URGENT: they're voting on the marriage amendment!

[Rick Munroe]

Moderators: please don't relegate this to the "Politics" forum. It's really too important.

 

This is the email I just received from the Human Rights Campaign:

 

We just learned that an actual vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment has been scheduled in the United States Senate just three weeks from now. You and so many others have been great. But it is time to turn up the heat - click here to contact your Senators right now - even if you have already done so: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/senate_oppose_fma/step1.tcl

 

We must win this vote and win it big. Members of Congress tell us they're hearing from the other side by a 10 to 1 margin right now. That's why your action today is so critical.

 

During the next few weeks, we intend to get 250,000 people to oppose the Constitutional amendment. That's right: 250,000. We need new people - but we also need to you to repeat your opposition, even if you have done so dozens of times already. Even if your legislator already opposes the Amendment. Persistence makes a difference. It tells our leaders that we will not stop, no matter what.

 

Click here http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/senate_oppose_fma/step1.tcl to voice your opposition to any discriminatory constitutional amendment. Again. And then - invite everyone you know to turn up the heat with us this summer and win this critical battle.

 

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

 

Thank you,

 

Seth Kilbourn and the activist team at

Human Rights Campaign.

 

P.S. Please visit our web site http://www.hrc.org/ to see our new video with Senator John Kerry and HRC President Cheryl A. Jacques.

[jaden]

*follows through*

 

Thanks for the links... ~

[Guest Mikel]

Thanks for the info, Rick. And thanks, moderator, for keeping this thread here.

[Will]

Thanks, Rick, for starting this thread. And thanks, moderators, for not delegating it to the Siberia of the politics forum.

 

I've clicked on the links provided by the HRC website and sent in my protests to two senators who are as likely to pay attention to my viewpoint as they are to endorse same-sex marriage itself, as my state seems to vote for Republicans. However, I think it's important for us all to speak up.

 

As I see it, there are two (at least) major issues here: (1) the right of adult citizens of the United States to share the legally sanctioned benefits extended to other adult citizens, including language describing the legal status of their relationship ("marriage" vs. "partnership" is a red herring of the separate-but-equal variety); and (2) bringing the ethical issue of equal justice for gay persons to the high moral level of the Constitution itself.

 

From what I can tell anecdotally, the nuttiness that has brought this issue to the Congress may in the long run work in our favor. It seems that very few Americans support the idea of a marriage amendment; and thrashing it out in the nation's capitol -- with defeat as the result -- might not be a bad thing.

 

Defeat, of course, is not guaranteed. And that's why everybody who reads this post should contact their representatives and senators asap.

[Paul Revere]

Rick;

 

From what I have read it doesn't look like this amendment has any chance of passing the Senate. They would need 67 votes to pass it in the Senate, and at least 58 Senators have already come out against it. Most reasonable Senators feel this is no reason to amend the Constitution.

 

The President and the conservative Republicans know that they have no chance of ever passing or enacting such an amendment.

 

The only reason that they are bringing the amendment to a vote is an attempt to force Kerry to vote against it, and try to paint him as gay-loving liberal from Massachusetts. Kerry will take the position that this is an issue to be decided by the states. (This is a kind of weak position, but I understand why he has to play it this way for now.)

 

Generally we do not amend the Constituion to deny people rights, but rather to insure rights. The only two times that we amended the Constituion to deny rights was to limit the President to two terms (denying only one person some rights, maybe), and Prohibition. And we know how that Prohibition thing came out.

[Flower]

"Paul,"

This issue is too important for such a "ho-hum" response--it's only purpose is to try and sound knowledgeable (by repeating stuff that's been written here and else where ad nausea since the specter of an amendment raised it's ugly head) and it's only effect is to cause others to be as "lackidaziacal" as yourself.

x(

 

Does this mean you didn't bother to take the 30 seconds it took to e-mail your congressman? That you think it's a waste of time? If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem pal and it sounds like you're content to sit back and let everyone else carry your gay banner--get off your "philosoph-izing" ass, step down from the soap box, and act.

