Shame on you, NC

[jannieC]

<i>I</i> am ashamed of my state over <a href="http://www.wxii12.com/news/local-news/north-carolina/Marriage-amendment-passes-AP-projects/-/10622650/12818130/-/wut59pz/-/index.html">this</a>.

With a 23-point lead after more than 1.3 million votes have been counted, the AP projects the marriage amendment will pass.

As of 9:15 p.m., Amendment 1 had 61 percent of the vote for it and 39 percent of the vote against it, according to the Board of Elections website.

The amendment constitutionally makes marriage between a man and a woman the only acceptable form of marriage.

As of 9:15 p.m., 61 counties have partially reported, while 15 counties have completely reported.

More <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/amendment-one-north-carolina_n_1501308.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009">here</a>.

[bluefox4000]

What a joke. as a bi man, I loose a LITTLE faith in humanity when i read something like that. Not that it was ever that high to begin with....lol.

Mick

[louielouie2000]

I have been caught off guard at how much this development is stabbing me in the chest. I haven't lived in NC for 2 years now, but I did spend 18 years of my life there. I knew this amendment would pass- I just didn't quite expect it to pass by the margin that it did. It's just amazing to me how a state I no longer reside in can still manage to make me feel like a second class citizen. All that being said, the gay rights movement is not being quelled. This is a temporary setback... I think that during my lifetime things will change very drastically. Progress, like tides, may ebb... but it always returns & overtakes the ground it previously abandoned. :)

[markolas]

I think that during my lifetime things will change very drastically.

Maybe in our lifetimes, but barely. I don't think there will be nation-wide recognition of same-sex marriage in this country for another 30 years. I'll be too old to care by that point.

This outcome doesn't surprise me, but it sickens me. It also makes me wonder why the hell I still live in the south. And it makes me worry about my religious nutjob family taking our house away from Andrew if something happens to me. I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on having trusts and wills drawn up (which may or may not work anyway).

To every person who votes for an amendment like this: you deserve every bad thing that ever happens to you, and worse.

[HejiraNYC]

No offense, but North Carolina is toast. Today it is arguably the beacon of economic prosperity in the south- full of pre-eminent educational institutions, high tech (biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, chemicals) and finance (e.g., Bank of America). Plus the natural beauty and isolation of the Cape is an undeniable tourism draw. I suspect that there will be quite the exodus starting in the near future. High tech, academia and finance require highly educated individuals (who are by and large liberal, go figure!), and actively preventing/oppressing the happiness and prosperity of GLBT via the state constitution is not exactly going to have people packing up the U-Hauls and moving into state. In other words: brain drain. As people head for the exits and recruiting new talent becomes more and more difficult, major companies will need to relocate out of state just to remain competitive. It's not only a matter of social justice, it's about the bottom line as well. It will eventually resemble its economically ravaged neighbors in Tennessee, Kentucky and South Carolina.

North Carolina, you deserve to lay in the bed you've just made.

[HejiraNYC]

Maybe in our lifetimes, but barely. I don't think there will be nation-wide recognition of same-sex marriage in this country for another 30 years. .

I personally think that GLBT equality will be the defining issue of Obama's second term. He is obviously playing his cards close to his chest regarding his "evolving" stance on gay marriage, but it is painfully obvious where he really stands. The day after inauguration he is going to finally come out of the marriage equality closet and the wheels will be set in motion on fronts. It truly is the most glaring social injustice that becomes radioactive to anyone who tries to touch it. In his second term he doesn't have to cow-tow to anyone.

[TrueFaith77]

That's cynical.

[Silver Springs]

I'll never understand what the bloody issue is. It's doesn't damage anybody no matter who the hell you love or marry, so why should it be illegal? Religion has always had a nasty habit of following the rules it wants to follow; yet conveniently ignoring the ones that don't quite fit into their opinions (Love thy neighbour until they start to give you the heebies, for example). It's all well and good having a faith and living the way you want to live, but it's quite another thing to use a personal doctrine to attack another's way of life.

[holidayroad]

I don't understand why anyone would want to interfere with someone's right to be happy. The fact that I am allowed to be married while someone else is not allowed just seems wrong to me.

[vivfox]

I don't understand why anyone would want to interfere with someone's right to be happy. The fact that I am allowed to be married while someone else is not allowed just seems wrong to me.


Maybe srt8 people could protest by not getting married? Or not getting divorced.

[KarmaContestant]

I have been caught off guard at how much this development is stabbing me in the chest.

Agreed.

Colorado tried to pass a civil union bill yesterday (I think they're pointless, to be honest, but it's a start) but the Republicans delayed the vote and then adjourned to avoid voting on it.

I go back and forth with this, on whether I care or don't care what other people think, but it's hard to deny that it stings more than just a little.

[Macfanforever]

I think it's BS .Let the people do what they want.They still think we live back in the cold war with the leaders are dictating every move..Meantime we need term limits across the board for elective officals.Tired of the same old career politicians screwing us all the time.Also some people got to get their head out of the big book and wake up.

[TrueFaith77]

I do think divorce should be illegal--or come with major penalties. I have often tweeted conservative pundits AND gay marriage activists alike that they should organize a "Restoration of Marriage" (repealing no-fault divorce, for example). It seems, to me, that neither party is interested the health of the institution.

[mezzoforte]

I do think divorce should be illegal--or come with major penalties. I have often tweeted conservative pundits AND gay marriage activists alike that they should organize a "Restoration of Marriage" (repealing no-fault divorce, for example). It seems, to me, that neither party is interested the health of the institution.

...Seriously?

I think it's a shame that divorce rates are so high, but if two people think they would be happier apart, the idea that the government should have the power to force them to stay together is pretty upsetting to me.

[TrueFaith77]

...Seriously?

I think it's a shame that divorce rates are so high, but if two people think they would be happier apart, the idea that the government should have the power to force them to stay together is pretty upsetting to me.

Then you were born at the right time to avoid such upsetting circumstances.

... and fear not: I will never be King.

[bluefox4000]

I do think divorce should be illegal--or come with major penalties. I have often tweeted conservative pundits AND gay marriage activists alike that they should organize a "Restoration of Marriage" (repealing no-fault divorce, for example). It seems, to me, that neither party is interested the health of the institution.

That's harsh. I'm happily married, but if the time should come when i'm not. I want an out. Why force unhappy people to be together or penalize them?

Mick

[TrueFaith77]

That's harsh. I'm happily married, but if the time should come when i'm not. I want an out. Why force unhappy people to be together or penalize them?

Mick


I guess, from my perspective, there are more important things than "happiness." Or, maybe, I have a different definition of "happiness."

Should marriage vows change to: "Until death do us part, or until one of becomes unhappy."

I'm ALWAYS unhappy. I don't divorce life. Though I do neglect it.

[mezzoforte]

I guess I just don't think marriage is the government's business. I don't think think the government should be able to keep two people of the same gender from having the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, and I don't think it should be able to force any two people to stay together.

[TrueFaith77]

I guess I just don't think marriage is the government's business. I don't think think the government should be able to keep two people of the same gender from having the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, and I don't think it should be able to force any two people to stay together.

Here we agree. I think marriage should be solely a religious matter and that the secular government should neither recognize nor sanction nor reward nor penalize its existence.

And, obviously, churches can be formed that perform gay marriages. And those churches will be condemned by Roman Catholic Church.

[louielouie2000]

No offense, but North Carolina is toast. Today it is arguably the beacon of economic prosperity in the south- full of pre-eminent educational institutions, high tech (biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, chemicals) and finance (e.g., Bank of America). Plus the natural beauty and isolation of the Cape is an undeniable tourism draw. I suspect that there will be quite the exodus starting in the near future. High tech, academia and finance require highly educated individuals (who are by and large liberal, go figure!), and actively preventing/oppressing the happiness and prosperity of GLBT via the state constitution is not exactly going to have people packing up the U-Hauls and moving into state. In other words: brain drain. As people head for the exits and recruiting new talent becomes more and more difficult, major companies will need to relocate out of state just to remain competitive. It's not only a matter of social justice, it's about the bottom line as well. It will eventually resemble its economically ravaged neighbors in Tennessee, Kentucky and South Carolina.

