Discussion: Gay Rights II [Archive] - Page 22

Ocramed

03-24-2009, 11:07 AM

Plus, I doubt they are moving BECAUSE of Prop. 8. Most likely they'd move, along with many non-gays, because of the outrageous tax burden that is coming down the pike. And besides, as demonstrated by the "effectiveness" of the so-called "Gay Out" protest, most people don't give a damn about "gay marriage". In fact, if the statistics indicate, most people don't give a damn about marriage anyway. Why should they, if child support can be obtained, even if the couple has never married? Heck, in California, if you are living with someone after seven years, you are considered to be "married". Once that happens, spousal support come into play. And furthermore, the way the divorce laws are set up, why would ANY man get married, where half the man's income is automatically given away?

Face it, gay marriage, marriage is a waste of time. Heck, the first gay couples who already got married in other states had gotten a divorce, so THAT is a waste of time and resources. Personally, I predict these "gay rights" issues will be normalize, but will bring forth a strong, conservative gay movement based upon fiscal discipline. They'll end of taken the place of the Christian Right, since it has been losing effectiveness for years now. In the end, the political parties will fall deeply into two camps based upon spending priorities, immigration and national security. Good or bad, personal rights issues will become the thing of the past, since the next generation of voters won't have the same values as their parents. And so forth.

Brave new world indeed.

O.

hippie_hunter

03-24-2009, 11:09 AM

One of our chief concerns in CA is that the state is so far in debt, and making so little money on taxes, that we can barely cover our budget. It's so bad, they had to give IOU's instead of tax refunds this year.

And if the gay community start leaving the state for Vermont and others, taking their tax dollars with them, putting further strain on the state economy, it'll start getting notice in the press. Local stations are always airing stories about people leaving cities or the state for various reasons. This will be another one of those stories.

The biggest reason why tax income is lower in California is because the top 1% that pay 48% of taxes are making less money in this economy. And the biggest reason why California is in so much debt is because the legislature and voters approve every freaking time to throw money everywhere.

California needs to fix those two problems of trying to not depend so much on the top 1% for income and being fiscally responsible.

The gay community would bring a lot of press if they left, but I bet the state is more concerned over the top 1%'s income of the income of the gay community. I bet that the state is more concerned over California's population as a whole is starting to move out of the state.

wiegeabo

03-24-2009, 11:36 AM

It's also important to factor in the huge effects of the housing meltdown. Houses are worth half as much as they were just a couple of years ago, which means California and the localities are collecting half the property taxes they were. That's billions lost as people walk away or lose their homes.

It's so bad, the state is no longer forgiving property taxes of people who walk away and let their homes go into foreclosure. So if someone buys a cheap house, then let's their other house go, they now owe taxes on both.

Marx

03-24-2009, 01:03 PM

Vermont's Senate votes to legalize gay marriage, the House is expected to do the same

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/23/vermont.samesex.marriage/index.html

Good news! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Marx

03-26-2009, 01:47 PM

MCCAIN'S CHIEF STRATEGIST DURING CAMPAIGN COMES OUT IN SUPPORT OF GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/26/mccains-chief-strategist_n_179509.html

Steve Schmidt, Sen. John McCain's chief strategist during the presidential campaign, said in a recent interview with the Washington Blade that he supports gay marriage.

"I'm personally supportive of [marriage] equality for gay couples and I believe that it will happen over time," he told the newspaper. "I think that more and more Americans are insistent that, at a minimum, gay couples should be treated with respect and when they see a political party trying to stigmatize a group of people who are hardworking, who play by the rules, who raise decent families, they're troubled by it."

Schmidt revealed that he voted against California's Proposition 8, a measure banning gay marriage that his boss at the time supported.

"It wasn't my place in the campaign to debate issues with him that he had a firm opinion on," Schmidt said. "But ... as a voter, I'm not carrying my candidate's proxy into the ballot box, I'm voting my conscience." He predicted that gay marriage would pass in the state by initiative withing a few years.

Schmidt also encouraged the Republican Party to reach out more to gay voters and to avoid using divisive social issues like gay marriage to rile up their base.

"I think the Republican Party should not be seen by a broad majority of the electorate as focused with singularity on issues like gay marriage," he said. "The attitudes of voters about gay marriage and about domestic partnership benefits for gay couples are changing very rapidly and for voters under the age of 30, they are completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy on these issues."

"Any campaign that would go out and try to demonize people on the basis of their sexual orientation," he added, "is abhorrent and I suspect that that campaign would be rejected.

spideyboy_1111

03-26-2009, 07:07 PM

This actually took me by surprise, and kinda got me all misty eyed...

qD97D6OEV80

moraldeficiency

04-03-2009, 10:36 AM

Iowa supreme court makes gay marriage legal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30027685/

good, one more step towards equality in the US.

StorminNorman

04-03-2009, 10:51 AM

No. A Court ruling isn't a real step forward. Until we see voters actually decide this, there will never be equality.

moraldeficiency

04-03-2009, 10:57 AM

****, if that was true slavery wouldn't have ended when it did, it just takes a minority that happens to be right about something and people in power having the balls to realize this.

StorminNorman

04-03-2009, 11:00 AM

Right...because there was real equality when the slaves were freed. :huh:

wiegeabo

04-03-2009, 11:01 AM

Any step forward is a victory.

The court rules gay marriage is legal.
Gays get married.
The world doesn't come to an end.
Voters begin to see that gay marriage isn't such a big deal, and there's no good argument against ensuring equal rights.

And even when something like Prop 8 passes, the damage to the conservative movement is done. Prop 8's victory stirred up a significant amount of support for gay marriage/rights across the country and beyond, and brought it into public view. I think Prop 8 will eventually end up being the anti-equality movement's biggest enemy.

Ion Kenshin

04-03-2009, 11:04 AM

The by that standard there still isnt equality for black people cause the people did not vote on their equal rights

moraldeficiency

04-03-2009, 11:09 AM

Right...because there was real equality when the slaves were freed. :huh:

uh, I think both I and you were using the term "step forward" not real equality (cause we still don't have that). So without changing the terms around to fit whatever you want to say, I would say that freeing the slaves was a "step forward" for civil rights.

StorminNorman

04-03-2009, 11:55 AM

Any step forward is a victory.

The court rules gay marriage is legal.
Gays get married.
The world doesn't come to an end.
Voters begin to see that gay marriage isn't such a big deal, and there's no good argument against ensuring equal rights.

That worked so well in California. When courts FORCE gay marriage on a state, there is always backlash. That backlash NEVER helps the gay community. You are confusing with temporary success to actual achievement.

And even when something like Prop 8 passes, the damage to the conservative movement is done. Prop 8's victory stirred up a significant amount of support for gay marriage/rights across the country and beyond, and brought it into public view. I think Prop 8 will eventually end up being the anti-equality movement's biggest enemy.

If Prop 8 wasn't defeated you would have a point. But Prop 8 WAS successful, after a public and well known debate. You can't FORCE tolerance on people and trying to do so rarely helps your cause.

uh, I think both I and you were using the term "step forward" not real equality (cause we still don't have that). So without changing the terms around to fit whatever you want to say, I would say that freeing the slaves was a "step forward" for civil rights.

But this ISN'T a real step forward. All this is going to do is bring up another Constitutional Amendment that will succeed and show that Iowa doesn't want Gay Marriage.

Real change comes from people changing their perception of homosexual Americans, judges can't offer it.

moraldeficiency

04-03-2009, 12:06 PM

But this ISN'T a real step forward. All this is going to do is bring up another Constitutional Amendment that will succeed and show that Iowa doesn't want Gay Marriage.

Real change comes from people changing their perception of homosexual Americans, judges can't offer it.

Sure it is, if they took a vote on whether to free the slaves or not it wouldn't have passed. It takes a brave minority to defy the majority and do what's right and just before the general pop get's behind anything.

Marriage is a legal standing and to deny that is wrong based on the fundamentals of this country, but it takes us a while to recognize the rights of minority groups and this is the first step to it. Iowa made it legal, this isn't some san francisco city charter made by hippies. This will once again get people talking and the more talking the better cause as this is a legal standing there isn't any logic to the counter argument and you can only hide behind religion so long before common sense will prevail (we're still working on evolution) but common sense will prevail.

You don't change mass perception without discussion and analyzation of the issue and you can't have that if you don't have a reason to talk about it. This is a reason. This is a step forward in equality for this country and I'm proud of it for that.

StorminNorman

04-03-2009, 12:35 PM

Sure it is, if they took a vote on whether to free the slaves or not it wouldn't have passed.

It would have in several northern states where blacks were treated in general far greater than they were in the south. It would not of passed in the south. And as such when slaves were freed, and the cold hard truth is that in the south freed blacks weren't treated all that different than when they were slaves. The biggest difference is that instead of working for no compensation and having their housing given to them (as well as land to grow crops) they now worked for a wage that was used to buy what slave masters provided.

Many slaves went back and worked for their former masters.

Slavery was ended only in name only. Thats why there was terrible, evil discrimination for decades after.

It takes a brave minority to defy the majority and do what's right and just before the general pop get's behind anything.

It takes an outraged one, not a brave one.

Marriage is a legal standing and to deny that is wrong based on the fundamentals of this country, but it takes us a while to recognize the rights of minority groups and this is the first step to it. Iowa made it legal, this isn't some san francisco city charter made by hippies. This will once again get people talking and the more talking the better cause as this is a legal standing there isn't any logic to the counter argument and you can only hide behind religion so long before common sense will prevail (we're still working on evolution) but common sense will prevail.

But, again, if this was true gays would still be allowed to marry in California. All this will cause is another Prop 8 type bill and the gay community will end up gaining little if anything.

You don't change mass perception without discussion and analyzation of the issue and you can't have that if you don't have a reason to talk about it. This is a reason. This is a step forward in equality for this country and I'm proud of it for that.

But this court ruling isn't an open discussion, its forcing the Iowa government to recognize gay marriage which will not go over well with the citizens of that state.

Again, you this is a temporary victory. A false step forward.

It's not until the PEOPLE, not judges, start giving gays the power to marry that you will find a true step forward.

Marx

04-03-2009, 12:54 PM

Real change comes from people changing their perception of homosexual Americans, judges can't offer it.

The rights of the minority should never be determined by the majority Norm. A step forward is a step forward.

wiegeabo

04-03-2009, 12:55 PM

It's not a false step forward. How do expect the people to get get behind the issue and ensure equal rights for gays if it's not talked about? If it's not put in their faces and kept in the public eye?

For years, the nation as a whole either didn't really care about gay marriage and equal rights, or didn't want it. Now everything that's happened in California has brought the issue into the light and forced the people to explore it.

Prop 8 is a self-defeating measure. If it had lost, well, gay marriage would obviously still be legal. But even by winning it generated a significant amount of public backlash. And the polls and support in favor of gay marriage have probably never been higher.

How is that not real progress? Because the way I see it, it's one step closer to finally reaching equal rights. That's like saying the boycotts and marches Martin Luther King led wasn't a true step forward. But it was because it turned public support to the civil rights cause, which led to the passing of the civil rights legislation of the 60's.

moraldeficiency

04-03-2009, 12:57 PM

It would have in several northern states where blacks were treated in general far greater than they were in the south. It would not of passed in the south. And as such when slaves were freed, and the cold hard truth is that in the south freed blacks weren't treated all that different than when they were slaves. The biggest difference is that instead of working for no compensation and having their housing given to them (as well as land to grow crops) they now worked for a wage that was used to buy what slave masters provided.

Actually lincoln was almost voted out of office cause even in the north people would rather the south keep slaves than deal with the civil war, drafts and tearing the country apart. It wouldn't not have made the popular vote.

Many slaves went back and worked for their former masters.

I really, really, really think you don't want to go anywhere near this point again.

Slavery was ended only in name only. Thats why there was terrible, evil discrimination for decades after.

It was a step, not the final victory of freedom for all. There are many steps towards recognizing that being in a minority group doesn't make you less than the whole. School bussing is a good example of this. It was wrong to do seperate but equal, but that was vastly favored to intergration by every state it happened in. They had to get soldiers to walk those kids through the doors, to take those steps towards greater equality. Again this was against popular opinion but it was the right thing to do, and that's why I love it here. We don't get it right the first time, but eventually we do.

