Discussions
Gay marriage made legal in California?
Posted by bkerensa • 5/15/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Tags: blog, gay, marriage, news
What do you think about gay marriage now being legal?
I blogged about it on my blog at www.syndicatedelitist.com
User Comments
-
I am going to back slowly out of this thread because I can map out what is going to happen before it does.-
Hey...heard your name on CNN -
I did too! How cool was that! I was a little jealous..lol. -
Lol thanks
-
-
shameless-
Never mind this post, I misunderstood the response. Don't look at the man behind the curtain.
-
-
If anyone's crazy enough to get married...I say let them.
It's been legal here in Canada for a while now and the world hasn't come to an end.-
I'll agree with that.
I think marriage, in general, is Gay -
Imao! I agree.
-
-
I couldn't care less. I mean that married or not as long as two consenting adults are happy, then go for it. Everyone deserves happiness and who is anyone out there to shake their head about it? -
I agree with DrowseyMonkey, lol. I'm Canadian (and straight and totally support gay marriage. It's not much of an issue where I live and amongst my friends (gay or straight) and as DM said, the world hasn't come to an end. -
Halleluia! for California.
I'm Canadian. I'm a heterosexual female and I fought for same sex marriage in Canada. I entirely support the right of any two consenting adults who choose to enter into a life long union being able to contract do so.
It is immoral and unconstitutional for democratic nations to deprive same sex citizens of the equal right to obtain a marriage license.
It is invasive when governments and religious organizations try to control such a basic human need as to love and to be loved in return and to be acknowledged as good citizens for choosing to take care of one another.
Just to be crystal clear I do not believe for one single moment that the government or any of the tarnished religious organizations have any legitimate role to play in the bedrooms and broom closets of their citizens.
For a country like America that purports to be "free" to deprive its citizens of the basic human right to contract in such a way as to be able to dispose their possessions appropriately upon the demise of one or the other is nothing short of outrageous hypocrisy.
I'm so proud of California for leading the way on this issue.-
TIMETHIEF you are my hero!!!
I am hetero also but feel as strongly as you do about this. I am proud of you for your clear strong voice. AMEN GIRL! If I ever have to do battle I know who I'm choosing for my team! You are one amazing dynamo and I just love you for your it. -
I'm with you Robin, timethief said it brilliantly. And since I can add nothing more, I will be proud to stand next to her on this one. Amen! -
Timethief - you took the words right out of my mouth and even enhanced them.
Ben -
I'm having a hard time making sense out of this sentence: "It is immoral and unconstitutional for democratic nations to deprive same sex citizens of the equal right to obtain a marriage license."
What is "unconstitutional", of course, depends upon the provisions of the constitution of that nation or state. And isn't a "democratic nation" bound to implement the will of the majority--isn't that the definition of democracy? -
Only in a direct democracy, Tiffany. In a democratic republic, the government reserves the right to go against the will of the majority in the effort to provide equality for the minority.
Or, Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, as it were. -
Agreed, Anok, but then that's not really a "democratic nation", is it?
-
Well, yes and no. Colloquially speaking, yeah you can get away with saying "democratic nation" but technically speaking it's not.
We often refer to the US as simply "A Democracy" when it's not. Potato Pahtahto
-
-
I'm still waiting for the federal govt. to recognize such marriages so that international spouses can have the same rights to a visa that my wife does. But California has definitely taken a positive step in the right direction.
Edit: Seems kind of appropriate on this day when we're thinking, talking, and blogging human rights.-
@Mark
I'm also aware of the international spouses visa issue and I will be delighted when I see that change take place. I'm so happy to see this change in the course of American history. I hope that we will see every state do likewise ASAP.
What astonishes and angers me is all the asinine pseudo-arguments that amount to diddly squat. This is a human rights issue and today was the perfect day for this end of sanctioned discrimination against same sex couples come to an end in California to happen. -
You better not look at the competing thread Godzilla started. It's pretty much like everything else I've seen here from his keyboard.
-
Is marriage a human rights issue (straight, gay, or otherwise)? I'm not sure why it is. The kind of marriage under discussion here is a purely manufactured institution of the government--it's hard to see how anyone can have a natural human right to something government created.
