Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Politics / Homo Meanwhile in Maine
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Our families are on our sides. We will win. Via Sullivan.
Share via
3
That's a tasty piece of flag-wrapping he does there. Bigots are always delighted we've got soldiers like this man's sons battling all over the earth - makes old warrior/sire of warriors Philip the perfect messenger to send their own rhetoric right back at them.
6
Little misty-eyed there. My dad was in The Big War - he probably would say many of the same things about his gay grandson.
9
All of us salute this hero who has served his country honorably and valiantly... But a correction needs to made here, no one is discriminating against gays they're not being kept from accessing any public institution, any store or any non-religious institution on this nation. So the statement about caste system is an inaccurate one. The matter is that it is biology that is is setting the parameters when it comes to this issue of marriage not people. Nobody is being judged by the content of their character, color of their skin (as many Americans where during the time of WWII), or whom they want to be with. What is being observed is what nature thru biology has deemed for the institution of marriage through all cultures, black, white, red, yellow on Earth, and that is one man and one woman which is the pillar of humanity and what allows us to exist and procreate.
10
Like the military, Loveschild? Or are you referring to the fact that my wife and I were able to get all the benefits of marriage for the low cost of a $35.00 marriage cert. and that gays to get only a portion have to spend hundreds in legal and filing fees?
Keep talking out your ass, ass.
Keep talking out your ass, ass.
11
9 - "The matter is that it is biology that is is setting the parameters when it comes to this issue of marriage not people."
Oh, now it's BIOLOGY. I assumed you were going to say God, but either way, how convenient that it's some intangible force that can't answer for itself as opposed to, you know, people (who actually are setting the parameters and can be argued with).
Oh, now it's BIOLOGY. I assumed you were going to say God, but either way, how convenient that it's some intangible force that can't answer for itself as opposed to, you know, people (who actually are setting the parameters and can be argued with).
12
Stop it, Loveschild. Just stop it. I have remained silent for all the months of your schizophrenic comments in the hope that you might be capable of listening, learning, and enlarging your world as well as your heart.
You are one of those who is incapable of doing so. Go away.
You are one of those who is incapable of doing so. Go away.
13
@9 - Wrong. Just wrong. By being restricted from marriage, gays are absolutely being discriminated against. Countless rights and privileges at the state and federal levels are afforded to married couples that are not afforded to unmarried couples. You can make your biology arguments all day long, but the simple fact is that there are LEGAL rights that gays are not getting. This is discrimination, and is not equal treatment under the law. As long as their are specific LEGAL rights associated with marriage, denying it to people based on their gender is discrimination, plain and simple. You really think it's not discrimination just because they're not being physically kept from public institutions? If that's all you think discrimination is, you're really far from reality, and I feel sorry for you.
16
@9 - So Loveschild, is it Biology (Science) or is it religion (God made Adam / Eve)? Which side of the fence are you playing on?
Other than your discrimination towards gays, consistency doesn't seem to be your strong-suit.
Other than your discrimination towards gays, consistency doesn't seem to be your strong-suit.
18
I can just hear Loveschild in 1942, right before the "final solution" was planned. . .
"The matter is that it is biology that is is setting the parameters when it comes to this issue of marriage not people. Jews are biologically different. Nobody is being judged by the content of their character, color of their skin (as many Americans where during the time of WWII), or whom they want to be with, just their jewishness. What is being observed is what nature thru biology has selected the jew as different and less worthy."
Sorry, but those were the arguments made then, and they sound an awful lot like the arguments made now.
If the arguments are bad, the position is bad. Let's make life better for everybody, and let everybody be free and equal.
"The matter is that it is biology that is is setting the parameters when it comes to this issue of marriage not people. Jews are biologically different. Nobody is being judged by the content of their character, color of their skin (as many Americans where during the time of WWII), or whom they want to be with, just their jewishness. What is being observed is what nature thru biology has selected the jew as different and less worthy."
Sorry, but those were the arguments made then, and they sound an awful lot like the arguments made now.
