There are a few threads in GD about "Teh Gays". I am really quite put off by some of the remarks ...

[Stinky The Clown]

..... left in the threads.

The following are all statements that are mine and mine alone.

"Gays" are not a monolithic group.

No one on this earth has the right or the moral authority to tell us what rights Teh Gays - or anyone else - can have. Some people do, however, have the power (not the right and not the moral authority) to tell Teh Gays what rights they can NOT have. And that is disgusting.

More than a few posters in the threads I read appear to really be set on limiting these rights for the sake of some political expediency. "Be patient" "I am in favor of gay rights, but the time isn't right" And countless variations thereof.

I HOPE I am not seeing actual homophobia in the replies. If that were the case, shame on anyone who harbors such thoughts.

Chiding people for saying they want nothing more or less than full equality is very antithetical to what any true "liberal" or "progressive" ought to stand for. I dare say, even most *sane* repubicans don't favor less than equality (usually manifested in repubicans as a hands off attitude if not overtly supportive). Yet I see people telling us the're liberals but they also favor some continued diminution of GLBT rights or personhood.

Is anyone brave enough to stand up and say they actually oppose gay rights? Because it is really a binary issue. You either support full equality or you don't. There is simply no middle ground. "As but one example: "civil unions". What does that even mean? It is a measure that separates and is **inherently** and **definitionally** UNEQUAL. The real question boils down to a much simpler one: Marriage for all or Inequality for some? See how that works? There is no acceptable middle ground.

I am making this post because I don't care to engage directly with those who fit the profile I describe but I want it to be known that it is noticed and it isn't very welcome. I am sure I'm not alone in this, even as I own this thread all by my little, lonesome self.

[Amaril]

1. +1

Well said!

[Phil The Cat]

172. LGBT should have equal rights to ANYONE

Fat people, on the other hand... they are weak willed and make you go "ewwwwww"!

:sarcasm:

And rednecks, there's another group that needs to be rounded up, because they talk funny and a fair number of them ARE racists!

:wtf:

I'm not pointing fingers! I am just saying we shouldn't substitute targets of hatred and discrimination! We should figure out how to not have ANY targets of hatred and discrimination!

Some people (not a lot, but SOME) need to jump off their high horse with their "Holier and Cooler Than Thou" attitudes and start looking at their own lives, activities, and responsibilities!

[walldude]

2. You are not alone...

The responses in my thread are all over the place. And it's funny to watch people try to scramble and come up with "valid reasons" that gays aren't treated as equals. And not one has answered the question that forms the entire base for this argument. "What gives you the right to decide on other peoples rights?"

[AndyA]

3. Alert the posts that are questionable and let the mods decide.

I find that's really the best way of dealing with it. And if a particular post is alerted and nothing happens, send it to the attention of one of DU's top brass, and ask them why things like that are allowed.

Overall, the mods do a pretty good job of dealing with inappropriate and/or offensive posts.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[RKP5637]

4. +1000 +++ n/t

[Fumesucker]

5. K&R from a straight geezer..

[Tansy_Gold]

6. k 7 r n/t

[TBF]

7. K&R in solidarity. nt

[libnnc]

8. You...

"get it".

And I love you to pieces because of it. :loveya: :toast: :yourock:

[Desertrose]

9. K & R ...no middle ground.

So true.

Marriage for all or Inequality for some

[jannyk]

11. Kick & Rec!

[DCKit]

12. Too many who claim to be "progressive"....

have a seriously rigid, RW mindset - Seriously prejudiced, but label themselves "conservative" on those issues to avoid being called out on their hypocritical stance on various social, political, economic and religious viewpoints.

I think we all have a bit of the winger mindset, the key is to identify and fight it at every turn - like any other addiction. I am as guilty as anyone else, but I've got some seriously negative role models who teach me daily how NOT to act and provide all the incentive I need to try to be a better person.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[alsame]

14. K&R. You are most certainly not alone. Those of us with gay

family and friends know how painful it is to see someone you love being treated as a second class citizen.

Every single American citizen should have exactly the same rights. Period. I don't care whose political career is jeopardized or who is offended.

I'm inflexible on this issue.

[awoke_in_2003]

341. "I'm inflexible on this issue"

me too. If I am free to marry, my sister should be, also.

[AtomicKitten]

15. That goes both ways: The crass characterization of this president alienates natural allies. nt

[Fumesucker]

16. So, is it homophobia or pure political calculation that motivates Obama?

It's either one or the other..

[Whisp]

367. you throw that word around so easily.

Obama is as homophobic as some here are racist.

hows them apples? Get the point?

There is nothing that Obama has said and done that would peg him as a homophobe. Get off it.

[jonnyblitz]

21. so your support is conditional? ha, that comment speaks

volumes.

[Metric System]

22. Translation: You're MEAN. So NO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR YOU!

[Radical Activist]

23. And saying so should not be equated

with telling people to wait or stop fighting for full equality. Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen that. Lots of straw in this post.

[Touchdown]

31. It's hard not to equate when there are posts telling us to stop fighting

... sit down, let the adults do their job, the ponies are coming, pet issues can come later.

As it stands, these arguments and more are on DU on a daily basis. No straw in Stink's post, but plenty in yours.

[Radical Activist]

34. i'll keep an eye out.

i haven't noticed anyone being told to not fight for their rights in the threads i've participated in today.

[Touchdown]

36. Nice weasel words there. Not today, but you have in the past.

Thank you for your honesty and thank you for conceding.

[Touchdown]

24. My heart bleeds for straight people offended by criticism of a public official.

Try being gay for a day and not being hit in the head with a baseball bat! :eyes:

[Mimosa]

102. Well, we can hide in the closet, TD and not get hit

You forgot we have options. ;)

[ThomCat]

29. So we have to buy our rights by sucking up?

In order to get equal rights we are required to GIVE UP OUR RIGHT to have opinions?

But if we keep that right to have and speak our opinions, you'll deny us other right to equality because apparently we don't deserve equality?

:wtf:

Do you see the contradictions in that?

[ruggerson]

54. anyone who can be "alienated" by people on a message board demanding civil rights

could never have been much of an ally to begin with.

I can't believe I even have to type that.

[Hepburn]

83. A-fucking-men! n/t

[Forkboy]

193. Yup...those meanies online made me be against equal rights.

[ChiciB1]

298. +1000! I Must Have Missed The Negative Comments, But Equality Should

be there for everyone! I have gay & lesbian friends and it's NEVER been and issue for me. There is one lesbian though who many of us feel is unable to deal with anyone who doesn't agree with her all the time. She's actually stopped talking to someone who was friends with another person who wasn't all the supportive of GLBT rights!

It made it difficult for us because she felt "we" also shouldn't be friends with that person. We tried to tell her that not everyone embraces the lifestyle. But the person who she had the beef with is a really great person in so many other ways and never made it difficult for her in any way! He had just made one comment she didn't like and now she thinks "we" need to cut ourselves out of his life!

I don't think she's being reasonable because "he" never had a problem associating with her and being her friends. He just didn't want to vote the way she wanted him to on a ballot issue, sooooooooooooo she perceives him as a traitor to her.

Guess it goes both ways sometimes, but generally most of us haven't had to deal with this before. All of us completely support GLBT rights and she knows it.

But that's life and I've seen other people act the same way even when it didn't have anything to do with being gay! I think it's more of a personality trait for the most part!

[dflprincess]

59. It's a two way street

the "Obama uber alles" attitude of some of his supporters is pushing away those who care more about issues than personalities.

[mitchtv]

68. those kind of "allies"

we never had, and will never have, and aren't looking to. many of us do not trust him.

[liberation]

77. With allies like those then, who needs enemies.

"Watch what you say boy" ain't a sign of willing alliance if you ask me...

I don't have to find Mr. Obama's personality agreeable in order to understand his civil rights as a black man are as fundamental and equal as mine (as a white man). As a heterosexual man, I don't have to like the "attitude" of a homosexual person to extend the same courtesy and consideration to their civil rights. As a man, I don't have to like a specific woman at a personal level to understand she has the same rights as I do.

Good grief, if that concept is so hard for you change brigade to accept... I shudder to think what you guys mean by "hope" and "change."

[Tansy_Gold]

88. Just one of many posts on this thread that needs a rec n/t

[myrna minx]

127. So - are you saying your support for human rights has conditions? n/t

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

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

[truedelphi]

306. Well I have never noticed illogical people caring that they

are not logical.

Somehow logic is not a deciding factor in creating a philosophical framework.

Probably better to try and ignore those people (if you can.)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

174. aww poor baby

[AtomicKitten]

180. >>> Many have proved my point and doubled down with heckling.

Let me know how that works out for y'all.

[frylock]

183. keep digging

[AtomicKitten]

186. Do you think you're so special that you are exempt from practicing common courtesy? nt

[Forkboy]

190. These hecklers are exempt from equal rights.

[AtomicKitten]

202. I'll take that as a yes. Good luck with that strategery. nt

[Forkboy]

213. I'll take your replies as saying you give up on equal rights if they get too pushy about it.

Good luck with that conscience.

Aw, who I am kidding...it doesn't bother you at all to be like that....does it?

[AtomicKitten]

219. No accountability for behavior then? I believe in the karmic you reap what you sow. nt

[Forkboy]

227. Your superstitions can't be my problem.

Just as equal rights isn't yours.

[LostinVA]

242. That's not what karma is, that's the perversion of what karma actually is

[AtomicKitten]

247. Karma is the process of cause and effect. Action causes a reaction. nt

[Debi]

253. Karma is not a scientific principle

Isaac Newton did not discover it.

[LostinVA]

257. That isn't what you said it was, though

It isn't a type of revenge at all.

You just wikied your reply.

I loathe people co-opting my ethical path, using it as a WEAPON (and being wrong factually),a nd tehn sneering about it.

Shoo!

[AtomicKitten]

269. I didn't even imply revenge. It's a chain of causation.

If you feel the need to gratuitously misstate what I have actually written, your ethical path has reached a dead-end.

[Debi]

277. THAT is not what karma is

:banghead:

[FreeState]

316. Karma is non-linear and complex

Its been poorly misrepresented in the west unfortunately.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html?iframe=true&width=100%&height=100%

[walldude]

206. Common Courtesy? Really?

I may be wrong, but wouldn't it be common courtesy to stand with the people who are trying to achieve equal rights status instead of berating them because they want to be treated like everyone else?

You think it's courteous to come into a thread discussing equal rights and take a shot at people who have been waiting for years for one of our leaders to do the right thing?

You think it's courteous to tell a gay couple that was once married but had their marriage taken away by some government bureaucracy that they just need to keep quiet and be patient?

IMHO your ideas of courtesy seem to be a little skewed...

[AtomicKitten]

210. What shot? I wasn't snarky; the responses were. Get that part right. nt

[walldude]

226. "The crass characterization of the President"?

That wasn't a shot? Are you telling me that was not an attempt to marginalize the original post by telling the poster that his stance on gay rights is a crass characterization of the President? Please.. if you are going to stand against the people fighting for their rights at least be honest about it.

[AtomicKitten]

231. Do you have difficulty with reading comprehension?

... telling the poster that his stance on gay rights is a crass characterization of the President?

I said no such thing.

What I said is that the crass characterization of the president (re: all the less than charming epithets thrown at him and others here at DU) alienates natural allies. It's human nature to be repelled by that behavior.

I live in SF and participate in a lot of LGBT drives and activities. Nobody and I mean nobody acts the way some people here do. Accept it or not, it's a valid observation.

[LostinVA]

246. "Nobody and I mean nobody acts the way some people here do:

Right, if you hang out with Log Cabins and closet cases.

I know lots of "non flamboyant" "non pearl clutching" homosexuals, and they ALL act and talk like GLBT/Ally DUers. They are all Professional Lefties, though, except for the occasional token Novice Pinko.

[walldude]

256. Except there were no "charming epithets" thrown here..

there was a discussion about gay rights and gay rights threads, right up until you came in here and made it about Obama. I think maybe it's you who needs some help with comprehension.

And I agree that there are a few people on DU who are making "crass characterizations" about Obama, however the OP is not one of them, yet you felt the need to come in and post about it.

[AtomicKitten]

260. Your assumption is that I was specifically referring to the OP.

You are wrong.