-
"markstoneman
You better not look at the competing thread Godzilla started. It's pretty much like everything else I've seen here from his keyboard."
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... -
I don't think that marriage, specifically is a human right, but rather the ability to be treated equally under the law. The gap in marriage rights is a gap in equality rights, which is a human right.
So, yeah...it's a human rights issue by default -
@ Tiffany Human rights---or rights period---only have meaning when we're talking about states and citizenship. As natural or human rights, states would in theory not grant them, but they are only relevant in relation to the state. Our entire modern western human rights discourse arose in relation to the state. Three major documents come to mind: "The Declaration of Independence," "The Declaration of the RIghts of Man and the Citizen", and the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
@ Anok: Yes, equal treatment under the law was what I was getting at.
-
-
I don't think marriage should have anything to do with the State.-
Course religion isn't your friend either, so how do you take care of this? Is this where your inner anarchist comes into play?
-
It's a contract. Just deal with it like that and get the government out of it entirely. -
But contracts are enforced by the state.
-
I completely agree. As a gay man, I accept that the Catholic church and many others will not perform a marriage ceremony for me. I don't like it, but I respect it.
Marriage, in my mind, is a spiritual ceremony. I just want the state to honor my civil union. The state should not be sanctioning marriage ceremonies and the churches should not be performing legal civil unions. -
Mark, in my whole long and getting longer life, I've never had a contract I've signed enforced by the state. I've never even needed one litigated by the state. A contract is a voluntarily entered into agreement between rational entities for the purpose of mutual benefit. The Government has absolutely no place in that except as requested as a arbiter of last resort when failure to perform is alleged. And that can even be done away with by using arbitration services.
The State serves no useful purpose in a marriage contract. -
DonLewis, I think your analogy falls apart when you consider the high levels of emotion involved in marriage and divorce versus the sale of a parcel of land or an agreement to repair a piece of equipment.
There is also the fact that there are often parties in interest (children) who were not party to the "contract", but whose interests nonetheless must be protected. -
@MadameX
That would mean that you feel the State is a more rational actor than the individuals making the agreement. Perhaps you do think that. Given the decisions that frequently come from the courts, I do not.
Besides, you should see some of the emotions that crop up around here on land sales. -
It doesn't assume that the state is more rational, simply more objective. However, though I don't think much of many of the decisions of "the state" in its various forms, after years as a divorce attorney I definitely believe that virtually ANYONE is more rational than the parties to a divorce while it's in progress. And it's certainly less willing to actively destroy children as a means of "getting at" the other party.
-
I've got no problem with religious marriage. However, the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage what so ever!
-
Well said..... I think that marriages which derive from common law should still stay in a common law form and not be regulated by the Federal or State governments at all.
Federal and State governments follow statutory law and generally disregard common law. Further, I agree with some of the statements by Anok..... the United States is about as far away from real democracy as it gets we are sort of a democratic republic or even perhaps a federalism form of government.
What I find funny is the constitution is the highest law of the land yet congress is allowed to pass laws which supersede the the constitution without making a direct ammendment to the constitution?
For instance if anyone commits a felony they are disenfranchised from the right to bear arms...... yet the constitution in its originality and with its amendments does not stipulate any specific group of people that are to be denied the right.
There are tons of catch 22's like this in the law we abide by.
-
-
@Daniel
Neither do I.-
But what about property relations? Child custody? etc., etc., etc. There are many reasons for the state to be involved, though the state could afford to be more generous with the options. Take common law marriages, for instance.
-
All of those things can be predetermined contractually. If the State is needed at all, it will only be needed as a arbiter of failure to perform. It has no place in the actual contract, and no place in deciding who should be involved in a voluntary agreement between rational entities.
-
@DonLewis. Hmm. For once we agree on something. -
@Pentad
Had to happen sooner or later.
-
-
First, it's Marriage Equality, not gay marriage. But, thank you for starting the thread.
I was married to my "husband" on June 17 of last year. Our minister conducted the ceremony while our assistant minister sang.
Our church office this morning was flooded with emails in excitement for the decision. We are already planning a second ceremony that the state will officially recognize in front of the entire congregation next month.
