Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, May 26, 2009
Homo Let's Give Them Something to Talk About
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:20 AM
While we read about the California Supreme Court's ruling to uphold Prop 8...
We don’t have to give up. The California court doesn’t hold the entire marriage-equality movement hostage at its bench. The national marriage equality movement is growing faster than ever.
In Washington, our marriage equality legislation is advancing faster than expected; the conservative anti-gay-marriage strategy is falling apart.
In fact, the harder the bigots push, the more ground they lose. The more people talk about this issue, the more voters develop compassion for gay families. Bigotry only thrives in a vacuum. But we’ve been talking about this a lot over the last three years. A poll released by gay-marriage opponent Gary Randall shows (accidentally) that support for gay marriage is growing—up eight percent in the past four years. At this rate, most voters in Washington will support marriage equality in only four more years.
So rulings like this one—while delaying progress on one state—actually advance the issue everywhere else. Like here in Washington, as long as people talk about it. And tonight, in Westlake Park at 5:30 p.m. there will be a rally to protest the Prop 8 ruling.
WESTLAKE PARK AT 5:30 PM
Jam the park, flood the street, make people talk. The more people who show up, the more there is to talk about, and the sooner we win.
4
What, Dominic, is this going to do? We're just going to keep getting together over and over and over again? For a peaceful protest? That is so fucking idiotic. They have no reason to listen to us because we give them every reason not to. We aren't a problem. We're beyond minority to them. Considerably half of us don't even identify as gay.
But you want to get together, again, and just stand there, and we'll all shout about how angry we are.
Gosh that sounds so productive. Surely if we annoy the living shit out of everyone, we'll eventually "win."
But you want to get together, again, and just stand there, and we'll all shout about how angry we are.
Gosh that sounds so productive. Surely if we annoy the living shit out of everyone, we'll eventually "win."
6
Washington State has been passing gay rights bills lately. We are not CA. Can we put the riot-talk on hold, plz?
8
@ 7 - I don't think that's what 6 was doing. Rioting doesn't solve anything. Read "Nixonland". If we're serious about this, we need to put an MLK style coalition together and force change by showing everyone we're prepared to put everything on the line for equal rights & representation under the law. Throwing tantrums in public is not going to help.
9
This isn't about states rights this about human fucking rights... its not fair, its not okay, and Mr Poe is right just standing there saying I'm hurt isnt going to change anything...
10
Learn from the lessons of the crappy No on Prop 8 campaign. This is a setback, but an opportunity:
Reach out to communities of color and faith (still waiting for some Stranger coverage of local black queers, Dan).
Use this setback as a warning to the rest of the state, and to energize the opposition to the upcoming ballot campaign against marriage equality here.
Turn this into lemonade, folks. Organize, focus, mobilize, win.
Reach out to communities of color and faith (still waiting for some Stranger coverage of local black queers, Dan).
Use this setback as a warning to the rest of the state, and to energize the opposition to the upcoming ballot campaign against marriage equality here.
Turn this into lemonade, folks. Organize, focus, mobilize, win.
11
Can we also not forget about Ref. 71? While I agree that we have to make ourselves heard, Prop 8 is in CA and we can't forget what's threatening our rights in our own state. Lets not make the mistake of thinking that we have enough support to avoid Ref 71.
12
@8
Why don't you take Nixonland and surf it up your pussy ass? Throwing tantrums in public is exactly what we need right now, because nobody gives a flying fuck about this. This isn't an issue to Obama, this isn't an issue to America. This is an issue to us, and we need to make it an issue to everyone else, and we aren't going to do that by doing the same fucking thing over and over and over again.
Why don't you take Nixonland and surf it up your pussy ass? Throwing tantrums in public is exactly what we need right now, because nobody gives a flying fuck about this. This isn't an issue to Obama, this isn't an issue to America. This is an issue to us, and we need to make it an issue to everyone else, and we aren't going to do that by doing the same fucking thing over and over and over again.
13
I see no good in gays and lesbians engaging in what amount to throwing a hissy fit. The people who are tolerant will feel alienate by such a display. I will respectfully remind gays that they have freedoms in this great nation that in other places would not be tolerated, not even dream of.
I would ask all to outweigh the consequences before you let your irrational rage take the best of your judgement and emotional equilibrium.
I would ask all to outweigh the consequences before you let your irrational rage take the best of your judgement and emotional equilibrium.
14
No on Prop 8 was a set back, yeah, we remember. And we were going to fix that this time around, right? Right. Oh, look, we failed. What do we call it? It's just another "set back." What comes after the next road block? WE NEED TO CRY/SCREAM LOUDER GUIIIZZE!!
15
@ 12 - "Surf it up my ass"? You're in such a hurry to talk shit, you can't even think straight. Whatever.
Fine, go out and break shit, start a riot. Then, after they toss your dumbass in jail, the adults can sit down and figure out how to change this situation - for good.
Fine, go out and break shit, start a riot. Then, after they toss your dumbass in jail, the adults can sit down and figure out how to change this situation - for good.
16
Why are we rallying at Westlake? We should be in front of the Catholic cathedral on First Hill or out at the Mormon's tacky "temple" in Bellevue. Those are the evildoers that need to be confronted.
17
Part of gathering may be for effect on others, but part is for effect on each other, if ya know what I mean. Citizens at large may notice, or not. But physically standing around together is not a bad idea on an occasion like this, at least until the speakers annoy too much.
LC, shut the fuck up and take another tug on your hip flask, dear,
LC, shut the fuck up and take another tug on your hip flask, dear,
18
@ 13 - Get the fuck out of here. No one gives a shit about your opinion - on this subject or any other.
20
#16 is entirely right. Westlake! Oh boy! Westlake is never used to having disturbances and large numbers of people! Except that it is, and we're the only people we'll be preaching to. Yay!
Fucking God we own the most pathetic civil rights struggle in the Universe.
Fucking God we own the most pathetic civil rights struggle in the Universe.
21
Folks, remember what Joe Hill said before he was executed:
"Don't mourn; organize!"
Which would make an excellent placard for this evening's event.
"Don't mourn; organize!"
Which would make an excellent placard for this evening's event.
22
Hey guize, can we set up a march where we go from Capitol Hill to Westlake again? We need to remind all of the people who are with us that....yeah.
24
13, You sound like those white folks in Selma back in the 60's when they spoke of the people who marched to Montgomery in the name of civil rights. You must be so proud.
25
IMHO suggest one think about the purpose of marching and who the audience is.
In general, screaming and rioting is not always effective with certain audiences.
In the end one wants a majority to get behind minority rights. IMHO this comes from straight people feeling empathetic with gays, which basically comes from knowing gays (on TV, in person, at the PCC, the PTA, the UCC, etc.).
Maybe big dignified marches would be better than out-there riots. Maybe having tons of progay straights should be a goal. Every gay couple has parents and in laws and some have little kids -- suggest one big dignified, profamily promarriage broad based movement for equal profamily promarriage rights is more effective at changing minds of persuadable straights, then any "days of rage" approach.