It takes an outraged one, not a brave one.

If you say so, I'd say defying common wishes because they are wrong, illegal and against the very nature of what this country is founded on is pretty damn brave and patriotic. But we all define things differently.

But, again, if this was true gays would still be allowed to marry in California. All this will cause is another Prop 8 type bill and the gay community will end up gaining little if anything.

One prop 8 was one of the most confusing worded bills ever. Two it in no way mention the legal status marriage allowed people, just some flowery words about if you like families and puppies you can't vote to let the gays destroy the marriage. And three, each time this is brought up common sense gains ground and senseless bigotry losses some. Small steps.

But this court ruling isn't an open discussion, its forcing the Iowa government to recognize gay marriage which will not go over well with the citizens of that state.

The court upheld the constitution. Sorry but if you want to be here you should probably be proconstitution even if you don't like every element of what that means. It's the FUNDAMENTAL part of being here and having the level of freedom we have. You don't get to pick and chose the groups that are equal, everyone's supposed to be.

Again, you this is a temporary victory. A false step forward.

Time will tell, amigo.

It's not until the PEOPLE, not judges, start giving gays the power to marry that you will find a true step forward.

Yes and the people will never come to this state without good judgement and leadership. Look at civil rights, every ****ing step the people had to be dragged to kicking and screaming but when each was realized and the world didn't collapse it allowed the possibility of taking another. People don't instantly throw away prejudice and find reason, you have to keep fighting for what's right and eventually they'll see.

StorminNorman

04-03-2009, 01:15 PM

Actually lincoln was almost voted out of office cause even in the north people would rather the south keep slaves than deal with the civil war, drafts and tearing the country apart. It wouldn't not have made the popular vote.

Correct. I was talking about a vote per state - you know, like the ones that would be required in a gay marriage scenario.

I really, really, really think you don't want to go anywhere near this point again.

Why? I understand what is wrong about saying that some slaves did go back to work for their masters as farm hands and domestic servants. They were no longer "slaves", but their life styles were not altered all that much. They did the same work for the same people, just with different compensation.

There is nothing "pro slavery" in that post. There is nothing offensive about that post.

It was a step, not the final victory of freedom for all. There are many steps towards recognizing that being in a minority group doesn't make you less than the whole. School bussing is a good example of this. It was wrong to do seperate but equal, but that was vastly favored to intergration by every state it happened in. They had to get soldiers to walk those kids through the doors, to take those steps towards greater equality. Again this was against popular opinion but it was the right thing to do, and that's why I love it here. We don't get it right the first time, but eventually we do.

Very good points.

One prop 8 was one of the most confusing worded bills ever. Two it in no way mention the legal status marriage allowed people, just some flowery words about if you like families and puppies you can't vote to let the gays destroy the marriage. And three, each time this is brought up common sense gains ground and senseless bigotry losses some. Small steps.

Not so good a point. The actual wording of Prop 8 may of been confusing, but it was framed by advocates on both sides very simply. It was Pro Gay Marriage or Anti Gay Marriage. The wording had little do with it. It was a high profile law that led to great debate on the subject in California. And after that debate the people voted 60% in favor of banning it.

I would love to believe you. I would love to believe that this Iowa law is a small step in the right direction - but after Prop 8 I have lost a lot of faith in how much power courts have in this.

The court upheld the constitution. Sorry but if you want to be here you should probably be proconstitution even if you don't like every element of what that means. It's the FUNDAMENTAL part of being here and having the level of freedom we have. You don't get to pick and chose the groups that are equal, everyone's supposed to be.

This argument is also a difficult one because there is no right to a wedding. Just like there is no right to drive.

Time will tell, amigo.

Of course, I really hope I am wrong.

Yes and the people will never come to this state without good judgement and leadership. Look at civil rights, every ****ing step the people had to be dragged to kicking and screaming but when each was realized and the world didn't collapse it allowed the possibility of taking another. People don't instantly throw away prejudice and find reason, you have to keep fighting for what's right and eventually they'll see.

But I don't think that fight can be won in the courts. I am not offering a solution here because I simply do not have one at this point. All I know is that I don't see the gay community benefiting from courts legalizing marriage only to have the people come out in vast waves and shoot it down.

StorminNorman

04-03-2009, 01:17 PM

The rights of the minority should never be determined by the majority Norm. A step forward is a step forward.

But is this a step forward if this is going to simply lead to an Iowa State Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

I want to believe that this is a legit step forward. I was excited when other courts did the same thing in the past. But the more these sort of rulings get overthrown by the people, the more I question the true value of them.

StorminNorman

04-03-2009, 01:19 PM

How is that not real progress? Because the way I see it, it's one step closer to finally reaching equal rights. That's like saying the boycotts and marches Martin Luther King led wasn't a true step forward. But it was because it turned public support to the civil rights cause, which led to the passing of the civil rights legislation of the 60's.

But where is the indication that these ruling are turning public support? That's what I am saying. Yes, there has to be conversation, yes there has to be a catalyst for people to change their views on the subject. State Court rulings though don't seem to be having that affect.

moraldeficiency

04-03-2009, 01:35 PM

Correct. I was talking about a vote per state - you know, like the ones that would be required in a gay marriage scenario.

Personally I find it to be a constitutional issue about rights that should be nation wide, but you're right state by state some would have worked and some not. But with something like this until it's nationally accepted it's not a complete win.

Why? I understand what is wrong about saying that some slaves did go back to work for their masters as farm hands and domestic servants. They were no longer "slaves", but their life styles were not altered all that much. They did the same work for the same people, just with different compensation.

Just a bit touchy of an issue if you're not black. There have been jews and blacks in the past that have actually supported neo nazis and the KKK respectively but that's pretty much the exception rather than the rule. I'm sure some slave owners treated people decently, but I'd say they were the exception rather than the rule as well. I was just saying that's an extremely inflamatory point which has a damn fine chance to rile people up rather than encourage any time of reasonable debate. I would say a lot of those people did so cause they had no where else to go and no support structure was in place to help them.

There is nothing "pro slavery" in that post. There is nothing offensive about that post.

I'm not black, and I'm going to guess you're not either, but some might find that idea being floated by a white guy pretty offensive.

Very good points.

Thanks, see kids you can still think when you're high.

Not so good a point. The actual wording of Prop 8 may of been confusing, but it was framed by advocates on both sides very simply. It was Pro Gay Marriage or Anti Gay Marriage. The wording had little do with it. It was a high profile law that led to great debate on the subject in California. And after that debate the people voted 60% in favor of banning it.

Very confusing, as in what the **** does a yes vote mean confusing.

It wasn't simple in the slightest.

Wording has a great deal to do with it, if you confuse people they can't vote correctly. I had two friends that actually voted against equal rights because they messed up. Was it their fault ultimately, yes it was, but the bill was piss poorly worded I think most people recognize that.

I would love to believe you. I would love to believe that this Iowa law is a small step in the right direction - but after Prop 8 I have lost a lot of faith in how much power courts have in this.

Baby steps, my man, baby steps. All debate is good for common sense. Every time it's brought up in the news people shift ever so slightly to seeing how wrong it is to deny legal standing based on who you are.

This argument is also a difficult one because there is no right to a wedding. Just like there is no right to drive.

No, you're right and if a marriage was simply a religious standing I would agree there is no right to it. But as a marriage holds type specific legal standings to both individuals, to deny any group that is unconstitutional.

Of course, I really hope I am wrong.

Hey, me too. But even if you're completely right, that's the beauty with this country, you can always keep coming back and trying again till you get it right.

But I don't think that fight can be won in the courts. I am not offering a solution here because I simply do not have one at this point. All I know is that I don't see the gay community benefiting from courts legalizing marriage only to have the people come out in vast waves and shoot it down.

No, it can't be won in the courts, but that's where all equal rights fights have to start. It's been true for every group and it's true for gays as well. The courts rule in logic, the people protest based on emotions and try and overturn the decission. Fights and debate takes over. Eventually the people come around. Then everyone gets a beer and chills the **** out. God bless America.

Marx

04-03-2009, 01:43 PM

Here is a sign from one of the protests...

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/ebat9/GayMarriageProtestSign.jpg

A very good question indeed. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Lighthouse

04-03-2009, 06:36 PM

What is the difference between a marriage and civil union? I'm genuinely asking, because I don't know.

StorminNorman

04-03-2009, 06:48 PM

Personally I find it to be a constitutional issue about rights that should be nation wide, but you're right state by state some would have worked and some not. But with something like this until it's nationally accepted it's not a complete win.

This is an issue that is going to be a state by state issue.

Just a bit touchy of an issue if you're not black. There have been jews and blacks in the past that have actually supported neo nazis and the KKK respectively but that's pretty much the exception rather than the rule. I'm sure some slave owners treated people decently, but I'd say they were the exception rather than the rule as well. I was just saying that's an extremely inflamatory point which has a damn fine chance to rile people up rather than encourage any time of reasonable debate. I would say a lot of those people did so cause they had no where else to go and no support structure was in place to help them.

If a black poster had a poster with my statement then I would refer them to historical texts. I mean should a German find it insulting if I said Germany slaughtered millions? Being insulted by history seems rather stupid.

I'm not black, and I'm going to guess you're not either, but some might find that idea being floated by a white guy pretty offensive.

Quite frankly I don't give a damn. If someone wants to be offended, they will find a way to be.

Very confusing, as in what the **** does a yes vote mean confusing.

It wasn't simple in the slightest.

Wording has a great deal to do with it, if you confuse people they can't vote correctly. I had two friends that actually voted against equal rights because they messed up. Was it their fault ultimately, yes it was, but the bill was piss poorly worded I think most people recognize that.

Ehh...still not sure I buy it.

Baby steps, my man, baby steps. All debate is good for common sense. Every time it's brought up in the news people shift ever so slightly to seeing how wrong it is to deny legal standing based on who you are.

I really just don't see coverage leading to a subtle shift in favor of gay marriage. I hope you are right, I really do - I just don't see it.

No, you're right and if a marriage was simply a religious standing I would agree there is no right to it. But as a marriage holds type specific legal standings to both individuals, to deny any group that is unconstitutional.

If it was truly that simple there would be no controversy.

Hey, me too. But even if you're completely right, that's the beauty with this country, you can always keep coming back and trying again till you get it right.

Very true.

No, it can't be won in the courts, but that's where all equal rights fights have to start.

It's been true for every group and it's true for gays as well. The courts rule in logic, the people protest based on emotions and try and overturn the decission. Fights and debate takes over. Eventually the people come around. Then everyone gets a beer and chills the **** out. God bless America.

Let's hope this is right.

Lighthouse

04-03-2009, 07:17 PM

I'm a little bewildered by the gay marriage controversy. What is the exact thing everyone is fighting for or against? I'm a person who believes that marriage itself is a pretty silly and outdated institution. The only point I see in it is of legal benefits through taxes, property, custody etc, etc. That's why I ask what the difference is between civil unions and marriage, because if the rights are exactly the same, then I'm not sure what the fighting is over. If they aren't the same, then I understand and would support the gay community on it.

Schlosser85

04-03-2009, 08:18 PM

CaptainClown

04-03-2009, 08:23 PM

I believe Civil Unions have a lil more paperwork and require the individuals to be both within the United States and citizens and blah blah blah blah there are a lot of minor differences, but mostly they are all cons

Lighthouse

04-03-2009, 08:41 PM

If the rights are exactly the same, why is one called a "civil union" and the other is called a marriage? Would civil unions be good enough for heterosexuals? And if they're not, why should they be good enough for homosexuals?

In legal terms, all types of marriage contracts should be called civil unions, and marriage should be a matter of ones own private religions.

spideyboy_1111

04-03-2009, 09:19 PM

That worked so well in California. When courts FORCE gay marriage on a state, there is always backlash. That backlash NEVER helps the gay community. You are confusing with temporary success to actual achievement.

If Prop 8 wasn't defeated you would have a point. But Prop 8 WAS successful, after a public and well known debate. You can't FORCE tolerance on people and trying to do so rarely helps your cause.

But this ISN'T a real step forward. All this is going to do is bring up another Constitutional Amendment that will succeed and show that Iowa doesn't want Gay Marriage.

