View Full Version : Mass. lawmakers block gay marriage vote
I live in Mass, and being the only state in the union that allows gay marriage let me say that the sky hasnt fallen.
So do you think i should have been able to vote on this?
Mass. lawmakers block gay marriage vote By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago
Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it.
The narrow vote was a victory for gay marriage advocates and a blow to efforts to reverse the historic court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. More than 8,500 gay couples have married in Massachusetts since it became legal in May 2004.
To get the proposed ban on the 2008 statewide ballot would have required 50 votes. It got 45, with 151 lawmakers opposed. There was no debate.
As the tally was announced, the halls of the Statehouse erupted in applause.
"We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the Legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.
Opponents of gay marriage vowed to press on, but Thursday's defeat after more than three years of sometimes wrenching debate could prove insurmountable. Any effort to mount a new ballot question would take years at a time political support in Massachusetts is swinging firmly behind gay marriage.
For gay couples, the vote marked what could be the end of a struggle that began in 2001, when seven same-sex couples, denied marriage licenses, sued in Suffolk Superior Court.
Outside the Statehouse, hundreds of people rallied on both sides of the issue.
"We believe it's unconstitutional not to allow people to vote on this," said Rebekah Beliveau, 24, of Lawrence, a student at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary who stood with fellow college-age amendment supporters across the street from the Statehouse.
Advocates of the amendment said they gathered 170,000 signatures supporting the amendment, although the secretary of state's office accepted only 123,000. "We're standing up not necessarily on the issue of same-sex marriage, but our right to vote," Beliveau said.
Across the road, gay marriage advocates stood on the front steps of the capital waving signs that read, "Wrong to Vote on Rights" and "All Families Are Equal."
Jean Chandler, 62, of Cambridge, came with fellow members of her Baptist church in an effort to rebuff the image that strict followers of the Bible are opposed to gay marriage.
"I think being gay is like being left-handed," Chandler said. "If we decided left-handed people couldn't marry, what kind of society would we be?"
In contrast to previous joint sessions, there was no debate Thursday. Senate President Therese Murray opened the constitutional convention by calling for a vote, and the session was gaveled to a close immediately afterward.
___
Associated Press writers Glen Johnson and Ken Maguire contributed to this report.
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&printer=1;_ylt=Atq9QZ7ysWjmhZhnh4OgFmxH2ocA)
I think I should have been able too. However i concede legislatures are my representatives. This whole thing has left me with the sense that crucial social issues should be up for referendum questions on both state and federal level.
Strike For The South
06-14-2007, 19:07
Gay Rights like abortion is a state issue and should be put up to popular vote in all 50
No, it's not a state issue, it's a national issue, and it's also discrimination. I dunno Odin, I am pretty opposed to letting people vote on issues that could legalize discrimination.
I have yet to see one minor shred of real evidence that 'teh gays' make horrible parents and are damaging the minds of our children and their own. People voting to ban gay marriage smacks of the highest levels of ignorance to me.
Strike For The South
06-14-2007, 19:19
No, it's not a state issue, it's a national issue, and it's also discrimination. I dunno Odin, I am pretty opposed to letting people vote on issues that could legalize discrimination.
Why is it up to you to qualify discrimanation? This is exactly why it should be up to the states. I want to be able to only have to persuade my people to let gays marry not the one in New York or California or anywhere else. Each state is different and different issuses need to be adressed in diffrent manners. The feds can just keep out
No, it's not a state issue, it's a national issue, and it's also discrimination. I dunno Odin, I am pretty opposed to letting people vote on issues that could legalize discrimination.
I have yet to see one minor shread of real evidence that 'teh gays' make horrible parents and are damaging the minds of our children and their own. People voting to ban gay marriage smacks of the highest levels of ignorance to me.
But Gay marriage has social implications, like it or not thats where our society is at. Allowing the state to govern it is just as scary IMHO. less then 200 people decided the course of a major social policy that has national implications.
I cant just set that aside.
I dont advocate discrimination, I dont give two monkeys if homosexuals want to marry or not. I believe two parents are better then one, and given our society structure the legal benefits of marriage should be extended to homosexuals as well.
That said, i'd like to have my say on it, and while i dont want constitutions amended, id rather have the will of people represented through a popular vote then by a delegates.
Don Corleone
06-14-2007, 19:26
No, it's not a state issue, it's a national issue, and it's also discrimination. I dunno Odin, I am pretty opposed to letting people vote on issues that could legalize discrimination.
I have yet to see one minor shread of real evidence that 'teh gays' make horrible parents and are damaging the minds of our children and their own. People voting to ban gay marriage smacks of the highest levels of ignorance to me.
