The protests are working

[Guest ReturnOfS]

In the 70s a group of conservative fundamentalist Christians, headed by singer Anita Bryant, lead a movement where they went state to state overturning civil rights ordinances that had protections for gay people. This fight came to California in the form of Proposition 6, a proposed law that would have made firing gay teachers and any public school employees who supported gay rights mandatory. Harvey Milk, along with others campaigned against the bill throughout California and the initiative was surprisingly defeated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_milk

 

Its amazing what you learn on NPR and wikipedia. I hadn't even heard of Harvey Milk until a few weeks ago. All of that occurred before my time. i wish that I had heard of him before, but I'm glad that I heard of him now, and I can't want to see the movie.

 

Anyway, my point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere.

[Barry]

>Actually you are completely wrong. There is no state in the

>union -- except New York, CT, and Massachusetts -- that

>recognizes a "gay" marriage performed in California.

>In fact, most states have laws on the books which explicitly

>prohibit recognizing gay marriages performed in other states.

>

>The poster is correct. This is a battle over a word. Totally

>and completely silly.

 

Short term thinking IMO. Get enough states, especially larger states, legalizing same sex marriage and you have the clout for an Article IV challenge at the federal level. The fact that some states have enacted laws prohibiting the recognition of a legal marriage in another state flies in the face of IV.

 

 

Barry

[Argos]

Deej:

 

Thanks for making my point. Each of the issues you raised can only be remedied on a Federal level. You are taking about FEDERAL benefits not benefits in the State of California. Get a clue my friend. The issue of transportability can only be remedied if the Federal Goverment passes a law that would require the recognition of doemstic partnerships of civil unions between other states. Unfortunately, many states DO NOT have either Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships. Federal Legislation needs to be passed which would grant the same benefits to same sex couples as heterosexuals couple. That is where the battle needs to be fought. It is ridiculous and futile to do so on a State by State basis.

[Argos]

Sorry 8 inch-- but Deej had not identified on right in the State of CA that samesex couples do not share with heterocouples. The rights he addresses are Federal Rights and not State Rights. ALl you need to do is read the CA Supreme Court decision. The divided court even recognizes that the domestic partnerships laws grant to same sex couples all of the rights of opposite sex couples. The decision rested solely on the fact that the term marriage should apply to both unions. . .

[Argos]

Sorry Rick, Deej and David . . . but in each of your cases ignorance seems to be bliss. I am still waiting to hear what State right doemstic partners in the State of California do not have that married hetero couple do have. Still have heard nothing, nada. . .

[Rick Munroe]

"Get over it," Richard.

[Argos]

Rick:

 

I must say you have a beautiful ass. The gay community is not at all strategic when if comes to dealing with this issue. The problem can be resolved nationwide with the appropriate Federal Legislation. You then don't need to be fighting the battle in 50 different states and spending millions of dollars that can go to better use like finding a cure for AIDs. Remeber it was Federal Legislation that started to bring about civil rights for African Americans . . . not figthing the battle in individual states. Rick, I'll "get over it" when there are equal rights for gays in every state and on a Federal level. . . not just when it happens in a small minority of states. BTW, I am still waiting to hear what State rights same sex couples in a domestic partnership don't have in CA that married hetero couples have. Can you name just one ????? I'll grant you their union is called a domestic partnership instead of a marriage-- but what tangible benefit or right don't they enjoy???? Bottom line . . . it appears we want the same thing but have a difference about the most effective way to achieve the goal.

[Argos]

The judge was absolutely right. . .

[Rick Munroe]

>Rick:

>

>I must say you have a beautiful ass.

 

Thanks. Now we're talking about a subject that's really near and dear to me.

 

Let me ask you this, since you've been married before. Would your wife/wives have been OK with having your marriage demoted to a "civil union" or "domestic partnership"? What about straight married friends of yours? Seriously...ask them if they'd mind having their marriage taken away and replaced with a "domestic partnership" if, as you say, they would have all the same rights (which they wouldn't, but for argument's sake...the argument being that it's "just words").

 

As Barry said somewhere else (I'm doing 5 things at once, plus checking in here, and I am starting to get these threads confused!)...if you get it in some bigger states, you'll have an easier time of getting it on the federal level. Or something like that.

 

>Bottom line .

>. . it appears we want the same thing but have a difference

>about the most effective way to achieve the goal.

 

See, that's a much nicer way of saying it than "Get over it." That just shuts the door to any further discussion, but what you just said makes perfect sense and to me, it's much more effective. We do need to work together if the end result is the same.

 

 

OK, this "beautiful ass" has to go get itself ready to get fucked!

[Argos]

No doubt you are a smart ass which another admirable quality you possess.

