We are all in a post-Proposition 8 world now.

[Rick Munroe]

"If someone were to say something racist, sexist or antisemitic, I would say something, even though I am white, male and non-Jewish. But I wonder, when a homophobic remark is made in a conversation among straight people, whether anyone is willing to say, 'That's not appropriate and I find that offensive.' I don't know, but I hope so."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/23/AR2008112302039.html

[ariadne1880]

It's amazing to me how much this is being blown out of proportion. All for a single word. Unbelievable. Shows you how far we've actually come.

[+ deej]

Sure reveals the truth in Fred Ebb's words from "Cabaret":

 

How the world can change,

it can change like that!

Due to one little word,

Married

[Rick Munroe]

>It's amazing to me how much this is being blown out of

>proportion. All for a single word. Unbelievable. Shows you how

>far we've actually come.

 

We have come very far. You, on the other hand...not so much.

[+ David-SF]

>It's amazing to me how much this is being blown out of

>proportion. All for a single word. Unbelievable. Shows you how

>far we've actually come.

 

"We have come very far. You, on the other hand...not so much."

 

AMEN !

 

:-)

a single word ????

well shows just exactly how much you know about this issue

speaks volumes......

and well now we can just consider the source instead of expecting an

decent dialogue on tolerance education and how to peacefully obtain rights that are being stripped from us.

i was hoping to learn something new about how to educate my neighbors and community

[+ Italiano]

>It's amazing to me how much this is being blown out of

>proportion. All for a single word. Unbelievable. Shows you how

>far we've actually come.

 

 

Amazing how this man and his remarks still surprise me and make me angry.

What's next? Shocked that gay men are allowed in men's public restrooms?

 

 

Ariadne was all alone on a desert island....

[Rick Munroe]

>i was hoping to learn something new about how to educate my

>neighbors and community

 

Exactly. I've said many times that I truly appreciate this board the most when I can learn something from it, and each time guys like him speak up to complain about the positive actions we're taking, I keep thinking I'm going to be educated or at least hear a cogent argument, but...nothing. It's just more of the same substance-free griping and name-calling.

[Rick Munroe]

>What's next? Shocked that gay men are allowed in men's public

>restrooms?

 

I was going to add, "What's next are straight and gay drinking fountains" but then I realized that most people drink bottled water so there went my analogy.

[AdamSmith]

>All for a single word.

 

Right. Actually several single words (and phrases). To wit:

 

"equal"

 

"unalienable Rights"

 

"Liberty"

 

"pursuit of Happiness"

 

Also (one day, we hope):

 

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

[Guest zipperzone]

>>i was hoping to learn something new about how to educate

>my

>>neighbors and community

>

>Exactly. I've said many times that I truly appreciate this

>board the most when I can learn something from it, and each

>time guys like him speak up to complain about the positive

>actions we're taking, I keep thinking I'm going to be educated

>or at least hear a cogent argument, but...nothing. It's just

>more of the same substance-free griping and name-calling.

 

Actually Rick, you are being educated. You're learning that even so-called gay men can be the enemy and that there are probably thousands more, both gay and straight who think alike. Scary thought and not one that we should overlook.

[Rick Munroe]

Point well taken, zip. I'm not naive enough to think all gay men think alike or agree on this issue...but the level of viciousness on this board is just unnecessary. Anyway, we just need to stay focused on the short and long-term goals of full equality in CA and everywhere else.

[Guest josephga]

I'll try to say my opinion in a nicer way. Rick I think if you were involved in a closed long term monogamous relationship you would be taken more seriously. You are in a open relationship and you take married men as clients. A large number of people including gay men are not going to take you seriously and will view the fact you do take married men as clients as a lack of respect for marriage too start with.

I'm sure you will make fun of my beliefs now. I'm just old school I view marriage in the traditional sense regardless if its str8 or gays doing it.

[Guest Wetnwildbear]

Oh Ariadne . . .thou doust make me sigh. . .

 

Oh yee of little brain. . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x( :-( x( :-( x( :-( x( :-(

[Barry]

>"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to

>the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every

>other state."

 

Bingo! Article IV Some have brought up the fact that California's domestic partner law already provides for the rights of marriage so what's the big deal. The big deal is getting equal rights to the Supremes. Marriage in Mass. won't carry enough clout. Get a few high population states in the game and a State with a man/woman only amendment refusing to recognise a man/man legal marriage. Then the foundation is set for a case going up the chain under "Full faith and credit". I don't think the equal rights argument will win on the federal level at this point in time.

 

Barry

[Rick Munroe]

>Rick I think if

>you were involved in a closed long term monogamous

>relationship you would be taken more seriously.

 

LOL I don't see Rick Munroe being recognized anywhere as the "Leader of the Gays," so I'm not sure what your point is. Also, I've been in a long-term committed relationship for 21 years. You want to talk about my relationship, so let me ask you: what's the longest relationship you've had? Also, do you seriously think that every heterosexual marriage is completely monogamous? Should the government terminate their marriages if they're not? I don't see anywhere where it states that marriage must be a monogamous arrangement. Does the couple also have to eat each meal together, use the toilet together, sleep in the same bed together every night, etc.? Or does your marriage rule only deal with a sex act? If you think the basis or most important aspect of a marriage is sex, then perhaps that might be why you haven't had a successful one. A marriage based on love, friendship, trust, honesty and humor can last forever. A marriage based on sex...well, let's ask Britney how that works out.

 

>I'm just old

>school I view marriage in the traditional sense regardless if

>its str8 or gays doing it.