How do I feel? Ecstatic.-
@Bradley
Congrats! I'm also ecstatic.
BTW I take it that the "shameless" comment above means that this forum thread may have been better placed in the Shameless Blog Promotion Category, rather than in General Discussion because the OP was pointing to his own post on the subject. -
OOPS. By bad. It actually made me laugh which is why I responded in a joking way. I'm glad I didn't get on my soapbox and go nuts.
My apologies to you, crkian. -
Congrats to you buddy. I'm not gay, (in fact I adore women) but if you love someone it should be your right to marry them.
May you have a happy life together -
Congratulations, Bradley.
If two people love each other, what business is it of anyone else? -
Congratulations Bradley 310!You are still a newlywed
When two people want to share a life together they should have the exact same rights across the board regardless of who they marry. -
Congratulations!
-
Perhaps the title of the thread was not politically correct although when it comes down to it the supreme court's decisions only effected the marriage of same-sex persons and the news media was refering to it mostly as the legalization of "Gay marriage".
Honestly, I think this decision was long overdue my mother is a lesbian and has a partner although I do not think she will ever get married simply because she is set in her own ways I do on the other hand believe that this decision was correct and reflects the fact that the State of California has been discriminating against same-sex couples for too long.
-
-
Congrats Bradley, I wish you 2 the best and lotsa fun...
@timethief
well, you said it all for me ...thanks -
I cannot wait for the other Americans states to read their constitution, stop all the BS-ing and face the truth. This is a human rights issue [full stop]. This sanctioned discrimination that has endured for so long in a democracy is unconstitutional and intolerable and it must end.
-
-
That's what I don't understand. People supporting their state to amend their constitutions to designate marriage is only between a man and a woman. How quickly Americans forget history. Countries placing laws on the books to restrict the rights of a group of people has always been a bad sign. It should scare the crap out of everyone. As you said, marriage equality is not an LGBT issue, it's a human rights issue.
-
-
This is true
-
I don't really care what other people do.
-
Well... it seems I'm the only one here who thinks gay marriage is inmoral. Didn't come here to hold a fight just to hold a point.
I'm not homophobic, I'm not against gay couples doing their own business in privacy. I just think marriage is something beyond "civil contracts" or "consensual agreements" between adults. It is (must be) the supreme expression of love and compromise between a man and a woman who decided to spend the rest of their lives together to love and take care of each other and their progeny.
Just my $0,02, you can shoot me now -
Amtel.
The thing I like about this discussion board is the right to say what you like. No need to worry, we could find lots of people to agree with you. -
As a gay man, I love it when people are open an honest about how they feel. I use to hold sessions with gays and straights together and found it most refreshing when an uncomfortable. straight person spoke out about their feelings.
I can only say that I am saddened that you find me spending the rest of my life with the person most dear to me and that I love with all my heart is immoral.
That being said, I can only add, that if you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry one. -
Yup, I'm with amtel. I disagree with the "immoral" part.However, I don't feel marriage is necessary to "form a more perfect union".
We have here a group of people who proudly display
their alternative lifestyles and are happy with the differences
between themselves and the "straights", yet they seem so very
upset at being denied the "straightest", least alternative,
most ragingly hetero institution there is. Feh.
Where does it say you need to be married to "prove" your love? My S.O.
and I were together 24 years without making it official. I never doubted her love, nor she mine. A license wouldn't have made a difference
in our feelings, or for that matter, in society's perception of our relationship. -
I agree a marriage license is not necessary to form a loving union and commitment to each other. That's what my husband and I did last year when we were married.
All we ask is for the same benefits that hetero's receive when they are married. Two friends of mine have lived together for 30 years in the same house. When one of them dies their house will be reassessed and the other one will likely have to sell and move out. Not something heteros have to deal with, among many other things.
And btw, my life is so not alternative. We're about as dull as any couple there is. -
@Bradley. I don't disagree with you on any particular point. For me it is a matter of wording. I don't particularly like the idea of taking any traditional word and changing it's meaning.
Traditional marriage, to me, is the union of a man and woman. I say that with the utmost respect for you.