Real change comes from people changing their perception of homosexual Americans, judges can't offer it.

that's extremely debatable... because the fact prop 8 was "successful" it actually woke alot of us up, and pissed us off. Sometimes you need a disaster to wake people up and get the train moving. Prop 8 woke a beast, and i guarantee you it will get even bigger if prop 8 is upheld after the CA supreme court deals with it.

spideyboy_1111

04-03-2009, 09:27 PM

wiegeabo

04-03-2009, 09:33 PM

Speaking about the comment that this is a state issue:

I agree that for the short-term, this is going to be a state-by-state thing. And there's a chance that every state will take a position one way or the other.

But probably before that happens, there's going to be a lawsuit. Gay couples in one 'legal' state are going to sue on 'illegal' state where gay marriage is into recognized. The reason being this essentially bars the couples from living in those states without giving up the rights they enjoy. I see a class action suit against one or multiple states over the issue.

And a suit between the citizens of a State, and another State are the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. And that means the Court will likely have to decide if all States must recognize gay marriages performed in other States, or if homosexuals get equal (marriage) rights.

Lighthouse

04-03-2009, 09:34 PM

on the topic of civil union vs marriage, there's also alot of power in the word alone. Technically you're not "married" you have a "domestic partner" and all together that's kind of psychologically disconcerting as well. After all, like many women, many gay men since they were little have planned what there wedding might be like... (i have, and i know several others have), and the fact we've grown up hearing "marriage", and "married" all our lives, wanting that every day... and the fact there's never been one logical argument against that really makes someone feel like were not "good enough" so even with the differences of legalities between the 2, the word alone means alot as is.

I just don't think the word alone is worth fighting for. Besides the rights issues, is there anything really important about being married legally? Can't you, gay or straight, get married in your own private ceremony in your own church through your own religion and just not give a **** about what the government thinks? Like I've said before, I think marriage as a government institution is pretty damn silly, and would be fine if all joined couples, heterosexual or homosexual, were called civil unions and the rights pertaining to taxes, property, custody etc. etc. were the same for everyone of them. Leave the "marriage" stuff for the church.

Marx

04-04-2009, 09:58 AM

REPUBLICAN WARNS OF 'GAY MARRIAGE MECCA'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/03/republican-warns-of-gay-marriage-mecca/

Iowa Rep. Steve King condemned his state Supreme Court's Friday decision to lifta decade-long ban on same-sex marriage, saying it puts the state in danger of becoming a "gay marriage Mecca."

"This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends," King said in statement. "Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman.
(http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/iowa.same.sex/index.html?iref=newssearch)
"Now it is the Iowa legislature's responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa," he added. "Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court's latest experiment in social engineering."

The state's highest court determined Friday that "the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," court spokesman Steve Davis said in a written statement.

Logan's Runt

04-04-2009, 10:17 AM

By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer Amy Lorentzen, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 3, 6:05 pm ET
DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.
The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.
The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.
"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.
Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."
To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage

:woot: Hell yes!

StorminNorman

04-04-2009, 11:01 AM

that's extremely debatable... because the fact prop 8 was "successful" it actually woke alot of us up, and pissed us off. Sometimes you need a disaster to wake people up and get the train moving. Prop 8 woke a beast, and i guarantee you it will get even bigger if prop 8 is upheld after the CA supreme court deals with it.

You may be right, but I have seen nothing to indicate it.

Majic Walrus

04-04-2009, 11:08 AM

Yays for Gays!

Carcharodon

04-04-2009, 11:38 AM

IOWA??????

:up: :up: :up:

Logan's Runt

04-04-2009, 11:39 AM

I know!! We're not so backwards afterall.

BatMatt

04-04-2009, 11:58 AM

Good work by Iowa, I was very proud of my state when Connecticut legalized it as well.

E-Man

04-04-2009, 12:06 PM

I agree with this. I understand that being gay is unnatural, and all that other stuff. I'm a pretty spiritual guy who prays everyday to God. But I understand that my beliefs aren't everyone's beliefs. So more power to them for getting this done.

Kurosawa

04-04-2009, 12:06 PM

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.

THIS. Is why the fury from the far right to ban same-sex marriage is stupid. There is no reason other than complete homophobia for it to be anything but legal.

xisaacx

04-04-2009, 12:18 PM

Drakon

04-04-2009, 12:23 PM

Step in the right direction!

Lightning Strykez!

04-04-2009, 12:29 PM

in my opinion, if you pay taxes you should be able to do what you want and ****k who you want. Gays pay taxes, so if they wanna **** some *** let them do it or if they wanna **** some **** who cares. Take care of a real issue, like illegal immigrants

You have me trying to figure out which expletives you used here. :huh:

Go Web Go!

04-04-2009, 12:29 PM

If my cousin takes any sudden trips to Iowa, I'll know why.

Drakon

04-04-2009, 12:31 PM

That'll be a fun Thanksgiving.

Logan's Runt

04-04-2009, 12:32 PM

Yeah! Iowa has no residency laws about marriage, so anybody can waltz on in and get hitched. One of the Republican senators has already declared that Iowa is going to become a "gay Mecca". I, for one, welcome our new gay rulers.

Drakon

04-04-2009, 12:34 PM

I, for one, welcome our new gay rulers.

And you wonder why I luff you so. :heart:

Manic

04-04-2009, 12:43 PM

Iowa?! Damnit, California. Now Iowa's making us look back.

BlackLantern

04-04-2009, 12:46 PM

terry78

04-04-2009, 12:52 PM

Now all the characters from each coast will be clamoring to go to Iowa. It's gonna be hilarity on a bun.

Gilpesh

04-04-2009, 12:55 PM

Damn. Traffic is going to be even worse... with the whole... other Iowa Exodus going on.
R8eoEygHyho

Majic Walrus

04-04-2009, 12:57 PM

Nivek

04-04-2009, 12:58 PM

Given that Bigots are becoming both vocal and detached from the rest of the thinking, modern civilizations, I'm sure someone will lead a referendum re-writing of the laws. I don't understand why they cannot just let other people live their lives. And then say crap like "God doesn't approve".

Logan's Runt

04-04-2009, 01:00 PM

And you wonder why I luff you so. :heart:

:heart::heart:

:lmao: That's awesome. You should get ordained and go into the drive-thru wedding business.

Now that.... is a really good idea! 'Kitty's Big Gay Weddings- Open 24 hrs!'

Lunar_Wolf

04-04-2009, 01:04 PM

My friend will be happy with this news.

BlackLantern

04-04-2009, 01:05 PM

my lesbian friends are toying with the idea of having me ordained or deputized or whatever for a day so I can do their ceremony.....they think I have a lovely speaking voice

Logan's Runt

04-04-2009, 01:06 PM

I read 'spanking voice'.

But yes, you can easily get ordained online and it's legal. My tattoo artist is both a minister and a saint.

BlackLantern

04-04-2009, 01:08 PM

Im trying to talk them into letting an actual official do it....I don't feel I am qualified, but I appreciate the thought

terry78

04-04-2009, 01:09 PM

my lesbian friends are toying with the idea of having me ordained or deputized or whatever for a day so I can do their ceremony.....they think I have a lovely speaking voice

All I got was as far as the fifth word and my mind just shut down and started creating images.

Drakon

04-04-2009, 01:20 PM

All I got was as far as the fifth word and my mind just shut down and started creating images.

Win.

StorminNorman

04-04-2009, 02:12 PM

I am not going to get excited for this until the obligatory constitutional amendment ballot fails. Until then this isn't a real victory.

Nirvana

04-04-2009, 02:41 PM

Very good for them. :up:

Kelly

04-04-2009, 02:43 PM

in my opinion, if you pay taxes you should be able to do what you want and ****k who you want. Gays pay taxes, so if they wanna **** some *** let them do it or if they wanna **** some **** who cares. Take care of a real issue, like illegal immigrants

Um, you can........whether you pay taxes or not.

The act of sex has nothing to do with "marriage" or "civil unions".....you don't need either to have it.....:yay:

Marx

04-04-2009, 02:44 PM

Happy 1,000 xisaacx! :yay:

JewishHobbit

04-04-2009, 02:51 PM

So how's this work once they leave the state? Say, someone gets married in Iowa then moves to Ohio. Are they recognized by law as a married couple? I'm just curious because I live in Ohio near Cincinnati and had lesbian neighbors until just recently who said they were married, but I didn't think that applied here. What's the law about that?

Marx

04-04-2009, 03:21 PM

You should all come to visit the Gay Right's thread in Politico! This is being discussed in there, as well as many other issues.

Discussion: Gay Rights
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=310683

RachelDawes

04-04-2009, 04:11 PM

Marx

04-04-2009, 04:14 PM

spideyboy_1111

04-04-2009, 06:36 PM

I just don't think the word alone is worth fighting for. Besides the rights issues, is there anything really important about being married legally? Can't you, gay or straight, get married in your own private ceremony in your own church through your own religion and just not give a **** about what the government thinks? Like I've said before, I think marriage as a government institution is pretty damn silly, and would be fine if all joined couples, heterosexual or homosexual, were called civil unions and the rights pertaining to taxes, property, custody etc. etc. were the same for everyone of them. Leave the "marriage" stuff for the church.

i think anything you believe in is worth fighting for honestly. :up:

spideyboy_1111

04-04-2009, 06:39 PM

You may be right, but I have seen nothing to indicate it.

Then i guess you don't read or watch the news, or much of this thread. Gay rights have been quite a hot topic since prop 8. If prop 8 hadn't come about people probably wouldn't be so heated like they are right now.

StorminNorman

04-04-2009, 07:06 PM

Blitzkrieg Bop

04-04-2009, 07:17 PM

If a pregnant teenager can marry her convicted-felon boyfriend in a shotgun wedding, why can't two gay men or two lesbians who love each other do the same? One is apparently ok in the eyes of God, but the other isn't. It's time to stop letting religion rule the world. Not everybody believes in the same thing, so the largest common denominator of religion in a country shouldn't apply to everybody. I believe we are all people. No matter what race, sexuality, or faith you claim to, we should be treated equally. Equal rights for everybody.

spideyboy_1111

04-04-2009, 09:00 PM

No, but people who already voted against Prop 8 being angry over the passing of Prop 8 isn't news. I am saying I haven't seen much indicating that should the same bill be put on the ballot, it would suffer a different fate.

no but the rest of the country including others getting angry about it is. Every state has already had a prop 8 protest on the national protest day... including several countries. Many figure heads from around the world have also spoke out against prop 8. Unless your blind, or simply don't care enough to pay attention then you wouldn't know this.

The Guard

04-04-2009, 09:13 PM

One of the Republican senators has already declared that Iowa is going to become a "gay Mecca". I, for one, welcome our new gay rulers.

Veiled SIMPSONS reference? Sugar caves?

terry78

04-04-2009, 09:32 PM

How do you define a gay Mecca exactly? Every other store is an IKEA or something?

StorminNorman

04-04-2009, 09:39 PM

no but the rest of the country including others getting angry about it is. Every state has already had a prop 8 protest on the national protest day... including several countries. Many figure heads from around the world have also spoke out against prop 8. Unless your blind, or simply don't care enough to pay attention then you wouldn't know this.

Yes, but the people that were outraged about Prop 8 were the people already in your camp. I am asking how many people have changed their mind since Prop 8 passed. How many people that were anti gay marriage before Prop 8 have become pro gay marriage sense.

That's what actual progress is.

Logan's Runt

04-04-2009, 09:39 PM

Veiled SIMPSONS reference? Sugar caves?

Simpsons reference of course!

Also, various groups have said they won't pursue it further here, but that doesn't mean anything. However, a constitutional amendment vote would take years- so until then, there's not much they can do. One couple was married a few years ago when this whole thing started and their marriage is still legally recognized even thought no one else was able to get married until this decision was passed down.

Small victories are still victories.

spideyboy_1111

04-04-2009, 09:43 PM

Yes, but the people that were outraged about Prop 8 were the people already in your camp. I am asking how many people have changed their mind since Prop 8 passed. How many people that were anti gay marriage before Prop 8 have become pro gay marriage sense.