If the arguments are bad, the position is bad. Let's make life better for everybody, and let everybody be free and equal.
19
@9: Please don't refer to us as "red", you wackadoodle racist.
I have to clarify what us "red" people did, since you seem a little quick to throw biology and tradition into this. Firstly, infertile women were slaves or chucked out in the middle of winter, depending. Secondly, there was no such thing as "marriage", women were property. Third, women could make no consent and the father was not a necessary component in any partner arrangement (although gifts were given to him). Fourth, "marriage" was repeatedly pushed upon the "red" people who consistently rejected it, especially on the plains. Fifth, while women had power, it was only by virtue of respect-- it was not uncommon, as seen in the first point, for a woman to be cast off to her death.
Marriage was essentially forced on us "red" people eventually, primarily by order of the BIA who insisted that marriage was required to pass on tribal enrollment to a child. This severely depopulated a lot of tribal lands and pushed a lot of kids into state homes. Moreover, marriage was also used against the women by making it necessary for citizenship in a lot of cases, especially after the "red" people got their citizenship in 1924. My great-grandmother's parents married prior to this point, so thankfully she became a citizen at that time. She's in her 90s right now. She was born a ward of the state.
In terms of gay people, intimate physical contact was treated as spiritual and was a norm until the early 1900s. But only between men, as far as I have been told.
Moreover, your argument ignores the infertile, aged, or disabled. Should they be excluded? And if it's all about biology, why doesn't pregnancy automatically force the couple into marriage?
I have to clarify what us "red" people did, since you seem a little quick to throw biology and tradition into this. Firstly, infertile women were slaves or chucked out in the middle of winter, depending. Secondly, there was no such thing as "marriage", women were property. Third, women could make no consent and the father was not a necessary component in any partner arrangement (although gifts were given to him). Fourth, "marriage" was repeatedly pushed upon the "red" people who consistently rejected it, especially on the plains. Fifth, while women had power, it was only by virtue of respect-- it was not uncommon, as seen in the first point, for a woman to be cast off to her death.
Marriage was essentially forced on us "red" people eventually, primarily by order of the BIA who insisted that marriage was required to pass on tribal enrollment to a child. This severely depopulated a lot of tribal lands and pushed a lot of kids into state homes. Moreover, marriage was also used against the women by making it necessary for citizenship in a lot of cases, especially after the "red" people got their citizenship in 1924. My great-grandmother's parents married prior to this point, so thankfully she became a citizen at that time. She's in her 90s right now. She was born a ward of the state.
In terms of gay people, intimate physical contact was treated as spiritual and was a norm until the early 1900s. But only between men, as far as I have been told.
Moreover, your argument ignores the infertile, aged, or disabled. Should they be excluded? And if it's all about biology, why doesn't pregnancy automatically force the couple into marriage?
20
Ok Lovechild, so was it biology when black people were not allowed to marry white people? For fucksake already. Do you know how hard mixed race couples had to fight to get marriage rights? The anti-gay marriage thing isn't new. It's just history repeating itself. Only this time it's same-sex couples instead of mixed-race couples.
21
Here Loveschild,
Currency for your martyr beanie, buy yourself some gold stars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VZX4sHn…
Currency for your martyr beanie, buy yourself some gold stars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VZX4sHn…
22
@13
You wrote....
...."Countless rights and privileges at the state and federal levels are afforded to married couples that are not afforded to unmarried couples."
Then how do you explain domestic partnerships in California where gays receive most of the benefits of marriage less the name. How do you explain the domestic partnership rights and obligations in Washington and the now debated SB 5688 expansion which is basically marriage also less the name? You know that if that expansion gets implemented the target will become the word marriage. This is not about rights and freedoms because gays are already enjoying them in many states, and they would be in more if it were not for the active pursuits for same sex marriage on the part of a few vocal radicals who are hurting the rest of those homosexuals who see no need for such intrusion into an institution that cannot provide in an accurate manner for the type of unions that they constitute.
You wrote....
...."Countless rights and privileges at the state and federal levels are afforded to married couples that are not afforded to unmarried couples."