North Carolina, you deserve to lay in the bed you've just made.

Sounds like you know the state exceedingly well! I lived in Charlotte for a decade... it's the largest city between Atlanta & DC- one of the real economic engines of that entire region. When I left NC 2 years ago LGBT folks were fleeing like rats on a sinking ship. North Carolina is an undeniably beautiful state... the Outer Banks & Appalachian Mountains are both especially stunning. But for LGBT folks the quality of life the state offers is seriously lacking, as yesterday's ammendment shows. Things like this marriage ammendment will really shoot the larger NC cities in the foot in the long run. Charlotte is already handicapped by the recession: it lost Wachovia to Wells Fargo & Bank of America is quickly becoming the poster child for what Americans hate about mega banks & the banking industry in general. Charlotte is still bleeding heavily because of the recession & the fact it's a 1 trick pony: it put all it's eggs in the banking basket, and there's no telling when that industry will fully recover, and what kind of a presence it will retain in NC. So by also chastening the LGBT population, NC is doing itself no favors to the types of people it really wants to attract: creative, educated, high income professionals. Those are the type people who diversify economies & diversification is key to expansion & successfully weathering future storms.

I personally think that GLBT equality will be the defining issue of Obama's second term. He is obviously playing his cards close to his chest regarding his "evolving" stance on gay marriage, but it is painfully obvious where he really stands. The day after inauguration he is going to finally come out of the marriage equality closet and the wheels will be set in motion on fronts. It truly is the most glaring social injustice that becomes radioactive to anyone who tries to touch it. In his second term he doesn't have to cow-tow to anyone.

I think you're spot-on here. I still believe Obama will get a second term simply because Americans do not like to oust incombent presidents. However, I think it's going to be a much closer fight than it was in '08. Obama is going to have to battle hard to get even 3/4 of the people who voted for him in '08 to do so again. He's lost so much of the confidence of even his own party.

[KarmaContestant]

Here we agree. I think marriage should be solely a religious matter and that the secular government should neither recognize nor sanction nor reward nor penalize its existence.

And, obviously, churches can be formed that perform gay marriages. And those churches will be condemned by Roman Catholic Church.

I don't think anyone but Catholics care who the Roman church condemns.

The fact is, marriage is a civil institution regulated by government, and it is my opinion that the church - whatever the faith or denomination - should stay out of civil matters.

I am not a Christian - why on Earth should the opinion of Christians have influence in my life or my decisions?

There is simply no good reason.

[TrueFaith77]

I don't think anyone but Catholics care who the Roman church condemns.<--Thus: my very point!

The fact is, marriage is a civil institution regulated by government, and it is my opinion that the church - whatever the faith or denomination - should stay out of civil matters.<--As such, our democratic republic can define what constitutes marriage; it shouldn't be a surprise that many of the voters/constituants/representatives would define it according to their religious doctrine.

I am not a Christian - why on Earth should the opinion of Christians have influence in my life or my decisions?<--That is why you, as a non-Christian, get one vote; just like each individual Christian gets one vote. That's why it's a democracy. Would you prefer a secular dictatorship?

There is simply no good reason.<--Well, for the Christian, he/she has the salvation of your eternal soul in mind.

See above for my responses.

[HejiraNYC]

It looks like Obama just came out of the closet today (and lost the November election :distress: )

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.


Special thanks to Joe Biden for his inability to keep his piehole shut, thereby forcing Obama's hand on this. We really don't need a rallying cry for the teabaggers and other ignorants this November.

[KarmaContestant]

it shouldn't be a surprise that many of the voters/constituants/representatives would define it according to their religious doctrine.

To me, it IS a surprise that voters would base a vote upon religious doctrine. Color me naive, but I just don't get it. Faith is personal and has no place in law, politics or government. As a non-religious person, this is so basic to me that I find faith-based votes an alien concept - a relic of medieval times. A vote determines public policy. Personal does not equal public. The two should not be intermingled.

Ultimately, these State bills banning marriage for gays will be overturned. Look no further than our own Constitution:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the 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 jurusdiction the equal protection of the laws."
14th amendment of the Unites States Constitution

[markolas]

It looks like Obama just came out of the closet today (and lost the November election :distress: )

Oh, please.

We've already got a freeper theocrat posting on this thread. Don't you go all crazy, too.

[estranged4life]

<i>I</i> am ashamed of my state over

ashamed of Oklahoma and it's b.s. law of a same nature - It was funny to see that the town I reside in that only 3 people were against a law that would make it hard for gays/lesbians to be married - Debbie was one of the three and I was another - too many relig-a-tards in this town who are 'so afraid' of allowing anyone the right to marry someone they fall in love with - afraid that they may contract some damned disease...When the disease they spread is hate!

[TrueFaith77]

To me, it IS a surprise that voters would base a vote upon religious doctrine. Color me naive, but I just don't get it. Faith is personal and has no place in law, politics or government. As a non-religious person, this is so basic to me that I find faith-based votes an alien concept - a relic of medieval times. A vote determines public policy. Personal does not equal public. The two should not be intermingled.

Ultimately, these State bills banning marriage for gays will be overturned. Look no further than our own Constitution:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the 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 jurusdiction the equal protection of the laws."
14th amendment of the Unites States Constitution

But on what basis do you vote, if not upon what you think is right and wrong? And, for religious people, they obtain that compass from religious teachings and their faith. From where do you get a sense of right and wrong? Or does that not come into play? Of course, I mean, I could say that a person has the right to vote by playing "eeny-meeny-miney-mo" at the ballots. They have that right. Or don't they? Do you think they should reinstitute tests and criteria for being able to vote? I'm not even saying that's not valid: I'm just utterly confused. It just sounds to me that Person A is upset that Person B didn't vote according to Person A's belief system.

And your point is well-taken--but the issue is not whether same sex marriage should be legal: it's whether same-sex marriage is "marriage."

That being said: I personally don't think that marriage should be a privilege or immunity by way of the State. BUT SINCE IT IS, I think the issue is what is "marriage": i.e., not to be flippant: a gay man can marry a gay or straight woman, legally. So, accordingly, it could be argued that a person's Constitutional rights are not being infringed by these state laws (whereas when it was illegal for Blacks to marry whites or Blacks to marry at all, it was an infringment because it defined Blacks as NOT HUMAN--not because marriage was defined as an institution between a man and woman of the same race).

[HejiraNYC]

But on what basis do you vote, if not upon what you think is right and wrong? And, for religious people, they obtain that compass from religious teachings. From where do you get a sense of right and wrong? Or does that not come into play?

And your point is well-taken--but the issue is not whether same sex marriage should be legal: it's whether same-sex marriage is "marriage."

You are erroneously conflating "religious values" with "moral values." Are you saying that people who are not religious and have not been subject to "religious teachings" are somehow incapable of forming a sense of right and wrong? We are a nation/society of laws guided by a constitution that stresses the importance of personal freedom, personal responsibility, freedom of/from religion and equality (well... only if you include all of the amendments that have been made over the past couple hundred years). As an American, it is your duty to uphold the spirit of the U.S. Constitution when you enter the voting booth- that is your moral compass.

