Prop 8 and the Sundane Film Fest.

[strandinthewind]

I tend to agree with this - the Mormons called the tune (which I readily agree it was their right to do) - but, it's time to pay the fiddler. Let's see if they stand by their actions now. Something tells me, we will see some begging from their camp.
________________________________________________________

“Proposition 8 eliminates the right of African-American couples to marry."

"Only marriage between non-Jews is valid or recognized in California."

Would THOSE statements have ever made it to the ballot?

In our most recent election, millions of voters elected an African-American President, once again affirming that prejudice, bigotry and discrimination truly have no place in an enlightened and evolved society…..yet gays and lesbians continue to be victimized and stigmatized.

Continuing to predictably prove that hypocrisy and hate go hand in hand, while the borders of religious bigotry burst at the seams; “Yes on 8”s virulently homophobic campaign director announced that he had a lesbian sister….all the while leading a group that talked non-stop about the importance of “protecting the family.”

Do you have gay or lesbian friends, family members, co-workers or neighbors? Do you support gays and lesbians in their battle of full equality and civil right?

In a sick and twisted irony, the Mormon Church, an organization that faced horrible persecution for generations, caught a bad case of amnesia and now promotes and encourages the exact same campaign of hate and intolerance that their ancestors suffered through. (More revolting irony - one of the main reasons Mormons were persecuted so intensely was because of their beliefs about marriage). The Utah-based Mormon Church was the single largest economic engine behind the passage of California’s Proposition 8 – the ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage. At the urging of octogenarian church President Thomas Monson, Mormons contributed millions and million of dollars to fund the deceitful and disgusting advertising campaign that resulted in a small majority of Californians supporting Proposition 8. The New York Times estimated church members’ contributions to “Yes on 8” at $20 million. The rabidly homophobic Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council proudly claimed on his website that Mormon Church members eventually gave $22 million in support of Proposition 8. There are many, many reasons why it is unconscionable that the Utah-based Mormon church, (which enjoys a tax-exempt status as a religious organization), so intensely lobbied their followers to contribute money in support of Proposition 8, including the fact that it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE OF UTAH, and MORMONS MAKE UP LESS THAN 2% OF CALIFORNIA’S POPULATION OF 38 MILLION.

A cruel dichotomy is that the film industry, a business with countless hardworking gays and lesbians since its inception, and a huge supporter of gay rights, holds one of it’s biggest annual events, The Sundance Film Festival, every January in Utah - the “ground zero” of hate and homophobia in our society, and the home of a church that continues to debase the lives of gays and lesbians. Utah is the most religiously homogeneous state in the country, with approximately 58 - 62 percent of its inhabitants claiming membership in the Mormon Church and filling its coffers. The church wields enormous influence over its followers. While not everyone in Utah is Mormon, and there are countless fair-minded Mormons who disagree with the hateful and homophobic philosophy and policies of the LDS Church, the UNDENIABLE fact is that…MONEY SPENT IN UTAH IS INEVITABLY FUNNELED INTO COLLECTION PLATES OF THE MORMON CHURCH; WHICH IN TURN SPONSORS ACTIVITIES THAT ATTEMPT TO DENIGRATE THE LIVES OF GAYS AND LESBIANS, AND DENY THEM BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

Would the Mormon Church bring thousands of their followers to a convention in San Francisco?

IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE FILM COMMUNITY TO STOP FUNDING HATE AND BIGOTRY, AND MOVE THE SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL TO A STATE OTHER THAN UTAH!

http://www.movesundance.com/

[ajmccarrell]

You see, prop 8 is democracy. Obviously the people of CA wanted to end gay marriage. What you are proposing is a dictatorship by three people in black robes. This is the way it is supposed to work, whether you agree with the outcome or not. Dictatorship is when someone in authority shoves something down the throats of the people against their will. Obviously, prop 8 was the will of the people. It was democratically passed. If the people passed a law saying only black marriages are recognized, so be it. You and I have always agreed that government should have no place in marriage. This time the people, not the government spoke, whether either one of us likes it or not. Disagreeing with gay marriage is not hate or prejudice. It is a difference of opinion. There is a difference between the two. Not everyone who disagrees with your version of morality is full of hate or ignorance. Try listening to someone instead of what I usually see you do, which is decide based on some cartoon version of what the other side thinks. Knowledge is freeing, willful ignorance is annoying. Practice tolerance, I tolerare liberals, you can tolerate conservatives. Oh yeah, I forgot, conservatives are not people, so we don't deserve tolerance and liberals are superior. What am I thinking?! :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

The hedging begins:

Following last week's inane passage of California's Proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to ban gay weddings (including George Takei's!), opponents are calling for a boycott of Utah tourism to punish the Mormon Church for its support of the initiative. Obviously we understand why they're upset, because we are too. But now, caught in the crossfire, for some crazy reason, is the upcoming Sundance Film Festival: "It's high time Sundance found a better state to party in than the seat of the Mormon Church," writes America Blog's John Aravosis. "Sundance is THE gathering of liberal Hollywood. The last place it should be is in Utah. Robert Redford, are you out there?"

Problem is, since next year's fest opens on January 15, it's way too late for a change of venue. And, as Dave Poland points out, it's not totally clear that any of Sundance's participating hotels or businesses actually donated to the Prop 8 campaign. Plus, it's not like Park City (where Sundance is based) is as conservative as its surrounding areas, and we can't really see much point in punishing the city just because it happens to be located in Utah. Poland urges Aravosis to draft a list of boycottable Park City business that did give money to Prop 8, and that seems like a reasonable solution here, since any protest that threatens the actual film festival would be sort of idiotic. Like a spokesman for the fest said yesterday, "Sundance Institute was founded on the idea of championing diversity and freedom of expression. It would be a grave disappointment to us if our Festival were to be singled out for a boycott, especially as we celebrate 25 years of showcasing independent voices."

http://www.nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/11/proposition_8_protesters_targe.html

Here's a link to the Utah based supporters

http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/why-is-sundance-film-festival-taking.html

Here's a link to the acts of the Mormon Church:

http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

In the end, anyone that supports a mob rules mentality is an idiot because that mob could turn on them in a heartbeat.

[strandinthewind]

Also, it will be interesting to hear the conservative's view on this call to boycott. Remember, they are the ones who screamed to boycott the Dixie Chicks (most notably) and others who voiced oppostion to the Iraq War (actually, all the DC did was say they were embarrased the Pres. of the US was from Texas, which has nothing to do with the war) -- and the conservatives said it was their right to boycott, etc. Let's see how they like it now that the tables are turned.

