Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Kelly]

Sorry, but the courts-- which are comprised of people who actually know a thing or two about laws and civil rights-- should be the ones in control of granting rights to individuals. Simple laymen who detest homosexuality because they feel it is icky shouldn't have the opportunity to grant or take away rights.


An Oligarchy of intellectuals?

[spideyboy_1111]

Good News for Binational Same-Sex Couples
by 247gay.com on 3/20 at 4:57 pm.
Viewed 360 times.



Earlier this week, The Washington Post came out in support of the Uniting American Families Act, a piece of legislation that would “right a gross unfairness” in the Post’s eyes by “[allowing] gay and lesbian Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the United States.”

The bill was introduced in both the House and Senate last month and aims to create a new status called “permanent partner” that would follow the term “spouse” and hold equal weight for immigration purposes. A “permanent partnership” consists of “a committed, intimate relationship” with another adult “in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment.” Immigration benefits would then be applied in the same way to homosexual relationships as they would to heterosexual relationships, with the same restrictions and enforcement standards. The penalties for fraudulent permanent partnerships would be the same as for fraudulent marriages, up to a $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison.

Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Senator who introduced the bill in the Senate, noted that there are nearly 35,000 binational same-sex couples living in America. Immigration law has always held as important the idea of keeping families together, and if this bill passes, the value of family would be extended to gays and lesbians. As Leahy said, “The promotion of family unity has long been part of federal immigration policy, and we should honor that principle by providing all Americans the opportunity to be with their loved ones.”

Head to towleroad.com for an interview with Jerrold Nadler, the New York Representative who introduced the bill in the House, and who has been considered a champion of the LGBT community during his time in office.

very awesome news :up:

[spideyboy_1111]

Good News for Binational Same-Sex Couples
by 247gay.com on 3/20 at 4:57 pm.
Viewed 360 times.



Earlier this week, The Washington Post came out in support of the Uniting American Families Act, a piece of legislation that would “right a gross unfairness” in the Post’s eyes by “[allowing] gay and lesbian Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the United States.”

The bill was introduced in both the House and Senate last month and aims to create a new status called “permanent partner” that would follow the term “spouse” and hold equal weight for immigration purposes. A “permanent partnership” consists of “a committed, intimate relationship” with another adult “in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment.” Immigration benefits would then be applied in the same way to homosexual relationships as they would to heterosexual relationships, with the same restrictions and enforcement standards. The penalties for fraudulent permanent partnerships would be the same as for fraudulent marriages, up to a $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison.

Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Senator who introduced the bill in the Senate, noted that there are nearly 35,000 binational same-sex couples living in America. Immigration law has always held as important the idea of keeping families together, and if this bill passes, the value of family would be extended to gays and lesbians. As Leahy said, “The promotion of family unity has long been part of federal immigration policy, and we should honor that principle by providing all Americans the opportunity to be with their loved ones.”

Head to towleroad.com for an interview with Jerrold Nadler, the New York Representative who introduced the bill in the House, and who has been considered a champion of the LGBT community during his time in office.

very awesome news :up:

[hippie_hunter]

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

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

[hippie_hunter]

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

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

[hippie_hunter]

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

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

[hippie_hunter]

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

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

[Kelly]

I agree with that both times you posted it....

[Kelly]

I agree with that both times you posted it....

[Kelly]

I agree with that both times you posted it....

[Kelly]

I agree with that both times you posted it....

[hippie_hunter]

Oops :(

[hippie_hunter]

Oops :(

[Bonovox]

I am glad to see the Vermont senate passed this gay marriage bill. I am even more proud to see this domino effect in the northeast. Hopefully New Hampshire will be next :)

I have read New York and New Jersey will probably make gay marriage legal soon, but I think both those states' governors have more to worry about right now, such as falling approval ratings.

[Bonovox]

I am glad to see the Vermont senate passed this gay marriage bill. I am even more proud to see this domino effect in the northeast. Hopefully New Hampshire will be next :)

I have read New York and New Jersey will probably make gay marriage legal soon, but I think both those states' governors have more to worry about right now, such as falling approval ratings.

[wiegeabo]

**** you Prop 8!

What are the conservatives going to say when California's gay population starts moving to and living in the northeast where they can marry, and take all their money with them.

[wiegeabo]

**** you Prop 8!

What are the conservatives going to say when California's gay population starts moving to and living in the northeast where they can marry, and take all their money with them.

[Ion Kenshin]

It was stated on the news today that Schumacher is supporting gay rights/marriage

[Ion Kenshin]

It was stated on the news today that Schumacher is supporting gay rights/marriage

[hippie_hunter]

**** you Prop 8!

What are the conservatives going to say when California's gay population starts moving to and living in the northeast where they can marry, and take all their money with them.