Civil marriage is strictly a legal construct that confers certain legal privileges and responsibilities between two people and their families- nothing more and nothing less. Nothing religious about it. I'm not sure why this should differ depending on whether the marriage is between same sex or mixed gender couples. How is same sex marriage not "marriage?" :shrug:

[TrueFaith77]

You are erroneously conflating "religious values" with "moral values." Are you saying that people who are not religious and have not been subject to "religious teachings" are somehow incapable of forming a sense of right and wrong? We are a nation/society of laws guided by a constitution that stresses the importance of personal freedom, personal responsibility, freedom of/from religion and equality (well... only if you include all of the amendments that have been made over the past couple hundred years). As an American, it is your duty to uphold the spirit of the U.S. Constitution when you enter the voting booth- that is your moral compass.

Civil marriage is strictly a legal construct that confers certain legal privileges and responsibilities between two people and their families- nothing more and nothing less. Nothing religious about it. I'm not sure why this should differ depending on whether the marriage is between same sex or mixed gender couples. How is same sex marriage not "marriage?" :shrug:

I did not say that. I asked a question, not a rhetorical question. Some people get it from religion. Some people get it from philosophy. Some people get it from Fleetwood Mac. I don't care where they get it from. Your vote can be placed for whatever reason you want; it doesn't even have to be based on right and wrong--and even if it is, we don't have to come to the same conclusions. Don't put words in my mouth. All I did was ask questions.

I agree with your definition of Civil Marriage. I'm against Civil Marriage. But I only have one vote. And I'm at peace that others feel differently about Civil Marriage than I do--and enough feel differently that it is an existing instituion. That being said: what defines a Civil Marriage is decided by the democratic process, and some people within that process will vote according to values that define Marriage as being between a man and a woman. Obviously there are differing viewpoints even on that point. The question about whether or not the definition of Marriage can be decided by the democratic process may someday be brought to the courts--and I will comply with the courts' decisions. But I won't begrudge ANYONE from voting their conscious--whether for or against.

[HejiraNYC]

I agree with your definition of Civil Marriage. I'm against Civil Marriage. But I only have one vote. And I'm at peace that others feel differently about Civil Marriage than I do--and enough feel differently that it is an existing instituion. That being said: what defines a Civil Marriage is decided by the democratic process, and some people within that process will vote according to values that define Marriage as being between a man and a woman. Obviously there are differing viewpoints even on that point. The question about whether or not the definition of Marriage can be decided by the democratic process may someday be brought to the courts--and I will comply with the courts' decisions. But I won't begrudge ANYONE from voting their conscious--whether for or against.

...and what makes you assume that all civil rights should be subject to a popular vote? Fundamental civil rights such as interracial marriage, abortion, ADA, racial equality, women voting, and, um... the abolition of slavery were not subject to popular vote, and it could be argued that none of these would have become law if subject to a popular vote. In the case of marriage equality for gays and lesbians, why should their rights be subject to the tyranny of the largely unwashed masses? The private sexual and legal matters of people in a committed loving relationship is nobody else's freaking business, and there is no legitimate reason for NOT extending all of the legal protections and privileges of marriage to couples of the same gender. All of the arguments against marriage equality are based on red herrings, lies, gross exaggerations and fear mongering- not a single shred of factual evidence. I DO begrudge anyone voting on matters relating to civil rights for a minority because it always ends up oppressing the minority. Always.

[TrueFaith77]

...and what makes you assume that all civil rights should be subject to a popular vote? Fundamental civil rights such as interracial marriage, abortion, ADA, racial equality, women voting, and, um... the abolition of slavery were not subject to popular vote, and it could be argued that none of these would have become law if subject to a popular vote. In the case of marriage equality for gays and lesbians, why should their rights be subject to the tyranny of the largely unwashed masses? The private sexual and legal matters of people in a committed loving relationship is nobody else's freaking business, and there is no legitimate reason for NOT extending all of the legal protections and privileges of marriage to couples of the same gender. All of the arguments against marriage equality are based on red herrings, lies, gross exaggerations and fear mongering- not a single shred of factual evidence. I DO begrudge anyone voting on matters relating to civil rights for a minority because it always ends up oppressing the minority. Always.

Did you miss the part where I addressed this? Nobody is saying gay people aren't human. People are saying marriage is between a man and a woman. A gay man CAN marry a woman. Thus his civil rights are protected.

And all of the issues you bring up are exactly why I don't think marriage should be a civil issue at all. As soon as it is, it is open to government regulation--and thus, to democratic vote.

Why is marriage a civil union? It's because the government (and the voters) wants to encourage certain types of behavior (monogamy, traditional family units, paternal responsibility) through incentives and privileges and penalties. I agree with mezzoforte who said she doesn't want the govt up in people's bu'ness.

[KarmaContestant]

But on what basis do you vote, if not upon what you think is right and wrong? And, for religious people, they obtain that compass from religious teachings and their faith. From where do you get a sense of right and wrong? Or does that not come into play? Of course, I mean, I could say that a person has the right to vote by playing "eeny-meeny-miney-mo" at the ballots. They have that right. Or don't they? Do you think they should reinstitute tests and criteria for being able to vote? I'm not even saying that's not valid: I'm just utterly confused. It just sounds to me that Person A is upset that Person B didn't vote according to Person A's belief system.



I enjoy your discourse.

But on what basis do you vote, if not upon what you think is right and wrong?
Liberty and justice for all.

From where do you get a sense of right and wrong?From my life experiences including the interactions I've had with others.

Regarding marriage between two gay men or two gay women, I look to a lesson from elementary school: majority rule; minority rights. In The United States, the will of the majority is respected and enforced so long as there is no infringement upon the equal rights of the minority. So, I offer this: If Christian Americans (for example) are opposed to marriage between two men - the minority could never force two Christian men to marry each other because it violates their rights--but--likewise, Christians, despite being a majority in this nation, should not be permitted to withhold the right of marriage from two consenting adult men. In this case, the freedoms of both sides are respected and neither group's rights are infringed upon.

I could say that a person has the right to vote by playing "eeny-meeny-miney-mo" at the ballots. They have that right. Or don't they?

Any one of us indeed does have that right. It's a serious neglect of what I consider a civic responsibility, but by all means - if that is someone's preference, they are within their rights to do so.

Do you think they should reinstitute tests and criteria for being able to vote?

No.

It just sounds to me that Person A is upset that Person B didn't vote according to Person A's belief system.

Fair enough - I'm sure it looks that way to many who would rather not understand both sides of the issue, but the reality is more like this: Person A is upset that Person B is using personal and non-universal dogma to withhold a civic right they enjoy from Person A.


As an American, it is your duty to uphold the spirit of the U.S. Constitution when you enter the voting booth- that is your moral compass.


Exactly!!

[TrueFaith77]

But this is also where we disagree. Marriage is not a civic right. Marriage is a type of behavior that government encourages through benefits, recognition, etc. blah blah. And, consequently, it is open to being defined via law-making practices (such as referendums and bills, etc.). One's access to those benefits are not being denied in this case. If you behave THIS WAY (i.e., if you "marry" someone of the opposite sex), you get the benefits. I just don't like the gov't doing that. Stay out the marriage business, I say.


BUT AGAIN: I'm just one vote. And I'm ok with that.

[TrueFaith77]

As an American, it is your duty to uphold the spirit of the U.S. Constitution when you enter the voting booth- that is your moral compass.

The spirit or the law? The spirit is an abstract notion. Note that for a Catholic, the concept of "freedom" (as in the bill of rights) is very different from that of a Protestant, Puritan, or deist (as were many of the Founders), as it would be for an atheist or a secular libertarian or a Socialist or a chiffonhead.

If the "law," then one could not have voted for Roosevelt, who overturned Prohibition, because Prohibition was at that time part of the U.S. Constitution. (What was unconstitutional--in my limited knowledge of the subject lol--what was an infraction of Civil Rights was that it was made consequently illegal for effiminate men to congregate in establishments that serve alcohol.--Thanks, FDR!)