Change is coming soon because basically there is no impact on straight marriage and once a straight person realizes that, once they get into the issue and think about it in terms of gay people they know, not in the abstract, then, they become progay (or enuf of them do). Look at how far the movement has come in just a few years, from something illegal to a majority in favor of civil unions. Change will be soon.
IMHO.
In general, screaming and rioting is not always effective with certain audiences.
In the end one wants a majority to get behind minority rights. IMHO this comes from straight people feeling empathetic with gays, which basically comes from knowing gays (on TV, in person, at the PCC, the PTA, the UCC, etc.).
Maybe big dignified marches would be better than out-there riots. Maybe having tons of progay straights should be a goal. Every gay couple has parents and in laws and some have little kids -- suggest one big dignified, profamily promarriage broad based movement for equal profamily promarriage rights is more effective at changing minds of persuadable straights, then any "days of rage" approach.
Change is coming soon because basically there is no impact on straight marriage and once a straight person realizes that, once they get into the issue and think about it in terms of gay people they know, not in the abstract, then, they become progay (or enuf of them do). Look at how far the movement has come in just a few years, from something illegal to a majority in favor of civil unions. Change will be soon.
IMHO.
26
@20
Seriously. Everyone who lives around Westlake already supports you guys. We like having protests and such but tearing up where we live is kind of an inconvenience. I totally agree about rallying in front of churches, federal buildings, etc. that might actually need to be influenced. You're preaching to the choir in Westlake.
Seriously. Everyone who lives around Westlake already supports you guys. We like having protests and such but tearing up where we live is kind of an inconvenience. I totally agree about rallying in front of churches, federal buildings, etc. that might actually need to be influenced. You're preaching to the choir in Westlake.
28
The Cali decision is like trying to stop a massive dam break with 20 sandbags.
This too shall pass.
This too shall pass.
30
@Poe: Here is an idea....
You and me, attempt to get straight married in a Mormon Temple. Demand they marry us, cause we are straight.
Obvs, Supreme Court will uphold the right for churches too deny marriage to certain people, so that the argument of "churches will be forced to marry teh gheys" is no longer valid. Then what else can they say?
Also, as a bonus, Mormon church is tied up in a legal fight and it will drain their resources. We'd have to get lambda legal to do it pro-bono though….
You and me, attempt to get straight married in a Mormon Temple. Demand they marry us, cause we are straight.
Obvs, Supreme Court will uphold the right for churches too deny marriage to certain people, so that the argument of "churches will be forced to marry teh gheys" is no longer valid. Then what else can they say?
Also, as a bonus, Mormon church is tied up in a legal fight and it will drain their resources. We'd have to get lambda legal to do it pro-bono though….
32
What Loveschild said:
I will respectfully remind gays that they have freedoms in this great nation that in other places would not be tolerated, not even dream of.What Loveschild meant:
Anywhere else, your ass would be stoned in the town square for being gay, so you should forget about this marriage crap and just be happy that we only murder a few of you fuckers a year. Ungrateful faggots.
33
Let's see if we can get an initiative going to dissolve all marriages that don't bear children within three years. Make them defend people they don't support.
34
first, just because we are gay doesnt mean when we get angry we are throwing a hissy fit... when black folks got angry in the 60s did you refer to that at a hissy fit? were the white night riots a hissy fit? I dont think so. it is homophobic to denegrate my rightous and appropriate anger into some sort of hissy fit.
Second, a loud, angry crowd marching in the streets is just exactly what we need... I am not advocating breaking windows or burning stuff, but by dog, the days of pitiful asking for our rights please are WAY over... I demand my rights.. period.
We must loudly demand our rights. scaring people is just fine. the increasing viloence against gay people? Because bigots are not afraid of gay people yet secretly afraid of us. perhaps they should be openly afraid.
Second, a loud, angry crowd marching in the streets is just exactly what we need... I am not advocating breaking windows or burning stuff, but by dog, the days of pitiful asking for our rights please are WAY over... I demand my rights.. period.
We must loudly demand our rights. scaring people is just fine. the increasing viloence against gay people? Because bigots are not afraid of gay people yet secretly afraid of us. perhaps they should be openly afraid.
35
While we are all very upset by today's ruling today's rally needs to remain non-violent. Think about tomorrow's headline "Thousands show up to support equality in Washington" is far more effective in winning support than a headline about violence. Show your anger and frustration with your voice, not your fists.
37
#33.
I agree totally.
The State should not define marriage for anyone..."civil marriage" is an illegal personal contract for slavery that violates the 13th amendment.
I agree totally.
The State should not define marriage for anyone..."civil marriage" is an illegal personal contract for slavery that violates the 13th amendment.
38
Wait, I thought this was a ruling on whether to uphold a ban on gay porn in California elementary school curriculum. Why is everybody protesting about marriage?
I hardly see the point of a Westlake protest. Somebody is there every day of the week jabbering about something.
Nonetheless, I look forward to a day when civil rights are not put up to a majority vote like a property tax levy.
I hardly see the point of a Westlake protest. Somebody is there every day of the week jabbering about something.
Nonetheless, I look forward to a day when civil rights are not put up to a majority vote like a property tax levy.
39
What I meant,
Lesbians and gays enjoy civil unions equivalent to marriage in CA in WA amongst many other states already.
They enjoy the freedom to to what they want in privacy.
There are laws pending to further reinforce laws to protect against crimes specifically targeted at homosexuals.
Insisting and wanting to reverse the will of an electorate who has voted twice on the issue of gay marriage is egotistic and disrespectful to the people who have sided with gays on the other issues.
Lesbians and gays enjoy civil unions equivalent to marriage in CA in WA amongst many other states already.
They enjoy the freedom to to what they want in privacy.
There are laws pending to further reinforce laws to protect against crimes specifically targeted at homosexuals.
Insisting and wanting to reverse the will of an electorate who has voted twice on the issue of gay marriage is egotistic and disrespectful to the people who have sided with gays on the other issues.
40
@39
translated from your BS into English:
Be happy with what you have, you second class, partially human, so called citizens. You dont deserve the rights of *real* people!
translated from your BS into English:
Be happy with what you have, you second class, partially human, so called citizens. You dont deserve the rights of *real* people!
41
@ 40 ftw
MLK must be rolling in his grave, to have (some) contemporary African-Americans make the same arguments against gays that racists made against African-Americans in the 50s and 60s. If LC weren't such a stupid bitch, she would know about Bayard Rustin, and the fact that Coretta Scott King was a huge, and early, supporter of equality and freedom for gay people. It broke her heart when her children wound up being such vicious homophobes.
MLK must be rolling in his grave, to have (some) contemporary African-Americans make the same arguments against gays that racists made against African-Americans in the 50s and 60s. If LC weren't such a stupid bitch, she would know about Bayard Rustin, and the fact that Coretta Scott King was a huge, and early, supporter of equality and freedom for gay people. It broke her heart when her children wound up being such vicious homophobes.