[Paul Revere]

>

>Does this mean you didn't bother to take the 30 seconds it

>took to e-mail your congressman? That you think it's a waste

>of time? If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of

>the problem pal and it sounds like you're content to sit back

>and let everyone else carry your gay banner--get off your

>"philosoph-izing" ass, step down from the soap box, and act.

 

I know very well the positions of my Senators (Kennedy and Kerry) and my congressman (Capuano) who all are on record as opposed to the Amendment. I have already written to all of them on this issue. My mayor is also stongly opposed. My Govenor is a supporter of the amendment (Romney), and I have written to him, but hold little hope of converting his view. My State Senator led the fight for Gay Marriage in Massachusetts, and I attended a fund raiser for him last week, and have talked to and e-mailed him and supported him frequently during the fight in Massachsetts. I also demonstrated at the Massachusetts State House during the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention. This is the first time I have been in the streets protesting since the Viet Nam war, and it felt good.

 

It is wonderful to be a citizen of Massachusetts, where we have very strong support for gay marriage and many gay issues. Mayor Menino of Boston, made a point of performing gay weddings on the first day that they were legal. Our former Repblican Govenor, Bill Weld is in town today to officiate at a wedding of his former Revenue Commisioner and his partner.

 

I sometimes would like to spend more time in other states spreading the message. In Massachusetts it is not as much of an issue.

 

I did not intend to sound blase about the issue, its just that the anti-gay marriage amendment has absolutely no chance of ever getting passed in the current U.S. Senate. It is only being brought to a vote in an attempt by conservative to try to embarass certain Demopcratic and moderate Republican Senators. I don't think that those opposed to the amendment need to be embarassed, but it is a little political game that is being played with our civil rights.

[Bilbo]

Bravos to Rick and the moderators. May I suggest that everyone not only use the links to register his own disapproval, but also make a copy of this email and send it to five (not necessarily gay) friends who would be supportive to our side of this? And, remember, that can include arch conservatives who might oppose this on different grounds than ours, but might still oppose it.

[Rick Munroe]

It's disappointing to me that this thread, about something which should matter to all of us, has less hits than nearly every other thread here. I know that it's fun to read about some anonymous boy's 19th birthday or discuss Broadway shows or look at photos of naked twinks, but are there really so few of you who care that the Senate is trying to write discrimination against gay people into the Constitution?? Wake up, guys! Even if you're in the closet or never plan to marry a man, can't you see how urgent it is to make our voices heard?

 

Btw, thanks to those who posted above. Keep passing on the HRC link to friends and family...

[Will]

>Even if you're in the closet or never plan to

>marry a man, can't you see how urgent it is to make our voices

>heard?

 

In a word, No. I may not live long enough to figure out why gay men and lesbians are so far apart when it comes to political consciousness and activism. I have thought about it every way I know how, and I cannot avoid concluding that men (translate: ALL men, regardless of their sexual orientation) find it very difficult to believe that a sexual act is also a political act. Women, on the other hand, seem to have no trouble at all in grasping that reality, even intuitively.

 

As a man, I can understand that because I can locate the sentiment in myself.

 

As a GAY man, however, I don't understand why rational, responsible adults who, one assumes, have passed through the young-adult periods of intense narcissism cannot or will not assume the burden of *acting* politically about matters of sexual orientation, whether or not they *feel* like it.

 

Then there's the closet. It comes in all shapes and sizes. In the end, however, they're all the same because they're all coffins.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

*BUMP*

 

Very nice post Rick. Very nice indeed

 

 

Warmest Always,

 

 

Benjamin Nicholas

[Guest Mikel]

Let's keep this post at the top of the page for a little while. Too importantti let slide

[KY_TOP]

Rick, Thanks for the info and link. If we allow OUR Constitution to be changed to Limit or restrict,,,What is next? Limit freedom of the Press, Speech? Where does it stop with extremism?

 

This has the potential to really turn this country in a direction that is unbelievable!

 

I realize many will say well my Senator is a Republican and my message will mean nothing. Well he/she will be the same one to say none of his/her constituants oppose the Amendment. So let them know your position. Also Senators McCain and Snowe are Republican opponents of this amendment. From what I hear today they are believed to be 12 votes short of the needed 67 votes. There will be much pressure on some possible swing Senators. What if yours is one of those swing Senators? Let them know your position. This is much, much more than Gay Marriage at stake. This is a possible start of an attack on our basic Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Speak up...Give A Damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

BTW Both of my Senators are Republican and they BOTH have received my message.

