Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, October 27, 2009
Homo Special Rights for Bigots
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Not yet, says a federal judge:
Opponents of expanded benefits for gay couples will have to abide by Washington's campaign finance laws while their lawsuit challenging those rules moves ahead.A federal judge has denied emergency requests from a group called Washington Family PAC, which wanted to suspend a ban on large campaign contributions and a requirement to identify donors.
Washington Family PAC, an arm of Focus on the Family, wanted to infuse their anti-gay campaign with a flood of last-minute large contributions to reject Referendum 71. Their case will now continue to a full hearing, but by the time it's done, most ballots will have been cast or the election will have passed. Will they still push their case after November 3—after the R-71 issue is settled by voters—when it's just a matter of challenging Washington's election law? If they drop the case, then it's clear: This was never about debating election rules, it was about their ongoing pursuit to achieve special rights for anti-gay campaigns—special rights for bigots.
2
@1 Helping preserve an institution that promotes stability and the continuation of a society into the future is helping people. Trying to dismantle said institution and opening the flood gates into an anything goes society that end up diminishing said society is in effect hurting people.
Just because others have labeled you "bad" doesn't mean that you need to act in that way or promote ideas that conduce to that description. You have control over your actions, and you can make a conscious decision to better yourself and the society you live in.
Just because others have labeled you "bad" doesn't mean that you need to act in that way or promote ideas that conduce to that description. You have control over your actions, and you can make a conscious decision to better yourself and the society you live in.
4
@2 "Just because others have labeled you "bad" doesn't mean that you need to act in that way or promote ideas that conduce to that description. You have control over your actions, and you can make a conscious decision to better yourself and the society you live in."
Wow, you've just described every civil rights argument ever. If your people had their way, homosexuals wouldn't just be able to live our lives without marriage. There would be widespread persecution including beatings and murder.
Our side has made a conscious effort to improve our society by pushing for comprehensive hate crimes legislation and promoting the idea that all people are equal and should be treated as equal by civil authority.
Yours is the side of hate, ours is the side of acceptance. And the momentum of history is always on the side of acceptance, however long and however hard the battle might be.
Wow, you've just described every civil rights argument ever. If your people had their way, homosexuals wouldn't just be able to live our lives without marriage. There would be widespread persecution including beatings and murder.
Our side has made a conscious effort to improve our society by pushing for comprehensive hate crimes legislation and promoting the idea that all people are equal and should be treated as equal by civil authority.
Yours is the side of hate, ours is the side of acceptance. And the momentum of history is always on the side of acceptance, however long and however hard the battle might be.
5
@ 2) We're still waiting for proof of this harm to society, Loveschild. You can make these claims, but neither your far-fetched theories nor a superstitious book written before science existed substantiate them. Even the sponsors of R-71 have yet to identify the way any child will be harmed, any family broken, or a marriage disrupted.
When I asked Gary Randall, the man who got R-71 on the ballot, how domestic partnerships would harm his marriage, he said, “There is probably no immediate harm to an existing married couple. You asked how effect my marriage. It won’t."
So what have you got? Using logic--no superstitious old book, no logical fallacies of slippery slopes, nor any paranoid theories--just facts.
When I asked Gary Randall, the man who got R-71 on the ballot, how domestic partnerships would harm his marriage, he said, “There is probably no immediate harm to an existing married couple. You asked how effect my marriage. It won’t."
So what have you got? Using logic--no superstitious old book, no logical fallacies of slippery slopes, nor any paranoid theories--just facts.
6
Why do people keep engaging Loveschild? She brings nothing to a conversation save for tired platitudes and conservative Christian boilerplate. Why don't we all just ignore her and her trolling and maybe she will loose interest.
That being said the point of my post: Hooray for our side. I hope this federal judge is prepared to be excoriated as "activist" by conservatives for his/her competent ruling.
That being said the point of my post: Hooray for our side. I hope this federal judge is prepared to be excoriated as "activist" by conservatives for his/her competent ruling.
7
Loveschild, claiming that gay marriage will lead to the dismantling of traditional marriage, (Yet you still cannot explain how it will hurt your marriage) is like saying the public health insurance option will lead to death panels.
9
Good thing Antonin Scalia didn't get to rule on this.
That guy would have kept America's schools segregated ...
That guy would have kept America's schools segregated ...
10
@2: Do you know that the rather amazing person you are making ignorant and bigoted comments toward cannot be accused of doing anything patently bad? That he is a loving and fairly tolerant person with a giant heart and enough patience to make a mountain envious? And such an amazing man that the grandmother of the man he is engaged to softened her brimstone and hellfire approach to gays in such a way that she has asked others when the wedding will be?
The "bad" in his name is as much a joke as the "love" in your name is.
The "bad" in his name is as much a joke as the "love" in your name is.
11
#9
Remember the last round went directly to Supreme Kennedy - will this go the same route?
Stay tuned - this may not be all over yet.
REMEMBER TO VOTE - SCREW THE BIGOTS OUT OF A WIN
Remember the last round went directly to Supreme Kennedy - will this go the same route?
Stay tuned - this may not be all over yet.