42
We won't sit on the back of the bus forever. Slaves were freed. Women got the right to vote. Black folks got civil rights, and interracial marriage was legalized. Bigoted people always lose this battle.
43
@39.. loveschild.what WE mean.
FUCK YOU...fuck you fuck you fuck you..
fuck you..annnnnnd.. fuck you
FUCK YOU...fuck you fuck you fuck you..
fuck you..annnnnnd.. fuck you
44
@40 jason.. we tried to get her to read or understand bayard rustin and her ignorance was indignantly rock solid and willful..and on coretta scott king she was even more stupid..
and dr king isn't rolling in his grave because her kind of negritude has been around for a very long time dr. king worked around them back in the day..there are various names for them that i won't use here, but homeslice knows what i'm alluding to. they have a long legacy, but they lost then and they're going to lose now..
so as a very very proud african american who firmly understands that this is another step in the struggle for civil rights for all americans..i say to her..
'fuck you'
and dr king isn't rolling in his grave because her kind of negritude has been around for a very long time dr. king worked around them back in the day..there are various names for them that i won't use here, but homeslice knows what i'm alluding to. they have a long legacy, but they lost then and they're going to lose now..
so as a very very proud african american who firmly understands that this is another step in the struggle for civil rights for all americans..i say to her..
'fuck you'
46
Is there such a thing as a gay race? None whatsoever, gay is not an ethnicity. Gays are not a racial cultural group. Gays are individuals who under the protections and freedoms of this nation have the right to pursue whatever proclivities they want to in their private life. gays are not nor have they ever been the property of another human being. How can anyone say that a same sex pairing who enjoys the benefits of a domestic partnership equal to marriage as they do in WA is somehow sitting on the back of the bus? It's mind boggling to arrive at such a conclusion. I know there's anger today amongst some but I know that once our shared aspirations for the future are seen more clearly we will move forward from this and take on the joint challenges that we need face.
47
@ 44 - God damn I love you. That made me smile from ear to ear (and I could use something to smile about right now). Thank you so much for that.
By the way, you are the best DJ in Seattle, hands-down. I rung in new year's eve 1998/new year's morning 1999 at the Re-Bar - you were spinning records at midnight, and it was the most fun in a club I've ever had. You fucking rock~
By the way, you are the best DJ in Seattle, hands-down. I rung in new year's eve 1998/new year's morning 1999 at the Re-Bar - you were spinning records at midnight, and it was the most fun in a club I've ever had. You fucking rock~
48
@ 46 - who the fuck is "we"? You hate everyone here, and live and breathe to deny us the same rights that you enjoy, so you can take your faux-empathy and ram it up your ass.
49
45 Agree, If there are a few minor details that need improving then work on them and not on turning your allies or potential allies (like me) by insisting on overturning their votes. I mean, there's already talk about bringing this again in 2010! That would make it the third time. What good does this sort of pressuring do for the unity of the people of California and the nation? None, it divisive. All I'm saying is lets move beyond this, show the people that even if you disagree with their vote you will respect it. You will find yourselves in a better position if you do.
53
@ 51 Are you even even listening to yourself? I guess not paying any attention to whatever comes out of your mouth makes it a lot easier to spew bullshit all day and night long. Next you'll be masquerading as a constitutional scholar. Unmitigated, bigoted horse-shit, thy name is Loveschild.
54
Christ, Loveschild. First we were stealing your babies, then we were stealing your freedom, then we were stealing your sanctity and now we're stealing your democracy?? STFU! Like in the biggest way possible. And to even try your bullshit claim that you're a potential ally? You're a FUCKING LIAR and a bigot. And you disgust the majority of folks posting of blog. My only hope is that you're mentally ill and just not a fucking idiot. At least I might still respect you if you're just crazy.
55
By simply supporting equal rights, I’m a baby-stealing, freedom-killing, sanctity-slaughtering, democracy-demolishing thug? I wonder how that will look on my resume…
56
52,
This country isn't a democracy, it a republic. And, it's failing when it allows a majority to strip rights from a minority.
Oh ... I forgot, it your opinion the minority is allowed equality in the areas that which you deem them worthy, hence your establishing yourself as a "potential ally". You feel free to support the minority's equality when it suits you, but in areas which you don't fancy, then separate but equal will do. Hence, partial equality for the gays and they should be grateful for your benevolence? Do we have your position correctly?
This country isn't a democracy, it a republic. And, it's failing when it allows a majority to strip rights from a minority.
Oh ... I forgot, it your opinion the minority is allowed equality in the areas that which you deem them worthy, hence your establishing yourself as a "potential ally". You feel free to support the minority's equality when it suits you, but in areas which you don't fancy, then separate but equal will do. Hence, partial equality for the gays and they should be grateful for your benevolence? Do we have your position correctly?
57
@46 - Loveschild: "Is there such a thing as a Christian race? None whatsoever, Christian is not an ethnicity. Christians are not a racial cultural group. Christians are individuals who under the protections and freedoms of this nation have the right to pursue whatever proclivities they want to in their private life." In a word, being Christian is a CHOICE.
And yet...and yet, Christians, and all other religionists, get the special and specific protection of the constitutions of this nation and of every state to practice their religion free from discrimination (and even taxation).
How one arrives at membership in a group (by birth or by choice) shouldn't matter. All, each and every one of us, must be afforded Equal Protection under that law.
And yet...and yet, Christians, and all other religionists, get the special and specific protection of the constitutions of this nation and of every state to practice their religion free from discrimination (and even taxation).
How one arrives at membership in a group (by birth or by choice) shouldn't matter. All, each and every one of us, must be afforded Equal Protection under that law.
58
Why is everyone spending so much space and energy on this Loveschild fool? Let's stop debating whether our desire for equal rights is valid, get off our asses, and get the fuck down to Westlake. It might not be the best plan for a protest ever, but it'll be a hell of a lot more effective if we show the up in numbers.
61
I get that there are differences between marriage and domestic partnership, but they do seem pretty minor with maybe the exception of insurance eligibility from CalPERS. So is marriage the goal? Or equal protection under the law? Are both desires equal?
I get the argument that things cannot be seperate but equal, but it does kinda seem like the major battle here is about the title and not the rights? Is that way off base? Do you think gays would be satisfied with domestic partnership if it had the exact protections as marriage? I hope that i don't get the kind of venom that loveschild seems to draw here i just want to better understand the issue.
I get the argument that things cannot be seperate but equal, but it does kinda seem like the major battle here is about the title and not the rights? Is that way off base? Do you think gays would be satisfied with domestic partnership if it had the exact protections as marriage? I hope that i don't get the kind of venom that loveschild seems to draw here i just want to better understand the issue.
