| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/05/2008 11:38:47 AM · #551 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Well, I would assume you don't want a civil union to a partner of the same sex. It was implied by your question. If you are talking about a civil union to a member of the opposite sex, then your question is, I assume, ironic, and my sarcasm inappropriate. |
My point is it shouldn't make any difference in the eyes of the law if the person I loved was the same gender, race,or faith as I am or not. I asked if "Civil unions" were strictly intended for gays or if this is going to be the term for secular marriage, because if I were to marry today, I would feel morally obliged to marry under the laws that are reserved for those who are seen as not being worthy of "the sacrament of marriage". There ought to be no discrimination in who has access to which legal rights based upon religious faith, or genetic makeup. It just isn't American. |
Right. And so I misunderstood, and spoke out of turn, and I'm sorry. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 12:08:21 PM · #552 |
| My misunderstanding as well. Thank you for clarifying things, Brennan |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 12:55:14 PM · #553 |
| I'm absolutely sickened by the Prop 8 results. I honestly didn't think it was even possible! I guess it's just hard for most of us Canadians to understand... |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 12:56:54 PM · #554 |
Me three, Brennan.....but then, that's not exactly something new for me......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:01:34 PM · #555 |
So now what?
What am I, now? Married? Who's going to be the first to step up and tell me I'm not?
Are the Mormons going to knock down my door, and forcibly take Eric's and my wedding rings and certificates? I made sure to pick up two copies of that precious paper from City Hall yesterday, while I still could.
And hey! If any of you voted for Prop 8, speak up. I'm looking for volunteers to call my mother to explain to her why her idea of family isn't as good as yours. I'm dead serious. I have already asked her explicit permission, and she would LOVE to hear from you.
You know what, I like to live life as a 'normalized' gay man. I don't like rainbow stickers. I just don't do public displays of affection.
But now it is my MISSION to teach your children that gays can indeed live in love no matter what your churches say. I'm taking you at face value, and adopting the goals you've assigned me to scare yourselves into taking away my rights. I don't CARE about any risk to my health or property. For the first time ever I will be running a flag up my 15' prominently placed suburban corner lot flagpole and leaving it there. A RAINBOW flag. Yes, I think it's a tasteless eyesore... but it will remind your children every day for blocks around that they have gay neighbors. Long term, 13-years together, wedding ring wearing, kissing each other faggots tainting your neighborhood, making all those lil' tykes ask you awkward questions about why two men have shacked up down the block. I'm taking it to the streets!
When I walk past your schools, I will make it a POINT to hold my partner's hand. I'm going to start doing what you straight couples take for granted every day. I might even kiss him to remind him I love him even if my state doesn't. I'll call him husband in public as often as I can. I won't just be some guy waking down the lane... I'll be a gay man walking down the lane. I'm busting out my pink triangle pin!
Telling us we can't get married ISN'T going to make us cease to exist. And congratulations! You just made it my explicit goal to make sure you and your kids know that your neighbors are gay and we're not going away. Just look at the statistics! Your kids already accept me more than you do! And I'm going to work as hard as I can to make sure that my discreet, normalized gay friends shed their masks and do the same... to stand up and be counted!
Yep, I am now one of those obnoxious, radicalized, in-your-face gays. I am no longer content to 'pass' as a normal, quiet, tax paying citizen, because Prop 8 is my reward for doing so.
Thanks.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 13:10:27. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:04:22 PM · #556 |
| There are more elegant ways to respond. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:13:05 PM · #557 |
Mousie, while I fully support your views and lifestyle, I can't say that I am in favour of your change in attitude. Yes it is frustrating, and yes it is incomprehensible that others would want to trample on your rights, but the "Sticking it in your face" approach will probably do you more harm than good.
Ray
I just read your response to Louis... I may have been hasty in my submission as it seems I misunderstood your intentions... my apologies.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 13:17:17. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:15:39 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by Louis:
There are more elegant ways to respond. |
What could be more elegant that simply saying "we're gay" with small, universal gestures of affection, and colorful symbols of identification?
The only thing I have proposed here is to be identifiable. I see heterosexuals holding hands and kissing ALL THE TIME.
I didn't hold hands in publc mainly to appease those around me and keep them comfortable. Well, I'm no longer willing to restrict myself, when the end result is even more restrictions, and not coming from me, but imposed by external forces?