The Constitution is a "living document"--it is, via our votes for representatives, ultimately a reflection of our Democratic will. Consequently, it is well within "the spirit of the Constitution" for a person to vote to define "marriage"--either as restrictive or as expansive in its definition.


ETA: Also, a friend of mine is getting his PhD in Economic History. He was explaining to me that the reason marriage became "civil" and regulated was because of the expanding social safety net. It needed to make legally binding the responsibility of father/husband so that they could not just up and leave dependent wife (and child) to be a burden on the taxpayers. I wonder if that is still relevant--men are no longer the sole breadwinners, DNA testing makes paternity the issue rather than marriage, adoption has its own legally binding parent-child responsibilities (speaking of, I think gay people being allowed to adopt is a MUCH more significant "civil rights" issue than marriage). Again: I say the government should be out of marriage; but as a consequence of this history and this fact, it suggests to me that it is well within the government's perview (and thus the voters') to define "civil marriage" along biological lines.

[HejiraNYC]

Did you miss the part where I addressed this? Nobody is saying gay people aren't human. People are saying marriage is between a man and a woman. A gay man CAN marry a woman. Thus his civil rights are protected...


Um, why are you even raising this point in my response to your assertion that marriage rights should be subject to a popular vote? Topic shifting much?

Also, I think it is sad that you feel that justice is served when a gay man is forced to marry a woman in order to form a family and enjoy the legal protections that come with marriage. Heaven forbid that marriage should be based on such inconsequential things like love, intimacy and mutual physical attraction. :rolleyes:


And all of the issues you bring up are exactly why I don't think marriage should be a civil issue at all. As soon as it is, it is open to government regulation--and thus, to democratic vote...

...But this is also where we disagree. Marriage is not a civic right. Marriage is a type of behavior that government encourages through benefits, recognition, etc. blah blah. And, consequently, it is open to being defined via law-making practices (such as referendums and bills, etc.). One's access to those benefits are not being denied in this case. If you behave THIS WAY (i.e., if you "marry" someone of the opposite sex), you get the benefits. I just don't like the gov't doing that. Stay out the marriage business, I say

Um... perhaps you should take a look back at the majority opinion in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, which dealt with the legality of interracial marriage:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

It's a legal precedent. It is a civil right. It is protected in the U.S. Constitition. It is a component of the "pursuit of happiness."

Also, just because something is subject to "government regulation," it does not make it subject to a democratic vote. Another gross, patently false assumption.


As an American, it is your duty to uphold the spirit of the U.S. Constitution when you enter the voting booth- that is your moral compass.

The spirit or the law? The spirit is an abstract notion. Note that for a Catholic, the concept of "freedom" (as in the bill of rights) is very different from that of a Protestant, Puritan, or deist (as were many of the Founders), as it would be for an atheist or a secular libertarian or a Socialist or a chiffonhead.

Laws are rarely black or white (figuratively speaking), and laws are sometimes put up for referendum if they meet the predefined criteria for a referendum. Sometimes this requires that the law serves some kind of public interest or somehow affects the quality of life for the people subject to the law. At least that is its intended purpose. In the case of Prop. 8 in California, the referendum didn't pass legal muster because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that it protected any sort of legitimate public interest. The state supreme court concluded that it was really borne of nothing but animus towards gays and lesbians, which is not a legitimate reason for holding a voter referendum.

It is ironic that the very same people taking Middle Eastern countries to task for their theocratic governments are trying to legislate discrimination against GLBT because of their religious beliefs. Pot meet kettle? This is why in U.S. civics classes, the concept of social justice, as spelled out in the constitution, needs to be stressed. Otherwise we will see more and more of these pockets of American Taliban, er, Teabaggers spreading their ignorant views via legislation and congressional representation.


The Constitution is a "living document"--it is, via our votes for representatives, ultimately a reflection of our Democratic will. Consequently, it is well within "the spirit of the Constitution" for a person to vote to define "marriage"--either as restrictive or as expansive in its definition.

The U.S. Constitution is indeed a living concept. But it is not up for amendment by a simple popular vote. It requires an overwhelming majority vote in congress or a decision from the Supreme Court. It is only subject to our "democratic will" to the extent that our congressional representatives are chosen by democratic will. Just saying something doesn't make it true. And you still haven't responded to the notion that none of the federal constitutional amendments governing civil rights was ever decided by a popular vote.


ETA: Also, a friend of mine is getting his PhD in Economic History. He was explaining to me that the reason marriage became "civil" and regulated was because of the expanding social safety net. It needed to make legally binding the responsibility of father/husband so that they could not just up and leave dependent wife (and child) to be a burden on the taxpayers. I wonder if that is still relevant--men are no longer the sole breadwinners, DNA testing makes paternity the issue rather than marriage, adoption has its own legally binding parent-child responsibilities (speaking of, I think gay people being allowed to adopt is a MUCH more significant "civil rights" issue than marriage). Again: I say the government should be out of marriage; but as a consequence of this history and this fact, it suggests to me that it is well within the government's perview (and thus the voters') to define "civil marriage" along biological lines.

What the hell is "civil marriage along biological lines?" Are you talking about incest??

Civil marriage is a legal construct that provides simplicity in the formation of households and families. I suppose one could theoretically "re-create" most of the legal protections of marriage via a complex patchwork of individual legal documents and procedures, which could take months, years and a lot of money. But why bother when civil "marriage" automatically confers all of those legal protections and also has the added perks of survivor benefits, portability, social recognition, etc.? Another way to frame the legal debate regarding marriage equality is that, for example, let's say a heterosexual couple can travel from Point A to Point B in a chartered jet. However, it is currently illegal for gays/lesbians to fly, so they have to walk from Point A to Point B. Both couples are still getting from Point A to Point B, right? But the gays/lesbians have to work that much harder and longer to achieve the same thing. Separate but equal. That always works, right?

[TrueFaith77]

Well you didn't understand a word that I said. So this is pointless to parse--either you are not listening, even trying to understand my points (in which case i'm sorry I wasted my time), or I'm incapable of communicating my perspective (in which case I'm sorry I wasted yours).

[markolas]

We understand, TrueFaith77, we just think you' re a piece of garbage.

[TrueFaith77]

We understand, TrueFaith77, we just think you' re a piece of garbage.



Shame on YOU, Markolas.

[RickRobert]

Who cares about marriage? We don't need the Lord or a piece of paper to tell us how much we love someone.

[TrueFaith77]

Who cares about marriage? We don't need the Lord or a piece of paper to tell us how much we love someone.

A totally valid viewpoint--and one that deserves to be counted at the ballot box. (Some on this thread would prefer it not be.)

[Silver Springs]

Well you didn't understand a word that I said. So this is pointless to parse--either you are not listening, even trying to understand my points (in which case i'm sorry I wasted my time), or I'm incapable of communicating my perspective (in which case I'm sorry I wasted yours).

Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they're not understanding. Please pick up your pacifier. I believe you threw it out of the pram when people decided to have thoughts..

Who cares about marriage? We don't need the Lord or a piece of paper to tell us how much we love someone.

I think people sometimes have a tendency to forget that love can exist on its own merits. They think it's not valid unless somebody else "gave them permission" to be together.

[markolas]

Shame on YOU, Markolas.

hardly. You come here and tell me that my partner and I deserve to be legal strangers, that my bigot relatives should have more say in what happens to me than he does, and then you have the nerve to act offended when I don't roll over and take it?

Stay away from me and stop trying to legislate me into conforming with your asinine religious beliefs.

[markolas]

Who cares about marriage? We don't need the Lord or a piece of paper to tell us how much we love someone.


How naive can you be? That piece of paper ensures that my partner and I aren't legal strangers, which has very real consequences for those of us who don't live in hippy dipshlt land.

And vivfox, please spare me anymore of your nonsense PMs about the status of my relationship. The last two were not appreciated in the least.

