BEST METHOD TO FORCE GAY RIGHTS NOW!

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

    Nov 04, 2009 6:27 PM GMT
    People have talked about not paying taxes, not going to work, etc, but I think many people would not risk going to jail for the good of the many. However, not SHOPPING except for necessities or only shopping at gay-owned businesses may be easier to get a concentrated effort.

    NO SHOPPING FOR A MONTH: JANUARY 2010

    still no rights

    NO SHOPPING FOR A MONTH: MARCH 2010

    This would be the fastest way to tank the economy, and I imagine tons of pro-gay str8s may help out. Just need a good slogan and t-shirts. icon_lol.gif

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

    Nov 04, 2009 7:30 PM GMT
    Come out of the closet, everyone.

    Hm... and to blather on a bit more.

    What is wrong with civil unions? Over 250 municipalities, counties, and towns have them. State wide civil unions would offer all the states rights that marriage does. And, of course, people will argue about separate but equal. And you know, I have yet to see a same-sex marriage that is equal. As no federal rights are attached to these marriages a gay marriage in Massachusetts is not the same as the hetero counterpart.

    I bet that Civil Unions are much easier to pass in states than marriage. It is an incremental step and I don't think we should necessarily let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 7:39 PM GMT
    Obama and the congress needs to take a stand and legalize it across the country, Enough of this state crap. It shouldn't even be on the ballot. If you put slavery on the ballot in Mississippi and it passes then we have slavery again. Well the same goes for gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 7:39 PM GMT
    Civil Unions say "less than equal". Marriage equality is more about sending a signal to the hetero crowd that we are to be TREATED equal, it's not really for us. In other worlds, when it is common knowledge that two same-sex people can get married, then it will be harder for others to treat us as less than equal, because we will be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 7:39 PM GMT
    Civil Unions ARE much easier to pass.
    And then later easier to expand. (see Washington proposition 71)


    Incremental Progress within the system along with whatever other methods are at our disposal. Its a long hard fight.
  • Barricade

    Posts: 457

    Nov 04, 2009 7:45 PM GMT
    zack322222 saidObama and the congress needs to take a stand and legalize it across the country, Enough of this state crap. It shouldn't even be on the ballot. If you put slavery on the ballot in Mississippi and it passes then we have slavery again. Well the same goes for gay marriage.



    Those are 2 completely different things! Race is apparent your sexuality is your choice to reveal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 7:45 PM GMT
    zack322222 saidObama and the congress needs to take a stand and legalize it across the country, Enough of this state crap. It shouldn't even be on the ballot. If you put slavery on the ballot in Mississippi and it passes then we have slavery again. Well the same goes for gay marriage.


    That, unfortunately, is quite unconstitutional... but then, so is DOMA.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Nov 04, 2009 7:46 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie said

    I bet that Civil Unions are much easier to pass in states than marriage.


    I have to disagree. I think the religious right sees any legal recognition of same sex couples as a 'threat to marriage'.

    I think the issue at hand is voter apathy. People don't care to go out and vote and it seems only the people against us are motivated to go to the polls.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 7:46 PM GMT
    Barricade said
    zack322222 saidObama and the congress needs to take a stand and legalize it across the country, Enough of this state crap. It shouldn't even be on the ballot. If you put slavery on the ballot in Mississippi and it passes then we have slavery again. Well the same goes for gay marriage.



    Those are 2 completely different things! Race is apparent your sexuality is your choice to reveal.


    Lest you're physical features allow you racial 'passing'.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 7:50 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidCivil unions in the states are fine... but the crux of the issue is Federal recognition. And that won't happen so long as the word "Marriage" is attached to this effort.

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

    Nov 04, 2009 7:52 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidCivil Unions say "less than equal". Marriage equality is more about sending a signal to the hetero crowd that we are to be TREATED equal, it's not really for us. In other worlds, when it is common knowledge that two same-sex people can get married, then it will be harder for others to treat us as less than equal, because we will be.



    I respectfully disagree. Civil Unions with the same protections as marriage says equal through and through. It's just a different name.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 7:53 PM GMT
    EasilyDistracted said
    southbeach1500 saidCivil unions in the states are fine... but the crux of the issue is Federal recognition. And that won't happen so long as the word "Marriage" is attached to this effort.