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 13:23:06. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:21:03 PM · #559 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I'm absolutely sickened by the Prop 8 results. I honestly didn't think it was even possible! I guess it's just hard for most of us Canadians to understand... |
Ditto. It's ironic that the Mormon church should lead the charge to define marriage, and I have to wonder how "traditional" marriages were in mortal danger last month? I suppose it's a little heartening that the 60% majority is down to 52%, but it's still disappointing. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:21:22 PM · #560 |
| I'm sorry this backward-looking abomination of an amendment was passed. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:22:29 PM · #561 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Mousie, while I fully support your views and lifestyle, I can't say that I am in favour of your change in attitude. Yes it is frustrating, and yes it is incomprehensible that others would want to trample on your rights, but the "Sticking it in your face" approach will probably do you more harm than good.
Ray
I just read your response to Louis... I may have been hasty in my submission as it seems I misunderstood your intentions... my apologies. |
If I can make one gay kid in my neighborgood (and I guarantee there's at least one) feel a little less disconnected from society, giving them comfort that there are people out there just like them and that if they work hard they can live good, upstanding lives smack dab in the middle of everyone else and not in some tacky gay ghetto like the Castro... then I will have won.
If only I had had someone like me to compare myself to when I was a kid, maybe I wouldn't be quite so freakin' bitter as an adult today.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 13:25:30. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:28:04 PM · #562 |
Peter, don't worry about the kids, you don't have to argue with them that your marriage is "real". They already know.this slow loading PDF shows a study of what I, as the father of a teen, already know, that our children are more tolerant of gays than we are.
As part of civic education schools often hold "elections" to vote on the matters put before the state, of the 4 high schools I know of the average was about 75% against prop.8. The people you need to work on changing the minds of are your mom's friends, not your friend's kids.
I'm sure that telling you to wait, that acceptance is coming, will have all the comfort that telling a black man that things were going to be OK, the day after Martin Luther King was shot.
Please don't let the fear that the passing of Prop. 8 represents, change who you are. My aversion to seeing two guys playing tonsil hockey in the Castro is the same as it is watching a straight couple groping each other behind a bar in Bakersfeild. Be who you are, and keep working for change, and imagine a gay person being elected president. Ya, it is unimaginable, but so was our President-elect to so many people who lived through the 1960's |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:40:07 PM · #563 |
It isn't over Mousie. There are other ways to get people to understand. Look at it this way, half the population is on your side at 48%, that's a lot of people. The question was badly worded in my opinion.
Let me ask you and anyone else who wants to answer, please do so. Why is it so important that it be called marriage? Is it because of the religious aspect in that you want your union to be recognized by a church? Or is it more like you think it may bring more acceptance from the general religious public? That's always been a question I've wanted to ask and when I think about it, if I were gay, I wouldn't give a hoot that it isn't called marriage because I am non-religious. As long as all my rights are respected as those between a man and a woman's are. I think that's the only thing that separates both sides in this battle. Both want something that fundamentally cannot be given by one or the other because it isn't in their power to do so because of their religious leanings.
Sorry if I chose a bad time.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:48:32 PM · #564 |
Originally posted by Jac:
It isn't over Mousie. There are other ways to get people to understand. Look at it this way, half the population is on your side at 48%, that's a lot of people. The question was badly worded in my opinion.
Let me ask you and anyone else who wants to answer, please do so. Why is it so important that it be called marriage? Is it because of the religious aspect in that you want your union to be recognized by a church? Or is it more like you think it may bring more acceptance from the general religious public? That's always been a question I've wanted to ask and when I think about it, if I were gay, I wouldn't give a hoot that it isn't called marriage because I am non-religious. As long as all my rights are respected as those between a man and a woman's are. I think that's the only thing that separates both sides in this battle. Both want something that fundamentally cannot be given by one or the other because it isn't in their power to do so because of their religious leanings.
Sorry if I chose a bad time. |
I guess you haven't read this thread. It's the government that insists on using the term marriage, not gay couples. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:55:57 PM · #565 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Let me ask you and anyone else who wants to answer, please do so. Why is it so important that it be called marriage? Is it because of the religious aspect in that you want your union to be recognized by a church? Or is it more like you think it may bring more acceptance from the general religious public? That's always been a question I've wanted to ask and when I think about it, if I were gay, I wouldn't give a hoot that it isn't called marriage because I am non-religious. As long as all my rights are respected as those between a man and a woman's are. I think that's the only thing that separates both sides in this battle. Both want something that fundamentally cannot be given by one or the other because it isn't in their power to do so because of their religious leanings. |
I've covered this over and over, and this is hardly the complete set of reasons, but here's my LEGAL take on why I want gay marriage:
One main reason I want marriage: It provides MORE rights and responsibilities than Civil Unions, and it is TRANSITIVE across state lines. I'm married in CA, which means I'm married in every last goddamn state in this nation, as mandated by federal law. If I were in a domestic partnership or civil union, which other states have NO obligation to recognise, my rights end the minute I cross the state line.