[Silver Springs]

How naive can you be? That piece of paper ensures that my partner and I aren't legal strangers, which has very real consequences for those of us who don't live in hippy dipshlt land.

I don't think it's naivity. Just a belief in love for its own sake, rather than something recognised by the government. Believe it or, alot of people want to lead their lives without being tied up by red tape and a trail of paper behind them.

Please don't insult people for having an opinion that differs from your own. Maybe you'd have more friends on the board if you didn't resort to personal attacks to protect your opinions.

[Macfanforever]

I've talked to my friend last night.He said."The big insurance companies are fighting this and greasing pockets of our political parties to vote against this". They dont want to pay out more money then they have too.

[Silver Springs]

I've talked to my friend last night.He said."The big insurance companies are fighting this and greasing pockets of our political parties to vote against this". They dont want to pay out more money then they have too.

Wow. It's not like insurers at all to be unscrupulous! ;) :lol:

[markolas]

I don't think it's naivity. Just a belief in love for its own sake, rather than something recognised by the government. Believe it or, alot of people want to lead their lives without being tied up by red tape and a trail of paper behind them.

Please don't insult people for having an opinion that differs from your own. Maybe you'd have more friends on the board ifou didn't resort to personal attacks to protect your opinions.


It most certainly is naive. I'd like to lead my life knowing that my bigot relatives can't screw with my and my partner's life, which they could do without much effort if the right circumstances presented themselves.

Please stop trying to impose your ideals on me when you so clearly have no understanding of reality, or are simply choosing to ignore it.

[Macfanforever]

Wow. It's not like insurers at all to be unscrupulous! ;) :lol:

Yes .he caught me off gaurd on that statement.

[TrueFaith77]

hardly. You come here and tell me that my partner and I deserve to be legal strangers, that my bigot relatives should have more say in what happens to me than he does, and then you have the nerve to act offended when I don't roll over and take it?


I want it to be clear that I have not stated my opinion on this subject at all (i.e., I have not indicated how I would vote). My points were simply to explain that a) it doesn't take a bigot to think marriage is defined as being a union between a man and a woman and b) this is not Civil Rights issue, according to my understanding of the term (another analogy: if same-sex marriages were legalized, but effiminate men were excluded from participating in them (as was the case with establishments serving alcohol in NY), THEN it would be a Civil Rights issue). There are a lot of Civil Rights issues that are being neglected by elitist gays and their Gay Orthodoxy.

For the record and for the benefit of the rest of the board, since Civil "Marriages" exist, if put to a vote, I would vote to allow any two consenting adults to be "married." But, again, I'm only one vote. And I'm OK with that.

[Silver Springs]

It most certainly is naive. I'd like to lead my life knowing that my bigot relatives can't screw with my and my partner's life, which they could do without much effort if the right circumstances presented themselves.

Please stop trying to impose your ideals on me when you so clearly have no understanding of reality, or are simply choosing to ignore it.

Requests for a little consideration and understanding of another's viewpoint and a little respect....Imposition....They're so clearly the same. Why did I never see this before? Oh, come off it. I disagree with you. Rather than attacking me for doing so why don't you just suck it up and realise that people have minds and don't think exactly like you? Why not realise that people have different wants from life? Incase you didn't notice my first post in this thread, it was an AGREEMENT that the lack of recognition for same sex relationships and the lack of legality to join together in matrimony is wrong. Just because I can see another's viewpoint is not an attack on what you believe.

By the way, you know nothing about me so you have no right to say that I have no concept of reality.

[TrueFaith77]

Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they're not understanding. Please pick up your pacifier. I believe you threw it out of the pram when people decided to have thoughts..


I think you need to take a step back and realize that not everything being posted--certainly NOTHING being posted by me--is an attack. I read his responses. I hope I read them with care. And hardly any were addressing what it was I was saying, yet he attached each comment to one of my own--as if there was meant to be a correlation. I saw none. So somewhere there was a disconnect. Example: my phrase "biological lines" made him think I was talking about "incest." I was not. Now, Markolas may be convinced that I was, and you may be convinced that I was, but I really wasn't. I was saying: marriage could arguably be defined based the capacity--bioligically--for the couple to procreate. So I recognize that that phrase was not a helpful one--and it seems I may have caused more confusion. However, I also know that sometimes people don't really try to take another person's point of view seriously or into consideration--and therefore invent an argument that isn't really there. But that's for him to look into his own heart and decide, not for me. I'm sure that he and I came to the same conclusion: that it's not really worth expending more energy over.

[RickRobert]

How naive can you be? That piece of paper ensures that my partner and I aren't legal strangers, which has very real consequences for those of us who don't live in hippy dipshlt land.

Wrong. Nice tantrum though.

[Johnny Stew]

It's true that we don't need religion or the government to validate our relationships -- no one does, for that matter -- but it's also true that, without that "piece of paper," same-sex partners have little say in situations such as medical emergencies, funeral arrangements, etc., if blood relatives choose to block their involvement. It's happened countless times.

The way I see it, whether we as individuals in the gay community want to get married or not, it's ultimately for the common good for us to at least have the right and ability.

[KarmaContestant]

b) this is not Civil Rights issue, according to my understanding of the term

I suppose that is the heart of our disagreement. I do see marriage for gays as a civil rights issue. It's okay by me that you don't. :shrug:

[TrueFaith77]

I suppose that is the heart of our disagreement. I do see marriage for gays as a civil rights issue. It's okay by me that you don't. :shrug:

You mean: "Expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples" is a civil rights issue. And, yes, that is correct, I do not consider that a Civil Rights issue. And it is OK with me that you do.

[markolas]

Example: my phrase "biological lines" made him think I was talking about "incest." I was not.

What in hell are you talking about? How did you get that I thought you were talking about incest out of anything I said?

[TrueFaith77]

What in hell are you talking about? How did you get that I thought you were talking about incest out of anything I said?

You said "we know what you are saying." I assumed you included Hejira in the "we." Hejira is the person to whom I was responding. He said I was talking about incest.

[markolas]

I have to leave this website.

[Silver Springs]

I think you need to take a step back and realize that not everything being posted--certainly NOTHING being posted by me--is an attack.

That was the impression I was getting from the post I commented on, that you weren't opening up to others. I stand by what I thought but I'm not going to comment further on it. I read through the thread enough to formulate an opinion.

I have to leave this website.

I love this. You're asked to be a bit more respectful of others and not jump the gun and suddenly you have to leave the website. Slightly dramatic, don't you think?

[HomerMcvie]

[COLOR="Teal"]I love this. You're asked to be a bit more respectful of others and not jump the gun and suddenly you have to leave the website. Slightly dramatic, don't you think?

Why change now?

Liberal minds (I don't necessarily mean anyone in this thread)always think they're open to others points of view. It's just not always the case(or even ~usually~, in my experience).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions/agenda, as long as I approve!!!:wavey:

[jannieC]

This situation is bad enough on its own without attacking one another on here.

[Sleepless-Child]

I wonder how would everyone react if someone came here and said "i'm a catholic and i am against gay marriage" (not that there's an analogy between those two, but for most of you, there apparently is)?
I wonder just who would then be open-minded, and who wouldn't, then, attack that person.
The truth is, you only hear what you want to hear.

[vivfox]

We understand, TrueFaith77, we just think you' re a piece of garbage.


Speak for yourself. I think you should be banned for breaking a board rule by calling that poster a bad name.

[HomerMcvie]

Speak for yourself. I think you should be banned for breaking a board rule by calling that poster a bad name.

I second that. It was OVER the line.

[vivfox]

How naive can you be? That piece of paper ensures that my partner and I aren't legal strangers, which has very real consequences for those of us who don't live in hippy dipshlt land.

And vivfox, please spare me anymore of your nonsense PMs about the status of my relationship. The last two were not appreciated in the least.