What was that again about the mob turning :cool:

[ajmccarrell]

Also, it will be interesting to hear the conservative's view on this call to boycott. Remember, they are the ones who screamed to boycott the Dixie Chicks (most notably) and others who voiced oppostion to the Iraq War (actually, all the DC did was say they were embarrased the Pres. of the US was from Texas, which has nothing to do with the war) -- and the conservatives said it was their right to boycott, etc. Let's see how they like it now that the tables are turned.

What was that again about the mob turning :cool:


I think most thinking people avoid boycotts and mass demonstrations. I dislike mob protests, although you'd have to admit, liberals kinda hold the corner on that one. The difference between the conservative Dixie Chicks protests is that no one was hurt. Look at the protests outside the convention where bleach was thrown on an old man and displays were set on fire. LOL!

Then again, I think sports fans have both political parties beat on mobs and riots. Sheesh! :thumbsup:

[ajmccarrell]

The hedging begins:

Following last week's inane passage of California's Proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to ban gay weddings (including George Takei's!), opponents are calling for a boycott of Utah tourism to punish the Mormon Church for its support of the initiative. Obviously we understand why they're upset, because we are too. But now, caught in the crossfire, for some crazy reason, is the upcoming Sundance Film Festival: "It's high time Sundance found a better state to party in than the seat of the Mormon Church," writes America Blog's John Aravosis. "Sundance is THE gathering of liberal Hollywood. The last place it should be is in Utah. Robert Redford, are you out there?"

Problem is, since next year's fest opens on January 15, it's way too late for a change of venue. And, as Dave Poland points out, it's not totally clear that any of Sundance's participating hotels or businesses actually donated to the Prop 8 campaign. Plus, it's not like Park City (where Sundance is based) is as conservative as its surrounding areas, and we can't really see much point in punishing the city just because it happens to be located in Utah. Poland urges Aravosis to draft a list of boycottable Park City business that did give money to Prop 8, and that seems like a reasonable solution here, since any protest that threatens the actual film festival would be sort of idiotic. Like a spokesman for the fest said yesterday, "Sundance Institute was founded on the idea of championing diversity and freedom of expression. It would be a grave disappointment to us if our Festival were to be singled out for a boycott, especially as we celebrate 25 years of showcasing independent voices."

http://www.nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/11/proposition_8_protesters_targe.html

Here's a link to the Utah based supporters

http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/why-is-sundance-film-festival-taking.html

Here's a link to the acts of the Mormon Church:

http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

In the end, anyone that supports a mob rules mentality is an idiot because that mob could turn on them in a heartbeat.

People are free to protest! As stupid as I think protests are, people are free to do it. I protested John Kerry once, only because his entourage stole my parking spot during a rally. I had to park about a mile away and take a bus to work, so that pissed me off. :) I think protesting only makes the side doing it look bad. I mean, here near Fort Lewis, we had democratic protesters laying down in front of train tracks of trains delivering food and supplies to troops overseas. They were holding signs saying that they support the troops, ironically. Basically, everyone wants a better America. It's the people's right to look like idiots if they choose to.

[GoS]

People are free to protest!.

As long as what they say is right.

[Johnny Stew]

You see, prop 8 is democracy. Obviously the people of CA wanted to end gay marriage. What you are proposing is a dictatorship by three people in black robes. This is the way it is supposed to work, whether you agree with the outcome or not. Dictatorship is when someone in authority shoves something down the throats of the people against their will. Obviously, prop 8 was the will of the people. It was democratically passed. If the people passed a law saying only black marriages are recognized, so be it.
I'd like to quote Thomas Jefferson, if I may....

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that, though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

Disagreeing with gay marriage is not hate or prejudice. It is a difference of opinion. There is a difference between the two. Not everyone who disagrees with your version of morality is full of hate or ignorance.
If one is not prejudiced against someone, why would they ever be against that person having equal rights and equal protection under the law?

Practice tolerance, I tolerare liberals, you can tolerate conservatives. Oh yeah, I forgot, conservatives are not people, so we don't deserve tolerance and liberals are superior. What am I thinking?! :shrug:
I tolerate a lot of things, but I won't tolerate anyone who considers me to be a second-class citizen or worse.

[ajmccarrell]

I'd like to quote Thomas Jefferson, if I may....

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that, though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."


If one is not prejudiced against someone, why would they ever be against that person having equal rights and equal protection under the law?


I tolerate a lot of things, but I won't tolerate anyone who considers me to be a second-class citizen or worse.

Well, sounds like if you live in CA, you should move. I, personally, don't care if you want to marry three pygmies, a donkey and a porkchop, it's none of the state's business as far as I'm concerned. But, the people spoke. I don't want to live under Obama either, but I have to respect the will of the people. Seems the conservatives are showing a little more dignity here.

Also, you do have the same protections as me. I can't marry a guy either. :laugh:

I also think you yourself are making a bunch of bigoted statements. Just because people don't consider two guys or two women a legitimate marriage doesn't mean they think of you as second class. Marriage was always a religious institution until about 150 years ago. It seems to me to be more about forcing acceptance than about rights, otherwise civil unions are okay. Forcing acceptance is just as bigoted as the non-acceptance. People can have opinions and make them law. I don't agree with ANY of the initiatives that passed in Washington, but there they are.

[JohnL]

Well, sounds like if you live in CA, you should move. I, personally, don't care if you want to marry three pygmies, a donkey and a porkchop, it's none of the state's business as far as I'm concerned. But, the people spoke. I don't want to live under Obama either, but I have to respect the will of the people. Seems the conservatives are showing a little more dignity here.

Also, you do have the same protections as me. I can't marry a guy either. :laugh:

I also think you yourself are making a bunch of bigoted statements. Just because people don't consider two guys or two women a legitimate marriage doesn't mean they think of you as second class. Marriage was always a religious institution until about 150 years ago. It seems to me to be more about forcing acceptance than about rights, otherwise civil unions are okay. Forcing acceptance is just as bigoted as the non-acceptance. People can have opinions and make them law. I don't agree with ANY of the initiatives that passed in Washington, but there they are.

I usually try to stay out of these type of posts but I cant on this one. I am so sick and tired of this idiotic argument that homophobes put up all the time. You cant marry a guy either...well, good for you. However, you can marry the person that you love. It is in that simple statement that the bigotry and inequality step right up front. Who are any of us to say who we can marry and who we cant. I truly believe that, in the end, God will ensure that those who continue to persecute others are shown their "just reward".

[Johnny Stew]

But, the people spoke.
The "people" were also against the abolishment of slavery, ending segregation, and allowing black people to vote -- that doesn't make any of those things right or acceptable.

Seems the conservatives are showing a little more dignity here.
Thanks for my first laugh of the day!

Also, you do have the same protections as me. I can't marry a guy either. :laugh:
Well, there you go, AJ -- once gay marriage is allowed, we'll fix you up with a nice Log Cabin Republican named Brice.

