Jerry Falwell on Gay Rights

[PanzerJaeger]

Falwell, who in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, blamed the terrorist attacks on “the pagans, the abortionists, and the feminists and the gays and lesbians,” and who describes himself as “very conservative,” told Carlson that if he were a lawyer, he too would argue for civil rights for gays.

“I may not agree with the lifestyle,” Falwell said. “But that has nothing to do with the civil rights of that… part of our constituency…

“Civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or conservative value,” Falwell went on to say. “It’s an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on.”

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said his group welcomed the apparent softening of Falwell’s position on at least some gay rights. “Like most Americans, it seems Rev. Falwell has reached the conclusion that everyone deserves basic rights,” said Solmonese. “I hope he also supports legislation that would deliver on these values.”

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archive...ll-froze-over/

If I was gay, Id be looking for a trap door under my feet.

[Red Harvest]

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archive...ll-froze-over/

If I was gay, Id be looking for a trap door under my feet.

Or perhaps the pod underneath Falwell's chair (I'll bet most folks here won't catch the reference.)

It is an interesting comment. I have long agreed that equal rights vs. special rights was appropriate.

[Aenlic]

It is rather disconcerting. Maybe Red Harvest is right and we'd better start looking for pods and people acting a bit alien.

[Ronin]

ok...fess up you guys....who´s been giving him the drugs???

[Spetulhu]

ok...fess up you guys....who´s been giving him the drugs???

It's just the happy happy pills the doctor recommended. He's finally decided to take his psych medicine like a good boy.

[Navaros]

Falwell is not a Christian, he's a money-grubbing fraud

i guess he realized that fully sticking to the Bible was "not as financially profitable" as pandering to evil mankind on certain issues is, hence he decided to lust after money rather than follow the Bible.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Civil rights for gays is a totally separate argument from gay marriage. Every human being in this country should enjoy the same respect regarding their life. I don't know any Christian who would deny homosexuals the right to live without fear of harm or death because of their lifestyle choice (i'm sure that there are many who do, just not around me). They may believe that the lifestyle is sinful, but punishment is considered up to god and not man. This, however, is very different from actively supporting gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a legitimate civil rights issue. This undermines so many things that society purports to believe that it cannot be the case until society changes its values. I do not believe that there is any real case when it comes to this issue. If we were to change laws on marriage with a Federal law, we may as well throw most other marriage laws out the window as well from the same logical point of view.

/rant

[Ja'chyra]

It is an interesting comment. I have long agreed that equal rights vs. special rights was appropriate.

Quite right, there is no such thing as gay rights, they're just rights.

[Duke Malcolm]

I thought that homosexuals have all the same rights as normal people...
What rights don't they have?

[Aenlic]

In the U.S. marriage is a civil institution as well as a religious one. The same term is used in both. As a civil institution, certain legal advantages accrue with it. Spouses have inheritance rights, spouses can be named as beneficiaries for insurance claims, spouses have all manner of rights under the legal use of the civil term "marriage" which are not granted to couples simply living together. Marriage is licensed by the states, with varying requirements in each state, such as age etc.

Because marriage is also a religious term, and gays are considered sinners by those religions, gays can't get married. The religious want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" and other similar sentitments. That's fine, really. So marriage doesn't have to be recognized by their church. no problem.

But since the word marriage is used in the legal sense as well, rather than something innocuous like "civil union" gays can't get married in the legal sense either. Therefore, gays have fewer legal civil rights than non-gays in a very real legal sense. The religious nutcases are unable to separate the two definitions in their tiny little minds.

Now, how stupid and obviously prejudiced is that?

[Duke Malcolm]

It is like that here, but I still don't see what less rights they have than normal folk. We can marry people of the opposite sex as can they if they so choose.

Until just a couple of years ago, Her Majesty's Armed Forces could kick out people for being homosexual, until a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights said that it is wrong, and over-ruled Her Majesty's laws.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Nav, did you like him before?

This is devolving into a gay marriage thread. Before it fully does, a comment.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said his group welcomed the apparent softening of Falwell’s position on at least some gay rights. “Like most Americans, it seems Rev. Falwell has reached the conclusion that everyone deserves basic rights,” said Solmonese. “I hope he also supports legislation that would deliver on these values.”

This Solmonese guy is an idiot. There is no legislation that is needed to "deliver on these values" because there are plenty there - homosexual individuals are treated exactly the same (to my knowledge) by the law.

[Aenlic]

Can a gay couple in England exercise inheritance rights as a spouse, Malcolm? Like if in a hetero marriage and a wife or husband died, then the inheritance rights go to the spouse?