I also don't accept separate but equal. If an alternate relationship is made available that has exactly the same rights and responsibilities as those of civil marriage... it is civil marriage in everything but name... the ONLY thing that is being protected is the ability of religious people to deny our relationships are the same as theirs. Which of coure they are not, as far as the state WAS concerned.
I also care about religious freedom, believe it or not, and that's another huge argument in favor of gay marriage for me. What the government has just done is establish religion. They have selectively chosen to enforce the beliefs of one group of religious people, conservatives, at the expense the righs of NUMEROUS other religious people in churches that have NO PROBLEM marrying gays. What about the rights of those churches to do as they please without government interference? They now can't perform mariages they would have otherwise! The public has just done a huge disservice to freedom of religion, and in fact this is my greatest hope for getting Prop 8 overturned at a federal level.
Now a personal reason.
I want gay marriage because, as I have said again and again, it is not just about me. It is about my parents, both new and old. It is about my siblings, my new sister in law, my cousins, nieces, and nephews. We are all one big family now, and the state should recognize that. MY FAMILY accepts my marraige. Why should some church I have nothing to do with get to tell MY FAMILY how to live? What am I going to tell them all now? How can I possibly ease the pain they are all going to feel in sympathy for me?
I could go on and on... but it's beating a dead horse. If these arguments have not been heard and understood by now... jeeze... how could they NOT have been heard by now? Why do us gays have to explain ourselves over and over to justify just wanting to BE NORMAL and live like everyone else? To share in a common human tradition that has been so long denied to us out of prejudice?
Just a few years ago even the SEX I could have was illegal in 13 states. And you still wonder why we care so much?
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 13:58:00. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 02:00:28 PM · #566 |
If the State Supreme Court's basis for overturning the ban on same-sex marriage is that it violates the principle of equal protection, why wouldn't they rule Prop 8 as invalid as a violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.?
I already heard one guest on a radio show opine that there will soon be a petition circulating to place a measure on the ballot to overturn this provision. There's a precedent for undoing a bad constitutional amendment with Prohibition ... |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 02:00:37 PM · #567 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
One main reason I want marriage: It provides MORE rights and responsibilities than Civil Unions, and it is TRANSITIVE across state lines. I'm married in CA, which means I'm married in every last goddamn state in this nation, as mandated by federal law. If I were in a domestic partnership or civil union, which other states have NO obligation to recognise, my rights end the minute I cross the state line. |
You are deluding yourself if you believe this to be true Mousie. It's just not the case. States are currently given the freedom to recognize or, uh, unrecognize a gay marriage granted in another state. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 02:56:02 PM · #568 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
So now what?
What am I, now? Married? Who's going to be the first to step up and tell me I'm not?
Are the Mormons going to knock down my door, and forcibly take Eric's and my wedding rings and certificates? I made sure to pick up two copies of that precious paper from City Hall yesterday, while I still could.
And hey! If any of you voted for Prop 8, speak up. I'm looking for volunteers to call my mother to explain to her why her idea of family isn't as good as yours. I'm dead serious. I have already asked her explicit permission, and she would LOVE to hear from you.
You know what, I like to live life as a 'normalized' gay man. I don't like rainbow stickers. I just don't do public displays of affection.
But now it is my MISSION to teach your children that gays can indeed live in love no matter what your churches say. I'm taking you at face value, and adopting the goals you've assigned me to scare yourselves into taking away my rights. I don't CARE about any risk to my health or property. For the first time ever I will be running a flag up my 15' prominently placed suburban corner lot flagpole and leaving it there. A RAINBOW flag. Yes, I think it's a tasteless eyesore... but it will remind your children every day for blocks around that they have gay neighbors. Long term, 13-years together, wedding ring wearing, kissing each other faggots tainting your neighborhood, making all those lil' tykes ask you awkward questions about why two men have shacked up down the block. I'm taking it to the streets!
When I walk past your schools, I will make it a POINT to hold my partner's hand. I'm going to start doing what you straight couples take for granted every day. I might even kiss him to remind him I love him even if my state doesn't. I'll call him husband in public as often as I can. I won't just be some guy waking down the lane... I'll be a gay man walking down the lane. I'm busting out my pink triangle pin!
