come to Vermont, or Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or Iowa, or soon to be, New Hampshire, and get legally married. Of course, there is always Canada, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden and South Africa. EDIT: You go to the government for a license because you need the acknowledgement of the State when it comes to issues such as taxes, insurance, property, etc. If you're referring to marriage licenses, we go to the gov't because they want to ensure that you're not related, old enough, etc. There's no doubt that it's changing ever so slowly but isn't it pretty stupid that the laws are so dramatic from one state to another? My point is we need to stop calling it Marriage in order to get the what we want across the board. I feel that if we fight for the expansion of domestic partnership / civil union laws on the federal level we'll have a shorter road to victory. I don't see them accepting same sex Marriages on the Federal level while keeping heterosexual marriages governed by the State. I'd love it if I were wrong but I don't believe in the powers that be that much. In MA, VT, CT, and IA, they call it Marriage but you still don't have Federal protections and benefits. That screams second class citenzenship to me. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:38 PM GMT
We think that because there are a few places now in the US where it's called marriage (no if ands or buts), it may have to roll out the way interraccial marriages did in 1967.....and there are STILL religious people in the US against it. http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/684160 |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:46 PM GMT
Lostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that. my sentiments exactly- this simply ISN'T a majority vote issue. why the government doesn't see this is beyond me. these laws and court decisions need to stand, regardless of how big a tantrum the christians throw- its human civil rights here, not a popularity contest. i was wondering what city to move to when i graduate in a year, but maybe i'll just move to a better country  |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:47 PM GMT
We can call it Marriage until we're blue in the face but if we don't have the same protections and benefits that heterosexuals have is it still Marriage? This is why I feel that we need to push for the expansion of domestic partnership laws on the Federal level.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 3:57 PM GMT
how many have seen Angels in America? great movie- remember that scene where the nasty lawyer is being told by his doctor that he has AIDS, and he says he doesn't because he's not gay, to which the doctor tells him that he KNOWS he's had sex with many many men, as a medical fact? remember the lawyer's response? he says that he's not gay, because the gays are a group of sad little souls with no political clout, who have tried for X number of decades to pass a few simple civil rights bills and have continued to fail utterly- completely impotent. HE, on the other hand, has lots of clout (as a closet case), and therefor can not be gay on record. its a harsh scene, as its brutally honest about the inability of the gay community as a group to do more than whine and bitch about its major issues- completely politically inadequate. i winced when i heard him say that the first time, and now i'm sad because its brutal honesty just keeps validating itself...
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 4:08 PM GMT
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 4:09 PM GMT
czarodziej saidhow many have seen Angels in America? great movie- remember that scene where the nasty lawyer is being told by his doctor that he has AIDS, and he says he doesn't because he's not gay, to which the doctor tells him that he KNOWS he's had sex with many many men, as a medical fact? remember the lawyer's response? he says that he's not gay, because the gays are a group of sad little souls with no political clout, who have tried for X number of decades to pass a few simple civil rights bills and have continued to fail utterly- completely impotent. HE, on the other hand, has lots of clout (as a closet case), and therefor can not be gay on record. its a harsh scene, as its brutally honest about the inability of the gay community as a group to do more than whine and bitch about its major issues- completely politically inadequate. i winced when i heard him say that the first time, and now i'm sad because its brutal honesty just keeps validating itself... Yeah, it is a powerful movie. I just watched it last week too. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 4:38 PM GMT
maybe instead of weakly being on the defense all the time, trying to justify our human rights to a majority of trailer trash and jesus freaks, we should aim at an offensive, and attack their rights as best we can. i mean, if they care so much about the sanctity of marriage, why not illegalize divorce? surely divorce is the greatest enemy of the "family" and its super-duper-important role in american values and culture? or illegalize the ability for single moms and dads to retain custody of their children- children, as we all know, NEED a father and a mother figure to grow up sane.
or we could just blow baptist churches up lol.
seriously, i wanna see us get MEAN. this ghandi shit we've been pulling for the last several decades has gotten us NOWHERE. we haven't won the hearts of the straight majority by being nice, and we haven't won anyone over by fighting fair- they certainly aren't. not saying we need the gay equivalent of the Black Panthers, but wouldn't it be nice if we actually got that mad about being second rate citizens? if someone actually stepped up to the plate and made people listen with a little bit of genuine outrage? not saying we could officially condone it, but seriously folks, if i saw that someone had started lighting fire to the most outspoken of the nut-job churches, i think i'd clap and maybe do a little dance in front of the tv...
oh and maybe, instead of fighting so hard to get the military to let the gay kids play too, we should just have all the gays quit the military- every single fairy one of them, and see how they feel about that missing chunk. maybe they'd beg us to come back, when they see how many of their ranks suck cock, before having to institute a draft and abduct the straight youth of america.