Let me get this straight, Whacker (and I actually am pro Civil Unions, btw). The Massachusetts State Constitution says nothing about gay marriage. The State Supreme Court said in their minds, it should have allowed for it, so they were granting the right. The citizens try to enact an ammendment so that it explicitly says "no, we don't want it" and you say you're opposed to that?
I agree that one of the biggest dangers of a Democracy is the rights of the minorities. Democracy has been described as 3 wolves and a sheep having a debate about what's for dinner. Even so, we cannot create special rights out of thin air. And we cannot cede all authority of the legislative and executive branch over to the judicial branch. Too much of that, and we become an aristocracy.
Why is it up to you to qualify discrimanation? This is exactly why it should be up to the states. I want to be able to only have to persuade my people to let gays marry not the one in New York or California or anywhere else. Each state is different and different issuses need to be adressed in diffrent manners. The feds can just keep out
Awesome. Maybe you texans should vote to have 'colored drinking fountains' again. ~:rolleyes:
As for qualifying this as discrimination... Are you serious or just being facetious? This is a poster child for discrimination. http://www.webster.com/dictionary/discriminating
And no, this isn't a state's issue, period, this is a problem affecting the whole nation. Civil rights wasn't limited to Alabama, this is the exact same thing. Certainly there are some things that are individual state issues, this is not one of them. Texas and Texans needs to remember that it's a state and they are US citizens, not a separate country subject to separate rules. :laugh4:
But Gay marriage has social implications, like it or not thats where our society is at. Allowing the state to govern it is just as scary IMHO. less then 200 people decided the course of a major social policy that has national implications.
So did civil rights back in the 60's. I'd be willing to bet you a case of beer I know how the population of Alabama would have voted if they'd put the question to the people on how to handle that. Does that make it OK if they'd voted to keep segregation? It would have been a democratic vote... As much as it seriously pains me to admit this, there are times (though rare) when the people do NOT know what's best.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-14-2007, 19:30
I agree that one of the biggest dangers of a Democracy is the rights of the minorities. Democracy has been described as 3 wolves and a sheep having a debate about what's for dinner. Even so, we cannot create special rights out of thin air. And we cannot cede all authority of the legislative and executive branch over to the judicial branch. Too much of that, and we become an aristocracy.
You know better than that, Don...
Also, didn't the legislative branch essentially just rule in favor of gay marriage? So it's not just the judiciary.
Let me get this straight, Whacker (and I actually am pro Civil Unions, btw). The Massachusetts State Constitution says nothing about gay marriage. The State Supreme Court said in their minds, it should have allowed for it, so they were granting the right. The citizens try to enact an ammendment so that it explicitly says "no, we don't want it" and you say you're opposed to that?
Yes I'm opposed to it, please see my response to Odin above. Sometimes the people don't know what's best, and they would vote in complete contradition to the intent and spirit of the US constitution and human rights (in my view). A very bad a rough analogy would be letting a city that the majority population are skinheads vote on whether to allow minorities to live in city limits. It'd be blatantly illegal (yes I know gay rights hasn't been well defined yet) given anti-discrimination laws, but it would have been a fair 'democratic' vote.
So did civil rights back in the 60's. I'd be willing to bet you a case of beer I know how the population of Alabama would have voted if they'd put the question to the people on how to handle that. Does that make it OK if they'd voted to keep segregation? It would have been a democratic vote... As much as it seriously pains me to admit this, there are times (though rare) when the people do NOT know what's best.
You may be right, good example to support your view Whacker, cant argue it other then to say that the civil rights issue in alabama had progressed into national legislation at that point in time.
But point taken.
Strike For The South
06-14-2007, 19:36
Its a states rights issue for all states not just Texas and dont even try to compare the civil rights movement of the 60s to the "movement" we have today. Blacks were treated like aniamls and were denied basic human rights. I dont think gays live in constant fear of getting killed or having there churches burned down. Some people have different veiwpoints than you. Why is your veiwpoint whats best for the country? Why? Why should the goverment tell us what to do?
You know better than that, Don...
Also, didn't the legislative branch essentially just rule in favor of gay marriage? So it's not just the judiciary.
They voted to oppose a general vote that would allow a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
So technically its not a vote in favor of gay marriage.
Its a states rights issue for all states not just Texas and dont even try to compare the civil rights movement of the 60s to the "movement" we have today. Blacks were treated like aniamls and were denied basic human rights. I dont think gays live in constant fear of getting killed or having there churches burned down. Some people have different veiwpoints than you. Why is your veiwpoint whats best for the country? Why? Why should the goverment tell us what to do?