Then how do you explain domestic partnerships in California where gays receive most of the benefits of marriage less the name. How do you explain the domestic partnership rights and obligations in Washington and the now debated SB 5688 expansion which is basically marriage also less the name? You know that if that expansion gets implemented the target will become the word marriage. This is not about rights and freedoms because gays are already enjoying them in many states, and they would be in more if it were not for the active pursuits for same sex marriage on the part of a few vocal radicals who are hurting the rest of those homosexuals who see no need for such intrusion into an institution that cannot provide in an accurate manner for the type of unions that they constitute.
23
Oh, and @19 is dead on. Marriage isn't about biology because marriage isn't about procreation. It's about love and unity. And the unity part doesn't come from fucking, it comes from being in love with one another.
If marriage was about making babies, then all the childless hetero couples would be in trouble.
If marriage was about making babies, then all the childless hetero couples would be in trouble.
24
19 I'm well aware of my ancestors history also, if you know anything about our common state (which you don't seem to) and to the adjacent states, you know many of us have a First Nation relative or ancestor in our background so your stupid accusation doesn't hold water with me.
25
You know, Loveschild is an apostate who hates God.
Because, if you loved God, you would have married at 13 and had 12 kids, half of whom would have died by the age of 3, as God ordained back in the middle ages.
And died as a penniless serf.
Because, if you loved God, you would have married at 13 and had 12 kids, half of whom would have died by the age of 3, as God ordained back in the middle ages.
And died as a penniless serf.
26
@22
"You know that if that expansion gets implemented the target will become the word marriage."
That is quite the leap you just made. Why do you assume this is about anything more than wanting equal rights? How many times does it have to be repeated that gay's just want to be treated equally. It isn't about religion. It is about basic human fucking rights.
"You know that if that expansion gets implemented the target will become the word marriage."
That is quite the leap you just made. Why do you assume this is about anything more than wanting equal rights? How many times does it have to be repeated that gay's just want to be treated equally. It isn't about religion. It is about basic human fucking rights.
27
@22: How do you explain marriage equality in Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts?
And as of next year, Rhode Island (60% support marriage equality, contrary to the governor's position. There will be a bill next year for sure), New York (53% support, with a bill on the priority list for the opening of their legislature next year) and New Jersey (varies between 54% and 60%, and is helping cost the current GOP candidate for Governor the election)?
And as of next year, Rhode Island (60% support marriage equality, contrary to the governor's position. There will be a bill next year for sure), New York (53% support, with a bill on the priority list for the opening of their legislature next year) and New Jersey (varies between 54% and 60%, and is helping cost the current GOP candidate for Governor the election)?
28
Loveschild,
You know that no amount of praying on your knees to God to deny equality is going to save your marriage. Maybe, you should actually read the sacred scriptures your always spouting about. You would understand two things: a)worshiping marriage is idolatry, and b)Jesus claimed his ministry was about proclaiming freedom and freeing the oppressed, not denying equal rights. At this rate your going to find yourself sitting alone with, Mr. Phelps.
Yes, you've seen it before, but here's those sticky 1000+ rights and priviledges you keep lying to yourself about. No amount of putting your fingers in your ears and lying is going to change the facts.
Rights and benefits
Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
[edit] Responsibilities
Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:
veteran's medical and home care benefits
housing assistance
housing loans for veterans
child's education loans
educational loan repayment schedule
agricultural price supports and loans
eligibility for federal matching campaign funds
Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:
Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage
More...
You know that no amount of praying on your knees to God to deny equality is going to save your marriage. Maybe, you should actually read the sacred scriptures your always spouting about. You would understand two things: a)worshiping marriage is idolatry, and b)Jesus claimed his ministry was about proclaiming freedom and freeing the oppressed, not denying equal rights. At this rate your going to find yourself sitting alone with, Mr. Phelps.
Yes, you've seen it before, but here's those sticky 1000+ rights and priviledges you keep lying to yourself about. No amount of putting your fingers in your ears and lying is going to change the facts.