Except in two states in the U.S., and those states are under fire for doing it, gay couples in the U.S. can't get married in the legal sense. They can't become spouses. They can't, therefore, exercise the same rights as other couples.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Two heterosexual men can't get married to each other either - are they being discriminated against, too?

[Spetulhu]

Two heterosexual men can't get married to each other either - are they being discriminated against, too?

A man and a woman can marry just for show and there's no requirement that they prove they're heterosexual. Spouses have an easier time getting citizenship in civilized countries, that's one reason for a show marriage.

[Duke Malcolm]

Can a gay couple in England exercise inheritance rights as a spouse, Malcolm? Like if in a hetero marriage and a wife or husband died, then the inheritance rights go to the spouse?

Good lord, I hadn't realised that they had passed the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 yet (and Her Majesty's Stationary Office has been changed to the Office of Public Sector Information, and is much more confusing...).

Thankfully that is only in England and Wales, and, as far as I know, they have not passed a similar act for Scotland (and I would rather not find out by treading through what is presumably still the Queen's Printer for Scotland).

This is terrible. They have special rights afforded unto them. I demand the right to enter into a civil partnership under English law with a woman! This is a disgrace, and I need those civil rights!

[AntiochusIII]

Erm, Malcolm, you can through marriage. That's basically what it is.

[Duke Malcolm]

I know, but there is a degree of hypocrisy here.

A civil partnership is not quite marriage, it has a few things which are not the same. Say I do not believe in marriage, but want my relationship to be acknowledged by the state, surely a civil partnership is the way to go?
A civil partnership is also only afforded unto homosexuals, so I am using their moanings about civil rights against them.

[AntiochusIII]

A good argument, and the one I agree with. All should be able to use civil partnerships.

Otherwise just force the gays to use only marriage - which they are not allowed right now - instead of a legal-only civil partnership.

However, civil partnership can have other uses than just a "legal representation of marriage." One could "partner" with one's best friend, for example, or other suchs persons that do not necessarily have a love/sexual/marriage relationship.

[PanzerJaeger]

Except in two states in the U.S., and those states are under fire for doing it, gay couples in the U.S. can't get married in the legal sense. They can't become spouses. They can't, therefore, exercise the same rights as other couples.

Gay people are allowed to marry just like everyone else. What rights are they denied?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

A man and a woman can marry just for show and there's no requirement that they prove they're heterosexual. Spouses have an easier time getting citizenship in civilized countries, that's one reason for a show marriage.

Uh, OK. There is no requirement of heterosexuality- that proves my point. The law doesn't require either individual to be heterosexual. They just have to be of the opposite gender.

[AntiochusIII]

Gay people are allowed to marry just like everyone else. What rights are they denied?

Are they allowed to marry each other, and not people of only opposite sex? Speaking of rhetoric...

I myself wonder what harm could be done by allowing gays to marry each other? It's most likely a political move intended to divert attention from the real issues.

Edit (as to Kaiser's post below): So you're advocating the attempt to allow people to marry others of the same sex, then?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Gays have equal rights. They can get married too if they want, just not to another gay of the same sex. Us straights can't get married to other straights of the same sex, so we're in the same boat.

STRAIGHT RIGHTS!

[PanzerJaeger]

Are they allowed to marry each other, and not people of only opposite sex? Speaking of rhetoric...

No one - heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual - is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Everyone is treated equally under the law, no matter what their orientation is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If we had to, I would suggest a revolution in marriage politics. First off, get rid of the title marriage in government sanctioned unions. Allow a "civil union" for all - transferable from a religious "marriage" into a secular "union" - and make no restrictions on what consenting adults (or how many) can attain them. Then, add tax breaks (or additional perks) to those unions that produce offspring in one way or another (through adoption or natural child birth). This seems to be the way in which we are moving and if i cant stop it, at least i can try to alter it if it comes to a vote.

this way, the government would have a blank slate void of sexual politics and individual religions would be able to add their own flavor to the unions. Some religions would call unions "marriage" but it would have no legal meaning, only religious and spiritual (except for its recognition by govt as a civil union).

i do not believe that a recognition of "love" by government has any place in
this society if it can deny the most basic and tangible element of human propogation as inconsequential in marriage.

what do you think?



PS-if we kept talking about falwell this thread would die...

[ICantSpellDawg]

that is not true, many religious people that i know have no problem with allowing for laws ensuring a private citizens rights as to who they want to be recognized as closest to them. Hell, if i was unmarried and had a best friend who was unmarried (or even married) i would want them to be by my bedside if i were dying. That is a no brainer. If i want to combine my income with a friend, i dont see a problem there AT ALL.

the issue is really about whether a public institution should lump "morally objectionable" lifestyles in with the mainstream as equal.

it is tough
and i would rather see government sanctioned marriage sink than have it so totally corrupted as to include anything under the sun.

it really doesnt make sense. love is like religion. totally faith based.