I don't think that this would have been such a hot topic over the years if the gay community had been fighting for the legal rights of marriage and using a different term.
My "Only" problem is envisioning the day when someone asks if I am married and I say yes, then they ask, "To a man or woman?"
I'm not even dating now, so it's less of an issue. Hopefully you see my point and don't take this, in any way, as offensive. -
I'm not offended, but it doesn't make sense to me.
I originally thought that I didn't care what people called it as long as we had the same rights. Then one day it hit me, that is still separate but equal. Why should it be called something else just because you are uncomfortable with it? I know you don't think it's a big deal but it does imply less than and will never be considered equal as long as it's called something else.
My husband and I refer to each other as husbands in every situation. We never hesitate to refer to our marriage. That is never going to change. -
I know what you mean and I don't really know what the best answer is. I feel bad distinguishing the difference and saying that you should call marriage something else. Really my only concern is that in the future I may have to specify that I am married "To a woman". Where, traditionally, when I was married it was assumed that it was to a woman.
-
Well, I have come across many hetero couples, that are married, that do even come CLOSE to showing "the supreme expression of love and compromise between a man and a woman.
Those are the people I wish would do their immoral relatioship in privacy. -
Sir,
that would actually be immoral and I wont hold your opinion against you however other people may..... I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion even if I or other think it is wrong.
Thanks for contributing to this discussion! -
I have MUCH bigger concerns in life than specifying whether I'm married to a man or a woman.
-
-
I am against all forms of marriage, but if two people really want to do it, they should have the right (regardless of their genders).-
I should also like to note that married couples pay more taxes.
-
-
Where gay marriages are illegal gay couples are discriminated against in terms of insurance benefits,medical benefits and tax credits and estate issues...
Gay marriages in Canada were not implemented to address these discriminatory practices against gay couples but solely as a smokescreen to divert attention away from the corruption of the governing liberal party...
The Canadian Citizens were not allowed to vote on this issue nor was legalizing gay marriage ever mentioned in the liberal party election campaign...
Having said that it turned out that legalizing gay marriage in Canada did not really create any adverse effects and the gay to heterosexual ratio did not change...
People should be defined by the content of their character and not by their sexual orientation...-
When marriage equality was implemented in the Netherlands, both the divorce rate and domestic violence went rate went down. I am in no way suggesting that was a result of gays being allowed to marry, I just want to emphasis that they didn't seem to find gay marriage having any effect on the "institution of marriage."
Last I heard, Massachusetts is still there as well. -
i read about it, was happy but what abt the weed -
Right; correlation does not imply causation.
-
@friedclyde
"I read about it, was happy but what about the weed ?"
I fully agree with you...While certainly not wishing to promote marijuana smoking and especially advising youth that Marijuana smoking is a health hazard it seems rather odd that the civil/and or human rights of marijuana users is never considered...
There are very few gay people on planet earth compared to the amount of marijuana smokers on planet earth...
What is the big deal to allow a few gay people the right and benefits of a marriage ?...Jurisdictions that do allow gay marriages have not experienced any major changes or problems because of allowing gay marriages...
The law of nature for all mammals is male/female...The human race will always be almost entirely heterosexual...Allowing gay marriages will not alter this simple fact of nature....
Many "Criminal" Marijuana Smokers whose only "crime" is either smoking, possessing or growing Marijuana have had their money and property stolen and/or been imprisoned by their government...
Without endorsing marijuana smoking it is ovious that those convicted of Marijuana crimes have had their human rights violated by their government even if only on the basis that the government heavily taxes the use of alcohol and allows alcohol to be legal which is far more ruinous to society than marijuana ...
Many marijuana users are "convicted felons" who cannot travel to certain countries and are disqualified from certain jobs because of their marijuana criminal record...These are a clear violation of human rights...
Marijuana does not cause cocaine/crack or crystal meth use...
Cocaine/crack and crystal meth causes cocaine/crack or crystal meth use...
The gay marriage issue is an irritating smokescreen that essentially takes attention away from the more important issues mankind faces...
Gay marriage should not even be an issue...
