Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, November 10, 2009
Homo / News Meanwhile in Rhode Island
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Remember how the enemies of marriage equality ran around Maine saying they didn't oppose all protections for same-sex couples—like domestic partnerships—they just wanted to protect the traditional definition of marriage from the homos? The state legislature in Rhode Island passed a bill that would've allowed domestic partners to make funeral arrangements for each other should one partner predecease the other. The Republican governor of Rhode Island—Donald Carcieri—vetoed that bill today.
In his veto message, Republican Carcieri said: "This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue. "If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide.''
Only the rights of same-sex couples are subject to the whims of a bigoted electorate. Other reasons the governor gave for vetoing the bill: he didn't want some gay "partner'' to take precedence over "traditional family members" when it came to burial decisions (like the decision to bar your deceased son's male partner from the funeral), and he believed the "one year time period [for establishing a domestic partnership was] not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals." Says Joe...
Meanwhile, heterosexual couples that have known each other for ten minutes will instantly gain that right upon marriage.
1
Democrats to LGBT Community: Want equal rights? Support murdering Iraqis and Afghanis!
FUCK BARACK OBAMA, FUCK BARNEY FRANK, FUCK THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
www.washblade.com/thelatest?blog_id=2802…;
'Don't Ask' repeal likely part of 2011 defense budget bill
Action expected soon on ENDA, federal DP benefits
By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade | Rebecca Armendariz | Nov 10, 2:53 PM
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank says action on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the Employment Non-Discrimination act and a bill providing partner benefits to LGBT federal employees could come in the months ahead. (Photo by AP)
The effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will likely come next year as an amendment to the Defense Department spending bill, rather than through a standalone bill, according to gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
Frank said in an interview with the Blade that repealing the 1993 law barring gays from serving openly in the military would happen as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.
“The House will take up and the Senate will take up ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” he said. “That will again, like hate crimes, even more so, will have to be done, I believe, in the context of the defense authorization. You can’t do the standalone bill. It belongs in the defense authorization.”
Frank said lawmakers would seek to amend the defense measure to include a provision repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Such a move would mimic the way Congress recently enacted the hate crimes measure.
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) is the sponsor of the standalone version of legislation in the House that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” No such legislation exists in the Senate, although Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he’s in talks with the Obama administration on the issue.
Asked about Frank’s prediction for the repeal strategy, Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said her organization “always takes its cues from its congressional allies.”
“They’re the ones that write the legislation and obviously [the defense authorization] would be a great bill to have repeal be a part of,” she said. “That’s where it should be.”
David Stacy, HRC’s senior public policy advocate, noted that Congress enacted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993 as part of a defense authorization bill, so repealing the law via the same vehicle would mirror the process.
But Kevin Nix, spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said while passing a repeal as part of the defense authorization bill is a possibility, his organization is still “looking at all options,” including a standalone bill.
Nix also said SLDN is urging President Obama to include repeal as part of his defense budget request, which is expected to be delivered to Congress early next year.
Whether or not Congress will take up the proposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal next year was recently brought into question by comments Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate assistant majority leader, reportedly made to The Hill newspaper.
In a Nov. 4 article, Durbin was indirectly quoted as saying he wasn’t certain whether repeal would be on next year’s agenda. A Senate Democratic aide clarified for the Blade on the condition of anonymity that Durbin was referring to the legislative calendar as a whole, noting that it’s too early to determine whether any particular bill will be on the agenda.
But Frank said it was a “terrible mistake” for Durbin to suggest that overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” wouldn’t happen next year. Frank is among the supporters who have asserted Congress would take up repeal in 2010.
“I think that’s a terrible mistake for him to say that and I believe that it will be a great injustice to wait any longer,” Frank said. “I don’t think he has that option.”
Nix said he was surprised Durbin made the comments — particularly because the lawmaker is the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.
“The signals we are getting is that [a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal] will be and can be passed in 2010,” Nix said.
Progress on ENDA, DP benefits expected
Action on other pro-LGBT legislation seems more imminent. Frank said Congress could advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and a bill providing partner benefits to LGBT federal employees in the near future.
And the prospects for passing the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, he said, are the most promising.
“That one I’m the most confident is going to become law because I think you have Senate support for it — enough to get to the 60” votes needed to overcome a filibuster, Frank said.
Lieberman is sponsor of the Senate version of the legislation while Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the only out lesbian in Congress, is sponsoring the House version of the bill. Baldwin was recently quoted in The Hill as saying she “absolutely” believes there are enough votes to pass the bill in the House.
Frank, who’s sponsoring ENDA in the House, said the bill is “in very good shape” and predicted the House Education & Labor Committee would mark up ENDA before year’s end. He noted that a House floor vote is expected to occur no later than February.
“So I say,” Frank said, “the schedule is the federal domestic partner benefits anytime in the next few months, ENDA out of the House in December or in February with the Senate voting in the spring, [and] ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ part of the military authorization, which means into the summer.”
Herwitt, however, said HRC remains hopeful that a House vote on ENDA could take place before year’s end, and that House and Senate committee markups for the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act could also happen by that time.
Still, Frank said there’s a question of whether advocates can find 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster on ENDA and the proposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“The critical question is, given the Republicans getting worse and worse on LGBT issues, whether we’ll get any Republicans voting,” he said. “I assume we would have safe senators — [Sen. Olympia] Snowe and [Sen. Susan] Collins, maybe [Sen. George] Voinovich or one or two others — but that’s the key.”
Herwitt also said the Senate is “always a challenge for every issue, so we have work to do before us.”
Less certainty for other pro-gay bills
Other bills are pending in Congress, although the prospects for those proposals becoming law this congressional session are less certain.
Advocates are hoping lawmakers will include as part of comprehensive immigration reform a provision enabling gay Americans to sponsor foreign partners for residency. Such a provision would be similar to standalone legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said his organization is pushing for inclusion of the provision in immigration reform legislation that Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are expected to introduce later this year.
“They are still operating on a timeline of introduction around the end of the year,” Ralls said. “All indications that we have so far is that it’s probably late December, early January in terms of introduction of an actual bill.”
Ralls said Immigration Equality is “certainly still hopeful” that UAFA-like provisions would be part of these comprehensive bills.
“It’s a long road on a legislative timeline between now and introduction,” Ralls said. “But we’re in touch with all three of those offices and our hope is that they will all be inclusive.”
Herwitt said HRC also is hopeful that a UAFA-like provision would become part of immigration reform, but she couldn’t speak to “whether or not immigration reform in and of itself will move this session.”
Also pending before Congress is the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill introduced in September by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The House bill currently has 104 co-sponsors; no Senate version has been introduced.
John Doty, a Nadler spokesperson, said supporters are trying to add co-sponsors for the legislation, noting lawmakers would probably act on other LGBT legislation before the Respect for Marriage Act.
“I think there’s three or four gay rights bills that are cued up,” he said. “The Respect for Marriage Act is a little bit further down that list. It hasn’t been talked about as long or debated as long … as the other bills.”
While the Respect for Marriage Act may be less established than other LGBT-related bills, Herwitt said many are hoping for hearings on the proposal this congressional session.
But Doty said no hearing or markup has been scheduled. A Senate companion also has not yet been introduced, but advocates say they’ve been working with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) on the issue.
Frank is not a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act and said he’s not optimistic about the bill’s chances because “marriage is the toughest of these issues.”
“That’s why I do not see any chance of any success on marriage in the Congress this year,” he said. “Neither does anyone else, by the way, no matter what people pretend to make people feel better. But that’s why we’re focusing on these other issues.”
Another bill introduced last month by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) would restrict federal funds for states that have restrictions on adoption based on sexual orientation, gender identity and marital status. The bill was introduced with no original co-sponsors, but 12 lawmakers have since signed on in support.
Frank said he intends to sign on as a co-sponsor to the legislation, but was not optimistic about the bill’s chances in this Congress.
“Even people from certain states who don’t agree with that policy will be reluctant to vote to deny money to their states,” he said. “Plus, you have Republican opposition in general. Remember, the Republicans are now almost monolithically against us.”
Herwitt said HRC supports the adoption of anti-discrimination legislation and “will do whatever we need to do to help move the bill forward,” but having additional support from child welfare groups would bolster the bill’s chances.
“I think this bill needs to be seen and viewed positively, most importantly, by the child welfare professionals and have the support of the leading child welfare and children’s rights organizations,” she said.
Advocates also are trying to make foreign policy provisions related to LGBT issues into law as part of a foreign relations spending bill.
The House in June passed a version of the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 foreign affairs authorization bill inclusive of such provisions. The language would, among other things, instruct the State Department to advocate for repealing laws that criminalize homosexuality abroad and improve reporting on human rights abuses against LGBT people overseas.
Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, is leading efforts to convince Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to include these provisions in his markup for the Senate’s fiscal year 2010 and 2011 foreign affairs authorization bill. A Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the legislation would be introduced this calendar year.
Still, Bromley wasn’t optimistic that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would push through the State Department funding bill this year.
“We’ve been hopeful that it would be introduced before the end of the year, but there’s been such a backlog with needing to get through lots of confirmations and an increased focus on foreign assistance reform that we’re just really beginning to wonder [if] there would be time to get it through,” he said.
Bromley said it would be “great news” if the committee acted on the legislation, but noted concerns remain over whether “there’s space in the committee agenda to actually get it through this year.”
© 2009 The Washington Blade | A Window Media Publication
More...
FUCK BARACK OBAMA, FUCK BARNEY FRANK, FUCK THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
www.washblade.com/thelatest?blog_id=2802…;
'Don't Ask' repeal likely part of 2011 defense budget bill
Action expected soon on ENDA, federal DP benefits
By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade | Rebecca Armendariz | Nov 10, 2:53 PM
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank says action on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the Employment Non-Discrimination act and a bill providing partner benefits to LGBT federal employees could come in the months ahead. (Photo by AP)
The effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will likely come next year as an amendment to the Defense Department spending bill, rather than through a standalone bill, according to gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
Frank said in an interview with the Blade that repealing the 1993 law barring gays from serving openly in the military would happen as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.