[Aenlic]

that is not true, many religious people that i know have no problem with allowing for laws ensuring a private citizens rights as to who they want to be recognized as closest to them. Hell, if i was unmarried and had a best friend who was unmarried (or even married) i would want them to be by my bedside if i were dying. That is a no brainer. If i want to combine my income with a friend, i dont see a problem there AT ALL.

the issue is really about whether a public institution should lump "morally objectionable" lifestyles in with the mainstream as equal.

it is tough
and i would rather see government sanctioned marriage sink than have it so totally corrupted as to include anything under the sun.

it really doesnt make sense. love is like religion. totally faith based.

It doesn't work that way. Maybe most of the religious people you know don't have a problem with it, but it isn't that way in many places. Some states in the U.S. have already passed or tried to pass amendments to their state constitutions which prohibit civil unions (and thus equal legal treatment) to gays, not just defining marriage as between a man and a woman (a purely religious concept) but defining any civil union as between only a man and a woman.

And you're confusing the moral and religious concept of marriage with the idea of civil union. That's what created this whole mess in the first place. You're mixing religious definitions with legal definitions. The objection that marriage is somehow sacred and should only be between a man and a woman and not same sex is a purely religious sentiment; and as such has no place in a discussion about civil rights. If a majority of the religious people thought it was morally objectionable for any one who was non-white to get married would that make it OK? Think about it. And what does love have to do with it? If love is a requirement, then we'd better find a way to keep hetero people for marrying for money, too. Heterosexual marriage happens all of the time for reasons other than love. So love doesn't enter into it either. Try to think beyond your religious prejudices. Do you really want the government deciding which rights you can have based upon what someone else thinks you should have? What if the majority of the people in this country decide that it is morally reprehensible for religious people to get married? Think about it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And you're confusing the moral and religious concept of marriage with the idea of civil union. That's what created this whole mess in the first place. You're mixing religious definitions with legal definitions. The objection that marriage is somehow sacred and should only be between a man and a woman and not same sex is a purely religious sentiment; and as such has no place in a discussion about civil rights. If a majority of the religious people thought it was morally objectionable for any one who was non-white to get married would that make it OK? Think about it. And what does love have to do with it? If love is a requirement, then we'd better find a way to keep hetero people for marrying for money, too. Heterosexual marriage happens all of the time for reasons other than love. So love doesn't enter into it either. Try to think beyond your religious prejudices. Do you really want the government deciding which rights you can have based upon what someone else thinks you should have? What if the majority of the people in this country decide that it is morally reprehensible for religious people to get married? Think about it.

does anyone else think that i am guilty of any of these accusations? my religious predjudices? did i not just advocate the abolition of marriage from the United States as recognized by secular powers?

I stated that the concept of "love" should not be recognized legally and has no place. if we live in a democracy then the laws rely almost exclusivly upon consensus. could this be agreed to?

aside: the beauty of havinh 50 states is that different policies can be propogated in each, allowing for a state's disaffected electorate to escape without losing their citizenship. this is why, fundamentally, rather than what i have written, i am more in favor of states rights in deciding this issue thanthe federal govt (totally another arguement than the one that i was making)

[Aenlic]

Ah, I see. Your point wasn't clear. The way you worded it, it appeared that you were instead saying that you'd rather see marriage abolished than polluted with unacceptable morals. That is rather different than what you just posted, don't you think? You used terms like "morally objectionable" and implied that such objectionable lifestyles shouldn't be lumped in with the "mainstream" lifestyles, legally. Such a judgement would only have a religious basis, and thus has no place in a discussion about legal rights which should be entirely separate from religious prejudices. Your second post contradicts what I took your first post to say.

And consensus is much different than majority rule. I agree, the laws should be based upon consensus, not upon what the majority thinks. Otherwise the minority is subject to a tyranny of the majority. Conversely we could simply enshrine certain rights in the Constitution to guarantee protections even for minorities, so that the majority would have a much harder time abusing their power. Thus we have the Bill of Rights. Sadly, the tyranny of the majority still manages to rear its ugly head occassionally, like with prohibition, or a certain resurgent insistance on making Christianity the national religion by the backdoor.

[Strike For The South]

Why shouldn't gays have the right to marriage i mean geez were not 10 years old they are people to. and frankly if our laws don't get changed we a re just denying people there AMERICAN given rights and now thats just plain un-american