62
Flounder,
My interest is in equal rights, exact same state and federal protection, and I believe they should have the freedom to call there unions what they want. If we heterosexuals can call a civil ceremony at the court house, a ceremony with full religous blessings at a house of worship, and a quicky Las Vegas wedding or elopement as equal in deserving the title of marriage. Then they should also have the freedom to do so with their unions. Still, that is only my opinion, and it should be taken with a grain of salt, because I'm a breeder. I can't speak for any of them.
I should also add that I think their unions if made abroad should be recognized and given full state and federal protection, just as my neighbor who just returned from London is now considered married and can now legally sponser her spouse.
My interest is in equal rights, exact same state and federal protection, and I believe they should have the freedom to call there unions what they want. If we heterosexuals can call a civil ceremony at the court house, a ceremony with full religous blessings at a house of worship, and a quicky Las Vegas wedding or elopement as equal in deserving the title of marriage. Then they should also have the freedom to do so with their unions. Still, that is only my opinion, and it should be taken with a grain of salt, because I'm a breeder. I can't speak for any of them.
I should also add that I think their unions if made abroad should be recognized and given full state and federal protection, just as my neighbor who just returned from London is now considered married and can now legally sponser her spouse.
63
I guess i don't fully understand. Can't anybody have a ceremony and call themselves married? I know gay people can't have it be legally binding, but if they get the same rights and the ability to use the title, why is the legal detail so important?
65
Flounder, I consider gaining equal rights far more important than winning the right to call it “marriage.” I currently live in an area that offers neither.
However, I don’t think we should stop fighting until we have full-on marriage because the longer gay marriage is kept separate, the longer gays will remain stigmatized. Ideally, given enough time and work, eventually the majority of the public will come to realize we’re regular people just like everyone else, rather than a dreaded social scourge with the power to:
1.) derail heterosexual marriages
2.) unravel the fabric of the United States
3.) tilt the earth’s axis off kilter.
As long as we’re considered something that needs to be quarantined off from the general population, we’ll be perceived as a threat. As long as we remain something “other” and “strange,” we’ll remain at risk for hate crimes, etc.
However, I don’t think we should stop fighting until we have full-on marriage because the longer gay marriage is kept separate, the longer gays will remain stigmatized. Ideally, given enough time and work, eventually the majority of the public will come to realize we’re regular people just like everyone else, rather than a dreaded social scourge with the power to:
1.) derail heterosexual marriages
2.) unravel the fabric of the United States
3.) tilt the earth’s axis off kilter.
As long as we’re considered something that needs to be quarantined off from the general population, we’ll be perceived as a threat. As long as we remain something “other” and “strange,” we’ll remain at risk for hate crimes, etc.
66
63 I don't understand it either. I've been asking the same questions, and have gotten no real persuasive argument from the other side. Because there's none really. It just amounts to a childish temper tantrum of wanting what the other has even when they're afforded all the benefits and protections, because that's not what they're really after. What they want seems to me is social approval, worst, forced social approval and no one has stated something here that can prove that wrong when they insist even by trying to overturn an electoral outcome twice (three times if they have their way) and stick it to the people. They're hell bent on this.
And now this,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marria…
That's why the people (even allies) are starting to resent them.
And now this,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marria…
That's why the people (even allies) are starting to resent them.
67
66, Gay people are not going away, ever, but your side is dwindling in numbers. People against civil rights always lose in the end. You're losing.
68
Loveschild @ 66,
Not even 24 hours later and on the same post, and you have returned to intellectual dishonesty (see post 45). Please, you have had this explained many times. You condemn yourself with your own statement.
"Because there's none really. It just amounts to a childish temper tantrum of wanting what the other has even when they're afforded all the benefits and protections, because that's not what they're really after."
The state and federal protection of a domestic partnership or civil union is not equal with marriage. You know it, and your a liar when you claim otherwise.
Not even 24 hours later and on the same post, and you have returned to intellectual dishonesty (see post 45). Please, you have had this explained many times. You condemn yourself with your own statement.
"Because there's none really. It just amounts to a childish temper tantrum of wanting what the other has even when they're afforded all the benefits and protections, because that's not what they're really after."
The state and federal protection of a domestic partnership or civil union is not equal with marriage. You know it, and your a liar when you claim otherwise.
69
Loveschild @ 66,
Here once again. It's been posted before, but here is just some of the differences between Domestic Partnerships/Civil Unions/Same-Sex Marriages and Heterosexual Marriage, which you claim are the same.
More than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".
Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:
1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.
More...
Here once again. It's been posted before, but here is just some of the differences between Domestic Partnerships/Civil Unions/Same-Sex Marriages and Heterosexual Marriage, which you claim are the same.
More than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".
Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:
1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.
70
Loveschild @66,
Let's not forget that Domestic Partnerships/Civil Unions/Same-Sex Marriages are not necessarily recognized from one state to another. Here's a tragic example of your be happy and let's pretend separate is equal.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/s…
Let's not forget that Domestic Partnerships/Civil Unions/Same-Sex Marriages are not necessarily recognized from one state to another. Here's a tragic example of your be happy and let's pretend separate is equal.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/s…
71
Flouder, I know that these same questions must be running also through your head.
Why can't gays respect the people of California to make their decision?
Why should we have to endure this issue being brought up to Washington DC to seek a federal reversal, now by a pair of lawyers who are whore seeking only fame through it?
What business is of the federal government to impose this on us?
Why should Vermont and Massachusetts values become effective on the rest of the states, why do they seek to disrespect the people of other states?
Keep Washington DC out of dictating social issues, keep their nose out of the affairs and Constitutions of the states. Keep away Theodore B. Olson and David Boies from injecting this on the federal government and harm the administration with it. Because you know that's all this unholy union between this two former dueling individuals is about, republicans wanting to sidetrack and derail the President from the bipartisan advances he's making on important issues with the approval of the people. Wanting to bring this up on the hearings of our Presidents first supreme court appointment and infect the whole process.
Gay people these days have rights to recourse, visitation, inheritance, most gays are not in agreement with this radicalize notion of forcing people to acknowledge a redefinition of marriage. Gay rights movement is no longer about rights (they have that already in CA, WA, amongst other states) it's now about impositions and wanting to federalizing their ideology.
Why can't gays respect the people of California to make their decision?
Why should we have to endure this issue being brought up to Washington DC to seek a federal reversal, now by a pair of lawyers who are whore seeking only fame through it?
What business is of the federal government to impose this on us?
Why should Vermont and Massachusetts values become effective on the rest of the states, why do they seek to disrespect the people of other states?
Keep Washington DC out of dictating social issues, keep their nose out of the affairs and Constitutions of the states. Keep away Theodore B. Olson and David Boies from injecting this on the federal government and harm the administration with it. Because you know that's all this unholy union between this two former dueling individuals is about, republicans wanting to sidetrack and derail the President from the bipartisan advances he's making on important issues with the approval of the people. Wanting to bring this up on the hearings of our Presidents first supreme court appointment and infect the whole process.