I'm not trying to be rude, but you have a seriously skewed and/or sheltered view. This is in the exact same vein as civil rights. Do you have any gay friends? I have several. Listening to them talk about the problems and day to day hurdles they have to jump is mindboggling and extremely depressing. You really want me to get into it? Yes, they are often treated like animals, esp. in the good ol' bible belt. They do often live in fear of being beaten up, having their houses and residences vandalized, being denied jobs, seating at restauraunts, entrances to venues, services in general. Having religious nutcases screaming at them that they're going to burn in hell. Not being invited to certain family events, or being told they can't bring their significant other. Being rejected by family members. I'm not talking about 'flamers' either that flaunt their sexual preferences, I'm talking about normal men and women here. Yes, they are quite often treated subhuman, far more than you seem to believe.
Edit - I'll also throw this last bit out here. You can tell me to go jump in a lake if you want, but "you'll see." I think the fact that you are still a teenager probably contributes largely to your views on this. As you and your friends get older, graduate from high school/college, you end up seeing life quite a bit differently and start to see other aspects of it. I probably would have agreed with you completely when I was 17-18ish.
Don Corleone
06-14-2007, 19:46
You know better than that, Don...
Also, didn't the legislative branch essentially just rule in favor of gay marriage? So it's not just the judiciary.
No, actually I don't know better than that. I agree with granting civil unions to gay couples, but frankly, there's no legal requirement that we do so. We are creating a new class of legal identity, and we are creating new rights for this identity. Even if we 'should' do this, we are creating them. Gay rights was unheard of 50 years ago, let alone at the time the US or Massachussets Constitutions were written and ratified.
As to your 2nd point, you actually have a very good point here. The legislature represents the will of the people. If Massachusetts citizens elect representatives that say the people they represent cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions, then all's fair.
Strike For The South
06-14-2007, 19:48
I'm not trying to be rude, but you have a seriously skewed and/or sheltered view. This is in the exact same vein as civil rights. Do you have any gay friends? I have several. Listening to them talk about the problems and day to day hurdles they have to jump is mindboggling and extremely depressing. You really want me to get into it? Yes, they are often treated like animals, esp. in the good ol' bible belt. They do often live in fear of being beaten up, having their houses and residences vandalized, being denied jobs, seating at restauraunts, entrances to venues, services in general. Having religious nutcases screaming at them that they're going to burn in hell. Not being invited to certain family events, or being told they can't bring their significant other. Being rejected by family members. I'm not talking about 'flamers' either that flaunt their sexual preferences, I'm talking about normal men and women here. Yes, they are quite often treated subhuman, far more than you seem to believe.
Ugh this isnt about gay rights its about gay marrige! Simply giving gays the right to marry will not change peoples veiws about them! It sucks but apprently many people aernt ready to accept gays yet and thats there perogative there wrong but they can think what they like. So the feds can come out tommorow and says gays can have the right to marry and you know what will happen? Riots beatings murders good ol Pat RObertson will have a field day and gay rights will be pushed back 50 years. Simply allowing the feds to come in and tell us what to do on this issue is the worst idea
No, actually I don't know better than that. I agree with granting civil unions to gay couples, but frankly, there's no legal requirement that we do so. We are creating a new class of legal identity, and we are creating new rights for this identity. Even if we 'should' do this, we are creating them. Gay rights was unheard of 50 years ago, let alone at the time the US or Massachussets Constitutions were written and ratified.
As to your 2nd point, you actually have a very good point here. The legislature represents the will of the people. If Massachusetts citizens elect representatives that say the people they represent cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions, then all's fair.
Let me ask you this another way. Why do we have to make laws specifically allowing or preventing this? Homosexuality has been a part of mankind since we started walking upright, and it's been well accepted in numerous other cultures (even some of our own) now and throughout history. If you think about it, we (American and the western EU) only made this an issue over the past several hundred years, witness the Puritains and conservative christian types.
I agree with your sentiment that we shouldn't make a special case, but from a different perspective. This shouldn't be a case at all, it should just be... in my view.
I loathe you.:grin:
Best friends forever!??! :yes:
Devastatin Dave
06-14-2007, 20:08
To quote the legendary Orga MRD would say...
This thread's so.:laugh4:
I think it has national implications (if gays got married in one state their marriage would not be recognized in a different state if they moved) but I've changed my mind on this issue. Its no the job of the government to legislate marriage anyway. So why not allow the state to recognize gay "unions". I don't have to personally accept their life choice. But I think they should be able to visit their little buddy while he's dieing of some sort of horrible disease. We need to respect these people and they should have the same rights as anyone else. So I'm all for civil unions and I believe that there is no need to have a popular vote on this topic. I wish everyone could be as open minded as me when it comes to these folks. :yes:
Best friends forever!??! :yes:
Sure why not. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRgNzsoGhf8)
Sure why not. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRgNzsoGhf8)
This thread has way too much mantension in it now.