[walldude]

304. Well then I apologize.. it's just that when I look in the corner and see that

little tag that says "response to: Original Message" I automatically assume you were replying to the original message. My bad.

[frylock]

267. do you have difficulty with common courtesy?

or does hypocrisy just flow naturally from you?

[AtomicKitten]

271. Truth is never discourteous. nt

[frylock]

283. hunh?!

:wtf:

[Prism]

309. I live in SF and I know tons of people with LGBT DUers' sentiments

Given your reaction in this thread, I can understand that LGBTers might not speak that way in front of you, but believe me, when you're out of earshot, these are exactly the kinds of things being said. Not only in S.F., but all over America.

I have friends and family who adore the President and don't like hearing criticism of him - makes em cranky. I learned to say nothing at all in their presence that would contribute to their discomfiture.

If we met on the street, would I get in your face the way I do here? Probably not.

Unless you adopted the same attitude in person as you do on this board.

Then, oh yeah, you and I would have some words, and I don't care who is watching.

[Forkboy]

214. Her hurt feelings mean more than equal rights.

She can't make it clearer.

Some of the people who claim to be allies are essentially saying that for their own sake to make themselves feel nice at night, not because they actually care. They'll care when Obama does it, but only because it would be points for Obama, not because the right thing was done.

[AtomicKitten]

221. Heckling people you demand support from is an idiotic philosophy. You are not entitled. nt

[Forkboy]

228. People aren't entitled to equal rights?

Thanks for illustrating your case even better than you had previously.

Heckling people you demand support from is an idiotic philosophy.

Funny, I see Obama supporters here do that everyday. Never bothered you before. But some uppity queer does it and oh noes!!!! Karma!!!!!!111!!!!

Yeah, you're to be taken seriously. :freak:

[Prism]

313. After my first gay marriage, I may try a straight-gay marriage

And should that day ever arrive, I'm looking you up.

[Forkboy]

360. You can look me up, but any kind of marriage is right out.

Already tried that once. Gay...straight...I'm skipping it all. :)

[walldude]

229. Is that what you call it? Heckling?

Well you are a master at playing the victim. Why did you post in this thread to begin with? Was it really necessary? Do you feel that the GLBT community has no point? That they should be happy with what they have and keep quiet about it?

You came in here to post, your only point seemed to be that gay rights supporters are guilty of "crass characterization of the president". Then when someone stands up to your false characterization you claim to be the victim of "hecklers".

You are the heckler. You came in this thread to disrupt a discussion about gay rights, and you played the victim when people didn't put up with your bullshit. That is the perception you have given with your posts.
If it's not what you intended then you need to work on your communication skills.

[AtomicKitten]

235. Yes, it's heckling. It's an off-putting behavior that some here feel they are entitled to

without consequence. That faction at DU is unique in that it exists in a bubble and bears no resemblance to or bearing on the LGBT community at large.

Many have left DU because of the fractious nature of discussion. Others have been served pizza and they are the ones who view themselves as victims; it never occurring to them that it was their behavior (against DU rules) that clinched the deal.

[LostinVA]

243. Well no, not if you hang around Log Cabin Republicans or closet cases

"That faction at DU is unique in that it exists in a bubble and bears no resemblance to or bearing on the LGBT community at large."

I guess 'that faction" is Uppity Gays who want equal rights.

[AtomicKitten]

244. LOL. The snottiness that some feel they are entitled to is indeed unique to DU. nt

[LostinVA]

249. By 'snottiness" you mean advocating for rights

And, everyone who believes in GLBT Rights acts like "that faction," even my very straight and very ordinary mother.

[AtomicKitten]

251. By "snottiness" I mean snottiness. nt

[walldude]

245. I guess it's you who has trouble comprehending...

that is it you who came in here to start shit. And now you try to claim that many have left DU because of "the fractious nature of discussion". You are at least the 10th person who has insisted to me how big a supporter of gay rights they are while they are in a thread ripping on people who are demanding their rights. Maybe try supporting the issue you claim to instead of telling people how they are being so mean to poor old Obama. The guy is President, if he can't take a bit of heat because he's not doing the right thing he shouldn't have taken office.

And if you are a supporter of equality for gays as you claim to be then why can't you just come in here and say that? What is so difficult about opposing Obama on certain issues?

[AtomicKitten]

259. It's all about accountability for behavior here at DU.

I have not insisted on anything nor claimed to be anything; again you are gratuitously augmenting the actual text. I know who I am, what I believe, and what I do proactively for the advancement of civil rights across the board; this isn't a pissing contest although you seem to want to make it that.

Pres Obama isn't doing many things fast enough IMO, the difference being that I actually consider mitigating circumstances that have bearing on various issues.

What is disconcerting for many people (and I know I speak for others who either don't post here anymore or rarely) is the nonstop negativity and unfair bashing that isn't anywhere in the ballpark of constrictive criticism. As outlined in this website's mission statement, people come here for relief from that.

[awoke_in_2003]

343. oh, wouldn't want to be off-putting

:sarcasm:

[frylock]

264. that's rich..

and yeh, i'm real fucking special.

[ruggerson]

349. I don't see any heckling

What I do see is someone more concerned with the sensitivities of a politician than with a civil rights movement.

The history of the human race is filled with the long, brutal fights of different peoples and groups as they've slogged towards the end goal of full citizenship. These struggles are often messy, difficult, loud and confrontational - sometimes raucous. And what all these struggles have in common, amongst other things, is a history of speaking truth to power.

Obama fought for this job. He wanted to be President - it was a driving force for him. We didn't push it on him. He understands that equal rights movements are going to hold his feet to the fire, often times with rhetoric and tactics that are a bit rough around the edges.

"I agree with you, now make me do it." Obama quoted Roosevelt himself - he clearly understands how the process works and where and what his role is.

Anyone who is more concerned about having civil and polite words written about a politician than, arguably, the biggest domestic equal rights issue of our era is either being disingenuous or is lacking a basic understanding of human history.

[FedUp_Queer]

184. How about this...

During the movement to ratify the 15th Amendment: Not abridging vote based on race? Doesn't that imply that Black folks are not 3/5 of a person? How about we make them 4/5, then when the time is right, we make them 5/5.

During the suffrage movement for women: We will let you vote in every other election...the time is not right to let you vote in all of them.

In math, there are essentially four ways to characterize an equation:

X=Y
X>Y
X<Y
X<>Y (not equal to)

There is no...almost equal to or nearly.

Now, in geometry, there is shape X is congruent with shape Y, but this is just another way of saying, that the two shapes fit perfectly together, in other words, they're the same shape. There is also shape X is equivalent to shape Y, but that is for shapes that are different sizes, but the same dimensions (a triangle with sides 3 inches, 4 inches and 5 inches in length versus one that is 3 feet, 4 feet and 5 feet in length). There is even saying something is equivalent (two shapes with equal areas). Note that even to be "equivalent" it has to have the same (read, equal) area; to be congruent, they have to have the same dimensions (be equal).

The point is that there is no way to measure something "nearly equal." It is equal, or it isn't. So, the president is for equality or he isn't. The reason, frankly, is irrelevant.

[donco6]

338. Be nice to Barack . . . or else. Got it. n/t

[Touchdown]

17. Is a month and a half long enough for me to hold my breath?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8724093&mesg_id=8725612

[readmoreoften]

18. Thanks Stink.

[laughingliberal]

19. K & R nt

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

25. Standing with you...K&R

There is no middle ground.
This is NOT a GLBT Issue.
This is an American Issue.

Equal Rights & Equal Protections!....No Exceptions.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[nashville_brook]

26. k and r

[Starry Messenger]

28. Solidarity.

There is no middle ground. k & r

[mitchtv]

69. only if you say "pretty please"

1000 Xs

[Starry Messenger]

80. The Union forever, brother.

"Which side are you on?" is more than a slogan. Solidarity mitch!

[mitchtv]

232. CWA here

TIU also

[Parker CA]

30. Well said. K&R

[Sea Witch]

32. I was also appalled by the posts I saw on those threads.

Those people are not people I would ever want to meet in the real world.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. ITA nt

[foxfeet]

35. K&R

And thank you.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY IN WAYS THAT GET THIS THREAD LOCKED OR DELETED

Don't go for flypaper. Just let it stand unanswered. It is what it is and it is obvious to any serious person.No need to engage in debate with people who have no wish to have an honest debate.

The OP says what it says. If you agree, great. You may want to say that. If you disagree, that's okay, too, Say that.

But NO ONE is going to have their mind changed. Some things just need to be said and then we can move on.

[Prism]

40. It's been going on for years, and it is tolerated.

Always the same people with the same remarks towards the LGBT community, and nothing is ever done about it.

But if a gay gets a little too uppity, look out. You will be bashed.

[KG]

42. +eleventyhundred

[chill_wind]

51. And if there's a day when there are multiple threads

concentrating on an LGBT topic people are freaked. FREAKED!

Too much discussion. Republicans will hear us. Dems will stay home and not vote and Republicans will win and it will all be the fault of the gays. (It won't have anything to do with a myriad of other major issues.)

Gays have exceeded their DU discussion quota for today. Stop lingering and GET THAT.

[LostinVA]

105. Truer Words

Look at some of the OPs on GD right now.

[RetroLounge]

56. Not just bashed, but TS'd in a big purge no one want to talk about

RL

[LostinVA]

104. I wonder Retro

If it's here again, because of certain OPs that have been posted and are still open.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Stinky you said it plain and true

No middle ground.

[glitch]

44. I am with you Stinky. nt

[NMMNG]

45. K&R

:loveya:

[Zenlitened]

46. Well said:

...it is really a binary issue. You either support full equality or you don't. There is simply no middle ground.

:applause:

[philly_bob]

47. I have expressed an opinion Stinky is scornful of.

That is, I have expressed the opinion that there should be two legal categories of committed personal relationships: (1) marriage and (2) civil unions with rights equal to marriage. This dual-category arrangement would be an interim measure until the homophobic older generation of conservatives dies off.

The advantage is that it would provide immediate relief for gay couples dealing with health and estate family issues. It would have the pragmatic advantage of being achievable immediately, as nationwide marriage equality does not seem to be. It would have the tactical advantage of reducing the Republican appeal to the Christian Right.

It is not the cornerstone of my beliefs and I have not mentioned it on DU for a couple years, out of solidarity with the struggle in the courts for full gay marriage rights. But Stinky, yes, once I expressed an opinion that differed from yours.

I respect most of your posts, Stinky, but I am disappointed that you ridicule any position different than your own and refuse to engage with anyone who holds a different position than your own. If you are "quite put off" by the fact that there are those who differ with you, I'm afraid I'm put off by your use of clever rhetoric and emotional language to claim for yourself the right to define one inherently correct strategy for all gays and for an entire political party.

Again, Stinky: I love you, dude, but I disagree with you on this, and I insist on my right to disagree. I don't want to get in a flame war on this highly emotional issue, so I will return to silence. I hope you win the marriage equality struggle with the conservatives tomorrow -- but I fear you won't.

[Prism]

48. Segregationists should be ridiculed

I'm sorry to say that in response, as your tone and thoughts were very politely put, but separate and equal do not work in this country. They never have worked. They never will work.

We can say "Ok, but this time we really will make the separate domains equal," but my question would be why do people think this time is going to be different from all that came before?

When you separate a minority from the majority, it has always been in our history for the minority to be considered a lesser class accordingly.

If I thought for a moment that civil unions would afford every single advantage and opportunity that marriage does, I would support them wholeheartedly at this point in time.

But I have no facts in evidence that that will ever be the case.

[Mimosa]

103. Caste system?

Prism, similar segregation categories are not just in America.

[Prism]

112. You're very right

However, given how much a failure segregation is known to have been in our own history in the not so distant past, I thought this lesson should still be fresh in our minds.

[Stinky The Clown]

49. The only ones to whom I directed actual scorn is homophobes. I stand by that.

My hesitance to engage is demonstrated upthread. Wherever you see "deleted message" or "deleted subthread" you can rest assured that it was for the lack of an honest interest in honest debate.

You stated your position with clarity and honesty. You and I will have to agree to disagree on this, but I won't not engage. I once held the same view you do now. "Civil unions". I even held that perhaps we could get the state out of the marriage business and leave that to the churches, with all couples in civil unions and only people with affiliation to an organization that sanctions marriage to be married.