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but I think California is more concerned over the fact that the rich are making less money right now than the money that homosexuals bring to the table.

[hippie_hunter]

**** you Prop 8!

What are the conservatives going to say when California's gay population starts moving to and living in the northeast where they can marry, and take all their money with them.

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but I think California is more concerned over the fact that the rich are making less money right now than the money that homosexuals bring to the table.

[wiegeabo]

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

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

[wiegeabo]

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

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

[Ocramed]

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

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

Brave new world indeed.

O.

[Ocramed]

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

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

Brave new world indeed.

O.

[hippie_hunter]

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

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

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

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

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

[hippie_hunter]

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

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

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

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

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

[wiegeabo]

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

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

[wiegeabo]

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

qD97D6OEV80

[moraldeficiency]

Iowa supreme court makes gay marriage legal.

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

good, one more step towards equality in the US.

[StorminNorman]

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

[moraldeficiency]

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

[StorminNorman]

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

[wiegeabo]

Any step forward is a victory.

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

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

[Ion Kenshin]

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

[moraldeficiency]

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

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

[StorminNorman]

Any step forward is a victory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[moraldeficiency]

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

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

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

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

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

[StorminNorman]

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

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

Many slaves went back and worked for their former masters.

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

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

It takes an outraged one, not a brave one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

[wiegeabo]

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


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

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

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

[moraldeficiency]

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

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

Many slaves went back and worked for their former masters.

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

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

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

It takes an outraged one, not a brave one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time will tell, amigo.

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

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

[StorminNorman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very good points.

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

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

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

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

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

Time will tell, amigo.

Of course, I really hope I am wrong.

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

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

[StorminNorman]

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

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

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

[StorminNorman]

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

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

[moraldeficiency]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very good points.

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

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

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

It wasn't simple in the slightest.

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, I really hope I am wrong.

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

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

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

[Lighthouse]

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

[StorminNorman]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

It wasn't simple in the slightest.

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

Ehh...still not sure I buy it.

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

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

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

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

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

Very true.

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

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

Let's hope this is right.

[Lighthouse]

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

[Schlosser85]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[Lighthouse]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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



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



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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

[wiegeabo]

Speaking about the comment that this is a state issue:

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

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

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

[Lighthouse]

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

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

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

[Logan's Runt]

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


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

:woot: Hell yes!

[StorminNorman]

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

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

[Majic Walrus]

Yays for Gays!

[Carcharodon]

IOWA??????

:up: :up: :up:

[Logan's Runt]

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

[BatMatt]

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

[E-Man]

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

[Kurosawa]

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

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

[xisaacx]

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

[Drakon]

Step in the right direction!

[Lightning Strykez!]

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

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

[Go Web Go!]

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

[Drakon]

That'll be a fun Thanksgiving.

[Logan's Runt]

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

[Drakon]

I, for one, welcome our new gay rulers.


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

[Manic]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

maybe they'll redecorate...Im sure Iowa could use it

[terry78]

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

[Gilpesh]

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

[Majic Walrus]

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

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

[Nivek]

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

[Logan's Runt]

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

:heart::heart:

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

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

[Lunar_Wolf]

My friend will be happy with this news.

[BlackLantern]

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

[Logan's Runt]

I read 'spanking voice'.

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[terry78]

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

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

[Drakon]

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

Win.

[StorminNorman]

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

[Nirvana]

Very good for them. :up:

[Kelly]

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

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


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

[Marx]

Happy 1,000 xisaacx! :yay:

[JewishHobbit]

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

[Marx]

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

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

[RachelDawes]

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

I think this is why the federal government is going to have to get involved with legalizing gay marriage at some point.

[Marx]

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

The marriage is only legal in the state that it was conducted in.

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[StorminNorman]

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

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[The Guard]

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

Veiled SIMPSONS reference? Sugar caves?

[terry78]

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

[StorminNorman]

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

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

That's what actual progress is.

[Logan's Runt]

Veiled SIMPSONS reference? Sugar caves?

Simpsons reference of course!

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

Small victories are still victories.

[spideyboy_1111]

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

That's what actual progress is.

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

[Kelly]

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


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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

[Kelly]

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

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

[StorminNorman]

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

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

[KevanG]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Becoming activists

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

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

Peterson, 20, of Greeley;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No change expected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Story at denverpost.com

really beautiful news :)

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[StorminNorman]

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

Brilliant.

[Marx]

Welcome to the boards Blitzkrieg Bop! :yay:

[wiegeabo]

and i found this bloody hilariously brilliant! :up:

****ing genius! :word:

[Schlosser85]

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

[RachelDawes]

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

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

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

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

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

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