Gay people these days have rights to recourse, visitation, inheritance, most gays are not in agreement with this radicalize notion of forcing people to acknowledge a redefinition of marriage. Gay rights movement is no longer about rights (they have that already in CA, WA, amongst other states) it's now about impositions and wanting to federalizing their ideology.
72
71, Yes we will try again in California, and if it doesn't work we'll keep going back again, and again, and again. Let me repeat, gay people are not going away, ever...EVER. Meanwhile public opinion keeps shifting away from your anti civil rights stance. You will not succeed in keeping civil rights from gay people. You're losing.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2477/3569…
Years later:
I predict that Loveschild, 2009 edition, will be apologizing to gay people in a few years, but for now she's stuck in "Wasted breath" mode.
More...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2477/3569…
The picture was taken on September 4, 1957.
The black girl is Elizabeth Eckard, one of the Little Rock Nine, the group of black students who attempted to go to school in one of the first desegregated high schools in the South.
Standing behind her, taunting her with insults, was a student at the high school. Her name is Hazel Bryan...
...Hazel, ... was "rather pleased with herself"—so much so that two days later, she was in front of Central again, telling reporters that no way would she attend an integrated Central High School. "Whites should have rights, too!" she barked at a television camera, as [Hazel's friends] Mary Ann and Sammie Dean looked on with approval. "Nigras aren't the only ones that have a right!"...
Now Hazel was in them again, far more prominently, and the irate vice principal [Ellizabeth Huckaby] hauled her into her office. Hatred destroyed haters, the older woman said. Hazel only shrugged; "breath wasted,"...
Years later:
Elizabeth, now 21, was visiting Little Rock in the summer of 1963 when she got a most surprising message. Someone had called whom she'd never heard of before. Her name was Hazel Bryan..."I just told her who I was—I was the girl in that picture that was yelling at her, that I was sorry, that it was a terrible thing to do and that I didn't want my children to grow up to be like that, and I was crying," Hazel says.
http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/blog/2007…
I predict that Loveschild, 2009 edition, will be apologizing to gay people in a few years, but for now she's stuck in "Wasted breath" mode.
73
@ 70 - Hey Kim: Just wanted to thank you (again) for your smarts and demonstrating (again) the fact that a person can be both a Christian and support equal rights for everybody. You rock~
75
@74 should read @71-
My post didn't post fast enough!
Geez, LC, every time I think people are being too rough on you, you go and say something ridiculous again...
My post didn't post fast enough!
Geez, LC, every time I think people are being too rough on you, you go and say something ridiculous again...
76
@71 et al - I don't want you to think that i'm on your "side". I honestly don't know what your side is. I also don't think picking sides is going to be benificial to me. I'm just trying to clarify in my own mind what the crux of the issue is. To me it seems like the focal point is mostly about equal protection under the law, which i fully support. It is wrong to deny rights to a segment of the population that are afforded to everybody else because of something they have no control over. I don't think that point can even be debated. Perhaps you could argue that being gay is a choice, but that doesn't seem to hold water.
It does appear however that the majority of the population is in favor of a distinction between gay and straight marriage. So i'm trying to figure out IF the protection was exactly the same would the gay population be willing to concede the title? I know nobody here can speak for the entire gay population, but i would like to get a sampling or at least a few opinions.
So i put it to you SLOGers...would equal rights be sufficient or do you also require the legal title of "marriage"?
It does appear however that the majority of the population is in favor of a distinction between gay and straight marriage. So i'm trying to figure out IF the protection was exactly the same would the gay population be willing to concede the title? I know nobody here can speak for the entire gay population, but i would like to get a sampling or at least a few opinions.
So i put it to you SLOGers...would equal rights be sufficient or do you also require the legal title of "marriage"?
77
@65 - Thank you and i understand the argument that as long as there is a distinction you and your unions will have a certain stigma attached to them. My question would be then how much different would unions vs. marriage be than say citizen vs. naturalized citizen? There are small legal/technical differences, but it doesn't seem that people that obtain citizenship have a social stigma. Do you think the same societal indifference would occur with unions over time? Why? Why not?
I wonder if a better plan of attack might be to forget the "marriage" part for a while and focus all of the energy on equal protection. I think equal protection might be easier to get the majority of the population on board with. You could then let society adjust to the equal rights protection and then that might make full-blown marriage less scary. What do you think?
I wonder if a better plan of attack might be to forget the "marriage" part for a while and focus all of the energy on equal protection. I think equal protection might be easier to get the majority of the population on board with. You could then let society adjust to the equal rights protection and then that might make full-blown marriage less scary. What do you think?
79
@ 76 - Well, speaking for myself, it's not important to me whether same-sex couples can get "married". If we, as gay people, are afforded ALL the rights that straight married couples are, then I don't give a shit what it's called. I know LOTS of gay folks will disagree with me, so don't take that as representative or anything. I think the recently passed "everything-but-marriage" bill here in WA is actually pretty great, and could (conceivably) be used as a template for other states. Having said that, I think a lot of religious folks and conservatives (some of whom post here frequently) talk out of both sides of their mouth on this. They say stuff like "Well, you can have civil unions, yadda yadda", but then secretly work to undermine or outright oppose civil union laws, which isn't particularly surprising, I guess; they are fundamentally dishonest people. As I have said here before, I think the government needs to be out of the marriage biz, period. Civil unions for everybody. If (straight) folks want to get a legal civil union, and then go to a church of their choosing for a "marriage", knock yourselves out. As long as "marriage" is completely de-coupled from whatever rights the government bestows on legally enjoined couples, people can call it whatever they want. All I want is the rights entitled to me as a tax-paying US citizen.
80
flounder, I just want to say that I appreciate your coherent and respectful comments. Your stand (from what I have gather from your comments) and mine on this issue is practically the same. I support both civil unions and domestic partnerships to the point of them having basically all the protections afforded in marriage. I also support hate crime legislation for gays and lesbians. But I do believe that as you rightfully put it there is a fundamental distinction between gay unions and that of heterosexuals that needs to be protected so that both can develop and strive in their own particular ways. My thinking on this is not influenced by a belief in the nature vs choice of homosexuality, I don't really know about that though there are many studies on both sides. Even if it is a choice I believe that gays and lesbians should be able to enjoy full partnership rights if they so want to pursue it. My reasoning lies in the natural distinction between heterosexual pairings and that of gays and lesbians. The distinction resides in homosexuals professing a same sex attraction while heterosexuals profess an opposite sex attraction (simple to understand), natural occuring procreation is possible only in the latter, making them the sole producers for the continuation of the human species. That's what makes them (homosexual - heterosexual) distinct from each other and that's why such an important title as marriage needs to be preserved. I'm totally on board with granting homosexual pairings full protection so long as that principle is respected. Sadly you will find (some) radicalized gays unwilling to compromise on this. And that's why we cant seem to move away from this issue into more pressing ones. What's more sad is that if they keep insisting on this it will backfire on them so bad that they might not only drive away supporters like you and me but also might find themselves without the many gains they have already made.