And Dave is still one of my favorite posters.
This thread has way too much mantension in it now.
And Dave is still one of my favorite posters.
It just got a lot worse. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL4L4Uv5rf0)
Devastatin Dave
06-14-2007, 20:31
This thread has way too much mantension in it now.
And Dave is still one of my favorite posters.
Is there still a waiting period for amphibious trebuchets?:beam:
Is there still a waiting period for amphibious trebuchets?:beam:
Dammit Dave (DD!) I TOLD you to use that discount coupon before the end of last week. Fine. Go to the merchant and give em the discount code "DD1SQSQUID" and you'll get your discount. Also, re: your earlier question, my technicians tell me that it is NOT a good idea to use this to 'expedite' the kids to get them to school faster. Results have been rather messy.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-14-2007, 20:48
No, actually I don't know better than that. I agree with granting civil unions to gay couples, but frankly, there's no legal requirement that we do so. We are creating a new class of legal identity, and we are creating new rights for this identity. Even if we 'should' do this, we are creating them. Gay rights was unheard of 50 years ago, let alone at the time the US or Massachussets Constitutions were written and ratified.
But we aren't granting civil unions to gay couples, they are for everybody.
No, actually I don't know better than that. I agree with granting civil unions to gay couples, but frankly, there's no legal requirement that we do so. We are creating a new class of legal identity, and we are creating new rights for this identity. Even if we 'should' do this, we are creating them. Gay rights was unheard of 50 years ago, let alone at the time the US or Massachussets Constitutions were written and ratified.I agree with this. Don thinks we should have civil unions, I don't see the need. Either way, something like this should be decided on a state-by-state basis in the most democratic way possible. If a majority of the voting populace in a state thinks gay marriage is something they should have, then they should have it. However, having judges manufacture rights that don't previously exist and forcing them on the people of the state is the wrong way to go about it.
I think the Massachusetts legislature effectively ducked the issue. If, as they claim, there is strong and growing support for gay marriage in the state, where is the harm in having a direct vote of the people to validate it? It would certainly have a lot more validity than a decision made by judges that the legislature is too scared to address one way or the other.
I agree with this. Don thinks we should have civil unions, I don't see the need. Either way, something like this should be decided on a state-by-state basis in the most democratic way possible. If a majority of the voting populace in a state thinks gay marriage is something they should have, then they should have it.
So again by this logic, it's a pretty safe bet that some of the southern states would go back to Segregation and redact civil rights for minorities, given the chance to vote on it. Some states would probably also vote bring prayer back into school and favor certain christian sects publically. Is this right? Not even remotely. Like I said, sometimes the people do NOT know what is right.
However, having judges manufacture rights that don't previously exist and forcing them on the people of the state is the wrong way to go about it.
And having the ignorant, prejudiced masses vote to discriminate against others is the right way to do it? It's a slippery slope to be sure and there's no one right answer, but I do firmly believe that in certain cases people need to have tolerance forced down their throats.
I think the Massachusetts legislature effectively ducked the issue. If, as they claim, there is strong and growing support for gay marriage in the state, where is the harm in having a direct vote of the people to validate it? It would certainly have a lot more validity than a decision made by judges that the legislature is too scared to address one way or the other.
Because there are certain things governing equal rights and you can't count on 'the people' to do the right thing. See my examples earlier in this thread. This nation isn't founded and does not stand on bigotry, prejudice, or hatred, no matter how much some people want it to be so. I keep harping on and using civil rights as an example because it's the best one I can come up with, but the premises are the exact same here, no matter what some people want to believe. Having that issue forced was one of the better moments our government has show in the past several decades.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-14-2007, 22:29
No, it's not a state issue, it's a national issue, and it's also discrimination.
Are you an american? Its clearly a state issue. marriage laws are made by the state. Even conservatives oppose an amendment banning gay marriage because its a state issue.
So again by this logic, it's a pretty safe bet that some of the southern states would go back to Segregation and redact civil rights for minorities
Sexual persuasion does not qualify one as a minority. Its not how our system works.
And having the ignorant, prejudiced masses vote to discriminate against others is the right way to do it? It's a slippery slope to be sure and there's no one right answer, but I do firmly believe that in certain cases people need to have tolerance forced down their throats.
It leaves a bitter taste that usually results in regurgitation.
By the way in case you never noticed all laws are discriminatory by their very nature. Otherwise everyone could marry everyone. But im sure you have your own sets of people who you would discriminate against here.