After listening to, and participating in honest debate over the years, my view has evolved. I can no longer support support civil unions, even as an interim measure, no matter how reasonable it sounds. The step to marriage will never get done.

People are entitled to their beliefs and even their prejudices. But our country is no so entitled. We simply cannot tolerate a separate but equal status for anyone.

[Caliman73]

52. I agree with that.

Either everyone has a civil union or everyone who can consent regardless of gender has the right to marry. It is not just about legal rights although that is major, it is about equal dignity.

I find it completely ridiculous that some people who spit the most venom against gay people who want to marry, are typically people who have married 2, 3, or more times, people who cheat on their spouses, etc... They talk about the sanctity of marriage and family when they have left broken marriages and families around throughout the country. The hypocrisy on this issue is phenomenal.

[philly_bob]

53. Thanks for civil reply. My position is evolving also.

Two years ago I argued the strategic "Civil Unions" side in the LGBT forum. I retreated in confusion when someone challenged me to name a currently existing pair of legal categories which had different names but identical rights/duties/status. I wasn't able to name a single one. Still can't. One of these days I hope I'll think of one. Till then, I'll remain silent on the issue.

And yeah, Stinky, scorn is appropriate for homophobes.

[mitchtv]

thank you for your courtesy and honesty

but it just won;t work unless everybody has to get the same civil union.

[mitchtv]

70. thank you for your courtesy and honesty

but it just won;t work unless everybody has to get the same civil union.

[dddem]

115. I agree 100%

Years ago I had this argument with my brother, who married his wife in a civil ceremony. I asked him if he should be considered less married than me, because I had a church wedding. For some reason, he took offense. Hmmm.
Whether we agree or not, the fact remains that in our society, aside from all the obvious legal advantages, married people carry more weight, and garner more respect than non-married people. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it is.
Let's just get over it and grant equal right to all citizens. How hard is that?
I'm from Massachusetts, and I can assure the rest of you, having same-sex married people in our state has not jeopordized my marriage one bit. The economy, on the other hand...!
Peace

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[dflprincess]

60. That only works if we go the way of some European countries that

require everyone - and I mean everyone - have a civil ceremony if they wish to have a union recognized by government. Those who choose to may then have the religious ceremony to receive the "sacrament of marriage".

[Sparkly]

66. We already do that, don't we?

The civil ceremony is going to the courthouse and getting a marriage license. The rest is just decoration, in my view, and people can choose how to do it -- in a church, at a beach, or right there AT the courthouse.

[dflprincess]

71. No we don't

Picking up the license does not make anything legal. There is no state recognized union until the license has been signed and filed with the county clerk. Just applying for and picking the license up at the courthouse does not change your marital status. Some states have a waiting period between the time you pick up the license and when whatever kind of ceremony you choose to have is preformed.

In the U.S. clergy are allowed to act as representatives of the state and sign the license (along with a witness or 2 in some areas). The license is usually signed right after the religious ceremony is done. Even then it's not technically legal until the license gets filed with the state.

In some other countries the clergy does not & cannot act as agents of the state and you must have a civil procedure/ceremony where your intent to form a union is legally recorded. At that point the government will consider you married. After all the legal requirements are met, then you can have a religious ceremony if you want to.

[Bluenorthwest]

148. You miss the entire point. The filing of the papers with the gov

makes the marriage. No one in America is required to have a religious ceremony to wed, and the use of a 'cleric' to sign that paper is also not required, that is just dressing, optional, a choice being made, and many do not make that choice right now. As you say clergy are allowed to, this does not mean that they are the only choice or that couples have to use a cleric, no, they have that option here, but it is only an option, no matter how hard you frame it as a required element.

[LostinVA]

175. I think you two are saying the same exact thing

[Sparkly]

188. Huh?

Right -- license is applied for, signed, filed. Little ceremony at courthouse - done. There's no religious ceremony required.

[dflprincess]

270. I never said that a religious ceremony is required.

My point was that some countries (Monoco is one) REQUIRE the civil procedure. You show up with your witnesses, you answer the questions that make sure you are entering into the marriage freely, legally, and understand your obligations - not unlike a civil service here (though I've been to a couple where the judge still wanted to pray). After the civil procdure is done and you are legally married you can head for the church if you want to - but that ceremony is just a religous technicality with no bearing on your legal status

In countries that do things this way, you can't skip the civil procedures and just take your unsigned license to a church for a ceremony if you want your marriage to be legally recognized. A marriage license signed by clergy would not be recognized as valid the way it is here. Even in Catholic countries the civil ceremony is required, though the Catholic Church doesn't recognize it (and the state doesn't accept a Catholic ceremony as a legal union).

In the U.S. we've got the civil & relgious aspects all mixed up and that's one of the things that's caused a lot of the problems making progress with Gay marriage. We do a real good job of masking the fact that while the church may see it as a sacrament, the state sees it as a contract and the two are not the same.

I'm just saying if we think Gays should have to settle for something called a "civil union" we should recognize that marriage is more of a religious term and we should require that all couples get their contractural relationship made official only by the state and keep religion out of the legal aspects of it.

[Sparkly]

284. Um...

As I said, the legal aspects are done at the courthouse. That's a marriage. A church ceremony isn't necessary, and the term "marriage" still applies. Just make the same thing work the same way for gay people, too -- simple. "Marriage" is not necessarily a "religious term."

[dflprincess]

329. No not all the legal aspects are necessarily done at the courthouse

The licencse is not filed and the marriage recorded until the form has been signed. In the U.S. that can be done by the clergy person performing the ceremony. In some countries it requires a representative of the government, the signature of clergy will not make it legal.

[Luminous Animal]

81. Yep. In this U.S.of A., all marriages recognized by the state are civil unions.

Most clergy are legally allowed to perform these civil unions that we commonly call "marriage."

[kelly1mm]

150. That is my position exactly. Civil Unions for all! That would confer

any and all legal/government benefits. Also, marriage for all at whatever religious institution you can find to preform the ceremony - but no legal/government benefits confer with that ceremony.

[LostinVA]

176. WE ALREADY HAVE THAT -- it's just called marriage

And, marriage is the legal construct.

ALL "marriage" is is a legal contract.

[kelly1mm]

185. No, we have a cultural construct that is mainly legal but has (to some)

a religious componet. Again, my position is civil unions for ALL, and marriage for ALL. Legal/government benefits only go to civil unions though. The government does not care if you are married under my proposal.

[LostinVA]

191. No, it is 100% legal,a nd has NO RELIGIOUS component

The government doesn't care NOW. They just want a signed license filed with the State. I don't understand why you don't get this?

[kelly1mm]

199. Really? You think all these people opposed to marriage for all think

it has no religious component? That is why I said it was a social construct. To say that it has no religious component is not technically true even legally as the state allows a religious figure (among others) to preform the ceremony that makes you legally married. Can you name another government license that a religious figure can make official?

My proposal would make EVERYONE get a civil union so EVERYONE would be equal insofar as the state is concerned. Not really that hard to understand. I also support marriage for EVERYONE so long as you can get whatever organization you want to to preform the ceremony. What is the problem with my proposal?

[LostinVA]

203. Lots of people think Blacks have smaller brains

Doesn't make it true, now does it?

[kelly1mm]

216. I think my proposal would get equal right for all sooner and easier

by taking the (perceived?) religious aspect out of marriage. It would not touch the opponents precious 'marriage' and takes that argument away. If you disagree, please explain why. Also, you did not identify any other government action that allows for a religious figure to make official. Does this mean you concede the point that marriage can be, at least in small part, a partly religious issue?

[Greyhound]

230. Which is exactly what people are denied.

The mis-interpretation (I believe) of the phrase 'freedom of religion' has resulted in the cultural acceptance of the imposition of religion into a legal matter. Fix that and the problem ceases to exist, but that is even more unlikely to happen here.

[Sparkly]

Thank you.

Not sure how that fact got all muddied up.

[GinaMaria]

236. Screw that

I married my husband in a civil ceremony in another country. It is a legal and binding marriage , not a civil union. We have a marriage license issued by the state. Our status on government forms is married. Religion does not own the word marriage. A religious partnership is not more sacred than my partnership. At least it shouldn't be in the eyes of my government.

Religion needs to stay out of this. I will not have my status changed due to a bunch extremists who want to own a word. I also do not stand for a different status for anyone. If the religious want a separate term, if they feel they need a separate distinction from the rest of us married people, then they can label themselves Religiously Unionized. Their status is married just like me. I am married. What we have is a marriage and any 2 consenting adults should have the right to the same status.

You want to change your status? Have at it. But leave mine alone.

On Edit: Who's my favorite Clown?
It's not Bozo. It's Stinky!

[LostinVA]

263. Brava!!!!!

[GinaMaria]

327. Here's a little Betty Bowers to lighten things up a bit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

[kelly1mm]

268. OK - I just think that by taking the religious aspect out of it may lead

to equality for all faster and easier. By having the government only recognising civil unions and leaving marriage to any group/religion who wants to preform it seems to get around the religious issue altogether. Look, even our President is caught up in this seemingly neverending battle. I just want everyone to be treated the same by the government and I think my proposal does that. If you disagree and want to keep fighting this issue for as long as it takes thats cool too.
One thing to think about is once this goes to the SC (which it will), what if they find against marriage equality? Equality will be delayed for decades after that.

[GinaMaria]

287. I have a marriage not a civil union

This whole civil union stuff was started in an attempt for the religious to own the word marriage. No one can be considered married who hasn't had a religious ceremony, is the way they would like things. You seemed to have picked this up for them. It was a hard sell. Maybe they can sell it if it is mixed with the gay marriage issue? I call BS. Religion does not own the word marriage. There is one status and that is married. If you want to call your relationship a civil union have at it, but mine is a marriage. The legal term for what I have is marriage, not civil union. Marriage is a legal term. Civil union is a recent term. If the religious don't like having the same label as the rest of us, they can be the ones who change what they call their relationships.

By having the government only recognizing civil unions and leaving marriage to any group/religion who wants to preform it seems to get around the religious issue altogether.

The government recognizes marriage. Marriage existed before the dominant religions in this country decided marriage was their domain and only theirs. Marriage ceremonies existed before the notion of a single deity.

You seem to think that Civil Unions and Marriages are equal but they aren't. Going forward with your plan delays equality. Your proposal diminishes my relationship and the relationships of others. Your proposal excludes people in our society. You are not getting around a religious issue you are handing them what they want.

Anyone is free to think that I am civil unionized. That distinction exists only in someone's head. The religious are free to think that their marriages are more sacred than mine. Again that distinction exists in someone's head. We are free to think as we want. Our government does not have the right to make a distinction like that and that distinction should not exist in our government. Your suggestion is a slippery slope and one I will fight till my last breath. Your proposal to reclassify me, my husband, our marriage and others like us will be met with a great deal of push back. It is unjust. In fact, I now wish you would continue pushing this idea as it will only strengthen the number of people who step up and fight for marriage equality. Heck, the bigots would join our cause because they will not want to be in a 'gay' category. Call your relationship whatever you want. Try to push the government to reclassify it's citizens and there will be resistance.

One thing to think about is once this goes to the SC (which it will), what if they find against marriage equality? Equality will be delayed for decades after that.

There is more than one thing to think about with this issue. Your proposal does not impact the decision of the SC. Also, please provide some proof that equality will be delayed for decades. No one can so certainly make a declaration like that. Your proposal more than delays equality it creates more inequality. No thanks.

I have a marriage not a civil union. My marriage is recognized by my local, state and federal government as all marriages should be. I do not have a civil union. The government's role does not include reclassifying people to appease religious zealots.

[LostinVA]

292. Exactly -- people in the US have civil MARRIAGES

[GinaMaria]

305. I agree with you.

I feel strongly that there is no reason to qualify marriage as civil or religious. They are marriages plain and simple. Doesn't matter how you got there, Catholic ceremony with a priest, on board a cruise with a captain, a one of kind written ceremony conducted in nature with no mention of a deity, 2 men, 2 women, or one of each. It's all marriage. Marriage is social and legal term. Religion is not a requirement for marriage.