ok, done ranting now- thanks.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 4:59 PM GMT
joeyveras saidWe can call it Marriage until we're blue in the face but if we don't have the same protections and benefits that heterosexuals have is it still Marriage? This is why I feel that we need to push for the expansion of domestic partnership laws on the Federal level. If anyone is satisfied with being second class, that is their issue and their right. Just do not stand in the way of those of us who are proud of who we are and will accept nothing less than equal treatment under the law. It may take 50 years, maybe more. It took African-Americans about 350 years to achieve equal protection under law. I am sure it will not take us that long. Come along for the ride, or not, just do not try and stop those of us who will not accept anything less. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 5:17 PM GMT
OutdoorMutt saidjoeyveras saidWe can call it Marriage until we're blue in the face but if we don't have the same protections and benefits that heterosexuals have is it still Marriage? This is why I feel that we need to push for the expansion of domestic partnership laws on the Federal level.
If anyone is satisfied with being second class, that is their issue and their right. Just do not stand in the way of those of us who are proud of who we are and will accept nothing less than equal treatment under the law. It may take 50 years, maybe more. It took African-Americans about 350 years to achieve equal protection under law. I am sure it will not take us that long.
Come along for the ride, or not, just do not try and stop those of us who will not accept anything less. Your response leads me to believe that you're not even reading my posts. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 5:21 PM GMT
Czarodziej, you nailed it! I don't recall ever feeling as discouraged and disillusioned as I did yesterday upon learning that Maine voters fell for the dishonest, petty and crass misinformation campaign against the LGBT community. It is time to take the fight to THEM--to that fundamentalist filth, that evangelical effluvia who seem to believe that our existence as human beings and our birthrights as American citizens can be voted upon and rescinded.
What angers me is that the Catholic Church spent over $500,000 in Maine to deny us civil equality. No one was or is asking to get married in the Church or any church for that matter. Yet, the Catholic Church was able to blatantly campaign against civil equality using lies, untruths and religious-based arguments. That is an outrage. It is time to petition the IRS and Congress that their tax-exempt status be revoked.
We must fight back! For example, there is a wealth of information on biblical interpretation which offers solid facts to counter the usual evangelical misintepretations of the Bible that are used against LGBT people. It must be emphasized that marriage equality is a CIVIL issue not a religious issue. We must find a way to drive these points home so that people can see just how dangerous it is to take away a citizen's rights simply by a majority vote.
If we don't pull together and fight back, we may find ourselves in 2010 and then 2012 with a republicon majority once again. It would then be conceivable that there would be a Constitutional amendment against marriage equality or worse), or one declaring that America is a "christian" nation.
And, if it comes down to it, we must be ready to get physical with them. They harm one of us; we retaliate in kind. The time for wimpy commercials and fabulous fund raisers is OVER. This is a fight for our rights as citizens and our LIVES! It is no accident that violence against LGBT people has increased incrementally with the successful campaigns by NOM, FOF and other seditious religious groups. This evangelical, fundamentalist scourge has got to be STOPPED and stopped NOW. And I emphasize that it may just get to that point that we will have to do so BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 5:28 PM GMT
This greatly saddened me when I heard it
It's one thing to have one of those lame-ass southern knuckle dragging states like South Carolina to do this but a State in the Northeast?
You'd think they were a little more progressive than that
It goes to show how much we are disliked when the "hoods" come off
Then again I don't understand why civil rights issues where the very definition of the term means the tyranny of the majority oppresses a minority
How can that ever win in a popular election?
This needs to be adjudicated through the courts not the ballot box
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 5:38 PM GMT
OutdoorMutt saidjoeyveras saidWe can call it Marriage until we're blue in the face but if we don't have the same protections and benefits that heterosexuals have is it still Marriage? This is why I feel that we need to push for the expansion of domestic partnership laws on the Federal level.
If anyone is satisfied with being second class, that is their issue and their right. Just do not stand in the way of those of us who are proud of who we are and will accept nothing less than equal treatment under the law. It may take 50 years, maybe more. It took African-Americans about 350 years to achieve equal protection under law. I am sure it will not take us that long.
Come along for the ride, or not, just do not try and stop those of us who will not accept anything less. How long must gays be forced as slaves to work the fields - that never happened to gays; How long must gays wait be prevented from voting - that also never happened to gays; How long must gays wait for those who beat us to actually be held accountable without local gov't turning a blind eye - hate crime laws took care of that; How long till gays will no longer be denied housing and employment - antidiscrimination laws took take of that. How long till gays will be allowed to have sexual relations as they wish - sodomy laws have already be struck down; How long till gays will recieve full marriage rights - that one is being worked on. African-Amercians suffered much worse than gays EVER did so I would be hesitant to make that comparison. Also, gays have and continue to make get strides in legal protection. Really the only "issue" we currently have is gay marriage. Personally, I don't want to get "married", but I support the right of gay couples that do. It also seems, however, that the vast majority of gays are not serious about being in a monogamous relationship much less being "married" themselves. Just look how short lived and filled with cheating most gay relationships are. For most gays the whole "gay marriage" thing really is just a political issue. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 6:27 PM GMT
How long were gays forced into electroshock therapy to be cured?