[ajmccarrell]

I usually try to stay out of these type of posts but I cant on this one. I am so sick and tired of this idiotic argument that homophobes put up all the time. You cant marry a guy either...well, good for you. However, you can marry the person that you love. It is in that simple statement that the bigotry and inequality step right up front. Who are any of us to say who we can marry and who we cant. I truly believe that, in the end, God will ensure that those who continue to persecute others are shown their "just reward".


I'm sick and tired of the idiotic namecalling of anyone who isn't passionately for gay marriage a homophone. As I said, I'm fairly neutral on the subject, but I'm pro-democracy and I support the will of the people and think it trumps the will of judges. I could say, "You're a convervaphobe. You hate conservatives." but that's just as dumb as the accusations and namecalling you resorted to. You can't win something in the legislature, so you resort to namecalling. Cute.

[ajmccarrell]

The "people" were also against the abolishment of slavery, ending segregation, and allowing black people to vote -- that doesn't make any of those things right or acceptable.


Thanks for my first laugh of the day!


Well, there you go, AJ -- once gay marriage is allowed, we'll fix you up with a nice Log Cabin Republican named Brice.

Cool. What's his number? :)

None of what you said above was true. We did abolish slavery and were the second nation to do so, we were one of the first to allow women voting and we just elected a black president. You just insulted the country by calling it bigoted. Why not be for civil unions? It seems you just want to force acceptance through dictatorship. After 8 years of having my party called fascists, it's hysterical to watch your side go down in flames with a vote of the people and have all of you cry out to the courts to force laws on the people. That IS fascism. LOL! Like I said, I'm neither for or against gay marriage. I don't see why ANY relationship needs government sanction. But then again, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, because I'm a registered republican, that allows you to be bigoted and project all sorts of opinions and hatred on me. You are just being intolerant because you cannot tolerate anyone having a different opinion. I don't want to courts sanctioning any relationship.

[GoS]

I think that this is a stupid argument. I think that this is one of those things that, like abortion, isn't the governments business. The people can choose what they want, what they think is right and live their lives accordingly. The state is not saying that as of now you have to become gay, or even accept them, but that they can get married. Because otherwise, no matter how you defend it, rights are denied, and thus discrimination has occurred. It is if you do not approve of gays being able to marry, than you don't have to endorse it.

[GoS]

Cool. What's his number? :)

None of what you said above was true. We did abolish slavery and were the second nation to do so, we were one of the first to allow women voting and we just elected a black president. You just insulted the country by calling it bigoted. Why not be for civil unions? It seems you just want to force acceptance through dictatorship. After 8 years of having my party called fascists, it's hysterical to watch your side go down in flames with a vote of the people and have all of you cry out to the courts to force laws on the people. That IS fascism. LOL! Like I said, I'm neither for or against gay marriage. I don't see why ANY relationship needs government sanction. But then again, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, because I'm a registered republican, that allows you to be bigoted and project all sorts of opinions and hatred on me. You are just being intolerant because you cannot tolerate anyone having a different opinion. I don't want to courts sanctioning any relationship.

How long did it take? How many other countries have had homogeneous presidents for this long? And if you haven't noticed, it kinda is. Race is an issue for many people.

Wake up and smell the ashes, AJ, we are hardy the ones burning! The majority of seats this year that were up for re-election were red, and yet the D's increased their majority handily. Yours is the party with no head, unifying figure and unpopular positions (and many of the wrong answers) that got it's butt whipped in 3 out of 3 categories. This is hysterical to hear you say that we are the ones burning. Just remember, admission is the first step to recovery.

[ajmccarrell]

I think that this is a stupid argument. I think that this is one of those things that, like abortion, isn't the governments business. The people can choose what they want, what they think is right and live their lives accordingly. The state is not saying that as of now you have to become gay, or even accept them, but that they can get married. Because otherwise, no matter how you defend it, rights are denied, and thus discrimination has occurred. It is if you do not approve of gays being able to marry, than you don't have to endorse it.


This is why I identify as a Federalist. I think abortion and gay marriage are state issues, not federal issues. I think CA did it right; they weighed the issue and decided for themselves what they wanted without government doing it for them. If NV does the same thing and passes gay marriage, they also did the right thing. It's democracy in action! :)

[ajmccarrell]

How long did it take? How many other countries have had homogeneous presidents for this long? And if you haven't noticed, it kinda is. Race is an issue for many people.

Wake up and smell the ashes, AJ, we are hardy the ones burning! The majority of seats this year that were up for re-election were red, and yet the D's increased their majority handily. Yours is the party with no head, unifying figure and unpopular positions (and many of the wrong answers) that got it's butt whipped in 3 out of 3 categories. This is hysterical to hear you say that we are the ones burning. Just remember, admission is the first step to recovery.

Whereever conservatism was on the ballot, it did not lose. The fact of the matter is that I am not running and crying to the courts because my side lost and am asking for judges to fix it for me. The people spoke and I respect it. Apparently, your side doesn't respect democratic voting. That's my point. I'm not whining about the results. You're right, the Republican party had no head this election and Obama was effective. However, I'm not asking the state supreme courts to undo the results and force it's will on the people. I respect democracy, I can't say the same for those who opposed prop 8.

[strandinthewind]

What the lying conservatives out there do not say is that with marriage comes rights that people cannot obtain without marriage. The govt. is giving rights to people based on a religious idea, which is against the US Const. and the states' constitutions. Thus, until you take marriage out of the law, which will never happen, then you must extend the same chance for the same rights to everyone.

Moreover, the lying conservatives play a shell game with statements like "civil unions" are the better way to go. In reality, every state const. amendment I can think of on this issue prohibited not only gay "marriage" but also gay civil unions. So, they are for prohibiting civil unions as well.

For example, the recently passed Fla. Amendment states:

Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Finally, the haters just can't stand not having the governments fully support their, and only their, religion. Pathetic if you ask me.

Interestingly, if they would just change the word marriage in all the laws to civil unions, would this shut up the lying conservatives. I suggest it would not.

[Johnny Stew]

None of what you said above was true. We did abolish slavery and were the second nation to do so, we were one of the first to allow women voting and we just elected a black president. You just insulted the country by calling it bigoted.
Are you serious with this?

To the best of your knowledge, slavery was abolished, blacks were allowed to vote, and schools were de-segregated without protestation from people in this country? Everything went smoothly with that and the government didn't have to step in at all?


Why not be for civil unions?
Unlike marriage, civil unions are not recognized equally in every state. A civil union in one state can be completely void in another.

Additionally, there is a total of approximately 1,400 state & federal benefits for married couples as opposed to "unionized" couples.

Simply put, civil unions are not equal to marriage.