Rights and benefits
Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
[edit] Responsibilities
Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:
veteran's medical and home care benefits
housing assistance
housing loans for veterans
child's education loans
educational loan repayment schedule
agricultural price supports and loans
eligibility for federal matching campaign funds
Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:
Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage
29
BTW You have already lost the word, Loveschild.
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar…
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar…
30
@24: Oh please, stop trying to latch onto a culture for the sake of moral superiority. You say you have "an ancestor", but mine are still alive. Heck, half the tribal government staff is a cousin to me. This time of year, the majority of the mail I get is stamped with the tribal seal. My tribal enrollment number is around 8,000 out of 14,500 members.
With regard to the above facts, I think I know a whole hell of a lot more than you do about my culture. By your rhetoric, one would assume you'd be keen on gay rights since you definitely have more than a couple of gay relatives, and at least one of them is going to support marriage equality.
No, you're a racist wackadoodle for saying "red", stop trying to weasel out of it.
With regard to the above facts, I think I know a whole hell of a lot more than you do about my culture. By your rhetoric, one would assume you'd be keen on gay rights since you definitely have more than a couple of gay relatives, and at least one of them is going to support marriage equality.
No, you're a racist wackadoodle for saying "red", stop trying to weasel out of it.
31
LC said:
That's called separate but equal. Look it up.
Then how do you explain domestic partnerships in California where gays receive most of the benefits of marriage less the name.
That's called separate but equal. Look it up.
32
I don't know why everyone doesn't just ignore loveschild. I mean, every time s/he comments, the discussion degenerates completely. Here we had a totally inspiring and uplifting speech from a grandfather, and everyone was basking in that, till LC appears with stupidity and everyone turns to that and forgets what we were actually talking about.
34
29 The word can be redefined all you want in books (if that makes you happy) by those who hold your same views but that doesn't take away from what the reality of what enables life itself is. Because at the end of the day two men cannot procreate between each other, two women cannot procreate between each other. Only one man and woman can procreate between each other. That's why both you and me are here on this Earth, we were not conceived due to the copulation of two men Kim. That's why all cultures (including the First Nations of North America) have had an implementation of some sort of marriage which has meant primarily the union of men and women for the stability and continuity of said societies.
35
@32 - I think everyone pretty much recognizes that LC is the work of one or more attention-whoring idiots who like to stir the pot and piss people off. How you deal with that is up to you. I prefer to ignore, but that's just me. If I want to get into an argument about equality, I know plenty of real life Loveschilds that I can argue with.
(That is to say, Matt, Kim, Rob, Bacon, etc., I hope you are using the arguments you make here to confront real-life bigots! You make good points and they need to be heard outside this echo chamber!)
(That is to say, Matt, Kim, Rob, Bacon, etc., I hope you are using the arguments you make here to confront real-life bigots! You make good points and they need to be heard outside this echo chamber!)
36
@34 Ancient societies preserving the existence of their people through procreation mandates is a TAD different than what we have today. People also didn't get married for love. But don't worry, there are still cultures that perpetuate your archaic pov and stigmatize women who do not have children, esp if they don't have sons. Good work.
38
rumor has it that LC isn't even real but rather a Slog/Stranger manifestation to keep us involved with the blog....
41
Loveschild @ 34,
Give it up. The planet is vastly over populated, their living breathing children within the foster care system and orphanages here in the US and around the world who need homes. No chance the human race will die out. Your mix matched genitalia is required rule is founded on sand, marriages are not about dicks and vaginae, it's time for you to grow up.
Give it up. The planet is vastly over populated, their living breathing children within the foster care system and orphanages here in the US and around the world who need homes. No chance the human race will die out. Your mix matched genitalia is required rule is founded on sand, marriages are not about dicks and vaginae, it's time for you to grow up.
42
@34: Please explain to me how "our" people arranged and performed or recognized marriages, Loveschild. You're a cherokee princess or something, right? So, please, do tell.