How much long will parents force their gay child into reparative conversion therapy?
How many more gay children will be forced to live on the street because they parents hate them, for who they are?
How many more lesbians will be raped, so they can be "cured" ?
How long were gay people put in prison, simply because they were gay?
How long must gay people continue to be subject to fag bashing?
How long will the religious right continue to demonize gay people, because of who WE are?
How long will gay people in many countries around the world be subject to torture, hanging, and stoning?
How much longer will it take for some gay people to have enough self pride that they stand up and demand equal treatment under the law?
When will gay men stop making up excuses for their abusers?
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 6:35 PM GMT
phemt saidAfrican-Amercians suffered much worse than gays EVER did so ... so we shouldn't stand up for equal rights? |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 6:39 PM GMT
OutdoorMutt saidHow long were gays forced into electroshock therapy to be cured? - no longer done. The APA recongizes homosexuality as natural
How much long will parents force their gay child into reparative conversion therapy? - some people are so programmed to hate gays they can't stand to have their own child being gay. This is not the gov't doing this though.
How many more gay children will be forced to live on the street because they parents hate them, for who they are? - again some people are so programmed to hate gays they can't stand to have their own child being gay. This is not, however, a legal issue and has nothing to do with "treatment under the law".
How many more lesbians will be raped, so they can be "cured" ? Are you suggesting those that rape lesbians will not be charged with rape "under the law"?
How long were gay people put in prison, simply because they were gay? This is no longer the case - at least in the USA.
How long must gay people continue to be subject to fag bashing? Federal hate-crime laws make sure that bashers are punished under the law.
How long will the religious right continue to demonize gay people, because of who they are? The gov't can not tell religious leaders what the preach. Again nothing to do with "equal treatment under the law".
How long will gay people in many countries around the world be subject to torture, hanging, and stoning? I thought we were just discussing the USA. Yes in other countries gays do not have protection under the law.
How much long will it take for some gay people to have enough self pride that they stand up and demand equal treatment under the law? Gays have formed a strong lobbying force that has and continues to demand equal treatment under the law.
When will gay men stop making up excuses for their abusers? Ask Gay Catholics that one.
So in question to you: besides the issue of same-sex marriage where are guys not treated equally under the law? |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 6:45 PM GMT
OutdoorMutt saidHow long were gays forced into electroshock therapy to be cured?
How much long will parents force their gay child into reparative conversion therapy?
How many more gay children will be forced to live on the street because they parents hate them, for who they are?
How many more lesbians will be raped, so they can be "cured" ?
How long were gay people put in prison, simply because they were gay?
How long must gay people continue to be subject to fag bashing?
How long will the religious right continue to demonize gay people, because of who WE are?
How long will gay people in many countries around the world be subject to torture, hanging, and stoning?
How much longer will it take for some gay people to have enough self pride that they stand up and demand equal treatment under the law?
When will gay men stop making up excuses for their abusers?
OOHH right. You forgot: How much longer will it take until gay kids are no longer taunted, tortured, and humiliated in school, ultimately forcing them to commit suicide? *wording?* |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 6:45 PM GMT
Anyone who supports the Catholic Church is a Uncle Tom as far as I am concerned. I don't see how any gay person could associate with this religion or those who support it. Maybe a boycott of the Catholic Church and trying to get those who give to it in this country might help.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 6:52 PM GMT
phemt saidOutdoorMutt saidHow long were gays forced into electroshock therapy to be cured?
How much long will parents force their gay child into reparative conversion therapy? - no longer done. Oh really? And on what planet are you living?
The APA recongizes homosexuality as natural
How many more gay children will be forced to live on the street because they parents hate them, for who they are? - some people are so programmed to hate gays they can't stand to have their own child being gay. This is not, however, a legal issue and has nothing to do with "treatment under the law".
How many more lesbians will be raped, so they can be "cured" ? Are you suggesting those that rape lesbians will not be charged with rape "under the law"? In many cases, it is not. The victim is terrorized into silence.
How long were gay people put in prison, simply because they were gay? This is no longer the case - at least in the USA. It was not that long aog that it was happening in the USA. It was happening my lifetime. The world did not start when you were born.