REMEMBER TO VOTE - SCREW THE BIGOTS OUT OF A WIN
12
@5: Their logic is different than ours. An example:
A couple of weeks ago, on my commute from Everett into Seattle, I passed under a pedestrian overpass on which were hung two bedsheets with messages painted on them. The first said, "Protect Our Families: Reject R-71!" The other, complete with a poor rendition of Old Glory, said, "We're not bigots. We're Americans."
See? Perfectly logical....to them.
A couple of weeks ago, on my commute from Everett into Seattle, I passed under a pedestrian overpass on which were hung two bedsheets with messages painted on them. The first said, "Protect Our Families: Reject R-71!" The other, complete with a poor rendition of Old Glory, said, "We're not bigots. We're Americans."
See? Perfectly logical....to them.
13
@3,4,5
When white people catch a cold, we get pneumonia. There's no denying that. If we are already in many of our communities across this nation with instability in our families, (many of whom have been provoked by policies outside of our community such as this one), then the last thing we need is an added outside social ideology to further erode our already dangerous situation. So that may be true in Mr. Randall's life (tho, coming from you, i have my doubts as to whether he truly said that) but it's not true in communities of color.
I have no problem whatsoever with domestic partnerships or civil unions, that's fine, i support reasonable measures and privacy issues. But you are being dishonest here cause that's not what you are really after. You want to blur any distinctions between marriage and domestic partnerships with this law. The governor herself has stated that's basically the same thing. And what you have planned is that if this added expansions are enshrined into law, you will seek to dismantle whatever little difference there is in the courts as you always do.
When white people catch a cold, we get pneumonia. There's no denying that. If we are already in many of our communities across this nation with instability in our families, (many of whom have been provoked by policies outside of our community such as this one), then the last thing we need is an added outside social ideology to further erode our already dangerous situation. So that may be true in Mr. Randall's life (tho, coming from you, i have my doubts as to whether he truly said that) but it's not true in communities of color.
I have no problem whatsoever with domestic partnerships or civil unions, that's fine, i support reasonable measures and privacy issues. But you are being dishonest here cause that's not what you are really after. You want to blur any distinctions between marriage and domestic partnerships with this law. The governor herself has stated that's basically the same thing. And what you have planned is that if this added expansions are enshrined into law, you will seek to dismantle whatever little difference there is in the courts as you always do.
14
Bigotry and Ref 71 aside, doesn't this have the potential to create a chilling precedent? If signing referendum petitions, and even giving money, is considered speech and that anonymity is granted to "protect" that speech, doesn't that have potential to turn completely unaccountable money lose in WA?
15
@13
Wow. That is the stupidest typing I've read today. This Loveschild person is maybe the most mentally deficient person on earth.
Can someone find his/her nurse/caregiver and have him/her quietly pulled away from the computer and given his/her Thorazine?
Wow. That is the stupidest typing I've read today. This Loveschild person is maybe the most mentally deficient person on earth.
Can someone find his/her nurse/caregiver and have him/her quietly pulled away from the computer and given his/her Thorazine?
16
@14: Voting is free and anonymous. However, throwing money behind a candidate or cause is indeed a public statement of support. One's wealth should not buy influence without the rest of society knowing about it.
Besides, if you're so dedicated to a candidate or cause that you're willing to put money behind it, why should you be afraid to reveal your support? Unless you know the candidate or cause has the potential to harm other people. And face it: Denial of basic human rights to a minority group because you find them or some aspect of their existence "icky" is harmful. And pathetic. And un-American.
Besides, if you're so dedicated to a candidate or cause that you're willing to put money behind it, why should you be afraid to reveal your support? Unless you know the candidate or cause has the potential to harm other people. And face it: Denial of basic human rights to a minority group because you find them or some aspect of their existence "icky" is harmful. And pathetic. And un-American.
18
Guys, she's for civil unions, but we can't have civil unions because that would lead to marriage.
But she's totally for them.
But she's totally for them.
19
@13 So why does a marriage, because it's called "marriage," deserve more rights in the eyes of the state than a "domestic partnership?" Why is it a bad thing that they're basically the same thing in the eyes of a public institution, even if they're not the same in the eyes of religious institutions? What are you really fighting for?
21
Why all this "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" mentality? It's like saying, don't ever buy your kid a bike, because if you do, then they'll want you to buy them a BMW. It's ridiculous. You buy your kid a bike because it'll make them happy, and it doesn't hurt you in any way. If they ask for a BMW down the road, you can say no then.
You say you are in support of civil unions, so approve R-71 to preserve those unions. Not in favor of same-sex marriage? Vote down that legislation *if* (when) it comes up in the future. Buy the gays a goddamn bike already.
You say you are in support of civil unions, so approve R-71 to preserve those unions. Not in favor of same-sex marriage? Vote down that legislation *if* (when) it comes up in the future. Buy the gays a goddamn bike already.
23
Now, now. Haven't learned from Netherland's experiment into same-sex marriage? Now they're locked in an all-out civil war and eat children (even on no-meat Fridays!)