43
@22
While it's true that some states are enacting laws that make it possible for gay and lesbian couples to have SOME of the same rights as married couples, the fact is those rights do not transfer to other states, or to rights afforded by the federal government. If a gay couple married in Vermont travels to Florida for vacation and one of them gets sick, Florida does not recognize the marriage, and therefore the rights of the spouse to oversee the healthcare of their partner. God forbid that partner should die, the state also doesn't have to recognize any rights of survivorship as it pertains to taking possession of human remains, or any number of other things. Likewise, social security benefits are a federal entitlement, not a state one, so unless the federal government recognizes the "partnership" you're so certain is enough for the gays, certain rights of survivorship will not be given to the living partner.
"Separate but equal" was a crock in the sixties, and it's a crock now.
While it's true that some states are enacting laws that make it possible for gay and lesbian couples to have SOME of the same rights as married couples, the fact is those rights do not transfer to other states, or to rights afforded by the federal government. If a gay couple married in Vermont travels to Florida for vacation and one of them gets sick, Florida does not recognize the marriage, and therefore the rights of the spouse to oversee the healthcare of their partner. God forbid that partner should die, the state also doesn't have to recognize any rights of survivorship as it pertains to taking possession of human remains, or any number of other things. Likewise, social security benefits are a federal entitlement, not a state one, so unless the federal government recognizes the "partnership" you're so certain is enough for the gays, certain rights of survivorship will not be given to the living partner.
"Separate but equal" was a crock in the sixties, and it's a crock now.
44
Maybe the Stranger should drop its holier than thou attitude and investigate why Washington Families Standing Together has raised more than 4 times as much as the bigots have for Referendum 71 and yet people are still confused on how to vote. Maybe phone banking and canvassing are NOT the way to win this. After all, that's exactly how the No on 8 campaign lost on Prop 8.
WAFST:
Cash*: $1,186,026.90
In-Kind: $557,526.78
Expenditures: $558,362.32
Anonymous: $1,034.00
Loans: $0.00
Misc: $2,470.33
Small Contr: $18,316.69
HRC Referendum 71 PAC:
Cash*: $76,871.00
In-Kind: $2,361.00
Expenditures: $75,295.00
Anonymous: $0.00
Loans: $0.00
Misc: $0.00
Small Contr: $245.00
==================================
Vote Reject on R-71:
Cash*: $200,040.53
In-Kind: $0.00
Expenditures: $100,000.00
Anonymous: $0.00
Loans: $0.00
Misc: $0.00
Small Contr: $0.00
Protect Marriage WA:
Cash*: $73,209.47
In-Kind: $144,518.26
Expenditures: $61,036.87
Anonymous: $0.00
Loans: $1,900.00
Misc: $0.00
Small Contr: $6,734.60
WAFST:
Cash*: $1,186,026.90
In-Kind: $557,526.78
Expenditures: $558,362.32
Anonymous: $1,034.00
Loans: $0.00
Misc: $2,470.33
Small Contr: $18,316.69
HRC Referendum 71 PAC:
Cash*: $76,871.00
In-Kind: $2,361.00
Expenditures: $75,295.00
Anonymous: $0.00
Loans: $0.00
Misc: $0.00
Small Contr: $245.00
==================================
Vote Reject on R-71:
Cash*: $200,040.53
In-Kind: $0.00
Expenditures: $100,000.00
Anonymous: $0.00
Loans: $0.00
Misc: $0.00
Small Contr: $0.00
Protect Marriage WA:
Cash*: $73,209.47
In-Kind: $144,518.26
Expenditures: $61,036.87
Anonymous: $0.00
Loans: $1,900.00
Misc: $0.00
Small Contr: $6,734.60
46
Interesting Freudian slip you made there, Loveschild @9
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. -- Martin Luther King, Jr., August 28, 1963
How many people have slipped by SLOG alone, whose characters you never gave a chance, Loveschild, all because you couldn't get past your own prejudice.
I'm a total softie for veterans and stories of the front. They make me sob like an incoming artillery flashback.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. -- Martin Luther King, Jr., August 28, 1963
How many people have slipped by SLOG alone, whose characters you never gave a chance, Loveschild, all because you couldn't get past your own prejudice.