How long must gay people continue to be subject to fag bashing? Federal hate-crime laws make sure that bashers are punished under the law. And when did this happen? 2009 perhaps? It did not come about because gay people knew their place, but stood up and demanded equality.
How long will the religious right continue to demonize gay people, because of who they are? The gov't can not tell religious leaders what the preach.
No one said it should.
How long will gay people in many countries around the world be subject to torture, hanging, and stoning? I thought we were just discussing the USA. Yes in other countries gays do not have protection under the law. And neither do we here in the US. In most states we can still be fired, because of being gay. No other reason required.
How much long will it take for some gay people to have enough self pride that they stand up and demand equal treatment under the law? Gays have a strong lobbying that has and continues to demand equal treatment under the law. So, that means you support marriage equality I assume? And if we are so powerful, why has it not happened? Why can we still be fired for being gay?
When will gay men stop making up excuses for their abusers? Ask Gay Catholics that one. Not just gay catholics.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 7:01 PM GMT
_chuck_ saidphemt saidAfrican-Amercians suffered much worse than gays EVER did so
... so we shouldn't stand up for equal rights? Of couse we should. I am just saying that the "gay marriage" issue is no where on par with what was being fought for during the civil rights. But an injustice is an injustice however small it might be. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 7:03 PM GMT
phemt saidOutdoorMutt saidHow long were gays forced into electroshock therapy to be cured? - no longer done. The APA recongizes homosexuality as natural
How much long will parents force their gay child into reparative conversion therapy? - some people are so programmed to hate gays they can't stand to have their own child being gay. This is not the gov't doing this though.
How many more gay children will be forced to live on the street because they parents hate them, for who they are? - again some people are so programmed to hate gays they can't stand to have their own child being gay. This is not, however, a legal issue and has nothing to do with "treatment under the law".
How many more lesbians will be raped, so they can be "cured" ? Are you suggesting those that rape lesbians will not be charged with rape "under the law"?
How long were gay people put in prison, simply because they were gay? This is no longer the case - at least in the USA.
How long must gay people continue to be subject to fag bashing? Federal hate-crime laws make sure that bashers are punished under the law.
How long will the religious right continue to demonize gay people, because of who they are? The gov't can not tell religious leaders what the preach. Again nothing to do with "equal treatment under the law".
How long will gay people in many countries around the world be subject to torture, hanging, and stoning? I thought we were just discussing the USA. Yes in other countries gays do not have protection under the law.
How much long will it take for some gay people to have enough self pride that they stand up and demand equal treatment under the law? Gays have formed a strong lobbying force that has and continues to demand equal treatment under the law.
When will gay men stop making up excuses for their abusers? Ask Gay Catholics that one.
So in question to you: besides the issue of same-sex marriage where are guys not treated equally under the law?
Edit: gays also don't have the right to openly serve in the military |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 7:07 PM GMT
OutdoorMutt saidphemt saidOutdoorMutt said
...
How much long will parents force their gay child into reparative conversion therapy? - no longer done. Oh really? And on what planet are you living?
Of course it is done. During my editing response to your message I put that response in the wrong place. Parents often treat gay childred badly - that is not a legal treatment under the law issue though.
...
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 7:20 PM GMT
Let's make a list of how gays are currently treated as 2nd class citizens "under the law". Only things of a legal nature count. How parents or churches treat homosexuality are not legal matters (unless there is abuse). I'll start the list:
1. Are unable to enter legal marriage
2. Are unable to openly serve in the military
We can discuess each item if it really is an issue of being treated as 2nd class citizen "under the law issue". Remember only current issues count.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 7:43 PM GMT
OutdoorMutt saidphemt saidOutdoorMutt said
...
How many more lesbians will be raped, so they can be "cured" ? Are you suggesting those that rape lesbians will not be charged with rape "under the law"? In many cases, it is not. The victim is terrorized into silence.
...
This is an issue of being a rape victim. Victims of rape are often silent due to the terror of what happened. The court of law dosn't treat lesbian victims of rape any differently though - this is not an example of unequal "treatment under the law". |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 7:58 PM GMT
The people vote because we are in a democracy, supposedly where people have the right to decide on things in this country. They voted and it's over so get over it. No matter what the outcome would have been, someone somewhere is going to be angry over it. You can never please everyone!! So when you say Christians are gonna have a tantrum over it if it were passed, aren't you having a tantrum cuz it wasn't passed Plus, marriage is not a human civil rights issue. As far as I am concerned, it IS a legal and religious issue |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 7:59 PM GMT
No excuse for the state of Maine . No excuse .