But then again, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, because I'm a registered republican, that allows you to be bigoted and project all sorts of opinions and hatred on me. You are just being intolerant because you cannot tolerate anyone having a different opinion. I don't want to courts sanctioning any relationship.
You're making some huge assumptions about me. I have friends and family members who are Republican and I'm very open to hearing opinions that differ from my own. However, bigotry is inexcusable in my eyes. And I have not yet heard one single valid reason to oppose gay marriage, that wasn't rooted in bigotry.

[GoS]

Hey AJ, can I give you a piece of advice? Don't argue with a moderator. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

To the best of your knowledge, slavery was abolished, blacks were allowed to vote, and schools were de-segregated without protestation? Everything went smoothly with that and the government didn't have to step in at all?

Not to mention that without the influence of the Supreme Court, which held the laws UnConstitutional in the first place, the 1964 Civil Rights Acts likely would not have happened.

Moreover, Loving v. Virginia was the Supreme Court, not the legislature or Congress, declaring, over vociferous religious objection and the vast majority of the popular opinoon, that it was okay for blacks and whites to marry. Alabama got around to taking that void law off of its books in like 2000, just in case the Court changed its mind.

This is why I think black people who voted against Prop. 8 should be teleported to prior to 1964 so they can see what it is like to sit in the back of the bus, drink from a sep. water fountain, go to a "sep. but equal" schools, etc. -- all based on the very religion they used to justify now voting for Prop. 8 :mad:

Again, the lang. in Loving:

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Sounds familiar doesn't it.



Unlike marriage, civil unions are not recognized equally in every state. A civil union in one state can be completely void in another.

Additionally, there is a total of approximately 1,400 state & federal benefits for married couples as opposed to "unionized" couples.

Simply put, civil unions are not equal to marriage.

And, of the Federal government would pass a law that said that civil unions have all the rights and benefits as traditional marriage, I'd be as happy as a pig in shiitte because that way the haters get to keep their precious marriage that the vast majority of them laugh in the face of the religious aspect of everyday :shrug:

. . . that wasn't rooted in bigotry. [/QUOTE]

Which equals organized religion in this, and, frankly, most areas where rights are concerned. Sad, very true.

_________________________________

Back to the topic at hand -- I am all for in this instance refusing to shop or do business with a Morman establishment that supported the hate. I mean that "church" used so many lies to scare people into voting for Prop. 8 that I think they could be sued.

[ajmccarrell]

Not to mention that without the influence of the Supreme Court, which held the laws UnConstitutional in the first place, the 1964 Civil Rights Acts likely would not have happened.

Moreover, Loving v. Virginia was the Supreme Court, not the legislature or Congress, declaring, over vociferous religious objection and the vast majority of the popular opinoon, that it was okay for blacks and whites to marry. Alabama got around to taking that void law off of its books in like 2000, just in case the Court changed its mind.

This is why I think black people who voted against Prop. 8 should be teleported to prior to 1964 so they can see what it is like to sit in the back of the bus, drink from a sep. water fountain, go to a "sep. but equal" schools, etc. -- all based on the very religion they used to justify now voting for Prop. 8 :mad:

Again, the lang. in Loving:



Sounds familiar doesn't it.





And, of the Federal government would pass a law that said that civil unions have all the rights and benefits as traditional marriage, I'd be as happy as a pig in shiitte because that way the haters get to keep their precious marriage that the vast majority of them laugh in the face of the religious aspect of everyday :shrug:

. . . that wasn't rooted in bigotry.

Which equals organized religion in this, and, frankly, most areas where rights are concerned. Sad, very true.

_________________________________

Back to the topic at hand -- I am all for in this instance refusing to shop or do business with a Morman establishment that supported the hate. I mean that "church" used so many lies to scare people into voting for Prop. 8 that I think they could be sued.[/QUOTE]

Again, you lost in a fair and democratic election and your answer is to say it wasn't fair and run to the courts. This is getting funnier by the minute. Citing a bunch of history from five decades ago doesn't change it. Go file the lawsuit yourself and claim unfairness. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Hey AJ, can I give you a piece of advice? Don't argue with a moderator. :laugh:
I know you were teasing, but I'd like to take this opportunity to say something in the hopes of avoiding the misunderstandings and mistaken assumptions of the past from happening again....

I promise AJ, and everyone else, that any debate that I actively take part in as a fellow Ledgie, and any difference of opinions that may arise from those discussions, has no bearing on what I do as a moderator.

Now, with that self-indulgence out of the way, let's get back to our lighthearted discussion! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Now, with that self-indulgence out of the way, let's get back to our lighthearted discussion! :laugh:

I think you're a tw*t :angel::angel::angel:

Also, as you noted earlier, Thomas Jefferson stated:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that, though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

Many other statements from the Founding Fathers support this notion and can be found in the Federalist Papers (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/) and related documents - all of which show that freedom from religious tyranny is why this country was founded. So, the argument that the democratic process can be used to give rights to some but not others based solely on a relligious ideal is a Federalist notion is assinine and completely unsupported by the intent of the Founding Fathers as expressed in their own words.

Moreover, the 14th Amendment's language that:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

solidifies this notion. Remember, the majority wanted slaves and espoused religious reasons for keeping them as not even whole people under the original Constitution.

Yet, people lie and ignore these ideals based, yet again, solely on religious ideas. Again, I have yet to hear ONE non religious reasons for excluding gay people from getting the benefits automatically given straight people in their marriages.

[Johnny Stew]

I think you're a tw*t :angel::angel::angel:
I think that's the one thing I haven't been called yet! :laugh:

[ajmccarrell]

Are you serious with this?

To the best of your knowledge, slavery was abolished, blacks were allowed to vote, and schools were de-segregated without protestation from people in this country? Everything went smoothly with that and the government didn't have to step in at all?



Unlike marriage, civil unions are not recognized equally in every state. A civil union in one state can be completely void in another.

Additionally, there is a total of approximately 1,400 state & federal benefits for married couples as opposed to "unionized" couples.

Simply put, civil unions are not equal to marriage.



You're making some huge assumptions about me. I have friends and family members who are Republican and I'm very open to hearing opinions that differ from my own. However, bigotry is inexcusable in my eyes. And I have not yet heard one single valid reason to oppose gay marriage, that wasn't rooted in bigotry.

Of course there was resistance. You'd get resistance to the civil rights bill now. It speaks volumes that you have to reach back 50 years to come up with your argument.

Secondly, what you cited about 1400 benefits not being available to civil unionized couples is a flat out lie. I dare you to cite them all.

There are several arguments agains gay marriage that do not involve bigotry. There is the slippery slope argument of where does it stop: polygamy, sibling marriage, etc. Here's a second one, you can turn that argument on its head. Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my brother or sister? If it is just about conferring rights, there would be no reason to object to it. Seriously, if you are for gay marriage, then why can't you marry your siblings, your roommate, anyone at all that you don't have a romantic link with? Most gay marriage proponents would deny rights to these people. How about Larry and Balki, why shouldn't they marry? They are not romantically involved with one another, but obviously they have a stake in one anothers lives?

