Discussion: Gay Rights II

[SuBe]

Oh, I thought is was a "ageist" remark, and the fact that he is "old" he is "stupid".

That is Fair enough.

[Marx]

MEGAN MCCAIN WARNS OF LOOMING CIVIL WAR IN THE GOP
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/18/meghan-mccain-warns-of-looming-civil-war-in-the-gop/

Meghan McCain warned a group of gay Republicans Saturday that there was "a war brewing in the Republican Party" – a war between the past and the future.

"Most of the old school Republicans are scared s***less of that future," she told a gathering of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay and lesbian party members.

The 24-year-old daughter of former GOP presidential candidate John McCain pushed back against critics upset over her comments to CNN that she wanted President Obama to succeed, and played down her recent headline-grabbing feuds with conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. "I did not expect my frustration with what I perceive to be overly partisan and divisive Republicans to cause a national incident," she said.

"I feel too many Republicans want to cling to past successes…I think we're seeing a war brewing in the Republican Party," she said. "But it is not between us and Democrats. It is not between us and liberals. It is between the future and the past…

"I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people's lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican," she told a cheering crowd.


Last week, McCain signed a deal with Hyperion to write a book about the future of the Republican Party. She said Saturday that embracing new technology wouldn't solve the party's problems. "Republicans using Twitter and Facebook isn't going to miraculously make people think we're cool again. Breaking free from obsolete positions and providing real solutions that don't divide our nation further will," she said. "That's why some in our party are scared. They sense the world around them is changing, and they are unable to take the risk to jump free of what's keeping our party down."

On Monday, McCain wrote an opinion piece urging the Republican Party to use more gay-friendly language. "Of all the causes I believe in and speak publicly about, this is one of the ones closest to my heart," she wrote in a blog post on the Daily Beast titled 'Memo to the GOP: Go Gay.' " 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."

McCain's father, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain, does not support same-sex marriage but opposed a constitutional amendment five years ago that would have banned the practice, calling the legislation "un-Republican." Speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans Friday, former Bush and McCain senior advisor Steve Schmidt publicly endorsed same-sex marriage.

[StorminNorman]

The 2012 election will be the most important election for the Republican Party since 1964.

[Matt]

I'm really holding out hope for Romney. Romney can very well be to the modern Republicans what Nixon was to the Republicans of his era (and would've been to future Republicans if not for Watergate which allowed for the far right neo-cons to take control of the party).

[StorminNorman]

Romney would have beaten Obama last election. :(

[Matt]

I don't think so. I used to...but now...I don't think the media would've ever let their rockstar lose.

[gap5ewl]

MEGAN MCCAIN WARNS OF LOOMING CIVIL WAR IN THE GOP
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/18/meghan-mccain-warns-of-looming-civil-war-in-the-gop/

I really respect Megan for saying all this because this is the truth. Republicans are not going to make it in the coming decades if they keep doing the social conservative/religion thing. People are getting tired of it. It's incredible that anytime a Republican says the party needs to stop being so partisan and extreme, they get attacked for not being faithful to the party. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, O'Rielly might be doing good now, but in the coming years their rhetoric is going to be seen as extremely outdated and horribly divisive to the majority.

[Marx]

I really respect Megan for saying all this because this is the truth. Republicans are not going to make it in the coming decades if they keep doing the social conservative/religion thing. People are getting tired of it. It's incredible that anytime a Republican says the party needs to stop being so partisan and extreme, they get attacked for not being faithful to the party. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, O'Rielly might be doing good now, but in the coming years their rhetoric is going to be seen as extremely outdated and horribly divisive to the majority.

It's already being seen that way. They are just dumb enough not to care...

[StorminNorman]

I think bunching Beck and O'Rielly with Limbaugh and Hannity is wrong.

[BlackLantern]

I put Beck in his own little universe....O'Reilly, Rush, and Hannity are all commentators, not reporters...

[StorminNorman]

Beck's a commentator as well :huh:

[BlackLantern]

Glenn Beck is a clown shoe morning drive time radio host in my eyes and always will be

[StorminNorman]

:rolleyes:

[BlackLantern]

I equate Beck with...imagine if Rachel Ray became a "political commentator"....would you take her seriously??

[StorminNorman]

If what she said made sense, sure.

Beck doesn't attempt to sell himself as anything more than just a guy with an opinion. The guy constantly mocks himself.

[C.F. Kane]

If what she said made sense, sure.

Beck doesn't attempt to sell himself as anything more than just a guy with an opinion. The guy constantly mocks himself.

As he should. He's a modest man with a lot to be modest about.

[Marx]

PATTERSON DEFENDS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/19/paterson-defends-same-sex-marriage-bill/

New York Gov. David Paterson Sunday strongly defended a proposed bill that aims to legalize same-sex marriage in his state.

"People of religious beliefs, many, believe that the sacred relationship between a man and woman is the only threshold for marriage. I respect that point of view. However we are living in a society of civil laws — we separate church and state," Paterson told CNN's John King.

"We are not trying in anyway to disrespect anyone's religious belief. We are to trying to, in anyway, make people believe what we believe about the validity about same sex marriage," Paterson added. "We are trying to get them to accept that in our society the laws should protect people equally."

Paterson announced last week he will introduce legislation that would allow same-sex couples in the state to enter into civil marriages and enjoy the same rights afforded to heterosexual married couples.

The legislation would give same-sex couples 1,300 to 1,400 rights that don't exist unless a couple is married, Paterson said.

Well said Governor Patterson. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[BlackLantern]

If what she said made sense, sure.

well lately it seems, and this is a general statement not directed at anyone in particular, that people seem to equate "someone that makes sense" with someone telling them what they want to hear

[Kelly]

well lately it seems, and this is a general statement not directed at anyone in particular, that people seem to equate "someone that makes sense" with someone telling them what they want to hear

I think Obama got alot of votes with that thinking....:cwink:

[BlackLantern]

I'm going to a gay wedding next September....I have to suit up and everything

[Marx]

I'm going to a gay wedding next September....I have to suit up and everything

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

[Marx]

POLL: MAJORITY IN NY SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIGE BILL
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/20/poll-majority-in-ny-support-same-sex-marriage-bill/

A new poll indicates that majority of New Yorkers support the legalization of same-sex marriages.

Fifty-three percent of New Yorkers questioned in a Siena College Research Institute poll support a bill that would allow same-sex couples to wed, with 39 percent opposing the move.

The survey suggests that Democrats, independent and young voters, and women strongly support Senate passage. Republicans strongly oppose passage. Men, older voters, African-Americans, and Protestants are also opposed. The strongest support for the measure is found in New York City.

On Thursday, New York Gov. David Paterson announced he will introduce a bill that would allow same-sex couples in New York State to enter into civil marriages with the full rights of legal marriage. A similar attempt two years ago failed to make it through the state's legislature.

Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, Paterson strongly defended a proposed bill that aims to legalize same-sex marriage in his state.

"People of religious beliefs, many, believe that the sacred relationship between a man and woman is the only threshold for marriage. I respect that point of view. However we are living in a society of civil laws - we separate church and state," Paterson told CNN's John King.

"We are not trying in anyway to disrespect anyone's religious belief. We are to trying to, in anyway, make people believe what we believe about the validity about same sex marriage," Paterson added. "We are trying to get them to accept that in our society the laws should protect people equally."

Paterson's push to legalize gay marriage doesn't seem to be helping his image. Only 27 percent of people questioned in the poll have a favorable opinion of Paterson, down two points from last month.

"By a fairly significant margin, voters would like to see New York join with Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, and other states in allowing same sex couples to marry here," says Siena New York Poll Spokesman Steven Greenberg. "For women and young voters it's a resounding 'yes.' Men and older voters are more closely divided and more likely to say 'no.' "

In a Quinnipiac University poll of New York State voters conducted earlier this month, 41 percent said gay couples should be allowed to marry legally, while 33 percent say they should be allowed to form civil unions, but not marry and 19 percent say there should be no legal recognition of a gay union.

The Siena College Research Institute poll was conducted April 13-15, with 682 New York State registered voters questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

:applaud

[Matt]

I support it, but sadly, this is just Patterson's Hail Mary pass to stay in office as he knows he is going to lose badly next year. Meh, whatever gets the job done, I suppose.

[Marx]

I support it, but sadly, this is just Patterson's Hail Mary pass to stay in office as he knows he is going to lose badly next year. Meh, whatever gets the job done, I suppose.

I question Patterson's motives as well, but if it gets a passage of same-sex marriage, then good. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[El_Citrus]

Great news about New York. I have to ask though, didn't California have a poll where the majority favored same sex marriage/opposed Prop 8 before all those ads started running for Prop 8? Could we see something like that in NY?

[Marx]

Great news about New York. I have to ask though, didn't California have a poll where the majority favored same sex marriage/opposed Prop 8 before all those ads started running for Prop 8? Could we see something like that in NY?

It wouldn't surprise me for the church to get involved again running their hate ads...I question how much of an effect it would have in New York though.

[Matt]

I question Patterson's motives as well, but if it gets a passage of same-sex marriage, then good. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

The good news is, as long as Giuliani runs for and wins governor, it won't get overturned it by him. So we can be looking at 8 years without a governor who opposes gay marriage in New York, and hopefully by then, people will be more advanced.

[El_Citrus]

It wouldn't surprise me for the church to get involved again running their hate ads...I question how much of an effect it would have in New York though.


If it can happen in California, it can happen anywhere in my opinion.

[Marx]

If it can happen in California, it can happen anywhere in my opinion.

That's a good point El.

[BlackLantern]

The good news is, as long as Giuliani runs for and wins governor, it won't get overturned it by him. So we can be looking at 8 years without a governor who opposes gay marriage in New York, and hopefully by then, people will be more advanced.

who are the candidates for Governor there in NY?

[MaskedManJRK]

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.

Eh, it was just a crappy show, IMO. The sitcom died after Married With Children.

MEGAN MCCAIN WARNS OF LOOMING CIVIL WAR IN THE GOP
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/18/meghan-mccain-warns-of-looming-civil-war-in-the-gop/

Agreed--to paraphrase from a popular supervillain in a recent comic book movie, when the chips are down, these "conservatives" in the Republican party will eat each other. :hoboj:

I think Obama got alot of votes with that thinking....:cwink:

Hell, what politiction hasn't gotten votes by telling the people what they want to hear?

Great news about New York. I have to ask though, didn't California have a poll where the majority favored same sex marriage/opposed Prop 8 before all those ads started running for Prop 8? Could we see something like that in NY?

In California, there were a lot of money being put into strong anti-gay groups. Now, the strongest group at the moment is NOM.

Just sayin'.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Are those the genuises who came up with the "2m4m" market idea to go against gay marriage?

[Marx]

Are those the genuises who came up with the "2m4m" market idea to go against gay marriage?

Yes. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Things like these that I wonder...where are all the young Republicans at? Or all the young Conservatives?

I mean, right next to 2m4m, and Tea Bagging...these "code" words are easily deciphered by anyone under the age of 30.

[Marx]

BREAKING NEWS!

According to CNN, Allen Andrade has been convicted of first degree murder in the beating death of a transgendered teen.

[Johann Krauss]

0_o

[mclay18]

Here's the full story link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/22/transgender.slaying.trial/). Is it the first transgender hate-crime conviction, or a big one for the LGBT community in general?

[Ion Kenshin]

wow...that's really all I can say right now

[BlackLantern]

not even man enough to address the court.....*******

[Marx]

I just can't believe that he was actually found guilty of 'bias-motivated crime'! It truly is a landmark decision. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

The fact that Andrade couldn't even address the court... http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[hippie_hunter]

I support it, but sadly, this is just Patterson's Hail Mary pass to stay in office as he knows he is going to lose badly next year. Meh, whatever gets the job done, I suppose.