Because there are certain things governing equal rights and you can't count on 'the people' to do the right thing.
Gays have equal rights. Besides you cant count on the government either. We the people are supposed to be the final voice.
Trying to compare this to civil rights is an affront to all those who died and sacrificed in that movement.
Gays have equal rights. Besides you cant count on the government either. We the people are supposed to be the final voice.
Trying to compare this to civil rights is an affront to all those who died and sacrificed in that movement.I'm not a racial minority, but I do think it could be a tad offensive to draw a parallel between gay marriage and the civil rights movement. I hate to go down this tiresome road again, but Gawain is right- gays already have equal rights under the law.
So again by this logic, it's a pretty safe bet that some of the southern states would go back to Segregation and redact civil rights for minorities, given the chance to vote on it. Some states would probably also vote bring prayer back into school and favor certain christian sects publically. Is this right? Not even remotely. Like I said, sometimes the people do NOT know what is right.Quite a different matter. Blacks were treated differently and by different standards, which should not be permitted under our Constitution- the civil rights movement was about equal treatment under law regardless of race. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is specifically asking for different standards to be applied because they are gay. If the people of Mass. want to expand marriage to allow for same sex marriages, that's their business- but lets see it happen in an open, democratic fashion.
Are you an american? Its clearly a state issue. marriage laws are made by the state. Even conservatives oppose an amendment banning gay marriage because its a state issue.
Yes, I am an American, and yes I still think this is a national problem.
Sexual persuasion does not qualify one as a minority. Its not how our system works.
Depends on what your intent with that statement is. 'Minority' is generally used when refering to one's racial background, so in this case you are correct.
It leaves a bitter taste that usually results in regurgitation.
So you don't like womenfolk voting? End of slavery? I took you for old fashioned but not THAT old fashioned. The ignorant people who still think that blacks need to be in their own schools need to get a life and get an education, and you can quote me on that one.
By the way in case you never noticed all laws are discriminatory by their very nature. Otherwise everyone could marry everyone.
This just plain doesn't make sense. All laws, then you talk about everyone marrying everyone? Single man-woman marriage/civil unions/whatever is the way it works now because that's what is the generally accepted norm in western christian society, and polygamy creates legal nightmare. Note that I don't think polygamy should be illegal, I mean if folks want to do it, then who cares? The big problem I see is legality.
But im sure you have your own sets of people who you would discriminate against here.
Nice troll, but no. If you haven't gathered I subscribe to the "Treat everyone equally, and everyone must treat others equally." Government shouldn't be able to discriminate against Person A because they are a Hindu, and Person B shouldn't be able to deny Person A employment because they are Hindu. Now apply that conceptually across the board.
Gays have equal rights.
No they don't. Gay couples aren't legally recognized in almost all states. Therefore most legal issues that apply to 'normal' couples don't work, such as inheritance, child custody/survivorship to name a few. A few of these can be worked around with legal instruments, but not all. At the end of the day, even with those in place, the partner is no better than a total stranger to their significant other.
Besides you cant count on the government either.
In this day and age I'd sadly agree with that for the most part.
We the people are supposed to be the final voice.
Not in the US, this isn't a democracy. In principle though I somewhat agree with what I think the intent of your statement is.
Trying to compare this to civil rights is an affront to all those who died and sacrificed in that movement.
That's just pure trolling. This is a very real struggle for many to stop being treated as subhuman by their fellow citizens and nation. The people who struggled for civil rights would be proud of what some of these folks are going through, at least the non-homophobic ones.
but Gawain is right- gays already have equal rights under the law.
No they don't, see my post above, and here: http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/civilunion.htm
Quite a different matter. Blacks were treated differently and by different standards, which should not be permitted under our Constitution- the civil rights movement was about equal treatment under law regardless of race.
And this is about equal rights for gay marriage. I fail to see this horrible offensive distinction, perhaps you can help me out here.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, is specifically asking for different standards to be applied because they are gay.
You lost me here. This is news to me, what are these different standards they are asking for? They just want to be treated like normal man-woman couples, and have the same benefits.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-14-2007, 23:38
Yes, I am an American, and yes I still think this is a national problem.
I think its a national problem as well. Except I see the problem as gays trying to hoist their morality on the rest of us. When you say "its a national issue" I take that to mean you think it is a matter for the federal government to address. Was I wrong in thinking that your position?
So you don't like womenfolk voting?
To tell the truth I dont. I dont ever expect to take it away from them now. There was nothing in the constitution even giving everyman the right to vote. Nevermind every woman. They realized that women already had too much power over men :laugh4:
End of slavery?