    Agreed


    I agree as well. Can someone tell me why does it need to be called marriage?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 7:57 PM GMT
    Because the civil term "marriage" comes with many many more rights and guarantees than the "civil unions" of today. If civil unions had all the same rights as a marriage, there wouldn't be such a push. But they don't.

    http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 7:58 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidCivil Unions say "less than equal". Marriage equality is more about sending a signal to the hetero crowd that we are to be TREATED equal, it's not really for us. In other worlds, when it is common knowledge that two same-sex people can get married, then it will be harder for others to treat us as less than equal, because we will be.


    I'm sorry but I don't agree, with Civil Unions means less than equal. Saying
    "Gay Marriage" Is giving the term marriage a diffrent meaning, that could be interpreted, as saying "Gay Marriage" is not the same as "Marriage", thats why we call it "Gay Marriage" because it's not the same, nor equal.

    Civil Union, takes away all the Religious connotations, and while those of you who are not willing to compromise on this issue. You are holding the rest back. Mother America still being a very religious country, you may fine the wheels of advancement start too roll forward.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 8:01 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidWhat is wrong with civil unions?

    They're now as illegal as gay marriage in most of the states that passed anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendments in the last decade. Republicans made sure that the wording of these amendments, though sold to voters as merely "protecting" traditional marriage, in fact bar any kind of legal domestic relationship, by any name, that's not between a man and a woman.

    No state law can be crafted that defies a state constitution, and so civil unions cannot be made legal in those states. A Federal court ruling can invalidate a state constitution's provisions, but that's unlikely to happen with all the Republican judges Bush put on the Federal bench. And states would appeal to the US Supreme Court, which likewise, with its conservative Republican majority, would side with the states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 8:01 PM GMT
    joeyveras said
    EasilyDistracted said
    southbeach1500 saidCivil unions in the states are fine... but the crux of the issue is Federal recognition. And that won't happen so long as the word "Marriage" is attached to this effort.

    Agreed


    I agree as well. Can someone tell me why does it need to be called marriage?


    What does it say about a society that has, effectively, the same rights for two groups of people, but categorically keeps them separate?

    To help flesh this thought out, what if we had marriage equality. Gay or straight you can get married. But, only white people could get married and everyone else had civil unions?

    Government represents the formal rules of our society, it says what we value. But, state civil unions with real rights given to real couples is better than nothing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 8:02 PM GMT
    joeyveras said
    wrestlervic saidCivil Unions say "less than equal". Marriage equality is more about sending a signal to the hetero crowd that we are to be TREATED equal, it's not really for us. In other worlds, when it is common knowledge that two same-sex people can get married, then it will be harder for others to treat us as less than equal, because we will be.



    I respectfully disagree. Civil Unions with the same protections as marriage says equal through and through. It's just a different name.


    Legalization of same sex marriage will not result in being treated equally, social prejudice and discrimination will not magically disappear, rainbows and butterflies won't populate the skies and welcome a new era.

    "Marriage" is a religion based institution. I do not understand the fanatical drive to gain acceptance from the religious right. In one thread you can read how the religious groups are the most evil groups out there, yet to fight for marriage equality in a sense validates that they are superior because you are striving to be "just like them"

    Civil Unions provide a legal recognition of a same sex union, isnt that what you are after?

    It seems the most radical on here are more focused on destroying the religious rights concept of marriage than actually having the same rights and privileges as a male/female union.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 8:08 PM GMT
    Unless the term "marriage" is abolished for everyone, and the preachers say "Allow these two people to be in a civil union" for EVERYONE, then calling it civil unions for us and marriage for everyone else is LESS than equal.

    You're right, people's feelings toward gays will not change overnight, but when laws say we are equal, it will make them not see us as much as inferior. Why? Because it's much easier to objectively hate a group when you know in a court of law they are also being treated as inferior.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 8:10 PM GMT
    RST2009 said
    joeyveras said
    wrestlervic saidCivil Unions say "less than equal". Marriage equality is more about sending a signal to the hetero crowd that we are to be TREATED equal, it's not really for us. In other worlds, when it is common knowledge that two same-sex people can get married, then it will be harder for others to treat us as less than equal, because we will be.