Denying an even larger group equality makes our current situation worse not better.

:hi: always good to see you.

[Debi]

308. +7

And there are some of us who were religious until our civil marriage. (The Catholic Church fired me from teaching religious education when I married my husband at the court house and not in the church - and did not get dispensation to do so. I was no longer 'in good moral standing' w/in the church and fired). I get it, they have their rules.

I am just as married having a judge preside over my vows at the courthouse than having a priest preside over the ceremony.

Why should the GLBT community have it any different.

(This being posted by a smug self-righteous Iowan - where homosexuals CAN be married - that's right MARRIED!!) :bounce:

[LostinVA]

312. (i can't believe you said homosexual)

Great post!!!

[Debi]

322. It's so out of character for me

:blush:

[GinaMaria]

317. Thanks Debi

I sometimes wondered if I was the only one who saw this as a heterosexual issue too. Really glad to see you here.

[Debi]

323. Good to be in such good company

:hi:

[GinaMaria]

325. Awwwww

:blush: :hug:

[kelly1mm]

299. My comment about putting the cause of equality back decades

is based on the concept of stare decisis, which means that the courts generally do not look at issues that have already been decided. The Dread Scott decision was not overturned for 1/2 of a century. I for one have some trepidation about the SC as it is currently constituted getting this case. I can envision a 5-4 decision outlawing all same sex marriages, past, present, and (until overturned in x many years) future.

[GinaMaria]

311. Your proposal does nothing

to impact that decision. You made it sound as though my position would be what delays equality and yours a way to get there faster and easier. When in fact, you are suggesting creating more inequality as solution to the inequality thereby not making equality faster or easier but inequality worse. By your own admission, the SC decision looks to lean a certain way. No proposal by you or me will shift that. If you think your proposal would impact their decision or bring us equality faster and easier please explain that to me. I'm not seeing it.

We live in a time where things change more rapidly than ever before in our human history. I expect turnover of supreme court decisions to experience a speeding up as everything else has. My stance is based on speculation as yours is.

Continue your march toward making me less equal than others. I will continue to fight for my rights and those of others who are not treated as equals.

[kelly1mm]

330. how does my proposal make anyone less equal? Everyone has

to have a civil union if they want government recognition/benefits of their relationship. Anyone who wants to get married can - it just does not confer any governmental benefits. Civil unions would be open to ALL. Please enlighten me as to how this promotes inequality?

[GinaMaria]

336. I am married. I am married without religion

You will be stripping people like me of marital status and instead re categorizing us as civil unionized. I am not civil unionized. It is not a legal or social term. I am married. Your attempts to take away marriage from people like me is creating more inequality. Only some people with religion involved can be considered married by you. Your proposal allows only religious people to have the status of married. Got news for you... I am married. It is a legal and social term that is part of our culture. The word means something. Just as your name means something. No one gets to change that for you. Neither you nor our government have the right to take marriage out of my relationship with my husband. We have a marriage. It doesn't matter what you think I have. I have a marriage, not a civil union. How is it you are so comfortable reclassifying people like me to a lesser more generic category. I AM MARRIED. I do not have to go to a church, temple or any religion to be married. I am married without religion. I'm not paying a religion for the 'privilege' of being called married. I AM MARRIED. Marriage is not a privilege nor is it owned by religion. Your proposal is insulting crap. Civil Unions are not marriages. If they were, they would be called marriages. No one should be forced to engage a religion in order to be married.

[kelly1mm]

339. let me go through these one by one;

1) "You will be stripping people like me of marital status and instead re categorizing us as civil unionized."

Not stripping anybody of anything - my proposal would have a grandfather clause that says as of X date anyone in a civil union or marriage would be deemed to be in a civil union. If you are married now you would be married after x date. After X date you could also get married by whatever institution you want that will preform the ceremony. It is just that the state would not care.

2) "I am not civil unionized. It is not a legal or social term. I am married. Your attempts to take away marriage from people like me is creating more inequality."

Again, how does treating everybody the same create inequality?

3) "Only some people with religion involved can be considered married by you. Your proposal allows only religious people to have the status of married. Got news for you... I am married. It is a legal and social term that is part of our culture. The word means something. Just as your name means something. No one gets to change that for you. Neither you nor our government have the right to take marriage out of my relationship with my husband. We have a marriage. It doesn't matter what you think I have. I have a marriage, not a civil union. How is it you are so comfortable reclassifying people like me to a lesser more generic category. I AM MARRIED. I do not have to go to a church, temple or any religion to be married. I am married without religion. I'm not paying a religion for the 'privilege' of being called married. I AM MARRIED. Marriage is not a privilege nor is it owned by religion. "

Can you point to a single instance where I said that you had to be married by a religious institution? In fact, I made a point of saying religious or non religious groups could preform marriages. In my proposal the state would not care if you are married.


4) "Your proposal is insulting crap.'

Well, since you seem to not have understood my position perhaps you will rethink that statement or, at least, cite actual objections about what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.


5) "Civil Unions are not marriages. If they were, they would be called marriages."

Or the government could get out of the quasi-religious institution business and simply define all civil unions/marriages as civil unions and sidestep the religious based objections of people like President Obama.


6) "No one should be forced to engage a religion in order to be married."

Again, that is not my proposal and I would not support that.


I am going to explain this once more very simply because many posters seem to be not understanding my position.

A) As of X date, the government would consider anyone in a marriage or a civil union to be in a civil union.
B) After X date, civil unions would be open to all persons of legal age regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, or national origin.
C) After X date, any religious or non religious group or institution can conduct a marriage ceremony, but said ceremony has no legal effect in regard to any governmental rights, benefits, or obligations.


Want to get married - go ahead - the government does not care
Want to get government benefits - get a civil union.
Anyone is treated exactly the same by the government.

WHAT EXACTLY IS DISCRIMINATORY ABOUT THIS!

[GinaMaria]

357. Marriage existed long before religion

The government is not in the quasi-religious institution business . Civil Union has no meaning. It means nothing. I don't want one. I have a marriage.

Yes let's go through this one by one.

1. Not stripping anybody of anything - my proposal would have a grandfather clause that says as of X date anyone in a civil union or marriage would be deemed to be in a civil union. If you are married now you would be married after x date. After X date you could also get married by whatever institution you want that will preform the ceremony. It is just that the state would not care.

Oh your 'proposal' now has a grandfather clause that wasn't mentioned in the posts in this sub-thread. So I would be grandfathered into a civil union which I don't want. No thanks. I am married and will be married in the future. The state does not care how I go about getting married now. I can chose any type of ceremony I want and it is all called marriage. I'm not sure what you are confused about.

2. Again, how does treating everybody the same create inequality?

Ah, you think you're an equal opportunity offender because you want to screw things up for everyone. Only those who go through some special ceremony can be called married. Otherwise according to you it's just a civil union which is a recently made up term lacking in meaning. Marriage and Civil Union do not mean the same thing. Marriage existed before religion and separate from religion. It is a human institution not a religious one. People get married. They do not get civil unionized. It has legal and social meaning. Civil Union is a consolation prize made up by people who don't want gay people to have the right to marry. And you want to throw more people into this non-status meaningless category. You don't see the inequality here? Only religious people according to you can be married. Why not keep your nose out of other people's relationships? I had a civil service in another country. My country, my government and my community recognize my husband and me as married. The Catholic Church does not. That's my choice. I am no more or less legally married than someone who did have a ceremony in an RCC. See how that works? The government already doesn't care how I got married. I am still considered married. That is my status.

3. Can you point to a single instance where I said that you had to be married by a religious institution? In fact, I made a point of saying religious or non religious groups could preform marriages. In my proposal the state would not care if you are married.

Yes. I can. In your post that started this sub-thread. You said
Civil Unions for all! That would confer any and all legal/government benefits. Also, marriage for all at whatever religious institution you can find to preform the ceremony - but no legal/government benefits confer with that ceremony.

You are now saying that non-religious institutions can perform marriage ceremonies? Like who, the Elks? The non-religious institutions that perform marriages right now are government entities. I am married by the state or province or whatever the government term is where ever I get married. What does this achieve? In your plan everyone including gay people can have civil unions and marriages? :crazy: Why make this more complicated and diluted? Are you still hoping to appease religious zealots? It sounds like it from this post:
OK - I just think that by taking the religious aspect out of it may lead to equality for all faster and easier. By having the government only recognising civil unions and leaving marriage to any group/religion who wants to preform it seems to get around the religious issue altogether.

Sounds like you want to get around the religious issue by giving them exactly what they've been after, sole use of the word marriage.
But now, you've included that non-religious institutions can now perform marriage ceremonies. So if I understand this, you propose to eliminate the word marriage for the uniting of two people's lives and remove its common legal and social meaning, and replace it with a generic meaningless term, civil union, and let the word marriage be used by religious institutions and also non-religious institutions (like the government) which we have now.

So if I follow you, for people to be married in your future Utopia, they must be both civil unionized by the government and married by their institution of choice (religion or government or maybe the Elks). Going through both these steps will make this a legally binding social contract that can also be called a marriage. Do I have that right? Cuz I gotta tell 'ya. The system we have now is much simpler. Get married via whatever legal means you chose and you are married and have all the rights and privileges of marriage. I'm going to keep what I have and not go with your crazy plan.

Following this, it seems that in your system, anyone, gay people included, can get civil unionized for legal and social partnership and then find an institution that will marry them (like the Elks, campfire girls, GinaMaria's marriage emporium), thereby being able to use the term marriage. So now it seems like you don't want to leave this word for religions. This will definitely tick them off. Now I'm not at all sure how you are removing religion from this issue. You can see why people might find your position confusing. Especially, since the simpler solution is to not dismantle what we have in an attempt to appease or disempower religious groups. The state/society confers the legal right or rite of marriage, why go through an additional step to be married?

4. Well, since you seem to not have understood my position perhaps you will rethink that statement or, at least, cite actual objections about what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I am going from the post I responded to and your replies in this sub-thread. If there were other posts that clarified your 'proposal' you could have easily referenced them. After reading this response in which you had the opportunity to clarify, this still sounds like a steaming pile. Overly complicated in an attempt to take religion out of the issue and at the same time completely tick off religious people :crazy:

5. Or the government could get out of the quasi-religious institution business and simply define all civil unions/marriages as civil unions and sidestep the religious based objections of people like President Obama.

The government is not in the quasi-religious institution business. People in our communities are granted the right to perform marriage ceremonies by the state. This includes religious people and government officials. That is not quasi-religious institution business. It's their legal function. Marriage existed before religion. It is a social construct like government. It is a legal and binding contract which is within the realm of government. The government's job is not to pussy foot around religious people. The only one who should get out of the marriage business is you. Seriously, mind your own business and stay out of mine. Your plan is to create a complete mess.

6a. Again, that is not my proposal and I would not support that.
I am going to explain this once more very simply because many posters seem to be not understanding my position.

That's because it doesn't make sense. It's not the fault of many posters here. The common denominators are your posts.

6b.
A) As of X date, the government would consider anyone in a marriage or a civil union to be in a civil union.

I completely understand this statement. This is where I take issue. Today, my status is married. To the government, my community as well as legally and socially, I am married. I don't want a meaningless civil union. I want and have a marriage. I should not have to go through any additional steps to maintain what I have now, nor should I lose what I have now by being reclassified as civil unionized. It's a BS term that has nothing to do with my relationship. Historically, culturally and legally human beings have been married. Marriage is a social and legal term. Marriage existed before religion and it exists outside of religion. I don't know how many times I can say it. I am married. I have a marriage and any attempt by you or anyone else to shove me and others into a non-marriage category will be met with resistance. You cannot decide for people that marriage is no longer a binding legal and social contract, but instead there is something else with a new name that will cover all laws and social norms around the thing formerly known as marriage and not expect some push back. The government does not have the right to tell people they will not be recognized as married but instead will recognize them under a new label. People get married not civil unionized. Marriage is a government function. A convoluted process such as you suggest increases cost, time, and confusion as well as adds a second process to be married. From what I can tell it achieves the same results (people have legal rights and a social contract and with a second process can also be called married whether gay or straight) but with the addition of chaos, confusion, increased red tape, dilution of a commonly understood term and the addition of a meaningless term. Why don't we just allow 2 consenting adults to get married in any legal method they choose? If people would like to be married in a religious ceremony, then they are married. If they would like to be married by a captain of a ship, then they are just as married. Religions can refuse to marry anyone for any reason, but they cannot deny anyone the overall right to marry.