That's what actual progress is.

well thats a person to person kinda thing, theres not really been any documentation of that... and imo it doesn't really matter. Majority should not decide the rights of a minority anyway. Those who were against gay marriage are probably still against it, those people probably wont change. It's the people that "didn't care" either way that imo do. And i've seen some of there opinions tend to lead more towards being against prop 8 after it passed.

Kelly

04-04-2009, 09:56 PM

well thats a person to person kinda thing, theres not really been any documentation of that... and imo it doesn't really matter. Majority should not decide the rights of a minority anyway. Those who were against gay marriage are probably still against it, those people probably wont change. It's the people that "didn't care" either way that imo do. And i've seen some of there opinions tend to lead more towards being against prop 8 after it passed.

Government type: Constituion-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

Now, if you want to take off that last part that's fine, but that is the type of government this country has at the moment.

spideyboy_1111

04-04-2009, 09:59 PM

Government type: Constituion-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

Now, if you want to take off that last part that's fine, but that is the type of government this country has at the moment.

sorry, but i still don't agree. Laws are passed all the time not by popular vote, or no vote at all. If we wanted to vote on slavery back when the slaves were set free, or when women were given the right to vote, chances are the public wouldn't have voted for it at the time either. So your comment is bogus right now.

Kelly

04-04-2009, 10:02 PM

sorry, but i still don't agree. Laws are passed all the time not by popular vote, or no vote at all. If we wanted to vote on slavery back when the slaves were set free, or when women were given the right to vote, chances are the public wouldn't have voted for it at the time either. So your comment is bogus right now.

Hey, I haveno problem with gays being able to marry, and call it whatever thehell they want, and have every right that I enjoy. That's cool with me, all I'm saying is.....to take "majority" out of the equation totally is just not going to happen, Women's Right to vote was passed by 1 vote, which made the majority by 1. One, who almost did not vote for it, one who changed his vote at the last second.....that last portion of what I posted will always be a part of the equation. That's all I'm saying.

StorminNorman

04-05-2009, 12:09 AM

well thats a person to person kinda thing, theres not really been any documentation of that... and imo it doesn't really matter. Majority should not decide the rights of a minority anyway. Those who were against gay marriage are probably still against it, those people probably wont change. It's the people that "didn't care" either way that imo do. And i've seen some of there opinions tend to lead more towards being against prop 8 after it passed.

I really hope you are right. I truly, really, with my entire heart do.

KevanG

04-05-2009, 03:40 AM

Good, time for them to be as miserable as everyone else :p, (says the single guy)

spideyboy_1111

04-05-2009, 06:19 PM

Young voters push for same-sex marriage
by The Denver Post on 4/5 at 6:42 pm.

Colorado State University student Joe Peterson gushed when he talked about the 2008 elections, with Barack Obama winning the presidency and Democrat Betsy Markey knocking off Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave.

But his voice changed when he talked about another victory that night, the passage of California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage.

"That was such a sour spot and, as a gay man, it really seemed like the violation of the American dream," Peterson said.

That result propelled Peterson and two friends, Alex Cobell and Tara Craig, to try to give more rights to Colorado's same-sex couples.

The trio teamed up to push a 2010 ballot measure that would give gay couples all the "benefits, protections and responsibilities" provided in traditional marriage.

It's the second ballot measure filed this year by 20-somethings that deal with gay rights.

Rep. Mark Ferrandino, the legislature's first openly gay man, said he believes Proposition 8 helped influence a generation that already believes in equal rights.

"The youth are pushing the ball along," the Denver Democrat said. "It's great to see that people in all our areas of country, including the heartland, are willing to stand up for equal rights for all people."

Becoming activists

The Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous decision.

As for Peterson, he described himself and his friends as "political junkies."

Peterson, 20, of Greeley;

Cobell, 21, of Denver; and Craig, 20, of Parker, met in 2007 when they joined CSU's Young Democrats. Peterson and Craig still attend school; Cobell works in Denver.

Last year, Peterson interned with Markey's campaign, and Craig interned with the Democratic National Convention over the summer, then joined Markey's team. Cobell went to North Carolina to work on Obama's campaign.

"Oh my gosh, it was absolutely amazing," Craig said of her 2008 political experiences.

But she, Peterson and Cobell were upset by the passage of Proposition 8, which eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry.

"Gays are not second-class citizens," Craig said.

The three decided to push a ballot initiative, which was filed last month with the state's Legislative Council, the first in a series of steps to get an issue on the ballot. A legislative review of the proposal is scheduled for Tuesday.

Asked why their proposal reads as if it were written by a lawyer, Peterson said it was modeled on Referendum I, a 2006 Colorado ballot measure giving more rights and responsibilities to gay couples.

Referendum I failed 48 percent to 52 percent. That same year, voters approved Amendment 43 defining marriage in the state constitution as a union only between a man and woman. It passed 55 percent to 45 percent.

No change expected

Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, who helped put Amendment 43 on the ballot, said he expects voters will make the same choices in 2010.

"I don't think the basic attitude of the people has changed," Lundberg said. "But here we go again, and again, and probably again."

Peterson, Craig and Cobell believe 2010 will be a different story.

"The younger generation is much more supportive of civil rights, and every day, someone celebrates an 18th birthday," Peterson said.

That's the sentiment echoed by Stu Allen, a 23-year-old golf club salesman who thinks gays should be allowed to marry.

Allen, of Lakewood, and his girlfriend, Crystal Russell, 21, are behind a ballot measure that would change the state constitution to recognize marriage as a union between two consenting adults.

"We have contributing, taxpaying citizens who don't have the same rights as everyone else, and that's not fair," Allen said.

The secretary of state last week OK'd the language on their signature petitions. They have six months to collect 76,047 valid voter signatures.

Story at denverpost.com

really beautiful news :)

and StorminNormin, this isn't exactly the proof you wanted, but it's beautiful none the less.

spideyboy_1111

04-05-2009, 06:22 PM

and i found this bloody hilariously brilliant! :up:
God Hates Fa&s church raises money for LGBT support group
by Pink News on 4/1 at 6:13 pm.
Viewed 901 times.

Members of the US Westboro Baptist Church, who chant slogans such as "fa&s burn in hell", have unintentionally raised money for a gay rights group.

LGBT activists have set up a scheme in which people are asked to donate money for every minute the Phelps family protest against gays.

The vehemently homophobic church, whose leader Fred Phelps runs GodHatesFa$s.com, turned up to picket outside the White House on Monday, calling President Obama the 'antichrist' for his support of equality.

However, Phelps and his church were met by LGBT supporters who protested against them, raising money for local group Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence.

The scheme was thought up by Driving Equality, an organisation that has held various 'Phelps-A-Thons'.

Visitors to the website www.phelps-a-thon.comcan sponsor the Westboro Baptist Church by choosing an amount to donate for every minute the group chants slogans such as “god hates fa%s".

All of the proceeds go towards local LGBT support groups, or to Driving Equality.

Driving Equality aims to raise $25,000 (£17,374) and has already raised over $10348 (£7,192).

Some of this money is to fund founder Chris Mason's 100-day, 16,000-mile road trip through 48 states to advance LGBT equality.

There have been other 'Phelps-A-Thons' at places such as Harvard and SUNY and Mason has appealed for more, saying that he can organise the sponsoring events wherever the fundamentalist family visit.

"Let me know and I will add a Phelps-A-Thon for your community. We can work together to raise money for your local gay/straight alliance or LGBT community centre," he said.

Last month, the church threatened to picket a London primary school after it held lessons on same-sex relationships as part of LGBT History Month.

Around 30 parents took their children out of George Tomlinson School in February to protest over the curriculum.

The group stated: "God hates the UK and the Tomlinson School fa% tyranny, where conscientious parents face religious persecution for withdrawing their children on lying *** so-called history.

"This is yet another warning to the UK to repent of their manifold sins of the flesh, or perish."

Despite the threat, the group did not arrive to chant outside the school.

StorminNorman

04-05-2009, 06:26 PM

Absolutely wonderful. Honestly I think bills like that are much more realistic than marriage laws. Objecting a bill that makes the civil union the legal equivalent of marriage takes away the argument of ruining the sanctity of marriage - basically forcing those against the measure to admit they just hate gay people.

Brilliant.

Marx

04-05-2009, 06:35 PM

Welcome to the boards Blitzkrieg Bop! :yay:

wiegeabo

04-05-2009, 07:12 PM

and i found this bloody hilariously brilliant! :up:

****ing genius! :word:

Schlosser85

04-05-2009, 07:44 PM

Maybe Phelps really is doing the Lord's work without realizing it ;)

RachelDawes

04-05-2009, 09:08 PM

I hope this hasn't been posted yet, but I found an article that's attempted to predict how Iowans and other Americans would vote on a gay marriage ban in the present and into the near future. The author concluded:

So what does this mean for Iowa? The state has roughly average levels of religiosity, including a fair number of white evangelicals, and the model predicts that if Iowans voted on a marriage ban today, it would pass with 56.0 percent of the vote. By 2012, however, the model projects a toss-up: 50.4 percent of Iowans voting to approve the ban, and 49.6 percent opposed. In 2013 and all subsequent years, the model thinks the marriage ban would fail.

The model predicts that by 2012, almost half of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban, including several states that had previously voted to ban it. In fact, voters in Oregon, Nevada and Alaska (which Sarah Palin aside, is far more libertarian than culturally conservative) might already have second thoughts about the marriage bans that they'd previously passed.

By 2016, only a handful of states in the Deep South would vote to ban gay marriage, with Mississippi being the last one to come around in 2024.

I agree with one of the commenters that having Utah vote against a marriage ban in 2013 seems too early, unless it's a more gay-friendly state than I thought. I feel the same way about a few other states he listed.

Anyway, here's the whole article: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html

SuBe

04-05-2009, 10:17 PM

That is one of the reasons this country shouldn't be a Democracy, and shouldn't be embraced as one. Mob Rule. Tyranny of the Majority. 2 wolves, 1 sheep, what's for dinner?

I don't see how this law expands freedom and promotes liberty.

ChrisBaleBatman

04-06-2009, 12:14 PM

what do you mean?

SuBe

04-06-2009, 12:18 PM

what do you mean?
How does limiting marriage between 2 people, that you will never meet, that you have no contact with, that doesn't affect your relationship with any other people grow liberty and freedom? It doesn't.

This Banning on Gay Marriage grows tyranny. And is an example of how Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, it is the majority oppressing the minority.

ChrisBaleBatman

04-06-2009, 12:20 PM

Agreed. 100%.

Some people easily forget that interracial marriages were illegal not too long ago before. I don't see how this is any different.

Bathead

04-06-2009, 12:34 PM

How does limiting marriage between 2 people, that you will never meet, that you have no contact with, that doesn't affect your relationship with any other people grow liberty and freedom? It doesn't.

This Banning on Gay Marriage grows tyranny. And is an example of how Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, it is the majority oppressing the minority.

This is something that confuses me. One of the claims I hear from the anti-gay marrige crowd is that it will somehow destroy the "Family". They've never explained how. It makes absolutely no sense.

ChrisBaleBatman

04-06-2009, 12:36 PM

I don't either.

Seems like an empty arguement, everytime I've heard it.

SuBe

04-06-2009, 12:49 PM

This is something that confuses me. One of the claims I hear from the anti-gay marrige crowd is that it will somehow destroy the "Family". They've never explained how. It makes absolutely no sense.
I agree, When any two people are in a relationship, it doesn't change anything about another couple or family. They say it changes the definition of Marriage. Fine, what ever. Definition of words change all the time, but you can't say Government is Limiting Freedom and Liberty, then Vote to enstate oppression.

This is why Democracy is Dangerous, and we as a REPUBLIC need to embrace Laws that protect Freedom, and Democracy goes with the whim of the people. Which isn't always the right and just thing.

Marx

04-06-2009, 12:57 PM

Marx

04-06-2009, 01:46 PM

MARRIAGE RULING MAY BOOST IOWA ECONOMY
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200904050405/NEWS/904050345

Millions of dollars in tourism and tax revenue could flow into Iowa as a result of the Iowa Supreme Court's historic decision to legalize same-sex marriage, according to a range of scholars and business people.

The unanimous but controversial ruling announced Friday overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and made Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal.