Ever hear of Dread Scott?
he ignorant people who still think that blacks need to be in their own schools need to get a life and get an education, and you can quote me on that one.
You can quote me on that as well.
This just plain doesn't make sense. All laws, then you talk about everyone marrying everyone? Single man-woman marriage/civil unions/whatever is the way it works now because that's what is the generally accepted norm in western christian society, and polygamy creates legal nightmare. Note that I don't think polygamy should be illegal, I mean if folks want to do it, then who cares? The big problem I see is legality.
So then you think like I said that everyone should be able to marry everyone. We could all be just one big happy family :smash:
Nice troll, but no. If you haven't gathered I subscribe to the "Treat everyone equally, and everyone must treat others equally."
So incest is OK? How about I marry my cat?
Government shouldn't be able to discriminate against Person A because they are a Hindu, and Person B shouldn't be able to deny Person A employment because they are Hindu. Now apply that conceptually across the board.
Because its in the constitution. You cant discriminate according to religion or race.
No they don't. Gay couples aren't legally recognized in almost all states
:laugh4: Surely you jest
Not in the US, this isn't a democracy. In principle though I somewhat agree with what I think the intent of your statement is.
I suggest you study our founding documents. It is government of the people, by the people and for the people. If I government does not represent us we can either vote them out or do as the founding fathers did and rise up against oppression.
Oh go yourself, that's just pure trolling. This is a very real struggle for many to stop being treated as subhuman by their fellow citizens and nation. The people who struggled for civil rights would be proud of what some of these folks are going through, at least the non-homophobic ones.
No this is fact.
Coretta Scott King
"To compare rich, privileged homosexual lobby groups allied with transsexuals and sadomasochists to brave civil rights crusaders — who risked their lives to advance freedom — insults every black American who overcame real injustice and poverty,” said CWA President Sandy Rios... "It’s time for the homosexual lobby to stop co-opting the black civil rights struggle. The [National Gay and Lesbian] Task Force’s agenda of promoting perversion — including public homosexual sex, sadomasochism and bisexuality — would offend the vast majority of African-Americans who understand the difference between God-designed racial distinctions and changeable, immoral behavior.” - CWA press release, 9/9/02
Besides the overstepping of bounds in this movement, what actually angers me most is hearing people compare the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. Such simplistic comparisons are based on ignorance, contempt, and cheap opportunity. When the homosexual community suffers through 200 years of slavery, is declared only three-fifths human and is denied the right to vote or buy property, then the two movements can be compared.
The civil rights movement was trying to undo the damage of years of a race of people in slavery, whereas the gay rights movement is trying to change laws solely because of the decisions of a group of people. Maybe the biggest difference was the civil rights movement didn’t seek to be overly embraced, but rather just to be recognized.
Robert Oliver, a black resident of Chicago, excoriates the analogy with rhetorical flourish:
When has a multitude of gays been kidnapped and made to be slaves for 400 years? When was it illegal to teach gays to read and write? When were there ever any gay Jim Crow laws? When were gays required to say "sah" or "ma'am" to straight people? When were there separated gay and straight water fountains? In public buildings, when were there separate entrances for gays and straights, the gays going out the back? In theaters, have gays been forced to sit in the balcony while the straights sit on the main floor? When were there segregated lunch counters based on sexual preference? When was a gay required to give up their seat on a bus to a straight person? Who was the gay Rosa Parks? Were gays at the bottom of the economic social structure for decades? Where were the poor gay ghettos? When have gays gotten worse jobs and lower pay than straight people? When were there separate-but-equal schools for gays and straights?
You lost me here. This is news to me, what are these different standards they are asking for? They just want to be treated like normal man-woman couples, and have the same benefits.
The rules in the large majority of states are quite clear. One man can marry one woman. That same rule (along with others, like incest, ect.) applies to everyone. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, a polygamist or into bestiality- the same standard applies to everyone. People always try to conflate legal marriage with the "right" to marry whoever you love. That is not a criteria for legal marriage.
I'm not trying to be rude, but you have a seriously skewed and/or sheltered view.
Well that's a bit arrogant.
This is in the exact same vein as civil rights. Do you have any gay friends? I have several.
Congrats. I'm sure this qualifies you as an expert on the issue.
Listening to them talk about the problems and day to day hurdles they have to jump is mindboggling and extremely depressing. You really want me to get into it? Yes, they are often treated like animals, esp. in the good ol' bible belt. They do often live in fear of being beaten up, having their houses and residences vandalized, being denied jobs, seating at restauraunts, entrances to venues, services in general. Having religious nutcases screaming at them that they're going to burn in hell.