First of all, I haven't pm'd you in over 2 months and when I did it was a response to pm's you sent me. Secondly, if you didn't like what I had to say you should have told me so in a private pm, not in this thread where it doesn't belong. I can't even imagine what you were thinking by posting it here.

[BombaySapphire3]

Speak for yourself. I think you should be banned for breaking a board rule by calling that poster a bad name.

I don't think he cares as he seems to have left on his own volition after firing a few parting salvos.

[TrueFaith77]

I do care. I think he/she should be banned if that is against the board rules to call people "garbage." It has made me feel totally uncomfortable and feel as though this board is a hostile place. If we are allowed to call each other "garbage," then that is just the risk I take participating in this board--and I am likely to so less often. So it's up to the moderators.

[tilthefirefades]

Just to throw my 2 cents out there...I personally couldn't care less one way or the other. But I've never understood the thought to hinder rights in any way. What does one gain by taking them away? If there are gay couples out there that need a sheet of paper to validate their love, then have at it...it should be their right. I understand some feel it makes them equal, but in this regard, we are not equal. Gay couples are different from straight couples. Not that I believe marriage should be between any two people, but I just don't see the point in fighting restlessly over something that in the end will only cause disappointment and futile debate...at least in our day & age. Perhaps one day people will open their eyes and realize that gay people deserve everything that others get, but I don't know that I agree gay marriage should be defined by equality. Equality is a mentality, not a law. You can make all the laws you want, but until America as a whole agrees, there is no equality.

[sparky]

This is a very emotional issue for many people. And that is just the way the politicians like it.

Since Reagan, when the Republican party decided to harness evangelical Christians into the party and ultimately sold their soul to them, they have trotted out the twin issues of gays and abortion to fire up the unwashed and overchurched masses and get votes. It is the utmost in cynicism and a blatant emotional manipulation to gain power. But it is so basic. They are manipulating the uneducated and unsophisticated with emotion in order to garner their support. It is as simple as that.

But this country was not founded on emotion.

At the heart of this issue is logic. It is logical that all people should be able to love who they want, choose their mate, and live their lives unmolested by the government. That love affects no one but the parties involved. But logic and religion do not mix. I am not saying all religious people lack logic. But religion requires a disconnect with logic and that bridge is faith. Not everyone has it. And news alert! Not everyone in this country is Christian. And not every Christian buys the Bible as a historical document. So most Americans are on a lot of different pages. Most Christians I know look at the gay thing the way they do with all the silly Old Testament issues about shellfish and mixed fibers - it sounded good at the time and served some purpose but it doesn't anymore. Men wrote that book. Kings edited it. And trying to determine what a 2500 year old word really meant in that context when it had 3 different meanings is splitting hairs and hunting old camouflaged deer.
Enough on my theories about the Bible.

The bottom lines here are freedom and respect. There is so much brouhaha about the word marriage. And that is the hangup. I think it boils down to semantics. A vast majority of this country does believe that two women or two men in a relationship should be able to be in some kind of contract that affords the exact same legal protections and rights as a "marriage" but they are loathe to call it that. No one wants to see an evil family come in and take the home of a surviving partner because the law does not see them as related. That is cruel and punitive and violates all standards of decency. The problem is those same people think that civil unions or domestic partnerships will prevent that and they afford all the same protections as a marriage.

THEY DO NOT.

There is not a simple way to fix that problem. It would be simple, if people didn't have such an emotional and religious connection to the word marriage. But they do.
And I kind of understand it. It may be a generational thing. I never once thought I would "marry" another man, except as a joke. In my mind marriage actually does imply a man a woman. A man and a wife. And a truckload of gender specific BS about roles and behavior. We were shown Alvin Toffler's movie "Future Shock" when I was in grade school and there was a same sex marriage in it. Everyone snickered. I was horrified. Who was the bride? Who was the groom? I have since learned that Yes Virginia, there doesn't have to be a Man and a Wife or a Top and a Bottom. Two men can be together and that doesn't mean one is a Woman or has to sacrifice his masculinity.

I still remember Leave It To Beaver and Donna Reed. And I am as gay as Adam Lambert's leather jacket. I never once pictured marrying another man. Living with? Sure. Spending my life with? Maybe. Getting married? Marriage? Please. The very idea has always looked and smelled like misery. Suburban birthday party-screaming kid-miserable nagging wife-regretful sexually frustrated husband-midlife divorced-shattered dream-diverted goal- sacrifice your independence and identity hell in a big bow made by Target. No thanks. I know enough miserable married and divorced straight people who don't like either their spouses or if you can get get them drunk enough to admit it, their own children or their very lives.

So I was never sold on marriage.

However, if I ever did find a dude I wanted to commit to and spend my life with, I would want the process of making sure the legalities are binding to be as smooth and seamless as any str8 couple who landed in the Elvis chapel and decided to take the jump (yes I am talking to YOU, Britney). With all the risks and heartache that entails. If I die, he gets everything, if I am sick, he calls the shots, he gets on my insurance, I get on his, he gets my pension and vice versa. I pay my taxes. I am a law abiding citizen (mostly), and I should have that right. Call it marriage, call it a union, call it whatever the hell you want. It should be identical to a wedding between opposite sex people. Marriage isn't all about babies. Infertile people can get married. 80 year olds can married. A commitment is a commitment. And that kind of love is of the same substance. And btw I am not making any babies and pay a boatload of taxes and am not burdening the system with more people. I am a net gain. In the final analysis I am a huge bonus to the economy. And that allows me to dedicate 60+ hours a week to create ridiculous entertainment for everyone to distract themselves with and that time given to my career is not depriving anyone of a Daddy. So yippee for me and everyone else. I give more than I take to this economy and this country and I suspect that is true for most gay men.

And to those who say all people have the same marriage rights - you can marry anyone of the opposite sex like anyone else! Do you even hear yourself? Do you have the ability to imagine a life where you have no sexual and emotional attraction to the opposite sex? Can you imagine being forced to lie to someone your entire life and force yourself to have sex with them when the very idea and experience repels you on the cellular level? Imagine having to sleep with someone of the same sex every night for the rest of your life and put out. And pretend you like it. Walk a mile in a homo's shoes. Walk a minute. Just think of how much damage that does to everyone involved. The spouse, the kids, and all the extended family. People who are attracted to the same sex should lie and then destroy the lives of everyone they touch? And bear the burden of that damage? Or maybe just live their entire lives devoid of human intimacy and companionship? Just because you believe in some ancient book some men wrote up 2000 years ago and you choose to believe in it and follow it's often edited and suspiciously interpreted language? You take that as a legal document and demand a country follow it as a doctrine?

Anyone who would even imply that exhibits a spirit so cruel, and so inhumane, that I can hardly imagine what goes on in their minds. That is a subhuman statement to make. It denies the fact that all people are different and that there is a range of human experience, and implies that love of one kind trumps another. And do not toss that "People will be marrying their dogs and children" foolery into the mix. This is about people's humanity and their ability to love and find joy in companionship. Get off that missionary position only train and marriage exists for procreation only bandwagon for a minute and actually use your brain. There are other ways to live. Not everyone demands to live in a world where everyone's lives must look exactly the same or be subject to attack and destruction.

Should all marriages be annulled at infertility or menopause? I often wonder if the people who hoot about this whole "sex is for procreation only" concept ever kiss. Kissing doesn't make a baby. Hugging doesn't either. God knows oral sex doesn't. And for the benefit of wives everywhere, even the evangelicals, I hope that isn't off the table. And don't even mention anal. Something like 50% married couples do that. If marriage is only for procreation, then I suppose no other physical contact other than that which achieves fertilization should be allowed. All of a sudden the Mormon underwear starts to make sense. Perhaps full body shields with access holes are the answer. Those Mormon underwear really need to cover mouths though, because kissing doesn't make babies.

