Thousands March Against Gay Marriage

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/121204kingMarch.htm

Thousands of African Americans marched Saturday to denounce same-sex marriage, invoking the name of slain civil rights leader martin Luther King to the anger of many gays and lesbians.

The march was organized by Bishop Eddie Long whose New Birth Missionary Baptist Church is one of the biggest black churches in the country.

The march set off from the King Center where Dr King is buried and ended with a rally at Turner Field. The unofficial parade count was set at 15,000.

Long avoided direct comments on gay marriage saying his followers "did not come in a march of hatred." But, the message was clear.

not come in hatred--whatever

and I find it amusing that they would have the audacity to invoke the name of Dr. King especially when Coretta Scott King has come down in favor of gay rights

[xultar]

1. No shit...As the apocalyps approaches beware of FALSE PROPHETS

BUSH is one...

EDDIE LONG is another ATL FALSE PROPHETS who is against gay rights and told his congregation to vote for bush

My only asumption is that because of anti gay marriage these 2 can be counted as well...

CREFLO DOLLAR is another ATL black FALSE PROPHETS preacher who told his congregation to vote for bush

and...there's one more ATL black FALSE PROPHETS preacher who told his congregation to vote for bush

ok i didn't get a good sleep last night...:shrug:

[ooglymoogly]

2. mlk must be turning in his grave

he would be so ashamed of these idiots. he taught love; these like the rest of hate religious right are teaching hate.... we must know our enemies and it is these jerks...i bet the press gleefully covered this march

[TaleWgnDg]

61. Marriage is granted in law not via religion in America.

This issue is about law and what marriage laws grant to individuals. Our marriage laws grant legal duties, legal obligations, and legal benefits which have nothing to do w/ religion.

However, this issue swirls around in misinformation wrapped in emotion and angst by some and fear by others. How sad. Let's try some stoic unemotional law for clarity. Just to clear the air.

First of all, in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal and is based upon sound and rational and reasonable facts and law. For example, the Massachusetts marriage laws have never been based upon religion, never in it's entire history:

"Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. See Commonwealth v. Munson, 127 Mass. 459, 460-466 (1879) (noting that "in Massachusetts, from very early times, the requisites of a valid marriage have been regulated by statutes of the Colony, Province, and Commonwealth," and surveying marriage statutes from 1639 through 1834). No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage. Id." (Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, ___ Mass. ____, SJC-08860, November 18, 2003, italicized emphasis added.)

Please read that above quote from the Goodridge court decision very carefully, very closely because it recites the history of marriage in Massachusetts. And that's what the law relies upon. It relies upon facts, factual history, case law, legislative made law, and the Massachusetts constitution.

A religion in any State in the U.S.A. cannot marry people without the state government granting someone within that religion authority/power to perform a marriage ceremony, period. Read that last sentence, closely. The State has the power and authority, not a religion!

Each and every state in America (via its constitution and legislative made law) grants certain individuals in their respective states the authority (and power) to perform marriage ceremonies, whether religious ceremonies or otherwise. Again, it is within the power of the State to so grant this authority. No religion in America has the power or authority to perform a marriage ceremony UNLESS it is granted that power/authority by the State government.

It's never EVER been the other way around in America, NEVER.

Second of all, marriage in and of itself grants each marriage partner certain benefits, obligations, and duties in both state and federal laws. As opposed to non-marrieds who can never partake in these benefits, obligations, and duties conferred upon marrieds. This is the turning issue in this entire ill-informed "debate" . . . benefits, duties, obligations, and privileges granted in law to marrieds only, both in state laws and in federal laws. For a shortened overview of these state and federal laws, please see: http://www.glad.org/rights/PBOsOfMarriage.pdf (this requires Adobe Reader)

And, most importantly, in America where all people are treated equally, where we do not discriminate against groups of citizens, and where citizens cannot be denied due process of our laws, we cannot under our federal constitution deny the marriage laws to some and grant those same marriage laws to others.

Finally, as to that *new* thing called "civil unions" . . . "civil unions" will never be the same as "same-sex marriage" because there is no way that each and every State in the nation will pass the same (approximate 300 plus) State laws as all the other States as to "civil unions" to kick in State legal duties, obligations, privileges, and benefits. As well as there's no way that the federal government will pass laws to kick in all the duties, obligations, benefits and privileges of all the 1,100 plus federal laws that marrieds-only now have in federal law. So, in short, no matter how its framed, so-called "civil unions" will never be the same as marriage.