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 8:11 PM GMT
Jmuscle33 saidmarriage is not a human civil rights issue. In Loving v Virginia the SCOTUS said: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 8:21 PM GMT
Our basic rights to be treated as equal citizens shouldn't be a matter of popular opinion. It would have been wonderful to have won this battle, but in the long run winning gay rights to marry at the state level is a partial victory. We really want the benefits of marriage and all the protections of full citizenship that Federal recognition will give us. We aren't going to win this by referendum, it's going to have to come through the Courts or from Congress.
The addition of gays, and lesbians to the hate crimes act is a good first step. I have seen things change more than I ever thought possible in my life time, but we still have a long way to go!
At least we gave them a good fight. It wasn't a total blow out. I guess 47% of the people in Maine Supported gay marriage. It's not a majority, but much closer than in VA a few years ago. We have certainly changed a lot of minds over the past 10 years. In the long run, the clock is running out for bigotry! The younger generation get's it and they are the future.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 8:36 PM GMT
Reaction from a good friend :
" Well , thank you President Obama for the NOTHING that you did in MAINE! I guess you were too busy in NJ shilling for governor Jon Corzine, the king of corruption and sleaze. I'm thrilled that Corzine lost."
Uh, yah , what he said .
7 hours ago · Delete
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 8:42 PM GMT
joeyveras saidOutdoorMutt saidsouthbeach1500 saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less.
I happen to agree with you.
Perhaps there are some of us who do not care to be second class citizens?
If you get your way, will you give us second class tax rates along with the second class rights you propose?
It's not that simple. See, marriage is a religious institution. Religion does not change laws to fit its congregation. We shouldn't feel that we are second class citizens because our union isn't accepted by religion as heterosexual marriages are. That doesn't make us second class, just different. The term used shouldn't matter to us. The rights that come with said term is all that should matter to us. Actually, "marriage" is both a secular and religious institution. The issue gets confused because religion acts as a proxy for the state in performing many marriages. Marriage as a legal institution predates the church becoming involved in marriage by centuries (remember there was civilization long before the church took power). But there are two separate things: the legal relationship which is regulated by the state and the religious recognition which belongs only to the particular religious tradition. Therefore, you can have marriages which are performed by a religion but which has no legal status. And you can have marriages which exist legally without ever having religion involved (think justice of the peace). However the term DOES matter. Law in the US/English tradition is accumulative: the notion of marriage has acquired hundreds if not thousands of rights and responsibilities through years of rulings. The term civil union can only have all and everyone of the rights of marriage if those hundreds of rights are specifically enumerated in the legislation....a nearly impossible task. In order to genuinely have equal rights in our legal system, then the use of the term "marriage" really is necessary. It also is a powerful symbol of equality under the law....esp. as was found in Brown vs. the Board of Education, "separate but equal" is never "equal." For the record, I'm not an attorney, just an interested amateur. So if those with legal training need to add or correct something here, please do. |
|
|
Nov 05, 2009 9:57 PM GMT
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 12:46 AM GMT
a2507 saidjoeyveras saidOutdoorMutt saidsouthbeach1500 saidbobrusso saidWhen will our political lobbies decide to stop losing this? I don't care what you call it, Marriage, Partner rights, Civil Unions, etc. Most people that vote against us, have issues with the word "Marriage". So call it something else. I don't give a rats ass what it's called. I just want the same benefits and securities.
You won't get anywhere with that one. These hard core gays on here (and fighting for gay "marriage") want marriage, and nothing less.
I happen to agree with you.
Perhaps there are some of us who do not care to be second class citizens?
If you get your way, will you give us second class tax rates along with the second class rights you propose?
It's not that simple. See, marriage is a religious institution. Religion does not change laws to fit its congregation. We shouldn't feel that we are second class citizens because our union isn't accepted by religion as heterosexual marriages are. That doesn't make us second class, just different. The term used shouldn't matter to us. The rights that come with said term is all that should matter to us.
Actually, "marriage" is both a secular and religious institution. The issue gets confused because religion acts as a proxy for the state in performing many marriages. Marriage as a legal institution predates the church becoming involved in marriage by centuries (remember there was civilization long before the church took power).
But there are two separate things: the legal relationship which is regulated by the state and the religious recognition which belongs only to the particular religious tradition. Therefore, you can have marriages which are performed by a religion but which has no legal status. And you can have marriages which exist legally without ever having religion involved (think justice of the peace).
However the term DOES matter. Law in the US/English tradition is accumulative: the notion of marriage has acquired hundreds if not thousands of rights and responsibilities through years of rulings. The term civil union can only have all and everyone of the rights of marriage if those hundreds of rights are specifically enumerated in the legislation....a nearly impossible task. In order to genuinely have equal rights in our legal system, then the use of the term "marriage" really is necessary. It also is a powerful symbol of equality under the law....esp. as was found in Brown vs. the Board of Education, "separate but equal" is never "equal."
For the record, I'm not an attorney, just an interested amateur. So if those with legal training need to add or correct something here, please do.