I question Patterson's motives as well, but if it gets a passage of same-sex marriage, then good. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

There is no need to question Paterson's motives. I can't stand the man, but I can tell you that this is a genuine move by him to press for equal rights towards the LGBT community. It's also said that his family was very close to a gay couple when he was growing up that influenced his views.

If Paterson was caring about his job in this instance, he would have supported civil unions or something. He knows that he isn't going to get a full term and he knows that there is a strong possibility that the Democrats will lose seats in the legislature so this is the best time, and probably the only time in a good long while to make a move like this.

[hippie_hunter]

who are the candidates for Governor there in NY?

Right now it's just David Paterson, but Rudy Giuliani is expected to be the Republican candidate. If the race ends up being Paterson vs. Giuliani, Giuliani is going to win.

Giuliani has come out and opposed gay marriage, but overall has a history of being supportive of LGBT rights and probably wouldn't overturn gay marriage if it were passed into law.

There has also been speculation that Mario Cuomo will challenge Paterson in the primaries and would come out victorious. But so far he is committed to being Attorney General.

[Lightning Strykez!]

BREAKING NEWS!

According to CNN, Allen Andrade has been convicted of first degree murder in the beating death of a transgendered teen.

Good.

[hippie_hunter]

I just can't believe that he was actually found guilty of 'bias-motivated crime'! It truly is a landmark decision. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

The fact that Andrade couldn't even address the court... http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

Ehhhh...I really don't like the concept of hate crimes.

In my opinion something like murder is murder, regardless of the motivation. Killing someone because you didn't like them for some reason is just as bad as killing someone because they're different.

[bell110]

MEGAN MCCAIN WARNS OF LOOMING CIVIL WAR IN THE GOP
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/18/meghan-mccain-warns-of-looming-civil-war-in-the-gop/

A girl after my own heart.

Things like these that I wonder...where are all the young Republicans at? Or all the young Conservatives?

I mean, right next to 2m4m, and Tea Bagging...these "code" words are easily deciphered by anyone under the age of 30.

We're around. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not married to the R next to my name. I won't be put in the same category as Bush or Fox News. As far as I'm concerned, the Republican Party can disintegrate, and until they get their head out of their ass, I will continue NOT voting for them.

Ehhhh...I really don't like the concept of hate crimes.

In my opinion something like murder is murder, regardless of the motivation. Killing someone because you didn't like them for some reason is just as bad as killing someone because they're different.

I agree. I don't like the concept either. Basically it's saying that if someone killed someone I loved, it's not as important and there for deserving of less time served, because the murder is not based on an outward bias.

[Schlosser85]

The fact that Andrade couldn't even address the court...


A homophobic murderer is a coward? That shouldn't surprise anyone.

[Marx]

A homophobic murderer is a coward? That shouldn't surprise anyone.

It's not surprising to me, in the least.

[Carcharodon]

Ehhhh...I really don't like the concept of hate crimes.

In my opinion something like murder is murder, regardless of the motivation. Killing someone because you didn't like them for some reason is just as bad as killing someone because they're different.

I agree. I don't like the concept either. Basically it's saying that if someone killed someone I loved, it's not as important and there for deserving of less time served, because the murder is not based on an outward bias.I'm really torn on this. On one hand, it's important in these cases to address the nature of the crime so that awareness can be raised.

On the other...well, you guys covered that.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Hate crimes make sense, legally, when trying to come up with motive though...doesn't it?

Murder is murder, yeah. But when trying to prove murder, motive usually is a huge deal.

And reading up on some of the stories on this case. Odd, to say the least. I mean...it kinda seems like he should have known Angie Zapata was transgendered before the crime.

And his defense was..."The Crying Game". Shocking that didn't work.

[Schlosser85]

It's not surprising to me, in the least.

I think homophobia in and of itself is a form of cowardice.

[hippie_hunter]

Hate crimes make sense, legally, when trying to come up with motive though...doesn't it?

Murder is murder, yeah. But when trying to prove murder, motive usually is a huge deal.

And reading up on some of the stories on this case. Odd, to say the least. I mean...it kinda seems like he should have known Angie Zapata was transgendered before the crime.

And his defense was..."The Crying Game". Shocking that didn't work.

Yes motive is needed to prove that the murder happened and to see if it was justified or not (such as self defense). But murdering with negative intentions is still murder with negative intentions.

I also feel that hate crimes are racist/heterophobic, etc. because I doubt that we are going to see a black man charged with a hate crime for killing a white person, etc. And I think that they go against a free society. Despite being deplorable a person does have the right to be an ignorant racist/homophobic bigot here in this country.

[redfirebird2008]

Yes motive is needed to prove that the murder happened and to see if it was justified or not (such as self defense). But murdering with negative intentions is still murder with negative intentions.

I also feel that hate crimes are racist/heterophobic, etc. because I doubt that we are going to see a black man charged with a hate crime for killing a white person, etc.

Problem with that logic is that the country would convict blacks of crimes strictly because of their race all the way up until the 1960's (and some parts of the country still do it today if they can get away with it) and there's another dirty secret with the criminal justice system: racial profiling still goes on and it doesn't really go against whites. It goes primarily against minorities, in particular black males.

[MaskedManJRK]

Things like these that I wonder...where are all the young Republicans at? Or all the young Conservatives?

I mean, right next to 2m4m, and Tea Bagging...these "code" words are easily deciphered by anyone under the age of 30.

Yeah, the tea bag thing at least has some historical context that gives it some symbolism--2m4m is just too freaking hilarious for words. :woot:

BREAKING NEWS!

According to CNN, Allen Andrade has been convicted of first degree murder in the beating death of a transgendered teen.

Good--out of all the GLBT community, the trans people do seem to have it the worst. Last I heard, the murder/suicide rate is twice as high as with gays/lesbians.

Ehhhh...I really don't like the concept of hate crimes.

In my opinion something like murder is murder, regardless of the motivation. Killing someone because you didn't like them for some reason is just as bad as killing someone because they're different.

To be fair, there are many different degrees to murder--first degree to third degree, depending on how pre-meditated it is, manslaughter, even the aforementioned self-defense. I see the hate crime to just be another degree.

I also feel that hate crimes are racist/heterophobic, etc. because I doubt that we are going to see a black man charged with a hate crime for killing a white person, etc. And I think that they go against a free society. Despite being deplorable a person does have the right to be an ignorant racist/homophobic bigot here in this country.

I can see that happening MAYBE at first. Otherwise, you don't think a lawyer would try it regardless of the race?

Also, how often do you hear about a black guy killing a white guy because of the guy being white? :huh:

[hippie_hunter]

Problem with that logic is that the country would convict blacks of crimes strictly because of their race all the way up until the 1960's (and some parts of the country still do it today if they can get away with it) and there's another dirty secret with the criminal justice system: racial profiling still goes on and it doesn't really go against whites. It goes primarily against minorities, in particular black males.

And it's just as wrong.

[wiegeabo]

I've also always had a problem with the whole hate crime thing. The reason someone kills another shouldn't be the deciding factor (can't think of a better way to phrase that). It goes to motive, yes, but one reason someone commits first degree murder is just as bad as any other reason. Should murdering someone because they hate the person who slept with their spouse be 'lesser' than murdering someone because they hate the fact the victim was gay?

Premeditation and brutality should be key. To me, dealing out harsher punishment because it's a hate crime 'cheapens' the justice given for the 'non-hate crime' versions of the same crime. It's all hate, however you look at it.

[bell110]

Hate crimes make sense, legally, when trying to come up with motive though...doesn't it?

Murder is murder, yeah. But when trying to prove murder, motive usually is a huge deal.

And reading up on some of the stories on this case. Odd, to say the least. I mean...it kinda seems like he should have known Angie Zapata was transgendered before the crime.

And his defense was..."The Crying Game". Shocking that didn't work.

Do you have a link that provides further information about the case.

Problem with that logic is that the country would convict blacks of crimes strictly because of their race all the way up until the 1960's (and some parts of the country still do it today if they can get away with it) and there's another dirty secret with the criminal justice system: racial profiling still goes on and it doesn't really go against whites. It goes primarily against minorities, in particular black males.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yeah, the tea bag thing at least has some historical context that gives it some symbolism--2m4m is just too freaking hilarious for words. :woot:



Good--out of all the GLBT community, the trans people do seem to have it the worst. Last I heard, the murder/suicide rate is twice as high as with gays/lesbians.



To be fair, there are many different degrees to murder--first degree to third degree, depending on how pre-meditated it is, manslaughter, even the aforementioned self-defense. I see the hate crime to just be another degree.



I can see that happening MAYBE at first. Otherwise, you don't think a lawyer would try it regardless of the race?

Also, how often do you hear about a black guy killing a white guy because of the guy being white? :huh:

Exactly, you never hear about a black guy killing someone because they are white, so I would be more difficult to prove if it was true. And what if a white guy kills a black guy and it had nothing to do with race, yet the prosecution was successful in convincing the jury otherwise? And shouldn't all gang related murders be considered hate crimes? What about a guy who loses his job and comes in and starts gunning people down? Prosecuting someone based on an emotion like hate seems almost impossible to prove, it can easily be abused in the court system, can be hard to make sure that it's applied evenly across the country, and I don't see any "real" benefit for having it.

[echostation]

As far as I can understand and see this issue after much research, mental grasping and situational ponderance and philosphical intensive self discussion... the main thing is clear that these gay people do not have currently the right to marry in the USA and in many parts of the world. I think that is the real issue here that should be discussed, are the gay people allowed to marry or not? I think that's perhaps the major pressing issue at the moment that for some reason I find strange that hardly any discussion in the nation of the USA has been commenced and forged in bonds...

There are other issues that gays have absolutely every right to discuss and so do non-gays peoples and these should also be brought to the front in order to really try to bucky a solution for these crises before people get further hurt and damaged in due course of this time.

[Carcharodon]

As far as I can understand and see this issue after much research, mental grasping and situational ponderance and philosphical intensive self discussion... the main thing is clear that these gay people do not have currently the right to marry in the USA and in many parts of the world. I think that is the real issue here that should be discussed, are the gay people allowed to marry or not? I think that's perhaps the major pressing issue at the moment that for some reason I find strange that hardly any discussion in the nation of the USA has been commenced and forged in bonds...

There are other issues that gays have absolutely every right to discuss and so do non-gays peoples and these should also be brought to the front in order to really try to bucky a solution for these crises before people get further hurt and damaged in due course of this time....where do you live? :huh:

[Hobgoblin]

I read this in todays Chicago Tribune. I thought it was interesting.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0426chapman_mdapr26,0,3675007.column



Stacking the deck on gay marriage

Steve Chapman
April 26, 2009

The country used to be unanimous in rejecting gay marriage. But that consensus, like the polar ice sheets, is showing some cracks. Vermont recently became the fourth state to allow gays to wed, and New York may be next. Elsewhere, marriage remains as Miss California prefers -- solely between a man and a woman.

It's at moments like this that the framers of the Constitution begin to look even wiser than usual. Somehow they anticipated that people in Massachusetts would not want to live under exactly the same laws as people in Mississippi. So they set up a system known as federalism, which allows different states to choose different policies. Thus we simultaneously uphold majority rule and minority rights.

This, at least, is how federalism is supposed to operate -- letting subsets of the national population get their way in their own locales. There's only one hitch: In this case, it doesn't quite work that way.

Why not? Because of a huge imbalance created by that longtime nemesis of state sovereignty -- the federal government. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, Virginia has complete authority to deny the privileges and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex partners. But Iowa doesn't have the complete authority to grant them.

Oh, Iowa can provide recognition to gay marriages under all its laws and policies. But that's a surprisingly small part of what marriage encompasses. Under federal law, there are more than 1,100 rights and privileges that go with being a husband or wife. And none of them is available to married same-sex couples.

Under federal law, a person may transfer property to a spouse tax-free. Married couples may file their income taxes jointly. Someone whose spouse dies is assured Social Security survivor's benefits. A married person has the authority to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner.