More...
81
80, With "support" like yours, we don't need enemies. You have to face facts. Gay people are never going away. We are not going to go back into hiding, and we will never stop demanding equal civil rights. We are winning over new folks every day, while you are trying to shovel sand against the tide. You will fail at keeping civil rights from gay people. Anti rights folks like you always lose in the end. You're losing.
82
@ 80 - to paraphrase - "Nice set of legal protections you got there - be a shame if anything happened to them."
Talking out of both sides of your mouth: "having BASICALLY all the protections afforded in marriage."
Thanks for proving my point.
Is there nothing you won't lie about?
Talking out of both sides of your mouth: "having BASICALLY all the protections afforded in marriage."
Thanks for proving my point.
Is there nothing you won't lie about?
83
The distinction resides in homosexuals professing a same sex attraction while heterosexuals profess an opposite sex attraction (simple to understand), natural occuring procreation is possible only in the latter, making them the sole producers for the continuation of the human species. That's what makes them (homosexual - heterosexual) distinct from each other and that's why such an important title as marriage needs to be preserved.
This sounds a lot like:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
This was said by Judge Leon Bazile, when he ruled against interracial marriage. Luckily the Lovings, Richard, and Mildred didn't quit at that setback. Neither shall gay couples quit, ever.
84
Good job, Rob and Jason!keep it up:) LChilds's doestn speak english - she speaks BS and vague hatred-ese. Her posts ought to be translated into plain and simple english terms.I,for one, and other non-native english speakers, will appreciate it.
***
Kim in Portland, great post on rights, thanks. As your christian sister and fellow freedom fighter, I precisely want it to be marriage, not unions or such,mainly because it would be vitually impossible otherwise to adopt kids. Adoption process is hard as is.. I have dear friends, male gay couple.It breaks my heart to see them not being able to adopt.
***
LC, dont act in hate, its ungodly. "Somewhat equal" in case of gay rights is like "somewhat pregnant" - there is no such thing.its or yes, or no.
***
Kim in Portland, great post on rights, thanks. As your christian sister and fellow freedom fighter, I precisely want it to be marriage, not unions or such,mainly because it would be vitually impossible otherwise to adopt kids. Adoption process is hard as is.. I have dear friends, male gay couple.It breaks my heart to see them not being able to adopt.
***
LC, dont act in hate, its ungodly. "Somewhat equal" in case of gay rights is like "somewhat pregnant" - there is no such thing.its or yes, or no.
85
Loveschild @ 80,
Which of these fit under your: " "having BASICALLY all the protections afforded in marriage."
1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.
Which of these fit under your: " "having BASICALLY all the protections afforded in marriage."
1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.
87
Flounder @ 76,
I'm on the side of full equality, and I hope you understand that. As to "marriage" the title and the debate, I am going to quote Dr. Tony Campolo, Prof. of Sociology at Eastern University, and evangelical christian. Here is his thoughts on healing the rift.
"I believe that we should initiate the system employed in the Netherlands, wherein two people who want to make a lifetime commitment to each other go down to City Hall and register as a legally recognized couple so they can receive all the rights and privileges available to such couples. Then, if that couple is religious they should go to a church, synagogue, or mosque and have their union blessed."
In this way no one is being asked to compromise on their beliefs or practices in regard to same-sex marriage.
I'm on the side of full equality, and I hope you understand that. As to "marriage" the title and the debate, I am going to quote Dr. Tony Campolo, Prof. of Sociology at Eastern University, and evangelical christian. Here is his thoughts on healing the rift.
"I believe that we should initiate the system employed in the Netherlands, wherein two people who want to make a lifetime commitment to each other go down to City Hall and register as a legally recognized couple so they can receive all the rights and privileges available to such couples. Then, if that couple is religious they should go to a church, synagogue, or mosque and have their union blessed."
In this way no one is being asked to compromise on their beliefs or practices in regard to same-sex marriage.
89
85 I oppose 1 and 2 and favor all others. Putting that aside, lets just say for the sake of argument that all those are given to gay partnerships would you accept it with the condition that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman?
The states have certain broad authority that should be respected. We are a big country with diverse backgrounds and there are certain governing decisions based on these backgrounds that need to be made by the states and not the federal government.
The states have certain broad authority that should be respected. We are a big country with diverse backgrounds and there are certain governing decisions based on these backgrounds that need to be made by the states and not the federal government.
90
Loveschild @ 89,
I answered at 87, when I quoted Campolo. But it's all 1400, that includes 1 and 2. Which means the federal govenment does have to be involved for 5 to even be possible. All the tax breaks and all the benefits. It has to be equally recognized by all 50 states and territories. Equal rights for all.
I understand that you want the word or title of marriage reserved, but I don't require such reservation. It needs to legally recognize the couple so they can receive all the rights and privileges available to such couples, be they homosexual or heterosexual. Then the indivdual couple can determine if they want it blessed or not. That will free individual churchs, synagogues, mosques, etc. to decide if they want to bless the unions. That way noone's beliefs or practices are compromised. And, every union is kept equal in the eyes of both the state and federal government, and separation of chuch and state are maintained.
I answered at 87, when I quoted Campolo. But it's all 1400, that includes 1 and 2. Which means the federal govenment does have to be involved for 5 to even be possible. All the tax breaks and all the benefits. It has to be equally recognized by all 50 states and territories. Equal rights for all.
I understand that you want the word or title of marriage reserved, but I don't require such reservation. It needs to legally recognize the couple so they can receive all the rights and privileges available to such couples, be they homosexual or heterosexual. Then the indivdual couple can determine if they want it blessed or not. That will free individual churchs, synagogues, mosques, etc. to decide if they want to bless the unions. That way noone's beliefs or practices are compromised. And, every union is kept equal in the eyes of both the state and federal government, and separation of chuch and state are maintained.
91
90 In other words, its your way or the highway.
Kim, I'm really having a hard time seeing how you can honestly say you care about homosexuals. Here I am trying to meet you in the middle of the road, trying to become an ally, while you refuse to walk to meet me. You just are incapable (unwilling) of budging on this.
Thankfully I know that many gays and lesbians are not so intransigent and if given the choice they will opt for full benefits without the the title. Because those homosexuals who are truly seeking protection will not indulge the radicals in the luxury of insisting on a wording when all else is offered to them.
Kim, I'm really having a hard time seeing how you can honestly say you care about homosexuals. Here I am trying to meet you in the middle of the road, trying to become an ally, while you refuse to walk to meet me. You just are incapable (unwilling) of budging on this.
Thankfully I know that many gays and lesbians are not so intransigent and if given the choice they will opt for full benefits without the the title. Because those homosexuals who are truly seeking protection will not indulge the radicals in the luxury of insisting on a wording when all else is offered to them.
92
77 There you have it flounder.
But don't believe their views are reflective of the vast majority of gays and lesbians. There are many middle of the road, centrist who are willing to compromise.