Iowa counties will begin to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples as early as this month.

Unlike Connecticut and Massachusetts - the other states that permit gay marriage - Iowa has no nearby competitors for same-sex couples who want to marry.

Businesses could see $160 million in new wedding and tourism spending over the next three years, according to a study from researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles.

"Iowa pretty much has the Midwest all to itself," said Lee Badgett, a University of Massachusetts economist who co-authored the 2008 report. "It's in the middle of a lot of states that have a lot of same-sex couples. It's in a good position."

The study predicts that 2,917 same-sex Iowa couples will wed in the three years after the marriages are allowed to proceed. In addition, nearly 55,000 out-of-state couples could come to Iowa to get married, the study found.

The ruling also could attract newcomers to the state, although some cautioned that the long-term impact remains unclear.

wiegeabo

04-06-2009, 02:02 PM

I keep learning new things about this decision. I didn't know it was unanimous, which puts it far ahead of the split decision here in California.

A few nights ago I was watching the news, wondering how Iowa was going to avoid their own version of Prop 8. Well, Iowa doesn't have the same ballot initiative procedures California has, so it doesn't look like the people could put a Prop 8 to vote. And since the majority of the legislature was in support of the court's decision, one wouldn't be likely to get through them either.

Marx

04-06-2009, 02:21 PM

Bathead

04-06-2009, 10:31 PM

It would appear to me that the heterosexual crowd has been the ones who have damaged the meaning of marriage.
With the abysmal record that heteros have regarding marriage and the family, if those institutions haven't been destroyed already, what harm could gays possibly do?

Schlosser85

04-06-2009, 10:54 PM

To paraphrase Senator Barbara Boxer, if gay marriage destroys your marriage, there's something wrong with your marriage.

Marx

04-06-2009, 10:56 PM

To paraphrase Senator Barbara Boxer, if gay marriage destroys your marriage, there's something wrong with your marriage.

That's a good point.

CaptainClown

04-06-2009, 11:26 PM

To paraphrase Senator Barbara Boxer, if gay marriage destroys your marriage, there's something wrong with your marriage.
"sorry babe... I can marry jerry now."
That's a good point.
MARX! you are a mod! congrats!

Marx

04-06-2009, 11:37 PM

"sorry babe... I can marry jerry now."

MARX! you are a mod! congrats!

Thanks! :yay:

CaptainClown

04-06-2009, 11:38 PM

be sure to sneak me into the mod washroom.

Marx

04-06-2009, 11:44 PM

be sure to sneak me into the mod washroom.

I know nothing of any such place...

CaptainClown

04-06-2009, 11:46 PM

oh... I have said too much...

Marx

04-07-2009, 10:22 AM

BREAKING NEWS!

Vermont's House and Senate voted Tuesday to override the governor's veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

moraldeficiency

04-07-2009, 10:25 AM

sweet.

wiegeabo

04-07-2009, 10:38 AM

Good to hear. They were worried they weren't going to have the number needed to overturn the veto.

Lightning Strykez!

04-07-2009, 03:14 PM

Hmmm...an interesting outcome.

wiegeabo

04-07-2009, 03:25 PM

So what are the five (that's what I heard on the news) states to legalize gay marriage?

California (I think they counted us because those marriages are still currently legal)
Vermont
Iowa
...?

SuBe

04-07-2009, 03:33 PM

Isn't it legal in Hawaii?

wiegeabo

04-07-2009, 03:36 PM

I don't know. I don't think so, but those are the only three I can seem to find.

Marx

04-07-2009, 04:14 PM

So what are the five (that's what I heard on the news) states to legalize gay marriage?

California (I think they counted us because those marriages are still currently legal)
Vermont
Iowa
...?

Edit: Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Marx

04-07-2009, 04:46 PM

DC COUNCIL VOTES TO RECOGNIZE OTHER STATES' GAY MARRIAGES
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040702200.html?hpid=topnews

The D.C. Council voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, on the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex unions.

Domestic partnerships are already legal in the nation's capital. But today's vote, billed as an important milestone in gay rights, explicitly recognizes relocated gay married couples as married.

The initial vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.

Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), who is gay, called the amendment a matter of "basic fairness."

The city's laws on same-sex unions have been murky, he explained. Couples ask, he said, "Is my marriage valid in D.C.? For years now, it has not been clear."

"It's high time we send a clear, unequivocal message to those persons of the same sex and married in another jurisdiction that their marriage is valid in D.C.," said Graham, who added, "I hope this city recognizes this is a human rights struggle."

Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), who is also gay, predicted it was only a matter of time before the council also takes up a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. "It's no secret that I have been working on legislation that would take us further," he said. "This is the march toward human rights and equality. This is not the march toward special rights. This is the equality march and that march is coming here."

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who has been chipping away at barriers for same-sex couples for years, said he saw the legislation as one that is in keeping with the city's laws. "Some are saying it's an important step. I am saying it's a simple step," said Mendelson, who authored the legislation.

Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) called the amendment "long overdue."

"We as a council need to stand in the right place and take the gray area out," he said.

MaskedManJRK

04-07-2009, 06:02 PM

I love this--a very smart and sneaky way to get things moving forward.

"Well, the gays that are married can stay married outside of their states, so why not just make it legal everywhere and get it over with?"

spideyboy_1111

04-07-2009, 07:25 PM

*does happy dance* Cali better man up and reject prop 8.... especially with Iowa, and Vermont passing...

So that's officially

Iowa
Vermont
Massachusetts
Connecticut

The love train keeps on rollin

I also heard that New York will probably pass soon too, since they already recognize gay marriages from other states, just don't perform the ceremonies.

Marx

04-07-2009, 09:29 PM

GAY FAMILIES INVITED TO WHITE HOUSE EASTER EVENT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/07/gay-families-invited-to-w_n_184324.html

The White House is allocating tickets for the upcoming Easter Egg Roll to gay and lesbian parents as part of the Obama administration's outreach to diverse communities.

Families say the gesture shows that the new Democratic administration values them as equal to other families. And for many, being included in the annual tradition - dating to 1878 - renews hope that they will have more support in their quest for equal rights in matters such as marriage and adoption than under the previous administration.

On Tuesday, gays and lesbians gained another victory when Vermont joined Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gay couples the right to marry. In the District of Columbia, the council voted to recognize
gay marriages performed in other states.

White House officials said that tickets for Monday's Easter Egg Roll event were distributed to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organizations, but did not specify how many or to which ones. Representatives from Family Equality Council, Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and other groups confirmed they were invited and encouraged to have their members participate.

"The Obama administration actually reached out to us as an organization, and said we want gay families there, and they are an important part of the American family fabric," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Boston-based Family Equality Council, which is helping spearhead the effort to organize families to attend.

Chrisler said Tuesday she expects more than 100 gay and lesbian-headed families to take part in the egg roll.

Overall, officials are gearing up for a bigger turnout than ever before, with families arriving from 45 states and the District of Columbia, said Semonti Mustaphi, deputy press secretary to Mrs. Obama. The majority of egg roll tickets were offered to the public online.

Alan Bernstein, a single gay father, is flying to Washington from West Hollywood, Calif., with his 5-year-old son Issac to participate. His 3-year-old twin daughters will stay with their grandparents. It will be Bernstein and his son's first time at the egg roll.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

SuBe

04-07-2009, 09:41 PM

It's going to give a lot of ammunition to the Far, Far Right, but it could be a good move.

I do see this as an opportunity to express Libertarian views, though I know it will not be done that way.

Marx

04-07-2009, 09:48 PM

It's going to give a lot of ammunition to the Far, Far Right, but it could be a good move.

I do see this as an opportunity to express Libertarian views, though I know it will not be done that way.

I dare the 'far, far right' to touch this. I dare them. It will explode in their faces.

wiegeabo

04-07-2009, 10:00 PM

And what's up with the Libertarian bashing?

SuBe

04-07-2009, 10:19 PM

And what's up with the Libertarian bashing?

Libertarian Bashing? Where?:huh:

wiegeabo

04-07-2009, 10:21 PM

It sounded like you were attacking Libertarian views.

StorminNorman

04-07-2009, 10:58 PM

...wha?

MaskedManJRK

04-08-2009, 12:16 AM

It sounded like you were attacking Libertarian views.

...You haven't been here long, have you?

SuBe's so libertarian he makes John Galt look like a Commie Liberal Pussy. :o

moraldeficiency

04-08-2009, 08:14 AM

It sounded like you were attacking Libertarian views.

which ones exactely?

fewbutcrazy

04-08-2009, 12:43 PM

Gay rights? They have the right to stop being gay. [/bigot that will eventually show up]

But seriously... gay people are people. People have rights. That means they should have the same rights as anyone else. Unless that whole, discriminating against people for how they were born thing is no longer morally wrong.

I am not disagreeing with you about this...but when talking about people that are born a certain way...that is then racism...

moraldeficiency

04-08-2009, 12:46 PM

I am not disagreeing with you about this...but when talking about people that are born a certain way...that is then racism...

Uh, that's not true at all. Are people born blind part of the blind race? Are people born blond part of the blond race?

Marx

04-08-2009, 12:48 PM

I am not disagreeing with you about this...but when talking about people that are born a certain way...that is then racism...

What!?!?! :huh:

I think you might need to revisit your definition of racism.

fewbutcrazy

04-08-2009, 12:50 PM

Uh, that's not true at all. Are people born blind part of the blind race? Are people born blond part of the blond race?

it is not a race...i am not saying it is making a race at all...i am arguing that once you blame something on genetics...it then becomes racism...

fewbutcrazy

04-08-2009, 12:52 PM

What!?!?! :huh:

I think you might need to revisit your definition of racism.

have you read foucault?...because that is how i am defining racism...he does not define racism as the way we understand racism...

moraldeficiency

04-08-2009, 12:53 PM

it is not a race...i am not saying it is making a race at all...i am arguing that once you blame something on genetics...it then becomes racism...

I haven't a clue what you mean by this.

fewbutcrazy

04-08-2009, 12:55 PM

I haven't a clue what you mean by this.

sorry...well then i will stop before it gets out of hand even further...

Marx

04-08-2009, 12:56 PM

have you read foucault?...because that is how i am defining racism...he does not define racism as the way we understand racism...

No I have not. So you're using a definition of racism that no one else understands? I think you should probably quit while you're behind.

Saying that someone is born gay is not racist, it's the truth.

Marx

04-08-2009, 12:56 PM

sorry...well then i will stop before it gets out of hand even further...

That would be a wise decision.

FCEEVIPER

04-08-2009, 01:00 PM

I understand what you’re getting at few

fewbutcrazy

04-08-2009, 01:01 PM

No I have not. So you're using a definition of racism that no one else understands? I think you should probably quit while you're behind.

Saying that someone is born gay is not racist, it's the truth.

you realize our notion of gay is something that has only come up in our current episteme...think of episteme as an entire system of knowledge...how we come to know things etc...homosexuality was not always understood as homosexuality or could have been conceived...the ancient greeks had homosexual relationships...and yet they had no notion of being gay...

Marx

04-08-2009, 01:04 PM

you realize our notion of gay is something that has only come up in our current episteme...think of episteme as an entire system of knowledge...how we come to know things etc...homosexuality was not always understood as homosexuality or could have been conceived...the ancient greeks had homosexual relationships...and yet they had no notion of being gay...

I am not going to get into a debate of theory with you. You are arguing names and semantics for the sake of argument and debate. Homosexuality has always existed in nature. (Just because it wasn't always interpreted the way we now interpret it does not change that fact.)

Now please, stop this nonsense.

fewbutcrazy

04-08-2009, 01:07 PM

I am not going to get into a debate of theory with you. Homosexuality has always existed in nature. (Just because it wasn't always interpreted the way we now interpret it does not change that fact.)

Now please, stop this nonsense.

but that is the whole point...we are in a different system of knowledge compared to past system...we think what we think because of this...we need to understand the words behind what we are sayin because it's all about dialectics...if you don't want to argue this then i would suggest another board for you my friend...but i am sorry for offending you...

Marx

04-08-2009, 01:14 PM

but that is the whole point...we are in a different system of knowledge compared to past system...we think what we think because of this...we need to understand the words behind what we are sayin because it's all about dialectics...if you don't want to argue this then i would suggest another board for you my friend...but i am sorry for offending you...