I'm a total softie for veterans and stories of the front. They make me sob like an incoming artillery flashback.
48
If biology mandated marriage, it would be impossible for unmarried people to become pregnant.
Biology mandates reproduction, not marriage. And, as we're learning, the genes associated with homosexuality in men are also associated with increased reproductive rate in their female relatives. So it's a net gain.
Nature does not care about dignity, right and wrong, or justice. Those are all human inventions. And so is a civil marriage license.
Biology mandates reproduction, not marriage. And, as we're learning, the genes associated with homosexuality in men are also associated with increased reproductive rate in their female relatives. So it's a net gain.
Nature does not care about dignity, right and wrong, or justice. Those are all human inventions. And so is a civil marriage license.
50
u know, i was hoping we could all just ooh and ah over this awesome old man but u all had to engage lc instead. bummer
51
i really don't care WHAT you say, loveschild, but stop with the claiming you're an african american woman. you AREN'T. and you don't have three children, either. find some other persona and quit insulting the sisters.
52
42 You truly are a hideous person, and I'm talking about what's inside of you. No I don't have "cherokee princess" blood running thru my veins, the First Nation blood I have is of a nation that still exists as such within TX. And it's not of distant ancestor that i never met as you snobbishly implied.
Congratulations for having a tribal government staff related to you. However, no matter how much you disparage my family it will never take away from me the blood relations that i have even if I myself physically don't resemble them. This is just a simple generic link of the many found thru the net,
http://www.manataka.org/page348.html
...since you seem to have a problem with knowing your supposed history and that of the many distinctly diverse First Nations.
Congratulations for having a tribal government staff related to you. However, no matter how much you disparage my family it will never take away from me the blood relations that i have even if I myself physically don't resemble them. This is just a simple generic link of the many found thru the net,
http://www.manataka.org/page348.html
...since you seem to have a problem with knowing your supposed history and that of the many distinctly diverse First Nations.
53
Sorry, the hateful person here is and has always been you.
How time flies, in June you went off on me for mentioning that I was part First Nation, that it was plain offensive that I would mention my ancestory and put it on display. That's all you do here is blather on about your ethnic background and your homophobia, your acting like a hypocrite. Why am I never surprised?
How time flies, in June you went off on me for mentioning that I was part First Nation, that it was plain offensive that I would mention my ancestory and put it on display. That's all you do here is blather on about your ethnic background and your homophobia, your acting like a hypocrite. Why am I never surprised?
54
Loveschild, You are just as bad as the segregationists, and you know it. If the ability to procreate is a requisite for marriage, that leaves out a lot of people besides the gays.
If you feel your marriage and family are threatened by gay marriage, that is because you have a weak marriage, and family.
Remember, that almost 75% of children in your demographic are born into failed families by your own definition. It's very telling how you can turn a blind eye to that statistic, and that you use gay people as an diversion. I guess it's easier to blame someone else than to take responsibility.
If you feel your marriage and family are threatened by gay marriage, that is because you have a weak marriage, and family.
Remember, that almost 75% of children in your demographic are born into failed families by your own definition. It's very telling how you can turn a blind eye to that statistic, and that you use gay people as an diversion. I guess it's easier to blame someone else than to take responsibility.
55
I don't know what's more entertaining: Loveschild's inane arguments, the intelligent, thoughtful counter-arguments, or Loveschild's selective responses to the intelligent, thoughtful counter-arguments which don't actually address what's been said.
Loveschild, unless you're here playing devil's advocate, give it up. You haven't made a coherent argument yet.
Loveschild, unless you're here playing devil's advocate, give it up. You haven't made a coherent argument yet.
56
@52: Nope, my tribe isn't on there at all, nor are any of the other tribes I am related to. It's a fairly selective list, actually.