But don't believe their views are reflective of the vast majority of gays and lesbians. There are many middle of the road, centrist who are willing to compromise.
93
91 Try reading what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote. Your reading into it. (I just had a third party read my statement, and they agree your reading into it).
I didn't say it had to be called a marriage, just that it had to be equal in every area.
I'm not the one who is incapable and/or unwilling to budge. That's you, would you really like me to pull up all the links of your comments over the last several months to prove it?
I didn't say it had to be called a marriage, just that it had to be equal in every area.
I'm not the one who is incapable and/or unwilling to budge. That's you, would you really like me to pull up all the links of your comments over the last several months to prove it?
94
93 Save the threats Kim, my comments are all in line with my current position, I've had moments of frustration (just like you) but I have reiterated my stance in favor of rights (not attempts at redefining) on this.
So, if you're saying that you are willing to meet me in the middle, have them granted all those benefits you listed (being equal) and not be call marriage and have that reserved for one man and one woman unions then you and I are in agreement and it shows to flounder that a solution can be reached on this issue when both sides are willing to give a little so that a compromise can be reached.
So, if you're saying that you are willing to meet me in the middle, have them granted all those benefits you listed (being equal) and not be call marriage and have that reserved for one man and one woman unions then you and I are in agreement and it shows to flounder that a solution can be reached on this issue when both sides are willing to give a little so that a compromise can be reached.
95
91,
I quote you at 89: I oppose 1 and 2. You want to deny them becoming parents and you want to call yourself an ally? And, I am the one who doesn't really care about them?
Your the one who accuses them of playing house, wanting children as trophies, incapable of sustaining long term relationships, desiring only a party lifestyle, and incapable of remaining disease free. Yet, your the one they are to believe really cares about them? And, you are there ally?
Your the one who is demanding her way or the highway. Your the one stating that you'll give your support if they compromise being seen as fully equal. You get to decide what rights and benefits they are worthy of, or they can forget your support. To quote you at 91: "Because those homosexuals who are truly seeking protection will not indulge the radicals in the luxury of insisting on a wording when all else is offered to them"
No, Loveschild your not an ally. You sound more like a bully.
I quote you at 89: I oppose 1 and 2. You want to deny them becoming parents and you want to call yourself an ally? And, I am the one who doesn't really care about them?
Your the one who accuses them of playing house, wanting children as trophies, incapable of sustaining long term relationships, desiring only a party lifestyle, and incapable of remaining disease free. Yet, your the one they are to believe really cares about them? And, you are there ally?
Your the one who is demanding her way or the highway. Your the one stating that you'll give your support if they compromise being seen as fully equal. You get to decide what rights and benefits they are worthy of, or they can forget your support. To quote you at 91: "Because those homosexuals who are truly seeking protection will not indulge the radicals in the luxury of insisting on a wording when all else is offered to them"
No, Loveschild your not an ally. You sound more like a bully.
96
Flounder, you raise interesting points: thank you.
Unfortunately, there is still a stigma attached to being a naturalized citizen. There are plenty of people around who hiss, spit, and froth about “those immigrants,” especially if the people in question aren’t white. I’ve been hearing a helluva lot of it in the past year, and it’s ugly. However, that seems a lot more like racism than contempt for naturalized citizens (though most of the people spouting off will deny having any racist motivations whatsoever). Perhaps it’s just not the best parallel.
Can you think of another potential parallel? I’m trying to think of a group of people who are considered “different,” especially in a legal sense, but who do not face a social stigma. I’m not coming up with anything, but honestly it might just be that I’ve had a long day and I’m kind of dragging.
Equal protection is my first concern. I do think it’s logical to push for that before anything else, although I wouldn’t stop there. And yet what disheartened me about Proposition 8 was that it stripped people of a right that was previously granted. Getting rights to the use of the word “marriage” might not be my primary concern by any stretch of the imagination, but I still feel the blow when the option is ripped away. That being said, I’d be thrilled to have civil unions in my state and for now that’s my focus.
Unfortunately, there is still a stigma attached to being a naturalized citizen. There are plenty of people around who hiss, spit, and froth about “those immigrants,” especially if the people in question aren’t white. I’ve been hearing a helluva lot of it in the past year, and it’s ugly. However, that seems a lot more like racism than contempt for naturalized citizens (though most of the people spouting off will deny having any racist motivations whatsoever). Perhaps it’s just not the best parallel.
Can you think of another potential parallel? I’m trying to think of a group of people who are considered “different,” especially in a legal sense, but who do not face a social stigma. I’m not coming up with anything, but honestly it might just be that I’ve had a long day and I’m kind of dragging.
Equal protection is my first concern. I do think it’s logical to push for that before anything else, although I wouldn’t stop there. And yet what disheartened me about Proposition 8 was that it stripped people of a right that was previously granted. Getting rights to the use of the word “marriage” might not be my primary concern by any stretch of the imagination, but I still feel the blow when the option is ripped away. That being said, I’d be thrilled to have civil unions in my state and for now that’s my focus.
97
94,
Apparently both 94 and 95 were posted at the same time. Yes, to this statement of yours: "So, if you're saying that you are willing to meet me in the middle, have them granted all those benefits you listed (being equal) and not be call marriage and have that reserved for one man and one woman unions then you and I are in agreement and it shows to flounder that a solution can be reached on this issue when both sides are willing to give a little so that a compromise can be reached."
You forget one little thing. Neither of us are gay, and we don't speak for any individual person who is gay. And, some who are gay may not be in agreement of the above.
Apparently both 94 and 95 were posted at the same time. Yes, to this statement of yours: "So, if you're saying that you are willing to meet me in the middle, have them granted all those benefits you listed (being equal) and not be call marriage and have that reserved for one man and one woman unions then you and I are in agreement and it shows to flounder that a solution can be reached on this issue when both sides are willing to give a little so that a compromise can be reached."
You forget one little thing. Neither of us are gay, and we don't speak for any individual person who is gay. And, some who are gay may not be in agreement of the above.
98
94,
I reiterate full equal rights, completely equivalent to what heterosexuals are given when they marry.
I reiterate full equal rights, completely equivalent to what heterosexuals are given when they marry.
99
94,
I reiterate that it has to be equally recognized by all 50 states, Washington DC and all US territories. Both the state and federal government have to recognize the marriage of US citizens performed in other countries. And the US government has to allow a US citizen to sponser their partner/spouse for immigration and residency, if they are in a legally recognized marriage/domestic partnership/ civil union from another country.
I reiterate that it has to be equally recognized by all 50 states, Washington DC and all US territories. Both the state and federal government have to recognize the marriage of US citizens performed in other countries. And the US government has to allow a US citizen to sponser their partner/spouse for immigration and residency, if they are in a legally recognized marriage/domestic partnership/ civil union from another country.
100
97 Kim, I feel we're making inroads here, please don't ruin the moment. Lets take joy in that we've at least finally both arrived in the same place.