In conclusion, I still don't know if I would every want to be "married" to another guy and make that leap of commitment to another human being. But in this country, in this year, with our constitution, how dare anyone say I can't?

How dare they even suggest it?

This country was created on the concept of freedom. Get the hell off mine.

[GypsySorcerer]

^^^^ :xoxo: I've missed you, Sparky. Come around here more often, 'kay?

[vivfox]

Sparky, that was absolutely brilliant. Brilliant is your color babe.

[KarmaContestant]

Speak for yourself. I think you should be banned for breaking a board rule by calling that poster a bad name.

I second that. It was OVER the line.

I do care. I think he/she should be banned if that is against the board rules to call people "garbage." It has made me feel totally uncomfortable and feel as though this board is a hostile place.

We are in a period of time where there is a national debate over equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, but I have no doubt that full marriage equality is coming, and it's coming soon. It is inevitable that some people will fall on the wrong side of this debate, so to speak, and years from now others may very well look back and wonder how in the world anyone could have been opposed to marriage equality.

The notion that only heterosexual couples could marry will seem ludicrous, I have no doubt whatsoever.

Because it's a current issue and many are apprehensive about change, feelings run deep and tensions are high - but the fact remains that for some people, anyone who disagrees with marriage equality may very well be considered "garbage". Is it kind of harsh? Maybe. Should that opinion be kept to oneself? Perhaps. But for some of us - myself included - this issue of gay marriage is as critical as any other civil rights issue, and I doubt any one of us would have a problem with a board member calling an advocate of white supremacy garbage - or calling a mysogynist who was posting about the inferiority of women garbage, regardless of the rules. If a member of this board were on here posting about how our soldiers were being killed in combat, or that a U.S. city was devastated by a natural disaster because America is too liberal towards gays and God hates fags, would anyone *truly* care if another member called them garbage? You may say yes out of political correctness, but I wouldn't believe you.

It's all relative to me. As any gay person can testify, the world we live in isn't always a nice place to be.

[HejiraNYC]

The notion that only heterosexual couples could marry will seem ludicrous, I have no doubt whatsoever.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DxdCisBAuxA/TW_0ly2KjgI/AAAAAAAAAoE/xwTMb9YFicg/s1600/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg

[KarmaContestant]

"Race mixing is Communism."

:laugh:

[HomerMcvie]

We are in a period of time where there is a national debate over equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, but I have no doubt that full marriage equality is coming, and it's coming soon. It is inevitable that some people will fall on the wrong side of this debate, so to speak, and years from now others may very well look back and wonder how in the world anyone could have been opposed to marriage equality.

The notion that only heterosexual couples could marry will seem ludicrous, I have no doubt whatsoever.

Because it's a current issue and many are apprehensive about change, feelings run deep and tensions are high - but the fact remains that for some people, anyone who disagrees with marriage equality may very well be considered "garbage". Is it kind of harsh? Maybe. Should that opinion be kept to oneself? Perhaps. But for some of us - myself included - this issue of gay marriage is as critical as any other civil rights issue, and I doubt any one of us would have a problem with a board member calling an advocate of white supremacy garbage - or calling a mysogynist who was posting about the inferiority of women garbage, regardless of the rules. If a member of this board were on here posting about how our soldiers were being killed in combat, or that a U.S. city was devastated by a natural disaster because America is too liberal towards gays and God hates fags, would anyone *truly* care if another member called them garbage? You may say yes out of political correctness, but I wouldn't believe you.

It's all relative to me. As any gay person can testify, the world we live in isn't always a nice place to be.
But this is a FORUM. Debates are all part of it. If your own(not you) view of the world is so myopic that you can't TOLERATE any opinion, other than your own, then you probably shouldn't participate.

#doesn'tplaywellwithothers

[jannieC]

We are in a period of time where there is a national debate over equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, but I have no doubt that full marriage equality is coming, and it's coming soon. It is inevitable that some people will fall on the wrong side of this debate, so to speak, and years from now others may very well look back and wonder how in the world anyone could have been opposed to marriage equality.

The notion that only heterosexual couples could marry will seem ludicrous, I have no doubt whatsoever.

Because it's a current issue and many are apprehensive about change, feelings run deep and tensions are high - but the fact remains that for some people, anyone who disagrees with marriage equality may very well be considered "garbage". Is it kind of harsh? Maybe. Should that opinion be kept to oneself? Perhaps. But for some of us - myself included - this issue of gay marriage is as critical as any other civil rights issue, and I doubt any one of us would have a problem with a board member calling an advocate of white supremacy garbage - or calling a mysogynist who was posting about the inferiority of women garbage, regardless of the rules. If a member of this board were on here posting about how our soldiers were being killed in combat, or that a U.S. city was devastated by a natural disaster because America is too liberal towards gays and God hates fags, would anyone *truly* care if another member called them garbage? You may say yes out of political correctness, but I wouldn't believe you.

It's all relative to me. As any gay person can testify, the world we live in isn't always a nice place to be.

One could just say, "what you're saying is complete garbage." It's not cool to call names; we have the ability to defend our positions without resorting to that. The message gets lost, in my opinion, when we speak that way.

But for some of us - myself included - this issue of gay marriage is as critical as any other civil rights issue

I get this and find the whole situation heartbreaking.

[HomerMcvie]

I get this and find the whole situation heartbreaking.

But the change is coming. And people hate change! It's only a matter of time....

[jannieC]

But the change is coming. And people hate change! It's only a matter of time....

Stupid NC's decision has definitely created a lot of dialogue. I was on vacation with a friend over the last few days and noticed that every news channel had some sort of discussion about these issues going on. That has to be a positive, right?

[HomerMcvie]

Stupid NC's decision has definitely created a lot of dialogue. I was on vacation with a friend over the last few days and noticed that every news channel had some sort of discussion about these issues going on. That has to be a positive, right?

Absolutely. And as strange as it sounds, I think NC's idiotic decision has probably helped gay rights, more than anything, since it's brought about such debate!

[KarmaContestant]

But this is a FORUM. Debates are all part of it. If your own(not you) view of the world is so myopic that you can't TOLERATE any opinion, other than your own, then you probably shouldn't participate.

#doesn'tplaywellwithothers

One could just say, "what you're saying is complete garbage." It's not cool to call names; we have the ability to defend our positions without resorting to that. The message gets lost, in my opinion, when we speak that way.


Yes, you're both absolutely right in principle. I know personal attacks aren't cool, but I just don't think a ban is the solution, and that was my point.

I'm sure markolas knows he went too far.

[HejiraNYC]

Absolutely. And as strange as it sounds, I think NC's idiotic decision has probably helped gay rights, more than anything, since it's brought about such debate!

I think this could all be part of a sea change toward enlightenment or a thousand major steps back in evolution. Mr. Obama definitely bet the house on this move.

On the one hand, I think it's incredibly powerful that the most powerful man on earth has stated his support for equal rights for GLBT. Regardless of where one stands on this issue, that kind of support is undeniable. And hopefully people who have kind of sat on the sidelines without feeling strongly about it one way or the other will feel more inclined to support the president. Rather than stating outright that religious institutions should have nothing to do with public policy in a secular society (which he could have!), I appreciate that he is turning the "golden rule" back on the religious wingnuts who wouldn't know the golden rule if it smacked them against their knuckles (probably because they were dragging on the ground to begin with). The vast majority of the unwashed Christian masses have probably never popped open a bible in their lives and have pretty much accepted the biblical messages spoonfed to them (selectively) as hate speech at their places of worship. Perhaps Obama's stance will encourage them to question the dogma they've been listening to all these years and really try to reach the core of Jesus's teachings about compassion, humanity, greed and salvation.