Or say you're an American citizen living in this country who marries a foreigner. Normally, you would be entitled to bring your beloved to this country to live permanently and become a citizen.

But if you're both of the same sex, you can forget all of the above. Even though Iowa might like to put heterosexual and homosexual married couples on the same footing, it can't, because the federal statute blocks the way.

"In determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States," says DOMA, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

That decree may sound reasonable: Since most Americans and most states reject same-sex marriage, federal policy should as well. But it conflicts with how the nation has handled marriage up till now, which is to leave it up to individual states to decide who may wed -- and then honor those diverse choices.

Some states, for instance, allow marriages between first cousins; others forbid it. Some states allow 15-year-olds to marry with parental consent, while most set the minimum age higher.

And the feds? They have consistently observed a policy of staying the hell out. Washington doesn't tell Colorado and New York which marriages it will acknowledge. Colorado and New York tell it.

Not so with same-sex unions. Under DOMA, the federal government insists that some marriages are not marriages.

That's particularly hard to justify because the other major provision of the law bends over backward to protect state authority over matters marital. It says no state is obligated to recognize a same-sex marriage that took place somewhere else. Gays married in Vermont magically become single when they venture into New Hampshire.

This part of the law goes beyond the norm to accommodate different preferences. Usually, states are obligated to enforce contracts made in other states. Back in the segregationist years, Southern states often honored interracial marriages transacted beyond their borders even though they regarded them as "so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them."

Given the strong feelings about gay marriage, the local option is the best option. States that abhor the idea should be free to implement policies reflecting that sentiment. But the other side should have exactly the same prerogative: giving both heterosexual and homosexual couples access to marriage in full.

Our system, unlike Mao's China, is supposed to let a hundred flowers bloom. But for the best growth, the federal sun has to shine on all of them.

[wiegeabo]

"so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them."

Now why does that sound so familiar... :facepalm

[Marx]

BREAKING NEWS!

Same-sex couples began applying for marriage licenses at government offices across Iowa on Monday, and at least one lesbian couple tied the knot in a ceremony in Des Moines.

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

[El_Citrus]

I read this in todays Chicago Tribune. I thought it was interesting.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0426chapman_mdapr26,0,3675007.column

Great article. Really shows we still have a long way to go, though.

[spideyboy_1111]

Gay Hateing Westboro Planning Mass Suicide?
by Advocate.com on 4/24 at 5:15 pm.
Viewed 925 times.



The world may not be seeing more of the controversial fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church in the near future.

A cryptic blog entry posted by the Topeka, Kan.–based church on April 18 -- and unearthed by Gossip-Boy -- says "it's about time for us to leave this place."

The church says its members will be saved from the country's tolerance of gays.

"When we’re done, we will leave your filthy land and be placed safely out of the reach of the horror that will then land upon you swiftly and certainly -- in one hour," the entry reads.

Westboro has been picketing funerals of those who have died of AIDS -- and later military funerals, because church members hold that personnel casualties from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are God's retribution for U.S. "tolerance" of homosexuality -- since 1991. The group has started gaining more media attention in recent years, and other nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom have started to deny the members entry. Many of their signs are slathered with antigay language like "God hates ***s" and "***s doom nations."

An inquiry was made to the church for comment, but Advocate.com has not yet received a response.

Members of the church are scheduled to protest a student production of the musical Rent, opening tonight at Corona del Mar High School.

So... i'm sad for those who'd actually kill themselves over this... but uh.. you wont exactly be missed either.

[Bathead]

Isn't suicide a sin? I'm just sayin'

[Marx]

Isn't suicide a sin? I'm just sayin'

I thought suicide led you into eternal purgatory?

[Hobgoblin]

I thought suicide led you into eternal purgatory?

No, I thought suicide was a mortal sin. :huh:

[spideyboy_1111]

wouldn't be the first time "Christians" contradicted here own beliefs...

[IRON_Lad]

Are they dead yet?

[bell110]

Is there a link where I can donate some money for bullets, razors, or rope?

[spideyboy_1111]

how bout kool-ade?

[El_Citrus]

Can't say that I would miss the people of Westboro if they went through with it, but I wouldn't mind the chance to sit down and actually try and pick their minds (metaphorically speaking).

[Red Mask]

So... i'm sad for those who'd actually kill themselves over this... but uh.. you wont exactly be missed either.

This is what happens with the intolerant, they crack.

[Marx]

I just wonder how much truth there is to it, and how much is just a stunt or prank.

[The Lizard]

Can't say that I would miss the people of Westboro if they went through with it, but I wouldn't mind the chance to sit down and actually try and pick their minds (metaphorically speaking).

I would feel sorry for the younger family members of the Westboro Church group. After seeing the BBC documentary on them, it made me feel so sorry for the teenaged girls in the family who seem otherwise normal, but have been infected by their mentally-ill grandfather's addiction to hating and being hated as a sign of "righteousness". :csad:

[MaskedManJRK]

This is what happens with the intolerant, they crack.

Except typically when they snap they get automatic weapons and try to take out a mall, which is the exact opposite of commiting sucide. Unless they're going to be suicide bombers...which I can see them doing, actually.

[El_Citrus]

I would feel sorry for the younger family members of the Westboro Church group. After seeing the BBC documentary on them, it made me feel so sorry for the teenaged girls in the family who seem otherwise normal, but have been infected by their mentally-ill grandfather's addiction to hating and being hated as a sign of "righteousness". :csad:

I absolutely hate it for them. It really shows how easily a young mind can be molded to twisted and sick ideals and act as if it's perfectly normal to them.

[Marx]

MISS CALIFORNIA TO STAR IN TV AD FROM CONSERVATIVE GROUP
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/miss-california-to-star-in-tv-ad-from-conservative-group/

Carrie Prejean, the Miss USA contestant from California who famously declared her opposition to same sex marriage on the pageant stage, will star in a new $1.5 million ad campaign funded by the National Organization for Marriage.

Prejean was roasted by same-sex marriage advocates after she stood up for what she called "opposite marriage" (marriage between a man and a woman) when responding to a question from celebrity blogger Perez Hilton during the pageant. But she's also become a fresh-faced standard-bearer for the same-sex marriage opponents, who have rallied to her defense.

The National Organziation for Marriage has scheduled a press conference with Prejean in Washington on Thursday to unveil the new ad, called "No Offense."

"She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values," the group said in a press release. "But Carrie's courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values."

According to the group, the ad will call "gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences."

The Miss California TV ad is the group's second. Their first, called "A Gathering Storm," ran in several states earlier and featured actors issuing ominous warnings about the threats posed by same-sex marriage.

:facepalm

[Kelly]

I think she got a raw deal....but REALLY?

"She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values," the group said in a press release. "But Carrie's courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values."

WHAAAA?????

[Marx]

Beyond the hard right...I'm not sure who she inspired.

[Marx]

NEW HAMPSHIRE SENATE APPROVES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/new-hampshire-senate-approves-same-sex-marriage/

The New Hampshire State Senate narrowly voted Wednesday to allow the state to become the fifth in the country to legalize same-sex marriage.

The measure, passing on a 13-11 vote, now heads to the New Hampshire House of Representatives, which vetoed a similar bill earlier this year.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, has not indicated whether he would sign the bill should it reach his desk.

I'll be curious to see if this holds...

[wiegeabo]

According to the group, the ad will call "gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences."

What are these consequences they keep talking about?

I say we need an ad that will call 'gay marriage opponents to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: why they can't come up with a non-religious reason gays should be denied equal rights'

[Marx]

What are these consequences they keep talking about?

I say we need an ad that will call 'gay marriage opponents to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: why they can't come up with a non-religious reason gays should be denied equal rights'

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

[BlackLantern]

NEW HAMPSHIRE SENATE APPROVES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/new-hampshire-senate-approves-same-sex-marriage/



I'll be curious to see if this holds...

Isn't it the first state to have a legislature vote on it as opposed to a court deciding

[Marx]

Isn't it the first state to have a legislature vote on it as opposed to a court deciding

I'm pretty sure others have come from a legislative vote, my mind is drawing a blank right now though...

[Marx]

HOUSE TO VOTE ON 'HATE CRIMES' BILL
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/house-to-vote-on-hate-crimes-bill/

The House of Representatives is expected to vote Wednesday on expanding federal protection against hate crimes to disability, gender, and sexual orientation.

The proposal is one of the most sensitive civil rights issues to come before the Congress in years. Currently, federal law covers only a person's race, religion, or national origin.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would also expand federal protection against hate crimes to acts committed under any circumstance, as opposed to acts committed only when an individual is engaged in certain federally-designated activities such as voting.

Known as the Matthew Shepard Act, the measure would allow the Attorney General to issue grants to cities and states for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

Shepard was a gay student at the University of Wyoming who died in 1998 after being attacked because of his sexual orientation.


The bill has received support from a range of civil rights and law enforcement groups, who argue that is a necessary addition to civil rights protections first issued over forty years ago.

Most "Americans regardless of their race, religion or political affiliation support this legislation," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a written statement.

"They understand that the time to get this legislation to the president's desk is long overdue. … Local jurisdictions continue to need the additional resources necessary to prosecute the hate violence that spreads fear and panic throughout entire communities."

Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, argued that the legislation is necessary "because hate crimes are such a unique offense. They are an attack not just on individuals but an attempt to terrorize and demoralize entire communities."

Some leading religious conservatives, however, have come out in opposition to the bill, arguing that it could be used to infringe on an individual's freedom of speech.

Traditional Values Coalition Chairman Rev. Louis Sheldon said in a written statement that the bill would ensure "open season on pastors and churchgoers." He argued that a pastor could be theoretically charged with conspiracy to commit a hate crime if an individual heard that pastor's sermon and then acted "aggressively" against someone based on his or her sexual orientation.

What happened to Matthew Shepherd was horrible! It doesn't seem like it's been eleven years though...wow.

[BlackLantern]

HOUSE TO VOTE ON 'HATE CRIMES' BILL
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/house-to-vote-on-hate-crimes-bill/



What happened to Matthew Shepherd was horrible! It doesn't seem like it's been eleven years though...wow.

One of the few news stories to really physically make me punch the walls mad....I met one of the guys who worked on the Matthew Sheppard project...really cool to talk to him

[Marx]

One of the few news stories to really physically make me punch the walls mad....I met one of the guys who worked on the Matthew Sheppard project...really cool to talk to him

I can still remember when it first broke...I was so shocked. I just couldn't believe it. It really opened my eyes to how ignorant people can really be.

[Marx]

BREAKING NEWS!

The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday expanding federal protection against hate crimes to disability, gender, and sexual orientation.

The bill, which was approved by a margin of 249-175, passed in a sharply-divided partisan vote. An overwhelming majority of Democrats supported the measure, while most republicans were opposed.

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

[StorminNorman]

I disagree with Hate Crimes legislation. Murder should be treated like murder - it doesn't matter if the murder was racially motivated or greed motivated.

[spideyboy_1111]

I disagree with Hate Crimes legislation. Murder should be treated like murder - it doesn't matter if the murder was racially motivated or greed motivated.

The main reason hate crimes exist is basically just motivation. Hate crimes mean you've been beaten, or killed simply because someone didn't like you. While most murders have reasons for such an action, hate crimes dont. You're killed for something you can't help, so for legal reasons it makes alot of sense.

comparing homicide vs hate crime is stupid though, its just legal jargon. That's like the african americans trying to coin the phrase "civil rights" and acting like our movement tarnishes theirs. it's stupid and just terms. Does not mean everything is or is not equal.

[spideyboy_1111]

btw, i dunno if this has been posted yet... but...

HILARIOUS!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6eddb255b2/a-gaythering-storm

[Schlosser85]

If Fred Phelps and company want to rot in hell sooner rather than later after lifetimes of nothing but hurting other people, you won't see me crying.