Perhaps if you listened more, you might hear more valid arguments. Most of what I've seen here is that people who are for gay marriage create red herrings by presenting arguments about "who" the other side is and making cartoons out of them, more than analyzing or listening to the arguments. Hell, even Obama doesn't support gay marriage. He said so at Saddleback.

[ajmccarrell]

I think you're a tw*t :angel::angel::angel:

Also, as you noted earlier, Thomas Jefferson stated:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that, though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

Many other statements from the Founding Fathers support this notion and can be found in the Federalist Papers (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/) and related documents - all of which show that freedom from religious tyranny is why this country was founded. So, the argument that the democratic process can be used to give rights to some but not others based solely on a relligious ideal is a Federalist notion is assinine and completely unsupported by the intent of the Founding Fathers as expressed in their own words.

Moreover, the 14th Amendment's language that:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

solidifies this notion. Remember, the majority wanted slaves and espoused religious reasons for keeping them as not even whole people under the original Constitution.

Yet, people lie and ignore these ideals based, yet again, solely on religious ideas. Again, I have yet to hear ONE non religious reasons for excluding gay people from getting the benefits automatically given straight people in their marriages.

I've posted them before. Here they are YET AGAIN. (sigh) Again, I don't care about the issue, but I don't like being called names because I affiliate with a certain party.

If you give marriage rights to gays, then there is no effective argument against marrying siblings, plural marriage, or anything else. What is the argument then against me marrying my brother? You see, you then become the bigot in that scenario, because you would resoundingly say I couldn't. Gay marriage is inherently bigoted because it excludes sibling marriage, incestuous marriage, sibling marriage, animal marriage, marrying the dead as they do in France, or anything else people want to do. People leave their pets their estates, so why can't they marry their pets? Why would you say that I can't marry my brother and give him the same rights as a spouse? You are being bigoted by excluding me from marriage. Why can't I marry two women, or two men, or a man and a woman? Can you present ANY argument, once gay marriage is in question, why any scenario for marriage shouldn't be allowed that is not a moral or religious one?
That is also the due process clause you cited. Marriage is not a right enumerated in the constitution, so the 14th amendment is irrelevant. Thomas Jefferson also argued against "spreading the wealth" and argued that we should periodically have armed revoltutions against the federal government, somehow you missed that one. "The tree of liberty must be, time to time, watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants." Maybe you should go to war against the people of California? LOL!

[BombaySapphire3]

I don't want to live under Obama either

Hey ! The Canadian border is just a hop a skip and a jump from your digs!:blob2::blob2::wavey:

[ajmccarrell]

Hey ! The Canadian border is just a hop a skip and a jump from your digs!:blob2::blob2::wavey:

The difference is that Canada is what the US will be under Obama. No thanks. Australia looks better. I do the Canadian accounting at work. Obama only WISHES he could raise taxes that high! LOL! Imagine living with San Diego prices on midwestern wages with free crappy health care. That's Canada.

Besides, I respect democracy and won't whine to the courts (like some people here) or threaten to run away ala alec Baldwin. Nope, I'm an American first and foremost and will ride out Obama's term.

[BombaySapphire3]

The difference is that Canada is what the US will be under Obama. No thanks. Australia looks better. I do the Canadian accounting at work. Obama only WISHES he could raise taxes that high! LOL! Imagine living with San Diego prices on midwestern wages with free crappy health care. That's Canada.

Besides, I respect democracy and won't whine to the courts (like some people here) or threaten to run away ala alec Baldwin. Nope, I'm an American first and foremost and will ride out Obama's term.

I grew up in San Diego. It seems that the wages there were midwestern even with the high cost of living...not sure if it is still the same but I know the real estate bubble bursted very badly in that town.As high as the cost of living is up here at least the wages match it better than SD.As far as the gay marriage thing I 'm personally not for marriage period.:laugh:but I think sooner or later it will happen .It's just a matter of time.

[strandinthewind]

. . . As far as the gay marriage thing I 'm personally not for marriage period.:laugh:but I think sooner or later it will happen .It's just a matter of time.

I know - I could care a less about marriage. It's the granting of one group rights solely on a religious ideal (there is no valid non religious reason when consenting adults are involved) to the exclusion of others that pisses me off as it clearly goes against the very being of the Constitution.

And, if course it will happen. New York is about to pass a law that grants marriage. California first voted it down by 61.4% to 38% - this time it was 52.47% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.53% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes. Moreover, the public was solidly against Prop 8 until the fukcing Mormons came in with their lies, scare tactics, and misleading ads that made people think they were actually voting for free speech :rolleyes:

Fukc them and all that supported these very Un Christian like lies and continue to do so. Jesus lead by example and certainly never lied to get to His goal, which was faith and salvation through love, not bigotry.

[ajmccarrell]

I know - I could care a less about marriage. It's the granting of one group rights solely on a religious ideal to the exclusion of others that pisses me off.

And, if course it will happen. New York is about to pass a law that grants marriage. California first voted it down by 61.4% to 38% - this time it was 52.47% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.53% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes. Moreover, the public was solidly against Prop 8 until the fukcing Mormons came in with their lies, scare tactics, and misleading ads that made people think they were actually voting for free speech :rolleyes:

Fukc them and all that supported these lies and continue to do so.

Oh, because the people of California are so incapable of rational thought that the mormons, all by themselves, held the hands of everyone and voted for them. The people were just mindless bots with no thought process on their own. Or was it a conspiracy?! Maybe the CFR, The Rothschilds, The Buildebergers, The Zionists, The NeoCons, or Al Queda were behind it, right? The Mormons have SUCH influence that they can influence the way people vote, but they can't drive those same people into their church. This is utterly ridiculous. Take a step back and look at that statement, whydontcha?!

[ajmccarrell]

I grew up in San Diego. It seems that the wages there were midwestern even with the high cost of living...not sure if it is still the same but I know the real estate bubble bursted very badly in that town.As high as the cost of living is up here at least the wages match it better than SD.As far as the gay marriage thing I 'm personally not for marriage period.:laugh:but I think sooner or later it will happen .It's just a matter of time.

I've never understood why it needs to be a government issue period. I just hate being called a bigot because I think there are non-religious reasons against gay marriage. Personally, I think gay marriage is too exclusory and also makes everything about sex. It seems to be a self-defeating argument, since it's usually the same group that wants the government out of the bedroom. :shrug: Why not declare marriage to be a private issue and restructure the laws? Seems to be a better compromise to me. Even easier would be allowing each state to dictate it's own laws.