Telling us we can't get married ISN'T going to make us cease to exist. And congratulations! You just made it my explicit goal to make sure you and your kids know that your neighbors are gay and we're not going away. Just look at the statistics! Your kids already accept me more than you do! And I'm going to work as hard as I can to make sure that my discreet, normalized gay friends shed their masks and do the same... to stand up and be counted!
Yep, I am now one of those obnoxious, radicalized, in-your-face gays. I am no longer content to 'pass' as a normal, quiet, tax paying citizen, because Prop 8 is my reward for doing so.
Thanks. |
You can choose to behave like the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and Louis Farakhans of the world and most likely get the same reception they get from the general populace. OR you can behave like Barack Obama and get all you ever dreamed of and more - with the support of the very folks who would normally oppose an Al Sharpton. Your choice. The proof was demonstrated yesterday. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 03:18:13 PM · #569 |
Originally posted by Ann:
... I think about the changes that have happened during Del and Phyllis' lives, and realize that while the pendulum will swing back and forth, the tide of history is inexorably moving towards equality. |
Perhaps it is important now to recall this remark  Ann made a few days and posts back.
I do feel that the pendulum WILL swing far enough.
The time WILL come when equality is the norm.
It'll take a little more time and a lot more effort,
but it will happen.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2008 03:39:30 PM · #570 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
One main reason I want marriage: It provides MORE rights and responsibilities than Civil Unions, and it is TRANSITIVE across state lines. I'm married in CA, which means I'm married in every last goddamn state in this nation, as mandated by federal law. If I were in a domestic partnership or civil union, which other states have NO obligation to recognize, my rights end the minute I cross the state line. |
You are deluding yourself if you believe this to be true Mousie. It's just not the case. States are currently given the freedom to recognize or, uh, unrecognize a gay marriage granted in another state. |
I believe the intent is to make it EASIER to be recognized in those states that recognize all marriages. Otherwise, we'd be creating dozens of different 'versions' of gay marriage. In a few years, we'd be looking back & wondering why people would set this up for disaster.
Why not make it 'universal' throughout the states, from the beginning? |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 03:55:28 PM · #571 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Why not make it 'universal' throughout the states, from the beginning? |
Ya, that's a whole state's rights / federal rights thing. That argument is a bit beyond me. If the point of the post was this is the first step in an attempt to make it transitive, then I won't argue. If the point of the post was that being married in California grants marriage rights in all states currently, then I'd say that's not correct. If it was, why not just fly to Massacusetts and get married there? That would seem to me to be a way around Prop 8 if the transitive power of gay marriage exists. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 04:19:57 PM · #572 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Why not make it 'universal' throughout the states, from the beginning? |
It used to be, but on September 21, 1996 the "Defense of Marriage Act" specifically allowed states to not recognize unions performed in other states and defined the word marriage as " ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
States can do what they want, but the Federal government will not force a state to grant rights given in one state to be applicable in another state.
Puts me in mind of Lincon's " a house divided" speech, and the granting of ownership recovery rights of slaves in free states, this issue is getting more and more complex, and some simple radical solution is down the road a bit. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 04:53:38 PM · #573 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Why not make it 'universal' throughout the states, from the beginning? |
It used to be, but on September 21, 1996 the "Defense of Marriage Act" specifically allowed states to not recognize unions performed in other states and defined the word marriage as " ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
States can do what they want, but the Federal government will not force a state to grant rights given in one state to be applicable in another state.
Puts me in mind of Lincon's " a house divided" speech, and the granting of ownership recovery rights of slaves in free states, this issue is getting more and more complex, and some simple radical solution is down the road a bit. |
Thanks, Bill Clinton!
I swear that man makes me so mad, him and his flaming cigar of hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 05:00:17 PM · #574 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Why not make it 'universal' throughout the states, from the beginning? |
It used to be, but on September 21, 1996 the "Defense of Marriage Act" specifically allowed states to not recognize unions performed in other states and defined the word marriage as " ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
States can do what they want, but the Federal government will not force a state to grant rights given in one state to be applicable in another state.
Puts me in mind of Lincon's " a house divided" speech, and the granting of ownership recovery rights of slaves in free states, this issue is getting more and more complex, and some simple radical solution is down the road a bit. |
Thanks, Bill Clinton!
I swear that man makes me so mad, him and his flaming cigar of hypocrisy. |
Don't forget the "Don't ask don't tell" policy, another Clinton screwed up policy regarding gays, imo. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 08:30:44 PM · #575 |
| no baiting please. offending posts have been removed. Any further violations will result in suspension from posting for a period of time. Play fair! |
|