[Mister Sinister]

btw, i dunno if this has been posted yet... but...

HILARIOUS!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6eddb255b2/a-gaythering-storm

Some serious, SERIOUS overacting from Ms Silverstone in that vid.

[Schlosser85]

Traditional Values Coalition Chairman Rev. Louis Sheldon said in a written statement that the bill would ensure "open season on pastors and churchgoers." He argued that a pastor could be theoretically charged with conspiracy to commit a hate crime if an individual heard that pastor's sermon and then acted "aggressively" against someone based on his or her sexual orientation.



People who promote homophobia do bear some responsibility, however indirect, for hate crimes against gays.

[Schlosser85]

That video spoof is one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

"giant gay repellent umbrella"

[spideyboy_1111]

That video spoof is one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

"giant gay repellent umbrella"

lol they bought that website too :)

[CaptainClown]

btw, i dunno if this has been posted yet... but...

HILARIOUS!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6eddb255b2/a-gaythering-storm
got a lil silly and it lost its funny cause of that.

[StorminNorman]

The main reason hate crimes exist is basically just motivation. Hate crimes mean you've been beaten, or killed simply because someone didn't like you. While most murders have reasons for such an action, hate crimes dont. You're killed for something you can't help, so for legal reasons it makes alot of sense.

Hating someone isn't illegal.

[Marx]

The main reason hate crimes exist is basically just motivation. Hate crimes mean you've been beaten, or killed simply because someone didn't like you. While most murders have reasons for such an action, hate crimes dont. You're killed for something you can't help, so for legal reasons it makes alot of sense.

Hating someone isn't illegal.

Acting on that hatred violently is. :dry:

Spideyboy hit the nail on the head.

[spideyboy_1111]

Hating someone isn't illegal.

no but killing or beating them is. Without this law, alot more hate crime commiters would get away.

Look at it this way, how to you justify motivation of a gang of strait males beating up a gay guy walking by himself down the street... they have no motivation other then the fact they hate this person for what he is. They don't know him, never saw him before. But hate him. It's alot harder to get justice for a case like this without calling it a hate crime. You can't pin motivation on them.

did you even read what i posted? it's legal jargon to pin point a MOTIVE. Which is a must to hold your case up in court.

[spideyboy_1111]

W:wow:W... Just wow... :dry:
Iinqe_4O9bM
Matthew Shepard Hate Crime "a hoax" [Update x2]
by Johntastic
Digg this! Share this on Twitter - Matthew Shepard Hate Crime "a hoax" [Update x2]Tweet this submit to reddit Share This
Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 01:17:09 PM PDT

Thank you very much to Virginia Foxx (R-NC).

Thank you for being so blindly ignorant and proving once again that Republicans are very much outside the mainstream of America.

Watch the video below and watch Rep Foxx try to convince us that Matthew Shepard was killed because he was being robbed. It wasn't because he was gay. It was because he was being robbed and apparently that's the usual precursor for murder.

"But we know that [Matthew Shepard] was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The Hate Crimes Bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills. "

people are f'd up

[spideyboy_1111]

found this incredibly sad, but incredibly potent and important to show
Cwji7g_VK0U

These people are hell of enough reason why we should have hate crimes laws. For if not, there deaths mean nothing.

[Addendum]

W:wow:W... Just wow... :dry:
Iinqe_4O9bM


"But we know that [Matthew Shepard] was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The Hate Crimes Bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills. "

people are f'd up

She was Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" and rightly so.

[Superman]

Gay Hateing Westboro Planning Mass Suicide?
by Advocate.com on 4/24 at 5:15 pm.
Viewed 925 times.



The world may not be seeing more of the controversial fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church in the near future.

A cryptic blog entry posted by the Topeka, Kan.–based church on April 18 -- and unearthed by Gossip-Boy -- says "it's about time for us to leave this place."

The church says its members will be saved from the country's tolerance of gays.

"When we’re done, we will leave your filthy land and be placed safely out of the reach of the horror that will then land upon you swiftly and certainly -- in one hour," the entry reads.

Westboro has been picketing funerals of those who have died of AIDS -- and later military funerals, because church members hold that personnel casualties from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are God's retribution for U.S. "tolerance" of homosexuality -- since 1991. The group has started gaining more media attention in recent years, and other nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom have started to deny the members entry. Many of their signs are slathered with antigay language like "God hates ***s" and "***s doom nations."

An inquiry was made to the church for comment, but Advocate.com has not yet received a response.

Members of the church are scheduled to protest a student production of the musical Rent, opening tonight at Corona del Mar High School.

Bye bye.

[Schlosser85]

Are they dead yet? Or don't they have the cajones to do that either, just like they don't have the courage of their convictions for anything else?

[StorminNorman]

Acting on that hatred violently is. :dry:

Spideyboy hit the nail on the head.

Any if you act on that hatred, you are charged for it. What you are thinking shouldn't matter. If I beat a kids head in because I don't like him, it's no less wrong than beating his head in because he is gay.

no but killing or beating them is. Without this law, alot more hate crime commiters would get away.

How so?

Look at it this way, how to you justify motivation of a gang of strait males beating up a gay guy walking by himself down the street... they have no motivation other then the fact they hate this person for what he is. They don't know him, never saw him before. But hate him. It's alot harder to get justice for a case like this without calling it a hate crime. You can't pin motivation on them.

did you even read what i posted? it's legal jargon to pin point a MOTIVE. Which is a must to hold your case up in court.

Hatred and bigotry is a motive in any case.

[Pink Ranger]

Are they dead yet? Or don't they have the cajones to do that either, just like they don't have the courage of their convictions for anything else?

Don't get your "hopes" up. Those idiots never follow through on anything they say they'll do.

It's like dating an emotionally abusive musician with them.

[moraldeficiency]

Any if you act on that hatred, you are charged for it. What you are thinking shouldn't matter. If I beat a kids head in because I don't like him, it's no less wrong than beating his head in because he is gay.


Completely agree. The minute you start classifying crimes based on the victims rather than the act itself you invalidate justice fundamentally. I'm a big supporter of gay rights but this is a completely different issue. There is already a standard for what people's motives were before the act which can change a charge of manslaughter to murder. Adding bonus penalties for certian victims but not others is a completely different type of prejudice and in my mind makes the people wanting it hypocrites.

Look mathew shepherd dying was awful, but to say that murder was worse than a small child being beaten to death cause someone wanted their money just isn't true.

[Marx]

W:wow:W... Just wow... :dry:
Iinqe_4O9bM


"But we know that [Matthew Shepard] was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The Hate Crimes Bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills. "

people are f'd up

Where do these morons come from! Wow...that really ticks me off! :cmad:

[BlackLantern]

I agree with Stormin and MD there...If I beat someone in the head with a baseball bat just because or because they are gay...it's still a crime and I'll still go to jail

[StorminNorman]

Completely agree. The minute you start classifying crimes based on the victims rather than the act itself you invalidate justice fundamentally. I'm a big supporter of gay rights but this is a completely different issue. There is already a standard for what people's motives were before the act which can change a charge of manslaughter to murder. Adding bonus penalties for certian victims but not others is a completely different type of prejudice and in my mind makes the people wanting it hypocrites.

Look mathew shepherd dying was awful, but to say that murder was worse than a small child being beaten to death cause someone wanted their money just isn't true.
Bingo.

[Marx]

I agree with Stormin and MD there...If I beat someone in the head with a baseball bat just because or because they are gay...it's still a crime and I'll still go to jail

I think we're all going to have to agree to disagree.

[moraldeficiency]

I think we're all going to have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to that.

[Marx]

I don't agree to that.

You believe one thing, I believe another. We are not going to change each other's minds.

[moraldeficiency]

For the people that think there's a sense of fairness to hate crime laws: which groups do you believe deserve bonus penalties and which don't make the cut?

And don't just say minorities cause every person on earth is a part of some minority group in one form or another. These types of laws get a little too big brother for my likes, extra penalties for what you were thinking and judging those thoughts even though any hateful thought it perfectly legal.

[redfirebird2008]

I don't agree to that.

This post is full of "win." :applaud:hehe:

[Marx]

This post is full of "win." :applaud:hehe:
:dry:

[redfirebird2008]

:dry:

:hehe:

[Ion Kenshin]

For the people that think there's a sense of fairness to hate crime laws: which groups do you believe deserve bonus penalties and which don't make the cut?

And don't just say minorities cause every person on earth is a part of some minority group in one form or another. These types of laws get a little too big brother for my likes, extra penalties for what you were thinking and judging those thoughts even though any hateful thought it perfectly legal.
Thats pretty much America in a nutshell. More often than not we are making up the rules as we go along.

[moraldeficiency]

You believe one thing, I believe another. We are not going to change each other's minds.

I was joking.

But you could very well change my mind on this issue, I'm a pretty open person on that stuff, I've had my mind changed on several issues by different posters on this board yourself included. But you've gotta give me something a bit better than the 1984 thought police stuff. Actions can be illegal, thoughts never are. But thoughts that are accompanied by illegal actions are extra illegal? Que?

[Franklin Richards]

We have degrees of crimes. 1st, 2nd Degree Murder. Manslaughter. What's wrong with kicking it up a notch for hate crimes?


I'll tell you why some people are against it. It's not because of any sense of varying degrees of justice.


It's because somewhere deep down inside they don't like homosexuals.



Why do people think that rape is a crime worth the death penalty? Because they don't like it. Forget the fact that they didn't kill anyone. Eye for an eye doesn't make sense in that instance. If it did then the criminal would be raped in return. No. People want him dead. Because they think rape is a crime that is worth singling out even more than most crimes.


However because a hate crime against homosexuals is accepted more by bigots, then of course they don't won't to make it a "worse" crime than it already is.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Marx]

I was joking.

But you could very well change my mind on this issue, I'm a pretty open person on that stuff, I've had my mind changed on several issues by different posters on this board yourself included. But you've gotta give me something a bit better than the 1984 thought police stuff. Actions can be illegal, thoughts never are. But thoughts that are accompanied by illegal actions are extra illegal? Que?

In my view, killing someone just because, and killing someone because they are gay, or black, etc. are two entirely different things. As Franklin said, it kicks it up a notch if it is a hate crime.

This is not about illegal actions being more illegal, it is about the severity of a crime...

[Marx]

I realize this is a heated topic, but let's keep it respectful.

[moraldeficiency]

We have degrees of crimes. 1st, 2nd Degree Murder. Manslaughter. What's wrong with kicking it up a notch for hate crimes?

I'll tell you why some people are against it. It's not because of any sense of varying degrees of justice.

It's because somewhere deep down inside they don't like homosexuals.

Ease off the man, he said some, not all. He's right on that. Now for the wrong:


What you mentioned above doesn't correlate at all. The difference between the degree's in murder are based on levels of sanity not intent. Manslaughter is when you flip out and kill without prior intent. It's saying you're not completely responsible because of your mindset, while murder is based on a logical and planned decission. It's a big difference and an important one. Actually taking your argument about the distinctions hate crimes should have LESS of a penalty as the people committing them would be partially out of their sane mindsets due to seeing something/someone that disturbs them.

[moraldeficiency]

In my view, killing someone just because, and killing someone because they are gay, or black, etc. are two entirely different things. As Franklin said, it kicks it up a notch if it is a hate crime.

This is not about illegal actions being more illegal, it is about the severity of a crime...

Define just because. If there's no reason "just because" then I'd say that person was insane and should recieve appropriate treatment. If you kill someone cause they have money or you kill them because their gay and you do it in the same way I don't see why legally there should be a difference. If hate (in your mind, of course) is legal and you cannot be prosecuted for it then that should just be that. No exceptions. You're imposing your viewpoints to make one crime worse than an identical crime based on what you do and don't like and that's just not fair or just.