B) After X date, civil unions would be open to all persons of legal age regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, or national origin.
C) After X date, any religious or non religious group or institution can conduct a marriage ceremony, but said ceremony has no legal effect in regard to any governmental rights, benefits, or obligations.

So gay people in your plan could be civil unionized and married according to these two points. So why go through all the hassle of having two distinctions if the end result is the same? People are married with a legal and binding contract. Ever hear of Rube Goldberg? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine There's just no reason to create such complex processes.

My second issue with this plan is that I am already married. Your plan has my marriage converted to a civil union (whatever the hell that is) and for me to be considered married I will have to go to some institution for a marriage ceremony even though legally I am already married. In addition to wasting my time and money you propose I go through this convoluted process in the name of equality? Please stay out of my relationship. You have no business there. I am married. I will be married in the future. What my husband and I have is a marriage, not a meaningless civil union.

6c. Want to get married - go ahead - the government does not care

The government doesn't care now if people get married or not. I'm not sure what this statement means in terms of your future plan. The only thing the government cares about is that the laws regarding marriage are followed.

6d. Want to get government benefits - get a civil union.

What benefits? Filing a tax return jointly? I have that now without a civil union. So I'll pass on this. As I've stated before, it's not the government's job to reclassify my marital status. I am married and the government recognizes that. That’s part of the states’ job.

6d. Anyone is treated exactly the same by the government.

Oh I get it. Your plan is to Health-care-reform marriage! How about you don't touch it or have anything to with my marriage or anyone else's? That seems like a smarter way to go. Your insanely complicated processes of getting the same result but with increased cost, time and complication is not the way to go.

WHAT EXACTLY IS DISCRIMINATORY ABOUT THIS!

You know what? I'm really getting that this 'proposal' of yours isn't so much discriminatory, but instead is completely stupid and not thought out. Good luck with your 'proposal' whatever you plan to do with it. You do not have my support. I do see one compromise that takes elements from your 'proposal' that I would support. It involves replacing the non-term civil union with the meaningful term marriage and removing the complication. Here it is:

Any two consenting adults can be legally wed (married) and will be recognized as married with full legal rights and responsibilities. If anyone feels that they need something to distinguish their marriage as superior to others or different from others due to religious or other reasons, they can retain their married status in a legal sense via the government, but may also choose another descriptor from their religion or whatever to qualify their marriage. This way they can let people know that they are Holier than thou married, or Married in Thor's eyes or super-sonic married or eloped married, or even married by captain Jack Black of the Princess cruise lines.

The government won't acknowledge these qualifiers. The government will view them all as married couples. But for an extra charge the qualifiers could be added to marriage licenses like vanity plates on a car. People pay extra for those. This way people with a specific belief system can incorporate that belief system into their legal social contract with the state called, marriage. Just plain marriage is all I need but for those who need a little more distinction it can be added to the license. This solves the issue. Everyone is married who weds through legal channels and follows all the marriage laws. For those that need a little something more they can add descriptors for an additional cost. After all, they are the ones demanding special privileges. They should be the ones to pay.

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. SEPARATE is not EQUAL. Separate IS NOT equal. SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL.

Need I continue? Or do you get it yet?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

117. To be honest, I think it's you that doesn't get it.

The poster you're replying to makes it clear that they think that separate-but-equal civil unions is a second best to gay marriage; they say they favour it as a first step. I'm not sure that's a sensible tactic, but it's certainly not morally reprehensible - the argument that gay marriage will come sooner if civil unions are first introduced and it's shown that they don't make the sky fall than if their supporters hold out for all-or-nothing is certainly not an absurd one (although nor is the converse argument that compromising is likely to make it easier for opponent of gay marriage to avoid having it pointed out to independents that their position is, ipse facto, bigotted).

To extend the - I think mostly valid - analogy with black civil rights you're drawing, would you argue that African-Americans should have turned down the vote in 1868 because it didn't offer full equality? Or that Brown vs Board was wrong because it didn't cover Loving vs Virginia?

It rather looks as though you haven't paid much attention to the poster your insulting, and are cut-and-pasting a stock reply.

[cherokeeprogressive]

196. What I get, is that separate IS NOT equal.

A person can take every other apology and argument intended to obscure that fact and pound them up their ass with a 5lb sledge hammer. Separate is not equal. My daughter isn't interested in anything other than her civil and human rights. Not 1/4, not 1/2, not 3/4, but EVERY right afforded to ANYONE should be afforded to EVERYONE.

That's not so hard to understand is it? Should African-Americans have turned down the vote in 1868 because it didn't offer full equality? What a stupid question. Better would have been did they shut up after being thrown a bone? Fuck no they didn't and neither will I.

[defendandprotect]

65. Can't wait to hear how long you think females should wait for equality....until every male dies off?

Keep in mind the DU adminsitration is committed to homosexual rights --

including the right to gay marriage!!

[Sparkly]

67. Right, and we shouldn't have integrated schools until the racists died out.

:hide:

[liberation]

76. No kidding...

... we know offending the sensibilities of your average homophobe, racist, bigot, or misogynist would be most insensible. And we could not have that...

[defendandprotect]

86. That, too --

Astonishing how due consideration is to be given to the abuser, not the abused

in their upside down world!


:)

[JJ]

82. The very thought that struck me.

And.. Imagine if African Americans had to wait until all the racists died off. Doesn't seem likely in the foreseeable future, now does it?

[liberation]

75. You do realize, you are in essence making a case for "separate but equal"

it wasn't the proper approach to end the racial divide and marginalization in this country then, and it sure as heck is not the correct way to approach universal civil rights in the XXI century.

The point many whites missed back then, and apparently many straight people miss now, is that civil rights were not about the proper method to locate drinking fountains nor riding from point A to point B in a bus... for example, they were about full equality. If you are putting conditions, it is not full nor equal. Time to evolve already.

[Hepburn]

84. Disagree...

All categories open to all people. PERIOD.

If a couple wants a religious ceremony, that is up to the church/clergy involved. Other than that, civil union, marriage, whatever...gender makes NO difference. Open to all, equality to all. Marriage is a basic right and the state cannot deny these rights to anyone based solely on gender.

VIVA Judge Vaughn Walker! :applause: He made me proud to be a lawyer. With all the scum in the system, it did my heart good to see a legal mind that works and works well.

[LostinVA]

106. sickening -- separate and unequal

[Heidi]

145. Why two legal categories? Why not marriage for gays, too?

I really am interested in understanding your rationale for treating one group of adults who want to make a legal commitment to one another differently than another group of adults who want to make a legal commitment to one another?

[awoke_in_2003]

344. serarate is not equal. nt

[saracat]

50. +1," There is no middle ground."

[City Lights]

55. K&R.

Well said, Stinky. :thumbsup:

[RetroLounge]

57. K&R

Gay rights are human rights.

Period.

RL

[cherokeeprogressive]

61. Well Said! K n R

[HillWilliam]

63. Thanks buddy

K&R before I forget it.

I have held my peace for months, but today I finally had to rant it out in another thread. Thank you for making an OP with my sentiments exactly.


You've always had our backs and this gay man appreciates an honest ally. :hug:

[LostinVA]

107. It was a good rant

OP worthy.

[defendandprotect]

64. DU Administration is also committed to supporting homosexual rights, including gay marriage!!!

Posters should keep that in mind -- no exceptions to that!!

[Honeycombe8]

72. It sounds more like you have a problem with a differing viewpoint, not discriminatory statements.

There's a big difference.

People can believe the time is not right to push this or that, and still believe in this or that. You don't believe someone can think that way. That's your right. But should someone call you names and "be offended" because you believe in a certain strategy that is different from theirs?

People can believe in the same thing, but have an honest difference of opinion on how to approach it.

(BTW, I'm not one of the posters you're complaining about, since I haven't posted in that forum for a long time.)

I'd like the government to pass a law that requires all non-truck vehicles to get 50 mpg combined mileage. What I got was a law that requires something like 35 to be accomplished in a certain number of years.

Global warming is a critical problem. It is my right not to have to endure the hotter and hotter summers I have to endure because the government and big business want to burn lots and lots of fossil fuel. The environment is at such a critical stage that some scientists believe it may be too late to turn things around. There is no time to waste.

But....when dealing with viewpoints of billions of people and a huge government (not a dictatorship), big moves are often accomplished through smaller steps over time. The Democratic government got what it could get. I will have to settle for that...for now. More will come later, as the fight continues, and the worsening global warming gets more and more attention. Also, as new vehicles are manufactured that get better mileage, it will become easier to increase the requirements.

Today is the first day in over a month that it got under 100 degrees during the day. Maybe it's been two months. Who knows. It's been a long, slow slog. People and pets have died from the heat. Many have suffered. Outside workers are getting heat exhaustion. Electric bills are rocket high...my city hit an all time high for electricity useage.

We fight the good fight and get what we can, when we can get it. If the govt had tried to push for more, they may have lost support from the borderline ones. (although I think this was an executive ruling, not a Congressional bill...not sure)

[liberation]

78. It sounds like you completely missed the point of the OP...

... and wrote at length to prove so.

Either that or you were trying to write a treaty exploring typical fallacies.

[Honeycombe8]

85. Oh, I got it, all right. He's complaining that others have a different strategy...

for winning equal rights for gays. They believe that right now is not the time to push for gay marriage, etc., other than civil unions and other less controversial rights. The idea, I guess, being to win elections for the party most favorable to their equal rights. The poster believes in, as I think he put, not having to wait to be equal.

He believes those who believe in a different strategy are being discriminatory and really don't want him to have equal rights. He's basically saying they are lying, and they are against civil rights for gays, meaning gay marriage.

I got it. He's wrong in his view of those who have a different opinion. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably about strategy.

Are the people who are not in favor of the government pressing for a stronger mileage requirement at this time...are they against getting better mileage or improving the global warming problem?

[Bluebear]

94. 'less controversial rights' - wow.

[liberation]

98. Yeah... it is funny to see not even a scratch on the thin layer of paint

to see the full reactionary stripes itching to come out.

I swear some posters in DU could give a real run for their money to some freepers.

[liberation]

97. No he is not, so thanks for proving my point.

So either your reading and comprehension skills are incredibly substandard at best and thus the point of the OP flew over you head breaking all sorts of airspeed records. Or your intellectual honesty is severely lacking and you just have a specific agenda, which you are not willing to bulge a single inch from... thus making your case against the OP a funny, yet sad, case of runaway projection.

In either case, it does not bode well for an honest discussion, so have a nice day. Cheers.

[LostinVA]

108. The latter, as per the poster's posting history on this issue

[Raster]

179. "...less controversial rights..."

Please, say no more. You come across loud and clear.

There is NO middle ground. There is no freedom, unless there is freedom for all.

And this is my life, not mileage on a fucking car.

[Riverman]

223. Had the same thought! Deflections to some irrelivant point

as if there were equal considerations! I have never understood how people could argue that some are more equal than others! No one can justify retaining civil rights for themselves while arguing to withhold civil rights for any other group. When they came for the _____ (fill in the blank)no one protested; when they came for the _____ (fill in the blank) no one protested; when they came for the ____(fill in the blank)no one protested...when they came for me, no one was left to protest! - slight paraphrasing! :>)

[Caliman73]

286. The are...Rights are inherant and should not have to be won

Playing politics with the rights of people to pursue their happiness is not the same at all as wanting more ecology friendly cars.

Reasonable people can disagree about strategy, but ethical people do not tell people to forgo their human rights for the sake of political expediency.

[pecwae]

100. So, can I infer

from your statements that your point is that your electric bills are more critical than civil rights for all?

[Bluenorthwest]

151. The weather is not hot here at all. Why are you whining about it?

Here it is lovely, hardly got to 90 this summer at all, not humid, nearly perfect for us. So when you complain about the weather, that sounds made up to me. I have good weather, and that should be enough for you, until nature decides you too should have some.Your weather does not matter. All that matters is my weather, and not hearing you complain about this heat you imagine.
What rights are you lacking? Name one.