[Argos]

David:

 

I am not at all interested in being bitter or clinging to a fantasy life. I am interested in having Federal Legislation that insures equal rights to all gay couples and, if they decide to enter into a marriage, civil union or domestic partnership, I want them to be assured they will get the Federal Benefits they deserve and are not currently granted. I hope the new administration will make this a reality.

[+ deej]

And here I was looking forward to the movie to see James Franco make out with Sean Penn. LOL

 

http://www.hollywoodville.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/02/james_franco.jpeg

 

I only vaguely recall the Anita Bryant era, and at my age then I was more curious why the orange juice lady was being so mean. :-) Bryant was once the national spokesperson for "Florida Orange Juice". That endorsement deal, and pretty much her career, went off the same cliff many of her political initiatives did.

 

It was recently pointed out to me (and I was so stunned I had to look it up) that one of the "movers and shakers" in CA that spoke against her initiative at the time was Ronald Reagan. Who'd a thought?

[Rick Munroe]

I'll be the first to admit I can also be quite the dumb ass at times, too.

[Argos]

So Rick . . . if I decide to meet you for a piece of that beautiful ass when I am in NYC next month are you going to discriminate against me because we have differing viewpoints?

[Rick Munroe]

LOL Of course not...do you want to know how many Republican clients I have? Besides, I enjoy bantering with you (just quit telling me to "get over it"!).

[+ deej]

>Actually you are completely wrong.

>There is no state in the union

 

OK. I'm wrong.

 

>except New York, CT, and Massachusetts

 

Except I'm right.

 

Thank you for playing.

[Rick Munroe]

Right on, Greg. Btw, it's been 21 years for us...and I am REALLY tired of calling him my "boyfriend"!

[raulgmanzo]

Separate but not equal

 

In 'Brown vs. Board of Education', Earl Warren wrote in the decision of the supreme court: "... ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. ”

 

Yes it was about education, but I believe the concept, at least in the abstract fits when it comes to government granted marital rights and responsibilities.

 

Part of me wants to agree with the posters suggesting we just get over it. 'Marriage' is just a word after all. But all of our laws and the constitution itself are made up of 'words'.

 

I abhor the idea of limiting marriage (and government recognition of such) to certain segments of the population without any compelling purpose.

 

If one allows the word 'marriage' to be religiously defined and limited in scope then surely it's use in legislation goes against one of our countries most important concepts, the separation of church and state.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

So in the meanwhile count me as in support of gay marriage. Marriage always seemed kind of gay anyway.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Separate but not equal

 

>If one allows the word 'marriage' to be religiously defined

>and limited in scope then surely it's use in legislation goes

>against one of our countries most important concepts, the

>separation of church and state.

 

Oh, yeah...that's a great argument. I'm going to use that one on Thanksgiving with Derek's conservative cousin.

[+ David-SF]

Argos:

I believe you and read your posts. I understand and agree with your ideas very much so as far as a national issue is concerned. I was referring to another poster. ariadnie1880 not you. at least your position is admirable. if I was not clear or responded to the wrong post then I apologize.

I would love to see if we could stop trying to convince people to stop doing work in hope of making progress, and encourage people to go for what they believe in,what ever the result.

who are we to judge what the outcome may be.

some posters think its so important to call people names like stupid and asswipe and act like shrilly little girls hiding in a fantasy land

and still hundreds of posts later have yet to make a single point without being disparaging toward others.

thanks for you input

David

[Argos]

Rick-- please I am not a Republican. I am a registered Independent in the State of California where we have the greatest domestic partnership laws for same sex couples. And . . . deal, I will never again suggest you "get over it."

[Rick Munroe]

I didn't mean to suggest you were a Republican...I just meant I don't usually let respectful disagreements get in the way of a good time.

[seaboy4hire]

Alright boys we need to keep the burner on! There are protests that are slated to happen once again around the country this Saturday. For info go to http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com and look under your state and city for info. If we don't continue to speak out things will not change and we'll take even more steps back. Silence = Death.

 

Hugs,

Greg

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

Your low rent escort http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

http://www.rockbox.org/mail/archive/rockbox-archive-2008-07/att-0126/Sheeple.gif

[seaboy4hire]

Did anyone today brave the cold and attend any of the protests in your area? Boobers and I attended the Seattle protest despite the cold and threat of rain. It was a very small gathering of about 50 people. Very disappointing imo and Seattle is not the only city with a small gathering from what I've read on Join the Impact's message board. Today's rally was to remind Obama of his pledge to help end the Defense of Marriage Act. I encourage y'all if someone asks for you to sign the petition please do so without hesitation. Just because marriage/civil unions might not be your thing doesn't mean it isn't a big deal for someone else.

 

Hugs,

Greg

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

Your low rent escort http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

http://www.rockbox.org/mail/archive/rockbox-archive-2008-07/att-0126/Sheeple.gif

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

>Today's rally

>was to remind Obama of his pledge to help end the Defense of

>Marriage Act.

 

 

Aint gonna happen.