Ok. This is the best argument I've heard yet. Thank you. While I disagree with your claim that marriage was practiced before religion (think ancient tribes), I agree with your statements regarding the laws of marriage in the US. Now we're left with how should we fight to push it through on the Federal level. I suppose you're argument is that we should pursue civil marriage rights regardless of how long that may take. My argument is to push for the expansion of those rights at the Federal level under domestic partnership because I think that's attainable faster. |
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 2:22 AM GMT
meninlove said
Here ya go, Phemt, take a look at all the uncoloured states in this map. Only the ones in colour have any kind of non-discrimination laws to protect gays.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/issue_maps/non_discrimination_7_09_color.pdf Thanks for the information. I have to admit I am embarrassed I didn't know this. I never, or know any other homosexuals personally, who ever had any work/job issues over being gay. Every job I ever had I recall the employee handbook listing sexual orientation as one of the protected groups from worksite discrimination. Maybe this is because I am in Illinois - one of the states with anti-discrimination laws protecting sexual orientation (but wasn't an offical law till 2005!). I just looked up the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Laws, and Sexual Orientation is not listed: "prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin". Why is religion (something that is a choice) protected, but not sexual orientation(something that isn't a choice). This is outragous! |
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 2:47 AM GMT
Hey Phemt, we were a little surprised as well the first time we saw the map; there at least two here on RJ that had topics started about this because it happened to them:
jprichva and YnghungSFSD.
We were saying earlier on this topic or one of the others about this that perhaps basic rights and civil unions in the US need to be fought for and eventually, once you're all equal, they'll call it what it is; marriage.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 3:04 AM GMT
phemt saidAfrican-Amercians suffered much worse than gays EVER did so I would be hesitant to make that comparison. Also, gays have and continue to make get strides in legal protection. Really the only "issue" we currently have is gay marriage. Personally, I don't want to get "married", but I support the right of gay couples that do. It also seems, however, that the vast majority of gays are not serious about being in a monogamous relationship much less being "married" themselves. Just look how short lived and filled with cheating most gay relationships are. For most gays the whole "gay marriage" thing really is just a political issue. You really need to look more into the history and treatment of gays in history since the intrusion of Christianity into western civilization. Death sentences, torture, imprisonment, castration, burned alive, hanging, concentration camps, lobotomies, etc. Even in this country in the last century Gays were subject to random arrest and the denial of the basic right to congregate in public places, beatings, and other denial of justice. I am sure there have been many gay people killed, thrown in a hole and forgotten. And in other parts of the world not far from us, gays are still subject to random brutal killings and torture to this day. There have been too many complacent and silent about the treatment and crimes against gays and so no one takes it seriously. It is an extreme dishonor to all the gays who have suffered unjustly to be dismissive of that history. Struck Dead and Hushed up:  |
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 3:11 AM GMT
meninlove said
Hey Phemt, we were a little surprised as well the first time we saw the map; there at least two here on RJ that had topics started about this because it happened to them:
jprichva and YnghungSFSD.
We were saying earlier on this topic or one of the others about this that perhaps basic rights and civil unions in the US need to be fought for and eventually, once you're all equal, they'll call it what it is; marriage.
I am glad you brought this up. I don't think people realize how many times people are denied employment or housing or fired because they are gay. Because the laws are scant and inconsistent, records are not really kept that well and some may choose not to pursue action for fear of further stigmatization. It is the same with violence against gays .. some choose not to report for those same reasons. |
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 4:01 AM GMT
ActiveAndFit saidphemt saidAfrican-Amercians suffered much worse than gays EVER did so I would be hesitant to make that comparison. Also, gays have and continue to make get strides in legal protection. Really the only "issue" we currently have is gay marriage. Personally, I don't want to get "married", but I support the right of gay couples that do. It also seems, however, that the vast majority of gays are not serious about being in a monogamous relationship much less being "married" themselves. Just look how short lived and filled with cheating most gay relationships are. For most gays the whole "gay marriage" thing really is just a political issue. You really need to look more into the history and treatment of gays in history since the intrusion of Christianity into western civilization.
Death sentences,
torture,
imprisonment,
castration,
burned alive,
hanging,
concentration camps,
lobotomies, etc.
Even in this country in the last century Gays were subject to random arrest and the denial of the basic right to congregate in public places, beatings, and other denial of justice. I am sure there have been many gay people killed, thrown in a hole and forgotten.
And in other parts of the world not far from us, gays are still subject to random brutal killings and torture to this day.
There have been too many complacent and silent about the treatment and crimes against gays and so no one takes it seriously. It is an extreme dishonor to all the gays who have suffered unjustly to be dismissive of that history.