-
-
Then there's always my view: www.humorsmith.com
See "The Wedding Closet"
This board seems a bit one-sided, so discretion being the better....-
I loved it. It was hysterical. Except for the Richard Simmons part. We don't claim him at all. I think he is in a category with Michael Jackson and they haven't come up with a name for that yet.
-
-
nebbermind.
-
Hey Bradley310, congrats on your June 17th marraige and have fun with renewing your vows.
Hopefully, you and your husband can teach us "hetero" married people how to do it. We sure as hell ain't getting it right. Look at OUR divorce rate!!!
hahahahahahahaha. -
Bradley;
I agree completely about the rights issue. It's ludicrous to think people
can actually lose something simply because the law dosn't view the relationship as valid.
As to your point about losing a home not being a problem for "straight" couples, my lady and I were joint tenants in our house,and had one of us died, then either the survivor would have had to sell or make payments on their own, so yes, it does happen to heteros.
Thanks for the heads up about Simmons. I've changed it to to Ellen.-
I'm not sure I made it clear. I wasn't referring to having to make the regular house payments. What I was saying is that if one of the parties dies, then the house is reassessed and your tax rate goes up based on the new assessment. Living in California where a simple house can cost now well over $500,000, it obviously makes a huge difference. The reassessment does not occur with legally married couples.
-
Even if both you and hubby's name is on the house?
DAMN!!!! That sucks! -
Yes, thats true, by not getting married in a hetero relationship you stand to lose all the same rights that a homosexual couple does.
But the point that hasn't been addressed yet, is that was your CHOICE not to marry. Homosexuals don't have that choice. They can either not marry, or....not marry.
I would assume that you and your SO took the time to contemplate the legal; ramifications of not marrying each other in a legally binding way, and came to the conclusion that this was what you wanted to do.
Homosexuals do not have the choice to sit down and have that talk - whether to make it official or not. They have one choice. -
@RTBjr73 No, if you are legally married they do not do the reassessment. It's only non married couples and it's even if they own the house together. It's just an example of one of the difference.
@Anok
Yes, choice is the difference. May gays say they don't care because they don't want to marry, which seems odd to me since I'd think they'd at least like the legal option.
My hubby and I want to get legally married, and planning is in the works, but we are meeting with an attorney first to discuss any ramifications especially since I'm currently on disability. That would be a smaart move for hetero's as well.
-
-
Wow...that is genuinely messed up, and it needs to be fixed. There are positive signs in some areas; I used to work for Borders, and they offer health insurance coverage to same sex couples. In fact, it annoyed me because it
wasn't offered to hetero unmarried couples. Their justification: because being unmarried is a choice for straight couples, but the only option for gay couples.-
As I said, by all means assign full legal and social rights to gay couples.
This is only fair. Just leave marriage as is:
between a man and a woman. -
I'm glad you think we should have all the same rights, but stating it shouldn't be called the same still implies that you do not view it as the same. I know it's just a discomfort for many people, but that says a lot.
-
This is what kills me though. Marriage is a word that has changed it's definition multiple times throughout history. I know people forget what has happened prior to their existence and all - but Marriage being used to describe all marriages would be far more accurate to the historical and ORIGINAL roots of marriage - which recognized all people as worthy of it.
-
-
OK, here is my question though - why would you want to create a law that prevents people from doing something that has no effect on you, or anyone outside of that couple? (Or rather, prevent a law from coming into existence that would allow the couple to do something that has no effect on you, or anyone but the couple)?
That's what I don't understand about marriage equality - why is there a need to prevent people form doing something that has no effect on anyone else?
And why do people seem to think they can claim ownership of the word, and act, of marriage?
The history of marriage is a long and sordid one. People often forget that there were times when marriages of all kinds were recognized (including homosexual, polygamous, or "shot gun"), and there was a time period when marriages were only about the transference of property from a father to the husband. (Yes, I said that correctly - daughters were "property" that needed transferring along with a dowry).