“The House will take up and the Senate will take up ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” he said. “That will again, like hate crimes, even more so, will have to be done, I believe, in the context of the defense authorization. You can’t do the standalone bill. It belongs in the defense authorization.”
Frank said lawmakers would seek to amend the defense measure to include a provision repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Such a move would mimic the way Congress recently enacted the hate crimes measure.
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) is the sponsor of the standalone version of legislation in the House that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” No such legislation exists in the Senate, although Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he’s in talks with the Obama administration on the issue.
Asked about Frank’s prediction for the repeal strategy, Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said her organization “always takes its cues from its congressional allies.”
“They’re the ones that write the legislation and obviously [the defense authorization] would be a great bill to have repeal be a part of,” she said. “That’s where it should be.”
David Stacy, HRC’s senior public policy advocate, noted that Congress enacted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993 as part of a defense authorization bill, so repealing the law via the same vehicle would mirror the process.
But Kevin Nix, spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said while passing a repeal as part of the defense authorization bill is a possibility, his organization is still “looking at all options,” including a standalone bill.
Nix also said SLDN is urging President Obama to include repeal as part of his defense budget request, which is expected to be delivered to Congress early next year.
Whether or not Congress will take up the proposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal next year was recently brought into question by comments Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate assistant majority leader, reportedly made to The Hill newspaper.
In a Nov. 4 article, Durbin was indirectly quoted as saying he wasn’t certain whether repeal would be on next year’s agenda. A Senate Democratic aide clarified for the Blade on the condition of anonymity that Durbin was referring to the legislative calendar as a whole, noting that it’s too early to determine whether any particular bill will be on the agenda.
But Frank said it was a “terrible mistake” for Durbin to suggest that overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” wouldn’t happen next year. Frank is among the supporters who have asserted Congress would take up repeal in 2010.
“I think that’s a terrible mistake for him to say that and I believe that it will be a great injustice to wait any longer,” Frank said. “I don’t think he has that option.”
Nix said he was surprised Durbin made the comments — particularly because the lawmaker is the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.
“The signals we are getting is that [a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal] will be and can be passed in 2010,” Nix said.
Progress on ENDA, DP benefits expected
Action on other pro-LGBT legislation seems more imminent. Frank said Congress could advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and a bill providing partner benefits to LGBT federal employees in the near future.
And the prospects for passing the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, he said, are the most promising.
“That one I’m the most confident is going to become law because I think you have Senate support for it — enough to get to the 60” votes needed to overcome a filibuster, Frank said.
Lieberman is sponsor of the Senate version of the legislation while Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the only out lesbian in Congress, is sponsoring the House version of the bill. Baldwin was recently quoted in The Hill as saying she “absolutely” believes there are enough votes to pass the bill in the House.
Frank, who’s sponsoring ENDA in the House, said the bill is “in very good shape” and predicted the House Education & Labor Committee would mark up ENDA before year’s end. He noted that a House floor vote is expected to occur no later than February.
“So I say,” Frank said, “the schedule is the federal domestic partner benefits anytime in the next few months, ENDA out of the House in December or in February with the Senate voting in the spring, [and] ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ part of the military authorization, which means into the summer.”
Herwitt, however, said HRC remains hopeful that a House vote on ENDA could take place before year’s end, and that House and Senate committee markups for the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act could also happen by that time.
Still, Frank said there’s a question of whether advocates can find 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster on ENDA and the proposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“The critical question is, given the Republicans getting worse and worse on LGBT issues, whether we’ll get any Republicans voting,” he said. “I assume we would have safe senators — [Sen. Olympia] Snowe and [Sen. Susan] Collins, maybe [Sen. George] Voinovich or one or two others — but that’s the key.”
Herwitt also said the Senate is “always a challenge for every issue, so we have work to do before us.”
Less certainty for other pro-gay bills
Other bills are pending in Congress, although the prospects for those proposals becoming law this congressional session are less certain.
Advocates are hoping lawmakers will include as part of comprehensive immigration reform a provision enabling gay Americans to sponsor foreign partners for residency. Such a provision would be similar to standalone legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said his organization is pushing for inclusion of the provision in immigration reform legislation that Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are expected to introduce later this year.
“They are still operating on a timeline of introduction around the end of the year,” Ralls said. “All indications that we have so far is that it’s probably late December, early January in terms of introduction of an actual bill.”
Ralls said Immigration Equality is “certainly still hopeful” that UAFA-like provisions would be part of these comprehensive bills.
“It’s a long road on a legislative timeline between now and introduction,” Ralls said. “But we’re in touch with all three of those offices and our hope is that they will all be inclusive.”
Herwitt said HRC also is hopeful that a UAFA-like provision would become part of immigration reform, but she couldn’t speak to “whether or not immigration reform in and of itself will move this session.”
Also pending before Congress is the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill introduced in September by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The House bill currently has 104 co-sponsors; no Senate version has been introduced.
John Doty, a Nadler spokesperson, said supporters are trying to add co-sponsors for the legislation, noting lawmakers would probably act on other LGBT legislation before the Respect for Marriage Act.
“I think there’s three or four gay rights bills that are cued up,” he said. “The Respect for Marriage Act is a little bit further down that list. It hasn’t been talked about as long or debated as long … as the other bills.”
While the Respect for Marriage Act may be less established than other LGBT-related bills, Herwitt said many are hoping for hearings on the proposal this congressional session.
But Doty said no hearing or markup has been scheduled. A Senate companion also has not yet been introduced, but advocates say they’ve been working with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) on the issue.
Frank is not a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act and said he’s not optimistic about the bill’s chances because “marriage is the toughest of these issues.”
“That’s why I do not see any chance of any success on marriage in the Congress this year,” he said. “Neither does anyone else, by the way, no matter what people pretend to make people feel better. But that’s why we’re focusing on these other issues.”
Another bill introduced last month by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) would restrict federal funds for states that have restrictions on adoption based on sexual orientation, gender identity and marital status. The bill was introduced with no original co-sponsors, but 12 lawmakers have since signed on in support.
Frank said he intends to sign on as a co-sponsor to the legislation, but was not optimistic about the bill’s chances in this Congress.
“Even people from certain states who don’t agree with that policy will be reluctant to vote to deny money to their states,” he said. “Plus, you have Republican opposition in general. Remember, the Republicans are now almost monolithically against us.”
Herwitt said HRC supports the adoption of anti-discrimination legislation and “will do whatever we need to do to help move the bill forward,” but having additional support from child welfare groups would bolster the bill’s chances.
“I think this bill needs to be seen and viewed positively, most importantly, by the child welfare professionals and have the support of the leading child welfare and children’s rights organizations,” she said.
Advocates also are trying to make foreign policy provisions related to LGBT issues into law as part of a foreign relations spending bill.
The House in June passed a version of the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 foreign affairs authorization bill inclusive of such provisions. The language would, among other things, instruct the State Department to advocate for repealing laws that criminalize homosexuality abroad and improve reporting on human rights abuses against LGBT people overseas.
Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, is leading efforts to convince Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to include these provisions in his markup for the Senate’s fiscal year 2010 and 2011 foreign affairs authorization bill. A Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the legislation would be introduced this calendar year.
Still, Bromley wasn’t optimistic that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would push through the State Department funding bill this year.
“We’ve been hopeful that it would be introduced before the end of the year, but there’s been such a backlog with needing to get through lots of confirmations and an increased focus on foreign assistance reform that we’re just really beginning to wonder [if] there would be time to get it through,” he said.
Bromley said it would be “great news” if the committee acted on the legislation, but noted concerns remain over whether “there’s space in the committee agenda to actually get it through this year.”
© 2009 The Washington Blade | A Window Media Publication
3
I always knew the "just don't call it marriage" line was a crock of shit. This isn't about anything but discriminating against gay people.
4
Do reporters EVER ask effective follow-up questions of douchebags like this? I'm not so shocked that the right wingers have these views, but that they are allowed to sail along without having to offend them to their constituencies.
6
Oh, hey, but we'd better not call it "bigotry" or the bigots will get all offended and take our rights away. We're supposed to be all smart-n-shit in our tactical dealings with the bigots. Oh, shit, I mean the well-intentioned people who only need us to convince them that we're worthy of equal citizenship under the law. It's our fault they do this shit. If only we were tactically smart this wouldn't happen. If only we'd stop calling bigotry by its true name.
7
My closed "bitter sarcasm" tag got gobbled. Figured I should point that out since a lot of slog commenters seem to be irony challenged.
8
I really want a reporter to ask one of these bigoted douchebags, considering the fact that voters approved domestic partnerships in Washington, does this mean that (1) God wants gays to have domestic partnerships, (2) God lost, or (3) there is no God.
9
@1: The RI Gov is a Republican. He agrees with you on the fuck all Dems point.
For what it's worth the RI legislature voted 63-1 in favor of the legislation.
For what it's worth the RI legislature voted 63-1 in favor of the legislation.
10
Dan, the electorate is not bigoted. You only know a teeny tiny fraction of the electorate and do not know the thoughts of their hearts and do not have enough information to draw such a conclusion.
In fact, to do so is bigoted.
In fact, to do so is bigoted.
12
Carcieri is a douche. What is even odder about the whole thing is that Providence which for all intents and purposes is Rhode Island since the state is so tiny has an openly gay mayor.
13
Dan, I'm dying to know what you think of the recent "South Park" episode devoted to turning the meaning of the word "fag" on its head. The New York Times published several posts about this in its Arts Beat blog. Here are the main ones:
http://tinyurl.com/South-Park-Angers-GLA…
http://tinyurl.com/Comedy-Central-Rebutt…
What do you think of the episode and how the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation responded to it?
Thanks for all that you do in support of gay rights.
http://tinyurl.com/South-Park-Angers-GLA…
http://tinyurl.com/Comedy-Central-Rebutt…
What do you think of the episode and how the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation responded to it?
Thanks for all that you do in support of gay rights.
14
This is the sort of thing that you end up harvesting when actively seek to harm people like Ms. Prejean and anyone wants to protect traditional marriage. Constitutional amendments are probably what's to come next even in the most liberal of states, the people are not blind and no exactly what the end game is behind all these subtle bills.
