Protests Stop Mormons From Getting Married

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

    Nov 13, 2008 7:02 PM GMT
    We will be having this fight outside of CA in the coming years and I think it sends a powerful message that we won’t be sitting on the sidelines while discriminatory ammendments are added to the constitution. If we were to just accept this quietly and write letters only, we would be showing everyone else that we are indifferent to our own oppression and that it is somehow ok.
    For many years now, we have been growing out of the gay bar scene, moving out of the gay ghetto’s and assimilating. However, becoming one of the Jones’s is tricky when we aren’t equal under the law. It is further complicated when you discover the Jones’s don’t really want you to be equal. This isn’t the mormons fault. This isn’t minorities fault. This is OUR defeat that we now have to work on rewriting.
    It dawned on me the night of the Vice presidential debate how not equal I am... and I am still pissed off about it. I realized how apathetic I had become in the thought that what I have is good enough, regardless of equality.
    Turning on the TV everyday and seeing protesters in the street makes me feel prideful again. It reminds me of the days of ACT UP! in the early days of AIDS and the face they lended to our struggle. I loved how punk they were, how angry and how inspired they were. I couldn’t wait to move to the big city and walk with them.
    The value of our faces and of our voices is the best weapon we have against discrimination and it inspires the next generation.
    We should be holding their feet to the fire. How much longer do we have to wait for someone to get it right for us? They need to be reminded of who we are and that we aren’t going to crawl back into the gay bars and live happily ever in the gay ghettos just because that would make them comfortable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2008 7:11 PM GMT
    Lets not forget the voters of CA took away your rights, not the Mormons, they are just being used as a scapegoat, a target for peoples anger.

    I had too flee my home as a child from my "catholic" mom, and this meant leaving school at a young age too, but hay I was able to go back and finish at 28. My Pa did nothing to help me because of his "PRIDE!" I also got punished and blamed for being molested from the age of 5, but my mom, and instead of taking action. I got sent away to the middle of nowhere for a year.

    Pride is such a sin........

    I was never abused by the Mormons for being a homosexual! But How I have been abused by members of the gay community, even here. Just because I may not seem to have the same political view as another. Or because I'm not your stereotypical Homosexual, or because I don't think the USA is the best place on earth to live, nor appreciate the negative impact it's had on my homeland Oz, or Just because I've had experiences another gay doesn't understand.

    We down here, have also had a dyke who killed her son, just to stop the child's gay father from having access to his child.

    The voters took away you rights not the Mormons! Lets not forget you do live in a religious country. One of the things that make America soo diffrent to Oz. Our founding forefathers were pioneers and Convicts, and not Religious fanatics, like the USA forefather where.


    Oh my gran who is a Mormon. I am welcome in her home day and night anytime. In fact for her, I'm not in her home enough! She would never kick me out because of my sexuality. Many religious parents do this. Many ethnic groups will do this to, because they don't want the sham of having a gay child, because of their PRIDE!

    lets not forget Y'all live in a democracy, where the majority rule, and not the minority. For the Minority to rule, you have to live under a dictatorship.

    The Pommies have rights you don't, come back to Mother England; Join Canada.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2008 7:28 PM GMT
    BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! I LOVE IT! It's so very Greek in its appropriateness. How do ya like that rock, Sisyphus?

    Ducky44 said
    WOW! An eye for an eye, huh. Then have it boys.

    It's Biblical, so it's ok. It's what Jesus would do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2008 7:41 PM GMT
    Ducky44 saidWhen people are beig kicked out of there homes for standing by their faith as wrong as it is how is that right.

    It's one thing to protest, but when it comes down to people losing their shelter and resulting to someone being hurt, how is that helping our cause it is not.

    What's next killing every Morman in sight!



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

    Nov 13, 2008 7:52 PM GMT
    They started then you do what you do?

    There are bigger problems in the Gay community the Gay Marriage that's for sure!

    I would much rather have a hate crime bill to include us over gay marriage anyday! Currently The Matthew Shepard Bill has no chance of passing.

    Gay marriage does not fix that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2008 8:07 PM GMT
    Unfortunately, we're not being given the choice of one over the other any more than we're being given one alone. The fight should come from many angles because all these things are deserving. If circumstances present a good opportunity to speak up for gay marriage, use the opportunity. Don't wait for hate crimes legislation to pass first and don't wait for gay marriage to be legal before championing hate crimes legislation. We can't just say "this is wrong" when what we need to say "this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2008 8:41 PM GMT
    ^---- What he said.

    Just because the Matthew Shepherd Act doesn't look like it will pass doesn't mean we need to give up on marriage; the two are, in a general sense, completely unrelated. If you only focus on one issue at a time and in succession (hate crime laws, THEN adoption, THEN marriage, etc.) you never get anything accomplished. You have to take the scattershot approach and hit a bunch of things at once.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2008 9:40 PM GMT
    Pattison saidlets not forget Y'all live in a democracy, where the majority rule, and not the minority. For the Minority to rule, you have to live under a dictatorship.


    Seriously? Really? That is your defense?

    Rights are a tricky thing and they are rarely given to groups by the majority. Talk to the african american community in the USA about that -- when the laws preventing them from marrying with whites existed, it was the courts, not the majority, the corrected that wrong.

    The minority does not rule, but they are meant to be protected. Thats why we have things like the first amendment and the courts.

    As for the voters being the ones who made the decision -- of course, we all know that and understand that. But many were deceived and many more incorrectly informed about the issue because of groups like the mormons pumping tremendous amounts of money into deceptive ads.

    In the end, they made decision to fight for the passage of prop 8 and we, as the group who lost rights, need to show there are consequences. Too many states have taken away or restricted gay marriage rights at this point and I feel there is a good chance this may be the line in the sand where folks say "enough". Nothing changes until someone gets to that point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2008 9:52 PM GMT
    Pattison said...lets not forget Y'all live in a democracy, where the majority rule, and not the minority. For the Minority to rule, you have to live under a dictatorship.


    The majority does not always rule in the US--there are many actions at all levels of government that require more than a simple majority to become law. One example, is the process of amending or revising the California Constitution, as in the adoption of Proposition 8. If the California Supreme court rules that Proposition 8 is a revision to the state constitution, rather than an amendment, then the vote on Prop 8 is irrelevant as Prop 8 was not filed in a legal manner.

    Here's an introduction to amending/revising the State of California constitution.

    THE REVISION OF CALIFORNIA'S CONSTITUTION
    Eugene C. Lee
    Editor's note: This paper was commissioned to provide background following passage of ACR 188, which requires in part the presentation of alternative proposals for constitutional revision. With the passage of SCR 5 and SB 55, which also address constitutional revision, it is being reproduced here for circulation to a wider audience.
    Specific changes to the California constitution may be proposed by
    amendment. Substantial changes may be proposed by a constitutional
    convention or by the legislature as constitutional revisions. Regardless of
    their origin, all changes must be approved by a majority of the electorate
    voting on the issue.
    Legislative amendments, the method most commonly used, require a
    two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature. Initiative amendments may
    be placed on the ballot by a petition of registered voters equal in number
    to 8 percent of the total vote cast in the preceding gubernatorial election.
    By explicit language in the constitution concerning initiatives and by court
    interpretation with respect to measures arising in the legislature, amendments are required to be limited in scope. As far back as 1894, the
    California Supreme Court distinguished between a revision of the
    constitution and a mere amendment thereof (Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal.
    113). As reiterated in 1978, the court held that a reVision referred to a
    "substantial a)teration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less
    extensive change in one or more of its provisions" (Amador Valley Joint
    Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 20icon_cool.gif.
    For most of the state's history, revisions could only be proposed by a
    constitutional convention, the convening of which required a two-thirds
    legislative vote and the approval of the electorate. Following voter
    approval in 1962, constitutional revisions can now be presented directly to
    the electorate by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature.
    All of these procedures have been involved in the development of
    California's existing constitution. Three milestones mark that history: the
    Constitution of 1849, the Constitution of 1879, and the major overhaul that
    followed the work of the Constitution Revision Commission from 1966 to
    1972. These events, together with the scores of individual amendments
    originating either with the legislature or through the initiative process,
    provide the historical backdrop for looking at the constitution of the 1990s.


    [http://www.ucop.edu/cprc/documents/caconst.pdf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2008 9:53 PM GMT
    Tex,

    No where in my post did I say I give up on the issue of our rights to Marry.
    Please do not take what I wrote out of context.

    That seems to be a mistake that we all make on this site, I myself have done and when I was corrected I quickly owned up to it.

    I feel that that there are larger issues in our community. icon_biggrin.gif
    That I focuse on.

    I voted against the band. Via absentee because I am still a registered voter in California.

    I talked with my old priest and my old Reverend. I let them know what my thoughts were.

  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9668

    Nov 13, 2008 10:28 PM GMT
    Ducky44 said, "They started then you do what you do?

    There are bigger problems in the Gay community the Gay Marriage that's for sure!

    I would much rather have a hate crime bill to include us over gay marriage anyday! Currently The Matthew Shepard Bill has no chance of passing.

    Gay marriage does not fix that."

    --------------------------------

    Honestly, since when did Prop 8 become a choice over another issue? Why can't multiple actions happen simultaneously? Support against gay marriage bans do not equate to opposing support to hate crime bills or any other gay rights legislation. An apple is an apple and an orange is an orange; make a fruit cocktail!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2008 10:38 PM GMT
    My apologies if the sentiments following have been already expressed by another poster...

    It's actual not such a large step from banning gay marriage to firing gay people to beating them up to killing them. All of this is linked along a chain of bigotry which at base is basically saying, "gays are not like you and me, not normal, and perhaps there's something deviant about their presence in society...a presence which could be rectified (or corrected to quote Kubrick The Shining)" My point is, if you push the logic far enough, the denial of rights is the flip side of condoning violence (look at the connection between apartheid US and the murders of blacks in the south in the US).

    Gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws both have the same goal: getting gays treated like everyone else with the protection of the law and the benefits that being a part of this country provides. 2 cents amigos.