Struck Dead and Hushed up:
I was referring to gays treatment in the USA only. I am well aware of the mistreat of gay throughout history. I might of been hasty in writing what I did and the point I was trying to make. Yes, gays have suffered greatly in the past. Currently though from a legal standpoint most of those injustices are no longer allowed. Gays can no longer legally be beaten or imprisoned for being gay in this country. The glass may not be completely filled, but let us not forget it is also more than half-filled when there was a time there was little, if no, water in the cup. |
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 5:08 AM GMT
phemt said, "The glass may not be completely filled, but let us not forget it is also more than half-filled when there was a time there was little, if no, water in the cup." Oh, and you'd be right, there. I remember in 1973 when it was decided that being gay in Canada no longer meant psychiatric deviation sometimes treated with drugs or electro-shock or even suggesting surgery (brain). I remember when it was illegal in Washington State. "In 1973, the Fair Employment Practice Ordinance passed by the Seattle City Council, protected gays and lesbians from discrimination at work. In 1976, Washington’s sodomy law was repealed, and the City of Seattle added sexual orientation to housing discrimination regulations." http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=4266 |
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 6:01 AM GMT
phemt saidI was referring to gays treatment in the USA only. I am well aware of the mistreat of gay throughout history. I might of been hasty in writing what I did and the point I was trying to make. Yes, gays have suffered greatly in the past. Currently though from a legal standpoint most of those injustices are no longer allowed. Gays can no longer legally be beaten or imprisoned for being gay in this country. The glass may not be completely filled, but let us not forget it is also more than half-filled when there was a time there was little, if no, water in the cup. That is true that gays have come a long way in the past 40 years, but remember it was just in 2003 that gay's were freed from anti-gay sex laws by the supreme court, and even still it is perfectly fine to fire someone or discriminate because sexual orientation in most of the USA. There are still those that would like to see gay's outlawed and recent events have showed that Gays in a bar can still be raided and mistreated by law enforcement even when they have done nothing wrong. So the point is that anti-gay sentiment is still perfectly acceptable in most of the country .. and yes people of all sorts are discriminated against but at least people know that other forms of discrimination are wrong and illegal. I think when people say .. "oh I don't have it so bad here" they forget how subtle and sudden things can turn, so there is this notion that a little bit of discrimination is not so bad. The whole time gay men in places Jamaica and Iraq are chopped up, skinned, or have their anuses glued shut. People really need to just understand how ugly homophobia can get. |
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 11:41 AM GMT
phemt saidphemt saidOutdoorMutt saidHow long were gays forced into electroshock therapy to be cured? - no longer done. The APA recongizes homosexuality as natural
How much long will parents force their gay child into reparative conversion therapy? - some people are so programmed to hate gays they can't stand to have their own child being gay. This is not the gov't doing this though.
How many more gay children will be forced to live on the street because they parents hate them, for who they are? - again some people are so programmed to hate gays they can't stand to have their own child being gay. This is not, however, a legal issue and has nothing to do with "treatment under the law".
How many more lesbians will be raped, so they can be "cured" ? Are you suggesting those that rape lesbians will not be charged with rape "under the law"?
How long were gay people put in prison, simply because they were gay? This is no longer the case - at least in the USA.
How long must gay people continue to be subject to fag bashing? Federal hate-crime laws make sure that bashers are punished under the law.
How long will the religious right continue to demonize gay people, because of who they are? The gov't can not tell religious leaders what the preach. Again nothing to do with "equal treatment under the law".
How long will gay people in many countries around the world be subject to torture, hanging, and stoning? I thought we were just discussing the USA. Yes in other countries gays do not have protection under the law.
How much long will it take for some gay people to have enough self pride that they stand up and demand equal treatment under the law? Gays have formed a strong lobbying force that has and continues to demand equal treatment under the law.
When will gay men stop making up excuses for their abusers? Ask Gay Catholics that one.
So in question to you: besides the issue of same-sex marriage where are guys not treated equally under the law?