I take it on high authority (a 90-something and a just-over-100 year old bingo playing great-granny-type) that the only real limitation is on what the state will give or what the state will take. And if we want to get all indian mystic, an elder in my family had a vision years ago of my family standing with me at my wedding. To a man. Hell, it near-on caused a schism in the family and they spent my entire childhood trying to butch me up before I found out what the vision was when I was around 20. It's the only reason my family is all "aw, he's engaged".
I think it's incredibly racist to say "oh, after being raised traditionally, you know nothing about your people" and then to say "how dare you question my links to a tribe" when you're doing nothing but trying to dictate to me how my folks act. I spent enough time having folks call me white based on my skin tone or point to XYZ link on my mother's side as if I'm suddenly not eligible to be in a tribe, even though, like I said, I spent my childhood awash in it.
I didn't spend my formative years getting yelled at in a language you couldn't begin to recognize by relatives in Oklahoma. And I sure as hell didn't go to Anadarko* for no reason.
*You might recognize Anadarko by its other name: Hell. People are nice, but the town? Not so much.
I take it on high authority (a 90-something and a just-over-100 year old bingo playing great-granny-type) that the only real limitation is on what the state will give or what the state will take. And if we want to get all indian mystic, an elder in my family had a vision years ago of my family standing with me at my wedding. To a man. Hell, it near-on caused a schism in the family and they spent my entire childhood trying to butch me up before I found out what the vision was when I was around 20. It's the only reason my family is all "aw, he's engaged".
I think it's incredibly racist to say "oh, after being raised traditionally, you know nothing about your people" and then to say "how dare you question my links to a tribe" when you're doing nothing but trying to dictate to me how my folks act. I spent enough time having folks call me white based on my skin tone or point to XYZ link on my mother's side as if I'm suddenly not eligible to be in a tribe, even though, like I said, I spent my childhood awash in it.
I didn't spend my formative years getting yelled at in a language you couldn't begin to recognize by relatives in Oklahoma. And I sure as hell didn't go to Anadarko* for no reason.
*You might recognize Anadarko by its other name: Hell. People are nice, but the town? Not so much.
57
Kim in Portland, The Amazing Jim, Baconcat, et al, I love you all. I could say I have a strict "Do not feed the troll" policy, but the truth is, I'm just no good at arguing with people like this. One time, a guy who I had been tutoring made a statement to me that was basically, "All gay people were abused as children." All I could do was sputter, "You're wrong! You're just wrong! That's wrong!" which really didn't do anything to convince him that he was wrong. Thank you for responding to LC; even though it might seem like a distraction, it helps people like me learn how to make thoughtful, intelligent counter-arguments to ignorant people.
As for the video, very touching, definitely brought a tear to my eye.
As for the video, very touching, definitely brought a tear to my eye.
58
Kim, Rob, Baconcat and others, I admire your strength. I cant deal with that heartless LC anymore.That video! I was so shocked to read her replies, i just poured myself a glass of Carminere to restore my currently ruined, previously good mood.
Mind you, opened a bottle I kept for colder months to enjoy by fireplace, fairly pricey stuff. That gang of idiots posting under "Loveschild"is getting to cost me too much :)
Mind you, opened a bottle I kept for colder months to enjoy by fireplace, fairly pricey stuff. That gang of idiots posting under "Loveschild"is getting to cost me too much :)
59
Alinka @ 58,
The poster who is Loveschild is irrelevant. Their opinion is irrelevant. Just use what you learn from the experience. Never let it ruin your mood.
Enjoy your Carminere, I prefer whiskey/whisky by the fire.
The poster who is Loveschild is irrelevant. Their opinion is irrelevant. Just use what you learn from the experience. Never let it ruin your mood.
Enjoy your Carminere, I prefer whiskey/whisky by the fire.
60
The Gender Genie gives all the text from Loveschild on this thread a male scoring, 1099m/970f, 642 words, for what it's worth.
Considering I typically get narrow margins, myself, I'm not sure how reliable the GG is.
Considering I typically get narrow margins, myself, I'm not sure how reliable the GG is.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Privatizing WA Liquor Carries a High Cost, Says Opponent by Cienna Madrid
-
This Shit Will Never Get Old by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (60) RSS