I'm wondering where you live exactly. I've lived in Virginia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and I have rarely seen or heard anything like this. I guess that makes me sheltered though.
Not being invited to certain family events, or being told they can't bring their significant other. Being rejected by family members. I'm not talking about 'flamers' either that flaunt their sexual preferences,
I'm not seeing how gay marriage would solve this problem in the least bit.
Edit - I'll also throw this last bit out here. You can tell me to go jump in a lake if you want, but "you'll see." I think the fact that you are still a teenager probably contributes largely to your views on this. As you and your friends get older, graduate from high school/college, you end up seeing life quite a bit differently and start to see other aspects of it. I probably would have agreed with you completely when I was 17-18ish.
The age card here isn't really working.
This is a waste of time
Awesome, it's settled then. Best eFriends Forever!!!
Back to dueling with the old fart....
I think its a national problem as well. Except I see the problem as gays trying to hoist their morality on the rest of us. When you say "its a national issue" I take that to mean you think it is a matter for the federal government to address. Was I wrong in thinking that your position?
Yes sir, that was my intent. I firmly believe this is a problem that needs to be addressed by the nation as a whole, not as individual states, as this is something that affects (in my view) a 'basic' right, if you will.
To tell the truth I dont. I dont ever expect to take it away from them now. There was nothing in the constitution even giving everyman the right to vote. Nevermind every woman. They realized that women already had too much power over men :laugh4:
OK, I know you are joking (HAR!), but you do bring up a key point I'd like to make. The Constitution is a 200+ year old doc at this point, and it's showing it's age. Sure it was very well suited to the situation and events of the time it was made, and they sure did a darn tootin' job of making it 'built to last' in that it's fairly... generic is the term I'll use. The problem is, and I think this is a perfect example, there are just some areas that it doesn't cover well. It's up to us to ensure that we keep with the spirit of it yet ensure that as we become a more developed and overall educated society, that it accurately reflects the new issues and challenges that we face. Complete and total separation of church and state is another one that I think needs some additional polish (Yeah, I was really surprised when I went back and read what exactly it says on this, I think it's completely inadequate)
So then you think like I said that everyone should be able to marry everyone. We could all be just one big happy family :smash:
Exactly. Make sure you put the cat outside when I come over for Thanksgiving. And sorry about barfing on the sofa last time. :embarassed: Guess I'm "that relative" now.
So incest is OK? How about I marry my cat?
Yes and yes. See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm Don't forget to let us know where you register for gifts at. Petsmart might be a good choice.
Because its in the constitution. You cant discriminate according to religion or race.
Exactly. See my earlier statement above.
:laugh4: Surely you jest
Not at all. See previous post.
I suggest you study our founding documents. It is government of the people, by the people and for the people. If I government does not represent us we can either vote them out or do as the founding fathers did and rise up against oppression.
And *I* suggest that you look up the defintion of Democracy pops. We're a "Federal Constitutional Republic".
No this is fact.
No, it's not a fact, that's subjective, and it's still crap. You basically quoted two (three?) homophobes; one random moron, one I can't figure out who said what, and some random cranky old broad from the "CWA?" California Waterfowl Association?? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=CWA&btnG=Google+Search
Also, this might be a great idea for an engagement gift: http://www.petsmart.com/global/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441775365&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302033747&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=2534374302023690&bmUID=1181866533191&itemNo=11&In=ALL&N=2033747&Ne=2
Gawain of Orkeny
06-15-2007, 01:19
I think the fact that you are still a teenager probably contributes largely to your views on this. As you and your friends get older, graduate from high school/college, you end up seeing life quite a bit differently and start to see other aspects of it. I probably would have agreed with you completely when I was 17-18ish.
What has age to do with it. I could say the same to you. Maybe when you grow up you will change your mind. I know thats not what you told him but thats what it amounts to.
Lastly since marriage is not a right denying it to anybody cannot be seen as denying them their civil rights.
The rules in the large majority of states are quite clear. One man can marry one woman. That same rule (along with others, like incest, ect.) applies to everyone. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, a polygamist or into bestiality- the same standard applies to everyone. People always try to conflate legal marriage with the "right" to marry whoever you love. That is not a criteria for legal marriage.
But...but I really love my donkey!:charge:
Gawain of Orkeny
06-15-2007, 03:55
OK, I know you are joking (HAR!)
No Im dead serious. In fact you still dont or did Bush get more votes than Gore?
The Constitution is a 200+ year old doc at this point, and it's showing it's age. Sure it was very well suited to the situation and events of the time it was made, and they sure did a darn tootin' job of making it 'built to last' in that it's fairly... generic is the term I'll use. The problem is, and I think this is a perfect example, there are just some areas that it doesn't cover well
That is why it can be amended. Your tossing our basis of law out the window. Besides thank god. Its not up to you. If you dont believe in the constitution theres not much use trying to argue with you.