101
94,
So, everything equal except in name. That is your proposed compromise. I'll accept it if they will, because it is their equality not mine, but it goes against my gut. It still smacks of separate trying to be equal. I will always be in favor of full marriage equality. If they want it and I believe many of them do, I will vote in their favor every single time.
So, everything equal except in name. That is your proposed compromise. I'll accept it if they will, because it is their equality not mine, but it goes against my gut. It still smacks of separate trying to be equal. I will always be in favor of full marriage equality. If they want it and I believe many of them do, I will vote in their favor every single time.
102
94 You are just incapable of accepting any compromise aren't you?
Unless compromise means not both sides giving a little but all you think gays would want.
Well, if you're unwilling to reach out to people like me then I've got news for you, you will keep having your asses handed out to you like in Cali.
Sorry flounder, I thought for a minute there we were advancing, I tried my best though.
Unless compromise means not both sides giving a little but all you think gays would want.
Well, if you're unwilling to reach out to people like me then I've got news for you, you will keep having your asses handed out to you like in Cali.
Sorry flounder, I thought for a minute there we were advancing, I tried my best though.
104
I agree with Campolo, as quoted in 87,
I find it strange how religious marriage and civil marriage don't really have a clearly defined status/difference like they do in some Muslim countries, where if you want to be married in the eyes of your religious community, you perform a ceremony with the Imam. If you then want to be married in the eyes of the state, you perform a ceremony at city hall. They are two separate things, and you can choose to do one without the other.
Maybe we can call the religious unions marriages and the others civil unions - for everybody, gay or straight. As long as it's the civil union that bestows legal rights. And I can't understand why heterosexuals deserve more rights than same-sex partners. Loveschild, I've been unable to think of a logical reason to oppose rights 1 and 2 listed by Kim.
My father's second marriage was a self-described "marriage of convenience," and I can't understand why that should bestow more rights than an intended life-long commitment between same sex partners.
I find it strange how religious marriage and civil marriage don't really have a clearly defined status/difference like they do in some Muslim countries, where if you want to be married in the eyes of your religious community, you perform a ceremony with the Imam. If you then want to be married in the eyes of the state, you perform a ceremony at city hall. They are two separate things, and you can choose to do one without the other.
Maybe we can call the religious unions marriages and the others civil unions - for everybody, gay or straight. As long as it's the civil union that bestows legal rights. And I can't understand why heterosexuals deserve more rights than same-sex partners. Loveschild, I've been unable to think of a logical reason to oppose rights 1 and 2 listed by Kim.
My father's second marriage was a self-described "marriage of convenience," and I can't understand why that should bestow more rights than an intended life-long commitment between same sex partners.
105
102,
Actually, I am incapable of voting for discrimination and therefore denying a minority group equal rights. I said, that I would support what they want and if "everything but the name marriage" is fine with them, then I'm on board. The difference your so hung up on between homosexuals and heterosexuals is so very small, we are so much more than the genitals in our knickers. We are all humans and we are worthy of equal rights.
It saddens me that if this was 1959, you would be glad that someone like me supported your strive for equality. Who belived deeply that the shade of your skin was but a small difference, and that we shared so much more. We we all humans and worthy of equal rights. But, you can't understand that my support comes from the same well, my convictions are still the same. We are all humans and we are all worthy of equal rights.
Actually, I am incapable of voting for discrimination and therefore denying a minority group equal rights. I said, that I would support what they want and if "everything but the name marriage" is fine with them, then I'm on board. The difference your so hung up on between homosexuals and heterosexuals is so very small, we are so much more than the genitals in our knickers. We are all humans and we are worthy of equal rights.
It saddens me that if this was 1959, you would be glad that someone like me supported your strive for equality. Who belived deeply that the shade of your skin was but a small difference, and that we shared so much more. We we all humans and worthy of equal rights. But, you can't understand that my support comes from the same well, my convictions are still the same. We are all humans and we are all worthy of equal rights.
106
Mrs. Norris,
I wish this country could just have state and federal supported civil unions for everyone, gay or straight. And let those who seek a religious union, take their civil union certificate and receive the sacrament of marriage bestowed on them by their individual church, synagogue, mosque, etc. I think that would go far to solve the problem. No compromise of beliefs and practices is required. Those who believe that marriage is a religious sacrament, get to keep marriage as a religious sacrament. Religious congregations who do not wish to bestow the title of marriage on a same-sex couple or non baptized heterosexual couple, will still be able to refuse. People who do not desire any religious ceremony for their unions, are free to not seek it. Everyone starts with the same legal base, offering the same benefits and protections.
I wish this country could just have state and federal supported civil unions for everyone, gay or straight. And let those who seek a religious union, take their civil union certificate and receive the sacrament of marriage bestowed on them by their individual church, synagogue, mosque, etc. I think that would go far to solve the problem. No compromise of beliefs and practices is required. Those who believe that marriage is a religious sacrament, get to keep marriage as a religious sacrament. Religious congregations who do not wish to bestow the title of marriage on a same-sex couple or non baptized heterosexual couple, will still be able to refuse. People who do not desire any religious ceremony for their unions, are free to not seek it. Everyone starts with the same legal base, offering the same benefits and protections.
107
@ 105 - Match-point. You are on FIRE. And thank you so much for saying "You forget one little thing. Neither of us are gay, and we don't speak for any individual person who is gay. And, some who are gay may not be in agreement of the above." Speaking as someone who is gay, it pleases me mightily that you are in our corner, and can take on all this frothy-mouthed bullshit with class and aplomb. I'm just sorry you have to beat your head against this particular brick wall.
I have come to the sad conclusion that LC needs to be banned from this site. All she is capable of posting is hateful propaganda. I feel like we've put up it with it for long enough. I'm happy to hear other people's points of view, but I think we've heard her, she refuses to hear us, and now we're being forced to listen to her constant insults and lies. Maybe we can take a poll - everyone who wants her out of here for good, raise your hand. Dan Savage clearly can't stand her, so if enough of us are on board, maybe we can ask that her IP address be banned. What say you all?
I have come to the sad conclusion that LC needs to be banned from this site. All she is capable of posting is hateful propaganda. I feel like we've put up it with it for long enough. I'm happy to hear other people's points of view, but I think we've heard her, she refuses to hear us, and now we're being forced to listen to her constant insults and lies. Maybe we can take a poll - everyone who wants her out of here for good, raise your hand. Dan Savage clearly can't stand her, so if enough of us are on board, maybe we can ask that her IP address be banned. What say you all?
108
@ 107 - commenting on my own comment: I posted my suggestion about banning LC on a thread today (the one where she suggests fences be put up around Obama appearances, lest the evil gays assassinate him, or something), and got read the riot act, so I am formally rescinding my request here as well.
109
@ 108,
You make me smile. I'm glad you rescinded your request. Frustration can be good when properly channeled. Now, go channel it.
You make me smile. I'm glad you rescinded your request. Frustration can be good when properly channeled. Now, go channel it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (109) RSS