    I respectfully disagree. Civil Unions with the same protections as marriage says equal through and through. It's just a different name.


    Legalization of same sex marriage will not result in being treated equally, social prejudice and discrimination will not magically disappear, rainbows and butterflies won't populate the skies and welcome a new era.

    "Marriage" is a religion based institution. I do not understand the fanatical drive to gain acceptance from the religious right. In one thread you can read how the religious groups are the most evil groups out there, yet to fight for marriage equality in a sense validates that they are superior because you are striving to be "just like them"

    Civil Unions provide a legal recognition of a same sex union, isnt that what you are after?

    It seems the most radical on here are more focused on destroying the religious rights concept of marriage than actually having the same rights and privileges as a male/female union.



    I agree with everything you posted (except maybe the part about rainbows and butterflies icon_biggrin.gif). Laws that offer equal protections are paramount but they will not rid us of discrimination and bigotry ever. That's one of the reasons why it's so important we have them.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Nov 04, 2009 8:14 PM GMT
    Two words.

    COME OUT

    We won't ever get significant hetero support (and let's face it, there aren't enough of us to get anything done) if more straight people don't know us personally and care about us as individuals enough to go to bat for us when it counts...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 8:15 PM GMT
    what is interesting, reflecting now from outside the USA, is how in the healthcare debate there is a huge rhetoric of "not having the government tell you what to do", but in the marriage debate there is a huge anxiety that the government should tell people what they may and may not do.

    Therefore this is not about "big government" vs "small government", whatever else it may be about (money and religion in my view). This shows that the american right is actually very keen on certain sorts of governmental control. interesting, no? republican america is only allowing you certain freedoms which it will define.


    (It´s especially annoying as I´d have it the other way round: marriage privitization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization and a single payer system of health care. Single payer has problems, but nothing in the league of the current problems in the USA. It would give the state the role of helping the weak and allowing people to chose appropriate expressions of their partnerships rather than helping the medical industry and telling people who they may and may not marry.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 8:17 PM GMT
    If every piece of legal documentation that grants us rights and privileges were amended to say "married or civilly partnered", then OK, but that's not happening and civilly partnered people are denied what married people are granted.
  • handsoffire

    Posts: 178

    Nov 05, 2009 12:55 AM GMT
    And honestly, it cramps my shorts when folks who are of a VISIBLE minority group spout off that sad sad rhetoric of I can hide my sexual identity as if it's something that I should be ashamed of. Heaven forfend I should tell them to just cover their skin back up and to please stop acting all ethnic.

    It just strikes me as so much a of a large bird with it's head in the dirt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2009 1:50 AM GMT
    Pattison said
    I'm sorry but I don't agree, with Civil Unions means less than equal. Saying
    "Gay Marriage" Is giving the term marriage a diffrent meaning, that could be interpreted, as saying "Gay Marriage" is not the same as "Marriage", thats why we call it "Gay Marriage" because it's not the same, nor equal.

    Civil Union, takes away all the Religious connotations, and while those of you who are not willing to compromise on this issue. You are holding the rest back. Mother America still being a very religious country, you may fine the wheels of advancement start too roll forward.


    The best response to that comes from this wonderful straight woman who did this brand new ad for Equality New Jersey:

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

    Nov 05, 2009 2:02 AM GMT
    Timberoo said
    MunchingZombie said

    I bet that Civil Unions are much easier to pass in states than marriage.


    I have to disagree. I think the religious right sees any legal recognition of same sex couples as a 'threat to marriage'.

    I think the issue at hand is voter apathy. People don't care to go out and vote and it seems only the people against us are motivated to go to the polls.
    I agree, Timberoo.

    I heard about the below the other day and in the wake of the Maine result, my anger makes me want to stick it to the other side a la John Marcotte ...

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/protect_the_sanctity_of_hetero.php

    Such a referendum would never pass of course (nor should it), but the dynamics at work are pretty much the same.

    Call it "a teachable moment." icon_evil.gif