If there's, for example, a race riot and some white people die cause blacks are rioting (just an example now) should the mob be extra prosecuted because it's a hate crime? It is of course, so logic would dictate they all recieve additional sentences. Of course in a riot people aren't in their right minds caught up by mob mentality, but that could be said about most hate crimes too.

Here's where I stand: You punish the act accordingly but not the thought. If you torture someone to death it should be worse than just a head shot. But what we have here is a situation where I could torture someone "just because" and recieve lesser sentance than if I punched a gay guy in the face for being gay. That's very disturbing to me.

[Marx]

Define just because. If there's no reason "just because" then I'd say that person was insane and should recieve appropriate treatment. If you kill someone cause they have money or you kill them because their gay and you do it in the same way I don't see why legally there should be a difference. If hate (in your mind, of course) is legal and you cannot be prosecuted for it then that should just be that. No exceptions. You're imposing your viewpoints to make one crime worse than an identical crime based on what you do and don't like and that's just not fair or just.

If there's, for example, a race riot and some white people die cause blacks are rioting (just an example now) should the mob be extra prosecuted because it's a hate crime? It is of course, so logic would dictate they all recieve additional sentences. Of course in a riot people aren't in their right minds caught up by mob mentality, but that could be said about most hate crimes too.

Here's where I stand: You punish the act accordingly but not the thought. If you torture someone to death it should be worse than just a head shot. But what we have here is a situation where I could torture someone "just because" and recieve lesser sentance than if I punched a gay guy in the face for being gay. That's very disturbing to me.

I never said that.

[Franklin Richards]

You act like 20 years in prison is a cakewalk compared to life in prison.



20 years is plenty. As long as the punishment fits the crime.



:doom: :doom: :doom:

[moraldeficiency]

I never said that.

No you didn't, I was just stating the obvious and logical conclusion to hate crime laws. You have a double standard where some crimes would be great than others even though the action could be lesser.

Two cases:

I beat some person down because they said some nasty stuff about my mother. Then I slowly twist their knuckles out of place. Torture, but no intent to kill whatsoever. I'm charged with aggravated assault.

I punch a gay guy in the face for making a comment about my ass. I make an offensive comment about gays right afterwards and walk away. I'm charged with assault but the hate crime jumps up the sentence and penalty.

Obviously I caused far more harm in the first case, but my sentence would be worse in the second. That's fundamentally wrong and unjust. There's a reason justice wears that blindfold. Impartialiaty shouldn't only be in effect when you agree with it, it's when you don't that it's most important actually.

[Mister Sinister]

Support for gay marriage up 11 points in a month! (http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm)

[moraldeficiency]

Support for gay marriage up 11 points in a month! (http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm)

Now this is something we can all get behind. (awaits obvious gay jokes)

[wiegeabo]

So, assuming this poll is truly representative, it looks like 2/3 of the country would support Civil Unions.

[StorminNorman]

Support for gay marriage up 11 points in a month! (http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm)

:up: Good movement. The best numbers from that may be the fact 10% less Republicans want no legal recognition.

[wiegeabo]

:up: Good movement. The best numbers from that may be the fact 10% less Republicans want no legal recognition.

That seems to follow the classic trend.

The conservatives and liberals take their stand on the left and right, and they pretty much hold their positions for a couple of decades.

Then the liberals start moving more to the left, the conservatives complain, but the momentum follows the liberals, and then the conservatives suddenly shift left as well. But, because they're still right of the liberals, they're both still left and right of each other relatively speaking.

So those become the new conservative and liberal lines, and then it stays that way for a couple of decades and the cycle continues.


If you look back, the conservatives are more liberal than they were 20 years ago. Far more liberal than they were 40 years ago. Incredibly more liberal than 60 years ago, and so on. Same can be said for the liberals.

I think we're just at a point in time where the left shift is happening. The young conservatives who are gaining support and power are more liberal than the older set, and once they get established, they'll set the new conservative line.

[moraldeficiency]

I'd say you're half right on that, I think it goes both ways depending on the times. I mean Democrats are no longer proslavery and weed used to be completely legal but now it's not. In fact they made the bill of rights into a banned substance with their nonsensical laws. I see it as when we shift too far in one direction, we self correct a bit the other way.

[wiegeabo]

I'd say you're half right on that, I think it goes both ways depending on the times. I mean Democrats are no longer proslavery and weed used to be completely legal but now it's not. In fact they made the bill of rights into a banned substance with their nonsensical laws. I see it as when we shift too far in one direction, we self correct a bit the other way.

Well, before FDR, the Democrats were the conservatives and the Republicans were the liberals. So it makes sense that the Democrats were proslavery way back when.

That's why I didn't take my example past the 1940's because everything gets starts getting pretty messy. Multiple political parties in power, parties were very different from the way the are now.

When you get back to the 1920's-30's or so, you start seeing our current political climate: two dominating parties; the conservative Republicans; the liberal Democrats.

[hippie_hunter]

Maine's Senate passed a bill to legalize same sex marriage, if passed in the House, the governor will sign the bill

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid81428.asp

[wiegeabo]

The states are falling like dominoes. :D



As odd a thing as it is to say...but it might be a good thing Prop 8 passed after all. I thinks it's passage has created such an outrage that other states are being forced to look at, and pass, same sex marriage bills.

If Prop 8 had failed, maybe it still would have happened, but I think it might have taken longer since everyone could have just said "Well, they can move to California if they want to get married."

Either way, it looks like California and Prop 8 have become a rallying point to get the gay marriage movement some good momentum.

[Marx]

The states are falling like dominoes. :D



As odd a thing as it is to say...but it might be a good thing Prop 8 passed after all. I thinks it's passage has created such an outrage that other states are being forced to look at, and pass, same sex marriage bills.

If Prop 8 had failed, maybe it still would have happened, but I think it might have taken longer since everyone could have just said "Well, they can move to California if they want to get married."

Either way, it looks like California and Prop 8 have become a rallying point to get the gay marriage movement some good momentum.


That's a good point. Prop 8 set off a firestorm.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Hurm. So...hate crimes are a "hoax".

Things like this back up the sterotypes of the Republican party.

Blows my mind when you consider this WAS the party of Lincoln.

[Marx]

Hurm. So...hate crimes are a "hoax".

Things like this back up the sterotypes of the Republican party.

Blows my mind when you consider this WAS the party of Lincoln.

Representative Foxx has supposedly issued an apology for those comments saying something like she 'relied on faulty media storys for information'. I haven't seen an article on it yet though. That woman just makes me sick.

[wiegeabo]

Hurm. So...hate crimes are a "hoax".

Things like this back up the sterotypes of the Republican party.

Blows my mind when you consider this WAS the party of Lincoln.

Back then, the Republicans and Democrats were reversed. Republicans in Lincoln's time were the liberals.


Now it's the other way around, and Lincoln would be considered a Democrat.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Agreed.

Makes me feel worse is that Shepard's mother was sitting in having to listen to that.

I heard that Shepard's mother will be on Rachel Maddow's show tonight, I imagine to talk about those (and overall) the Republican's opposition to the bill.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Back then, the Republicans and Democrats were reversed. Republicans in Lincoln's time were the liberals.


Now it's the other way around, and Lincoln would be considered a Democrat.

I know. And...it blows my mind. Not quite sure why. But, yeah.

[wiegeabo]

I know. And...it blows my mind. Not quite sure why. But, yeah.

Same here.

Somehow the Great Depression mixed everything up.

[Kelly]

IMO it switched when Lyndon B. Johnson became president....

[Kent]

Not sure anyone really cares, since most of you are U.S. Americans, but gay marriage was just legalized in Sweden today. Up until now there's only been civil unions.

Either way, a step in the right direction. :)

[Ion Kenshin]

That's great news

[Schlosser85]

New Hampshire and Maine may be in the process of legalizing gay marriage...we'll see if it makes it all the way through into law.

[echostation]

what confuse me about america akbar hi hoodim and hoodam walil tauraokhar.. is that they keep saying in country of US that Church separate from this State, ish not correct yes? or yish? sethu pashtu... so confused is what is it the with nation of united shates that shayz that churc and the christian separate, AWAY from STATE yaani government... CHUCH NO GO WITH GOVERNMENT correct? this is implied by the line of separation of church and state, tho phir akbar hi wasratool why then keep plugging down on gay marriage issue... so what if sin in Christian book, so what... CHRISTIAN SEPARATE FROM GOVERNMENT correct? N'est pas? if the gays get the married and like to bum in private in own home, how are they insulting or offence any body else... make no sense

hypocrisy typical of US, say great hupti american line that separation church and state yet then keep telling christian evil is homosexhal... or the gays are going to need sex conversion according to christian value... make no sense, hurt no one htey do, they are not committing crime... make no sense, rahem kare rahem kare...

[Schlosser85]

.....oh.

[SuBe]

www.rosettastone.com

[moraldeficiency]

Well, before FDR, the Democrats were the conservatives and the Republicans were the liberals. So it makes sense that the Democrats were proslavery way back when.

That's why I didn't take my example past the 1940's because everything gets starts getting pretty messy. Multiple political parties in power, parties were very different from the way the are now.

When you get back to the 1920's-30's or so, you start seeing our current political climate: two dominating parties; the conservative Republicans; the liberal Democrats.

So vietnam, the draft, the bay of pigs, cuban missle crisis, support of dictators like saddam, those are prodem ideals? It just feels like the whole country shifts from one extreme to the other depending on what came before.


Kent, of course sweden counts, your women are too hot for your country not to be globally relevant.

[Ion Kenshin]

what confuse me about america akbar hi hoodim and hoodam walil tauraokhar.. is that they keep saying in country of US that Church separate from this State, ish not correct yes? or yish? sethu pashtu... so confused is what is it the with nation of united shates that shayz that churc and the christian separate, AWAY from STATE yaani government... CHUCH NO GO WITH GOVERNMENT correct? this is implied by the line of separation of church and state, tho phir akbar hi wasratool why then keep plugging down on gay marriage issue... so what if sin in Christian book, so what... CHRISTIAN SEPARATE FROM GOVERNMENT correct? N'est pas? if the gays get the married and like to bum in private in own home, how are they insulting or offence any body else... make no sense

hypocrisy typical of US, say great hupti american line that separation church and state yet then keep telling christian evil is homosexhal... or the gays are going to need sex conversion according to christian value... make no sense, hurt no one htey do, they are not committing crime... make no sense, rahem kare rahem kare...
:huh::huh:

[Marx]

Not sure anyone really cares, since most of you are U.S. Americans, but gay marriage was just legalized in Sweden today. Up until now there's only been civil unions.

Either way, a step in the right direction. :)

I think that's great news Kent! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[hippie_hunter]

what confuse me about america akbar hi hoodim and hoodam walil tauraokhar.. is that they keep saying in country of US that Church separate from this State, ish not correct yes? or yish? sethu pashtu... so confused is what is it the with nation of united shates that shayz that churc and the christian separate, AWAY from STATE yaani government... CHUCH NO GO WITH GOVERNMENT correct? this is implied by the line of separation of church and state, tho phir akbar hi wasratool why then keep plugging down on gay marriage issue... so what if sin in Christian book, so what... CHRISTIAN SEPARATE FROM GOVERNMENT correct? N'est pas? if the gays get the married and like to bum in private in own home, how are they insulting or offence any body else... make no sense

hypocrisy typical of US, say great hupti american line that separation church and state yet then keep telling christian evil is homosexhal... or the gays are going to need sex conversion according to christian value... make no sense, hurt no one htey do, they are not committing crime... make no sense, rahem kare rahem kare...

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p186/hippie_hunter/ybw.jpg

[Lunar_Wolf]

I have a friend who is gay. I feel bad for him because he can't ever get married in Ireland. He can get married in Belfast, but once he step's back into the republic, he is not legally married. Sometimes I am ashamed of living here.