[Drops_not_Dope]

181. I am lacking

most rights granted by the Constitution but nobody seems to give a crap about that.

Thank you Stinky for the OP. Recommended and now kicked.

[myrna minx]

73. K&R in solidarity with my LGBT brothers and sisters.

;kick:

[LostinVA]

109. ...

:pals:

[myrna minx]

124. Aww

:pals: I can't believe what I read here sometimes.

[LostinVA]

131. I know!

[MrMickeysMom]

74. I've never understood it either, particularly when Obama said it-

Not willing to go the the gay marriage thing, but civil unions were someone more tolerable.

As marriage goes, it blows (that it must be recognized by the state), but my relationship with my spouse was the issue. I could have (as a heterosexual) stayed in a union, but I wanted to get married. Not to satisfy the state, or to file a less cost effective federal income tax upon ourselves, but because I love him.

Why should it be any different for anyone else who feels that way about their beloved? You either are in favor of a same sex marriage or you are not. Enough with the fucking politics and positioning so you can try to please everybody and miss the whole point.

[Dem2theMax]

79. Marriage for all. NOW. It's WAY past time for this country

to grow up. No more excuses from anyone. Equal rights means exactly what it says - EQUAL rights.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[gtar100]

89. Agreed. No middle ground when it comes to human rights.

Any hesitation is either a sign of of those who are bigoted or a sign of personal bigotry.

[countmyvote4real]

90. = is = or it's not

Once I understood that equation I could no longer support civil unions or any other baby steps to full equality.

[jtuck004]

91. With you. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

92. Democrats should be for equal rights, EVEN when it isn't convenient

...ESPECIALLY when it isn't convenient

[Skittles]

93. um........Stinky?

it IS "actual homophobia"

[dkf]

95. Is ANY group monolithic?

[Bluebear]

96. Seriously, that's your first thought on the subject? OK.

[dkf]

114. That is the first sentence in the post so yes it is my first comment.

As to gay rights, with the defense of marriage act it is obvious it must come state by state and that won't happen instantaneously. In a practical sense waiting on things like Supreme Court rulings is necessary to the process. Of course a rational and unemotional POV is not the one some may look for nor appreciate.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[LostinVA]

110. "You have a large, visible and vocal voting block... using it to help out some other liberal causes"

"You have a large, visible and vocal voting block. How about using it to help out some other liberal causes. Maybe then build some political capital that at the very least could be used to overturn DADT. Or you could continue to cry and stop your feet about life not being fair. Your choice."

On side of being an incredible insulting and NASTY post, it also showcases your cluelssness on our "vocal blocking block."

This kind of post used to lead to someone being TSed.

[keepCAblue]

182. He's from El Mirage, AZ...nuff said. n/t

[LostinVA]

192. rofl

I'm wikiing this now!

[VMI Dem]

113. What an idiotic statement.

Jesus H. Christ.

[QC]

119. You have truly plumbed new depths of bigotry in this post,

not easy on a site where there is such intense competition in that arena.

[pezDispenser]

152. bigotry?

I guess in your world criticism = bigotry. How clueless, not once did I ever so much as infer I don't support equal rights for all.

[LostinVA]

158. Yes, bigotry and nothing less

Your reply here shows that you don't give a damn how offensive it is, either.

[QC]

159. I can't imagine how anyone could ever get the impression that you don't support equal rights!

Unless maybe it's your patronizing tone, your ignorance of what people are actually doing, or maybe the way that you compare gay people to petulant children.

Other than those things, I can't imagine what someone might possibly find objectionable.

[pezDispenser]

212. I agree

that comment was over the top and a poor choice of an analogy. A better way of getting my point across would have been to point out the numerous threads similar to this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9001854&mesg_id=9001854">Disgrace - Obama’s increasingly absurd gay marriage position where Obama takes an unfair beating.

[LostinVA]

217. I don't see anything unfair in that thread

And, the thesis of the OP is accurate.

[guruoo]

234. .

Doesn't matter, because critical thinking doesn't apply to the politically perfect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=497982&mesg_id=498280

[LostinVA]

250. Advocating for glbt rights isn't being "politically perfect"

:eyes:

It's being a decent and empathetic human being.

[guruoo]

288. Sorry, but I'm not playing. nt

[LostinVA]

293. But you started the game -- going home with the football now

Because you got called on a bad play.

:cry:

:eyes:

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[pezDispenser]

153. Nice name calling

I suggest a different strategy to employ, I guess I understand how that warrants childish name calling.

[myrna minx]

123. What a highly insulting and dismissive post.

You do realize that in all but 13 states, it's completely legal to deny lesbian, gay, transgendered and bisexual people a place to live. A place to LIVE. In the United States in 2010.

This is more than marriage equality - this is also about having equal rights for something as basic as having a roof over your head. Stomp their feet indeed. :puke:

Do you have any idea how much the LGBT community has done to get Democrats elected over the years? The LGBT community, you know, the 'large, visible, and vocal' community has been one of the biggest Democratic base supporters over the years- from financial contributions to GOTV. You don't think there are lesbians in the teacher's union or transgendered people in desperate need of health care? You don't think that there are uninsured, unemployed gay men? LGBT people aren't the 'other', they are people in your community that are hurting too, but they don't have the same rights as you or I do.

[QC]

125. At least he didn't tell us to stop flapping our limp wrists around

and put on our big girl panties.

Let us be grateful for small mercies.

[myrna minx]

128. No kidding.

:pals:

[pezDispenser]

155. I never suggested they have the same rights

In fact if you read my post, you'll notice its the premise. I merely suggest a strategy to help gain equal rights. Clearly Obama wanted to tackle health care out of the gate. What I am suggesting is that the administration and the congress would have been extremely appreciative to see ANY special interest group as loud and vocal pro health care as the tea baggers were anti. Many special interest groups missed that opportunity.

[myrna minx]

160. There were *numerous* groups working on healthcare - we weren't given a seat at the table and

we didn't get the media attention that the teabaggers received.

Your quote: 'Or you could continue to cry and stop your feet about life not being fair. Your choice." tell us all we need too know about your position.

[LostinVA]

170. Yup, the Pezster is a "fierce advocate" for GLBT rights

[pezDispenser]

204. You're correct

that comment was over the top, but it doesn't tell you anything other than I used a poor analogy. The fact remains that every day Obama is taking a beating on gay and lesbian issues and it's simply not correct to lay all of these problems at his feet. Every day there is another thread similar to this where the op complains Obama isn't waving his magic wand fast enough. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9001854&mesg_id=9001854">Disgrace - Obama’s increasingly absurd gay marriage position

He's already signed into law a bill making gays and lesbians a protected class. Where's the credit for that?
The marriage issue will eventually be resolved by the Supreme Court. That takes time.
A case could be made for DADT, but why not get this done as a law vs a reversible executive order? Reasonable people could disagree on this.

[LostinVA]

205. "He's already signed into law a bill making gays and lesbians a protected class. Where's the credit

WTF have you been smoking? HE HAS DONE NO SUCH THING!

:rofl:

Making up stuff out of whole cloth now, I see.

[pezDispenser]

215. I meant hate crime bill into law.

Its early.

[LostinVA]

222. That's a rather HUGE difference

And, although I am very glad Mr. Obama signed it, he had nothing to do with it. Clinton introduced it in 1999, an John Conyers reintroduced it in 2007, and it got batted around like a beachball for a few more years.

Matthew's mother and grassroots activists helped make this bill a reality.

And, GLUT Americans are not a "protected class" IN ANY WAY on a Federal level. Which is a disgrace.

[myrna minx]

220. Could you provide a link to the President signing into law a bill that

makes gays, lesbians, transgendered and bisexual a protected class? This is news to both me and my LGBT brothers and sisters.

[CreekDog]

178. you just suggested they bring dessert to the dinner they aren't invited to

so that maybe next year they'll get invited to the dinner with everyone else.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

194. At the children's table, where there's no alcohol or butter

[CreekDog]

197. tsk tsk...just sit quietly and maybe *next* time

:hi:

[LostinVA]

198. And only a tiny sliver of pumpkin pie

IF everyone else doesn't eat it all up first.

[CreekDog]

211. we would have given you more but you complained about the main course

you wanted pony! :P

:hide:

[LostinVA]

218. With mash and gravy

[Jamastiene]

365. I'll take mine well done, please.

:P

:hide:

[Jamastiene]

366. I guess I shouldn't ask for sweet potato pie instead.

It would take weeks to un-pry their heads out of the ceiling from the anger that would cause.

[Prism]

126. You must be new

If you think progressive LGBTers aren't all over progressive causes, then you must not know very many of us.

[Stinky The Clown]

135. You're right

There are no gay teachers fighting for teachers.

And we *all* know there are no gay people who buy insurance.

And we see all those not gay people working for gay rights while gays sit around and suggest fashion tips for rich women.

You're argument makes a great deal of (non)sense.

[Starry Messenger]

162. Seriously?

The gay community is one of the most loyal on all of those issues and more. And yes, implying that the gay community is "stomping their feet" like little girls is incredibly homophobic. The rest of your post is just ignorant. Nest time do some research before you pop off your mouth.

[pecwae]

101. K & R.

This has been tolerated for too long. There are posts in this very thread to highlight what you're saying. It may not be actual homophobia except in a few cases, but it certainly isn't support for full and equal civil rights for all.

[LostinVA]

111. Look above you

#99

WTF

[QC]

121. That sort of thing used to get people tombstoned around here.

Now it gets them the keys to the kingdom.

[LostinVA]

130. Disconcerting n/t

[pecwae]

165. I was too late to see it all

but saw what you copied in your response. WTF indeed! I don't get it.

[Solly Mack]

116. k/r

[terrya]

118. Seeing "poutrage" thrown at us regularly convinced me to leave here.

During the Donnie McClurkin thing, I remember seeing that fucking insulting "poutrage" crap here all the time. And the same with the Rick Warren thing. And then when the administrator of Democratic Underground weighed in on the Warren thing with his bullshit "reasonable people can disagree" nonsense, that pretty much told me all I need to know about gay people here, and gay rights in general.

Our equality should never, ever, ever be put up to a vote. EVER. And I'm sick of that "wait until the after the next election" shit. There's ALWAYS another election around the corner. That's a convenient excuse for people who are either 1) hostile or 2) utterly indifferent to our civil rights to excuse themselves. I'm tired of these alleged, "progressives" and "liberals" being dismissive of basic civil rights for a large group of Americans.

[RetroLounge]

122. +7

:hi:

RL

[LostinVA]

132. poutrage all over a current thread

[terrya]

136. Are you talking about a certain poll here?

If so, yeah, it's the same ol' bullshit.

[LostinVA]

138. PM

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

346. Awesome Post

[Mad_Dem_X]

129. K&R. Brilliantly put.

[xchrom]

133. recommend -- it's such an obvious thing -- it's ironic that on a site like this it NEEDS an op.

but that's life for lgbtiq people -- that under even favorable conditions some one has to point out
the obvious ways we can be discriminated against even by our 'allies'.

[DonCoquixote]

134. I agree

Granted, I originally liked the idea of "civil unions" back when they were presented as something EQUAL, just marriage without the religious baggage. However, the various laws passed make it clear that unless you have that M word, tainted as it is with religion,people will not accept it, so because of religious people's own arrogance, now we need to outright rip the concept of marriage away from them.

[Little Star]

137. k&r

[pgodbold]

139. We are an older couple. My partner is ill and not going to make it much longer. We would

like to be married because of his family. They hate our long term relationship and have made it clear to me they intend to take everything we've built when he passes. They will succeed because despite our years together we are legal strangers.

Yes there is a fucking hurry and to those who say "wait, not the right time" well if I could only find those people with my baseball bat....

P

[QC]

142. Your partner's bigoted family are only guilty of a mere "thought crime,"

according to a very active thread posted here.

[kelly1mm]

154. Not if your partner gets a will leaving his/her property to you they won't.

In my state (most states are similar) the only exceptions would be if the person has minor children or is married at the time of death. In those situations, a certain portion (1/3 in my state) could be "taken" by the surviving spouse despite what the will says. As you are saying you want to be married then I will assume your partner is not already marrie to someone else. Please consult an estate attorney ASAP to avoid this problem.

[QC]

156. All it takes is a local judge who don't like them queers.

This sort of thing has happened many, many times.

One recent case was in northern California: http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sonoma_county_ca_separates_elderly_gay_couple_and.php

[kelly1mm]

163. Chilling article, thanks for the link. My question was where was the

attorney that drafted the legal documents they had? I did see a court appointed attorney finally got this somewhat straightened out and a lawsuit is pending. I think the real story here is that (if you can afford it) you need to have a relationship with an attorney. Unless there is an attorney involved the court system will "rubber stamp" almost anything the state wants.
Also, simply being married will not, in all cases, stop the above from happening. Especially with older people (70+), the state will often try to step in take over (especially if there is public assistance issues) and say the spouse is incompetent. Happens way more than you would think. I often am called to go to court in these types of things and as soon as I show up, the attorney for the commission on aging (our state agency) is way more accommodating. Sad but true.

[mitchtv]

291. this is CA. the county just settled

something like 5 or 600,000 dollars

[LostinVA]

169. Not in VA and a few other states -- that's actally ILLEGAL to do

[kelly1mm]

171. Are you trying to say that VA does not let you give your property

at death to someone who is not a 'relative'? Can you cite a provision of VA law that states this?

[LostinVA]

177. This is correct -- not if your LEGAL relatives challenge it

No POA or anything, either.

I don't need to 'cite the provision," it's a known law that made national headlines and was voted into law 2006. At least George Allen didn't win that same night.

[kelly1mm]

189. That is not correct. Anyone with standing (ie relatives) can challenge

a will, POA, Medical Directive etc. on the basis of incompetancy of the testator at the time of the will (or other document) signing. Also, POA's and Medical Directives can be challanged on the basis that the person is not acting in the best interest of the person they have a fiduciary duty towards. Standard estate law and applies just as well to married persons.

Funny, that a google search did not turn up anything about this "known law" that you base your opinion on but choose not to cite.

[LostinVA]

195. No, you are totally and completely mistaken, but thanks for playing

:eyes:

A Google or Wiki search would have brought it up as the first fricking hit.

:eyes:
:eyes:

[kelly1mm]

200. If you say so - although we really don't have any evidence for your claim.nt

[LostinVA]

201. Oh gosh, look at what a liar I am!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9012474


:eyes:

[kelly1mm]

225. Thanks for posting a link! That wasn't so hard now was it? I did not

find it on my search as I checked for VA estate law and found nothing. I have searched for any case law in VA since 2006 that cites that provision to modify a will and cannot find any. Although the critics of this amendment claim that it may abridge private contracts, no VA court thus far has found that to be the case, rather, it has been cited in relation to out of state same-sex marriages. If you have a cite for this amendment being used as you said to make giving one's property to another via will "illegal", I would be very interested in reading it and will apologize profusely to you on this thread.

[Debi]

238. Wait - so you're okay with the law being in place as long as it hasn't been used YET?

The mere fact that the law exists is sufficient (and makes Lost's point that it is more than a possibility that a homophobic family member and homophobic court could strip a partner of whatever their loved one provided for them in thier will.

[kelly1mm]

248. No, I am saying that the law has yet to be interpreted in the way the

poster said it would - specifically that it makes testamentary transfers of property illegal to non family members. The poster has an opinion on what the amendment would do but the courts in VA have not, in 4 years, cited it for that proposition as far as I can tell. I think the amendment itself is stupid and was used as a political wedge issue.

[Debi]

261. You are agreeing that the law does exist and COULD be used in probate

Which is what got this whole sub-thread started. So Lost was correct.

[LostinVA]

266. As usual

Especially when it's about MY FRIGGING LIFE.

:kiss: D.E.BS.

[Debi]

272. Simmer down, Missy. You're gay

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

273. I prefer "homosexual"

[Debi]

278. Show me a link where you have legal rights to that title

and I'll think about changing my mind.

[LostinVA]

294. *crickets*

[Debi]

297. So gay n/t

[LostinVA]

303. Jiminy Cricket?

What?

[Debi]

310. Now look

You are a gay homosexual who needs to simmer down and go eat some shrimp scampi with au jus sauce and let the grown ups decide whether or not you are allowed to have a marriage or civil union (and own property). Now shush.

[LostinVA]

314. I AM craving raviolis

[Debi]

326. We're hijacking poor Stinky's thread

Fur reals!

[Starry Messenger]

331. I had raviolis yesterday.

I'm thinking of some macaronis today. Although Debi just texted me some meat pron this morning and now I want steak.

[Touchdown]

342. What is it with you and everybody opening up about their pasta dinners?

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

350. It's like a Jedi Mind Trick!

[kelly1mm]

276. There is an amendment to the VA constitution that the poster thinks

could be used to void testamentary transfers between non family members, although in 4 years it has not been cited for that proposition - that I agree about. However, since it has not been used for that proposition thus far I do not think Lost's opinion of what the amendment means is legally correct.

[Name removed]

281. Deleted message

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

[Debi]

282. Then we're right back where we started.

The law COULD be interpreted to violate the rights of a homosexual couple (and you have stated that the amendment is stupid and was put in place as a wedge issue which implies it COULD have some weight if someone did use it in probate court).

Only that it hasn't been used in a court case that has been published (so at least an apellate court decision since typically district court decisions aren't published) makes Lost's interpretation incorrect.

But it IS there and isn't THAT where this sub-thread started?

[LostinVA]

295. I guess all those legal experts at UVa, etc. are just shysters

Who have interpreted it this way.

[Debi]

300. I hate shysters - they're such lawyers and politicians

(except for the ones who are hot and wear Hugo Boss - Hmmmmm shyster......)

[LostinVA]

301. pev

[Debi]

324. Yogurt eater. n/t

[kelly1mm]

332. Actually, they may well be shysters as the only case looking at

what the amendment means indicates that the Amendment only applies to VA state recognition of the relationship itself, not custody of minor children and by extension any other rights such as contract or estate rights. Here is a link:

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2009/11/virginia-appeals-court-give-full-faith-and-credit-to-north-carolina-custody-order-for-gay-dads.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LeonardLink+%28Leonard+Link%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

I am still looking for more cases to support your argument and will post links if I find any.

I will say that if the Amendment does what you believe it does then it is unconscionable.

[LostinVA]

252. Well, it has been used -- that's the thing

I know people who have been affected by it, including myself.

So, the poster's spinning is even more ridiculous.

[Name removed]

241. Deleted message

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

[LostinVA]

254. Even after I posted my OP because they HEAVILY IMPLIED I was lying

A friend who doesn't post here was reading this thread, and he sent me a really pissed off email, because he has also been affected by this law.

Their rank ARROGANCE of refusing to admit they were wrong when the truth is SMEARED into their face shows where they are coming from. When shown the truth, it's... but...but... but... sow hat? And, You're still a liar!!!!!!

The poster was handily owned by me, and can't handle it.

[VMI Dem]

262. You shouldn't have even posted the link. These people know how to find shit.

Its just a way to deflect.

It was ownage though.

[LostinVA]

275. A Google or Wiki search brings back lots of hits

I know, but this law has effected my life, so it's very personal to me.

ownage

[kelly1mm]

280. I apologize for implying that you were lying. THERE IS A AMENDMENT

THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT TESTAMENTARY TRANSFERS BETWEEN NON FAMILY MEMBERS AS LOST SAID! As I mentioned upthread, I did not find the provision as I searched under estate law. However, it has not been found to do so by the VA courts as of yet.

I am sorry that my questions have offended you - really I am. I sometimes get too legalistic in my discussions and forget that there are real people with real feelings behind the issues. Please accept my apology.

[kelly1mm]

335. See post #332 for a link to a VA court case indicating that your position is incorrect.

I never take what is posted personally especially when it comes to sensitive matters such as these. I am glad that the VA courts have not, and indicate that they will not enforce the amendment (as bad as it is on its face) in they way you an others have suggested it could.

I have been wrong before and when I am, I freely admitt it. However, in this instance, the court seems to not be agreeing with you so I am not quite sure how I was "owned" but whatever.

I have checked VA case law for about 1.5 hours (it is a slow day) and I find no support for your position in VA appelate decisions. If you do, then I certainly will be 'shown the truth'. Untill then we have nothing other than opinion and speculation for your position, while I have identified a case which says the opposite.

Feel free to link to any case that supports your position.

[kelly1mm]

258. No, I am saying that the VA courts in 4 years of the amendment being

in place have not cited it for the proposition that the poster said it did - making testamentary transfers of property illegal among homosexual couples per se.
Just like I would not assume that somebody that lives in VA would necessarily know the inner workings of a nuclear power reactor located in the state, I would also not assume that someone who lives in VA would necessarily know the law of that state, or more specifically, how laws are interpreted. If one identified themselves as a lesbian from VA, I would however assume that they would have an interest in the topic and may have some information that would be enlightening - which the poster did.

The only path I am trying to go down is the path of information and discussion, so yes, I will continue down this path.

[Debi]

265. Your posts #171 & 189 seem more a direct challenge rather than a kind inquiry n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

274. Let me ask a somewhat different question of you. It is real simple and has a yes or no answer.

Do you unequivocally and without reservation support the complete and total equality of gay people?

[kelly1mm]

285. Yes, I believe that gay people are entitled to all the rights and

priviledges of otherwise similarly situated (ie age to vote, etc) citizens of the US.

If talking specifically about marriage I have a slightly unusual position that is discussed up thread in more detail but boils down to civil unions for ALL and the government only confers rights/privileges based on civil unions AND marriage for ALL that can be preformed by any religious or non-religious group which is willing to preform the ceremony but that has no governmental rights/privileges attached.

[Debi]

296. What will you say to all the people who are married right now?

I got MARRIED at the court house, not in a church or in a religious ceremony. Right inside a courtroom one floor above where I picked up my MARRIAGE LICENSE. The state sanctioned my MARRIAGE to my husband.

Right now my LGBT brothers and sisters can also get MARRIED here in Iowa. Using a MARRIAGE LICENSE that they receive at a court house. A state sanctioned MARRIAGE.

Are you going to tell me and anyone else who has gotten married in Iowa (in a religious ceremony or not) that we are no longer married but are living under a civil union? Why?

The states have determined the use of the word MARRIAGE to mean a state sanctioned union. There is no reason to remove that moniker.

Let the bigots come up with a new term - the one being used right now MARRIAGE should be used for all.

[kelly1mm]

307. I don't care what you call your marriage and my position does not

end marriage at all. If fact, any religious or non religious group that wants to 'sanctify' whatever relationship they want can call it whatever they want - marriage, couplehood, unioned, whatever. All the government would care about is whether the couple went through the process you did.

I guess I am just not understanding the reluctance to even consider the idea as it treats EVERYONE EQUALLY before the law which I thought was the goal. If the real goal is something else, then I need to be educated on that.

[Debi]

318. It's not what *I* call my marriage, it's what the state calls it

A marriage.

The states call it marriage and there is no reason to back peddle on the term now. Why should we? To keep the bigots happy? You think changing the wording is going to help that? They'll just attack 'civil union' gay couples. Like putting amendments on the books that can be used in the future to stop the passing of property to 'civil partners'.

[kelly1mm]

333. My goal is to get equality for all before the law. That is my goal. I

think by taking the (perceived) religious aspects out of it we may be able to get there sooner. It is my impression that some want the word marriage more than legal equality. My goal is legal equality. I don't care about the wording and if throwing that bone to bigots gets legal equality for all sooner, I will support that.

[Stinky The Clown]

321. Thanks for being clear

Why would you hold that a far more convoluted route to full equality is better than simply "marriage for all"?

I will be honest here. I once held that position myself. In considering it, it became increasingly clear that it was simply another way to cause an impediment and, it seemed to me, less likely to achieve the intended outcome (unequivocal equality for all).

[Debi]

328. Stinky - I'm right there with you

I just confessed to Lost that I held the same view 'why not just make it civil unions for all?'

But I had to ask myself WHY? Why would I wish to basically invalidate all the 'marriages' that happend before civil unions came into being? Why not offer civil marriage to all and let the churches/religious entities determine if they wanted a newer 'special' word for their blessing?

Marriage is marriage. There should not be a difference between a M+F or M+M or F+F marriage in the state's eyes.