 

That's fine for you. You've also stated that you would become straight if possible because gay people can't have stable, long-term happy relationships.

[Guest YR]

Not sure I should even be posting here since I'm not a member but I'm using my BF's (YR) account. Anyway, I'm 26 and let's just say that he's been around for a while (at last count 50 years!) and I'm just getting used to some of the experiences he's had. And, after reading some of the responses to this thread, I don't doubt anything that he's told me!

 

He grew up in the "Deep South" where men were men and those that liked those hot, virile men were either 'Southern Belles' or fags. Well, he met me and I know that I love him and I know that he loves me - no ifs, ands or buts!

 

I've rambled enough, but what I wanted to say is that what is wrong with those of you that want to denigrate those of us that want to have the right and priviledge of saying "I do" and have it mean the same thing that a heterosexual couple feels instead of just being able to wish it meant the same thing - in the eyes of those who are watching and in the eyes of God.

 

I've already said too much and I'll probably wish I hadn't said anything but some of these responses have hurt me so badly and made me feel even worse - I now know NOT to use his screename again but I just couldn't sit back and let some of you tell me that I'm not (or

Bill's not) worthly of being married to the one I/we love.

 

I really hope that those of you who are so anti-gay marriage will soon be able to look inside of yourself and see that you, too, are no less a person because you're gay and that EQUAL RIGHTS for all is not something that hurts anyone except the bigots (and those who want to emulate their beliefs).

 

OK, now I'm going to cuddle up to the one I love and hope he never realizes that I went snooping, but always has the courage that he has now to always proudly say that he loves me no matter what the circumstances or who he says this to! . :-)

 

Bivins

[Rick Munroe]

>The big deal is

>getting equal rights to the Supremes.

 

That'll never happen as long as Miss Ross is alive. I mean, did you see Motown 25? Mary tried to stand next to Diane and sing just as loudly, but Miss Ross shoved her right out of the way. Equal rights will never come to the Supremes. Give it up, Barry.

[Guest zipperzone]

Why don't you just join and start posting?

[ariadne1880]

Once again, resorting to the personal attack. This is why people of your "ilk" will never be accepted by general society.

[ariadne1880]

The "positive" actions you are taking? Boycotting, protesting, calling your opponents names, demonizing them, harassing them, getting them fired from their jobs, abriding their speech rights.

 

Those are "positive" actions? Boy, you live in one twisted world, man!

[ariadne1880]

What you and others seem to not get -- and I now realize never will -- is that you don't even consider the opinions of the 52% of those who didn't vote your way to be valid.

 

You are denigrating those people in a far more vicious and hate-filled way than they are you. But you don't see that.

 

There are valid opinions and arguments on both sides. But, from where I sit right now, I see all the hate and vilification coming from "my side" and that saddens me.

 

Equating this with "civil rights" and "Bull Conner" in the South is just plain ridiculous because in California we already have the same rights. It's just not called marriage.

 

This is a fight over one simple word. And that is so silly, except it is so sad.

[+ David-SF]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Rick Munroe]

>What you and others seem to not get -- and I now realize

>never will --

 

Cool....so now that you realize that, it means you're going to stop posting about it, right? (Wrong, because trolls always get fed. Oh, well.)

[Guest TBinCHI]

>LOL I don't see Rick Munroe being recognized anywhere as the

>"Leader of the Gays," so I'm not sure what your

>point is. Also, I've been in a long-term committed

>relationship for 21 years. You want to talk about my

>relationship, so let me ask you: what's the longest

>relationship you've had? Also, do you seriously think that

>every heterosexual marriage is completely monogamous? Should

>the government terminate their marriages if they're not? I

>don't see anywhere where it states that marriage must be a

>monogamous arrangement. Does the couple also have to eat each

>meal together, use the toilet together, sleep in the same bed

>together every night, etc.? Or does your marriage rule only

>deal with a sex act? If you think the basis or most important

>aspect of a marriage is sex, then perhaps that might be why

>you haven't had a successful one. A marriage based on love,

>friendship, trust, honesty and humor can last forever. A

>marriage based on sex...well, let's ask Britney how that works

>out.

 

 

A-fucking-men, Rick! And I mean that both figuratively and literally. Incredibly well said.

>>I'm just old

>>school I view marriage in the traditional sense

>regardless if

>>its str8 or gays doing it.

>

>That's fine for you. You've also stated that you would become

>straight if possible because gay people can't have stable,

>long-term happy relationships.

>

[AdamSmith]

>Bingo! Article IV Some have brought up the fact that

>California's domestic partner law already provides for the

>rights of marriage so what's the big deal. The big deal is

>getting equal rights to the Supremes. Marriage in Mass. won't

>carry enough clout. Get a few high population states in the

>game and a State with a man/woman only amendment refusing to

>recognise a man/man legal marriage. Then the foundation is

>set for a case going up the chain under "Full faith and

>credit". I don't think the equal rights argument will

>win on the federal level at this point in time.

 

Opinion seems to be growing that DOMA can eventually be battered down by twin challenges, one on full-faith-and-credit grounds and the other on due-process basis.

 

One version of the due-process argument: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20080709_sanders.html

 

Another fascinating set of arguments here, even though this predates the Massachusetts SJC decision -- and is made by an opponent of same-sex marriage. In particular it makes the case for a startling amount of hope for same-sex marriage stemming from the Supremes' Lawrence decision: http://www.hrc.org/issues/5475.htm