[Marx]

JUDY SHEPHARD RESPONDS TO 'HOAX' COMMENTS
*clip included*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/judy-shepard-responds-to_n_194483.html

Judy Shepard appeared on last night's edition of the Rachel Maddow Show to discuss the recent expansion of Federal hate crimes legislation and the remarks made by North Carolina representative Virginia Foxx, who, in testifying against the expansion, suggested that Shepard was merely the victim of a robbery, and that suggestions that he was targeted because he was gay were all a part of "a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."

Shepard responded thusly: "Well, you know, attacks of lesser consequence, I guess, have been said about Matt since the beginning, and in 2007 when it passed the House, the same sort of vitriol' was spoken from the floor as well. I did not ever expect it to be called a hoax.

Anyone who has done research into what happened to Matt knows it was a hate crime, although technically we couldn't prosecute it that way because there was no hate crime law in Wyoming and no Federal hate crime law protecting sexual orientation. So we couldn't call it a hate crime, but it was."

Told that Foxx had later "clarified" her remarks by saying that "hoax was a poor choice of words," Shepard wasn't particularly mollified. "It's apologizing for semantics, not her ignorance."

On the matter of how the expansion may assist the victims of other hate crimes, Shepard offered some specifics: "How it will change in Matt's case in particular, in Wyoming, because the federal law did not cover sexual orientation as a protected category, Laramie was not eligible for Federal resources...they had to furlough four employees to pay for the investigation and subsequent trials. That's not right. That's not right...This is an amazing advance of what already exists."

:applaud

[moraldeficiency]

Oh, that was definately a hate crime anyone that thinks otherwise is smoking crack.

[spideyboy_1111]

I think we're all going to have to agree to disagree.

agrees, motive still means alot.

i consider someone much more of a disgusting person if there motive for killing someone for how there born (race/sexuality/birth defects/gender etc..) then someone who kills someone for a motive such as jealousy/wrong doing/robbery etc... sure those people are still horrible people and equally guilty. But most murders are caused by an extreme aspect of these human natures. I don't believe "hating someone for being different" is a human trait, it's just ignorance. So killing someone with no other motive then "I don't like the way they were born" is slightly much more of a disgusting aspect.

I see how people are upset that one murder might be greater then another, but come on... thats the way the world works. By that standards a guy who kills a woman with a gun, should be equally as disturbing as a guy who tortured her, impaled her, dismembered her and ate her body. Murder is just Murder right? :whatever:

[spideyboy_1111]

The states are falling like dominoes. :D



As odd a thing as it is to say...but it might be a good thing Prop 8 passed after all. I thinks it's passage has created such an outrage that other states are being forced to look at, and pass, same sex marriage bills.

If Prop 8 had failed, maybe it still would have happened, but I think it might have taken longer since everyone could have just said "Well, they can move to California if they want to get married."

Either way, it looks like California and Prop 8 have become a rallying point to get the gay marriage movement some good momentum.

ive said that from the beginning... you wake a sleeping lion, prepare to get eaten. Conservatives provoked us now there gonna have to deal with it.

[wiegeabo]

agrees, motive still means alot.

I see how people are upset that one murder might be greater then another, but come on... thats the way the world works. By that standards a guy who kills a woman with a gun, should be equally as disturbing as a guy who tortured her, impaled her, dismembered her and ate her body. Murder is just Murder right? :whatever:

Bad comparison. That's a difference in the brutality of a crime, not the motive for the crime.

Guy who tortures and dismembers someone because they are gay should get a more severe punishment than a guy who shoots someone because they are gay. The motive doesn't effect the punishment, the brutality involved does. The guy who uses the gun might only get murder 2 or 3 because it may have been a spur of the moment thing, but torture is premeditated and would almost certainly be murder 1.

Hate is hate, whether it's because a person is gay, black, or cut the murderer off in traffic. And the punishment for a crime should be equal despite the motive.

[wiegeabo]

ive said that from the beginning... you wake a sleeping lion, prepare to get eaten. Conservatives provoked us now there gonna have to deal with it.

Yep. Once the court made gay marriage legal, the best the conservatives could hope for was stalling.

Ironically enough, if the law that the court overturned has never been put into effect in the first place, gay rights might still be limping along today.

[spideyboy_1111]

Bad comparison. That's a difference in the brutality of a crime, not the motive for the crime.

Guy who tortures and dismembers someone because they are gay should get a more severe punishment than a guy who shoots someone because they are gay. The motive doesn't effect the punishment, the brutality involved does. The guy who uses the gun might only get murder 2 or 3 because it may have been a spur of the moment thing, but torture is premeditated and would almost certainly be murder 1.

Hate is hate, whether it's because a person is gay, black, or cut the murderer off in traffic. And the punishment for a crime should be equal despite the motive.

either way i think hating someone for being different (something people can't help) and killing them vs killing someone in a robbery is a difference. Motive matters to me in that case and people should be punished for HATE. Hate is not killing someone in a robbery because the killing was not the motive, the robbery was. Killing because hating someone who is different i feel is different then killing someone because they cheated on you. Hate is indeed Hate.

I've explained why hate crimes are needed. Its all about the motive.

[hippie_hunter]

ive said that from the beginning... you wake a sleeping lion, prepare to get eaten. Conservatives provoked us now there gonna have to deal with it.

I gotta admit though, I really like the direction that the gay rights movement has been taking in New England by trying to get gay marriage passed through the legislature than through the courts. That's the best route in my opinion.

I never expected that pretty much all of New England will probably end up legalizing gay marriage by this year. I expected it within a couple of years, but not this quickly.

[Marx]

Progress is a wonderful thing! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[spideyboy_1111]

I gotta admit though, I really like the direction that the gay rights movement has been taking in New England by trying to get gay marriage passed through the legislature than through the courts. That's the best route in my opinion.

I never expected that pretty much all of New England will probably end up legalizing gay marriage by this year. I expected it within a couple of years, but not this quickly.

me either, it's been truly beautiful

[spideyboy_1111]

If I had my say this whole discussion wouldn't even be a discussion. No gay rights. No gay marriage. All of it illegal. I also plan to run for office someday, so, hopefully, I will eventually have my say.

Just thought I would voice my opinion since there's probably 166 pages of pro-gay marriage stuff.

good luck with that :whatever:

i'm just gonna pretend you don't exist... starting in ... now.

[Joker'sHenchman]

good luck with that :whatever:

i'm just gonna pretend you don't exist... starting in ... now.

To be fair, sir, I don't think I am the one who needs any luck. As it stands, it is my ideology that just won the popular vote in California; the most liberal state in America.

[spideyboy_1111]

To be fair, sir, I don't think I am the one who needs any luck. As it stands, it is my ideology that just won the popular vote in California; the most liberal state in America.

have fun dying out ;). Were having awesome luck if you ask me... look at the east coast.

plus saying you won is counting your chickens before they've hatched. You can count on with more and more states by the month allowing gay marriage, those judgments will indeed effect cali's ruling.

Your Ideology is full of hate, religious bigotry, and the very things our country is beginning to turn against. So have fun with that ;)

[Marx]

If I had my say this whole discussion wouldn't even be a discussion. No gay rights. No gay marriage. All of it illegal. I also plan to run for office someday, so, hopefully, I will eventually have my say.

Just thought I would voice my opinion since there's probably 166 pages of pro-gay marriage stuff.

All viewpoints are welcomed in this debate. If you are going to be a part of this debate, please be a little more constructive in your answers.

[hippie_hunter]

To be fair, sir, I don't think I am the one who needs any luck. As it stands, it is my ideology that just won the popular vote in California; the most liberal state in America.

There's a difference between being opposed to gay marriage and being a homophobic bigot.

[spideyboy_1111]

indeed... backing up reasons for your beliefs with logical and ideal opinions (not faith) are very welcomed here. But hate and bigotry is not.

[hippie_hunter]

I think faith is a part in the debate about gay marriage, but hate and bigotry are absolutely not going to be tolerated here on the Hype.

[spideyboy_1111]

I think faith is a part in the debate about gay marriage, but hate and bigotry are absolutely not going to be tolerated here on the Hype.

faith is fine for an opinion, but the fault with religion is the fact that the US is tolerant of ALL religions. And your religion should never be forced upon others. So why should your religious belief of marriage?

[hippie_hunter]

faith is fine for an opinion, but the fault with religion is the fact that the US is tolerant of ALL religions. And your religion should never be forced upon others. So why should your religious belief of marriage?

Of course we shouldn't be forcing our religious beliefs onto another person. But a person's faith is often an influence on their stance on gay marriage.

I disagree with it because I believe that anyone should do whatever the hell they want as long as no one else is getting hurt in the process, but faith is a part of the gay marriage debate.

Here on the Hype, I believe that faith can be used to form your opinion, but it definitely cannot be shoved down someone else's throat like what some posters like moviefan2k have done.

[Marx]

faith is fine for an opinion, but the fault with religion is the fact that the US is tolerant of ALL religions. And your religion should never be forced upon others. So why should your religious belief of marriage?

Exactly, spideyboy.

[Marx]

Of course we shouldn't be forcing our religious beliefs onto another person. But a person's faith is often an influence on their stance on gay marriage.

I disagree with it because I believe that anyone should do whatever the hell they want as long as no one else is getting hurt in the process, but faith is a part of the gay marriage debate.

That's the whole point though. While I can understand religious objections, you should never use your religion as a basis to legislate.

[hippie_hunter]

That's the whole point though. While I can understand religious objections, you should never use your religion as a basis to legislate.

I completely agree with that.

[wiegeabo]

That's the whole point though. While I can understand religious objections, you should never use your religion as a basis to legislate.

Exactly.

If you want to live a certain way, raise your family a certain way, go right ahead. But you don't have the right to force your views on others. You can try and convince them to live the way you do, but not force them.

Government should legislate to protect the people, not control them.

[spideyboy_1111]

That's the whole point though. While I can understand religious objections, you should never use your religion as a basis to legislate.

agrees, and this is why religion imo has no place for this debate and should not be used as a crutch of an excuse for hatred. Because that's exactly what it is. You can not defend your opinion on a legislature with religion. PERIOD. especially if its when governing rights of others.

[hippie_hunter]

agrees, and this is why religion imo has no place for this debate and should not be used as a crutch of an excuse for hatred. Because that's exactly what it is. You can not defend your opinion on a legislature with religion. PERIOD. especially if its when governing rights of others.

But the gay marriage debate goes way beyond just legislation. It has cultural, judicial, and religious roots as well. While I think that a legislature should not use religion to do their jobs, we really can't do anything about a private citizen using it to form their opinion.

[Marx]

agrees, and this is why religion imo has no place for this debate and should not be used as a crutch of an excuse for hatred. Because that's exactly what it is. You can not defend your opinion on a legislature with religion. PERIOD. especially if its when governing rights of others.

But the gay marriage debate goes way beyond just legislation. It has cultural, judicial, and religious roots as well. While I think that a legislature should not use religion to do their jobs, we really can't do anything about a private citizen using it to form their opinion.

I agree hippie. Culture and religion are always going to be a part of the debate because that is how some come to form their opinions.

The problem lies when you use religion to legislate, which we all agree is a bad thing.

[Joker'sHenchman]

This thread is unfair. I didn't insult any of you, I was simply stating my opinion and I get a warning? Ridiculous. I state my opinion, just to make it known, and this is what I get? A warning? Just because my opinion isn't popular here or isn't exactly the most kind and open-minded opinion doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to say it.

I don't even see how I can be expected to have a fair discussion if I am going to get shut down for being on the opposing side.

[spideyboy_1111]

But the gay marriage debate goes way beyond just legislation. It has cultural, judicial, and religious roots as well. While I think that a legislature should not use religion to do their jobs, we really can't do anything about a private citizen using it to form their opinion.

either way, religion should not decide the fate or lives of others (especially those who do not follow the same religion). There is absolutely no excuse for that. And i'm tired of hearing it as an excuse. I'm find with people saying "I don't think gays should marry", "i don't think gays have rights" etc... that's there opinion, but guess what. There opinion should not affect those who do not have that opinion.