On the other hand, the lowest common denominators in society are coming out of the woodwork and are now being given a platform to preach their hateful bigotry. It is appalling that hate mongers like Tony Perkins, Maggie Gallagher and others of their ilk are being given any kind of voice in this debate, yet it's happening. It goes without saying that some will hear them and agree with them or solidify their pre-existing stances against equality. And anything can tip the balance in the battleground states.

I just don't know how this is going to play out. But in any case, I look forward to Obama giving a historic speech about human rights at the Democratic National Convention this summer.

[HejiraNYC]

I don't think media coverage like this is necessarily helping Obama... :facepalm:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120514031139-magzine-covers-newsweek-new-yorker-story-top.jpg

Reading some of the comments on blogs today, I am completely *astonished* by the level of stupidity out there in America. There is a sizeable number of people who now believe that Obama is actually gay. :rolleyes: smh!!

[jannieC]

I don't think media coverage like this is necessarily helping Obama... :facepalm:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120514031139-magzine-covers-newsweek-new-yorker-story-top.jpg

Reading some of the comments on blogs today, I am completely *astonished* by the level of stupidity out there in America. There is a sizeable number of people who now believe that Obama is actually gay. :rolleyes: smh!!
Seriously. SERIOUSLY? :facepalm: is right.

[TrueFaith77]

^^I don't know if Obama is gay or not (obviously). But there are is a rather vivid Internet mythology that proposes he is a bisexual freak. It's as compelling (and hilarious) as some shipperdom.

It's funny that he has come out with the same position as I have on this vote, yet he's lionized and I'm called "garbage." He believes it's an issue that should be decided by the states. If he considered it a Civil Rights issue, it would be unconscionable for a liberal to not think this is a matter of Federal jurisdiction. It would, essentially, be coming out on the side of State's Righters over Brown vs. Board. Like Obama, I'm sure, I believe that Bv.B is good law, is good Constitutional law, is right. This is an essentially Liberal perspective on my part and his. (I cite W.T. Lhamon's life-changing book DELIBERATE SPEED as my source for this reasoning.)

Like Obama, if given the opportunity to vote for this in the state of my residence, I would vote to include same-sex unions under the definition of "civil marriage."

Like Obama ALWAYS has, I would be against having the definition of marriage be cemented in the Constitution (thus, again, not a Civil Right).

Like Obama, I presume (at least officially), I do not think that those who oppose gay marriage are equivalent to the White Supremacists pictured here (gay people can't procreate; so the Satanic fear of miscegenation doesn't really analogize to my mind).

Unlike Obama, of course, I just don't believe in "Civil Marriages." (Admittedly, I may be wrong in how I've weighed the pros and cons of Civil Marriages--but I'm only one vote.)

[bluefox4000]

I'm not surprised. Call me a cynic but.....my god.....there's a lot of stupidity in the ole U.S

Mick

[Macfanforever]

I don't think media coverage like this is necessarily helping Obama... :facepalm:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120514031139-magzine-covers-newsweek-new-yorker-story-top.jpg

Reading some of the comments on blogs today, I am completely *astonished* by the level of stupidity out there in America. There is a sizeable number of people who now believe that Obama is actually gay. :rolleyes: smh!!

Wow .Thats a new one on the pres.

[KarmaContestant]

It's funny that he has come out with the same position as I have on this vote, yet he's lionized and I'm called "garbage."

Well that's interesting. I re-read this entire thread and I really can't find one string of words you wrote that even sort-of implies that you and Obama share the same (or even remotely similar) position on this issue. I'd say most readers would walk away with the impression that you fall on the completely opposite end of the spectrum.

:sorry:

Just sayin'. Clearly - I, and others, misunderstood you.

[KarmaContestant]

I don't think media coverage like this is necessarily helping Obama... :facepalm:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120514031139-magzine-covers-newsweek-new-yorker-story-top.jpg

Reading some of the comments on blogs today, I am completely *astonished* by the level of stupidity out there in America. There is a sizeable number of people who now believe that Obama is actually gay. :rolleyes: smh!!

All I could think is "WTF!?!?"

And then I remembered - Bill Clinton was hailed as America's "first black President". I think this is supposed to be a similar sort of message, though it is poorly executed.

[TrueFaith77]

Well that's interesting. I re-read this entire thread and I really can't find one string of words you wrote that even sort-of implies that you and Obama share the same (or even remotely similar) position on this issue. I'd say most readers would walk away with the impression that you fall on the completely opposite end of the spectrum.

:sorry:

Just sayin'. Clearly - I, and others, misunderstood you.

You mean this wasn't clear?

I want it to be clear that I have not stated my opinion on this subject at all (i.e., I have not indicated how I would vote). My points were simply to explain that a) it doesn't take a bigot to think marriage is defined as being a union between a man and a woman and b) this is not Civil Rights issue, according to my understanding of the term (another analogy: if same-sex marriages were legalized, but effiminate men were excluded from participating in them (as was the case with establishments serving alcohol in NY), THEN it would be a Civil Rights issue). There are a lot of Civil Rights issues that are being neglected by elitist gays and their Gay Orthodoxy.

For the record and for the benefit of the rest of the board, since Civil "Marriages" exist, if put to a vote, I would vote to allow any two consenting adults to be "married." But, again, I'm only one vote. And I'm OK with that.

Obama agrees that it doesn't take a bigot to have the opposite opinion, he agrees that it's not a Civil Rights issue and that it should be decided at the State level, and he would vote for Civil Marriages to be expanded to include same-sex couples. Those are all the positions I stated in the above quoted post from 5/10.

ETA: I also re-read the thread and see that you had written this:

I suppose that is the heart of our disagreement. I do see marriage for gays as a civil rights issue. It's okay by me that you don't. :shrug:

So... you had noted that it was on that point that we disagreed, which means you recognized, at that time, that you and I and Obama agreed on most things, but that Obama and I disagreed with you re: whether it is a civil rights issue (which, by definition, deals with Constitutional law--and, thus, Federal jurisdiction, which both Obama and I feel it does not--and he's a Constitutional Lawyer, so....). So I'm confused as to where you "really can't find one string of words you wrote that even sort-of implies that you and Obama share the same (or even remotely similar) position on this issue," when you are the person who summarized my position (my "string of words")--and perfectly identified your difference with me & Obama--so succinctly.

[Ghost_Tracker]

I could be wrong of course but I think maybe I finally figured out what Obama is actually up to:

North Carolina helped Obama win last time. But - the failure of gay marriage to get approved in North Carolina means that he won't get those Electoral Votes there this time around. And so - - they had to go shopping.

I suspect the way the numbers pan out, in order to win this time, with the loss of N.C., Obama *must* win Ohio, Virginia, and -

Florida.

Well, aren't there a lot of gay persons in Florida? Especially in some of the Florida Keys? He's banking that the older voters there who might in general not like this will just stay home and gripe; whereas the gay and gay-friendly ones will come out and vote for him. There might be hope he can get Ohio again; for example I believe they do a lot of business with Detroit in terms of making car parts, etc. and Obama has received some credit for helping to rescue the auto industry. They can campaign heavily in Virginia and just hope - - -

and then Florida for the win.

It's a theory, anyway. :)

[KarmaContestant]

You mean this wasn't clear?


Edit: I'm deleting my original, snarky post because it's not constuctive and, really, the conversation ran it's course, leaving little to say. Everyone wants what they believe is best, and despite attempts to discuss differences, reading another person's written opinion is not the best gauge of their intent or character. And...I like everyone here, regardless.

One of my favorite artists said it best. See him if you get the chance!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9TZMtG7AoAw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[vivfox]

I do care. I think he/she should be banned if that is against the board rules to call people "garbage." It has made me feel totally uncomfortable and feel as though this board is a hostile place. If we are allowed to call each other "garbage," then that is just the risk I take participating in this board--and I am likely to so less often. So it's up to the moderators.


He took an 8 month leave of absence from The Ledge and returned today.