[BombaySapphire3]

I've never understood why it needs to be a government issue period. I just hate being called a bigot because I think there are non-religious reasons against gay marriage. Personally, I think gay marriage is too exclusory and also makes everything about sex. It seems to be a self-defeating argument, since it's usually the same group that wants the government out of the bedroom. :shrug: Why not declare marriage to be a private issue and restructure the laws? Seems to be a better compromise to me. Even easier would be allowing each state to dictate it's own laws.

What I don't understand is that I would imagine that religious conservatives would be glad to at least see gays in a loving ,committed, monogamous relationship rather than running around doing silly drugs and engaging in very high risk ,promiscuous and anonymous sexual activity..that part of the equation does not make sense and leads me to believe their motives are rather nefarious in opposing gay marriage.

[ajmccarrell]

What I don't understand is that I would imagine that religious conservatives would be glad to at least see gays in a loving ,committed, monogamous relationship rather than running around doing silly drugs and engaging in very high risk ,promiscuous and anonymous sexual activity..that part of the equation does not make sense and leads me to believe their motives are rather nefarious in opposing gay marriage.

I do think that's a little ridiculous. Simply having the title "married" is not going to make people stop being promiscuous, as any married person who has cheated, or been cheated on can tell you. If you want to be committed, you are certainly able to. The social conservatives are not responsible for people being irresponsible and risky. I mean, who says to themselves, "Jerry Falwell says I can't be married, so I'm not going to commit to the person I love and I'm going to screw around. If Falwell says I can marry, I'll stop." I mean, that's a really bogus argument. If you talk to anyone who is a social conservative, they will tell you it's great that gays want to settle down, it just isn't the same thing as marriage. Why should the opinion of a bunch of social conservatives change the way you view your own relationship? Put your own initiative on the ballot and keep trying. You'll eventually be successful. You will never get the social conservatives to side with you. You need to be better about getting your message out.

Frankly, loud demonstrations generally turn public opinion against you. I cringe when I see abortion protesters marching. I'm pro-life, but I think boycotts and loud protests make them look like idiots. When you have people in drag marching the streets, people making out in public, and in general acting like idiots, it does more to damage your own cause than anything the Mormons could do against you. If instead you worked on the image factor, where you showed more gay families with kids or other family friendly pictures and asked the weirdo's to tone it down, you would probably succeed. Despite the moral issue, most people are uncomfortable with cross-dressers or anyone making out in public. Most voters would be uncomfortable with the goings on at Pride Parades or at Mardi Gras. People don't like sexuality out in public, they like discretion. If you were able to change the image of gays, you would be much better off. Instead, all we see are cartoon characters of gays as my gay assistant put it, "prancing around like f-cking fairies" in S & M outfits. He was fairly embarrassed by the gay community in San Francisco, which is why he moved here.

[strandinthewind]

. . . that part of the equation does not make sense and leads me to believe their motives are rather nefarious in opposing gay marriage.

It's all about the dollar - darlin'

If you want to fill your church, preach hate.

It is estimated that that the churches have made over a billion dollars in donations as a reult of this and related causes. The churches know all to well that if they are out of the govt., they lose the ability to control. Again, Christ never acted like that :shrug:

Well, there's that and the fact that the loudest and most hate filled seemingly are the ones who are simultaneously taking it up the a$$ in some motel or cheating on their wives with other women :rolleyes: Note - there are true Christians out there who are decent, truthful people. I am not talking about them. I am talking about the "send me money" preachers on t.v. and in politics. They sicken me to no end because they cheapen the Word of God for their own wicked ends.

I love Whoopi Goldberg's quote "If you are against gay marriage, don't marry another man" :laugh:

[BombaySapphire3]

It's all about the dollar - darlin'

If you want to fill your church, preach hate.

It is estimated that that the churches have made over a billion dollars in donations as a reult of this and related causes. The churches know all to well that if they are out of the govt., they lose the ability to control. Again, Christ never acted like that :shrug:

Well, there's that and the fact that the loudest and most hate filled are taking it up the a$$ in some motel or cheating on their wives with other women :rolleyes:

oh yeah there are plenty more Mark Foleys ,Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs were those hypocrites came from ..no doubt.

[ajmccarrell]

It's all about the dollar - darlin'

If you want to fill your church, preach hate.

It is estimated that that the churches have made over a billion dollars in donations as a reult of this and related causes. The churches know all to well that if they are out of the govt., they lose the ability to control. Again, Christ never acted like that :shrug:

Well, there's that and the fact that the loudest and most hate filled seemingly are the ones who are simultaneously taking it up the a$$ in some motel or cheating on their wives with other women :rolleyes: Note - there are true Christians out there who are decent, truthful people. I am not talking about them. I am talking about the "send me money" preachers on t.v. and in politics. They sicken me to no end because they cheapen the Word of God for their own wicked ends.

I love Whoopi Goldberg's quote "If you are against gay marriage, don't marry another man" :laugh:

I agree about TV preachers. I liked Savage Garden's quote, "I believe God does not endorse TV evangelsist". Unfortunately, your quote about preaching hate is not borne up by facts. Denominations such as the Unitarians and other have been going up. It's your opinion, but it isn't supported by any statistical data.

[BombaySapphire3]

I do think that's a little ridiculous. Simply having the title "married" is not going to make people stop being promiscuous, as any married person who has cheated, or been cheated on can tell you. If you want to be committed, you are certainly able to. The social conservatives are not responsible for people being irresponsible and risky. I mean, who says to themselves, "Jerry Falwell says I can't be married, so I'm not going to commit to the person I love and I'm going to screw around. If Falwell says I can marry, I'll stop." I mean, that's a really bogus argument. If you talk to anyone who is a social conservative, they will tell you it's great that gays want to settle down, it just isn't the same thing as marriage. Why should the opinion of a bunch of social conservatives change the way you view your own relationship? Put your own initiative on the ballot and keep trying. You'll eventually be successful. You will never get the social conservatives to side with you.

Just by vitrtue of their preaching of hate and intolerance and marginalizing gay people they are contributing to those behaviors .If society were more accepting it is pretty clear the substance abuse and low self esteem that contributes to those behaviors would decrease as well.

[strandinthewind]

oh yeah there are plenty more Mark Foleys ,Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs were those hypocrites came from ..no doubt.

And, if they are not closet cases, they are cheating on their wives with other chicks, molesting the children, and/or cooking the books to support their opulent lifestyle - all while taking God's name in vain.

Again, there are decent people of God and other religions out there. I am not talking about them.

[Johnny Stew]

Of course there was resistance. You'd get resistance to the civil rights bill now. It speaks volumes that you have to reach back 50 years to come up with your argument.
I'm citing historical facts that are relevant to modern times. You concede there was resistance, and I'm saying that there is also resistance to gay rights -- but that doesn't mean we should say, "oh well, if it makes people uncomfortable then we should just give up."