One such fact i hate is that we are forced to swear on the bible in court... ? What if you're not christian? who the hell cares if you're swearing on someone elses religion or not?

[Red Mask]

Anybody who calls himself the Joker's Henchman is pretty suspect.

[Schlosser85]

Uh, I see my post was deleted??

Not, um, appreciated...

[Lunar_Wolf]

I can't stop laughing at Joker'sHenchman sig '''The Best of Both Worlds'' I just find it funny with the topic of discussion.

Anyway back the the topic.

Originally Posted by Joker'sHenchman
If I had my say this whole discussion wouldn't even be a discussion. No gay rights. No gay marriage. All of it illegal. I also plan to run for office someday, so, hopefully, I will eventually have my say.

Just thought I would voice my opinion since there's probably 166 pages of pro-gay marriage stuff.

Why do you feel like gay people should not have rights? And why do you think having gay relationships should be illegal?

[bell110]

agrees, motive still means alot.

i consider someone much more of a disgusting person if there motive for killing someone for how there born (race/sexuality/birth defects/gender etc..) then someone who kills someone for a motive such as jealousy/wrong doing/robbery etc... sure those people are still horrible people and equally guilty. But most murders are caused by an extreme aspect of these human natures. I don't believe "hating someone for being different" is a human trait, it's just ignorance. So killing someone with no other motive then "I don't like the way they were born" is slightly much more of a disgusting aspect.

I see how people are upset that one murder might be greater then another, but come on... thats the way the world works. By that standards a guy who kills a woman with a gun, should be equally as disturbing as a guy who tortured her, impaled her, dismembered her and ate her body. Murder is just Murder right? :whatever:

I disagree. I think hate and ignorance is just as human a trait as jealousy. And personally, I think killing someone over greed is worse that killing someone out of hate.

And yes, the torture/murder is more disturbing, but murder is still murder. The reason someone would get more time for the torture/murder rather than the simple shooting is that other crimes are tacked on to it, like kidnapping and the torture part.

either way i think hating someone for being different (something people can't help) and killing them vs killing someone in a robbery is a difference. Motive matters to me in that case and people should be punished for HATE. Hate is not killing someone in a robbery because the killing was not the motive, the robbery was. Killing because hating someone who is different i feel is different then killing someone because they cheated on you. Hate is indeed Hate.

I've explained why hate crimes are needed. Its all about the motive.

But hate isn't against the law. You can't punish people for it, just like you can't punish someone for being greedy.

[Marx]

Let's keep the discussion to the topic, not the poster guys.

[Marx]

But hate isn't against the law. You can't punish people for it, just like you can't punish someone for being greedy.

It's not the hate that is the problem, it is acting on that hatred.

[bell110]

But people should be "extra" punished because of hate.

I forget if I asked this question already, but should gang on gang murder fall under the category of a "hate crime"?

[Marx]

But people should be "extra" punished because of hate.

It's not 'extra' punishment to be protected under the law as everyone else is.

I forget if I asked this question already, but should gang on gang murder fall under the category of a "hate crime"?

I don't remember seeing that question, but no. I do not believe that gangs should fall under a hate crimes law.

[bell110]

It is extra. How are minorities not protected under the law? If you murder someone because he's gay should not get extra time than someone who kills over money.

And why shouldn't gangs be included? Why is hating because of sexual orientation more ignorant than hating someone cause they're from a different 'hood?

And what about a hatful murder motivated by revenge?

[Cunning Stunts]

either way, religion should not decide the fate or lives of others (especially those who do not follow the same religion). There is absolutely no excuse for that. And i'm tired of hearing it as an excuse. I'm find with people saying "I don't think gays should marry", "i don't think gays have rights" etc... that's there opinion, but guess what. There opinion should not affect those who do not have that opinion.

One such fact i hate is that we are forced to swear on the bible in court... ? What if you're not christian? who the hell cares if you're swearing on someone elses religion or not?

Or America, seeing as how we have this thing called Separation of Church and State.

[Kelly]

either way, religion should not decide the fate or lives of others (especially those who do not follow the same religion). There is absolutely no excuse for that. And i'm tired of hearing it as an excuse. I'm find with people saying "I don't think gays should marry", "i don't think gays have rights" etc... that's there opinion, but guess what. There opinion should not affect those who do not have that opinion.

One such fact i hate is that we are forced to swear on the bible in court... ? What if you're not christian? who the hell cares if you're swearing on someone elses religion or not?


I was just on a jury this past March, a murder trial.....I saw every witness sworn in, we as a jury were sworn in....none of us were sworn in on a bible...

[StorminNorman]

It's not 'extra' punishment to be protected under the law as everyone else is.

How are minorities not protected under non-hate crime law?

[hippie_hunter]

either way, religion should not decide the fate or lives of others (especially those who do not follow the same religion). There is absolutely no excuse for that. And i'm tired of hearing it as an excuse. I'm find with people saying "I don't think gays should marry", "i don't think gays have rights" etc... that's there opinion, but guess what. There opinion should not affect those who do not have that opinion.
While religion should not take into account in the debate concerning judicial rulings and legislation, there is absolutely no way to avoid the religion issue when it comes to debating gay marriage between two or more private (not civil) citizens.

One such fact i hate is that we are forced to swear on the bible in court... ? What if you're not christian? who the hell cares if you're swearing on someone elses religion or not?
As an atheist I gotta admit that I really don't care about the swearing on the Bible, "In God We Trust," and "One nation, under God," stuff. I really don't see the big deal. If I go to court and have to swear on the Bible, I'll do it because it's procedure. If I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I'll say "one nation, under God," because I really don't get riled up by a rather petty issue. And I really don't care about the Ten Commandments, a Christmas tree, etc. on display in public property.

There are a lot more pressing issues when it comes to the separation of church and state than those ones like the debate about the Theory of Evolution and the Creation Theory being taught in our schools. Or how some government officials insist that this is a Christian nation. Those are far more important to deal with IMO.

[Marx]

How are minorities not protected under non-hate crime law?

In my view, the gay community has not been protected under the law. I am glad this legislation passed.

[Kelly]

Neither has the female community.....and there are far more "laws" in their favor than that of homosexuals.....laws do not always do what they should do.

[Red Mask]

Laws only have meaning if the authorities enforce them.

[spideyboy_1111]

I was just on a jury this past March, a murder trial.....I saw every witness sworn in, we as a jury were sworn in....none of us were sworn in on a bible...

well maybe some dont then?

[spideyboy_1111]

Neither has the female community.....and there are far more "laws" in their favor than that of homosexuals.....laws do not always do what they should do.

eh.. thats debatable.. in most cases of woman vs man, depending on the circumstance women will be favored over the man (especially in divorce and child custody). So in many ways women are more protected, maybe not by law, but by human emotion.

[wiegeabo]

well maybe some dont then?

I think a number have stopped because it's against some religions (even christian based) to swear to God. So they usually say "I affirm" or something else legally binding.

[spideyboy_1111]

I think a number have stopped because it's against some religions (even christian based) to swear to God. So they usually say "I affirm" or something else legally binding.

i just think you should raise your hand and swear... not on anything but your own life or country. swearing means nothing anyway other them taking record that you stand by and mean what you say.

they threaten swearing on the bible as some way to press fear and extra judgment in on you, but contempt is still contempt. and lying to the court is the only fear they should be inflicting.

[wiegeabo]

i just think you should raise your hand and swear... not on anything but your own life or country. swearing means nothing anyway other them taking record that you stand by and mean what you say.

they threaten swearing on the bible as some way to press fear and extra judgment in on you, but contempt is still contempt. and lying to the court is the only fear they should be inflicting.

Agreed.

[Kelly]

eh.. thats debatable.. in most cases of woman vs man, depending on the circumstance women will be favored over the man (especially in divorce and child custody). So in many ways women are more protected, maybe not by law, but by human emotion.

I'm talking in the area of violence. And in the case of women, its not just here in this country, its worldwide.

[Marx]

POLL: GENERATIONAL GAP ON GAY MARRIAGE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/cnn-poll-generational-gap-on-gay-marriage/

A new national poll suggests that a majority of Americans oppose legalizing same sex marriages — but there's a vast generational divide on the issue.

Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday say that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, with 44 percent suggests they should be considered legal.

Among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents 35 to 49 years old, and to 41 percent for those 50 to 64 years of age. The poll indicates that only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages as valid.

While a majority of those polled oppose legalizing gay marriage, 6 out of 10 feel that states that do not recognize gay marriages allow civil unions. When it comes to supporting civil unions, the poll indicates a similar generational shift.

Three states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, currently allow same-sex marriages. A law passed by Vermont law makers that makes gay and lesbian marriages legal takes effect in the state later this year. Lawmakers in Maine and New Hampshire are close to passing a similar bill.

"It's not surprising that three Northeastern states are the first to take this step," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "A majority of people who live in the Northeast say they approve of same-sex marriage. Solid majorities in the South, Midwest and West all oppose gay marriage."

Forty-nine percent of those questioned say they have a family member or close friend who is gay. That's up eight points from 1998 and up 17 points from 1992. Fifty-eight percent of those ages 18 to 34 say they have a family member or close friend who's gay. That drops to just one in three of people 65 or older.

"People who say they have a gay friend or relative support same-sex marriage," Holland notes. "Most of those who say they don't know anyone who is gay oppose gay marriage."

The poll's release comes just three days after Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced he would step down from the high court after this year's session ends in late June. Any Supreme Court nomination battle between conservatives and progressives will most likely include some of the hot button social issues, like gay marriage.

"Republicans don't have the votes to defeat President Obama's choice for the Supreme Court. They have to get some Democrats join them. Possibly on a hot button social issue," says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.

The poll indicates that close to 40 percent of Democrats oppose legalizing gay marriage. But Schneider says there's a risk for conservatives if they make same-sex marriage an issue in the fight over a Supreme Court nomination.

"Young voters strongly favor marriage equality. They're the future of American politics," says Bill Schneider.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted April 23-26, with 2,019 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[Kelly]

Which why I've been saying that it will take at least a generation or even 2, before we get a generation majority that says "yes" same sex marriage is ok, and at least 2 generations before the majority says that homosexuality is ok. But, to think that either is going to happen in the near future is naive, and that is why same sex marriage will need to be legislated just as women's suffrage and civil rights....

[Marx]

JOE 'THE PLUMBER': 'I WOULD NEVER LET 'QUEERS' NEAR MY CHILDREN'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/joe-the-plumber-queer-mea_n_196116.html

Joe the Plumber, aka Samuel Wurzelbacher, sat down for an lengthy interview with Christianity Today to discuss his views on the future of the Republican party. Wurzelbacher took the opportunity to speak out against gay marriage, which he says is wrong. The unlikely conservative spokesman went so far as to say he doesn't allow openly gay people "anywhere near" his children.

The word "queer," Wurzelbacher noted, "means strange and unusual."
Christianity Today: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

Wurzelbacher: At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary--it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do--what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing.

In the vein of George W. Bush and Michael Steele, Joe the Plumber also indicated that he wouldn't run for public office until the Lord had given him a cue. "God hasn't said, 'Joe, I want you to run.' I feel more important to just encourage people to get involved, one way or another. If I can inspire some leaders, that would be great." Joe added: "I don't know if I want to be a leader."

:dry:...:whatever:...http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Kelly]

He's an ignorant man.

[Mister Sinister]

Joe the Plumber's (or once you've removed the incorrect aspects from his name - the) views are irrelevant.

[Handsome Rob]

I think a number have stopped because it's against some religions (even christian based) to swear to God. So they usually say "I affirm" or something else legally binding.

When I testified in court (in a professional capacity and not in my current job), they had me raise my hand and either swear or affirm to tell the truth. No Bible.