Edit: gays also don't have the right to openly serve in the military Examples: In 29 states you can be fired for being gay (no other reason required) Only 12 states permit gay couple to adopt children (as a couple) 4 states completely prohibit gay people from adopting 26 states do not have anti-bullying laws protecting gay kids (24 states do) 14 states do not have any hate crimes laws protecting gay people 45 states prohibit marriage equality (5 do) |
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 12:37 PM GMT
Marriage is not sacred. Religious arguments mean shit unless you live in a theocracy. To prove my point, I challenge Jesus, God and that white pigeon known as the holy ghost to a duel. If they don't accept, they lose. They have 10 minutes, starting now.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 12:43 PM GMT
Heck, they can even throw in Mohammed the pedophile and the Virgin Mary for good measure.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 12:47 PM GMT
I win.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 3:48 PM GMT
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 3:51 PM GMT
McGay saidI win. Haha! Good for you. |
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 4:20 PM GMT
McGay saidMarriage is not sacred. Religious arguments mean shit unless you live in a theocracy. To prove my point, I challenge Jesus, God and that white pigeon known as the holy ghost to a duel. If they don't accept, they lose. They have 10 minutes, starting now. Hm ... ANOTHER no-show. |
|
|
Nov 06, 2009 4:37 PM GMT
McGay saidMarriage is not sacred. Religious arguments mean shit unless you live in a theocracy. To prove my point, I challenge Jesus, God and that white pigeon known as the holy ghost to a duel. If they don't accept, they lose. They have 10 minutes, starting now. Awwwww  can't we leave virgins and birdies out of this? They have enough problems as it is! Besides Ozzy Osbourne has already nixed a few doves .. And the doves might just be on our side: Dove attacks pope! |
|
|
Nov 07, 2009 5:50 AM GMT
southbeach1500 saidkscott6671 saidLostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
It's all right wing republican bull shit.
Yeah... ALL the Democrats support gay marriage, and ALL the Republicans are against it. It's all the fault of the Republicans. No Democrat voters had a hand in this defeat... Uh huh..... Let's modify the statement, then. What about this? It's all right wing Christian bullshit. I do not allow Christians on my property if they are here to save my soul, convert me, quote mythology to me, or try to get money for something. Since here in the South, Christians are represented by the Republican party in public policy, I do not allow Republicans on my property if they are soliciting my vote, my money, my signature, or my agreement. I did in fact have the distinct pleasure of telling one to leave my property before I called the police about a trespasser. He seemed startled since this area is overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christian. You know the kind that would feel right at home in a Southern Baptist theocracy. Despicable scum is how I think of Christians and Republicans. |
|
|
Nov 07, 2009 5:53 AM GMT
phemt saidOnce again the Catholic church proves to be against us. Every time the issue of gay marriage comes up - there is the Catholic Church openly oppossing it. This happens not only in the USA, but in Europe as well. FUCK the Catholic church, and fuck even more the Gay Uncle Tom's out there supporting the Catholic Church! As one who used to be considered a Catholic, I agree. I would add to that Protestant and Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, and whatever other mythological system you might list. |
|
|
Nov 07, 2009 5:58 AM GMT
cestfort2000 saidkscott6671 saidLostboy saidWhy do people´s rights get voted on by the general public? Sorry, I don´t understand that.
It's all right wing republican bull shit.
If i"m not mistaken, there are gay republicans. Just being a republican doesn't mean you are against gays getting married.
It might have been just as accurate to have blamed it on Sarah Palin or George Bush. Gay Republicans? No, there are male Republicans who fuck with men and female Republicans who eat a lot of fish, but gay Republican is an oxymoron similar to Nazi Jew, Marxist capitalist, or Protestant IRA. It is a combination of words that grammatically fit together but make no logical sense. |
|
|
Nov 07, 2009 6:18 AM GMT
Your/my Constitution has a provision about "equal protection" and we aint gettin' that. Time to f'in act up maybe?????
|
|
|
Nov 07, 2009 3:26 PM GMT
before one gets too critical of Maine, 47% of the residents supported gay equality. Of the slim majority in Maine and citizens across the US, we may wish to look AT OURSELVES AND WHAT WE PROJECT. We promote the most nelly of activities (not on RJ) such as drag, and in our park/beach/gym we have all seen the fat out of shape guy or obnoxious man who is crusing the kids and men...these are voters and what do they have to think of us? They remember being rudely crused by a man who followed them in the show/pool/park rubbing his crotch or rubbing up against them....
Yes we want to educated voters but also present a better image and police our own.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 07, 2009 3:44 PM GMT
worth saidwe may wish to look AT OURSELVES AND WHAT WE PROJECT. We promote the most nelly of activities (not on RJ) such as drag, and in our park/beach/gym we have all seen the fat out of shape guy or obnoxious man who is crusing the kids and men...these are voters and what do they have to think of us? They remember being rudely crused by a man who followed them in the show/pool/park rubbing his crotch or rubbing up against them....
Yes we want to educated voters but also present a better image and police our own. I agree that you can't blame ALL of the voters of maine, but when you say WE you are marching down that same homophobic road as the gay haters. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Homophobia is pretty much not based on fact or reason like most phobias. The campaign tactic commonly used against same-sex marriage is that if you have marriage, then schools will teach homosexuality in schools, not that gays prance around in neon speedos. It's a shame that some gays are so brainwashed by homophobic society that they have the same attitude that gays are innately defective and perverts. It is called Stockholm Syndrome. The ONLY blame for homophobia is the people who teach it and spread it. |