Well that's a bit arrogant.
No, it's not, but the reasoning does appear to be beyond you based on your entire post. You sure managed to show me up throughout most of it.
Congrats. I'm sure this qualifies you as an expert on the issue.
No, it means that I am offering that I have a good amount of direct experience through discussing this issue with gay/lesbian friends. I provided that as background only.
I'm wondering where you live exactly. I've lived in Virginia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and I have rarely seen or heard anything like this. I guess that makes me sheltered though.
Several places in Indiana and North Carolina. I'm not going to comment on the rest that is trolling.
I'm not seeing how gay marriage would solve this problem in the least bit.
That wasn't the point. Suggest you read posts and try to comprehend them before flaming with nonsense like this.
The age card here isn't really working.
Nor is your blatant trolling and lame flame attempts. Have a good one mate.
:balloon2:
Gawain of Orkeny
06-15-2007, 04:27
No, it means that I am offering that I have a good amount of direct experience through discussing this issue with gay/lesbian friends. I provided that as background only.
For what? Claiming their discriminated against? Again how can you compare that to the racial discrimination suffered by blacks all around the world. What do you expect them to say?
You seem to have nothing on your side but emotion and your own sense of self importance. Anyone who disagrees with you is either immoral or a bigot though you dont come right out and say it.
For what? Claiming their discriminated against? Again how can you compare that to the racial discrimination suffered by blacks all around the world. What do you expect them to say?
You seem to have nothing on your side but emotion and your own sense of self importance. Anyone who disagrees with you is either immoral or a bigot though you dont come right out and say it.
And you and others seem to be intent on focusing on me instead of the topic I'm trying to discuss, and my reasoning. I've tried to consistently focus on the topic, and all you morons have done is take jabs at me. I'll take the warning point for that statement because it's completely truthful, you guys can act like 2nd graders sometimes.
Congrats all for not focusing on this topic and all and just flaming away. Job well done crew. This thread needs to be gassed.
And you and others seem to be intent on focusing on me instead of the topic I'm trying to discuss, and my reasoning. I've tried to consistently focus on the topic, and all you morons have done is take jabs at me. I'll take the warning point for that statement because it's completely truthful, you guys can act like 2nd graders sometimes.
Congrats all for not focusing on this topic and all and just flaming away. Job well done crew. This thread needs to be gassed.
:shame:
This is a waste of time
Gawain of Orkeny
06-15-2007, 04:40
Congrats all for not focusing on this topic and all and just flaming away. Job well done crew. This thread needs to be gassed.
Like I said in another thread perception is reality I guess. Let us know when reality sets back in. You want to throw out the law and just do things your way because only you and those who agree with you have any sense of fairness and expect all of us to just follow along like a bunch of sheep. Sorry thats not how it works here at the org. If you cant stand the heat then get out of the kitchen :laugh4:
Like I said in another thread perception is reality I guess. Let us know when reality sets back in. You want to throw out the law and just do things your way because only you and those who agree with you have any sense of fairness and expect all of us to just follow along like a bunch of sheep. Sorry thats not how it works here at the org. If you cant stand the heat then get out of the kitchen :laugh4:
Protip: Read posts and understand them before posting tripe like this. And spare me "this is how it works at the Org BS", 'senior' members like you give the title a bad name. For the record at no point did I advocate 'throwing out the law', as you so nicely suggested. I suggested that it should be amended. This thread certainly has been enlightening and a great insight into the minds of homophobes and bigots, that I appreciate. Have a good evening.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-15-2007, 04:58
BS", 'senior' members like you give the title a bad name
Your entitled to your opinion. But it wasnt me who started attacking people and then crying when responded to in kind.
Back to dueling with the old fart....
For the record at no point did I advocate 'throwing out the law', as you so nicely suggested. I suggested that it should be amended.
You mean re written LOL.
omplete and total separation of church and state is another one that I think needs some additional polish (Yeah, I was really surprised when I went back and read what exactly it says on this, I think it's completely inadequate)
So you found out that in reality it says nothing about separation of church and state and want to re write it to reflect your views. The same as you want to re write it to reflect your views on gay marriage. That there is no basis in the constitution means nothing to you.
This thread certainly has been enlightening and a great insight into the minds of homophobes and bigots,
And that was the worst of all. I dont think I even need comment on that. Ill let the other members judge for themselves.
KukriKhan
06-15-2007, 04:58
Temporarily closed, pending staff review.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.