I affirmed, as I am one of the "(even Christian based)" people that don't take oaths (swearing). :yay:

[Schlosser85]

And Joe the Plumber descends to another level of stupidity.

Like I'm going to take a lecture from a pseudo-"Christian" hick who thinks it's ok to call gay people "queers" in public interviews and thinks you can infect kids with teh gay if they come within 10 feet of a gay person, and sticks his head up the rear end of anyone he thinks can get him fame and fortune.

The guy is a phony, in every way. He's not even a plumber!

[Lunar_Wolf]

I would laugh my ass off if Joe's kids turned out to be gay.

[Schlosser85]

I would pity them for being raised by a fame-chasing Neanderthal.

[spideyboy_1111]

JOE 'THE PLUMBER': 'I WOULD NEVER LET 'QUEERS' NEAR MY CHILDREN'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/joe-the-plumber-queer-mea_n_196116.html



:dry:...:whatever:...http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

lol, i like how he makes it seem like we named ourselves queers... :whatever: he's basically like "well they're called queers for a reason, and that's completely not like a white guy being called a honky...:o" holy hell is he ignorant.

[Matt]

Is that an actual quote? :facepalm

Any how, I've got some bones to pick with the gay community.....yikes.....that came out wrong. Any how, they turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined all our best names like Bruce and Lance and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just...queer! Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that
word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!

:cwink:

Does any one else find it scary that Joe the Plumbers sincere rant sounds alarmingly like the satirical one of Homer Simpson posted above?

[Marx]

Is that an actual quote? :facepalm

Any how, I've got some bones to pick with the gay community.....yikes.....that came out wrong. Any how, they turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined all our best names like Bruce and Lance and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just...queer! Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that
word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!

:cwink:

Does any one else find it scary that Joe the Plumbers sincere rant sounds alarmingly like the satirical one of Homer Simpson posted above?

Sadly, it is.

[spideyboy_1111]

Is that an actual quote? :facepalm

Any how, I've got some bones to pick with the gay community.....yikes.....that came out wrong. Any how, they turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined all our best names like Bruce and Lance and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just...queer! Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that
word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!

:cwink:

Does any one else find it scary that Joe the Plumbers sincere rant sounds alarmingly like the satirical one of Homer Simpson posted above?

i said it differently, but yeah, basically what he said

[hippie_hunter]

Is that an actual quote? :facepalm

Any how, I've got some bones to pick with the gay community.....yikes.....that came out wrong. Any how, they turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined all our best names like Bruce and Lance and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just...queer! Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that
word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!

:cwink:

Does any one else find it scary that Joe the Plumbers sincere rant sounds alarmingly like the satirical one of Homer Simpson posted above?

Bruce is still a manly name. Bruce Wayne and Bruce Campbell are enough to redeem the Bruce name.

[wiegeabo]

Bruce is still a manly name. Bruce Wayne and Bruce Campbell are enough to redeem the Bruce name.

Bruce Campbell makes everything 100% better. :word:

[Matt]

Can't argue with that logic. If Bruce Campbell endorsed gay marriage tomorrow, his sheer awesomeness would outshine Chuck Norris' opposition to it and it would be legal across the country by the close of business on friday.

...or such Titans clashing would cause the world to implode. I'm not sure which :csad:

[CaptainClown]

bruce campbell, bruce wayne, bruce lee... thats enough

[Mister Sinister]

BREAKING: The house of representatives has passed the Maine gay marriage bill!

[Marx]

I just saw that Sinister. Good news indeed!


MAINE LAWMAKERS APPROVE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/05/maine-lawmakers-approve-same-sex-marriage/
The Maine House of Representatives voted to pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage on Tuesday afternoon.

After a nearly three-hour debate, the House voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 89-57. The measure, which was passed by the state Senate last week, now heads to the governor's desk for a final decision.

Democratic Gov. John Baldacci "has not yet made a decision" on whether or not he will sign the bill, Deputy Director of Communications Joy Leach said.

If the governor signs the bill, Maine will be the fourth state to recognize same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. A law passed by Vermont lawmakers to legalize gay and lesbian marriages takes effect later this year and New Hampshire is close to passing similar legislation.

Also on Tuesday, the Washington D.C. City Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from states that allow those unions.

[Marx]

DC COUNCIL VOTES TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/05/dc-council-votes-to-recognize-same-sex-marriage/
The Washington D.C. City Council voted 12-1 Tuesday to recognize same-sex marriages from states that allow those unions.

Mayor Adrian Fenty has indicated he will sign the measure. It will then become law after a mandatory 30-day congressional review period if Congress fails to overturn the measure.

Former Mayor Marion Barry cast the lone dissenting vote.

While the council voted to recognize same-sex marriages, those marriages are not currently allowed in the district.

Three states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa — currently allow same-sex marriages. A law passed by Vermont legislators that makes gay and lesbian marriages legal takes affect in September. New Hampshire lawmakers are close to passing a similar bill.

Fifty-four percent of adults questioned in an April 23-26 nationwide CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll said that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, with 44 percent suggesting they should be considered legal.

[Matt]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html?hpid=topnews

Out of curiousity, why is the black community so opposed to gay marriage? I've heard this before...as a group who has been oppressed you'd think they'd support it. Why do they oppose it so much?

[Ion Kenshin]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html?hpid=topnews

Out of curiousity, why is the black community so opposed to gay marriage? I've heard this before...as a group who has been oppressed you'd think they'd support it. Why do they oppose it so much?

I wonder that myself. Being a black male of carribean decent it is annoying to deal with. That's why so many black gay men are on the DL. I may have to do with the fact that the black community as a whole is very faith strong and we all know how that goes.....

[Marx]

I wonder that myself. Being a black male of carribean decent it is annoying to deal with. That's why so many black gay men are on the DL. I may have to do with the fact that the black community as a whole is very faith strong and we all know how that goes.....

I believe that is the reason as well...

[Mister Sinister]

There was a bit on the black vote on Prop 8 on The Rachel Maddow Show. They said the gay community didn't reach out to the black community.

dcZVAlSqNbA

[Bathead]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html?hpid=topnews

Out of curiousity, why is the black community so opposed to gay marriage? I've heard this before...as a group who has been oppressed you'd think they'd support it. Why do they oppose it so much?
I may be way off base, but my understanding is it's because of the heavy influence that the church enjoys in the black community.

[BlackestNight]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html?hpid=topnews

Out of curiousity, why is the black community so opposed to gay marriage? I've heard this before...as a group who has been oppressed you'd think they'd support it. Why do they oppose it so much?


It's called being uber religious. The black community at least the political portion of the black community is deeply religious. Haven you noticed that a lot of black leaders are men of God.

[Cunning Stunts]

I wonder that myself. Being a black male of carribean decent it is annoying to deal with. That's why so many black gay men are on the DL. I may have to do with the fact that the black community as a whole is very faith strong and we all know how that goes.....

A friend of mine from Jamaica told me they still lynch gays where he's from. He's got no problem with homosexuality (he and I both worked in a department full of gay dudes), but some of the **** he told me about that goes on in Jamaica is freakin' sickening. :wow:

[Cunning Stunts]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html?hpid=topnews

Out of curiousity, why is the black community so opposed to gay marriage? I've heard this before...as a group who has been oppressed you'd think they'd support it. Why do they oppose it so much?

I'd say it's heavily between the church influence that is deeply rooted in the black community, as well as that "ghetto/gangster" ****... That phrase, "no homo" makes me want to slap the people who say it. A dude said it to my gay co-worker the other day, and I'm surprised there wasn't an ass-kicking right there on the spot.

[dnno1]

MISS CALIFORNIA TO STAR IN TV AD FROM CONSERVATIVE GROUP
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/miss-california-to-star-in-tv-ad-from-conservative-group/



:facepalm

Calif pageant eyes Prejean for contract violations

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MISS_CALIFORNIA?SITE=SCCHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Marx]

A friend of mine from Jamaica told me they still lynch gays where he's from. He's got no problem with homosexuality (he and I both worked in a department full of gay dudes), but some of the **** he told me about that goes on in Jamaica is freakin' sickening. :wow:

I'd say it's heavily between the church influence that is deeply rooted in the black community, as well as that "ghetto/gangster" ****... That phrase, "no homo" makes me want to slap the people who say it. A dude said it to my gay co-worker the other day, and I'm surprised there wasn't an ass-kicking right there on the spot.

Calif pageant eyes Prejean for contract violations

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MISS_CALIFORNIA?SITE=SCCHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if she was stripped of her crown. (No pun intended.)

[dnno1]

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if she was stripped of her crown. (No pun intended.)

I wouldn't be surprised if there were people selling the pictures on the Internet. That would be the dagger in the back.

[Ion Kenshin]

A friend of mine from Jamaica told me they still lynch gays where he's from. He's got no problem with homosexuality (he and I both worked in a department full of gay dudes), but some of the **** he told me about that goes on in Jamaica is freakin' sickening. :wow:
That is why I will never visit Jamaica. They kill gays there and no one bats an eye. Also have you seen in the hip hop community even there being gay is frowned upon. Have you ever seen a gay hip hop artist ever?? I swear I have said this before ...I guarantee if you got Diddy to come out in support of gay marriage...half if not more of the black community would be all over. We need some members of the black community that are in the spotlight to speak up for it and I don't see alot of that happening very soon. Props to Wanda Sykes for speaking out for gay rights

[Marx]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were people selling the pictures on the Internet. That would be the dagger in the back.

I'm sure there probably are...

[Mister Sinister]

Calif pageant eyes Prejean for contract violations

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MISS_CALIFORNIA?SITE=SCCHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I'm more pissed off by the fake-breasts thing, I think it's wrong for her to attempt to redefine traditional boobs.

[BlackestNight]

I'm more pissed off by the fake-breasts thing, I think it's wrong for her to attempt to redefine traditional boobs.

Damnit man!!! If you going to refer to them, you have to use the politically correct term! They're called frontal floatation devices.

[StorminNorman]

Is there a way for us just to remove Perez Hilton and Miss California from the world?

I mean, I don't necessarily have anything against Miss California (even though I disagree with her on an issue), but it would be a worthwhile trade.

[CaptainClown]

I think Perez Hilton made something big our of nothing and in the long run didn't help the cause, but just point out the differences in both points of view.

[Marx]

Is there a way for us just to remove Perez Hilton and Miss California from the world?

I mean, I don't necessarily have anything against Miss California (even though I disagree with her on an issue), but it would be a worthwhile trade.

I would be afraid to see what their replacements would be...

For the record, I do not think that Miss California's opposition to gay marriage is the real issue, but her holier-than-thou attitude about it all is. (The fact that she sounded like Malibu Barbie didn't help either.)

[dnno1]

Shades of Anita Bryant.

[wiegeabo]

Good news, but didn't you already post that?

[Marx]

Good news, but didn't you already post that?

I did...but now it is going to the Governor.

[wiegeabo]

Oh. That's what I thought the other post said too.

[Marx]

Oh. That's what I thought the other post said too.

Yeah...I realized after I posted it that it was pretty much the same thing as the other. You commented on it, before I could delete it. :cmad:

:oldrazz:

[SuperT]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html?hpid=topnews

Out of curiousity, why is the black community so opposed to gay marriage? I've heard this before...as a group who has been oppressed you'd think they'd support it. Why do they oppose it so much?

A lot of people have already posted it, but me being African-American myself, our community is deeply rooted in religion. It's a big thing that helped get our culture through slavery and segregation.

My family is religious, I have no problem with gay marriage at all and think it should be legalized, but unfortunately my family doesn't agree with me.

I agree with the poster that said earlier it's also a big negative in the strong, black man persona that we carry as well. Being gay to them means that it makes you less of a man, or essentially, a woman. I know that's how my younger brother and his crew of friends think. I think they also work under the assumption that every gay man they come in contact with is will do nothing but try and get in their pants or hit on them.