16
This is why I laugh when people (Dan included) who don't know Rhode Island all that well say things like "well, gay marriage should be a piece of cake there - it's in New England, right?" Well, yes and no, but it has a very different dynamic going on than most of its neighboring states.
17
@13, Comedy Central says:
>>“South Park” is famous for tackling controversial subject matter in thoughtful and hilarious ways.
Yeah, right, like the casual use of "gay" as an all-purpose put down throughout most episodes, as a whole episode dedicated to calling transgendered people "mutilated freaks" on par with people attempting, through surgery, to become more like dolphins.
The Parker/Stone duo (heavy GOP supporters) stopped being funny after "Bigger, Longer and Uncut," which admittedly is one of the funniest movies ever.
"Tackling controversial subject matter?" No, they're just marginally intelligent, Libertarian homophobes. Like everyone else, they are given free license to thinly disguise their homophobia with "humor."
>>“South Park” is famous for tackling controversial subject matter in thoughtful and hilarious ways.
Yeah, right, like the casual use of "gay" as an all-purpose put down throughout most episodes, as a whole episode dedicated to calling transgendered people "mutilated freaks" on par with people attempting, through surgery, to become more like dolphins.
The Parker/Stone duo (heavy GOP supporters) stopped being funny after "Bigger, Longer and Uncut," which admittedly is one of the funniest movies ever.
"Tackling controversial subject matter?" No, they're just marginally intelligent, Libertarian homophobes. Like everyone else, they are given free license to thinly disguise their homophobia with "humor."
19
@14:
...harm?
What's the harm of making sure someone gets the burial they actually want?!
Say we have domestic partners Bill and Ted, Ted had a strict Mormon family, but Ted converted to Judaism. Bill knows Ted's family will give him a Mormon burial when he'd rather be buried in the customs of his new religion.
Oh right, they're gay, and Ted's Jew - who cares.
...harm?
What's the harm of making sure someone gets the burial they actually want?!
Say we have domestic partners Bill and Ted, Ted had a strict Mormon family, but Ted converted to Judaism. Bill knows Ted's family will give him a Mormon burial when he'd rather be buried in the customs of his new religion.
Oh right, they're gay, and Ted's Jew - who cares.
20
Lovesdick is the quintessential example of the bigot who does not know she is a bigot. She will claim to support equal rights for gay partners, but will advocate voting against any attempted legislation granting equal rights using a "slippery slope to marriage" argument.
Therefore, we are supposed to accept that she "believes" in equal rights in principle, even though she actively opposes equal rights in every practical, measurable behavior.
It's utterly insane. It's maddening that her idiocy is allowed to impose all its consequences on my family, and none on hers.
Fucking bitch.
Therefore, we are supposed to accept that she "believes" in equal rights in principle, even though she actively opposes equal rights in every practical, measurable behavior.
It's utterly insane. It's maddening that her idiocy is allowed to impose all its consequences on my family, and none on hers.
Fucking bitch.
21
You can keep calling the people homophobes or bigots till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that the people of Rhode Island as those of NY where the next storm is brewing as we speak are no different than those in ME or in any other state. They have the same Constitutional right to exercise their right to vote, because the vote is the only medium that they've got to take an active role in our democracy. A democracy made by the people and for the people, not for interest groups. And as the governor of RI has rightly said that bill was representative of a disturbing trend, a tend that the people have time and time again rejected.
22
I've been sorta quiet since last week wore me out, and I ended it being somewhat civil to Loveschild.
But, I just felt that itch today...and, what the heck.
Fuck you Hateful Bigot. You're really nothing but a piece of dogshit as are all your bigoted brethren. We'll win where it counts, in court. And silence you fuckfaces once and for all.
WE the people. Not YOU the people.
Fuck you douchebag.
But, I just felt that itch today...and, what the heck.
Fuck you Hateful Bigot. You're really nothing but a piece of dogshit as are all your bigoted brethren. We'll win where it counts, in court. And silence you fuckfaces once and for all.
WE the people. Not YOU the people.
Fuck you douchebag.
23
@Hateschild -- You keep talking about letting the people have their say, but when they do have their say and you don't like the outcome, like with Washington Ref. 71, you whine about that, too. What are you going to say when people start voting outright in favor of gay marriage? It will happen, you know. It won't be tomorrow, and it may not be for another 10 years or maybe even more, but demographics don't lie:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
24
Hey Hateful Piece of Crap.
You know how most folks take an active voice in their democracy?
They participate in elections to elect people who are most representative of their views.
It's YOU BIGOTS who then use gays as a popularity contest (we're just not that popular, who knew...) and then trample all over the elected officials with your 'democracy'.
And hopefully, this piece of crap governor will be ousted in the next election.
Fuck you hateful bigoted homophobe. COURTS. We'll see you in fucking court.
You know how most folks take an active voice in their democracy?
They participate in elections to elect people who are most representative of their views.
It's YOU BIGOTS who then use gays as a popularity contest (we're just not that popular, who knew...) and then trample all over the elected officials with your 'democracy'.
And hopefully, this piece of crap governor will be ousted in the next election.
Fuck you hateful bigoted homophobe. COURTS. We'll see you in fucking court.
25
And I'm sure you'll discount this, you hateful piece of religious shit, but...I think this is pretty darn interesting. From a heathen place that has had same-sex marriage for TEN YEARS.
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/…
Did the legalization of same-sex marriage somehow change marriage in the Netherlands?
A.
I looked hard for evidence of changes in the cultural idea of marriage and for evidence that heterosexuals and gay and lesbian couples have different ideas and behavior related to marriage — but I couldn’t find any. The trends in marriage and divorce didn’t change. The ideas about marriage expressed by lesbian and gay couples lined up with the ideas of their heterosexual peers: marriage is about the love and commitment of two people who work together as equals to weather life’s ups and downs, become members of each other’s extended families, and often (but not always) raise children together. Couples who formalize their relationships — gay or straight — are more likely to choose marriage than a civil union.
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/…
Did the legalization of same-sex marriage somehow change marriage in the Netherlands?
A.
I looked hard for evidence of changes in the cultural idea of marriage and for evidence that heterosexuals and gay and lesbian couples have different ideas and behavior related to marriage — but I couldn’t find any. The trends in marriage and divorce didn’t change. The ideas about marriage expressed by lesbian and gay couples lined up with the ideas of their heterosexual peers: marriage is about the love and commitment of two people who work together as equals to weather life’s ups and downs, become members of each other’s extended families, and often (but not always) raise children together. Couples who formalize their relationships — gay or straight — are more likely to choose marriage than a civil union.
26
LovesHate, you wouldn't have the right to vote today were it not for 19th Amendment ratified in 1920 (and possibly also the 14th and 15th Amendments?). Despite your idiocy and clear inability to participate ethically in public policy, I believe those amendments are righteous.
I will call homophobes homophobes and I will call bigots bigots because I understand that words mean things. I've got truth on my side, which one might think is an adequate counter to your insanity.
You stupid fucking idiotic and hateful bitch.
I will call homophobes homophobes and I will call bigots bigots because I understand that words mean things. I've got truth on my side, which one might think is an adequate counter to your insanity.
You stupid fucking idiotic and hateful bitch.
28
@21:
Except in Washington State, you mean?
hey have the same Constitutional right to exercise their right to vote, because the vote is the only medium that they've got to take an active role in our democracy. A democracy made by the people and for the people, not for interest groups. And as the governor of RI has rightly said that bill was representative of a disturbing trend, a tend that the people have time and time again rejected.
Except in Washington State, you mean?
29
@27: The GOP was threatened by NOM, who said they would fully fund the campaign of anyone running against a "traitor".
30
ALBANY - The New York State Senate failed Tuesday to take up a bill legalizing same-sex marriage despite pressure from Gov. David A. Paterson and gay activists.
"It appears unlikely there will be a vote," Senate Vice President David Valesky (D-Syracuse) said.
The chamber's Democratic majority again postponed a debate and vote, citing weakened support for the measure.
Gay marriage had more support before last week's setbacks in Maine and a race for New York's 23rd U.S. House seat.
The votes of moderate Republicans were lost after GOP Assemb. Dierdre Scozzafava was forced to bow out from the House race by conservatives upset with her support of same-sex marriage. The Senate GOP hopes to win back the majority in 2010 and needs Conservative Party backing.
Upstate Democrats also were unnerved by a Maine referendum that overturned a marriage law adopted in May.
"It appears unlikely there will be a vote," Senate Vice President David Valesky (D-Syracuse) said.
The chamber's Democratic majority again postponed a debate and vote, citing weakened support for the measure.
Gay marriage had more support before last week's setbacks in Maine and a race for New York's 23rd U.S. House seat.
The votes of moderate Republicans were lost after GOP Assemb. Dierdre Scozzafava was forced to bow out from the House race by conservatives upset with her support of same-sex marriage. The Senate GOP hopes to win back the majority in 2010 and needs Conservative Party backing.
Upstate Democrats also were unnerved by a Maine referendum that overturned a marriage law adopted in May.
31
@26 said: "I've got truth on my side"
Fine, If you truly believe in the righteousness of your agenda then why are you behaving like an obstructionist?
Why do you actively seek to silence people and forbid them to vote?
My skin color, my ethnicity is not something i engage in with another person so lets leave that aside. Again why do seek to obstruct a fundamental right like voting is, in this country if what you believe is so good?
At least have some integrity and stop engaging in silencing tactics against the electorate.
32
From @27's article:
>> Referring to the 1960s civil rights movement, [Governor] Paterson said, "I think we've lost touch with how movements for equality are reached. . . . For some reason, people have developed this almost cowardice about battles."
What's with the "almost" modifier, Patterson? Does civility demand that we refrain from calling cowardice by its name? Like it does with bigotry?
Cowards and bigots. The world is full of them. Call things what they are.
>> Referring to the 1960s civil rights movement, [Governor] Paterson said, "I think we've lost touch with how movements for equality are reached. . . . For some reason, people have developed this almost cowardice about battles."
What's with the "almost" modifier, Patterson? Does civility demand that we refrain from calling cowardice by its name? Like it does with bigotry?
Cowards and bigots. The world is full of them. Call things what they are.
34
Aaah...but 26...Hateful Bigot thinks we 'chose' to be gay; the heart of 'their' argument that being African-American and being gay aren't in the same innate ballpark.
And, we'll never convince their narrow religious homophobic minds otherwise.
That's why...courts. Activist Fucking Judges, as 'they' like to call the unbigoted judges who rule for fairness.
And, we'll never convince their narrow religious homophobic minds otherwise.
That's why...courts. Activist Fucking Judges, as 'they' like to call the unbigoted judges who rule for fairness.
35
I think this doesn't get said enough, because it ruffles too many feathers at the onset. But given some thought, it makes increasing sense: enact a constitutional ban on all civil marriage. That way, those concerned with the notion of "traditional" marriage can be wed in their respective house of worship, and that house will always recognize them as married in the eyes of their creator.
Get "marriage" out of civil law already.
Also, @1, I used to call him Barney Fag — and this coming from a big ol' homo — but now I just prefer to think of him as Uncle Barney. Perhaps in a note of irony, a "barney" in surfing slang means "poseur".
Get "marriage" out of civil law already.
Also, @1, I used to call him Barney Fag — and this coming from a big ol' homo — but now I just prefer to think of him as Uncle Barney. Perhaps in a note of irony, a "barney" in surfing slang means "poseur".
36
@29 NOM didn't need to 'threaten' anyone, you don't want to accept this reality, but New Yorkers as other neighboring states do not want to see traditional marriage eroded.
And if the legislature attempts some stupid move on this then the people of the state need to be allowed to have their say in the ballot box, that's democracy in action and that's how we peacefully voice our opinions and concerns in this country.
And if the legislature attempts some stupid move on this then the people of the state need to be allowed to have their say in the ballot box, that's democracy in action and that's how we peacefully voice our opinions and concerns in this country.
37
Hateful Bigot...come on now, you know it's just a popularity contest that you and Gallagher etc keep putting on the ballots in the name of 'letting the people have their say'.
And for the time being, until the Hateful Bigots like yourself die out, the gays just aren't overwhelming popular thanks to the Holy Fucking Bible and it's bigoted teachings (at least the one YOU choose to find solace and hate in).
So, Courts.
Because you folks fire up the hatred in people at the ballot box real good like. Anonymous gay-bashing.
Except here of course. Where us fruity liberals rule the roost.
Hateful Bigot.
And for the time being, until the Hateful Bigots like yourself die out, the gays just aren't overwhelming popular thanks to the Holy Fucking Bible and it's bigoted teachings (at least the one YOU choose to find solace and hate in).
So, Courts.
Because you folks fire up the hatred in people at the ballot box real good like. Anonymous gay-bashing.
Except here of course. Where us fruity liberals rule the roost.
Hateful Bigot.
38
@31 said: Why do you actively seek to silence people and forbid them to vote?
Um, I don't. Do I need to clarify? Probably.
I don't believe anyone's civil rights, mine or yours, should be subjected to a popular vote.
You, on the other hand, believe my civil rights should be subjected to a popular vote, something to which you are unwilling to subject your own civil rights. This makes you not only a bigot, but a hypocritical, selfish bigot.
Civil rights require the protection of a willing judiciary against majoritarian tyranny. That is how our system of law is supposed to work. It worked for you, didn't it?
Yes, of course it worked for you. If you were a decent person you would recognize this gracefully and stop your obstructionist tactics against my people's civil rights.
Stupid fucking selfish hypocritical idiot bigot bitch.
Um, I don't. Do I need to clarify? Probably.
I don't believe anyone's civil rights, mine or yours, should be subjected to a popular vote.
You, on the other hand, believe my civil rights should be subjected to a popular vote, something to which you are unwilling to subject your own civil rights. This makes you not only a bigot, but a hypocritical, selfish bigot.
Civil rights require the protection of a willing judiciary against majoritarian tyranny. That is how our system of law is supposed to work. It worked for you, didn't it?
Yes, of course it worked for you. If you were a decent person you would recognize this gracefully and stop your obstructionist tactics against my people's civil rights.
Stupid fucking selfish hypocritical idiot bigot bitch.
39
So, if the legislature votes it down, smartly,as you say (cause 'stupid' would be to vote for fairness, Hateful Bigot)...someone in NY puts it on the ballot to OVERTURN their 'smartness'...and the people vote to overturn your hateful brethren...then what, HATEFUL BIGOT?
Man, I'd love to see this happen.
Hateful Bigot.
What if you put on the ballot to round up all Muslims after Mt. Hood and put 'em in internment camps? I'm sure you could actually win that Initiative in certain states, Hateful Bigot.
But, it would be 'right' because the people said so, right, Hateful Bigot?
Man, I'd love to see this happen.
Hateful Bigot.
What if you put on the ballot to round up all Muslims after Mt. Hood and put 'em in internment camps? I'm sure you could actually win that Initiative in certain states, Hateful Bigot.
But, it would be 'right' because the people said so, right, Hateful Bigot?
40
Hey Meat Weapon...you forgot Hateful. Hateful, stupid, fucking, selfish, hyprocritical, idiot, bigot bitch.
41
@36: New Yorkers supportive of gay marriage: …
The National Organization for Marriage’s…
Any comment on Washington State, Loveschild? The people have spoken, but you really haven't said anything about what they said.
The National Organization for Marriage’s…
Any comment on Washington State, Loveschild? The people have spoken, but you really haven't said anything about what they said.
42
Integrity is an interesting word to choose, Loveschild @ 36.
It's use means that there is an adherence to moral and ethical principals; honesty. Too bad you lack it, and lie.
"Nov 4 Loveschild commented on The Catholic Church vs. Gay Equality.
@1 By the way people like Savage are crying foul you'd believe that they were the underdogs. The same story in WA, the funneling of dollars from Hollywood and SF poured in the gay side. But make no mistake the grassroots mobilization with close to little funds was made by the pro-family side.
In the end what counts, is the family, neighbor and good people who make a conscience decision to uphold the family such as the good people in Maine did.
They have taught us all a great lesson of perseverance and courage. And I'm just happy to have played a small minuscule role in the defense of values that Mainers of all religious affiliations (not only catholics) hold dear."
(http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…)
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/QuerySystem/statew…
Where are those donors from SF and Hollywood that funneled all that money into the gay side? Are they in your imagination?
43
@21: " When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." - James Madison
The drafters of the constitution of the USA were aware of the problem posed by people like you. This trend of putting rights to votes surely has them rolling in their graves.
More...
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." - James Madison
The drafters of the constitution of the USA were aware of the problem posed by people like you. This trend of putting rights to votes surely has them rolling in their graves.
44
Aaahh...but Baconcat...this is before NOM, Hateful Bigot and her brethren etc get their lies and deception up and running in NY State. Kids will be taught how to be gay! Kindergartners will be forced to listen to show tunes! Yada yada lie lie lie hate hate hate protect marriage hate hate traditional yada yada.
Hopefully, downstate, where there are actual gay people, will overrule upstate, just like here, if it makes it to a ballot initiative, I mean, popularity contest.
Hopefully, downstate, where there are actual gay people, will overrule upstate, just like here, if it makes it to a ballot initiative, I mean, popularity contest.
45
@40, yes, of course.
Hateful, stupid fucking, selfish, hypocritical, idiot, bigot bitch.
I kind of like "stupid fucking" as its own clause, like it's a description of how stupidly she and her bigoted ilk fucks.
Hateful, stupid fucking, selfish, hypocritical, idiot, bigot bitch.
I kind of like "stupid fucking" as its own clause, like it's a description of how stupidly she and her bigoted ilk fucks.
46
Loveschild:
Should the people then vote on everything? If so, what is the point of a legislature?
Did you know people voted to NOT give women the right to vote? Do you know if people could have voted, mixed race people would not be able to marry? Do you know that there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority?
I am gay through no choice of my own. Even if I don't act on it, I'm still gay inside. Do you have any idea of what it's like to have people vote on your life? To have people hate you for nothing you did? To base a whole political party on making your life miserable? Can you just begin to imagine what it's like to NOT BE ABLE TO MARRY THE PERSON YOU LOVE!!!
Good Lord, is there not one bit of compassion in all of you people? No empathy, no kindness, no heart, no nothing but ice? I don't understand your hate!!! Why for the love of everything, why?
Don't you ever think that you might actually like some of us if you got to know us? That if this whole thing were over, and Gay people had the same rights, then we could just move on with our lives and all try to be happy? Think of the energy we would have for other things?
Please, for God's Sake, for Anyone's sake, please try to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes, just a little bit. And I say this to all the Repub's, Christians, etc who hate Gays. We don't rub off, I promise. We could get along, we could enjoy each other's company, we could get to know each other. Life would be SO MUCH BETTER FOR ALL OF US!!!!!
Should the people then vote on everything? If so, what is the point of a legislature?
Did you know people voted to NOT give women the right to vote? Do you know if people could have voted, mixed race people would not be able to marry? Do you know that there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority?
I am gay through no choice of my own. Even if I don't act on it, I'm still gay inside. Do you have any idea of what it's like to have people vote on your life? To have people hate you for nothing you did? To base a whole political party on making your life miserable? Can you just begin to imagine what it's like to NOT BE ABLE TO MARRY THE PERSON YOU LOVE!!!
Good Lord, is there not one bit of compassion in all of you people? No empathy, no kindness, no heart, no nothing but ice? I don't understand your hate!!! Why for the love of everything, why?
Don't you ever think that you might actually like some of us if you got to know us? That if this whole thing were over, and Gay people had the same rights, then we could just move on with our lives and all try to be happy? Think of the energy we would have for other things?
Please, for God's Sake, for Anyone's sake, please try to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes, just a little bit. And I say this to all the Repub's, Christians, etc who hate Gays. We don't rub off, I promise. We could get along, we could enjoy each other's company, we could get to know each other. Life would be SO MUCH BETTER FOR ALL OF US!!!!!
47
@41 None, when your side finally stops pretending and go for the final blow to do away with marriage by calling what you have the same, then i'll work to bring this back to the people. But not before finding a way in which the people of the state actually count and are not beholden to the tight silencing grip of one sole county like King county.
I would bet to say that there is almost no district that favor gay marriage and that includes the cities.
If you are so sure in NY then what's the problem? The legislature nor the governor need to be sweating on this, don't obstruct, LET THE PEOPLE VOTE.
I would bet to say that there is almost no district that favor gay marriage and that includes the cities.
If you are so sure in NY then what's the problem? The legislature nor the governor need to be sweating on this, don't obstruct, LET THE PEOPLE VOTE.
48
Careful, acoolerclimate, soberly and sanely articulating personal feelings is completely lost on sociopathic bigots, unless they have designs to turn your own thoughts against you, which they almost certainly do. Fortunately this particular sociopath is a complete idiot.
But it was a lovely read.
But it was a lovely read.
49
"Finally stops pretending?" Oh, hateful bigot, I've been calling my marriage a marriage for nearly 13 years.
The state's recognition doesn't grant or deny me the ability to recognize my marriage for what it is. All the state can do is grant or deny me equal civil rights.
Which you oppose. Because you are a stupid, hateful, selfish, hypocritical bigot bitch.
The state's recognition doesn't grant or deny me the ability to recognize my marriage for what it is. All the state can do is grant or deny me equal civil rights.
Which you oppose. Because you are a stupid, hateful, selfish, hypocritical bigot bitch.
50
@47
That's lovely. You pretend that these kinds of votes have moral legitimacy -- until you lose, then your side is clearly being oppressed by the tyranny of those that ought to be in the minority.
I still want you to respond to James Madison (see @43)
That's lovely. You pretend that these kinds of votes have moral legitimacy -- until you lose, then your side is clearly being oppressed by the tyranny of those that ought to be in the minority.
I still want you to respond to James Madison (see @43)
51
Oh... and there's no love to be found on NY now for their governor, heck, not even from the President himself, so any dumb move on his part will just precipitate his inevitable departure from the governorship and anything he attempts to impose on the people will be reversed immediately thereupon.
52
@47: The distinction is ceremonial at best, Loveschild, and there would be no potential vote that could undo domestic partnerships until at least 2012 here. Knowing this and what Jamie Pedersen and Ed Murray have said and hearing the dire "warnings" given by your leaders, the people HAVE spoken, regardless of your delusion.
And why would the people vote in New York State? There is no R&I process in the state, it's all done by the legislature. There is no mechanism to put it to a vote of the people.
Finally, the following cities are only a few that voted at least 50%+1 to approve R-71, even if their own county did not: Seattle, Bellevue, Friday Harbor, Spokane, Tacoma, Vancouver, Everett, Edmonds.
And why would the people vote in New York State? There is no R&I process in the state, it's all done by the legislature. There is no mechanism to put it to a vote of the people.
Finally, the following cities are only a few that voted at least 50%+1 to approve R-71, even if their own county did not: Seattle, Bellevue, Friday Harbor, Spokane, Tacoma, Vancouver, Everett, Edmonds.
53
I can't speak for R.I. but I sure know that I'm volunteering in my local Washington school to teach the little ones about the Gay Agenda. We'll start from the top of course, "Good Hair Care". We'll work down, "Complexion care and moisturizing". By the end of the school year their own parents won't know who their children are they will be so different and be so polished.
I'm doing all this because when the time comes and all citizens are treated equally under the law here in Washington, the Radical Religious Extremists will have my noble example of just what they said would happen; children would be forced to learn about "Gay Marriage" or something like that. It's in the agenda somewhere.
All I know is the Gay Agenda must be taught before they can stop us. Take refresher courses on moisturizers and color coordination. Volunteer to teach in your local school. Oh and while you're at it, make sure that you fire a doctor or policeman for "speaking their opinion" about "The Homosexual Life Style".
I'm doing all this because when the time comes and all citizens are treated equally under the law here in Washington, the Radical Religious Extremists will have my noble example of just what they said would happen; children would be forced to learn about "Gay Marriage" or something like that. It's in the agenda somewhere.
All I know is the Gay Agenda must be taught before they can stop us. Take refresher courses on moisturizers and color coordination. Volunteer to teach in your local school. Oh and while you're at it, make sure that you fire a doctor or policeman for "speaking their opinion" about "The Homosexual Life Style".
54
OK, now THIS Republican governor *IS* a bigot. I'll give that to you, hands down. But if you people overgeneralize this guy as being the majority of people's views on the other side, you've got some *serious fucking problems*. This guy is NOT everybody. Far from it. So if this governor makes all of you call everybody on the other side a bigot even more fervently, I guarantee you, GUAR-AN-TEE you will lose this battle.
55
The "other side" of what, Confluence? Equal civil rights for gay people? People who oppose equal civil rights for gay people are not bigots?
It's not just a tautology, man. It's a simple matter of applying reason and believing that words have meaning. People who oppose equal civil rights for gay people are bigots by definition.
You would have me restrain my fervency for reason in the name of some misguided and doomed political tactic that eschews the most basic analysis of the human condition.
You cannot win over a bigot to the side of reason by appeasement. Reason wins or loses on its own merits. It has always been thus, and thus it shall always be, for better or worse. Usually worse.
It's not just a tautology, man. It's a simple matter of applying reason and believing that words have meaning. People who oppose equal civil rights for gay people are bigots by definition.
You would have me restrain my fervency for reason in the name of some misguided and doomed political tactic that eschews the most basic analysis of the human condition.
You cannot win over a bigot to the side of reason by appeasement. Reason wins or loses on its own merits. It has always been thus, and thus it shall always be, for better or worse. Usually worse.
56
To LOVESCHILD--I find it so interesting to read your comments. If I substitute "interracial marriage" for "gay marriage" in your comments, I can imagine myself back in the 1950s and 1960s. It's so neat to see the connections between the different types of prejudices. I can also transport you to different time periods use your argument to justify other kinds of intolerance. Thanks for coming to this forum and educating us.
57
Ok then, believe as you please - 90% of planet earth are hateful bigots. Best of luck to you in your political struggle!
Oh, and I think you're next strategy should be filling doggie bags full of shit, lighting them on fire and throwing them through the living room windows of the houses of 5.5 BILLION PEOPLE. Who's in?? Meet at my house tomorrow to start collecting the dog shit?? If we throw them through enough windows, we'll teach 'em about civil rights and then we'll WIN!
Oh, and I think you're next strategy should be filling doggie bags full of shit, lighting them on fire and throwing them through the living room windows of the houses of 5.5 BILLION PEOPLE. Who's in?? Meet at my house tomorrow to start collecting the dog shit?? If we throw them through enough windows, we'll teach 'em about civil rights and then we'll WIN!
58
Confluence, Carcieri may or may not be a bigot, but this decision is much more a factor of his being a very dedicated Roman Catholic. When the church says jump, he says "how high?"
59
@53, I wish there had been some gay agenda when I was in school...I have horrible fashion sense, and I don't moisturize nearly enough!
@46, as often as I have read passionate statements on here crying out for equal treatment, for some reason yours brought tears to my eyes. I may print it out and pass it around to all my gay-fearful friends.
@46, as often as I have read passionate statements on here crying out for equal treatment, for some reason yours brought tears to my eyes. I may print it out and pass it around to all my gay-fearful friends.
60
Their entire goal is to destroy the lives of gay people.
Don't be fooled. They are the enemy of freedom.
Don't be fooled. They are the enemy of freedom.
61
@Loveschild - your long-running satire of conservative Christian views is pretty hilarious, but you should really get on with your life and do something else now. You've made your point, and now you're little more than a troll.
Also, guys, seriously stop feeding the troll(s). I think this is one case where if you ignore something long enough it really will go away.
Also, guys, seriously stop feeding the troll(s). I think this is one case where if you ignore something long enough it really will go away.
62
@57, hateful? No, not 90 percent. Bigots? Probably closer to 100 percent, depending on which bigotry you're talking about.
Time was a substantial majority of America's white citizens were hateful bigots regarding the civil rights of black citizens. Now that number is substantially less than half.
In the 1980s, the number of hateful bigots in America regarding gay civil rights was probably somewhere around 65 to 70 percent. Now it's closer to 50 to 55 percent.
Being nice to the bigots isn't what made those numbers change. Maybe it did in some cases, like more family members living lives out of the closet. But in every case the same thing happened: someone who was once a hateful bigot decided to become less of a bigot. Why? Lots of reasons.
You seem to be of the opinion that people who oppose equal civil rights for gays are not, by definition, bigots. I don't think you can defend that position using reason. I have yet to see you try.
My civil rights are a political football. That makes me angry, as it should. You think I should play some kind of tactical game. I prefer to live my life and speak the truth. When lots of gay people live their lives and speak the truth, opinions change over time. This is just how it works.
Playing political games with my civil rights, with my life, is degrading and humiliating. You can play that game if you choose. Just stop pretending that people choose to deny me equal civil rights because of something I've done or not done. That's just offensive. Stupidly offensive.
Time was a substantial majority of America's white citizens were hateful bigots regarding the civil rights of black citizens. Now that number is substantially less than half.
In the 1980s, the number of hateful bigots in America regarding gay civil rights was probably somewhere around 65 to 70 percent. Now it's closer to 50 to 55 percent.
Being nice to the bigots isn't what made those numbers change. Maybe it did in some cases, like more family members living lives out of the closet. But in every case the same thing happened: someone who was once a hateful bigot decided to become less of a bigot. Why? Lots of reasons.
You seem to be of the opinion that people who oppose equal civil rights for gays are not, by definition, bigots. I don't think you can defend that position using reason. I have yet to see you try.
My civil rights are a political football. That makes me angry, as it should. You think I should play some kind of tactical game. I prefer to live my life and speak the truth. When lots of gay people live their lives and speak the truth, opinions change over time. This is just how it works.
Playing political games with my civil rights, with my life, is degrading and humiliating. You can play that game if you choose. Just stop pretending that people choose to deny me equal civil rights because of something I've done or not done. That's just offensive. Stupidly offensive.
63
@46 acoolerclimate, Why do you say we hate you? As far as i am concerned, (and i've said it before) you regardless of what choices you make in your life are a child of God just as i am, just as my own children and my husband are. So if i see you in this way and believe me most of those who you disparage by calling bigots feel the same as i do, then why would you say we hate you?
acoolerclimate, love is not rolling over and let you or anyone else for that matter destroy an institution that has such a profoundly ethical and moral meaning to us, not say such a fundamentally important function for all societies.
Are you free to go to bed with someone of your own sex in this country acoolerclimate? Yes you are.
Are you free to cohabit with someone of your own sex in this country acoolerclimate? Yes you are.
Are you free to leave to that person all your belonging by way of a testament acoolerclimate? Yes you are.
So, i must redirect the question unto you, "is there not one bit of compassion in all of you people?" No empathy, no kindness, no heart, no nothing but ice?" And i must add, why do you seek to obstruct, why do you seek to intimidate the people, why do you seek to impose? Why?
acoolerclimate, love is not rolling over and let you or anyone else for that matter destroy an institution that has such a profoundly ethical and moral meaning to us, not say such a fundamentally important function for all societies.
Are you free to go to bed with someone of your own sex in this country acoolerclimate? Yes you are.
Are you free to cohabit with someone of your own sex in this country acoolerclimate? Yes you are.
Are you free to leave to that person all your belonging by way of a testament acoolerclimate? Yes you are.
So, i must redirect the question unto you, "is there not one bit of compassion in all of you people?" No empathy, no kindness, no heart, no nothing but ice?" And i must add, why do you seek to obstruct, why do you seek to intimidate the people, why do you seek to impose? Why?
65
Even tho i seldom favor the death penalty, this man was an enemy of society and had no redeemable quality to him. What he did and what he duped that teen into doing is something horrendous. As far as I'm concerned the world is a much safer place this night.
68
Loveschild.
Your comments hurt so much and have caused me so much fury, that I will have to refrain from commenting the way I'd really like. Your last paragraph is perhaps the worst thing I've yet read from "Your" side.
You think I only have ice in my heart because I want to marry the man I love? That because I want to say before my family "I do", that I'm cruel? That because I want to take care of someone for life that I'm cruel? Words escape me. If we could get married, it would not effect your life. The worst thing that would happen to you is just the knowledge that same sex people can marry, that's it. So how exactly am I imposing anything on you? I have to live with the knowledge that people like you exist, no matter how much that imposes on me?
We can write wills, and families contest them. We can cohabitate, but not visit each other in the hospital, leave each other our social security, or oh about 1000 or so other rights that married people take for granted.
You were right, Meat Weapon, trying to appeal to someone's heart never gets you anywhere. I'm alternating between tears of grief and such anger that I don't know how to vent it. (and not just because of Loveschild. I've been feeling this way for a long time, and this time I cracked and had to say something).
Okay, one more try. Loveschild. If you got to know me, you'd like me. I'm kind, I'm thoughtful, I take care of my family. I want to share in the joy of marriage that all straight people do. Why would it be so hard for you to share in my joy, the way I share in your joy at getting married? What would happen to you? We could laugh together, share stories together, have shared experiences together. I would share my talents with you and vice versa. I'd help you out when life got your down. Why is your life better not knowing me, not letting me have the same rights as you? What exactly would be so awful for YOU?
All right, I'm done. I know I can speak from my heart and it won't get in to anyone filled with hate. And trust me, Loveschild, you do hate, because if you didn't you would want us to be as happy in life as you are. I don't seek to obstruct, impose or intimidate. I just want to marry the man I love. That's all. And that is from my heart.
You know, the only reason I can't marry a man is because I am a man. I'm tired that my life is dictated by my gender. Equal rights for all of us regardless of what's between our legs. Sometimes I wish all of us were both sexes so we would stop all this crap.
More...
Your comments hurt so much and have caused me so much fury, that I will have to refrain from commenting the way I'd really like. Your last paragraph is perhaps the worst thing I've yet read from "Your" side.
You think I only have ice in my heart because I want to marry the man I love? That because I want to say before my family "I do", that I'm cruel? That because I want to take care of someone for life that I'm cruel? Words escape me. If we could get married, it would not effect your life. The worst thing that would happen to you is just the knowledge that same sex people can marry, that's it. So how exactly am I imposing anything on you? I have to live with the knowledge that people like you exist, no matter how much that imposes on me?
We can write wills, and families contest them. We can cohabitate, but not visit each other in the hospital, leave each other our social security, or oh about 1000 or so other rights that married people take for granted.
You were right, Meat Weapon, trying to appeal to someone's heart never gets you anywhere. I'm alternating between tears of grief and such anger that I don't know how to vent it. (and not just because of Loveschild. I've been feeling this way for a long time, and this time I cracked and had to say something).
Okay, one more try. Loveschild. If you got to know me, you'd like me. I'm kind, I'm thoughtful, I take care of my family. I want to share in the joy of marriage that all straight people do. Why would it be so hard for you to share in my joy, the way I share in your joy at getting married? What would happen to you? We could laugh together, share stories together, have shared experiences together. I would share my talents with you and vice versa. I'd help you out when life got your down. Why is your life better not knowing me, not letting me have the same rights as you? What exactly would be so awful for YOU?
All right, I'm done. I know I can speak from my heart and it won't get in to anyone filled with hate. And trust me, Loveschild, you do hate, because if you didn't you would want us to be as happy in life as you are. I don't seek to obstruct, impose or intimidate. I just want to marry the man I love. That's all. And that is from my heart.
You know, the only reason I can't marry a man is because I am a man. I'm tired that my life is dictated by my gender. Equal rights for all of us regardless of what's between our legs. Sometimes I wish all of us were both sexes so we would stop all this crap.
69
Black bigots like Loveychiiiild are incapable of reason. They're infected with the disease of their oppressor. They are their oppressor. That being said--
Meh. Rhode Island. At least 63% of its population are members of the Church of the pedophile which is led by a cross-dressing former Nazi. Would we really miss it if it fell off into the ocean?
Meh. Rhode Island. At least 63% of its population are members of the Church of the pedophile which is led by a cross-dressing former Nazi. Would we really miss it if it fell off into the ocean?
70
"love is not rolling over and let you or anyone else for that matter destroy an institution that has such a profoundly ethical and moral meaning to us,"
Right. Except you fail to back up your ethical and moral meaning with any actual ethics or morals. These are useless buzzwords which you have utterly failed to define with any semblance of logic or reason. You say these things to justify your hatred but the logic falls apart to anyone with a functioning brain. I truly do not understand why you choose to stay here if you truly mean what you say you do (which is of course a longstanding debate here). You have utterly failed to convince anyone's mind here with your arguments, precisely because your arguments are so pathetic, so useless, so clearly the product of a poisoned, diseased mind utterly devoid of both logic or ethics. If you are purely a troll, you are a remarkably persistent one -- why haven't you gotten bored? Are you proud that this is how you spend your time? If you truly believe you're fighting the good fight, you're almost certainly failing -- and you've certainly convinced no one that you have nothing but disgusting bigotry and hatred in your heart. And they believe this because it's the truth. (Unless you're a troll, obviously.) Quit hiding -- just fucking come out and say it, I HATE FAGS. I AM FILLED WITH HATRED.
Right. Except you fail to back up your ethical and moral meaning with any actual ethics or morals. These are useless buzzwords which you have utterly failed to define with any semblance of logic or reason. You say these things to justify your hatred but the logic falls apart to anyone with a functioning brain. I truly do not understand why you choose to stay here if you truly mean what you say you do (which is of course a longstanding debate here). You have utterly failed to convince anyone's mind here with your arguments, precisely because your arguments are so pathetic, so useless, so clearly the product of a poisoned, diseased mind utterly devoid of both logic or ethics. If you are purely a troll, you are a remarkably persistent one -- why haven't you gotten bored? Are you proud that this is how you spend your time? If you truly believe you're fighting the good fight, you're almost certainly failing -- and you've certainly convinced no one that you have nothing but disgusting bigotry and hatred in your heart. And they believe this because it's the truth. (Unless you're a troll, obviously.) Quit hiding -- just fucking come out and say it, I HATE FAGS. I AM FILLED WITH HATRED.
71
acoolerclimate and Meat Weapon,
I tip my hat to you and the ones you love. Devotion between two people in the face of adversity is a holy thing. Something to be both treasured and nurtured.
Keep loving in the face of hate. Your an inspiration to us who fight along side of you.
I tip my hat to you and the ones you love. Devotion between two people in the face of adversity is a holy thing. Something to be both treasured and nurtured.
Keep loving in the face of hate. Your an inspiration to us who fight along side of you.
72
I think maybe Loveschild is Dan himself trying to spice up the comments. Could be, makes sense, doesn't it? I'm hoping my comments got to some eyes that might actually create a spark of understanding?
73
@ 72,
Maybe or not. I personally don't believe it.
Dan Savage commented on No Pepsi! Coke!.
Forgive me, Kim.
LC? Yeah, Jesus said a lot of crap. And a lot of words were stuffed in his mouth after he was dead. Do you know when most of the gospels were written, LC? The man had been dead for decades. Some of the ideas credited to Christ are pretty nice. It speaks well of the folks who came up with them. And it speaks well of Christians like Kim, and Christians in general, that some focus on the more humane, uplifting ideas credited to Christ, and not the psychotic, megalomaniacal crap that makes you wet, LC.
Yes, yes: Jesus likes you better, LC, because you hate more than Kim. Kim doesn't hate at all, actually. But hate�and hatin' hard�that is the truest measure of a follower of Christ.
To clarify...
"Jesus likes you better, LC, because you hate more than Kim. Kim doesn't hate at all, actually. But hate—and hatin' hard—that is the truest measure of a follower of Christ."
I don't believe that hating is the truest measure of a follower of Christ. I'm suggesting that LC believes that's the case. LC certainly acts like that's what she believes. The best example of a follower of Christ I've ever known personally was my mother. She loved everyone. Didn't like everyone, she was quick to point out, but sincerely loved everyone. And never felt a need to pass judgement or condemn. She was confident in her faith, and secure in it. She was a Christian in the Kim in Portland mold, not the cracked LC mold
Maybe or not. I personally don't believe it.
Dan Savage commented on No Pepsi! Coke!.
Forgive me, Kim.
LC? Yeah, Jesus said a lot of crap. And a lot of words were stuffed in his mouth after he was dead. Do you know when most of the gospels were written, LC? The man had been dead for decades. Some of the ideas credited to Christ are pretty nice. It speaks well of the folks who came up with them. And it speaks well of Christians like Kim, and Christians in general, that some focus on the more humane, uplifting ideas credited to Christ, and not the psychotic, megalomaniacal crap that makes you wet, LC.
Yes, yes: Jesus likes you better, LC, because you hate more than Kim. Kim doesn't hate at all, actually. But hate�and hatin' hard�that is the truest measure of a follower of Christ.
To clarify...
"Jesus likes you better, LC, because you hate more than Kim. Kim doesn't hate at all, actually. But hate—and hatin' hard—that is the truest measure of a follower of Christ."
I don't believe that hating is the truest measure of a follower of Christ. I'm suggesting that LC believes that's the case. LC certainly acts like that's what she believes. The best example of a follower of Christ I've ever known personally was my mother. She loved everyone. Didn't like everyone, she was quick to point out, but sincerely loved everyone. And never felt a need to pass judgement or condemn. She was confident in her faith, and secure in it. She was a Christian in the Kim in Portland mold, not the cracked LC mold
75
@72 I've been accused of worst here, lol, If was mr Savage you could count on that i wouldn't post the racist garbage against African Americans that he posts to attract Klan scum like @69.
I also wouldn't be hiring a man of African descent a to do my dirty work, so that i can't be blame for writing the most obscene and disparaging things about the Continent and people in the diaspora.
I do agree with you that he likes to dish-out garbage here and we all seem to fall for it. Here to the day that is no more.
Concerning visitation rights, are you aware that is not the case in all places, I've heard of people with partners like yours who have been allowed to visit them in the hospital. But for arguments sake lets say that you wouldn't be, don't you think that maybe if you were more willing to stop this battle against marriage and reassure the people (only if you truly meant it) that you do not seek the implementation of gay marriage in the nation that people would not be more willing to find a way for you to have those few necessities that you need. I know i would, but as far as you're concerned I'm a bigot or a douche bag because i believe and want to preserve marriage between one man and one woman. In reality it's not a case of us being hateful towards couplings like yours but of you being intransigent against us and spiteful and willing to engage in all sorts of tactics against us when you don't get your way. If you truly seek compromise and a true ending to all of this I invite you to meditate on that. In God's Love.
I also wouldn't be hiring a man of African descent a to do my dirty work, so that i can't be blame for writing the most obscene and disparaging things about the Continent and people in the diaspora.
I do agree with you that he likes to dish-out garbage here and we all seem to fall for it. Here to the day that is no more.
Concerning visitation rights, are you aware that is not the case in all places, I've heard of people with partners like yours who have been allowed to visit them in the hospital. But for arguments sake lets say that you wouldn't be, don't you think that maybe if you were more willing to stop this battle against marriage and reassure the people (only if you truly meant it) that you do not seek the implementation of gay marriage in the nation that people would not be more willing to find a way for you to have those few necessities that you need. I know i would, but as far as you're concerned I'm a bigot or a douche bag because i believe and want to preserve marriage between one man and one woman. In reality it's not a case of us being hateful towards couplings like yours but of you being intransigent against us and spiteful and willing to engage in all sorts of tactics against us when you don't get your way. If you truly seek compromise and a true ending to all of this I invite you to meditate on that. In God's Love.
76
LC- I would love a vote to punish fornicators w/ bastard children like yourself. Then we can vote to overturn the emancipation proclamation and ban women's sufferage. Then we'll vote to ban Jews and Muslims from political life.
Also, ask a black gay man which of his minority statuses he considers something he wasn't born with.
Also, ask a black gay man which of his minority statuses he considers something he wasn't born with.
77
@68 said: "You were right, Meat Weapon, trying to appeal to someone's heart never gets you anywhere."
It's a bit disheartening to think I said something so hopeless. If I did, I surely meant it to apply only to someone so deeply stupid as Loveschild, to people who consume reason and excrete only dogma, to people whose words pervert the natural function and purpose of language.
People like Loveschild are monsters who only ever subtract from the world. Their dimness is rivaled only by their rigid certainty in an inherited dogma that helps them deal with a pathological fear of powerlessnss. Only the sweet release of death will liberate them and those afflicted with the consequeces of their existence.
Ordinary bigots, by contrast, are a dime a dozen. Some of them can even be moved by heartfelt appeals like yours. I hope you keep it up. You obviously are a kinder or more patient man than I am.
It's a bit disheartening to think I said something so hopeless. If I did, I surely meant it to apply only to someone so deeply stupid as Loveschild, to people who consume reason and excrete only dogma, to people whose words pervert the natural function and purpose of language.
People like Loveschild are monsters who only ever subtract from the world. Their dimness is rivaled only by their rigid certainty in an inherited dogma that helps them deal with a pathological fear of powerlessnss. Only the sweet release of death will liberate them and those afflicted with the consequeces of their existence.
Ordinary bigots, by contrast, are a dime a dozen. Some of them can even be moved by heartfelt appeals like yours. I hope you keep it up. You obviously are a kinder or more patient man than I am.
78
I know you've all missed me and my creative language towards one LC (Hateful Bigot to me).
I'll try not to disappoint.
The part that galls me the most, consistently...'the choices that we make in our lives'.
When she and her ilk say that...man, the blood just boils.
I believe folks have said you're African American, HB? If so, when did you choose to be that?
Preposterous, right?
Same fucking thing. SAME FUCKING THING.
Until you can see some fucking light, Hateful Bigot, keep going on your merry way, 'working' towards making other people miserable, state-by-state. But know, you will be defeated.
Activist fucking judges. Activist fucking judges.
We the People indeed. We ALL the fucking People, HB.
I'll try not to disappoint.
The part that galls me the most, consistently...'the choices that we make in our lives'.
When she and her ilk say that...man, the blood just boils.
I believe folks have said you're African American, HB? If so, when did you choose to be that?
Preposterous, right?
Same fucking thing. SAME FUCKING THING.
Until you can see some fucking light, Hateful Bigot, keep going on your merry way, 'working' towards making other people miserable, state-by-state. But know, you will be defeated.
Activist fucking judges. Activist fucking judges.
We the People indeed. We ALL the fucking People, HB.
81
I would just like to say that since the very first time I read the comments on a Homo-category Stranger article (Yeah I've got it bookmarked) almost two months ago when I first heard about the R-71 campaign, I've been a total Kim fanboy.
That said- we are not a democracy, we're a republic. The Republic guarantees rights to the minority that cannot be infringed on by the majority. Our republic is currently failing. Every politician standing against this, for any reason, is a failure. If they're claiming religion, at best they're badly hiding the fact that they're theocratic and not patriotic.THERE ARE SOME THINGS THE MAJORITY SHOULD NOT VOTE ON, CIVIL RIGHTS IS ONE OF THEM.
That said- we are not a democracy, we're a republic. The Republic guarantees rights to the minority that cannot be infringed on by the majority. Our republic is currently failing. Every politician standing against this, for any reason, is a failure. If they're claiming religion, at best they're badly hiding the fact that they're theocratic and not patriotic.THERE ARE SOME THINGS THE MAJORITY SHOULD NOT VOTE ON, CIVIL RIGHTS IS ONE OF THEM.
82
@75: Argumentum ad temperantiam, argumentum ad antiquitatem.
Your argument is a logical fallacy, from top to bottom.
You've lost in Washington State, you've lost in Massachusetts, you've lost in Connecticut, you've lost in Vermont, you've lost in Iowa and you've lost in New Hampshire.
The greater of these is what appears to be the least of all these: the people's voice in Washington.
It's all over, Loveschild.
Your argument is a logical fallacy, from top to bottom.
You've lost in Washington State, you've lost in Massachusetts, you've lost in Connecticut, you've lost in Vermont, you've lost in Iowa and you've lost in New Hampshire.
The greater of these is what appears to be the least of all these: the people's voice in Washington.
It's all over, Loveschild.
83
Two guys in an office. First Guy says to the Second Guy: Hey man, I hear you're gay. Second Guy says to the first: Yep and I hear you're black. First Guy huffs: But that's normal man! Second Guy says: Didn't used to be.
I read that comic in 1977 as a very young teen and a light bulb went off in my head. Every time I start to get depressed by people like LC (and may I just say it irks me enormously that those are my actual initials) or childhood friends who meet my repeated requests for One. Single. Concrete. Example. of how affording people in a committed relationship the rights they blithely take for granted with yet another round of Religious "Hate=Love", I remember that comic and take comfort in the fact that 50 years from now Lovechilds descendants will be embarrassed by her.
I read that comic in 1977 as a very young teen and a light bulb went off in my head. Every time I start to get depressed by people like LC (and may I just say it irks me enormously that those are my actual initials) or childhood friends who meet my repeated requests for One. Single. Concrete. Example. of how affording people in a committed relationship the rights they blithely take for granted with yet another round of Religious "Hate=Love", I remember that comic and take comfort in the fact that 50 years from now Lovechilds descendants will be embarrassed by her.
84
@75:
This passage makes me think Loveschild MUST be a hoax or has totally lost her way from the endless Slog bantering. LC, you're essentially saying "If you gays just stop being so uppity maybe people would be willing to give you some rights." I know you see no comparisons between gay rights and other civil rights movements, but even you must be able to see the parallels between the two struggles. Even if you believe being gay is a choice, can't you see how this sounds to those of us who don't?
don't you think that maybe if you were more willing to stop this battle against marriage and reassure the people (only if you truly meant it) that you do not seek the implementation of gay marriage in the nation that people would not be more willing to find a way for you to have those few necessities that you need.
This passage makes me think Loveschild MUST be a hoax or has totally lost her way from the endless Slog bantering. LC, you're essentially saying "If you gays just stop being so uppity maybe people would be willing to give you some rights." I know you see no comparisons between gay rights and other civil rights movements, but even you must be able to see the parallels between the two struggles. Even if you believe being gay is a choice, can't you see how this sounds to those of us who don't?
85
@31
"Why do you actively seek to silence people and forbid them to vote?"
Because basic human rights for minorities should NEVER be put to a vote. Especially based on religion.
And what does "intransigent" mean?
And why are you so attracted to this topic? Is there something you want to confess? How deep IS that walk-in closet??
"Why do you actively seek to silence people and forbid them to vote?"
Because basic human rights for minorities should NEVER be put to a vote. Especially based on religion.
And what does "intransigent" mean?
And why are you so attracted to this topic? Is there something you want to confess? How deep IS that walk-in closet??
87
@Loveschild
How is the legalization of same-sex marriage going to deteriorate the idea of marriage? If it becomes legal, can't heterosexuals still marry? Can't they still raise children? Can't they still buy a home together? Can't they still be given rights as a married couple? Can't they still be given tax right-offs?
I fail to see how allowing two people, who are in love and committed to each other, to marry and devote their lives to each other, will ruin marriage for everyone else?
I have been married for 11 years to a person of the opposite sex. In June last year when marriage was legalized in CA and over 10,000 sam-sex couples became legally married, my marriage did not fall apart. It did not become less meaningful. It did not affect my children. It affected me in NO WAY.
So how is it going to bring down society???? Oh, right. It WON'T.
Get over yourself.
How is the legalization of same-sex marriage going to deteriorate the idea of marriage? If it becomes legal, can't heterosexuals still marry? Can't they still raise children? Can't they still buy a home together? Can't they still be given rights as a married couple? Can't they still be given tax right-offs?
I fail to see how allowing two people, who are in love and committed to each other, to marry and devote their lives to each other, will ruin marriage for everyone else?
I have been married for 11 years to a person of the opposite sex. In June last year when marriage was legalized in CA and over 10,000 sam-sex couples became legally married, my marriage did not fall apart. It did not become less meaningful. It did not affect my children. It affected me in NO WAY.
So how is it going to bring down society???? Oh, right. It WON'T.
Get over yourself.
88
It really sucks when a group of people is singled out for discrimination and is treated as less than full citizens.
Signed,
A Tard-Lover
Signed,
A Tard-Lover
89
@ 85,
An alternative spelling of intransigeant, which means inflexible, uncompromising, etc. She owns a Thesauraus.
An alternative spelling of intransigeant, which means inflexible, uncompromising, etc. She owns a Thesauraus.
90
@85
"Because basic human rights for minorities should NEVER be put to a vote."
Are you fucking kidding me? You very happily voted and campaigned to take away MY basic human rights.
"Because basic human rights for minorities should NEVER be put to a vote."
Are you fucking kidding me? You very happily voted and campaigned to take away MY basic human rights.
93
#84.
Loveschild is a closeted gay white man.
This passage makes me think Loveschild MUST be a hoax . . .
Loveschild is a closeted gay white man.
94
One more try at reason. Whether Loveschild is real or not, hopefully there are people on the fence out there who might enjoy this....
To the people who want to keep marriage opposite sex only.
What happens if you get your way and things stay as they are.
1. You get the sense that you "won". But what have you won?
2. There will be lots of unhappy gay people always fighting for their rights.
3. There will be lots of family members of gay people who are hurt that they can't watch their children go down the aisle. Lots of friends of gay people who can't do the same thing.
4. Lots of straight people will learn to hate marriage, thinking it a discriminatory institution and some will actually forego marriage in solidarity.
5. Your side will not get to know gay people or share in our joy. How many of us would you actually get along with? Learn something new from? Perhaps see the world a little differently from?
6. You will constantly be told you are bigots, haters, etc no matter how much you say otherwise.
7. You'll have to spend lots of money defending your position, money that could be spent on so many better things.
8. The children of gay couples will not have married parents. Not sure why you never think of them.
9. How much energy are you expending trying to keep the status quo? Think what else you can do with that energy.
What exactly do you win in this scenario? Is is worth all that you lose?
Here's what happens if we "win" and same sex marriage is allowed everywhere.
1. Many more happy people, who know can use that energy for constructive things.
2. Children of gay couples will have married parents and be better protected.
3. Tons of money will be saved and can be used for other things.
4. Once we all relax and stop calling each other bigots, etc. we might find that we have some common interests. We might find we enjoy each others company now that we aren't fighting.
5. Marriage stops being a discriminating institution, no one feels bad about joining it and some groups are not prevented from joining it so it becomes even stronger.
6. Gay people won't have to try and eke out rights here and there trying to get the things we need. Marriage will give us those rights.
And what do you lose in this scenario? I really have no idea. You can still get married. Your marriage will still be honored. Marriage will be strengthened as more people get to do it and want to do it. No one on your side has actually articulated a clear example of what you would lose. And whatever it is you think you would lose, is that really worth all the pain, all the money, all the arguments, etc that will continue as long as gay people can't marry?
You know, I grew up in rural New England. Very rural. I did not hear that there was such as thing as being gay. Did not hear about it, see it, or know anyone who was. And guess what? As soon as I hit puberty I knew I was attracted to my own sex. So there you go.
Even if you win, and then manage to get rid of all of us, new gay people will be born, and the whole cycle will start over. Let's just get past this, and start enjoying our own lives and stop trying to control everyone else. You just might discover that we aren't so bad after all!!
More...
To the people who want to keep marriage opposite sex only.
What happens if you get your way and things stay as they are.
1. You get the sense that you "won". But what have you won?
2. There will be lots of unhappy gay people always fighting for their rights.
3. There will be lots of family members of gay people who are hurt that they can't watch their children go down the aisle. Lots of friends of gay people who can't do the same thing.
4. Lots of straight people will learn to hate marriage, thinking it a discriminatory institution and some will actually forego marriage in solidarity.
5. Your side will not get to know gay people or share in our joy. How many of us would you actually get along with? Learn something new from? Perhaps see the world a little differently from?
6. You will constantly be told you are bigots, haters, etc no matter how much you say otherwise.
7. You'll have to spend lots of money defending your position, money that could be spent on so many better things.
8. The children of gay couples will not have married parents. Not sure why you never think of them.
9. How much energy are you expending trying to keep the status quo? Think what else you can do with that energy.
What exactly do you win in this scenario? Is is worth all that you lose?
Here's what happens if we "win" and same sex marriage is allowed everywhere.
1. Many more happy people, who know can use that energy for constructive things.
2. Children of gay couples will have married parents and be better protected.
3. Tons of money will be saved and can be used for other things.
4. Once we all relax and stop calling each other bigots, etc. we might find that we have some common interests. We might find we enjoy each others company now that we aren't fighting.
5. Marriage stops being a discriminating institution, no one feels bad about joining it and some groups are not prevented from joining it so it becomes even stronger.
6. Gay people won't have to try and eke out rights here and there trying to get the things we need. Marriage will give us those rights.
And what do you lose in this scenario? I really have no idea. You can still get married. Your marriage will still be honored. Marriage will be strengthened as more people get to do it and want to do it. No one on your side has actually articulated a clear example of what you would lose. And whatever it is you think you would lose, is that really worth all the pain, all the money, all the arguments, etc that will continue as long as gay people can't marry?
You know, I grew up in rural New England. Very rural. I did not hear that there was such as thing as being gay. Did not hear about it, see it, or know anyone who was. And guess what? As soon as I hit puberty I knew I was attracted to my own sex. So there you go.
Even if you win, and then manage to get rid of all of us, new gay people will be born, and the whole cycle will start over. Let's just get past this, and start enjoying our own lives and stop trying to control everyone else. You just might discover that we aren't so bad after all!!
95
acoolerclimate, just wanted to say thanks for putting yourself out there like you have in these comments. Your passionate voice is both heartbreaking and inspiring.
I prefer Kinky Friedman's view on gay marriage: "They have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us." Wish more people felt like that, especially in this age of insta-marriage/5 minute divorce.
I live in Tennessee and am employed by a religious institution that has some very liberal elements and some very conservative elements. Unfortunately, the conservative elements have held the institution back WRT gay rights. However, it makes me happy to know that their monies are going to support LGBT causes via my salary.
I prefer Kinky Friedman's view on gay marriage: "They have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us." Wish more people felt like that, especially in this age of insta-marriage/5 minute divorce.
I live in Tennessee and am employed by a religious institution that has some very liberal elements and some very conservative elements. Unfortunately, the conservative elements have held the institution back WRT gay rights. However, it makes me happy to know that their monies are going to support LGBT causes via my salary.
96
Since democracy/mob-rule fetishists like the 'Loveschild' [sic] construct wish to exercise a trip to the polls to vote on minority rights, why stop with homosexual domestic partnerships?
Living in Savannah, GA for the past 2 ½ years, I can assure you a majority of voters in this neck of the woods would dearly love to have another crack at voting on the restoration of miscegenation laws. Are you game?
Let's get even closer to LC's home: How's about a vote on whether Scientology is an actual religion or merely a tax break for readers of bad science fiction?
Is Mormonism a polygamist cult, or an actual sect of Christianity? A whole bunch 'o Christians, again here in the South, would enjoy a chance at bat over that one.
Should non-worship commercial church properties--strip malls, rental/storage units, etc.--be tax exempt? I'm itching to cast a ballot on that one, myself.
I'm a tax-paying, law-abiding, gainfully employed American citizen. I want full and equal rights for all of that. LGBT Americans are fed up with sitting at the children's table at this Thanksgiving called the U.S.of A.
Living in Savannah, GA for the past 2 ½ years, I can assure you a majority of voters in this neck of the woods would dearly love to have another crack at voting on the restoration of miscegenation laws. Are you game?
Let's get even closer to LC's home: How's about a vote on whether Scientology is an actual religion or merely a tax break for readers of bad science fiction?
Is Mormonism a polygamist cult, or an actual sect of Christianity? A whole bunch 'o Christians, again here in the South, would enjoy a chance at bat over that one.
Should non-worship commercial church properties--strip malls, rental/storage units, etc.--be tax exempt? I'm itching to cast a ballot on that one, myself.
I'm a tax-paying, law-abiding, gainfully employed American citizen. I want full and equal rights for all of that. LGBT Americans are fed up with sitting at the children's table at this Thanksgiving called the U.S.of A.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Today in the Surveillance State: The "War on Reality" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Full Text of David Guterson's Controversial Commencement Speech by Dominic Holden
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (96) RSS