I will not ask again. Please stop arguing semantics for the sake of arguing.

moraldeficiency

04-08-2009, 01:17 PM

[wayne brady]Is marx gonna have to ban a *****?[/wayne brady]

FCEEVIPER

04-08-2009, 01:19 PM

I say let the man debate!

fewbutcrazy

04-08-2009, 01:23 PM

[wayne brady]Is marx gonna have to ban a *****?[/wayne brady]

it happens when people don't like to hear an entire opinion...i am not arguing for the sake of arguing...it is a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up...but i guess semantics means nothing...nor karl marx

moraldeficiency

04-08-2009, 01:28 PM

Is moraldeficiency gonna have to echoke a *****?

(you're way off topic dude and arguing something [against no actual person I should mention] that has nothing to do with anything in this tread. Yeah people's concepts and ideas change with time, everyone knows that and no one is arguing or even discussing it with you)

BlackLantern

04-08-2009, 06:03 PM

http://gawker.com/5204097/cry-laugh-at-worlds-dumbest-anti+gay-ad-auditions?skyline=true&s=x

Anti-gay propaganda in its undiluted form

Kelly

04-08-2009, 06:10 PM

Marx

04-08-2009, 09:31 PM

hippie_hunter

04-08-2009, 11:48 PM

It appears that New York Governor Patterson plans to re-introduce legislation making same-sex marriage legal in the state of New York.

The cynic in me wonders if this is a genuine move, or an attempt to revive his sagging poll numbers...

It's a genuine move. Paterson is very pro gay marriage. He's had New York recognize gay marriages performed outside of New York and has called it a beautiful thing.

However he should hold off on it because it will only hurt him. Upstate New York is very conservative and introducing this will kill a lot of his already minuscule support in that region.

hippie_hunter

04-08-2009, 11:55 PM

Although on the other hand, this might be the only time that it can be introduced. If Paterson ends up being unchallenged in the primary, the governors seat will end up in a Republican's hand. And I'd expect that the Democrats will take losses in the state legislature on account that you can't exactly blame the Republicans for turning New York into a mess.

Marx

04-09-2009, 05:35 PM

It's a genuine move. Paterson is very pro gay marriage. He's had New York recognize gay marriages performed outside of New York and has called it a beautiful thing.

However he should hold off on it because it will only hurt him. Upstate New York is very conservative and introducing this will kill a lot of his already minuscule support in that region.

I knew that New York recognized other state's same-sex marriages, it just seemed like the timing of this might be political posturing.

MaskedManJRK

04-09-2009, 06:17 PM

http://gawker.com/5204097/cry-laugh-at-worlds-dumbest-anti+gay-ad-auditions?skyline=true&s=x

Anti-gay propaganda in its undiluted form

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Propaganda" is a good way of putting it--don't most commercials like this have actual people in these roles, and not actors?

BlackLantern

04-09-2009, 06:22 PM

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Propaganda" is a good way of putting it--don't most commercials like this have actual people in these roles, and not actors?

It's an audition reel, if I understand correctly...but the testimonials are real

MaskedManJRK

04-09-2009, 06:26 PM

It's an audition reel, if I understand correctly...but the testimonials are real

Apparently so, but from what I read on the site we got this from, there is quite a bit that the ad doesn't tell us about:

Below, from the comments to a post on the Seattle alt paper the Stranger's blog (Slog) on the subject - it says it much better than I could (all credit to poster Lurleen):

I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job...

This has nothing to do with marriage. Although she doesn't name the case she references, the California Supreme Court ruled last year that a scenario such as he describes would be in contempt of state non-discrimination law. These people are lamenting that they can no longer legally discriminate against gays in health care and related services.

I'm part of a NJ church group punished by the government because we can't support same-sex marriage...

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a church, as the ad actor misstates, but is a religious ministry. It owns "seaside land that includes a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings of any religion could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs. The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public."

I'm a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is OK...

A federal judge verbally spanked David Parker for wasting precious court time and resources with this baseless lawsuit. Parker appealed to the US Supreme Court, who refused to review the case. Here is just a taste of what the federal judge said:

In summary, the court must dismiss plaintiffs' federal claims because this case is not distinguishable in any material respect from Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, 68 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1995). In Brown, the First Circuit held that the constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children and that teachings which contradict a parent's religious beliefs do not violate their First Amendment right to exercise their religion. [page 3]...

In essence, under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy. Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation. Our nation's history includes a fundamental commitment to promoting mutual respect among citizens in our diverse nation that is manifest in the First Amendment's prohibitions on establishing an official religion and restricting the free exercise of religious beliefs on which plaintiffs base some of their federal claims. [page 4]

BlackLantern

04-09-2009, 06:42 PM

I heard about the David Parker thing.....read various accounts that the Judge delivered a 'verbal teabagging' to Parker

spideyboy_1111

04-09-2009, 11:03 PM

Marx

04-09-2009, 11:08 PM

wiegeabo

04-09-2009, 11:21 PM

last i checked doctors don't play god... and WANT to help people. thats just all kinds of f'd up. She's basically saying gays shouldn't be treated, and should die on the table before she should have to "treat" us.

Yeah, that's pretty much a violation of the Hippocratic oath. I wonder if she went on record with her name. Because if she was in my community, I'd demand her license be revoked. Hell, I demand it anyway.

Schlosser85

04-10-2009, 07:16 AM

I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job...

Her faith tells her she shouldn't give medical treatment to gay people? That's a violation of her Hippcratic Oath, of the faith she claims to have, and of basic humanity.

I am so sick of these bigots PRETENDING to have a shred of Christian faith in them.

Ion Kenshin

04-10-2009, 09:17 AM

Just saw this on AMNY

City rolls out red carpet for gay tourists in $2M blitz
By Jason Fink

New York is rolling out the yellow brick road for what it’s billing as the gay
“pilgrimage” this summer.

City officials Tuesday announced a $2 million marketing blitz aimed at luring gay and lesbian tourists to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, which many consider the birth of the modern gay rights movement.

“There is no more gay friendly city in the world,” said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the highest-ranking openly gay elected official in city history.

The advertising push - which includes print, digital and billboards in the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada and New York - kicks off Monday and will culminate in the LGBT Pride March on June 28. The campaign includes a Web site — nycgo.com/gay — featuring LGBT-specific events and landmarks in the city, and package deals offering discounts on hotels and restaurants.

“There is a lot of tolerance in New York for people from different backgrounds,” said Andrew Lawton, 31, of Manhattan, when told about the city’s plans. “We have a thriving gay community here, and it’s a good idea to attract people.”

Further embracing the gay community, Quinn and Mayor Michael Bloomberg yesterday sent a letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke asking that same-sex couples in New York who have had legal unions performed elsewhere be counted as married in the 2010 Census.

That announcement came on the heels of the Vermont legislature overriding a veto of a same-sex marriage bill, legalizing the practice there.

Tourism officials around the world have increasingly tried to attract gay travelers, hoping to counter the drag of the down economy. Many in the industry say gays — who often live in two-income households without children — are less likely to cut back on travel.

“The gay dollar has been shown to be more resilient,” said Bob Witeck, a marketing consultant who works with the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association. “Even during down times, we’re not worrying about our households as much, we’re not worrying about college tuition”

A Harris Interactive survey conducted last year found that 38 percent of gay adults planned to vacation despite the economy, compared with 34 percent of heterosexual respondents.

“All cities, if they’re smart, will market towards gay and lesbian tourists,” said Angela Jackson, a spokeswoman for San Francisco’s tourism bureau, which did not quibble with New York being crowned the U.S. mecca of gay tourism.

New York, which last year had 47 million visitors total, is the No. 1 destination for gay tourists, with 24 percent of the market, according to San Francisco-based Community Marketing. Las Vegas ranked second, followed by San Francisco.

moraldeficiency

04-10-2009, 09:24 AM

“There is a lot of tolerance in New York for people from different backgrounds,” said Andrew Lawton, 31, of Manhattan, when told about the city’s plans. “We have a thriving gay community here, and it’s a good idea to attract people.”

^people who say stuff like this are such asshats. Andy there just tolerates the hell out of people. Not likes, or accepts and certianly not welcomes, but he can put up with gays just like he can put up with elevator music.

Also being gay isn't having a different background.

BlackLantern

04-10-2009, 11:34 AM

souvlaki

04-10-2009, 08:35 PM

The National Organization for Marriage (the ones that released that ridiculous ad that BlackLantern posted) have started a new initiative called "Two-million for Marriage". In an attempt to be hip with the young crowd, they shortened it to the acronym "2M4M". Apparently they've never visited Craigslist personal ads before.

hippie_hunter

04-10-2009, 08:37 PM

I knew that New York recognized other state's same-sex marriages, it just seemed like the timing of this might be political posturing.

It isn't. If it were political posturing, Paterson wouldn't have introduced it at all because of his dwindling support and a bill like this will probably end up hurting him.

What I think is that Paterson sees this as the best opportunity to introduce this legislation. It honestly is.

There is a current momentum in favor of gay marriage because of it being legalized in Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and Iowa along with a good possibility of it being re-legalized in California. New York's legislature passing a law like this would really help the gay rights movement because it is the government that is elected by the people that would pass this law, just like in Vermont, not a court.

Right now there is a very slim Democratic majority in the State Senate. One that is not guaranteed to stay in 2010 because voters are very discontent with how the government is in the state. If the Republicans regain control of the Senate, which is a very likely possibility because they only need to gain one or two seats, you can kiss the chances of this bill passing good bye.

And we also have a governor who is very supportive of gay marriage. However, since Paterson currently unchallenged, the next governor will most likely end up being Rudy Giuliani, a man who is very supportive of LGBT rights, but opposes gay marriage itself.

Right now is pretty much the only chance for this to happen because come next election cycle, it is very likely that chance will be gone for a long time.

BlackLantern

04-10-2009, 08:38 PM

MaskedManJRK

04-10-2009, 09:46 PM

last i checked doctors don't play god... and WANT to help people. thats just all kinds of f'd up. She's basically saying gays shouldn't be treated, and should die on the table before she should have to "treat" us.

Her faith tells her she shouldn't give medical treatment to gay people? That's a violation of her Hippcratic Oath, of the faith she claims to have, and of basic humanity.

I am so sick of these bigots PRETENDING to have a shred of Christian faith in them.

I get what you guys mean, but don't get too mad at the lady in the commercial--we know she's just an actor who got payed to say that bulls**t. :yay:

The National Organization for Marriage (the ones that released that ridiculous ad that BlackLantern posted) have started a new initiative called "Two-million for Marriage". In an attempt to be hip with the young crowd, they shortened it to the acronym "2M4M". Apparently they've never visited Craigslist personal ads before.

So, first they give themselves the acronym NOM, and now part of their new phase is M4M? It's like there's a guy in charge who watches the Internet Machines and is subverting their cause.

wiegeabo

04-10-2009, 10:11 PM

So, first they give themselves the acronym NOM, and now part of their new phase is M4M? It's like there's a guy in charge who watches the Internet Machines and is subverting their cause.

One can hope.

Marx

04-11-2009, 04:31 PM

WARREN WAVER ON PROP 8 STUNS LEADERS
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/11/warren-waver-stuns-leaders/?xid=rss-page

Evangelical leaders say they are bewildered and stunned by the Rev. Rick Warren's apparent turnaround on gay marriage after the famous California pastor said earlier this week that he was not a proponent of California's Proposition 8.

Mr. Warren told CNN's Larry King on Monday that he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the proposition, which said marriage in the state could only involve one man and one woman. The measure won at the polls last November by a close margin, in effect negating an earlier California Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriages.

Proponents of the proposition had gathered from earlier comments that Mr. Warren stood with them on the issue, and they reacted vigorously to his CNN interview.

"I was extremely troubled by the way he appeared to be so anxious to distance himself from the same-sex issue and to make clear he was not an 'activist' and that he'd only addressed the issue in a very minor way," said the Rev. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said his denial is "absolutely baffling."

"Whether he supports Proposition 8 now, after the fact, is overshadowed by the bizarre claim that he did not say what the evidence so clearly proves he said."