Edited b/c I'm pretty sure 'not be no difference' is poor grammar.

[kelly1mm]

334. My goal is to get equality for all before the law.

That is my goal. I think by taking the (perceived) religious aspects out of it we may be able to get there sooner. It is my impression that some want the word marriage more than legal equality. My goal is legal equality. I don't care about the wording and if throwing that bone to bigots gets legal equality for all sooner, I will support that.

[NMMNG]

351. Legal equality comes with the word marriage

It is my impression that some want the word marriage more than legal equality. My goal is legal equality.

The rights come with the word.

People in NJ found out quickly that their "Civil Unions", despite claims to the contrary, were not equivalent to marriage.

California Domestic Partnerships, despite all their hype and claims, are not equivalent to marriage.

Only marriage is equivalent to marriage, which is why we fight for marriage, and not some lesser facsimile. If Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships were truly equivalent, the bigots wouldn't be fighting so hard to make us accept them (if we're allowed them at all), while they get to keep marriage. They know bloody well they're nowhere near the same thing.

[kelly1mm]

352. But if all people were subject to civil unions then everyone would

be in the same boat - and you can bet your last nickle that all the rights and priviledges of marriage would confer to civil unions if that is all the government recognised.

[NMMNG]

354. Try something

Go to some RRRW board and put your proposal to them. Let me know how it goes.

[Name removed]

279. Deleted message

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

[kelly1mm]

290. I did not think it was condescending to ask for a legal citation that

says a law means what the poster says it means. However, I was too legalistic in my questions/comments and for that I apologize to all here (as I have already done upthread to Lost) as it certainly can come across as not caring about real people with real feelings.

[Jax]

345. Nah, you weren't legalistic at all.

you were arrogant and condescending like the poster said.

We understand what you are saying just fine.

No need to continue the condescension with "legalistic" crap.

Nothing in your posts has been remotely "legalistic".

[kelly1mm]

348. Thanks for your input. Did you read the cited case above that

supports my position? Or would actually looking at case law to determine if your opinion is supported by court precedent be legalistic, rather than simply arrogant and condescending?

While you may believe what you want, when one espouses a legal view such that the state of VA will not allow testamentary transfers between non-family members but cannot cite any case law for that or respond to case law that says that is not the case, that is simply hyperbole.

What if kind of funny is that I tried to point someone who had concerns about transferring property between partners to someone that could help them (by the way, I have done dozens of estate plans for same sex couples) and this whole shitstorm started. Wow.

[Jax]

361. Again, you have no clue about anything 'legalistic'

keep telling yourself you have a clue, you might believe it.

Those of us who can read know better.

[LostinVA]

363. rofl

:thumbsup:

[myrna minx]

208. .

:hug:

[mitchtv]

289. in the case of the late raymond Burr

His will was challenged by a distant relative, but they were smart. The survivng partner was not only the beneficiary,but also the largest single creditor of the estate, which superimposed everything, that was before marriage in CA. Get a lawyer. I got married when the window was open in '08

[cate94]

140. Very well stated.

I would also like to point out that those who propose incrementalism as a means to an end will never get anywhere.

You don't get what you want or need by asking for less. It simply doesn't work. You don't get a steak by asking for a hamburger. You don't get a raise by asking for a cut in pay. You don't get equality by asking for inequality.

I expect nothing less than full equality.

[LostinVA]

141. Dr. King didn't say, "Well... let's just not ride the bus one day a month, okay?"

"They'll get the point I think, if we do that. Y'all who want to be about to vote and have your kids go to good schools, well, quit whining. Being a maid and a janitor isn't that bad. At least you aren't being lynched anymore."

[lunatica]

143. I concur

It's really quite simple. Equality for all means equality for ALL. It's just not that hard to understand.

[Evasporque]

144. K&R from teh trans...

[OnyxCollie]

146. K&R. nt

[wookie72]

147. I'm tired of "teh _______s" comments in general.

"Gays," "Teabaggers," "Red-staters," "Muslims," "Christers," "Zionists"... we're al in this together. I think Russell Simmons' message needs to sink through for a *lot* of peple.

I'm on another group that I thought was fairly progressive and many of the people are saying incredibly nasty things about the "Ground Zero Mosque."

Hang together or hang separately, folks...

[secondwind]

149. WHAT? I've never noticed this. Does not sound like my DU. K&R

You are not alone. I will post if I ever see this.

[Dogtown]

157. K&R n/t

[Loudmxr]

161. I am disturbed by it too.

if you will allow me let me give you some insight. Everyone is prejudiced and everyone is a bigot. To a certain extent.

It is a constant growing process to peel away the affects of our culture to fully respect all people as individuals. It really never gets done. It's an adventure in personal growth. It's said "It's a small world." It's not. It's a very large complex world but you can meet some wonderful people if you only stick out your hand and say "hello".

I live in Los Angeles County, the most different place on the face of the planet. I am trying to make it a better place. That takes work on me too.

The other day I got a report of a potential hate crime by teenage girls. My first reaction was "Probably just a girl-girl thing." Then I stopped dead!! WHAT WAS I THINKING!! Of course teenage girls can be capable of racist bigoted vandalizing action. Prejudice in FAVOR of teenage girls clouded my judgement. Temporarily.

just never expect that people are all they say they are. They just aren't. They are just like the rest of us, growing up trying to be adults.

[AldebTX]

164. Amen

If they want to make civil unions the replacement for marriage...because the word is loaded in regards to gays then no one should be able to get married by the government...they should only be able to get civil unions.

[pleah]

166. K&R

[zonkers]

167. Kick.

[Silent3]

168. "Because it is really a binary issue"

Opinions may be binary (at least if you make the binary FULL/NOT FULL rights for gays the issue at hand for rendering an opinion), political action and support, however, very seldom is.

If you can find a candidate who shares 100% of your views, it can only mean that you're running for office yourself. For myself, I think I only agree with myself 90% of the time.

I don't think that suggesting that a gay person, or a non-gay person with strong belief in full gay rights, vote for a candidate who is wishy-washy on gay rights (like Obama) means that you've crossed some binary divide where you can't possibly support full gay rights yourself if you'd even dare think of making that suggestion.

I can't tell from your OP whether or not a candidate's full unwavering support for gay rights in an absolute litmus test in your book, and the only "right" thing to do is never, ever vote for any candidate who doesn't unwaveringly support gay rights -- just don't vote if their is no such candidate available, or vote for an obscure candidate with no chance to win -- and the hell with actual electoral consequences, even if those consequences make things worse for gays, because, damn it!, you've bravely (if totally ineffectively) stood up for your principles.

[Taverner]

187. Wait - you mean all gays don't listen to Judy Garland and talk like Paul Lynde?

:P

[katandmoon]

207. K&R.

[earth mom]

209. K & R! nt

[mlevans]

224. I think maybe a part of what you're seeing is the result of these individuals' upbringing.

I have a colleague at work, he's also a good friend, who is exceptionally caring and sensitive to the needs and feelings of others, and who tends to be unabashedly progressive/liberal on very nearly any issue you could name. However, he also was raised a Catholic, something he takes quite seriously.

We were having a discussion the other day about the whole Prop 8 business. Both of us agreed that as fellow citizens gay and lesbian people were entitled to all the same rights, benefits, what have you, as heteros; however, we encountered a (to me) puzzling sticking point over nomenclature. Whereas I was saying everybody had the right to "get married" he was insistent that it must be called something different because "marriage" as he had been taught from an early age involved one man and one woman. That's what his parents had told him, that's what the priests had told him, and he was very uncomfortable with calling the relationship between two men or two women the same thing, even if all other conditions applied.

I've been in a traditional marriage for over 30 years now, and I fail to see what difference it makes what they call it. Frankly, I feel that where there is a loving caring relationship between two consenting adults, there is a marriage, no matter what they choose to call it and regardless of whether or not the couple is able to reproduce together. Besides, that Old Testament admonition to "be fruitful and multiply" may have made sense at the time, but looking around the world today I think we may have overdone it a bit.

[TheKentuckian]

233. Nothing is a lamer excuse for bigotry on this than the Bible

It is wholly an excuse to restrict rights and should firmly be treated as such.

The Bible puts much more focus on the evils of false witness and usury than homosexuality which is mentioned less than five times in thousands of years and pages.

Where is the outcry on these interest rates? Where are the Christian protests of the payday loan shops?

Even this religious objection is hollow and dishonest in it's own context. I give it no credence, haven't heard a fundy calling for Jubilee yet.

This is about control and oppression not faith and certainly not adherence to scripture.

[Spheric]

237. Solid K&R Very well said. /nt

[Debi]

239. We don't always see eye-to-eye

But on this we do.

Thank you for your post.

[awoke_in_2003]

240. "I HOPE I am not seeing actual homophobia in the replies"

it has probably already been said, but homophobia is EXACTLY what you are seeing. Opposition to equal marriage rights is homophobia, you can not soft sell it as something else. To those who are going to tell me I am wrong, the guilty dog always barks first- you are barking little homophobes.

[LostinVA]

255. Good God -- read some of the replies in this thread!

[awoke_in_2003]

340. this place has really become something...

and it seems like all the vocal assholes joined us during the primaries. They signed up, got to 1000 posts in 3 weeks, and constantly stir the shit. A lot of them are our current cheerleaders who say you must not criticize the president one little bit.

[QC]

356. It was a hostile takeover. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

359. yes, it was. nt

[truedelphi]

302. Big thanks Stinky. Other variations on the Time Is Not Right meme -

Issue One:
We just need this one more leetle teenie tiny war, and then we can go all out for Peace...

Issue Two:
We really want to start addressing middle class economic problems, but first we need to help the rich, or else the whole system will collapse.

Issue Three: (From the DLC)
Although that candidate is beloved of the entire progressive movement, others in that area of the world are not ready for someone who is against war, against gays being denied marriage, against middle class income boosting actions.
You Progressives will just have to wait an election cycle or two.

[DiverDave]

315. I support the rights of EVERYONE!

No way in hell it's right to restrict rights because of who someone is in love with.

That doesn't look right, but I hope you all get the gist.

Damnit, its a tough old world out there and if someone finds a little happiness and maybe love in it, Then by god, let them have it.

[motely36]

319. K&R

[bigwillq]

320. Kick

Too late too rec.
Great post. :thumbsup:

[MrScorpio]

337. Well, clearly there's an argument here about means vs ends

And it's frustrating, because many are not satisfied with a political process being so... uh, political.

But if we can sort that all out, perhaps everyone who's eyes are on the prize can come to an agreement as to how to achieve it.

I, myself, am not interested in making a division of winners vs. losers between people whose goal is ultimate full equality.

I can't think of anything more self defeating than that.

Hey, I've pissed A LOT of people off here, but it's not I think that I'm better than anyone else. It's just because I know folks are going to be mad anyway, because of that frustration and they prefer not to have me stumbling about the issues.

You're mad at me, sure. Have at it, I can take it.


But if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it if you tell me why. If I'm right, I expect the same treatment.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

347. Perhaps avoiding gratuitous insult would help

People might be less mad if you didn't describe opposition to same-sex marriage as "thought crime."

The term, as commonly used today in reference to the novel 1984, is sarcastic in nature implying in this case that folks upset about Obama's position are Orwellian thugs.

Perhaps that was your intent.

If not, know you now.

[MrScorpio]

353. But on the other hand...

I figure that quite a few folks would be just as mad at me, in spite of how the question was framed, merely because I dared to bring the question up in the first place.

About this subject, for quite a few of us, it's a no win situation regardless of our intent. There will always be some fault to find with it, if one cares to look hard enough.


But people are voting and that says something.

[QC]

355. He reveals his own intent very clearly in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9476411

[Jakes Progress]

358. Kick.

[Zhade]

362. Back to the top with this!

Bigotry is not tolerated here, homophobes.

[Rhythm]

364. That this kind of crap is allowed here i why i'm not here much anymore

We have a so-called 'fierce advocate' in the White House who waffles and tiptoes around the issue... and so-called 'allies' -- even here -- who too-often shove their agenda down our throats under the guise of "what's "best for us."

I am sick of this shit...

If you're not with those of us who are pushing to gain for OUR families and loved-ones the equal protection that YOU take for granted, then get the hell out of the way!