There's an abbreviated chart about this very issue -- a comparison of marrieds-only versus civil unions versus no-marrieds: http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf (requires Adobe Reader).

In addition, there's U.S. Supreme Court case law that over-rules "separate but equal" which may be analogous to "civil unions" as equal to marriage; therefore rule "civil unions" as unconstitutional. (See, e.g., Plessy upholding segregation in the public schools as long as "separate but equal," and Brown v Board of Education over-ruling Plessy.)

I certainly hope that this clears the vision of some who have doubts and fears that some in America have attempted to tweak, particularly the rightwing element who strive to use religion for votes, and to place discrimination into our laws.

And one last thing. Same sex marriage will not take away any religions' right to say "NO!" to marrying a homosexual couple. Religions may discrimination against same-sex marriage if it's within their religious beliefs to do so. It's pure fiction to fear that any State in America can force a religion to marry anyone against that religion's religious beliefs/tenets. Religious freedom is express in the constitution's first amendment.

And that's it, in a nutshell. Family law as to same-sex couples and marriage and "civil unions."

. . . A word of precaution . . . be wary whenever a religion says this or that about same-sex marriage . . . remember that they may (I say "may" here) have their hand in the pot of Bush's "faith-based initiatives" . . . which may (I say "may" here) taint their perception on this issue . . . Bush has been hyping his wares in Churches across America . . .



edited to add photo, Massachusetts statehouse:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. It's not necessarily hatred to oppose same sex marriage.

Gays and lesbians are trying to redefine marriage for others rather than simply seeking rights for themselves, as with civil unions. Not supporting the redefinition of marriage doesn't mean someone hates gays and lesbians.

There's a lot more support for civil unions, for having the right to leave property to a lover (same sex or opposite sex) or have a lover visit you in hospital, etc., than there is for redefining marriage, which involves a husband (male) and wife (female) to include two people of the same sex.

[HockeyMom]

4. Straights

redefined marriage a LONG time ago. And Bush and his religious nuts and their Abstinence Only UNTIL MARRIAGE and LIFE LONG COMMITMENT between ONE man and ONE woman, won't change it. Read between the lines on their FULL quotes and you will see it really ISN'T gays they are worried about.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. ???

???

[arcane1]

6. trying to redefine marriage for others?

WTF does that mean??

[DemBones DemBones]

9. I thought I explained it pretty well. For many, many

years, marriage has been a union between one man and one woman, with or without religious overtones. Many, many people don't want to see that changed, but at the same time they, for the most part, have no interest in harming gays/lesbians and don't hate them because of their sexual preference. Many even support civil unions. What's not to understand?

[arcane1]

12. what is the difference?

civil union vs marriage?

same damned thing, it seems to me, except the name

[DemBones DemBones]

13. The name is important to many. nt

[arcane1]

16. in other words, no difference

[justin899]

20. Well, you're WRONG

Civil Unions are NOT equivalent to marriage!

1. Civil Unions aren't portable like marriages which means as soon as you leave the state your CU is registered in you LOSE ALL OF YOUR STATE RIGHTS. This is especially problematic if you're involved in an accident out of state. You may lose your hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights for your partner. That's not the case with marriage.

2. There is no such thing as a "civil union." Of the 5 (soon to be 6) states that have them, no two are the same and none are as comprehensive as Vermont's.

3. Inheritance is fully taxable for civil unions at the federal level and outside the state where the civil union is registered whereas married couples have an automatic right of inheritance and the estate isn't taxed at either the federal or state level.

4. Married people receive Social Security and veteran benefit payments upon the death of a spouse. Civil union couples get zip.

5. Married people receive payment from retirement savings upon the death of a spouse and can roll over savings for continued tax deferment. Retirement programs to civil union couples are immediately taxed and many plans do not allow for a non-spouse (defined as MARRIED spouse) to collect in the first place.

6. US citizens and legal permanent residents can sponsor their spouse and other family members for immigration. You can't do that with a civil union.

7. You can't claim a marital communications privilege in court if you're not married.


There are dozens of other differences and this doesn't even begin to get into the difference with insurance, dissolution, suing for wrongful death of your partner and tons of other differences.

Furthermore, marriage is not only a right, but it is also a rite.

The ONLY way I would ever go for a civil union is if straights had to obtain one for all of their marital rights as well. That way you wouldn't be able to take rights away from one group wihout impacting everyone...that is assuming you would ever get congress to replace "marriage" with "civil unions" language which you don't have an ice cube's chance in hell of doing in the first place.

[arcane1]

21. I was referring to the poster's definitions

not the actual ones

[justin899]

22. Oh, I see that now

Sorry, I thought you were saying they were the same.

A lot of people do seem to think they're exactly the same. So I always point out some of the differences at every opportunity.

[arcane1]

23. no problem

I was hoping said poster would provide some definitions themselves

alas

[livinginphotographs]

31. You're still missing the main difference...

That tends to get drowned out in false accusations of not being in favor of gay marriage/civil union/whatever.

Marriage is a religious institution. I for one could care less what marriages churches recognize or not.

Civil unions are a legal institution, and heterosexuals currently have this on the federal level. The civil union is what gives a married heterosexual couple all those federal benefits. If we were to extend those benefits to homosexual couples, they would have a federal civil union. What's wrong with that?

For example: both of my parents are atheists. They were married by a judge. Since my dad was raised Catholic and my mother Methodist, some Catholic churches wouldn't recognize their marriage because it would be considered interfaith. Also, my dad had been divorced before, so still more Catholic churches wouldn't have recognized the marriage.

Did they care? No. Did they still get federal benefits? Yes. Were they married? Not technically, no, since there was no religious ceremony involved. Did they have a civil union? Yes, and they got all the same benefits as those married in churches, regardless of what it was called.

Personally, I think the argument should be made that because of separation of church and state, the govt should not be involved in who can or cannot get "married" (since that's a religious institution), but should allow two people, whatever their gender, to enter civil unions with all the legal benefits that most people associate with "marriage."

Flame away... :ducks:

[queerart]

32. Well Then! It's All Worked Out, Huh?

Did you bother to read post #11?

Or is this a "Game Of Lets Needle The Queers"?

Do you also poke dying kittens with a stick?

You cleverly said:>>> Flame away... :ducks:

(It's clear what your intent is)....

I can tell by that last little bit you think you are brilliant...

But I've checked the Mensa List... and for some odd reason your name does not appear?

[livinginphotographs]

34. Um, yes, I did read his post.

Did you bother to read mine?

He says that civil unions exclude federal rights. I say make civil unions a federal issue, thereby granting homosexual couples the rights he speak of.

I'm not sure what you think my intent is, but I posted "flame away" with the expectation that people who want to have a chip on this shoulder about this issue instead of actually discussing it would read probably the first sentence and come back with the predictable response of "MARRIAGE IS A HUMAN RIGHT!" or some such thing, despite the fact that I never said that it wasn't.

But you read into it what you wish; I stand by my opinion (and would be more than willing to discuss it further if you could be bothered to actually read what I write from now on).

[queerart]

36. I See......

So what you post is "vaild", and what I type is with a "chip on my shoulder"....

I see....

And since you have all this wisdom that is so much more "valid" being... Oh, I don't know.... I'M GUESSING... STRAIGHT??...

NOW! If I was only straight I would be more reasonable...

Or, I simply would see things your way... as everyone should......

Ahhhhh, I see.... OK....

and to say that "MARRIAGE IS A HUMAN RIGHT is predictable for you, and not "worthy" to note.........

Uhhh.. Huhhhh.... OK....

Um..... I'm also guessing that you are a woman, (as I have not checked your profile yet)....

So how would you like a man giving you some needed advice about being a woman......

Oh I see..... not the same thing you will say......

Uhhhh... Huhhhh.....

And what a straight woman is doing trolling for a fight in a Queer room is beyond me.....

and the "Flame Away comment"..... just as sure as a poke in the eye... you had your fingers crossed... to bad someone like me can't see your vast wisdom.... maybe you could relay all of this to George?

Hummmmmmm.........

Tell me.... are you having a problem with flocks of Queers going over to the "Woman's Issues" to say you need to shut up, get back in the kitchen, and obey your husband??........

So when you ask us to take less... even if you smile while doing so... we won't... I know you think... what a Militant Fag... I'm also societies Father, Brother, Son, Doctor, Carpenter, Plumber, PC repairman.... and when you expect me to take less... you also expect them to take less!

What you had better be worried about rather than fighting with the Queers... is your own reproductive rights......

And guess what the folks are going to say when you want your rights... but you expect others to take less??......

They will tell you to Piss Off!

I don't smell that fresh Apple Pie My Friend.... Someone Better Get Busy!

[livinginphotographs]

38. I'm not a woman, FYI.

I'm a straight man who is concerned about gay rights. I didn't realize one had to be gay to be trying to help the gay rights cause.

My buddy George? Do you know anything about me? No! All you've done is assume. And you (once again) still have not read my post. In case you don't realize, calling someone out as a Republican is against the DU rules, and since I'm not one, it's also a really stupid assumption on your part.

Did you even read my anecdote about my parents? (Silly question, obviously not) They had a CIVIL UNION!!!!! Heterosexuals have both "civil unions" (the legal side) and the benefit of the doubt when it comes to "marriage" (the religious side). I propose to give gays the legal side and let churches sort out the religious crap. That's not the government's job.

But call me a homophobe and dismiss me like you do oh so well. Maybe I should stoop to your level and start making snide comments about how incredibly stupid and vapid your posts are as well. :eyes:

[queerart]

40. A Big Ole Mary......

[livinginphotographs]

41. Um, okay.

Whatever that means. :eyes:

[queerart]

43. Vapid..... Indeed

Well Miss Fancy Pants....

What I am saying is first you stuck me as a woman.....

I realize now it was my "Gaydar"

Don't try to feign not understanding.....

I'm sure if we were not in this present conversation

I Would Find You Simply Fastidious My Dear.....

[livinginphotographs]

44. If that's a good thing, thanks.

If not, screw you. ;)

And just to let you know, I am quite fastidious I've been told.

[queerart]

45. Now Now Missy.....

Temper, Temper....

You just answered my question....

We are on the same side Kitten.....

Let out that inner being!

and saying screw you... Tisk, Tisk

Proper young ladies do not present themselves in such a manner...

The next outburst like that, and I will have to take back the tiara, and pink sash you were entrusted with....

[livinginphotographs]

46. I'm sorry.

I have no idea how to respond to that. :)

[justin899]

47. You're confusing Civil Unions with Civil Marriage

"Marriage is a religious institution."

Not in the United States. Marriage is nothing more than a private contract which confers a myriad of special rights based on marital status. It may hold some religious significance for some, but it isn't legally so. This is why you still have to obtain a marraige license from the state, and its also why you can't get a divorce from a church.

"Civil unions are a legal institution, and heterosexuals currently have this on the federal level. The civil union is what gives a married heterosexual couple all those federal benefits. If we were to extend those benefits to homosexual couples, they would have a federal civil union. What's wrong with that?"

That just isn't true. There is no such thing as a federal civil union. What your parents have is a civil marriage, not a civil union. A civil marriage is still a marriage. It isn't a civil union.

[livinginphotographs]

49. See, you're arguing semantics and I'm not.

I'm unconcerned what it's called. I see "traditional" marriage consisting of two parts: the religious and the legal. The religious is of no concern to me, as an atheist, because I could really care less is someone's god recognizes my marriage. The legal aspect is what gay couples should be concerned about, because that will grant them those federal rights you are speaking of.

I'm talking about redefining the term marriage so that people recognize the difference between the legal and the religious. Call it a civil union or civil marriage, I don't care, but I'm agreeing with you that, yes, right now we do not have anything called a federal civil union. We should have that.

It comes down to the separation of church and state: give gay couples all the legal rights afforded heterosexual couples (and by that I definitely mean ALL, both state and federal) and let the churches decide who they want to consider married in the eyes of god.

Trust me, we're definitely on the same side, we're just talking past each other.

[benevolent dictator]

50. that would be great if only we could get congress to approve of it

i mean, i don't think most people who support same-sex marriages would really object to the word "marriage" being taken out of federal and state documents, since churches would still have the option of "marrying" people. the only thing is i don't think you would ever get our republican controlled government to ever do such a thing. there would be a huge outcry from the fundies, and it would never pass.

i really don't care what the hell it's called, so long as it's called the same thing for everyone and not one thing for this group of people and another thing for that group of people.

[livinginphotographs]

54. Exactly.

And unfortunately, I also agree with you regarding the Repub congress. For people who make their careers on fear, between turrists and homos, they haven't had it this good since Jim Crow.

[TaleWgnDg]

62. Keep on trucking . . . your posts are intelligent, articulate and

legally correct about this issue of marriage. After all, marriage is a civil contract granted by the State government.

Religious institutions do not have the power nor the authority to grant marriage to ANYONE without the State laws (State legislature, State people, State government) expressly granting religions that authority. That is the status of marriage in America. That's ALWAYS been the status of marriage in America.

Marriage has always been granted by State civil law in America.

What's so damn hard about this? You don't have a problem with it, but many here do. This GWBush Administration is making hay out of this issue and muddying the waters, all to their own political agenda of divide and conquer for votes in total ignorance. How ugly can they get?!!



.

[FaerieWizard]

17. Monogamy is a relatively young practice

when you look at the history of marriage/relationship among cultures (unless you think the world is 6000 years old).

So essentially polygamists have a better argument where marriage and tradition is concerned.

Also, there are cultures that actually do practice same-sex marriage. Of course they aren't "civilized Christians" therefore they don't count for squat.

~The Faeriewizard
http://faeriewizard.faerietales.net

[queerart]

7. Queers Don't Have To Ask A Breeders Permission For Shit!

Redefine marriage for others, indeed?

That is rich....

Accept the life a Fag has, then tell me that we don't seek equal rights.

It never fails to amaze me, what social ills Posting Prophets are able to work out on the "THEORY SIDE".......

Too bad the "PRACTICAL SIDE" never matches......... EVER.....

[DemBones DemBones]

10. Look, I posted here to explain that "breeders" (charming term, BTW) do NOT

necessarily HATE "queers" when they protest against/ vote against same sex marriage. They're trying to protect their turf, marriage.

Frankly, I'm surprised at gays/lesbians WANTING to enter into a relationship modeled on the "breeding relationship" of "straights."

You don't know anything about me but you automatically assume I've never experienced discrimination. or you don't care if I have, assuming only you have been hurt by the world, but nowhere did I say that you don't seek equal rights.

It's not theory to say it would be a lot more practical to take civil unions, which you could get with little resistance, instead of insisting on marriage, which causes resentment against you at a time when many "breeders" are starting to accept you. But I see you're in no mood to listen to reason and would prefer to enjoy feeling persecuted so I'll leave you to it.

[justin899]

14. Bullshit!

"You don't know anything about me"
Wrong! We DO know you have no problem with going into a gay forum to tell gays we should accept LESS RIGHTS to make bigots feel comfortable!

"It's not theory to say it would be a lot more practical to take civil unions"
It is absolutely 100% theory! Over half of the amendments which recently passed also prohibted Civil Unions and domestic partnerships.

"But I see you're in no mood"
There is NOTHING reasonable about touting your idiotic separate but equal crap, especially when Civil Unions are NOT equivalent legally to marriage and never will be!

This is the same bullshit argument that was used against interracial marriages 40 years ago!

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[queerart]

39. Good God.....

It's a man....

Now I understand the interest in what the Queers are saying

So sister... How life?

[queerart]

18. would prefer to enjoy feeling persecuted so I'll leave you to it

Save it.... you are "trolling for a fight" in an area for Queers, and you knew
"sure as the sun rises" that someone would say something back to you....

Or maybe there is shock that someone actually did say someting back?

I assume it must be a slow day.........

There may be a disabled post that could be squeaked in before dinner....

Can others even imagine that filthy Queers want equal rights like the rest of the population?

It makes me sick! It makes George sick!.......

Hell, It's Enough To Piss Off The Pope!

Folks are just amazed that Fags do not share their "World Vision"....

Mensa Members Make Me Feel Warm And Fuzzy Inside......

[DemBones DemBones]

24. Two final notes: if I'd been "trolling for a fight,"

I'd have done a better job of it and (2) I didn't realize when I first posted that I was in the GLBT forum because I just clicked the title from "Latest." Sorry to have intruded in your space.

Believe it or not, I'm sympathetic to anyone who experiences discrimination.

[queerart]

25. And, You Need To Have The Last Word As Well....

I stand by my earlier assessment that you were Trolling For A Fight...

Funny how you were able to find your way back through the "Web Maze" of DU to be able to post again, and again, and again in this area.

Now you were more reasonable in this last message... (short on the drama that you used on earlier posts)..... and honestly you are to be commended....

HOWEVER.... had you used such language in your initial post, this WHOLE interaction would have never taken place between many of us... AND YOU!

As you are so correct.......

No one.... "Queer, nor any other MINORITY" should have to live under the Yolk of oppression! PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

[DemBones DemBones]

27. Nah, you can have the last word, but not until I say one more thing, ;-)

Or maybe two.

I got here first from a Latest post; I'm used to seeing dwickham post articles from gay publications in many forums so I didn't think anything of it. Every time I've returned, it's been from "My Posts" when I saw someone had replied to me. DU is not a maze at all when you operate that way. Somewhere in there about the third or fourth post, I realized I was in the GLBT forum.

I truly believe gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals. I think it's kind of weird that you want to get married (such a bourgeois institution and all that) but I'm not out marching to prevent it. I've known a lot of gays and lesbians in my life, including several couples together 20 years and more, have socialized with some of them, worked with others. As a Eucharistic minister in the Catholic Church, I've given Communion to people I know are gay, too -- not my business to deny it to them or anybody else. In other words, I am pretty reasonable. Sorry you got the wrong impression earlier.

Peace. :hippie:

[queerart]

29. I think it's kind of weird that you want to get married

IF POSTS WERE COW PATTIES YOU WOULD HAVE FERTILIZED AN ENTIRE FIELD TODAY....


You offer up "peace" on the one hand... while smacking folks with the other.....

I do understand why... you won't let things go, and why you have the need of the last word......

You do infact enjoy the "fight" of it all..... I doubt that "issue" is an epiphany for you....

Your Bullying Didn't Work Today, Plain And Simple.... Maybe Tomorrow You Will Have Better Luck?

Scarlet did say that Tomorrow Was Another Day......

Are you a wrestler by trade, or just for the fun of it?

I do believe that Gay Marriage is a "moot point" with you....

As you "Love" to share that charm of yours........

I think you are capable of bare knuckle boxing a Nun for the last roll of toliet paper..........

I thought in an earlier post that you picked up your toys, stomped off.... while throwing everyone off your sidewalk?

In the name of Hetrosexuals everywhere woman.... what is your kryptonite?

[davidinalameda]

26. do you have any clue what marriage is all about?

sorry to be so blunt but marriage is not about love or any of those Hallmark emotions

it's about property rights and protecting what two people have built up during their time together

right now, even if a will or any other legal document is in place, and one of the couple dies--their family can still swoop in and make life a living hell for the survivor

in Virginia, you can leave everything to your dog but not to your same sex partner

would you have given the same advice to the African-Americans--take what you can get with little resistance instead of insisting on whatever which causes resentment

seriously doubt it

[DemBones DemBones]

28. I think I do, having been married to the same man for nearly 40 years.

It's about more than love but it's also about love, patience, and very strong commitment. I didn't get married for the rights it gave me, that's for sure. Nor am I aware of having a thousand-something rights as someone here said, so how important can all those rights be?

And I said I supported civil rights and civil unions, to give you the major rights. I explained why many oppose same sex marriage and that they don't all hate you. Some hate you, some merely are uncomfortable with you, but most just don't want to see men marrying men and women marrying women. That is a major change, you must admit. Many would support civil unions, though.

You asked about African-Americans. . . In every movement, feminism included, the radicals who push hard and shoot for the moon make a lot of enemies for everyone else. Sometimes an end run gets you most of what you want without making so many enemies in the process. People were just starting to think "why not civil unions for same sex couples?" when the same sex marriage issue was pushed to the fore and threw everyone for a loop. Maybe it is better to take what you can get now and work on getting more later. I'm old enough to take the long view on things. Clearly, your mileage may vary.

[benevolent dictator]

51. i bet you'd be a lot more aware

of what rights were granted to married couples if you weren't allowed to have them. :eyes:

[queerart]

30. This Will Sound Like A Huge Lie......

But that very thing just happened here! (New Mexico) About 2 weeks ago this fellow that I "slightly" knew keeled over with a severe heart attack, and dies.... YESTERDAY... the dead fellows family (all straight) came into the home the two fellows shared (for Seven "7" Years)... and they cleaned out the house, furniture, ect.. (they rented the house).

THEY ALSO TOOK BOTH FUCKING VEHICLES THAT WERE LESS THAN A YEAR OLD!

MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS, INDEED!

[justin899]

11. Keep your bigotry to yourself!

MARRIAGE IS A HUMAN RIGHT, NOT A HETEROSEXUAL PRIVILEGE!

And, YES, to say gays should have worthless civil unions which EXCLUDE ALL 1183 FEDERAL RIGHTS while straights SHOULD HAVE ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS UNDER MARRIAGE IS BIGOTED WHETHER YOU REZLIZE IT OR NOT!!!

[DemBones DemBones]

15. Excuse me, but nowhere did I say this was MY opinion.

I tried to explain a common belief among heterosexuals and how it is not, in most cases, allied with hatred.

And now I'm outta this thread before I get flamed any more for trying to further understanding.

Ciao!

[queerart]

19. Save The Drama Sister.....

Nobody Is Buying Tickets For Today's Little Performance...........

[benevolent dictator]

52. hey queerart, sorry but

it seems to me like you're the one out looking for a fight in anyone who isn't militantly pro-gay marriage in everything and doesn't acknowledge the other side of the argument at all.

i mean, don't get me wrong, i AM militantly pro-same-sex marriage, but you don't need to insult and harass everyone who posts an opinion slightly different from yours.

it seems like many of the people you're insulting are either a) trying to explain a side they don't agree with or b) don't understand that civil unions will never be the same as marriage (at least without massive changing of definitions and words in government documents.)

that doesn't mean they're stupid, or freepers, or hate glbt people, or are picking fights because they're bored. in fact, i'd say the people who can explain the opposing side well are more intelligent, because the more you understand about your opposition, the easier it is to get into their heads and defeat them. and for those who just don't understand, why not try to explain without setting them on the defensive by insulting them first?

just a thought...

[queerart]

53. Indeed......

and just a thought on my part......

Was I the only one that said something back to the "Trolls"?

Ummm..... no....

So I'm sure you will be leaving a note to chide them as well, correct?

... and just because it does not agree with you....

I won't apologize for being a "Militant Fag", nor will I change....:-)

That's the problem... Queers have been way too passive. That's why we find ourselves where we do today.....

And you need to "GET ON YOUR KNEES, AND THANK" the Women who stood up in the past for you to have the rights you do today..... They too were aggressive, and considered "scrappers"... or would you want to be told to shut up, get back to the kitchen, and accept what others "feel you deserve as civil rights"????

Nah..... didn't think so.... So don't expect Queers to either... Fair enough?

That's the cool thing about America (so far) Folks can troll for a fight on a posting board, and I get to push back... no matter how uncomfortable that makes you, or anyone else.

If I had been that far out of line... The Mods would have smacked me (as they did mind you, along with the other poster that was trolling)

Alas... there is that "MAGIC IGNORE BUTTON"... and then I disappear, just like that.. and I encourage you, and anyone else that I stress to use it!..

[benevolent dictator]

55. fyi, queerart, i am queer.

and militant at that.

the point of my post was that you shouldn't attack people for being trolls when they are simply trying to explain the other side (which they don't agree with) and you shouldn't attack people who just don't understand. you only turn people off when you do that. they will get defensive because you are insulting them, and then they won't learn.

the point isn't that you need to "get on your knees" or "be passive" or that you should just "shut up and accept what other people tell you your civil rights are" the point was that you can be militant without being rude. if someone approaches you with an argument that you feel is wrong, it isn't necessary to insult them. usually people who feel their views are threatened in a way that they can't counter result to name calling, much like the republicans do.

the whole point was that maybe you shouldn't assume that everyone who posts with something that doesn't back you up 100% is "trolling for a fight," because odds are good they weren't. and yeah, i did see other people respond to those posts, but generally i felt that they were a little more respectful and tried to educate the other person posting, instead of just blasting them and insulting them - as if that would make them change their opinions. if you want people to agree with you, you have to convince them, not insult them.

[queerart]

56. Ahhhh............. !

Ok, well I am guessing that the search function that DU offers is "unavailable" to some folks? Or simply not "utilized"......

As it's interesting what troll a person decides to defend against my out of control rage against the world.......

Life sometimes really is stranger than fiction.....

I also wonder about post #51(?)..... as it was "curt & dismissive", and I couldn't help but think..... where is the "engagement" I have been chided about for this poor soul that was not understanding this topic? I looked... but was unable to find a hospitable tone?........

The problem with a Modern Day Sage... Is that more often than not... they are unable to trudge the same path they expect others to dance......

I kindly ask everyone here that I have offended with my vapid, brackish, and Satanic behavior...

PLEASE! For the love of the Gods, put me on "IGNORE ALREADY"!.....

[benevolent dictator]

57. search is only available

if you've donated. as i'm a bit strapped for cash right now, i haven't.

*shakes head* i'm sorry, you just don't get it. so this is the last you'll hear from me. and i just gotta say, you're obviously not on the mensa list, either.

[queerart]

58. And That Was Engaging Someone?

Don't stomp off mad....

Just take the boot out of my ass....

.....and conduct yourself in the manner you expect others too, and when you don't....

Someone is going to call you on it...


Folks should also realize that everyone is not going to agree with them in life... Crazy thought, huh?


Plain and Simple.......

[benevolent dictator]

60. speak for yourself.

"Folks should also realize that everyone is not going to agree with them in life... Crazy thought, huh?"

that's exactly what i've been trying to say.

damnit. i took the bait. ah well... gives me something to do.

[Misunderestimator]

33. You're right. Opposing same-sex marriage is not hatred...

exactly... but it is certainly a superior, smug and closed-minded attitude.

Redefining marriage... oh give me a freaking break. Next you'll use "activist judges" in a rationale.

Why exactly is it a big deal to you if people want the same definition as well as the same rights? As long as marriage is still a federal right, there should be no distinction. As for religious marriages, leave it to the churches... there will be gay marriage, no matter how much you disapprove of it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

48. Oh please!

Redefine marriage, how? Because of what is written in the bible? Well don't force the bible down my throat, because I am not religious at all. I believe in a God, and have faith in that God in my own way, but the bible was written by man, and is NOT the law of the land.

If you truly believe we are trying to redefine marriage then you need to take into consideration a couple of points:

1) The repukes are the ones who forced this issue into the light, not the LGBT community. Prior to the intorduction of the bigoted FMA there were no real moves with in the community to legalize same sex marriage in the United States. Yes it would have happened eventually, but at that point it hadn't. We were actually pushing for civil unions, but the repukes don't even want us to have that.

2) Same sex marriage has been around a lot longer than the bible. Hence, it has been around for a lot longer that what many consider to be a traditional marriage. If you really don't know much about marriage history and queer history then I suggest you begin researching up on it.

So please do not turn this around and put blame onto us, because we did NOTHING!

The repukes will not approve any bills which give LGBT folks rights, if they believe those rights could lead to marriage. Why do you think Sapph still doesn't have the right to sponsor me for immigration? Because the repukes believe the PPIA will lead to same sex marriage. How on earth it has anything to do with marriage I have no idea. You can ask any number of queer binational couples and you will always get the same answer: "We just want to live in the same country together." And please remember that for many binational couples it isn't possible for the American partner to leave the U.S. or for the foreign partner to sposnor their American partner for immigration into their country.

[arcane1]

5. oh my gods.... is this from the Onion???

we are officially down the rabbit-hole

15 THOUSAND?????? :wtf:

kill me now please

[livinginphotographs]

42. I'm skeptical of that number.

Just like they always play down the number of people at anti-Bush rallies and such, why wouldn't the play up the numbers at this crock of shit?

MLK would be rolling in his grave knowing that his name is being used and abused like this. Unfortunately, that tends to happen after one is dead, it seems.

[MinneapolisMatt]

59. Wow.

It sounds like the these protesters want Gays to be "Separate But Equal".

I wonder if that sounds familiar to any of them?