What Mr. Warren said he did do was send out a video to his 22,000-member church explaining his position the week before Proposition 8 went before state voters on Nov. 4.

"Now let me say this really clearly: We support Proposition 8," he said on the video, "and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues, I come out very clear."

In his conversation with Mr. King, Mr. Warren said, "All of a sudden out of it, [opponents] made me something that I really wasn't. And I actually — there were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends — the leaders that I knew — and actually apologized to them. That never got out."

Named in 2005 by Time magazine as one of America's top 25 evangelicals and dubbed by some as "the next Billy Graham," Mr. Warren soared to nationwide prominence last August when he hosted a TV debate between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.

He was placed even more in the spotlight when newly elected President Obama announced that Mr. Warren would deliver the opening prayer at his inauguration. Gay activists condemned the selection chiefly because of the pastor's apparent support of Proposition 8.

At the time, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, cited Mr. Warren's opposition to gay marriage as a sign of intolerance.

"We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination," the group said in a letter to Obama, asking him to reconsider.

Christianity Today magazine on April 7 pressed Mr. Warren about whether his CNN remarks contradicted the video sent to his congregration.

"It was a pastor talking to his own people," he replied. "I've never said anything about it since. I don't know how you can take one video newsletter to your own church and turn that into — all of a sudden I'm the poster boy for anti-gay marriage."

Saddleback Church, where Mr. Warren is pastor, released a clarification on April 9 to the evangelical-oriented CBN.com, saying the pastor's remarks on CNN were not in reference to the video but "to not participating in the official two-year organized advocacy effort specific to the ballot initiative in that state."

Still, evangelicals point to a bigger issue brought about by Mr. Warren.

"This is a major distraction in this battle for the culture we are experiencing," said Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville and founder of the High Impact Leadership Coalition of 5,000 black and Hispanic evangelical leaders. "I really respect Pastor Warren, but his stance will hurt the evangelical church. He is being politically correct instead of biblically courageous."

StorminNorman

04-11-2009, 04:34 PM

I am not sure if I like, hate or simply apathetic to Rick Warren.

Marx

04-11-2009, 04:36 PM

I am not sure if I like, hate or simply apathetic to Rick Warren.

I absolutely cannot stand Rick Warren.

souvlaki

04-11-2009, 04:55 PM

WARREN WAVER ON PROP 8 STUNS LEADERS
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/11/warren-waver-stuns-leaders/?xid=rss-page

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic but I hope he's changing his story because he had a change of heart after all the criticism he received and wants to distance himself from the endorsement. I remember Melissa Ethridge said nothing but nice things about him after actually speaking to him. That's probably not the case, but one can hope.

Kelly

04-11-2009, 06:56 PM

I don't agree with his opinions, but he has a right to them.

Marx

04-11-2009, 09:26 PM

I don't agree with his opinions, but he has a right to them.

I seem to have read that comment from you on numerous occasions within the last week. :cwink:

I've never said that people do not have a right to state their opinions, I've just said that certain opinions are moronic.

Red Mask

04-11-2009, 09:49 PM

Even religious leaders are terrible in politics. Go figure.

Kelly

04-11-2009, 10:04 PM

I seem to have read that comment from you on numerous occasions within the last week. :cwink:

I've never said that people do not have a right to state their opinions, I've just said that certain opinions are moronic.

And you will hear it, or READ IT, from me much, much more.....and its not just this week.......I've been saying that from day one.

That is very important premise for me.....it is what I base my respect and tolerance upon, when debating religion, politics, etc.

And that is your opinion, which you definitely have a right to as well....:yay:

Marx

04-11-2009, 10:06 PM

And you will hear it, or READ IT, from me much, much more.....and its not just this week.......I've been saying that from day one.

That is very important premise for me.....it is what I base my respect and tolerance upon, when debating religion, politics, etc.

And that is your opinion, which you definitely have a right to as well....:yay:

You've said it for quite some time, I've just noticed it quite alot as of late. :oldrazz:

Kelly

04-11-2009, 10:08 PM

You've said it for quite some time, I've just noticed it quite alot as of late. :oldrazz:

Well, normally.....it will come when (not saying you) but when people tend to give their opinion as fact. That is a pet peave to me....OR when people seem extremely intolerant of another opinion. So if that happened alot lately, then that is why you've read it.....

Hobgoblin

04-11-2009, 10:16 PM

Her faith tells her she shouldn't give medical treatment to gay people? That's a violation of her Hippcratic Oath, of the faith she claims to have, and of basic humanity.

I am so sick of these bigots PRETENDING to have a shred of Christian faith in them.

qft. Jesus was friends with tax collectors and prostitutes but his followers seem to forget that part.

hippie_hunter

04-11-2009, 10:37 PM

Wasn't Jesus like friends with everyone?

Marx

04-11-2009, 10:41 PM

Wasn't Jesus like friends with everyone?

Some of his followers tend to forget that to push their own agendas...

Kelly

04-11-2009, 10:46 PM

Churches are full of people....THAT is the problem...

Hotwire

04-11-2009, 11:03 PM

In response to the NOM ad, I sent them this email...

I'm confused, and am hoping you can help. I am a heterosexual man who has been married for over six years now, with two daughters. I am not quite sure how same sex marriage is a threat to my family. Could someone from your organization please explain this to me??

Thank you

I'll let you know what they say.

Marx

04-11-2009, 11:07 PM

In response to the NOM ad, I sent them this email...

I'll let you know what they say.

:eek:

Kudos to you Mal'Akai! Please keep us updated! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

wiegeabo

04-11-2009, 11:19 PM

In response to the NOM ad, I sent them this email...

I'll let you know what they say.

Brilliant.

Honestly, you should send there response to a local newspaper or something. Because I doubt it'll say anything reasonable.

Hotwire

04-12-2009, 07:52 AM

:eek:

Kudos to you Mal'Akai! Please keep us updated! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Brilliant.

Honestly, you should send there response to a local newspaper or something. Because I doubt it'll say anything reasonable.
Good idea, wiegeabo. Nothing yet, but I'll keep checking. I'll probably resend it in a few days.

MaskedManJRK

04-12-2009, 12:29 PM

In response to the NOM ad, I sent them this email...

I'll let you know what they say.

I have an idea.

When "Teh GHAYZ" get to married, the swell of marriages will release an energy force--for lack of a better term, let's call it Gay Rays--and these contagious rays will spread to every straight, god-fearing man and woman in America and turn them into GODLESS HEATHEN HOMOSEXUALS! :wow:

...Or nothing happens. I dunno.

El_Citrus

04-12-2009, 12:56 PM

Lewis Black said it best at one time. The bible restricted marriage between one man and one woman because the people back then were generally so uneducated, that they were falling in love with camels. I try not to bash Christianity since in general it's a good set of guidlines, but this is one of its glaring flaws that blind and narrow-minded followers will take to their grave it seems. Two adult human beings should not be denied their rights that will harm absolutely no one. Anyway, I wonder if it says something about us as a society that violence in media has become more and more socially acceptable through movies and television yet something like love between two individuals is still downcast upon. Okay, end rant, political and moral issues like this get me too frustrated.

Red Mask

04-12-2009, 05:40 PM

Yeah, in Europe it's the opposite. They're less sensitive to sex scenes rather than violent scenes on film.

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 05:42 PM

When did people ever have sex with camels??? :confused:

BlackLantern

04-12-2009, 05:51 PM

When did people ever have sex with camels??? :confused:

last night...about 3 am...but to be fair, she was begging for it with that sexy hump all round and sensual

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 05:52 PM

Well, I hope it was good for you.

BlackLantern

04-12-2009, 06:05 PM

Well, I hope it was good for you.

she was a spitter, but other than that I have no complaints

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 06:07 PM

she was a spitter, but other than that I have no complaints

That's the one thing I don't miss about hetero sex. That was always some sci-fi looking ish to me. :dry:

However, I've never had that problem with a man's...well, you know...:up:

Kelly

04-12-2009, 06:08 PM

ok..........................ok. Gay rights.....Gay rights........Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiights.....

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 06:09 PM

I don't think Gays have the rights to have sex with camels. :o

Kelly

04-12-2009, 06:11 PM

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

El_Citrus

04-12-2009, 06:16 PM

I said falling in love, not having sex with camels. Wow, this thread was derailed fairly quickly...

BlackLantern

04-12-2009, 06:18 PM

maybe someone can get Warren to perform a gay marriage on live TV??

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 06:19 PM

I said falling in love, not having sex with camels. Wow, this thread was derailed fairly quickly...

Were you being serious or facetious? Because the context of your statement suggests that they were marrying the camels--or at least interested in doing so. And we all know that marriages are eventually consummated. :o

Kelly

04-12-2009, 06:22 PM

I said falling in love, not having sex with camels. Wow, this thread was derailed fairly quickly...

Oh, its derailed on less....

BlackLantern

04-12-2009, 06:25 PM

considering the numbers on the Prop 8 vote....what the gay community should be trying to do is try to get the stigma of being gay out of the black and latino communities...

El_Citrus

04-12-2009, 06:25 PM

Were you being serious or facetious? Because the context of your statement suggests that they were marrying the camels--or at least interested in doing so. And we all know that marriages are eventually consummated. :o

Haha, well considering it was Lewis Black who said it and exaggerated things a bit to produce a comedic effect, no I wasn't being serious...What does it make Black Lantern if the camel was a he and not a she?

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 06:26 PM

What does it make Black Lantern if the camel was a he and not a she?

It would make him...Bi-Beastual. :csad:

Kelly

04-12-2009, 06:28 PM

good lord...

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 06:28 PM

considering the numbers on the Prop 8 vote....what the gay community should be trying to do is try to get the stigma of being gay out of the black and latino communities...

Meh. Some African Americans have a hard time admitting they even need medicine for depression. How are they going to accept another life style?

That's a steeper hill to climb and it's gonna take a while to get there.

BlackLantern

04-12-2009, 06:36 PM

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 06:46 PM

From various things Ive read and seen, it seems like the gay community doesn't even want to climb that hill

I don't blame them for not going there with the black community. Hell, let's face it: a lot of black folks have serious hang-ups when it comes to sexuality. I've dated black women. I've married a white woman. And I've dated black, spanish and white men.

In every case, dealing with the African American situation was rife with drama. Now, this is just my personal experience. I'm not saying that white families don't have hang-ups too (although my ex-wife's family was more supportive of our marriage than my mother's side--my momma was black), but the point is they are generally more receptive of this life-style.

My current guy's family is Italian--and they have issues with violence and food. They be throwing all kinds of ****--from china plates to spaghetti and for no reason. :confused: But at the end of the day they're all cool, and the fact that their son is with a man of color doesn't seem to be a problem. They are a lot more tolerant...and I think it's because their lives are f***ed up in so many other areas.

You'd think that Blacks would be more tolerant considering what they've been through in this country. :whatever:

El_Citrus

04-12-2009, 06:47 PM

considering the numbers on the Prop 8 vote....what the gay community should be trying to do is try to get the stigma of being gay out of the black and latino communities...

I agree. It will be extremely difficult as LS suggests, considering the strict Christian background Latino's are generally raised and the number of stigmas both Latino's and black's have to live with.

They're already perceived as less educated (I think some statistics might show that, unfortunately, both on average are less educated, which is a sad commentary on the school system (No offense Kel), but anyway.) and perceived as counter productive to society with the number of gangs in the country (Not trying to offend anyone, just stating that the negative is usually the impression people view others who are different from them rather than the positive, such as the blacks and latino's who go to college and earn degrees.).

Add into that the media's perceptions on homosexuality and as LS said, the difficulty of getting them to accept a whole other lifestyle, and it will be a long time in swinging their opinions and perceptions. I hope I didn't offend anyone, I didn't mean to if I did or implied any offensive things.

Marx

04-12-2009, 06:49 PM

Ok seriously...leave the camels out of it, leave whatever else out of it. This thread is for gay rights...please stick to the topic.

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 06:59 PM

I agree. It will be extremely difficult as LS suggests, considering the strict Christian background Latino's are generally raised and the number of stigmas both Latino's and black's have to live with.