Secondly, what you cited about 1400 benefits not being available to civil unionized couples is a flat out lie. I dare you to cite them all.
On what information are you basing your accusation that it's a flat-out lie?

I don't have the entire list at my disposal, but I'll offer 25 of the benefits that are only available to married couples....


Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans


There are several arguments agains gay marriage that do not involve bigotry. There is the slippery slope argument of where does it stop: polygamy, sibling marriage, etc.

Perhaps if you listened more, you might hear more valid arguments. Most of what I've seen here is that people who are for gay marriage create red herrings by presenting arguments about "who" the other side is and making cartoons out of them, more than analyzing or listening to the arguments.
Speaking of red herrings! We say we want the right to marry, and all of a sudden people start worrying about incest and polygamy (ironic unto itself, since the Mormons, of all people, are so opposed to gay marriage).

And please don't talk about "making cartoons out of the other side," since you make some very grossly innacurate statements about liberals on a rather consistent basis.

But, hey, I have the solution to all of this -- don't allow anyone to marry, and then we're all equal.

[ajmccarrell]

oh yeah there are plenty more Mark Foleys ,Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs were those hypocrites came from ..no doubt.

LOL! Okay, how about Eliot Spitzer, Daniel Inouiye, Gus Savage, Barney Frank (the guy had an underage brothel being run out of his house), Brock Adams, Fred Richmond, John Young, Wayne Hays, Mel Reynolds (As Deroy Murdock, a columnist for Scripps Howard News Service, wrote back in 2002: "This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate, won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate. His new job? ... Youth counselor."), Tim Mahoney, Gerry Studds, Kwame Kilpatrick, and the list goes on! :laugh:

[ajmccarrell]

I'm citing historical facts that are relevant to modern times. You concede there was resistance, and I'm saying that there is also resistance to gay rights -- but that doesn't mean we should say, "oh well, if it makes people uncomfortable then we should just give up."


On what information are you basing your accusation that it's a flat-out lie?

I don't have the entire list at my disposal, but I'll offer 25 of the benefits that are only available to married couples....


Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans



Speaking of red herrings! We say we want the right to marry, and all of a sudden people start worrying about incest and polygamy (ironic unto itself, since the Mormons, of all people, are so opposed to gay marriage).

And please don't talk about "making cartoons out of the other side," since you make some very grossly innacurate statements about liberals on a rather consistent basis.

But, hey, I have the solution to all of this -- don't allow anyone to marry, and then we're all equal.

I agree that marriage should not be a government issue, but here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

The facts are not on your side that civil unions are not the same.

[strandinthewind]

Just by vitrtue of their preaching of hate and intolerance and marginalizing gay people they are contributing to those behaviors .If society were more accepting it is pretty clear the substance abuse and low self esteem that contributes to those behaviors would decrease as well.

But, the churches (not all of them) cannot sustain themselves if they preach the true Word of God though Jesus' teachings. They have to have the fear factor present. History is full of examples a la the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Look at Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Never mind that passion plays have been used for centuries to stir up hatred against the Jews and Jews have been killed as a result. Gibson, arguably one who is no friend of the Jew, made a billion dollars off of it because he knew America, for the most part, was running to religion to find some meaning after 9/11. So, again I saw, preach hate and your bank account and church will grow no matter that Christ never did or advocated that.

[ajmccarrell]

Just by vitrtue of their preaching of hate and intolerance and marginalizing gay people they are contributing to those behaviors .If society were more accepting it is pretty clear the substance abuse and low self esteem that contributes to those behaviors would decrease as well.

Why not just take responsibility? Sheesh. :shrug: Anything to blame the behavior on someone else.

[ajmccarrell]

But, the churches (not all of them) cannot sustain themselves if they preach the true Word of God though Jesus' teachings. They have to have the fear factor present. History is full of examples a la the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Look at Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Never mind that passion plays have been used for centuries to stir up hatred against the Jews and Jews have been killed as a result. Gibson, arguably one who is no friend of the Jew, made a billion dollars off of it because he knew America, for the most part, was running to religion to find some meaning after 9/11. So, again I saw, preach hate and your bank account and church will grow no matter that Christ never did or advocated that.

I don't think you have any idea what Jesus actually taught. He said he came to divide and that you cannot follow him without hating your wife, your father, mother, etc. He said that in his name brother with strike down his brother. He's not the peaceloving hippie you think he is.

Besides The Passion of the Christ is not anti-semitic. If anything, it's anti-Italian. I am Jewish and saw nothing wrong with it. It was bloody and gross, but so was Total Recall?! Again, you have a lot of opinions about church growth. How about citing something factual, like a study, some poll, etc. As of right now, you're just pulling things out of your hiney.

[ajmccarrell]

And, if they are not closet cases, they are cheating on their wives with other chicks, molesting the children, and/or cooking the books to support their opulent lifestyle - all while taking God's name in vain.

Again, there are decent people of God and other religions out there. I am not talking about them.

Sounds more like cops than ministers. Anyway, you are taking a few examples and stretching it into covering an entire religion. You are being as hate-filled as you accuse them of being. You are being very narrow minded and bigoted.

[strandinthewind]

. . .

I don't have the entire list at my disposal, but I'll offer 25 of the benefits that are only available to married couples....


Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans


. . . .

Exactly. Some of these can be contracted into if you have the money. But, most cannot and that contract can be contested while the automatic rights cannot. Moreover, why should gay people have to spend thousands of dollars to obtain the handful of rights that are actually obtainable that way when straight people get all the rights automatically, for free, and, once again, based solely on a religious idea.

Once again, the 14th Amendment says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When the state makes a law that is not applied to all people the same and it does not have a valid (the def. varies) reason for doing so, the law is invalid :shrug: See/U] [U]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many, but not all, scholars and jurists think that the application of the 14th Amendment in Lawrence coupled with the case of Loving v. Virgina (cited earlier) and the separation of church and state clause in the First Amend. and the related cases, will result in the Supreme Court finding giving rights to one group over the over based solely on a religious idea is anything but equal protection under the law.

[Johnny Stew]

I agree that marriage should not be a government issue, but here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

The facts are not on your side that civil unions are not the same.
If you had skipped down to the section about civil unions in the United States, you would have read the following....

"The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them."

The article also notes that states which do recognize civil unions, still don't offer all of the same benefits as they do for married couples.

Additionally, civil union couples don't receive 1,100 benefits afforded to married couples through the federal government.

So, between state & federal governments, there are 1,400 benefits that are reserved only for married couples. As I stated earlier.

[ajmccarrell]

Exactly. Some of these can be contracte into if you have the money. But, most cannot and that contract can be contested while the automatic rights cannot. Moreover, why should gay people have to spend thousands of dollars to obtain the handful of rights that are actually obtainable that way when straight people get it for free and, once again, based solely on a religious idea.

Once again, the 14th Amendment says:



When the state makes a law that is not applied to all people the same and it does not have a valid (the def. varies) reason for doing so, the law is invalid :shrug: See/U] [U]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many, but not all, scholars and jurists think that the application of the 14th Amendment in Lawrence coupled with the case of Loving v. Virgina (citred earlier) and the separation of church and state clause in the First Amend. and the related cases, will result in the Supreme Court finding giving rights to one group over the over based solely on a religious idea is anything but equal protection under the law.

You said, "When the state makes a law that is not applied to all people the same and it does not have a valid (the def. varies) reason for doing so, the law is invalid " Exactly my point. Gay marriage is too exclusory because it doesn't apply to everyone. The only real solution is to deregulate marriage, or as in the case of California, have the citizens vote on it in individual states.

[Johnny Stew]

I don't think you have any idea what Jesus actually taught. He said he came to divide and that you cannot follow him without hating your wife, your father, mother, etc. He said that in his name brother with strike down his brother. He's not the peaceloving hippie you think he is.
So Jesus said that I don't have to tolerate anyone if they don't agree with me? Hot damn!

[ajmccarrell]

If you had skipped down to the section about civil unions in the United States, you would have read the following....

"The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them."

The article also notes that states which do recognize civil unions, still don't offer all of the same benefits as they do for married couples.

Additionally, civil union couples don't receive 1,100 benefits afforded to married couples through the federal government.

So, between state & federal governments, there are 1,400 benefits that are reserved only for married couples. As I stated earlier.

Why should the federal government recognize gay marriage as the same everywhere when it doesn't even recognize heterosexual marriage as the same everywhere? For example, there are community property laws in some states and not in others. Different rights for different states. There are different laws of survivorship, property inheritance, medical rights, etc for heterosexual couples too. The federal government doesn't officially recognize common-law marriages either. This was never supposed to have been a federal issue.

[Johnny Stew]

Gay marriage is too exclusory because it doesn't apply to everyone. The only real solution is to deregulate marriage, or as in the case of California, have the citizens vote on it in individual states.
So gay marriage is too exclusory? Not marriage in general?

[ajmccarrell]

So Jesus said that I don't have to tolerate anyone if they don't agree with me? Hot damn!

Jesus never said anything about tolerance. Hell, he called the religious leaders bastards. He said he came with a sword to divide and destroy. Try reading the source material sometime. It doesn't say half of what people think it does.

[ajmccarrell]

So gay marriage is too exclusory? Not marriage in general?
Did you read what I said? Gay marriage is too exclusory and the only solution is to deregulate it. Marriage has had a definition for thousands of years. You are wanting to redefine it. If you are going to do that on the grounds that it is too restrictive, then to be logically consistent, you would have to not exclude anyone. Logic 101.

[strandinthewind]

So Jesus said that I don't have to tolerate anyone if they don't agree with me? Hot damn!

Now THAT is a visual :laugh:

In anay event, I suppose Christ's Sermon on the Mount, wherein He said:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

means Jesus advocated anything but peace at all costs - it's war war war or bust :rolleyes:

[Johnny Stew]

Jesus never said anything about tolerance. Hell, he called the religious leaders bastards. He said he came with a sword to divide and destroy. Try reading the source material sometime. It doesn't say half of what people think it does.
I have. I was raised Catholic. I've read the Bible, I know what it says. I also know that it's been interpreted and re-interpreted hundreds of thousands of times to suit the needs of whomever is citing it.

[ajmccarrell]

:laugh:

I suppose Christ's Sermon on the Mount, where in He said:



—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV



—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

mean Jesus advocated anything but peace :rolleyes:

What he was advocating, if you study scripture at all and it seems you do on a very surface level, is practicing civil disobedience. If you give someone your cloak and your coat, that means you're walking around naked and are making the other guy look like an ass. In that day, slaves were struck by one hand, rather than the other. to be hit with the opposite hand was to be hit with the hand of an equal. In fact, this was an act of defiance. Lastly, Roman soldiers were allowed to force people to carry their gear for one mile and no more. If you took it an extra mile, the soldier could be in trouble, so by going overboard you were endangering the status of the soldier. Try doing a little research.

[ajmccarrell]

I have. I was raised Catholic. I've read the Bible, I know what it says. I also know that it's been interpreted and re-interpreted hundreds of thousands of times to suit the needs of whomever is citing it.

Perfect example. I was raised in a cult and I threw out everything I was ever taught and started over. Catholicism is much the same. There's so much crap thrown onto it that it doesn't even mean anything anymore after that.

[strandinthewind]

So gay marriage is too exclusory? Not marriage in general?

Exactly - but that notion escapes most. I mean the definition of marriage has been changing since it was invented. As late as 1967 or so, the definition of traditional marriage excluded interracial marriages, as against God. But, that changed, thanks to the Supreme Court. So, to argue that it is an affront to the definition of marriage is preposterous.

Also, I could care a less if polygamy exists, etc. As long as there are consenting adults, I could care a less. I also think that brothers and sisters as well as cloe kin present a problem because the baby could be harmed via genetics. So, there is a valid, non religious reason for excluding that. But, if there is a way around that, I could care a less if brothers and sisters marry.

In the end, marriage should not be in any law book other than the consent issue.

[ajmccarrell]

Now THAT is a visuak :laugh:

In anay event, I suppose Christ's Sermon on the Mount, wherein He said:



—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV



—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

means Jesus advocated anything but peace at all costs - it's war war war or bust :rolleyes:

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).

[ajmccarrell]

Exactly - but that notion escapes most. I mean the definition of marriage has been changing since it was invented. As late as 1967 or so, the definition of traditional marriage excluded interracial marriages, as against God. But, that changed, thanks to the Supreme Court. So, to argue that it is an affront to the definition of marriage is preposterous.

Also, I could care a less if polygamy exists, etc. As long as there are consenting adults, I could care a less. I also think that brothers and sisters as well as cloe kin present a problem because the baby could be harmed via genetics. So, there is a valid, non religious reason for excluding that. But, if there is a way around that, I could care a less if brothers and sisters marry.

In the end, marriage should not be in any law book other than the consent issue.

Actually the thing about genetic deformities is a myth. All that geneticists found was that if you were prone to a disease by heredity, you have a slightly greater chance of getting it if you were inbred. So, there's not much of a risk there.

It seems your position is unique as most gays do argue against expanding marriage to cover other people.

[Johnny Stew]

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).
"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid" (John 14:27).

[ajmccarrell]

"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid" (John 14:27).

Perfect balance. Love and Justice.

[ajmccarrell]

"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid" (John 14:27).

More importantly, did you check out our latest single? Here's the link:
http://www.amazon.com/Learning-to-Dance/dp/B001KVXQMW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1227207766&sr=8-1