[jaden]

>It's disappointing to me that this thread, about something

>which should matter to all of us, has less hits than nearly

>every other thread here. I know that it's fun to read about

>some anonymous boy's 19th birthday or discuss Broadway shows

>or look at photos of naked twinks, but are there really so few

>of you who care that the Senate is trying to write

>discrimination against gay people into the Constitution??

>Wake up, guys! Even if you're in the closet or never plan to

>marry a man, can't you see how urgent it is to make our voices

>heard?

>

>Btw, thanks to those who posted above. Keep passing on the

>HRC link to friends and family...

 

some-Anonymous-soon-to-be-19-year-old is all about it =)

[+ Oliver]

Having worked in government for many years, I know that when senators and representatives hear from their constituents, they listen. And contrary to popular belief, there really are many who actually do listen. Many have told me that if they only hear from one side of a question, they assume that that must be the prevailing sentiment. It may not change their stance, especially if they have a strong conviction on the matter. But if they don’t hear anything from the other side, it makes it too easy. One must TELL them!

 

And as I’m in the same state as Will (Ohio), my two Republican senators have heard from me. It may not change their minds, but I have TOLD them. The proposed amendment has no place in the Constitution.

 

Oliver

[jaden]

>Rick, Thanks for the info and link. If we allow OUR

>Constitution to be changed to Limit or restrict,,,What is

>next? Limit freedom of the Press, Speech? Where does it stop

>with extremism?

>

 

 

Department of Marriage Security sounds like a whole lot of quality, amusement park, family fun...

 

 

 

 

*I think I got like 100+ (Wishful thinking maybe?) of my friends to follow through for me*

All my girls want to be my bridesmaid..errr best man... at my wedding. aww... lol ~

[tedbear]

I sent mine in as soon as the HRC email hit my mailbox. Notice when your following the onscreen instructions to send your senators your message, you can also forward the news onto anyone whose email address you have. Send it to every gay person you know as well as everyone who has enough brains to realized that allowing any amendment that limits an individual rights is a first step against the Freedom all Americans stand for.

 

P.S. Thanks Rick & Moderators.

[Guest rohale]

I hardly think this marriage will amendment will ever become constitutional. Even if the Senate passes this amendment bill and lets say for supposition sake that the House Of Representatives passes this bill as well. President George W. Bush will indicate his support for the measure to strengthen his christian coalition base and especially in the southern states. There is one aspect that everybody seems to be overlooking. The constitutional scholars will have a say in this and for the most part this amendment bill will get tied up in the judicial process for years to come. Someone out there will say that the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch cannot ratify a bill without the consent of the Judicial Branch. From there there will be a bunch of lawyers arguing both sides of the issue. Everytime a court makes a decision, the opposing team will appeal to a higher court. At the end of the day, the Supreme Court may be the ones ultimately deciding whether this marriage amendment is unconstitutional or not. In the meantime this bill has a long way to go before it becomes the law of the land.

 

Rohale

[jaden]

>I hardly think this marriage will amendment will ever become

>constitutional. Even if the Senate passes this amendment bill

>and lets say for supposition sake that the House Of

>Representatives passes this bill as well. President George W.

>Bush will indicate his support for the measure to strengthen

>his christian coalition base and especially in the southern

>states. There is one aspect that everybody seems to be

>overlooking. The constitutional scholars will have a say in

>this and for the most part this amendment bill will get tied

>up in the judicial process for years to come. Someone out

>there will say that the Legislative Branch and the Executive

>Branch cannot ratify a bill without the consent of the

>Judicial Branch. From there there will be a bunch of lawyers

>arguing both sides of the issue. Everytime a court makes a

>decision, the opposing team will appeal to a higher court. At

>the end of the day, the Supreme Court may be the ones

>ultimately deciding whether this marriage amendment is

>unconstitutional or not. In the meantime this bill has a long

>way to go before it becomes the law of the land.

>

>Rohale

 

It makes me uneasy to know it was even considered

Ashamed even.

 

*Starts writing his book, 1,000,000,001 reasons why I hate politics*

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>It's disappointing to me that this thread, about something

>which should matter to all of us, has less hits than nearly

>every other thread here. I know that it's fun to read about

>some anonymous boy's 19th birthday or discuss Broadway shows

>or look at photos of naked twinks, but are there really so few

>of you who care that the Senate is trying to write

>discrimination against gay people into the Constitution??

>Wake up, guys! Even if you're in the closet or never plan to

>marry a man, can't you see how urgent it is to make our voices

>heard?

 

Sigh. De Kooning* was so right about the most sincere flatterers. They never fail to imitate the part you most hate about your own work. Well, for what it's worth, Rick, I'm touched, and for that I apologize.

 

>Btw, thanks to those who posted above. Keep passing on the

>HRC link to friends and family...

 

And if that doesn't work, I could always come out in SUPPORT of the ammendment on my site. Or, if you're afraid to take a chance on someone just this once doing what I tell them to, you could get someone who hasn't been tarnished by the stigma of cognition to paste your message into a thread entitled "Hot Pics of Huge Uncut Cocks!" Desperate times, desperate measures and all that. See if you can't make social concern sound a little more like care-free denial. And don't try starting a scandal about me like those illiterate retarded prostitutes (a sugar-coated euphemism for lawyers) always try. Scandals about me get even fewer hits in this place than threads I start.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I've got more visitors than I can afford at my new site -- the bandwidth is cutting into my gas fund. But because I'm encouraging lots of participation, guess what they're all doing?

 

They're staring at the screen, dazed and confused. They think they've found the PERFECT place to rest their weary, weary fingers, and to let their brains shut down. Forever.

 

It's my fault, Rick. I stumbled upon the most ruthlessly efficient way to kill thought and inquiry.

 

I suggested that it might be a good idea. Whoopsie!

 

*De Kooning will always be remembered for his big, thick, veiny cock. He also was rumored to paint, but no one could possibly care about something so irresponsible, evil, immoral, and insignificant. Except a (shriek) PROSTITUTE!

 

Get set for the shocking revelation that I spread disease by refusing to have sex and am callously getting rich by not making money, yadda yadda yadda. Better just let this thread die and start another one that makes the marriage ban seem like a plot by Zionist bottom boys to ruin the "magic" of the illusion that shit never comes out of asses, which exist only for the convenience and pleasure of "well-hung" tops (i.e., costume designers who love the "magic" of the illusion that they practice law). Then start another one that makes the marriage ban seem like a plot to force circumcision on all Brazilians, and another one that suggests the marriage ban might give twinks zits AND wrinkles AND minds of their own, and so on. Frankly, I just don't see the connection.

 

And you know what THAT means.

[Guest ReturnOfS]

How are things doing in the Massachusetts legislature in terms of getting rid of the ancient racist law that Gov. Romney is using to not allow out-of-state same-sex couples to marry, by the way?

[Guest ReturnOfS]

How are things doing in the Massachusetts legislature in terms of getting rid of the ancient racist law that Gov. Romney is using to not allow out-of-state same-sex couples to marry, by the way?

[WEST COASTER]

Rick, My sincere thanks for your posting. I have let my senators know how I feel. Let us all hope that many more of us will get the word to our representatives.

It disturbs me that more people have not responded to your post but then maybe they have and have soimply not let you know.

[WEST COASTER]

Rick, My sincere thanks for your posting. I have let my senators know how I feel. Let us all hope that many more of us will get the word to our representatives.

It disturbs me that more people have not responded to your post but then maybe they have and have soimply not let you know.

[AdamSmith]

>How are things doing in the Massachusetts legislature in

>terms of getting rid of the ancient racist law that Gov.

>Romney is using to not allow out-of-state same-sex couples to

>marry, by the way?

 

Two lawsuits were filed on June 17 challenging the constitutionality of the law as Romney is applying it to gay and lesbian couples. One was filed by 12 MA cities and towns, the other by GLAD on behalf of eight out-of-state couples. Awaiting further developments.

 

http://www.glad.org/marriage/