They're already perceived as less educated (I think some statistics might show that, unfortunately, both on average are less educated, which is a sad commentary on the school system (No offense Kel), but anyway.) and perceived as counter productive to society with the number of gangs in the country (Not trying to offend anyone, just stating that the negative is usually the impression people view others who are different from them rather than the positive, such as the blacks and latino's who go to college and earn degrees.).

Exactly. :up:

Add into that the media's perceptions on homosexuality and as LS said, the difficulty of getting them to accept a whole other lifestyle, and it will be a long time in swinging their opinions and perceptions.

Yes, and a lot of the problems stem from African Americans/Latino's views of masculinity. The media portrays gays as these flaming, broke-wristed fellows wearing vibrant, flamboyant colors and scarves around their necks. A lot of them look NOTHING like that.

My guy and I don't talk up our situation--especially in the business and fitness circles we're in. No one suspects us because we don't carry ourselves "that way"...and we don't have the stereotypical earmarks, i.e. lisps, etc. We're just...men. Our fellow bodybuilders at the gym would be shocked to hell if they knew what we do behind closed doors. And yet, we're as masculine as any other gymrats in the joint. It's all about perspective and exposure to different cultures.

Sadly, many in the black and latino communities are very closed minded.

El_Citrus

04-12-2009, 07:08 PM

Yes, and a lot of the problems stem from African Americans/Latino's views of masculinity. The media portrays gays as these flaming, broke-wristed fellows wearing vibrant, flamboyant colors and scarves around their necks. A lot of them look NOTHING like that.

My guy and I don't talk up our situation--especially in the business and fitness circles we're in. No one suspects us because we don't carry ourselves "that way"...and we don't have the stereotypical earmarks, i.e. lisps, etc. We're just...men. Our fellow bodybuilders at the gym would be shocked to hell if they knew what we do behind closed doors. And yet, we're as masculine as any other gymrats in the joint. It's all about perspective and exposure to different cultures.

Sadly, many in the black and latino communities are very closed minded.

Exactly. I hate how the media perceives homosexuals as feminant men when in fact most of the time, they're just like regular guys except they don't swing from the same side of the base. That image of the flamboyant homosexual is then imprinted into the as you said, close minded brains of other communities, and the stereotype forms and intolerance ensues. GAH, society is so frustrating.

BlackLantern

04-12-2009, 07:14 PM

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 07:18 PM

It is partially the medias fault...but when Middle America sees footage from Gay Pride in NY or SF and see leather daddies in assless chaps and draq queens, it doesn't help any

I've always thought those kinds of gay men are more on the fringe of our society.

I don't even DO parades. I have no desire to be there. I went to one once back in like...1997...just out of curiosity. I felt like a piece of meat. Complete, utter strangers were pressing all up on my ****, tweaking my nipples and smacking my ass, etc. It was humiliating and I was offended and ready to bust some jaws until I realized that that was common and acceptable behavior in that atmosphere...kissing and sucking tongues of complete strangers in broad daylight. I was like, "Oh hell no, this is how AIDS gets spread." :down

And I got my ass the hell up out of there.

El_Citrus

04-12-2009, 07:18 PM

It is partially the medias fault...but when Middle America sees footage from Gay Pride in NY or SF and see leather daddies in assless chaps and draq queens, it doesn't help any

True. Like all communities, there are those who represent their community well, and those who humiliate it.

BlackLantern

04-12-2009, 07:31 PM

I've always thought those kinds of gay men are more on the fringe of our society.

I don't even DO parades. I have no desire to be there. I went to one once back in like...1997...just out of curiosity. I felt like a piece of meat. Complete, utter strangers were pressing all up on my ****, tweaking my nipples and smacking my ass, etc. It was humiliating and I was offended and ready to bust some jaws until I realized that that was common and acceptable behavior in that atmosphere...kissing and sucking tongues of complete strangers in broad daylight. I was like, "Oh hell no, this is how AIDS gets spread." :down

And I got my ass the hell up out of there.

There are also people that 364 days of the year are much like you, LS...very normal....but cut loose that one day and fringe or not, that is what gets the exposure...

The gay community has to package and sell itself to its opponents...give them reason to accept, not just act like they should be accepting and call them ignorant bigots when they don't

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 07:37 PM

The gay community has to package and sell itself to its opponents...give them reason to accept, not just act like they should be accepting and call them ignorant bigots when they don't

Why should they?

Did African-Americans have to "package" themselves to gain acceptance? Or was it granted based the fact that they were human beings striving for equal rights?

MaskedManJRK

04-12-2009, 07:43 PM

Exactly. I hate how the media perceives homosexuals as feminant men when in fact most of the time, they're just like regular guys except they don't swing from the same side of the base. That image of the flamboyant homosexual is then imprinted into the as you said, close minded brains of other communities, and the stereotype forms and intolerance ensues. GAH, society is so frustrating.

Definately--shows like Queer Eye for a Straight Guy and Will & Grace can kiss my non-swishy ass. :cmad:

It is partially the medias fault...but when Middle America sees footage from Gay Pride in NY or SF and see leather daddies in assless chaps and draq queens, it doesn't help any

Do they even show those much anymore? Maybe I just don't consume the "mass" media that most people still adhere to nowadays, but whenever I hear about gay issues, they usually show two dads or two moms burping and feeding a little infant.

BlackLantern

04-12-2009, 07:49 PM

Why should they?

Did African-Americans have to "package" themselves to gain acceptance? Or was it granted based the fact that they were human beings striving for equal rights?

maybe I worded that wrong....I think one of the issues is that most people view the gay community as better off than the average person....How is Average Joe supposed to feel bad for someone who is saying they are being treated unfairly and then driving home in a brand new Mercedes?? I know one doesnt have anything to do with the other but Im trying to present the viewpoint from another side

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 07:56 PM

maybe I worded that wrong....I think one of the issues is that most people view the gay community as better off than the average person....How is Average Joe supposed to feel bad for someone who is saying they are being treated unfairly and then driving home in a brand new Mercedes?? I know one doesnt have anything to do with the other but Im trying to present the viewpoint from another side

You've totally lost me here bro. :csad: Um...what??

Being discriminated against doesn't have to do with financial gain. There have always been affluent Africans and/or African Americans yet they were not always accepted.

BlackLantern

04-12-2009, 08:25 PM

You've totally lost me here bro. :csad: Um...what??

Being discriminated against doesn't have to do with financial gain. There have always been affluent Africans and/or African Americans yet they were not always accepted.

That was my point...it doesn't but people do associate the two....as for the African-American community and their sympathy....well I think they see it as no one has had a harder fight for equality then them so why help anyone else??

Lightning Strykez!

04-12-2009, 08:33 PM

BlackLantern

04-12-2009, 10:56 PM

and there are simply people who just don't care....gay rights or marriage doesn't affect their lives one way or the other

Marx

04-12-2009, 11:20 PM

I guess it really doesn't matter to me. Like the whole gay marriage deal? Doesn't matter to me. I have absolutely ZERO desire to marry this guy. We can have committment without all of the rings and ****. Same thing with women...I married once...and will never do it again. It's just not necessary to me any more.

So in that regards, I guess I don't do much to "help the cause"--because I don't believe in it.

Alot of it has to do with legal issues and rights granted under the government that civil unions that do not allow for. If this guy is this one for you, and you guys end up spending the rest of your lives together, shouldn't you be allowed every right that a hetero couple receives?

MaskedManJRK

04-12-2009, 11:37 PM

I guess it really doesn't matter to me. Like the whole gay marriage deal? Doesn't matter to me. I have absolutely ZERO desire to marry this guy. We can have committment without all of the rings and ****. Same thing with women...I married once...and will never do it again. It's just not necessary to me any more.

So in that regards, I guess I don't do much to "help the cause"--because I don't believe in it.

I get what you mean--hell, I don't have much interest in marriage either.

The reason I campaign for it, though, is because as of right now, because no one should be denied rights such as what marriage carries because of something like the color of your skin, your religious affiliation, or your sexual orientation.

I'm not interested in marrying a dude anytime soon, but I should be able to have that choice.

spideyboy_1111

04-13-2009, 05:31 AM

Definately--shows like Queer Eye for a Straight Guy and Will & Grace can kiss my non-swishy ass. :cmad:

Do they even show those much anymore? Maybe I just don't consume the "mass" media that most people still adhere to nowadays, but whenever I hear about gay issues, they usually show two dads or two moms burping and feeding a little infant.

hey now, i actually thought Will and Grace was a pretty good show for gay rights. Will for one embodied several average gay men i've known all my life. Jack was more of the flamey side... I thought it was a nice match up. It depicted 2 very different sides of the spectrum. And Will was really one of the first non flamey gay men on a sitcom.

Marx

04-16-2009, 06:01 PM

MCCAINS LEND A HAND TO GAY REPUBLICAN GROUP
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/mccains-lend-a-hand-to-gay-republican-group/

Log Cabin Republicans are getting some support from the McCain family.

Cindy and Meghan McCain will make an appearance at the gay rights organization's four day convention in Washington, which kicks off Thursday night.

"Of all the causes I believe in and speak publicly about, this is one of the ones closest to my heart," Meghan McCain, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage, wrote in the Daily Beast this week. "If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric."

Steve Schmidt, former senior strategist for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign and manager of Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial reelection campaign in 2006, will also be in attendance. Schmidt will be speaking about the 2008 election and the GOP's comeback agenda.

In an interview Thursday with CNN, LCR Spokesperson Charles Moran said the organization is lobbying New York Republicans to help pass the same-sex marriage law championed by the state's Democratic Gov. David Paterson.

"We have people on the ground, we're identifying our bases of support, looking at our polling, looking at our research, so that we can be ready to assist the marriage coalition in New York with targeting those crucial GOP votes," Moran told CNN.

The group is also working on identifying the Republican players who will serve as the face of their organization's mission.

Moran citied Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Mormon Republican who has called for the adoption of civil unions, and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who acknowledged that gay Republicans have a place at the party's table.

"These are the types of leaders and luminaries within the Republican party," Moran said. "The party must move forward and regardless of where you are in the conservative spectrum, you definitely can be conservative and an openly gay Republican in this political climate."

"We don't just talk the talk but we actually are providing the boots on the ground, we're making those calls, and we're loyal Republicans," he said.

Marx

04-16-2009, 06:26 PM

GILLIBRAND SUPPORTS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PROPOSAL IN NEW YORK
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/gillibrand-supports-same-sex-marriage-proposal-in-new-york/

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand issued a strong endorsement Thursday of the legalization of same-sex marriage in her state.

"New York and the nation are ready to start a new chapter. The time has come for full marriage equality," she said in an issued statement. "I commend the Governor for his leadership on this important issue. If Iowa can do it, so can we."

Her comments come the same day Gov. David Paterson announced plans to introduce legislation seeking to add New York to the growing list of states where same-sex couples can legally get married.

Gillibrand did not endorse same-sex marriage when she was a congresswoman from New York's 20th District. Earlier this year, she indicated that she would back it as a senator.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York's other senator, has also declared his support for same-sex marriage, after initially opposing the idea.

Lightning Strykez!

04-16-2009, 10:17 PM

Is one of McCain's daughters a lesbian? Or is that Bush's VP?

Holiday

04-16-2009, 10:26 PM

Is one of McCain's daughters a lesbian? Or is that Bush's VP?

Yeah, that's was Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary.

mclay18

04-16-2009, 11:44 PM

Meh. Some African Americans have a hard time admitting they even need medicine for depression. How are they going to accept another life style?

That's a steeper hill to climb and it's gonna take a while to get there.

I think that news reports need to show more black and Latino LGBT people because they ARE out there and raising awareness is a good thing in general. Plus, people need to know that there are more normal-looking gay people other than what people see on TV:

- Fat hairy white men
- Short, slender men with high-pitched voices, know fashion and flamboyant attitudes
- Butch-looking women with short hair
- Women who dress and act like boys

The fact that my college has the stereotypical LGBT minority isn't going to change the way conservative people from the local communities view them. I've only known three gay people who weren't any of the above four stereotypes.

I think the only prominent venue where the LGBT minority isn't grossly misrepresented are Logo and the various print and online LGBT publications. (And even Logo's guilty to pandering to the fringe LGBT crowd from time to time.)