No one has claim on what a marriage is - just because some portion of it was defined in Webster Merriam's' dictionary so many ages ago.-
There are Gay Pride parades. There are no "Hetero Pride" parades. Many people are demonstrating for gay rights, and that's swell. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against for their beliefs, but neither do I think folks outside of the mainstream need to shove their lifestyle in our faces. I don't march anywhere proclaiming my hetero status. I just live my life as best I c an
Live as you wish. Do as you wish. Gays are in almost all instances allowed to go and do as they please. Why is it so necessary to marry? Just accept the full legal recognition you will eventually receive and leave at least this one institution as is. -
The straight world can't truly call it its own, that's my point. It's not limited to heterosexuals.
If heterosexuals wanted to have a parade, they could. Of course they have no reason to have a parade - they have no need to bring the inequalities to light by way of parades, protests, marches, or demonstrations.
But take a look at the words you are using to describe homosexuals and their fight for equality under the law:
"Mockery"
and
"Shoving their lifestyles in your faces"
If they had equal rights none of this would be a problem. -
I guess the blacks shouldn't have marched in the 60's either. How dare they they flaunt their race in our faces. What a public spectacle they were.
As for gays having equal rights in almost every instance. You need to do some research. -
Yes it would still be a problem, equal rights or no. I cannot see marriage as anything other than between heteros. I don't have an issue with relationships or love or anything else between same sex folks, but marriage is where I respectfully draw the line.
I didn't say they had full legal rights yet, Brad. I said in most cases they are free to live their lives as they choose.
Black rights= gay rights? Please. If a gay person feels persecuted, they can choose to hide their orientation. How does a Black person hide their skin color? -
why are you bringing up Gay Pride? This is a not a LGBT issue. This is a human rights issue. The simple right to be married to the HUMAN that you love.
You stated "Gays are in almost all instances allowed to go and do as they please. Why is it so necessary to marry?"
That is no different than telling a woman that "in almost all instances allowed to go and do as you please. Why is it necessary to vote?"
Or telling a Black American that "in almost all instances allowed to go and do as you please. Why is it necessary to sit in the front of the bus?"
What I mention was not a "black" thing, or a "woman" thing. It was a HUMAN thing.
And it is sickening!!!!
Geez,
I hope when my kids are my age, that they only reference this BS only in historical discussions.
I know, I know...wishful thinking. -
Whether or not you can see it, or are willing to accept it as true has no bearing on whether or not it should be a right.
Personal ick factors, religious ideologies, or opinions are thankfully not part of the criteria for determining equality.
But again - look at what you're saying
"If you don't want to be persecuted, just hide it!"
Um, no. -
Hide their orientation? Oh, that's a nice life. I did it for 35 years and it's a sad and twisted thing to do.
Standing at the water cooler hearing everyone tell their tales about their husbands and wives, while you have to stand there silently is no way to live. In fact, it's downright sick.
Bill O'Reilly says this a lot. That we can be who we are, but we shouldn't talk about it. Our sex life should be nobodies business. Well, I've got to say that I'm not one to stand around the office talking about all the sex I've had the night before, but talking about a gift he gave me would be nice.
-
-
I think it is great, and anyone who is offended by it needs to seriously consider the bigger, scarier and more important issues that face us ALL as humans.
Like Google being the antichrist.
-
I have to say I am excited because we can finally get married.
(I know you have junk, don't deny it.) -
Yes, I do.
I was created VERY special. -
So when I tell you to go f yourself you really can?
I knew it. -
I thought you were the anti-Christ?
-
Yes and yes to both of you.
Well, as soon as my lawyers are through with Google I will be.
Hooyah!!
-
-
Okay, so offendedblogger AND Google are the antichrist?
-
@humorsmith
why are you bringing up Gay Pride? This is a not a LGBT issue. This is a human rights issue. The simple right to be married to the HUMAN that you love.
You stated "Gays are in almost all instances allowed to go and do as they please. Why is it so necessary to marry?"
That is no different than telling a woman that "in almost all instances allowed to go and do as you please. Why is it necessary to vote?"
Or telling a Black American that "in almost all instances allowed to go and do as you please. Why is it necessary to sit in the front of the bus?"
What I mention was not a "black" thing, or a "woman" thing. It was a HUMAN thing.
And it is sickening!!!!
Geez,
I hope when my kids are my age, that they only reference this BS only in historical discussions.
I know, I know...wishful thinking.-
I think you're wrong about your kids. I mean sure, the Klan exists and there will always be prejudice against other races etc. But the kids today, for the most part, consider homosexuality a non issue. You even see it on some of the most conservative campuses.
-
-
Fine. As a gay, or a Martian, woman, Black, whatever, please take equal rights. They are deserved simply because of your humanity. But do not dress your struggle up in the glorious garb of the Black equality struggle. They were and
often still are persecuted because of their appearance. Gays can choose not
to let anyone know their orientation if they feel threatened. I'm not saying that's right, I'm saying it's a fact, and it's a choice Blacks don't have.
I think it's important human rights be applied to all, but why is it necessary to aggressively pursue the one thing most people in this country don't agree with you on? You're just making the whole thing more difficult than it should be. Fight for equal rights, and once those are granted, then probably so will gay marriage be sanctioned. Not that I agree with it, but that's democracy. Once something is voted in by the majority, there it is.-
I'll bet no one's mind has been changed. :-)
-
And Brad....I've never talked about my sex life at the office. I've had many gay
employees who have, and not one eyebrow was raised. I listened to my assistant manager rave about his active social life and how hot he thought all the guys he met at the club were, and neither I or anyone else present said anything disparaging to him. I would never diss someone about their lifestyle.
I have been in situations wher politics have come up, and rather than get into a physical altercation, I have kept my silence. That's called self preservation and judicious thought, not hiding. Are you saying you must hide your orientation in every situation? I can't believe everyone in California hates gays. -
You are right. Not everyone in California hates gays. We're probably the most gay friendly state in the nation, though there are extreme pockets that are not so open minded.
I know you don't think the correlation between blacks and gays is the same. My black husband would disagree with you, but I realize ones persons viewpoint doesn't makes it so.
Regarding the gay people talking about their sex life in the office. It's inappropriate,but if no one minds then I guess no big deal. If someone finds it offensive then they should be treated as harassment just as it would be if it was a straight person. Depends on the company and the state, but that's the case with most companies.
Finally regarding Democracy and the people voting on every issue. In 1948, the California courts were the first to determine that the state could no longer ban interracial marriage. This was despite the fact that over 90% of the states citizens disagreed.
And you're right. Probably no ones opinions have been changed today, but I hope there was a small spark. -
[...] but why is it necessary to aggressively pursue the one thing most people in this country don't agree with you on? You're just making the whole thing more difficult than it should be.
Read what you are saying.
Let me insert the proper words for you so you can see what the problem is.
but why is it necessary to aggressively pursue equal rights when some people in this country don't want you to have access to the only rights heterosexuals can claim as their own?
You're just making the whole thing more difficult than it should be. Re: Stop making such a stink and don't fight so much, we don't want to give you the rights, and don't want to see you fight for them, either
That may not be what you meant - but that is how it reads.
And that is ALL they want - is to have equal rights.
Why are people fighting so hard to keep them from having equal rights? Is there ANY valid reason to prevent them for having equal rights? -
@Bradley- When you say, "Regarding the gay people talking about their sex life in the office. It's inappropriate"
IMO, it's inappropriate regardless of preference. -
Yes, I thought that I made it clear. It is inappropriate for anyone, and is considered harrassment in most companies.
-
-
Gotcha....I'd forgotten about that 1948 event. So in not all cases does the majority rule, however, in most human rights issues in this country, the right thing has been done.
Black and gay rights?
Gays can sit anywhere on the bus
Gays so far as I know, have never been owned by White folk
Gays can sit at the counter in a diner
Gays can vote
Gays can use all the drinking fountains
Gays are rarely lynched
Gays can own property
Gays can work wherever they choose, protected by law
Gays get equal pay for equal work
So, where is the correlation? Although most of the above was written in a lighthearted manner, my question is serious.-
Anok: Bosh!
You are smart enough to realize setting aside the hot button issue of marriage is the quickest way for gays to gain equality across the board.
Your liberal rhetoric is misguided, and you're making it tougher on your fellow activists. Just cool your jets and do an end run around the issue. The American public is asleep at the wheel, they have been for years, and it will be easy to slip an equal rights for gays measure which includes a small print provision for marriage right past them.
Or you can keep demonstrating and marching and keep the marriage issue stage center and never get it passed.
Despite my opposition, if and when gay marriage becomes legal, I will accept it and go on with my life. -
The correlation is that one of the stipulations against blacks was that they could not marry whites.
Marriage inequality - just like homosexuals can't marry the person of their choosing.
That said, homosexuals have come far in equality rights, they simply have not come all the way. Marriage and adoption rights are two of the last few things to deal with. They have had to fight to be hired, to have rights, to not be lynched, abused, or beaten and dragged behind the back of a truck until they died (*ahem* these things still occur - keep that in mind). There was a time when being a homosexual led to your arrest.
Oh yeah, the gays were also [one of the specifically targeted] groups in the Holocaust that no one talks about. Not only did they endure some of the worst torture, but they were also the group that was rescued last as even the US wanted nothing to do with saving homosexuals from the horrors they had been subjected to. That was in the 1940's, just prior to blacks getting the right to marry who they wanted to.
Nope, the homos got it easy though, right? *snort*
Of course, if you think that the discrimination has actually stopped, you're dreaming. Employers and insurance companies and people discriminate against gays on a regular basis - just as soon as they find out they are gay. -
No, humor - stopping the marches won't do now.
had the government just issued them the right to get married when they asked for it THE FIRST TIME without all the pomp and protest - this wouldn't be an issue.
But the folks who oppose it made it an issue - so they will get an issue.
That's how it works here, my friend. -
Ok, now you have said the key word that drives me nuts...liberal ethics. I'm surprised at that because I consider myself pretty conservative and I totally see this as a conservative issue. I thing reductng government control is a conservative issue.
I have much respect for Barry Goldwater, who was a big time conservative, who wrote on of the best articles on why gays should be allowed in the military. Based on his arguments I'm certain he would agree here.
Simple fact, neither party is true conservative. Each wants to enact laws and get involved in peoples affairs. The only difference are the issues they perceive as most important. -
Oh geez - I didn't even see the word liberal.
I'm an Anarchist, not even close to a liberal. however if wanting equal rights is a liberal ethic - I'll take it. -
Gays are rarely lynched
they call it gay-bashing and matthew sheperd was the tip of that iceberg.
a friend of mine who kept to himself, did not "proclaim from the mountaintops" his sexual preferences nor anything about his sex life, was gay-bashed and nearly killed. someone in his apartment complex assumed he was gay because he had a roommate.
so he ran him over in the parking lot as he was on his way to his car to go to work.
bashed his head open.
he was lucky. paramedics arrived quickly and were able to piece him back together. there are a lot of others who aren't so lucky. like the visually impaired man who was jumped one evening and beaten because locals assumed he was gay.
no. the beatings have a different name. but they are not rare. -
[...] the gays were also [one of the specifically targeted] groups in the Holocaust that no one talks about. Not only did they endure some of the worst torture, but they were also the group that was rescued last as even the US wanted nothing to do with saving homosexuals from the horrors they had been subjected to.
Sorry Anok, I'm a supporter of gay rights, but that bit about homosexuals during the Holocaust is highly exaggerated.
Homosexuals were at times persecuted by the Nazi regime, but never on the scale or intensity one would imagine based on how often the story seems to come up. The Third Reich was very ambivalent regarding the persecution of homosexuality-- at times being indifferent (in the early years of the NSDAP, a number of leaders, most prominently Ernst Rohm, the head of the SA, or the party paramilitary wing, were openly gay-- a man who loved men was often considered to be extra masculine.) There were pink triangle badges issued to homosexual concentration camp prisoners (but according to books I have read, about 10,000) but as the current revision to the wikipedia article states:
Not everyone convicted under Paragraph 175 was sent to a concentration camp; in fact, most were sent to ordinary jails. Most gay men who suffered and died in Nazi concentration camps actually wore the yellow star (because they were both gay and Jewish).
While the number of homosexuals in concentration camps is hard to estimate, Richard Plant gives a rough estimate of the number of men convicted for homosexuality "between 1933 to 1944 at between 50,000 and 63,000." [1]
source:
-