25
@ 22,
It appears so. She's anti R 71 on another post, and pro DPs here. It would appear, it's her way or the highway.
It appears so. She's anti R 71 on another post, and pro DPs here. It would appear, it's her way or the highway.
27
@20 In all honesty i truly want to know this. If the law passes and people like Dom follow on what they have said and litigate for the wording and a repeal of DOMA using SB 5688 as their base for a legal challenge will you support them and disregard what your side has told those who support domestic partnerships but not marriage? You see, that's what i believe will come next, Dom has already made his intentions clear, but that's what others who support this expansion to the already established domestic partnerships have said to people like me.
Wouldn't you agree that it's dishonest saying that you don't intend this new law to become marriage but then litigate for that precisely if SB 5688 is approved by the public?
Wouldn't you agree that it's dishonest saying that you don't intend this new law to become marriage but then litigate for that precisely if SB 5688 is approved by the public?
28
I mean even if that's what you really want, don't you think that you at least need to be straight with the people and let them know what the law will be really used for?
29
@27: Yes, I support gay marriage. I always have. I grew up with a gay uncle on one side, a lesbian aunt on the other, and because I love them both, I want them to be just as happy as all my straight aunts and uncles are. Yes, if they want to get married, I believe they should be legally permitted to do so.
That is immaterial to this discussion.
My point is, they're not asking for marriage now. What they're asking for now is that they aren't stripped of rights that were promised them by our state's popularly-elected legislators (30-18 in the Senate, 62-35 in the House) in April. For now, you should concern yourself with that, not the marriage debate.
You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe about the "intentions" of those who support Ref. 71 and SB 5688. It doesn't make you right. It makes you look paranoid, intolerant, and very, very small-minded. I'm sorry that you need to suppress the rights of others to make yourself feel more secure.
That is immaterial to this discussion.
My point is, they're not asking for marriage now. What they're asking for now is that they aren't stripped of rights that were promised them by our state's popularly-elected legislators (30-18 in the Senate, 62-35 in the House) in April. For now, you should concern yourself with that, not the marriage debate.
You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe about the "intentions" of those who support Ref. 71 and SB 5688. It doesn't make you right. It makes you look paranoid, intolerant, and very, very small-minded. I'm sorry that you need to suppress the rights of others to make yourself feel more secure.
30
@28: "Straight with the people?" You mean, the way the people collecting signatures to get Ref. 71 on the ballot in the first place were "straight with people" as to its purpose? The way the Reject 71 backers are "straight with people" when they say it will force homosexuality on our children at school? Yes, I think we should be equally "straight with the people" on this.
31
With all the lies that Protect Marriage Washington has used, why do you think that you deserve honesty, Loveschild? For all the hatred you spout here, why do you think your worthy of respect? You seem to think that "traditional marriage" crowd can freely lie, because they are about religious tradition. You seem to think that your above common courtesy and decency, that your owed respect when you offer none.
Why is it not okay for some individuals to not visit a business, because they disagree with the owners supporting Prop 8, but it's okay for you to state on SLOG that you won't use Columbia Bakery or eat Ben & Jerry's ice cream, because they support equal rights?
You think because how you translate the Bible that your permitted to lie, and to oppress a segment of the population, that your justified?
Start speaking out against the lies that Protect Marriage Washington is promoting, stop defending the rights of bigots to block their names from a public document. Stop saying on one thread that your pro hate crime, pro ENDA, and pro Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions, and then turning right around and saying your against them on another. Stop defending the senseless beating of LGBT community, and claming your a persecuted minority for your views.
Until then your nothing but a hypocrite.
Why is it not okay for some individuals to not visit a business, because they disagree with the owners supporting Prop 8, but it's okay for you to state on SLOG that you won't use Columbia Bakery or eat Ben & Jerry's ice cream, because they support equal rights?
You think because how you translate the Bible that your permitted to lie, and to oppress a segment of the population, that your justified?
Start speaking out against the lies that Protect Marriage Washington is promoting, stop defending the rights of bigots to block their names from a public document. Stop saying on one thread that your pro hate crime, pro ENDA, and pro Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions, and then turning right around and saying your against them on another. Stop defending the senseless beating of LGBT community, and claming your a persecuted minority for your views.
Until then your nothing but a hypocrite.
32
"When white people catch a cold, we get pneumonia."
bitch, please. you're whiter than rick santorum.
bitch, please. you're whiter than rick santorum.
33
"You have control over your actions, and you can make a conscious decision to better yourself and the society you live in." -LC
By not continuing to "choose" to be gay society will be a better place. Yes LC, it is the gays that cause all the problems black men have. I think the crowd you're running with caused those problems.
By not continuing to "choose" to be gay society will be a better place. Yes LC, it is the gays that cause all the problems black men have. I think the crowd you're running with caused those problems.
34
@27 - yes, I think EVERY HUMAN BEING should have the right to marry the person that they love. Why should straight people get special treatment?
Without using the words "God" or "Bible" or "sin", is there any reason that you should have more rights than what I have?
Without using the words "God" or "Bible" or "sin", is there any reason that you should have more rights than what I have?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS