Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Hydropower Illuminates a Piece of History






Truthdig Bazaar
Dissent: Voices of Conscience

Dissent: Voices of Conscience

By Colonel (Ret.) Ann Wright and Susan Dixon
$15.00

more items

 
Report

Anti-Prop. 8 Protests Around the Country

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 16, 2008
NYC protest
Flickr/maxintosh

A tour group in New York City gets a unique perspective on protesters marching against Proposition 8 on Saturday.

On Saturday, people took to the streets all around the U.S. to protest the passage of California’s Proposition 8 and to show their support for same-sex marriage. Here, we’ve compiled 40 of our favorite photos from Spokane to Houston to New York City (watch for some clever signage along the way!).

Watch a slide show of the demonstrations below:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By KDelphi, December 19, 2008 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

Hesperion—Wow..enough to make me “bi”!! LOL! Wait a minute—am I?

Marshall—bloe me….c’mon, you’ll feel better. You are so obssessed with it. I just keep coming back here, and, here you are, defending motherhood and applepie…and too many kids, and, suburban sprawl, and ALL THINGS ‘MERKIN!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 19, 2008 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

Marshall:
’... We’ve clarified the fourteenth amendment’s meaning over time and it plainly does not protect same sex marriage. ...’

A number of courts have decided that it does.  That’s the reason for the resort to referendums, for example, Proposition 8.

Report this

By Hesperion, December 19, 2008 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie and KDelphi: As we have seen here, the heterosexual is clearly not to be trusted with decision-making. They are known to be selfish, willfully ignorant and stubborn. They don’t practice monogamy (as is demonstrated by statistics) but if they feel their dominion is threatened they will construct vast moral obstacles to require it of others. They all look alike. When they get wet they smell like potato chips. It is statistically proven that they molest children, statistically, usually their own. They consume the vast majority of the world’s resources with impunity and breed uncontrollably insuring further continued mass consumption without contributing much of anything. They insist on their great superiority when all they really have is majority. This gives them the assumption that they can dictate for all people. This is typical of their kind. Tradition tells them what to do. This is because of their lazy minds that resist thought and consideration. Even in the face of facts they will repeat and repeat myths, lies and legends. This comforts them inexplicably making them impenetrable to reason. They have their dominion over us all only by force of arms, sheer numbers and revenue. They are known for their anger, vindictiveness and meanness. They only amuse themselves to communicate with us in these venues because they have not completed the readiness of the facilities for our incarceration and eventual extermination.

[So you see, Prejudice goes both way and is often fostered in reciprocity.]

Report this

By Marshall, December 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, December 19 at 7:42 am #

I do understand that you see this as a rights issue, and that the current legal framework should be changed to fit the circumstances.  But throwing out a system of case law that evolves over years to better handle just such issues is not how our system works.  We’ve clarified the fourteenth amendment’s meaning over time and it plainly does not protect same sex marriage.

We’re also dealing with more than just the desires of a small self-described group here; we’re dealing with societal values held by a majority and real concerns about traditional institutions and the importance of supporting them for future generations.  I believe that absent civil rights legal protection for same sex marriage advocates, society has every right retain its traditional definition.

Regarding the polygamy - i know you weren’t arguing against it.  But i think it’s a clear analog to the same sex issue given another self-described group who’s preference (and they would argue, “right”) calls for a redefinition of marriage to accommodate a non-traditional structure.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 19, 2008 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

Marshall—I’ve observed arguments between flat-earth advocates and others in various places, so I’m well aware that no matter what anyone says, you will be able to string some words together, grammatically enough, which “refute” any proposition about the world, even those which are completely obvious to everyone and immediately verifiable.  It’s a trick even a clever child of six or seven can learn.  It’s hardly worth pursuing for very long.

As for polygamy, certainly, if people are strongly attracted to it, the Constitution commands that the laws be adapted to them.  The law is made for people, not people for the law.  I was just saying that constructing the laws would be far more difficult than legalizing same-sex marriage and might take a good deal of time and discussion.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 18, 2008 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

Marshall-“I think you’re getting hung up on an earlier aside i made regarding single parenting stats.  I’m not comparing single parenting to same-sex households.(YES YOU WERE—OR,IF IT HAD NO PLACE THERE) (mine)  My only point about same-sex households is that in the absence of conclusive scientific consensus,(are you kidding me? How would that be?) (mine) society has every right to discourage such non-traditional structures.  And because no rights are violated, it’s not an equal rights issue.”

This was in reply to my stating that there was no scientific evidence. But, your stats were not scientific evidence…huh??OK. There has been opposite (??)(who can tell?? you say..) sex two parent families since the beginning of the country…are THEY possibly the cause of our hyper-militarism? Our loss of the middle class? Our greed and lack of concern for others with non-similar beliefs?

I am not submitting that they are—-just that there is not scientific evidence to prove othrewise.

Correlatin is not causation

“Speculation about current divorce rates isn’t really relevant to the main discussion so i’m not going to comment on that.”

Then why did you say that “current divorce rates were down”? I just listed the stats. You brought it up.

Apparently, you thought that it mattered earlier
(the death of the nuclear family concept and its promotion in society.), or, did you mean, like I would probably say, “thank gawd!”

“Anyone can call themselves anything they want - including heterosexual.  Do bisexuals exist?  You tell me.  How about Polygamists?  Since there is no possible way to differentiate among these many groups, this removes one’s stated sexual orientation from the equation - which is why the issue isn’t about sexual orientation at all, but about the right to marry someone of the same sex by preference.  Period.  And this is precisely why it’s not a civil rights issue…”

So, you would agree it is not about sexual orientation at all—good, Glad you agree that it is not about what sex someone is.

So you are just “afraid of it leading to polygamy”...right…well, the state of Utah is already full of them.

And, since you will not drop the polygamy red herring (any other arguments? Besides unproveable messed up kids?), I have to conclude that you are a homophobe, and, worse, too chicken ass to admit it.

You should be thrilled with Pastor Warren.

Report this

By Marshall, December 18, 2008 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment

By KDelphi, December 17 at 1:17 pm #

I think you’re getting hung up on an earlier aside i made regarding single parenting stats.  I’m not comparing single parenting to same-sex households.  My only point about same-sex households is that in the absence of conclusive scientific consensus, society has every right to discourage such non-traditional structures.  And because no rights are violated, it’s not an equal rights issue.

Speculation about current divorce rates isn’t really relevant to the main discussion so i’m not going to comment on that.

“Same-sex unions could provide stable homes for some of these children”

...or they may not - we just don’t know.  Until we do, i think public and legal opinion is correct in preferring traditional family structures.


By Anarcissie, December 17 at 6:31 am #

“while same-sex marriage is easy and obvious, legally institutionalized polygamy is not so easy and obvious.”

You are right, but if you argue the civil rights angle for polygamy (which would make as much sense as arguing it for same-sex), then the legal difficulty of polygamy would be no excuse for denying a group its civil rights; thus the argument for legalizing polygamy would stand.

Report this

By Marshall, December 18, 2008 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, December 17 at 6:19 am #

“You would have to show that the normal model of marriage (in the United States) is not centered on sexual attraction and its concomitants”

The origin of marriage is complicated and it would be difficult to show that it is based, or not based, on just about anything.  Absent your proof that sexual attraction is a constitutional requirement of marriage, i don’t see a case for you there.

“or that there weren’t really any homosexuals”

Anyone can call themselves anything they want - including heterosexual.  Do bisexuals exist?  You tell me.  How about Polygamists?  Since there is no possible way to differentiate among these many groups, this removes one’s stated sexual orientation from the equation - which is why the issue isn’t about sexual orientation at all, but about the right to marry someone of the same sex by preference.  Period.  And this is precisely why it’s not a civil rights issue.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 17, 2008 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

Marshall—How ridiculous! There is no “logic” in comparing single parent families to same sex parental families!

I am sure you know that, intellectually. You just wont accept it, on a gut level.It just “bothers” you—you need to find out why…unless, of course, it is religious conviciton, which, you have no right to thrust onto others, unless we are a theocracy. We are not.

I submit, again, that it is none of your business.

It is a matter of human rights. Do you support equality (as you say you do) or not?

Divorce rates are down, but the reasons “why” seem to be alot more complicated. Some think it may be due to more extended cohabitation, which you probably dont “approve of” either.


8.1% of coupled households consist of unmarried heterosexual partners, according to The State of Our Unions 2005, a report issued by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. The same study said that only 63% of American children grow up with both biological parents—the lowest figure in the Western world.

Same-sex unions could provide stable homes for some of these children. We also need to teach BIRTH CONTROL!! Good lord—this “purity ring” crap doesnt work! It is also criminal, in my mind, to not teach male and female condom use, especially in Third World countries, which we are rapidly becoming, but that is another isuue.

There were approximately 2,230,000 marriages in 2005—down from 2,279,000 the previous year, despite a total population increase of 2.9 million over the same period.

Stats show that 36% of births in the uS are to single mothers—the highest in the free world, despite the christian rights’ “marriage promotion”.

There are some even scarier stats here:
http://www.singleparentsuccess.org/stats.html

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 17, 2008 at 7:31 am Link to this comment

Marshall: ’... Because there is no difference between the arguments in favor of same sex marriage and in favor of polygamy.’

The difference is that there is a universally accepted working model in American law and custom for same-sex marriage between two persons, to wit, different-sex marriage between two persons, whereas there isn’t for marital unions between more than two equal persons.  In other words, while same-sex marriage is easy and obvious, legally institutionalized polygamy is not so easy and obvious.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 17, 2008 at 7:19 am Link to this comment

Marshall: ’... Then we’re back to the previous positions, mine being that there is no violation of equal protection because all persons of all claimed sexual orientations (since independent verification is impossible) have the right to marry. ...’

No, we are not.  You would have to show that the normal model of marriage (in the United States) is not centered on sexual attraction and its concomitants, or that there weren’t really any homosexuals.  Both of these propositions will be considered preposterous in any place where common sense is permitted to exist.

Report this

By Marshall, December 17, 2008 at 1:37 am Link to this comment

By KDelphi, December 17 at 12:08 am #

The studies i speak of address outcomes of children raised in single vs. two parent (i.e. “nuclear”) familes; where kids from single parent families suffered lower academic performance, higher mortality rates, higher incarceration rates, etc… It’s a good thing then that the number of single parent families has been dropping, as has the overall divorce rate (now at 48%), for the last twenty years.  Of course however high we may think that is, it’s certainly no argument in favor of allowing alternative marriages.

Which, btw, you would have to support if you buy the logic of same sex marriage.  Because there is no difference between the arguments in favor of same sex marriage and in favor of polygamy.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 17, 2008 at 1:08 am Link to this comment

Marshall—“proven data” and “my belief” ( as well as “no studies”) are totally contradictory..

but , the two parent nuclear family is going so well, we should all judge..

51% of all heterosexuals who have been married, are no longer. Quite a track record.

Well, at least they cant blame it on gay marriage, yet!

I still say it is religion. I see no secular belief to base your ideas on.

Report this

By Marshall, December 17, 2008 at 12:37 am Link to this comment

“as to whether same sex or other so-called “atypical “ marriages are “good for society”, is purely you opinion.”

That is correct.  The proven data i speak of is with regard to single vs. two parent households which clearly favor two-parent arrangements.  I know of no credible studies comparing same vs. opposite sex marriages.  My argument isn’t based on studies, nor is it based on religion.  It’s based on my belief that secular society has the right to make value judgments and promote those judgments through policy.  Since i don’t buy the civil rights argument in favor of same sex marriage (as i explain previously), i see no impediment to enforcing a traditional marriage framework.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 16, 2008 at 11:03 pm Link to this comment

Marahsll—I was hardly supporting polygamy, but, as to whether same sex or other so-called “atypical ” marriages are “good for society”, is purely you opinion.

You submit that they are not. I submit that they are.

They provide a long term framework for relationships. They promote manogamy. They provide a framework for children. They promote a more open society.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Spain, and other forward thinking countries.

The only REAL reason to oppose it , is really religion. Isnt that true? I have seen the “studies”—but not a single one that isnt backed by some uber-religius think tank.

I would like to know where you got the data for such a statement—that anything, save “traditinal christian marriage” is ‘bad for society”...

Report this

By Marshall, December 16, 2008 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, December 16 at 7:38 am #

Then we’re back to the previous positions, mine being that there is no violation of equal protection because all persons of all claimed sexual orientations (since independent verification is impossible) have the right to marry.  The fact that the state chooses to encourage the traditional nuclear family by discouraging polygamous, same-sex, or other alternative arrangements in no way violates that protection and those who claim such violation are a self-described group, not a civil rights group.  The state does not guarantee one’s happiness or gauge sexual attraction - that’s your business, and there is no abrogation of 14th amendment rights.

Likewise i would not support the legalization of polygamy, group marriage, or similar alternative marriages.  The complicated legal/structural issues you mention aside, these are not arrangements that are of benefit to society.  Just as single parenthood is discouraged given its demonstrated inferiority when compared to two parent families, society has its origins in, and indeed an obligation to promote collective values.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 16, 2008 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

Marshall—Marriage is a state institution created on the basis of sexual attraction and its consequences.  As long as the state does this, then equal protection of the laws applies (in the United States, as long as the parties to it are voluntary, informed and competent).  If you don’t like this, you need to get the 14th Amendment repealed.

KDelphi—There is no problem with polygamy as long as everyone is happy.  Unfortunately, in marriage as with other contractual arrangments, not everyone remains happy with what the contracts they have entered into, and it is necessary to break them up.  It is already very tricky to break up marriages, especially those with children, between two persons while treating all parties justly and with the least harm.  The problems will be greatly compounded in marriages with more than two primary participants.  People attempting to deal with such arrangements legally or otherwise might have to study what we know about societies with such marriages, instead of simply following the prejudices of the voters or their friends and business associates.  Unlike same-sex marriage, polygamous marriage presents signficiant structural differences which the laws would have to take account of.

Report this

By Marshall, December 16, 2008 at 2:00 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, November 28 at 7:23 am #

Why can’t it be both?  There are many things that the state promotes which are not solely the invention of state, but which would be undermined were they not encouraged.  We’d all like to have a greener society, but i imagine you’d support govt. mandating of green programs in order to help make it happen?

There’s no question that govt. does promote societal values through policy - its inevitable.  And it doesn’t make those values entirely the invention of the state.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 28, 2008 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

Actually, I think that it is the WAY polygamy seems to be practiced, both here (fricking wierdos) and abroad. If all are of age, concensual (we would have a sticky wicket there, considering a child brought up in a polygamous society wouldnt know much else), and they pay taxes and dont try to live off of govt benefits, even when they are rich (like LDS and Wal mart)—I say—have at it!!

You should be able to be miserable with as many people as you like. Polygamous males—women with 5 husbands. I dont care if you marry anyone (unless it is family, and then I have genetic stake in that!@)

So, why do you?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 28, 2008 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

Marshall—You’re saying that marriage is solely a creation of the state?  That’s not my perception, but if so, equal protection of the laws applies.  You have neatly refuted your own prior arguments (insofar as you had any).

I wish we had gotten to this point sooner, because your view is strongly related to the usual theory propounded by religious bigots, which is that the nuclear family can exist only if it is enforced and regulated by the power of the state.  In other words, there is no natural basis to marriage—it’s a social artifice.  And the only reason to construct the artifice is that some gigantic spook in the sky, who most people can’t see or hear, orders humanity (through a select few) to construct it.  Do you want to lower yourself onto that hook now? 

Alternatively you could claim that your views on marriage are a personal prejudice which other people should obey just because you say so.

Report this

By Marshall, November 27, 2008 at 10:50 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, November 27 at 7:01 am #

“There is no absolute reason why polygamy shouldn’t be legal between competent, informed, consenting adults.”

Exactly.  And same-sex marriage is the line that, when crossed, will make any argument against polygamy practically impossible.  Marriage will then cease to be anything but a state license to receive benefits, and since there will be no qualifications for receiving that license, everyone will be able to receive those benefits.  This is, essentially, the death of the nuclear family concept and its promotion in socieity.  And this is exactly the agenda of those behind polygamy.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 27, 2008 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

I see we have some more sophistry from Marshall.

There is no absolute reason why polygamy shouldn’t be legal between competent, informed, consenting adults.  However, assuming you think the state ought to regulate marriage, setting up the laws to regulate polygamous marriage will take some time and discussion because many new and complex issues will be raised.  Same-sex marriage of couples, by contrast, can be easily modeled on different-sex marriage.

Of course, this is a red herring, but at least it’s easily disposed of.

Report this

By Marshall, November 26, 2008 at 10:13 pm Link to this comment

By Hesperion, November 26 at 6:36 pm #

Let’s set aside the fact that i’ve hurt your feelings for a moment and address a real issue for those who oppose gay marriage.

You accuse me of “propounding bigoted myths that he insists on believing.”  But I ask you and anyone - in all seriousness - the following question:

Why is the idea of legalized polygamy anymore far fetched than the idea of gay marriage was until recently?

The fact is that polygamy is ALREADY being advocated for as the next “battleground” in altering the definition of marrige.  The ACLU recently stated that it will defend the “fundamental right” of polygamy.  There are cultures in which it is legal today.  There are numerous alternative lifestyle groups that advocate it.  And there are no substantive differences between the arguments for gay marriage and polygamy.  Those who support same-sex marriage currently have a vested interest in dismissing the idea of legalized polygamy as “ridiculous” because to acknowledge its similarities would alienate many potential same-sex marriage supporters.

So please - I’d like to hear the response of anyone here as to why polygamy should not be legal?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 26, 2008 at 9:55 pm Link to this comment

Hesperion:
’... We do not confide in haters and it is just too tiring to teach someone who will not learn.

My theory is that he’s from another universe.  He has now said that, in effect, homosexuals don’t exist, as well as that sex is irrelevant to marriage. 

What I’m wondering about is how the messages get through to TruthDig.  Some kind of space or time warp, I suppose.

Report this

By Hesperion, November 26, 2008 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

Marshall says:
“Hesperion - you keep accusing me of inaccuracies but fail to point out a single one.  If you want to belittle some of my points as cliche and uninformed, at least give me some reason to believe you know why they are.”

Marshall here says I am “accusing” him of “inaccuracies” and I am not. I am accusing him of propounding bigoted myths that he insists on believing. He asks that I give him reason why these are “cliché and uninformed”. He fails to grasp that I have done with him after his insults and hurtful generalizations which led to my feeling licensed to respond in kind. He has demonstrated an inability to comprehend which is why I have not bothered to attempt his remedial education on the subjects that we who grew up and survive as gay people have had to deal with all our lives from the likes of him. He blundered in here pronouncing how we are and what we think and do as if he had some knowledge which he could not have as shown by his remarks. He claims he wants “discussion” but he has shown that what he really wants to do is insult, demean, belittle and condescend to us. It is obvious that he has never known a gay person well enough have his myths either smashed or brought into question. But judging from what he has said about us (indeed directly TO us) that is an unlikely possibility. We do not confide in haters and it is just too tiring to teach someone who will not learn.

Report this

By Marshall, November 26, 2008 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, November 26 at 2:08 pm #

Some argue your point as “right to pursuit of happiness”, but you argue it under “equal protection” so i’ll address that:

“In order for homosexuals to enjoy this right, they have to be able to marry someone of the same sex.”

I think you and i agree that marriage is not a “right” (certainly not a constitutional one).  It’s a societal designation that all have access to.
But sexual orientation is not definable, nor is it static.  There is no way to identify a homosexual other than their claim of being so.  Some who identify themselves as gay will choose (and be happy) in traditional marriages, while others won’t.

Thus, sexuality can’t be the issue here.  The issue is simply whether two people of the same sex can marry.  You may choose to or you may not - it’s simply a choice you have to make.  And if you choose not to, you can instead choose a domestic partnership and get all the same stuff.

“Equal protection of the laws, then, requires that they be able to do so.”

And they can.  But the law doesn’t guarantee happiness in marriage; just that you have the choice to GET married - which everyone has.

By Hesperion, November 26 at 3:04 pm #

Hesperion - you keep accusing me of inaccuracies but fail to point out a single one.  If you want to belittle some of my points as cliche and uninformed, at least give me some reason to believe you know why they are.

Report this

By Hesperion, November 26, 2008 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie

Marshall “Santorum” here in ineducable and just comes to taunt us with his stubbornness and bigotry. He must get a thrill out of this since it serves no purpose when he fails to comprehend the barest of simple facts. He consistently repeats the myths (i.e.: “lifestyle choice” and “a small subset of the population…” “…a vocal group…” “people who call themselves gay…” “…no legal classification of a “gay” person …no definable group whose rights are allegedly being violated.” “just a “preference”.”  He is like most of the ill-informed straight people I have known thinking they have knowledge and considering themselves “experts” on the very people they is addressing. He is making a fool of himself. He has predictably brought in the highly insulting assertion that extending equal protections will devolve into a free-for all of variations. I expect before his current amusement with us is exhausted he will bring up a likelihood of someone using this to marry their pets. (Ex-Senator, Rick Santorum (one of the finest minds of the 15th century) has already said this so, even that will not be new.) He has nothing new to offer, just bigotry, he has nothing old to offer, just old myths and legends that have long been disproved and are only clung to by the willfully ignorant. So, between conducting a “long-distance relationship” (probably doesn’t even have any children) and checking under the bed and in the closets for dangerous fags that might spring out and any moment he amuses himself by displaying his fears and misinformation here.

I would recommend the cat-box cleaning.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 26, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

Marshall—we’re not talking about inalienable rights; the issue is equal protection of the laws.  Heterosexuals have a legal right to marry; the normal model includes sexual attraction (and the concomitant emotions) even if that is not the dominant motive. In order for homosexuals to enjoy this right, they have to be able to marry someone of the same sex.  Equal protection of the laws, then, requires that they be able to do so.

However, as we have seen, you can deny that sexual attraction is part of the normal model of marriage.  My experience with those who deny obvious facts is that they will go to any length, however contrary to evidence and reason, to maintain their opinions.  So I suspect I’m wasting my time.  But it’s this, or clean the cat box.

Report this

By Marshall, November 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment

By KDelphi, November 25 at 1:24 am #

Continuing your comparison, what if they put a proposition on the ballot to state that society shall not discriminate against those who choose to marry multiple partners?  There are many gay and straight (especially mormons!) who would claim they cannot be happy unless they can marry the “people” of their choice.  Would you support this legal sanctioning of lifestyle choice?

The race, gender examples you gave have all been settled in constitutional law and are easily identifiable civil rights groups - not self-identified as are gay, bi-sexual, even heterosexual.

So this issue really isn’t about being gay, bi-sexual or whatever; it’s not a discrimination issue.  It’s about marriage and gender.  Period.  Can a person marry someone of their same gender.

I also find it curious how so many on this board treat the black community as though it has no opinion of its own other than what the mormons give it.  Blacks have never supported gay issues and don’t need the church to prove it.  And while i’m sure you credit them with the intellectual capacity to elect Obama, they get painted as simpleton dupes when it comes to prop. 8.  Shame.

Report this

By Marshall, November 26, 2008 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment

By Hurt by Homophobia, November 25 at 6:35 pm #

don’t see any posts from you addressing calif. domestic partnerships, so i’m not sure what i ignored.  The fact is that as the code is written, domestic partnership in CA contains ALL the same rights and privileges conferred on marriage.

“297.5.  (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

And i do have a girlfriend but she lives in san diego, giving me time to discuss these topics with you.  let’s hear it for long distance relationships!!

Report this

By Marshall, November 26, 2008 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, November 25 at 7:45 pm #

“Marshall—if you want to pretend that sexual attraction is not part of the normal model of marriage…”

I think you’re not getting my point Anarcissie:  There is no legal requirement of sexual attraction to get married.  And in practice, people often marry for practical reasons (to have kids, improve social standing, etc…). Of course sexual attraction is a common reason.  But we’re getting hung up on a technicality here.

The broader point was whether you have an inalienable right to “marry” the person you’re sexually attracted to, and the answer is “no” if they are of the same sex.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 25, 2008 at 9:43 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie—pssst! Hey! I think Marshall means that it is not a part of partnership for HIM—you know—sexual attraction!

Cause, like , wouldnt he be fun in bed?! LOL

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 25, 2008 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

Marshall—if you want to pretend that sexual attraction is not part of the normal model of marriage in the United States, there is nothing I can do about it.  I don’t feel like playing word games about someone else’s made-up world today.

Report this

By Hurt by Homophobia, November 25, 2008 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hi, KDelphi—

Of course you’re right when you say the churches are not necessarily concerned about morality—though, of course, they’ll market their opinions that way.  All bigots accuse their objects of doing the same things the bigots are.  The savage Injuns, etc.—who’d been attacked by the European invaders in a manner that could only be called savage, etc. Marshall’s complaining that left-wing repression is (in enssence of his words) trying to dominate the conversation.  It’s his remarks that are in domination.

But many people forget and need to be reminded of that over and over again, and sometimes they don’t even realize it to begin with.  My mother used to feel that we were attacking the Catholic church’s sacred beliefs, and no wonder they were so upset with us.  It took me several remindings of her about the church’s history of torturing and murdering us.

And, for instance, there’s dear old Marshall—get a girlfriend, Marshall, so you can have a life and won’t have to sit at a computer trying to get your own personal perfect, idealized world—he still claims facts that are nonexistent, or can be called false, or lies, or on down the line.  If he would look up his “facts,” he would learn—as I’ve stated (either he didn’t read what I wrote or ignored it)—that social legal partnerships in California, no matter what they’re called, DO NOT HAVE ANYWHERE NEAR THE SAME NUMBER OF BENEFITS that those which are called “marriages” do; there’s a difference of approximately one-thousand.

Marshall, you continue to ignore this.  You don’t have to believe me, but if you’re going to make your statements, check out the legal facts on them.  You might realize, also, that those of us who are not married—ever, yet, or cannot be—must pay for the extra special benefits that married couples get. AND I DON’T FEEL LIKE IT.  Why support an institution that makes me second-class?

So, Marshall, you’ve fallen victim to the false advertisements that were on television, and you continue to perpetuate them because they’re to the benefit of your predisposed attitude.  Isn’t there, perhaps, something more pertinent to your life that you could be involved with?  You’re a pseudo-lawyer on this, and I’m sure you can benefit society POSITIVELY somewhere else.  Here, you’re taking up your time (and ours) with a topic you can make sound so very good, but lacks facts behind it.  But—so very, very much of your time?  Promiscuity?  That’s what the press shows most (used to be drag queens—now it’s the wild life.)  They also show that of unmarried young people, but you’re missing it.  Most will settle down, and if they don’t—it’s none of your fucking business, but if they want to marry, they will probably calm thier lives down.

So you think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Fine—that’s your opinion.  You’ve stated it.  Go on to something else.  The rest of us have, unfortunately, fallen into the trap of responding to an immovable mind.  When nothing changes, we need to go onto other topics. 

Especially when, like you, Marshall, it’s based on opinion masquerading as fact.

It’s odd to me that you don’t answer what I write in answer to you—just your little word games with others.  They’re great—but I’m the one you have to contend with.

Report this

By Marshall, November 25, 2008 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, November 25 at 8:41 am #

“Of course you can insist that marriage has nothing to do with sexual attraction”

And you can continue to claim statements i never made.  I said sexual attraction was not a “requirement” of marriage, and it obviously isn’t.  So where’s the factual incorrectness?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 25, 2008 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

Marshall: ‘Thanks Anarcissie - I see that your accusation of ad hominem was simply cover for launching your own.  When you’ve gotten the “other planet” remarks out of your system, feel free to interject an actual point.’

Saying that you are from another planet is hyperbole, not ad hominem.  What I meant by it—if I really need to spell it out—is that you appear to be unconcerned with factuality.  If so, it is not going to be possible for you to have a discussion with people who are dealing with facts.  Of course you can insist that marriage has nothing to do with sexual attraction, or that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the earth is flat, and if someone presents evidence to the contrary, you can close your eyes real hard and shout, “No, it isn’t!  No, it doesn’t!”

That’s what you appear to be doing here, and I’m not going to waste my time with it.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 25, 2008 at 2:24 am Link to this comment

Marshall—What if they put a propostion on the ballot to state that, society chooses to dictate which lifestyle choices qualify for the term marriage, and they decide that people of different races coudl not marry? Disabled people could not marry? (I know the Catholic church has done that a couple of times—when the man was unable to pro-create, they would not recognize his marriage—is that sortve what this is about?)

What about people below a certain IQ level?Lets’ just say—that that is what “society” “voted”.

Would you think that that was ok? What if a people wrote a Constitution for others to live by, that considered certain persons to be 2/3 of a person, by virtue of their race, women to not be able to vote, and , the only ones allowed to vote woudl be white, male land owners? What woudl you thhnk of that? Would you think it was ok, if the Church of the Fiery Cross (KKK) spent 25 million dollars to lie to people to get it passed?

This will come out the same way. I can guarantee it.Because, despite coming out in conservative, gerry mandered counties to vote against Obama, and, the LDS spending $25 m on it, and conservative,“christian” Af Ams voting for it, most people in this country just do not care. With all the problems we have, I do not think it woudl pass a national electon.

Hey, churches have gobs of money, and pay no taxes—-why not put it on a natl ballot? Oh, and, since you interject yourselves into others personal beliefs—PAY YOUR FRICKING TAXES!! (Its patriotic!)

BTW—I am not gay—but first they came for—fill in the blank..how long do you think that the now-majority Left-leaning citizens will put up with bigotry? When they may “come for you”, I will defend your right to believe as you please…just stop trying to impose it on others.

It is a slippery slope, my friend…

Report this

By Marshall, November 25, 2008 at 1:18 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, November 22 at 8:08 am #

Thanks Anarcissie - I see that your accusation of ad hominem was simply cover for launching your own.  When you’ve gotten the “other planet” remarks out of your system, feel free to interject an actual point.

By Hesperion, November 22 at 1:54 pm #

Though your numerous “bigot” bullets don’t help your argument much, nor do all the words you put in my mouth, i’ll simply reply with the following:

Your orientation isn’t the issue - that is what it is.

This is about the claim that some people (regardless of sexual orientation) cannot be happy without the same-sex moniker of “married” despite having all the same rights and benefits.  Pro same-sex marriage groups are comparing this to historical civil rights struggles like suffrage, emancipation, equal protection, etc… which involved obvious discrimination against clearly identifiable groups; neither of which exist in this case.  And that’s why the majority of voters in the U.S. just don’t buy this characterization.

It’s entirely your choice (or your DNA’s) as to who you love, have sex with, co-habitate with, and even share domestic partner rights and priveleges the same as marriage.  But it’s society’s choice to dictate which lifestyle choices qualify for the term “marriage” because it’s more than a label; it’s a societal value statement which a lot of people care about.  I don’t hate you or wish you ill.  I simply want the term “marriage” to apply to a man and a woman.  That’s it.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 23, 2008 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

Hurt by Homophobia—I know I am not bursting any bubbles here—since when are churches equated with morality? In this country, it sesm to be quite the opposite. When you stop to think about it—pretty much , throughout the ages, also.

They claim not to belivee in Darwin, but they certainly live Social Darwinism.Unregulated caitalism (their idea of “freedom”) is the ultimate “survival of the fittest”.

The Dems are almost as bad about as GOP—we are NOT a “christian” nation!

I was raised Lutheran, took catechism, first communion. I started drifting from it after I went to school work/study, overseas, i guess. But, it never bothered me what anyone else wanted to belive, until these “born agains” came around. Their philosophy is simply absurd..it is entierly “reward based”—so they never do anything out of true love—it is all for a reward later.

I am so tired of “faith based initiatives”,folks posting the Ten Commandments, like that is the basis of laws we live by (“What—you havent coveted your neighbors man servant lately? Nor his ass?”), but, most of all—THEM TRYING TO IMPOSE THEIR MORALITY ON OTHERS! It is unconstitutional. It needs to STOP!

I wish we could get someone in the White HOuse who would dump all this religious crap and tell people to keep in in their own homes and churchs.

But, they have a corner on the truth and what is right—I wonder why god made the rest of us so stupid?

Report this

By Hurt by Homophobia, November 23, 2008 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Marshall’s effort to pinpoint discussion points by confusion and misdirection doesn’t work.

For the record, Calif., Arizona, and Florida all have large populations of retired people.  Calif.‘s a Democratic state—but look how often among the last five or six governors they were Republicans?

Prop. 8 passed as an along with 4 and 11, as an effort to get ultra-conservative right-wing voters into the polling places and MAYBE vote for McCain.  Their plans had been to sit out the election since he wasn’t the candidate they wanted.

Prop. 4 failed because its opponents raised consciousness early that abusive parents might have children by incest in those cases (something highly unlikely to happen in snae-sex marriages.  How could it happen?)—something that Prop. 8 opponents need for raising consciousness about.

Prop. 11 was devised—and succeeded—to redistrict Calif. with more Republican districts than the party registration numbers merit. Thus, a win for the conservatives.

Now—the Mormons chafed to get back their reputations after the scandal in Texas of the multiple marriages and all those children who were promised off to VERY close cousins.  They used misdirection. i.e., fear of what will happen to children in same-sex marriages, how they’ll be taught about marriage, etc. rather than being concerned with “restoring traditional marriage,” which didn’t need to be restored.  Heterosexual marriage hadn’t changed.  It still has about a 50% divorce rate, still has abuse to wives and children, and so forth. Prop. 8 STILL would be abiding by standard marriage concepts, only expanding it to a larger population.

So the Mormons misdirected; as well, they managed to bring in the African American voters with their distinguished-looking “minister,” who was really only a paid professional actor; while the African-Americans are against homosexuality, they were also duped into partnership by the Mormons, who don’t like THEM.

And, by the way, the LDS (Mormons) managed to bring together large groups to campaign for who will probably be their next presidential candidate (if Palin falls by the wayside.)  That good ol’ Mormon, Mitt Romney.

I can’t think of another reason for spending seventeem million dollars to rile up people with lies in the ads about civil unions getting all the privileges of marriage (marriage gets about a thousand more), and doing so KNOWINGLY, which is lying.  I thought churches taught that lying was moral reheprehensible—part of the Ten Commandments we’re all taught to live by unless we’re people in power. It becomes even more morally and ethically reprehensible when the teacher (church, politico, etc.) does the lying.  That money would have been much better used for cleaning up the environment, helping the homeless, ending child-abuse, etc.

This lying, misdirection, obfuscation, distortion, etc., are covered by the legal, sacred American tradition of political free speech.  It happens in far more electoral propositions and initiatives and elected office campaigns (think McCain, who dismissed his claims about Obama associating with William Ayres with a wave of his hand on the David Letterman show with an airy, “Oh, that’s just part of the game,” and then continued to have it used in robocalls.) {Obama was only eight years old at the time of William Ayres’s alleged terrorism).

This ridiculous free speech claim needs to be ended with extreme financial—and maybe even jailtime—consequences for those who do it, and with ads of equal size and placement paid by the offenders.  And lots of publicity for embarrassment.  It distorts far more Ameerican ideals and social-justice actions than Prop. 8.  I don’t even have time or space to show what it did to Prop. 7.

So:

Marshall—from now on, write about something yu probably are an expert on—like masturbation.

Report this

By Hesperion, November 22, 2008 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

Although it’s been well established that this “Marshall” here is a self-educated BIGOT thus not influenced by religion or (as he claims) some other mob thought, I have to admit I have understood his contentions finally.

“…one enduring “assumption” about marriage from the start, it was that the partners were of the opposite sex.”

True enough that was the false “assumption” which leads him to conclude that anyone not in a contract of marriage is an infidel and since gays can not marry, they have no fidelity. Convenient outcome for his prejudices.

“…marriage obtains its origins from family, procreation, fidelity, tax law, religious passage, social standing, etc… it has never required sexual attraction.”

Procreation and Fidelity are “required” features of real, original marriage? Thus divorce should be made illegal and infidelity should be made punishable of course.

“People who “choose to call themselves” [Marshall thinks some “choice” was involved in these “orientations” he lists] … have the full and absolute right to marry [a person of the opposite sex of course] and that’s why this isn’t a civil rights issue.  No one’s civil rights are being violated.”

Makes perfect sense to him; All these people DO have the “right” to marry, sure. So what could be the problem?

“This isn’t like black suffrage here.”

We aren’t discussing suffrage here. Marshall needs to look into the history of Black MARRIAGE. “Until Death or Separation by the Owner do you part…” All the same arguments were used to prevent legalizing that as well. AND it was the original venue for “civil unions” in other words some lowered standard of citizenship as a compromise with Bigots that could not conceive of marriage between what they considered “farm livestock” which was how slaves were inventoried in those days.

“So there is no “implication” as you state, nor is there an assumption of sexual attraction.  If you’d like to cite legitimate references, feel free.”

There is still a ground for divorce based on “failure to consummate” is there not?

“It was further disingenuous by not even taking the follow-on position that gay marriage SHOULD be taught alongside traditional marriage” ““…could only be tested by legalizing same-sex marriage and I’d rather not test it that way.”

This rumor that the Yes proponents publicized was most effective on our man Marshall here. It was and is not true but he persists in bringing it up at every opportunity. Did I miss school that day? Was his philosophy of “traditional marriage” taught in schools? I do not recall any indoctrination on that subject not in public school that I have ever heard of. He is not constrained in any way from re-teaching his kids in any way that he wants, finding a Bigot school he likes better or even keeping them home from school altogether. 

“a small subset of the population…” “…a vocal group…” “people who call themselves gay…” “…no legal classification of a “gay” person …no definable group whose rights are allegedly being violated.” “you have no case; just a preference.”

All subtle and not so subtle insults designed and carefully worded to demean and belittle us. You enjoy the myths over the facts and will not make any effort to learn anything that might differ from what you have already decided. You hate us, you don’t approve of us…we get that…loud and clear. “…but you seem to choose to take it personally.” So, the animals you have come to taunt for your amusement should not take your bigotry personally? Of course that makes sense; to you we are not quite human, therefore not capable of sensing any hurt or emotion. We are fair game for any harm that you can construct against us. Why else would disinterested parties come from another state and spend vast sums in this ballot measure. It tickles them I guess.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 22, 2008 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

Marshall—You have yet to posit facts.Here are some:

While the Greeks widely accepted same sex unions, the first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same sex couples, was in the Roman Empire.(Until Constatius—because he was a “christian”—so this is realy about religion—and you know it) We have a separation of church and state here in the US, no matter how “blurry” that has been lately. If you dont like that—go live in a theocracy.

Polygamists have many argumenst for their perceptions of marriage (polygamy is, in fact, more common than monogamy, in general).This is mostly in theocracies, which is what I submit, what you actually want. A christian country. The US is NOT one.

So the “enduring assumption from the start”(of what?? christianity? I took catechism—never heard Jesus mention it..)) was not necessarily “two partners of the opposite sex”. (Woe to the transgendered, I guess!)

Gay marriage is legal in Belgium, Norway, Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Nepal. Gay foreign marriages are recognized in Aruba, Israel, France, and the Dutch Antilles.All have lower crime rates, less violence, more prosperity and longer lasting marriage, when they do decide (they marry later)(By prosperity, I mean general standard of living)

The first legally recognized gay union was in Copenhagen in 1989. Gay marriage is now legal in NY, Conn, and Mass.It was , also, in Ca , until the other day.

I reliaze that the uS is backward and primitive—but there are “drawbacks” to imposing your values on others.

We “passed a defense of marriage act” here in Ohio in 2004. (Actually it was a device invented by J. Kenneth Blackwell, Sec. of Ohio, under Gov Taft—who stole $3 million from our Workers Comp.—to get more conservatives out to vote for Bush again. He was the head of his campaign) It worked! (On both counts! Great!) I have to assume unintended consequences followed (but, you guys DO like to punish almost ANYONE who chooses to live differently than you—that would include non-married couples or non-procreators.Perhaps it was viciously intended). This was one.

The first of many, was that, a man , who had lived with his partner for 15 years, (they had 3 kids) beat her beyond all recognition. He was charged with “domestic violence”, which is a felony. His attorney seized on the “defense of marriage” crap, and it was lowered to assault, while the judge noted that “her name is not on the deed to the house, so technially, she was trespassing”. GAWD!!!

He got 6 mos. She got a lifetine of brain damage and a wheelchair . ..I think. But, she probably wasnt on his insurance, so she may have had to buy it herself….

Stop trying to couch your fear and hate in diplomatic terms.It is about YOUR religion, which, imposed on others, is unconstitutional.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 22, 2008 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

So sexual attraction has nothing to do with marriage?  I think I’m beginning to see your problem, Marshall—you’re posting from a different planet—perhaps a different universe.  That might also explain your problems with logic. 

As a new visitor to this planet, you might want to take a look at some artifacts of popular culture, like the innumerable songs about the relationships between love (meaning sexual attraction and its emotional concomitants) and marriage as it is defined in custom and in law. It might prove enlightening and help you get your feet on the ground, so to speak.

Report this

By Marshall, November 22, 2008 at 3:29 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, November 21 at 9:28 pm #

“Your “Civil Rights” argument fails because, in the West anyway, the right to marry implies the right to marry the person, or kind of person, of one’s choice, and sexual attraction is clearly supposed to be part of the situation.”

The points you make here are unsubstantiated.  If this were true, there’d be no controversy and no efforts to clarify state constitutions, etc… The concept of a man marrying a man - much less the “right” - was never even conceived of when the institution of marriage came into being.  So there is no “implication” as you state, nor is there an assumption of sexual attraction.  If you’d like to cite legitimate references, feel free. But if there was ever one enduring “assumption” about marriage from the start, it was that the partners were of the opposite sex. And while marriage obtains its origins from family, procreation, fidelity, tax law, religious passage, social standing, etc… it has never required sexual attraction.

People who choose to call themselves bi-sexual, gay, mostly hetero, non-sexual, previously hetero, previously gay…anything at all… have the full and absolute right to marry and that’s why this isn’t a civil rights issue.  No one’s civil rights are being violated.  This isn’t like black suffrage here.  It’s about a small subset of the population who claim that they can’t be happy unless we alter the definition of marriage so they can marry a person of their own gender, regardless of whether its true, or may even change.

No - it’s not a civil rights issue and frankly i think the gay community bungled when it chose that tact to begin with.  What this is is an attempt to expand the definition of marriage to include anyone for any reason.  This does indeed have legal and monetary implications and its why civil union is an appropriate response and allows us to leave marriage as it was intended to be.

I’m glad you recognized my comment on education as an opinion since its difficult to state fact about future events.  I found the “No on 8” campaign disingenuous when it vehemently insisted that the court decision would not influence teaching on the subject when it’s obvious that many teachers would take the opportunity to teach gay marriage as well.  I believe the electorate knows this and wasn’t fooled by the rhetoric.  It was further disingenuous by not even taking the follow-on position that gay marriage SHOULD be taught alongside traditional marriage - after all, if it were legalized then why would gays NOT want it taught?  There is no reason.  Which makes their campaign position politically opportunistic.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 21, 2008 at 10:28 pm Link to this comment

Marshall: ‘I think you’re confusing statements of opinion with factual assertions:  My education point was that since the law would not prevent teaching gay marriage alongside traditional marriage, there would be no restraints upon doing so and given the liberal leanings of most in the teaching profession, the reality is that it would be.  If you dispute this, please explain.

My point about gay promiscuity’s effects on the institution of marriage is something that could only be tested by legalizing same-sex marriage and i’d rather not test it that way.

My point about civil rights is this: people who call themselves gay already have the right to marry.  But there is no legal classification of a “gay” person and therefore no definable group whose rights are allegedly being violated.  It’s a self-identified group whose membership qualifications are fluid and subject to change.

And i have no idea why you’d consider a generalized reference to those on the left who suppress discussion through labeling as ad hominem; this wasn’t a personal attack but a legitimate complaint about a vocal group that uses name calling to invalidate opposing opinion.’

So your first two arguments against Gay marriage are merely aesthetic responses?  You just don’t like the idea of teachers telling students that people of the same sex can get married, and you have a hunch that the supposed promiscuity of Gay people will somehow impugn heterosexual marriage?  Well, no one can argue with your mysterious feelings, I guess, however far-fetched they may be.  If you agree that they’re merely prejudices and not arguments we can move along.

Your “Civil Rights” argument fails because, in the West anyway, the right to marry implies the right to marry the person, or kind of person, of one’s choice, and sexual attraction is clearly supposed to be part of the situation.  We do not need a definition of Gay or homosexual; the question is whether one can marry a person of the same sex as oneself, regardless of what sexual orientation one may be thought by oneself or others to belong to.  To pretend otherwise is to engage mere verbal pettifoggery.

If your complaint about leftists’ arguments was merely a criticism of style, I guess it does not rise to the level of an argument, and thus cannot be considered an ad-hominem.  I thought you were trying to prove something; but again, we are in the realm of feelings.

It seems to me that before you went about depriving innocent people of equal rights you would have something more serious to say to justify the harm you mean to do them.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 21, 2008 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

Marshall—Please, posit some fact based arguments as to what woudl happen to your society , if gay marriage was legal…

BTW—When I said “I’m NOT GAY!!”: I was imitating how Marshall et al might respond if they were CALLED gay.

I wouldnt give a damn if anyone called me gay.

Maybe I am , maybe I’m not, maybe I’m bi-sexual.

Report this

By Marshall, November 21, 2008 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, November 21 at 8:09 am #

I think you’re confusing statements of opinion with factual assertions:  My education point was that since the law would not prevent teaching gay marriage alongside traditional marriage, there would be no restraints upon doing so and given the liberal leanings of most in the teaching profession, the reality is that it would be.  If you dispute this, please explain.

My point about gay promiscuity’s effects on the institution of marriage is something that could only be tested by legalizing same-sex marriage and i’d rather not test it that way.

My point about civil rights is this: people who call themselves gay already have the right to marry.  But there is no legal classification of a “gay” person and therefore no definable group whose rights are allegedly being violated.  It’s a self-identified group whose membership qualifications are fluid and subject to change.

And i have no idea why you’d consider a generalized reference to those on the left who suppress discussion through labeling as ad hominem; this wasn’t a personal attack but a legitimate complaint about a vocal group that uses name calling to invalidate opposing opinion.

Report this

By Hurt by Homophobia, November 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When I’m exposed to hate for a long time about being gay, I get so frustrated that I just wish every homophobe—or even better, their children—had to spend an unknown length of his/her life as a gay person and know the shit we’re forced to go through.  I’d like to give them all the pain that we suffer, and MAYBE they’ll get some insight. (It’s the old maxim about never having walked a mile in someone else’s moccasins. . .)

Then I suppress the feeling.  After all, why should I wish anyone to have to go through all that hell?

But there IS that one moment where I wish it.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 21, 2008 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie and all—Yes..I am suggesting that “IF ” ones feels very strongly about someone else’s joy, one is either a sadist, or, may want such a thing themselves, but is unable to admit it…sortve..lol

In other words, me thinks thou doest protest too much…

NO!! I am not GAY!!!!!

Have fun hating!! (not you Anarcissie)

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 21, 2008 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

KDelphi: ‘I think that the homophobic in here (who seem to feel SO strongly about it!) need to read and re-read, the post by Hurt by Homophobia…. ‘

Not much use in that, probably.  Homophobes typically believe that homosexuals are subhuman, or at least diseased or deformed humans, so that their suffering doesn’t matter or can’t be helped.  Whether it’s more useful to expose their logical fallacies I don’t know, but it’s more fun (from my sadistic point of view, anyway) than giving them the satisfaction of their prejudices.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 21, 2008 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

I think that the homophobic in here (who seem to feel SO strongly about it!) need to read and re-read, the post by Hurt by Homophobia


Check it out—if you need to talk, you can probably find some help locally.

As most of us have gay friends or family, as a “straight” person, I find your pseudo-religious comments insulting and without merit.

The “promiscuity” you see, is much more likely a result of hormones—-have you checked out the young heterosexual community lately? I do not have any gay friends, who are couples, past the age of about 35, who are promiscuous. NOr heterosexual. I just have to assume you homophobes are incredibly naive and donot get out much…

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 21, 2008 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

Marshall:
‘Hesperion, I came here to post because i prefer debates over preaching to the choir.  But i expect discussion, not ad hominem attack (which Anarcissie ironically accuses me of using, for some unknown reason).

I’ve given reasoned responses to your points and made my own but you seem to choose to take it personally.  So be it.  My points about education, about promiscuity, and about the civil rights argument still stand unaddressed.’

You made two unsubstantiated assertions, one about education and one about the influence of alleged Gay promiscuity on heterosexual marriage.  I have looked carefully at this discussion and I don’t see anything from you about the Civil Rights argument.  If you feel they haven’t been addressed, let me fix that now: the first two are unsubstantiated (and unconnected logically with Gay marriage), and the third is non-existent.

This is an ad hominem: ‘There are perfectly legit grounds for opposing gay marriage but as is often the case on the oppressive left, all opposition is summarily dismissed and all discourse halted with the application of a single label like “homophobe”.’  The supposed oppressiveness of the Left does not affect the validity of leftists’ arguments.  In any case your assertion is contrary to fact, as this discussion itself shows.

The lack of evidence and reason in your arguments does indeed suggest that you are laboring under some passion, but I will be too polite to speculate about it.

Report this

By Marshall, November 20, 2008 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

Hesperion, I came here to post because i prefer debates over preaching to the choir.  But i expect discussion, not ad hominem attack (which Anarcissie ironically accuses me of using, for some unknown reason).

I’ve given reasoned responses to your points and made my own but you seem to choose to take it personally.  So be it.  My points about education, about promiscuity, and about the civil rights argument still stand unaddressed.

Report this

By Hesperion, November 20, 2008 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Marshall : So let’s see now: You are not religiously indoctrinated to hate gay people; you see all these “legit grounds” to oppose equal rights and protections although you have not presented any but the hysterical, irrational ones and have arrived at those quite on your own; you insist on the myths over learning any real facts about us; you come here to insult us with all your false “knowledge” about us. So the only conclusion one would draw is that you are an Independent, Stubborn, Willfully Ignorant, Paranoid, All-purpose BIGOT. Thanks for straightening us all out on any nuance.

Every gay person that has been reading this exchange has known someone like you. Your ignorance is a yawning, bottomless cavern, never to be filled. Your head is as hard as a brick as is your heart. We have grown up gay and can recognize someone of your kind at sight. We know you are an enemy immediately and that you would flatly refuse to comprehend us. We avoid contact with you out of instinct. Some here are more conciliatory. I am not. I have completely run out of patience with your kind and while some would want to try and help you see. I know that you never will and discard you. You will live in your obstinate, fearful selfishness and there is nothing that will help you.

Why DID you come here to post? Is it sort of like going and taunting the animals in their cages? Does it give you a thrill of some kind to insult and demean us? You didn’t come here to enlighten us. You didn’t come to give a new perspective. WHY then do you feel the urge to comment on this?

Maybe, in light of the presence of your kind there should be an amendment to review ALL marriages and impose a standard set of qualifications for ANYONE to get married. Along with this, divorce should be illegal and adultery punishable. Deadbeat dads that litter the nation with children they had no intention of raising should be incarcerated with wife-beaters and they can really get to know one another.  After meeting you I am even more firmly convinced that it’s not gay people who are a problem in our society, it’s “straight” men like you.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 20, 2008 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

Marshall:
’... There are perfectly legit grounds for opposing gay marriage….’

I can’t say as I’ve seen any which are serious enough to overcome the principle of equal protection of the laws.

As for people crying “homophobe”, there would probably be less of that if certain other people were respectful enough to stop attributing undesirable qualities to all homosexuals in an evidence-free manner.  Just make your case, if you’ve got one, and skip the gratuitous ad hominem stuff, and we’ll all bave a nicer, more intelligent discussion.

Report this

By Marshall, November 20, 2008 at 2:58 am Link to this comment

By Hesperion, November 19 at 6:18 pm #

Unfortunately Hesperiod, I’m not religious so you can’t very well use the “clergy indoctrination” attack on me.

There are perfectly legit grounds for opposing gay marriage but as is often the case on the oppressive left, all opposition is summarily dismissed and all discourse halted with the application of a single label like “homophobe”.

It doesn’t take a closet dweller, homophobe or even keen observational powers to see the emphasis on promiscuity in the gay community.  Many i’ve spoken to who agree with this are gay so your argument that it’s a hetero myth is, well, a myth.

Next you throw out a straw-man argument that hetero couples are superior and infallible - but i explicitly said otherwise.

Then you invoke the specter of mormanism, as though polygamy is in another universe from homosexuality despite the clear lack of definition for either and the obvious slippery slope that legalizing gay marriage presents.  The subject of polygamy should be avoided by gay marriage proponents lest they undermine their own position.

As to your “letter of the law” argument; we both know that what’s legislated to be taught differs from what’s actually taught, and while the law doesn’t promote changes in academic content, neither does it prevent them.  If gay marriage were legal, there’d be no grounds preventing it from being presented in the classroom alongside traditional marriage.  To deny this is disingenuous.  But honestly, why would you not support the idea that legalized gay marriage should get the same classroom treatment as traditional marriage?

Gay marriage proponents seem to realize that the only really good way to make their case is the civil rights approach.  But there are plenty of us that just don’t buy into that argument and for us, you have no case; just a preference.

Report this

By Hesperion, November 19, 2008 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

“By Marshall: “The gay community values promiscuity over fidelity. ”

I so enjoy it when these experts in “gayology” show up to give the benefit of their vast knowledge and wisdom as to what gay people are like. They are well enough schooled in the religionist-wrong-wing myths, legends and lies dispensed by clergymen and moralizers. So many of these “experts” have come out of the woodwork to make names for themselves by supplying people like Marshall here with round-sounding justifications for their personal homophobia. Of course the sources of these “expert” opinions are usually not gay (most just closeted seeing that they have devoted so much time and treasure to this question) and would not consult a gay person in their persistent quest for plausible-sounding phobic rationalizations. That would not be permitted in their insular world since one of the myths is that there is a “gay-agenda” that all the gays are in on. This would make any remarks by any gay person invalid; So, better to stick with rumor, myth, supposition and folklore. Marshall here brings in one of the points of misinformation I have not heard since the 90’s: that of the promiscuity claim. It is odd how many of the gay couples seeking marriage had been together for decades in some cases yet had never had the opportunity to insure their unions by contract of marriage. The straight couples I have known who have optioned not to marry usually stray and are not even remembered as couples in due course. I suppose Marshall here imagines hoards of marauding, horny, 60 year olds tearing around the streets having at it. I guess homophobic straight guys always imagine that other people are having way more fun than they are and there is some huge, rampant orgy going on which they had not been invited to. Of course together with that myth goes the claim that “straight” couples are so confirmed to fidelity and monogamy that they are superior and infallible. This by definition would leave out the Mormons who are SO preoccupied with other people’s morals while they themselves are allow all sorts of latitude in perversion and polygamy. 

“Despite anti Prop. 8 claims…formally or informally, children would be indoctrinated…it’s not a civil rights issue.”

Marshall here now tells us he doesn’t believe the law as written, that there is some secret, hidden plot to add all sorts of other usages to it. He is referring of course to those SCARY (and expensive) ads that the promoters ran to frighten people like him and in his case it worked. Congrats to them for this. Here is one dupe that their money actually succeeded on. There are NO plans to teach children anything other than what they are now being taught. Why would there be? The measure to circumvent the constitution (Yes on P8) was the forum in which this was brought up and it had nothing to do with the law itself. If he wants to teach his kids something he will and if he wants to withhold information from them he will. What the hell would be different about that? He is probably one of those that are against teaching kids about sex AT ALL. They will enter the world defenseless on that subject like so many others and the vicious cycle will continue. He can teach his kids to be bigots to carry on the family tradition if he likes. He is like so many ignorant people I have known that are using his kids as human shields to protect himself from his own fears and phobias. God help him if one of his kids is gay, rather, God help and protect THEM from him. He, like this samosamo, continually comes to the threads on these topics to make flat statements that show his complete lack of understanding. I find this interesting.

Report this

By Hurt by Homophobia, November 19, 2008 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In 1949, at 14, hating myself for my feelings towards other men, I began looking up the topic of homosexuality in the library.  It was a painful time, and many didn’t survive.  We walked down the street wondering if we could be identified, we listened to nongays gossip (incessently!  People were obsessed with others’ sexuality), we listened to our religious parents, and we died slowly inside.

  Afraid to ask for books on the topic in the library (we were sure we were being watched, just as with the current Patriot Act), I finally found a book by a psychiatrist who explained the aversion to us.  I wish I remembered the title or the author, but—hey, that was a long time ago, and I didn’t dare take the book home with me.

  She wrote that the Hebrew tribe had a real need for men for defense in war with other tribes.  They were few in number, food was scarce, and battles were often.  It came to be a religious determination that procreation was about the only purpose for sex (no fun, people!), and homosexuals didn’t procreate.

  By way of contrast, the Romans and the Greeks had plenty of manpower and could afford to go with the basic human feelings of bisexuality.

  Both Christianity and Muhammedism, as offsprings of Judaism, continue this religious tenet up to the the present day, long after it’s no longer necessary.

  Two simple correlatory examples: When horseless carriages came on the market, for a few years they continued to have whip containers, even though there was no need, since they no longer had horses.  But tradition kept it going long after it became useless.  And, the sad gene defect that causes sickle-cell anemia has the benefit in a small number of people of making them immune to malaria—and the gene’s no longer necessary, and merely deadly.

  I’ve since seen other books give the same history, although not with such concise statements.

  All you people who haven’t studied religious history or are kept prejudiced by blind faith and the words of your priests, ministers reading from a book that’s been mistranslated (sometimes deliberately), and societal convention, start thinking for yourselves—with open minds.  After all, the children we adopt are far less likely to have children who bear the genes of incestuous relationships than from heterosexual families.  That book may say that marriage is between a man and a woman, but it does not anywhere say that it’s ONLY between a man and a woman, or anywhere say that it cannot be between two people of the same sex.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 19, 2008 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment

“Judge not lest ye be judged…”—or are you guys using the Book of Mormon?

I still submit that it is none of your fricking business.

BRW—sorry that your marriages are so shaky…

Report this

By Marshall, November 19, 2008 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

The gay community values promiscuity over fidelity.  Unfortunately, there’s little in the way of stats describing relationship longevity for gays.  Whatever imperfections exist in straight marriage, we don’t need the further undermining influence of infidelity that gay marriage would bring to the institution.

Despite anti Prop. 8 claims that there would be no curriculum changes resulting from prop 8, the simple fact is that formally or informally, children would be indoctrinated with the understanding that men can marry men, etc…  Many of us oppose this idea and it’s not a civil rights issue.

Report this

By barryearle, November 19, 2008 at 11:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have read a number of comments asking why the state should be involved in marriage. The answer is twofold. First, when couples separate there is often property ownership that needs to be resolved. This should not be surprising since the origins of marriage have to do with the passing of property from one family to another. And so property can play a very important role when a marriage hits the rocks.

This is not only true for married couples. Having mediated the dissolution of unmarried couples’ relationships, I can vouch for the emotional weight such issues take on. So, the state has provided a formula for resolving these issues even though it doesn’t address the emotional issues. Only the people can resolve those.

The second reason the state is involved in marriage is for the protection and care of children. Many couples who start families never wonder what would happen if they should divorce and are shocked at the financial ramifications of supporting two households (one for each spouse) as well as the needs of children. For many children, having the state involved guarantees that there will be support for them even though the system is not perfect as seen in the number of parents who fail to pay child support.

And so while you might not like marriage or the state’s involvement in it and would advocate for people merely living together, there are issues that need to be addressed when a marriage/relationship comes to an end. For those who are married, they have state law to fall back on. For those who are not married—or more importantly in this situation, cannot be legally married—they only have themselves to fall back on during one of the darkest moments in their lives.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, November 19, 2008 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

The point is, to re-group this campaign for a future victory.

Any finger-pointing (at African-Americans?) is incredible divisive and dangerous!

Where is the leadership in this campaign??? it seems to be allowing for pettiness to flood the landscape.

and that is counter-productive!

Report this

By yours truly, November 18, 2008 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gay Marriage Advocates Can Pressure The Mormon Church Into Accepting Gay Marriage

“Based on?”

“What happened 30 years ago when Spencer W. Kimball, the church’s Living prophet, responding to pressure from civil rights organizations to open up the church to Blacks, supposedly had a revelation in which God told him to admit Blacks to the priesthood.”

“Which means?”

“Gay marriage advocates should keep pressuring the Mormon church on the subject of gay marriage.”

“For how long?”

“Until its present-day Living Prophet has a revelation in which God gives two thunbs up to gay marriage.”

“That’ll do it?

“No reason why not, it worked 30 yeara ago.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 18, 2008 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

samosamo—You are very conflicted on this one, eh? Do yourself a favor and look into why…

I have no idea why you keep insisting that people cannot work on other issues, just because they want to peititon for equal rights in marriage…how can you have “unity” when you dont care if others are free?

“When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other’s throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. we will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known.”

    “While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free”

Both by Eugene Debs

Report this

By samosamo, November 18, 2008 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment

By Hesperion, November 18 at 1:40 pm

Call it what you want but if the money(MOST ESPECIALLY THE LOBBYISTS), politics and the corrupt congress, presidency and the judicial branch are not brought back into line of what the constitution made them, then everybody is fucked that ain’t hooked to the intravenously fed money from the treasury. You and others that want to waste time on gay rights will help insure this and THAT is all you care about.
And now my fine fellow, you appear to have exposed yourself for the threat to this country that you are: a pure neocon doing his part to take the attention away from the real issues of this country and the world and you have exposed yourself as the local village idiot that cannot understand what the real issues are.
NOW, I have wasted enough of my time here trying to get people to unite to a common cause to stop this sorry ass excuse of a government ‘of the people, for the people, by the people’. Go back to cato or the heritage institute and come up with some more of your distractive plots and schemes, because Mr. Ritter is right, if there is not an organized and united group with a plan and direction that matches what you and your neocon ilk have plotted and hatched, then even your cause dies, and thanks to you, I could care even less.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 18, 2008 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

samosamo—if you come back here…I think you need to look at why this issue enrages you so. How do you feel when you see gay couples happy together? Have you ever felt attracted or in love with someone of the “same” sex? Just wondering….

What in the world do these other issues have to do with gay marriage? How would not passing Prop 8 have any negative effect on solving these other issues?Or, can you not walk and chew gum at the same time? What happened to the “new Dem Party multi-tasking”?

Machismo agenda….

Vir777—So it is GOOD that the campaign failed…hmmm..

The “no fags marrying, and no blacks in the WH” thing doesnt hold. It seems that, of many people who WOULD want a black person in the WH, might also not want gays marrying. see what I mean?

If it is so “insignificant”—why are ao many people here so angry?

Report this

By Hesperion, November 18, 2008 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment

SameoldSameold: “…you think that everything will just be hunky dorry once the gay matter is taken care of,…”

Did I say that anywhere here? I thought that you had familiarized us all with your points and had moved on to more important matters by now.

“Obviously YOU don’t understand human nature” “You seem to think that there is a utopia of some sort where everyone will get along.”

I understand it clearly, I have been living with your kind of smug, self-centered prejudice all my life. Forgive me if my patience is finally at an end.

“The human animal is so ate up with greed, and the 6 other deadly sins that in is only bound to get worse.”  “…freaks and political misfits…”

This is obviously directed at the gay readers here. Thank you for your callous, judgmental restatements of St. Augustine’s arbitrary code and demand that it be applied to everyone but yourself. 

“…you ARE the enemy, the terrorist,…“

This concept has been promoted by bigots and other right-wingers looking for scapegoats and to whip up the rabble against gays for many, many years. It is probably the most self-telling thing that you have said.

“And you are so far off the reservation with the significant portion of the population being denied citizenship when what are you fighting for? The right to be with someone of your own gender.”

Again, this is more of the kool-aide dispensed by the right-wing. Like them, you are fixated on the sex part and do not see the broader social agenda that anti-gay measures bring about. As I said before you are probably not worth my efforts to educate.

“You’re right, I could care less … it is truly insignificant.”

As you have said before and yet, you still come back to restate how miniscule and marginal you believe we are. I think we get what you think. Of course it is interesting to hear you flesh this assessment out with accusations of “terrorist” and “enemy” and “greedy”, etc. I am sure you will bring more insults eventually.

“YOU don’t have any priorities but greed just like the rest of the human race.”

It was my possibly mis-guided understanding that “greed” had to do with grasping for excess or for things that don’t belong to one. It is interesting that you would expand that definition to include the seeking of things that one should have the simple human right to have no more and no less.

Don’t you have anything more important to do besides suffering all of us bothersome “insignificants”??

Report this

By Marshall, November 18, 2008 at 1:42 pm Link to this comment

By Virginia777, November 18 at 11:45 am #

So blacks are off the hook because they’re black and i don’t hear you saying that “the No on Prop 8 campaign did not reach out well enough to the Mormon community.”

Do i hear a double standard?

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, November 18, 2008 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

Here is proof of the dangerous direction this issue can take. The Pasadena Weekly published this article 11/13/08 called “How red was our valley”.

In it, they point the finger directly at Pasadena’s African-American community (for voting yes on prop 8 - and no on prop 4).

http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/how_red_was_our_valley/6596/

excerpt:
“Pasadena’s heavily black Council District 3, which according to LA County Registrar-Recorder tallies cast 3,781 votes for President-elect Barack Obama and only 666 for Sen. John McCain, was the only district in town where a majority of voters supported Proposition 8 or came close to supporting Proposition 4 (2,079 votes yes, 2,194 no), which would have required parental notification for minors seeking an abortion.”

This finger-pointing is so wrong!! Obviously, the No on Prop 8 campaign did not reach out well enough to the African-american community.

yet this “alternative” (not!) weekly, is going to use the voting stats to stir the fires of hate…

Report this

By marknnycev, November 18, 2008 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

It’s kind of a sad truth.  If we hadn’t of had G.W.Bush as the most inept of the inepts.. would we
had ever gotten our heads out of our asses?
It appears it took a collapsed economy,two failed wars, hideous acts of treason…to name oh so very few for us to finally WAKE UP! The future will tell whether or not we are for the better.
  I can’t help but think this country had to
have him as part of our growing pains. The hard lessons we had to learn while leaving death and destruction in its path is still a hard pill to swallow for me; alas, the future, even with the adversity this country will soon be witnessing even more of, appears brighter to me.
Peace

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, November 18, 2008 at 10:14 am Link to this comment

What ever happened to “redirecting your energies towards future goals”?(after a failed political campaign)

I asked an activist how he survived the failure of a campaign he had worked for years on. I asked him if he were angry and depressed about it, and this is what he told me.

“Not at all” he said. “I simply redirected my energies to the next hurdle, applying what I had learned from the first campaign, in hopes for a future victory”.

This petty mud-slinging and loud foot-stomping cries of “my rights have been denied” is counter-productive!!

Report this

By marknnycev, November 18, 2008 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

Yes, Money along with religion,albeit,under the umbrella of ‘fear’ still works. The Mormans, perhaps just played the game, however broken, and won.  The method of using an absurd amount of money to spread their silliness still works and not always in our favor.
Perhaps.. and I’m a gay white male .. has to consider that sraight men must be, ironically, some of the biggest pussies. “Oh, we can’t have a black
                man in the White House..
                nor can we have fags
                marrying.”
This all ties into the fact that mormans organized and helped to defeat gay marriage. Sad but true.
  Atty Gen. Jerry Brown is doing his job. Don’t throw him under the bus just yet.
  I’m sure we all got caught up in Obama fever.. and
and excited about the future for us. His winning means: “Two steps forward one step back.”
I worked part-time at a Gay-Lesbian gift,card store here in Manhattan last year where the owner sold
t-shirts most with clever sayings etc., but
two that I refused to sell thus being fired.
a t-shirt with “WIFEBEATER” emblazoned across the top of it. Another one with the word: Redneck with a
noose hanging from the “K” of the work.  It blew my mind! .. If a t-shirt with the word: FAGBASHER were to be sold here in NYC. it can pretty much be guaranteed that we homosexuals would riot and want to burn that fucking store down.
My point is.. let’s take a hard look at ourselves and forget the hype/labels made of us. We want equal rights,well then we need to organize maybe a little better next time.

Report this

By atlanta dyke, November 18, 2008 at 9:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

samosamo:

In the event of economic apocalypse, people will have to rely on their neighbors in ways that our current system does not require.  I hope yours aren’t gay because I don’t think you’re making any friends with your divisive ranting.

Report this

By samosamo, November 18, 2008 at 12:31 am Link to this comment

Damn right, the money will bring this country down faster than anything and you think that everything will just be hunky dorry once the gay matter is taken care of, whatever that will be. Obviously YOU don’t understand human nature enough to know that any and every body will sell every and any body out for money or group for group. You don’t think money has crap to do with this country or the world, well good luck to you.
And just what in the hell are 6.5 billion people going the subsist on with the current political, economic, religious and environment systems that tend to not to keep up with this population. You seem to think that there is a utopia of some sort where everyone will get along. The human animal is so ate up with greed, and the 6 other deadly sins that in is only bound to get worse.
I live everyday in a mix of people of most races here in america, religious freaks and political misfits and I respect them for the people they are just as I expect them to respect me for me. Your supposition to me is that you hope the economy fails in this country and if that is so, you ARE the enemy, the terrorist, just as the politicans that are robbing this county blind are doing. And you are so far off the reservation with the significant portion of the population being denied citizenship when what are you fighting for? The right to be with someone of your own gender. You’re right, I could care less or more and it is truly insignificant compared to the magnitude of our economy collapsing. YOU don’t have any priorities but greed just like the rest of the human race.

Report this

By Hesperion, November 17, 2008 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment

“samosamo: “What a waste of time.””
Sorry to inconvenience you with an ongoing struggle to prevent a sizable portion of the population in the process of being constitutionally denied full citizenship. What segment of the populace will they go after next in their incremental pogrom? This is insignificant to you so, I suppose now that you have said what you think we shall not be inconvenienced by any further remarks from you.
“ …the only protesting that is happening is a bunch of people that feel slighted for their life style. I really feel sorry that some dumb shit harrasses you for your life style physically or mentally but right now we are looking at a very very dangerous situation of the current…blah, blah, blah…”
“life-style”??? I see you have fallen for the crap that the religious right has been feeding you all in order to trivialize us. I will not waste my time in educating you. So when will be the more appropriate time to defend against this assault on YOUR fellow citizens? After the many crises that you feel are more worthy get solved? After all this legislation gets into law and will have to be laboriously overturned? After these bigots move on to the next step in their agenda of criminalizing us? After they move on into other phases of their agenda such as marginalizing then criminalizing religions they don’t approve of? When would the proper time be?
“JUST WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO DO?????!!!!!”
So part of your solutions to all these waaay more major issues is to turn your attention away from one wrong to focus on ones you are more interested in?? Just how would YOU involve “half-citizens” in YOUR vital issues? How many of these native-born constitutionally “partial-citizens” will you enlist in your causes? We are much too insignificant now why would we be worth your bother later?
We are insignificant to you. You have made that clear. Still you showed up here and wrote a comment in THIS thread. If you thought we and our struggle was SO unworthy of your attention why would you do this? You do not see anything that you personally have at stake in this matter. Why would you bother to write about it? If you are finished belittling us, can we count on you moving on to matters more befitting your attention?

Report this

By Daniel, November 17, 2008 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fuck ThIS Shit its alright to be gay there is no problem with it

Report this

By BruSays, November 17, 2008 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

Samsano…It’s been my impression that gays - particularly those most involved with losing their rights in California - are also way more concerned about this administrations’ disaster on economic, political and military fronts than the general population. We can work the social front, too.
(Yes we can.)

Report this

By samosamo, November 17, 2008 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

What a waste of time. Our country will collapse due to the current grand larceny being perpetrated by the current administration and while our tax dollars are being used for rewarding those incompetent and criminal thieves and secret decrees are being pushed though to public policy for corporate welfare instead of the halting of our financial decline the only protesting that is happening is a bunch of people that feel slighted for their life style. I really feel sorry that some dumb shit harrasses you for your life style physically or mentally but right now we are looking at a very very dangerous situation of the current economic debacle being set up to continue as is far into the future with the complicit approval of our new president elect. The republican administration is not backing down on their efforts to totally drain the treasury before they allow obama to take over and what they will leave will be beyond the new president’s ability to correct because congress is doing nothing to stop this raid on the coffers. Yep, that $700,000,000,000.00 bailout that turned into a $850,000,000,000.00 bailout and now is approaching a $2,000,000,000,000.00 piece of corporate welfare is turning into the biggest theft in history and while the rome burns everybody fiddles. No priorities, no concern, no nothing. If the basic core issues could be resolved, then the other should get fixed also. But this country is so divided over bs issues and especially now that the ‘other’ party is set to take power that I have the damnest feeling that you will not be able to tell a difference a year from now in what was. As a matter of fact, it could very very ugly by then.
So before you yammer on about it ain’t about this or that then any other explantions are crap, answer me this: what are YOU going to do when all the money is gone and it will take 40 or 50 years to pay back from our tax dollars this huge amount of money that the republicans and the democrats will steal AND all of a sudden there is NO social security, NO healthcare, NO jobs, internment camps for housing and sawdust for food, JUST WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO DO?????!!!!!

Report this

By BruSays, November 17, 2008 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

Can someone…anyone….point to one single instance where a gay marriage in some way…in any way…threatened a heterosexual marriage?

Does any married heterosexual couple seriously worry that their marriage will somehow be jeapordized or somehow be less “sanctified” because there’s a gay married couple down the street?

Get over it Anti-gay Marriage America.
It really isn’t about religion.
It really isn’t about marriage.
It really isn’t about children.

It’s about homophobia. Any other explanation is crap.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 17, 2008 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

It is not “just” “gay marriage”. It is not just “no single payer health care”. It is not “just 16 more mos in Iraq and then to Afghanistan”.

“Well, they have to” NO they do NOT!“But we are a christian country” No we are NOT!

It is the attitude of the govt (and the supposed majority—biggest mouths and most money!)towards the PEOPLE. WE invented govt, WE should be able to take it out when it no longer serves the people.

If we have to—the openminded and decent majority—we will.

Gay Americans and not different from other Americans in any way except whom they love.

Get over it!!

Report this

By mud, November 17, 2008 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

Why in the name of Dog would anyone give a damn weather or not the STATE officealy sanctions who they boynk?

This is way mixed up. The State has no business in such matters other then attempting to keep tabs on you and cover their liabilities for the inevitable future offspring production.

Take to the streets and howl about how badly you want the Gov. to sanction your choice of bead partner if that cranks you up somehow. But first, look around you.

Look at the prisons overflowing with people who are being punished hideously or the act of imbibing the EVIL (non toxic, non addictive) weed Marijuana.

Don’t see the connection?  Don’t see why you should care about your tax dollars being used to ruin the lives of millions of innocent pot smokers who are doing harm to no one?

If we choose to stand and watch casually as our brethren are arrested, imprisoned and tortured in mass for one type of victomless crime, it won’t be long before the baton is turned on us.

Report this

By mendez, November 17, 2008 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

It will be up to us what Obama follows through on and what he doesn’t.  He clearly won’t, can’t, do a thing about Pelosi, as her job seems to be to simply get more power.  I also believe he is very smart, though I voted still for Nader, and he will play this hand very close to his chest as he won’t want to alienate Bush until the reigns to power are official.  I think that is smart, because one thing no one is reporting is that Bush is still attempting to get certain things done for his cronies and Obama won’t want to give him any ideas about sticking around.

Report this

By Robert, November 17, 2008 at 5:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Crazy Christian USA said,

“I wonder how everyone would feel if a bunch of rabid McCain supporters went around protesting the outcome of the election.  You’d probably think they were a bunch of sore losers.  Sore and losers. The election is over.  Quit annoying everyone, please.”

Dumb response…  Rabid McCain losers did not lose a civil right in the election.  They did not have their marriages invalidated.  They were not made 2nd class citizens.  The difference is huge, and only someone who supported the proposition would not be able to say that, and instead would say ‘get over it.’ 

We’re not going to get over it, so you are going to continue to be annoyed…. 

And what do you think would happen if an amendment passed invalidating the marriages of Crazy Christians?  Do you think they’d ‘get over it?’

Report this

By troublesum, November 17, 2008 at 4:36 am Link to this comment

And what is Obama doing while Paulson and Pelosi loot the treasury and the taxpayers?  The main thing on his mind seems to be choosing a dog for his kids.  He talked to 60 Minutes about it yesterday.  You can see what the msm cares about.

It is beyond belief what excuses the democrats come up with for not doing the right thing.  When they were in the minority in congress they were afraid of the republican majority and had a defeatist attitude.  Now that they are in the majority they are afraid of hurting the markets.  Having a democratic majority will be worse than having the republicans in charge.

Report this

By samosamo, November 16, 2008 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

By atlanta dyke, November 16 at 6:39 pm

I could care less or more about anybody getting married. I would believe more in 2 people living together because they love each other, trust each other and live life with each other without reciting some kind of vows or litany establishing a legal contract. So yeah, I have tremendous concerns about the more valuable core issues such as the integrity of the Constitution, a viable and equitable economy, a clean environment, health care when needed without giving up one’s financial security, an educational system that works, a media system that will report and inform without bias and government at all levels that are not corrupt and are not beholding to lobbyists of any kind. All of which allows your dream to exist as it has for quite a long time. But because a lot of what I give priorty to is subverted and misused, it is easy to keep an almost perpetual divide among the people so there is always some conflict preventing a united group to maintain those core issues. As tattered and smashed as w & dick made the constitution it is still strong enough to protect what you want, but just imagine what would be if it just disappeared.
So go ahead and protest but this country and this world will not get any better until the people really unite and protest and boycott to a point where the ‘elected’ will have to do the bidding of the people, if it ever happens.

Report this

By The Crazy Christian USA, November 16, 2008 at 11:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I wonder how everyone would feel if a bunch of rabid McCain supporters went around protesting the outcome of the election.  You’d probably think they were a bunch of sore losers.  Sore and losers.

The election is over.  Quit annoying everyone, please.

Report this

By Hesperion, November 16, 2008 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment

desertdude: “all authority of the Government is given by God. So if you protest against the Government, you are rebelling against God.”

Barely 8 o’clock and the spooks are already out!

desertdude: You probably think you are “devout” and presumably “christian”. If you actually believe this maxim that you farted out here you are not really either. You are most likely a Fascist-Dominionist. Maybe an aspiring Theocrat. The thing you propose is not livable by human beings and is more likely a phantom, figment of your sad, desperate cult-leader’s imagination. It’s been tried several times in history and has consistently failed miserably but not before many lives were lost. Reference: the Inquisition, Jonestown, the Taliban, etc., etc.. All firmly believed they were “God’s” representatives and His agents to rule over the people. If people protest against the government they are exercising the rights of free citizens of a free republic because they recognize that governments are man-made, fallible and require close scrutiny by the people. If the government is “God” in your estimation, I pity you. You are a slave of any man-made authority.

If you have something substantive to contribute then do it. If all you have is this simpleminded, veiled homophobic, religionism: Goodbye!

Report this

By desertdude, November 16, 2008 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

all authority of the Government is given by God. So
if you protest against the Government, you are rebelling against God.

Report this

By atlanta dyke, November 16, 2008 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Doc reality et al:

I’m quite sick of all the flack about gay marriage being a side show to the “real” issues.  Granted, I think our country is perpetrating evil warfare on the world, a cruelty that exceeds the injustice of denying gays marriage.  But just because the neocons turn something into a wedge issue to distract from corporate and military sins does not mean the issue is not important. 

It IS disgusting that gays are discriminated against in this country and marriage equality is something worth fighting for. 

And props to all the straight folk who came out to protest yesterday, your support is much appreciated.

Report this

By samosamo, November 16, 2008 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment

Where were all these people when our constitution was being shredded? Where were they when 5 members of the supreme court stopped the vote recount in florida giving the presidency to the worst person ever to occupy the office? Where are the people to protest the likes of the ‘corporate media’ with its subversion of the news? Where are the protests of an economic system so perverted that it is creating the newest 3rd world banana republic, the USA?
I can see the neocons in their think tanks high fiving each other in a continuation of their successful distraction, dumbing and vegging of the people of this country. Even now, in front of our own faces, the sec. of the treasury, paulson, and his buddy bernanke with the vital help of nancy pelosi are robbing us blind and none of this is worth protesting more than using harsh language to stop a run away train.

Report this

By in georgia, November 16, 2008 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Doc Reality:

keep the state out of it? yes, get the state out of my right to marry and to be considered an equal citizen.  the state is currently “in it”, and always has been in this country. and yes, i agree that you personally should have nothing to do with my rights.

Report this

By troublesum, November 16, 2008 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

“Don’t bother me with questions of social justice and human rights” is an attitude which is at the heart of militarism.

Report this

By troublesum, November 16, 2008 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

This issue is not separate from dismantling militarism.  Freedom, equality, and justice are enemies of militarism and the militaristic state.  People who value these three things cannot support a militaristic state.

Report this

By mendez, November 16, 2008 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

Well Docreality, I wonder if you would feel that way if you were told you aren’t allowed to see your partner’s children if she died or you weren’t entitled to family insurance, or the right to be at her bed if she were dying?  This is not a joke or something one should think is not a big deal.  Unless you trust politicians with your own liberties?

Report this

By DocReality, November 16, 2008 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Homosexuality has become the perfect form for Communist division and population control as seen by the Global elite oligarchy.
This is an absolute sideshow and diversion from the truth and reality of the evil that is consuming the human race. This is the lowest
‘problem’ we face. We march in the street for this instead of dismantling our fetid and corrupt militaristic government who has wasted millions of innocents for the last 150 years? Pure insanity.
Some people are indeed born with certain inclinations, that is their business and their business only. It is not up to society to pander and promote this agenda as an outline for societal behavior. Keep the state out of it. Your choice is your choice, keep me out of it.

Report this

By mendez, November 16, 2008 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Yesterday’s spirited and peaceful actions were impressive.  They were impressive, as was the election result, because the right wing haters now realize they have no momentum and they will soon be ignored as they should be.  They were impressive because so many straights participated and because they will be responsible for the fatal blow necessary to the remnants of hatred fueled by the Bush nightmare.  Most disturbing over the last few decades has been the failure of the gay community to come together as they did yesterday, finally.  Of course it is expected that when a largely peaceful group has been oppressed for so long it is difficult to muster the force needed to combat the violence witnessed by the right wing.  Most importantly, for gays and fellow straights, is to keep the needle moving upward and not give in to the media or right when they try to re-frame the situation.  Now, with the Bush junta leaving, it is more important than ever to keep the pressure on and take back not only what we lost under the recent coup, but to take as much as possible.  Now it is time for progressives to get selfish and never again be satisfied with lip service handed out by politicians or media.

Report this

By BlueEagle, November 16, 2008 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

This is a wedge issue used to divide us and distract us from the real issues. It’s also a non-political issue.

Marriage is a religious activity and has nothing to do with the State. You can’t legislate away someone’s rights as an individual.

It’s State issued marriage certificates that should be abolished.  What ever happened to separation of church and state?

The best thing that I see here is that the people are fired up and ready to take action.

Report this

By Hesperion, November 16, 2008 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment

mendez,
“Change, always the mantra of our times, won’t come till it’s dealt its fatal blow.”

So I have heard. I see nothing to disagree with in these comments so far. Reality and clear observation is a pesky thing to reckon with though.

In any thread that has to do with discrimination by the military, acts of violence against the gay community, discrimination in the workplace and, of course, this marriage issue someone always brings up boycotting, withholding taxes, not enlisting, even leaving for other, friendlier places. However, it would be rather impractical to relocate some 20% of the population simply because the bigots in USA don’t like us. You can depend on bigots with “cash to burn” to burn it in these meddling attacks whipped up by clergymen (their god must be so proud) whenever there is modest gain toward equal rights. As expected, they reiterated the declaration of war on us again at their Fascist Party convention on Sept. 1st in Minneapolis. You can also expect that ANY gains we ever make will be met with backlashes because this is the nature of Americans. They are hypocrites to the bone, get used to it. They care nothing for these protests and regard them as amusingly impotent since the legalities are all now in place to crush them (thanks to the Bush Regime’s new option to mingle military operations with law enforcement) and for now, they are being allowed. Trust that when ordered to turn the guns on us there will be no hesitation. This government, all it’s agencies and the military is now so infested with Neocon cockroaches and neo-fascists that it will NEVER be reformed. The USA will NEVER do anything but debate and argue over its gay citizens. It’s merely a handy political football to kick around at times. If we make progress in human rights there will be an automatic process commence to reverse it. In the case of the military (which is a microcosm of US society) planning for some sort of “transitional” training is an absurd pipe dream. The military has required minority sensitivity training for years now and I have not heard one soldier, sailor or marine that has not resented that and tacitly decided not to comply. Rape and gratuitous violence by the bigots have dramatically increased. This is the nature of Americans. Forget about it and just give up, you’ll feel much better. Welcome to the “Greatest Nation in the World” that “Shining Beacon on the Hill” “The Land of the Free” (if you fit the profile). It’s rapidly going down the tubes. Tantalizing glimmers of hopefulness interspersed with vast wastelands of futility. Given its imperial aspirations and history of corporate abuses throughout the world it might be a very good thing for the planet in the long run if it did finally

Report this

By Hesperion, November 16, 2008 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

mendez:
“Change, always the mantra of our times, won’t come till it’s dealt its fatal blow.”

So I have heard. I see nothing to disagree with in these comments so far. Reality and clear observation is a pesky thing to reckon with though.

In any thread that has to do with discrimination by the military, acts of violence against the gay community, discrimination in the workplace and, of course, this marriage issue someone always brings up boycotting, withholding taxes, not enlisting, even leaving for other, friendlier places. However, it would be rather impractical to relocate some 20% of the population simply because the bigots in USA don’t like us. You can depend on bigots with “cash to burn” to burn it in these meddling attacks whipped up by clergymen (their god must be so proud) whenever there is modest gain toward equal rights. As expected, they reiterated the declaration of war on us again at their Fascist Party convention on Sept. 1st in Minneapolis. You can also expect that ANY gains we ever make will be met with backlashes because this is the nature of Americans. They are hypocrites to the bone, get used to it. They care nothing for these protests and regard them as amusingly impotent since the legalities are all now in place to crush them (thanks to the Bush Regime’s new option to mingle military operations with law enforcement) and for now, they are being allowed. Trust that when ordered to turn the guns on us there will be no hesitation. This government, all it’s agencies and the military is now so infested with Neocon cockroaches and neo-fascists that it will NEVER be reformed. The USA will NEVER do anything but debate and argue over its gay citizens. It’s merely a handy political football to kick around at times. If we make progress in human rights there will be an automatic process commence to reverse it. In the case of the military (which is a microcosm of US society) planning for some sort of “transitional” training is an absurd pipe dream. The military has required minority sensitivity training for years now and I have not heard one soldier, sailor or marine that has not resented that and tacitly decided not to comply. Rape and gratuitous violence by the bigots have dramatically increased. This is the nature of Americans. Forget about it and just give up, you’ll feel much better. Welcome to the “Greatest Nation in the World” that “Shining Beacon on the Hill” “The Land of the Free” (if you fit the profile). It’s rapidly going down the tubes. Tantalizing glimmers of hopefulness interspersed with vast wastelands of futility. Given its imperial aspirations and history of corporate abuses throughout the world it might be a very good thing for the planet in the long run if it did finally fail.

Report this

By Bev, November 16, 2008 at 11:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

An effort to recover civil rights and also Democracy itself:

FROM: http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2008/11/exit_poll_showed_californias_p.html

Around the world, exit polls are used to determine the need for investigation of elections. In the U.S., the National Exit Poll (NEP, also known as Edison/Mitofsky) now adjusts results to match vote counts before issuing its final polling numbers. Election Defense Alliance (http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/ ) downloaded NEP numbers from the internet on election night, however, before poll results were changed to match the official vote count.
snip

We at Velvet Revolution are recruiting volunteers to observe at county election offices beginning immediately. Volunteers will be trained via conference call this Sunday, November 16, at 4 p.m. To sign up for training, email us with your name, phone number, and county or counties where you would be willing to volunteer. We ask that all volunteers be prepared to give at least four hours over the next couple of weeks. We hope that most will be able to volunteer significantly more time.

Please note that this training is specific to California and to observing many of the auditing processes set up here by Secretary of State Debra Bowen…. Democracy cannot take care of itself. It needs us. It is us. In California and around the nation, our names are being called right now. Come on down!
snip

  * Post a link to this blog item (http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2008/11/exit_poll_showed_californias_p.html)on your MySpace page or wherever you go on the internet.

...

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2008/11/was-prop-8-actually-defeated.html

WAS PROP 8 ACTUALLY DEFEATED??

Well, well, well. First we find out, happily, that We the People may not be so fiercely
racist after all, as Election ‘08 has debunked the (feeble) theory of “the Bradley effect.”

And now it turns out that Americans–at least those in gay-friendly California–may not really be as hostile to gay marriage as the outcome of that state’s election has apparently suggested.

As we think about the possibility that Prop 8 was not really passed by California’s voters, let’s note something that the press, and others, won’t discuss: i.e., that the entire apparatus of computerized voting in this country–the e-voting machines and op-scans and central tabulators, etc.–is largely owned by members of the Christianist far right.
more

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook