Take Three: Unite the USA or Not?

dys--

I believe they ARE wrong on this issue. It is personally sad to me that this issue contributed so heavily to push my candidate in office--but I don't attack those who voted as they did. I am trying to change their minds--one person a at a time.

But, I won't sit here and allow someone to say Rove/Bush/GOPs created this issue. It made news on its own merit, pushed to the forefront by Mass.

I've expected more than a couple of national gay groups to be really vocal about all this. Their absence is curious to me. It makes me think they are scared for their lives. Someone should do something.

0 Replies

Lash, we may have started the ball rolling here, but I think that Bush et al capitalized on it and used the fight-back to their advantage.

I think that gay rights groups are organizing.

0 Replies

there will never be a right or wrong time to demand to be treated as a human being...the trick is, and this is an even harder trick, to convince people to prioritize issues.....and if you live in a country where gay marriage and other "moral issues" are more important than war, economy, deficit, education and healthcare to the average voter well....the average voter is a goddam idiot........and ends up with his/her representative leader.....also there are more average people than any other...so I suppose this is what we have to look forward to.....

0 Replies

What we need is another terrorist attack. Nothing helps focus the mind on what's really important in life quite like being bombed.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

What we need is another terrorist attack. Nothing helps focus the mind on what's really important in life quite like being bombed.

I'll pass..... Laughing

0 Replies

Joe writes

Quote:

It took a hundred years before the work to dismantle separate but equal laws regarding race could even begin.

This argument continues to be used by the left, is dismissed by the advocates for traditional marriage on the right, and is hugely resented by a large percentage of the black community who understand that the two issues are entirely different. There is no fundamental difference between the races other than the color of skin which is no different than the color of eyes or color of hair. There is a huge difference beween the sexes and sexual orientation falls within that category. I did use the comparison of apples to oranges analogy but the two issues aren't even that close. It's like comparing a mountain to the ocean.

I am a strong advocate for traditional marriage and do not want to change the definition of marriage. It provides the best vehicle for rearing of children as well as being the best vehicle for tracing geneologies and blood lines. I am strongly opposed to special rights for anybody and to grant gays the right to 'marry' and deny that to any other people who aren't one man and one woman would be a special right. As it is now everybody has the identical same rights in regards to marriage.

I am a strong advocate for any people, straight or gay, who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry a person of the opposite sex to be able to form themselves into family units with all the benefits of shared insurance, hospital visitation, rights to inheritance, etc. etc.

I am a strong advocate for both sides being sensitive to the needs of the other and agreeing on a win win situation for this one. If gays demand that the idea of traditional marriage be scrapped to accommodate them, I think we'll see a lot more of the unfortunate defensive legislation we saw in this past election including increased pressure for a national Constitutional amendment.

If cooler heads prevail, the extreme left and extreme right can be reined in, we all can have what is most important to us, and we all really can get along. Racism wasn't eliminated with one fell swoop of legislation but happened incrementally, step by step, allowing time for the national culture to adjust and accept. That is also happening with the 'coming out' of our gay brothers and sisters and will continue to do so.

I think looking for 'win win' solutions on all issues is the best way to achieve unity in this country. But some just prefer to be angry with their position set in stone and that prevents either peace or solutions.

0 Replies

I don't often do a point by point rebuttal to posts, but there is so much wrong about this one I must:

Quote:

Joe writes
Quote:
It took a hundred years before the work to dismantle separate but equal laws regarding race could even begin.

We start here.

Foxfyre answers:

Quote:

This argument continues to be used by the left, (Because it's true.) is dismissed by the advocates for traditional marriage on the right, (Wrongly) and is hugely resented by a large percentage of the black community who understand that the two issues are entirely different. (A right wing myth. You may find some blacks, cut from the same cloth as their Jewish brothers who resent any use of the Holocaust as a comparison issue, but it is not a large percentage in either 'community'. )

Quote:

There is no fundamental difference between the races other than the color of skin which is no different than the color of eyes or color of hair. There is a huge difference beween the sexes and sexual orientation falls within that category.

No. There isn't any difference other than that which you have imposed. Humans are humans. Yes. It is that simple. All other divisions are cultural, political or self-derived.

Quote:

I am a strong advocate for traditional marriage and do not want to change the definition of marriage. (Good for you.) It provides the best vehicle for rearing of children (But not superior to, as data already shown to you by others has shown, and in some individual cases not as good as the care and treatment in gay homes. So? as well as being the best vehicle for tracing geneologies and blood lines. For the past ten years I have been the genealogist for my family, believe me, gay marriage will not change anything about genealogy. Unless it makes it easier than finding parental lines through adoption records than it is now through rumors in family letters and wills.

Quote:

I am strongly opposed to special rights for anybody(me too) and to grant gays the right to 'marry' and deny that to any other people who aren't one man and one woman would be a special right. (Who are the other people? Oooh, the ones who want more than one partner?? Nice red herring. I'm with you on that. Two is a marriage, more than two, we already have, it called a corporation.)

Quote:

As it is now everybody has the identical same rights in regards to marriage.

No. They don't. My sister cannot marry her partner. She cannot marry the person she has been in love with, lived with, suffered through all the pains of family sickness and death with, survived and succeeded with for over thirty years. It would not be a special right for them to marry. It would be social justice.

Quote:

I am a strong advocate for any people, straight or gay, who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry a person of the opposite sex to be able to form themselves into family units with all the benefits of shared insurance, hospital visitation, rights to inheritance, etc. etc.

Creating a separate but equal class in clear violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. You are going to have to remove it before proceeding. And it's not necessary as you say later in your post, cooler heads can prevail. All that is necessary is that we make the right of marry inclusive.

=======

On another post, Lash, you express wonder that we are not hearing more outrage from gay groups over the recent elections, I don't know why exactly but I would think the reasons are three-fold:

One, it wasn't too long ago that a man on a public street seen approaching another man in the same way a man might approach a woman ( ie making a pass), would be subject to arrest and fine. There are long memories amongst my gay friends of beatings, harassment and destruction of property from police and people expressing certain Christian virtues. (So much for the love of Christ.)

Two: there is considerable work being done to bring the legal, Constitutional question forward while hoping to avoid a Dred Scott and
Three: After about twenty years of growth, acceptance and recognition in so many areas of life, I think gay people must be crestfallen by the blindness and bigotry of their fellow Americans. Shame on us. Freedom is on the march, but whoa, whoa, there gay guy, hold on there, my lesbian sister.

Respectfully,'

Joe Nation

0 Replies

Hey Joe.

You atrributed a statement to me that I didn't write. Please fix it if you will. I have a hard enough time defending what I DO write.

Thanks.

(But your response to me at the end of your post is based accurately on one of my previous posts. Just to clarify.)

<smiles, no biggie>

I guess we agree that the gay voices are currently silent because of a bewilderment at the huge numbers who oppose them. Littlek says they ARE organizing. Maybe they're just being smart and thinking carefully about how best to proceed.

I think they should start a commercial campaign, introducing the life stories of wonderful, American-style gay folks. Show them in a good light. Its hard to hold an ignorant hatred for people you know something about.

0 Replies

Thanks for the headups! (I wonder what I had my head up??)

I've corrected it. Embarrassed

I can tell you this: the gay people I know are very much distressed, they believe this is the beginning of another long period of hiding who they are, of trying to be invisible and of open hatred unopposed by this President.

What would really help would be a statement by this President declaring his opposition to discrimination. No one is holding their breath in anticipation.

Joe

0 Replies

I think that even though the Constitutions of 11 states were recently amended to recognize "marriage" as between a man and a woman, challenges will be made (and won) by lower and higher courts in those states. These challenges will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, and it is this Court (as it stands now) that will impose laws regardless of any majority "will of the people".

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

I think that even though the Constitutions of 11 states were recently amended to recognize "marriage" as between a man and a woman, challenges will be made (and won) by lower and higher courts in those states. These challenges will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, and it is this Court (as it stands now) that will impose laws regardless of any majority "will of the people".

Let's hope so. They will likely do their job of enforcing the Constitution, the ultimate rule of law, not the whims of the majority. That is a legislative function that the courts have no right to interfere with.

0 Replies

If Renquist survives it will 5-4 in favor of the States. The only time this group has opposed the States' right to govern their own laws was a case in 2000 regarding some election results, I forget the details.

0 Replies

I think it will be close as well, but will favor the challengers.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

If Renquist survives it will 5-4 in favor of the States. The only time this group has opposed the States' right to govern their own laws was a case in 2000 regarding some election results, I forget the details.

I don't think it likely that Renquist will finish out the year.

And there are 2 others on the brink of retirement, O'Conner and Stevens I believe.

And of course, in 2000 the USSC appropriately remanded the case back to the FLSC for a remedy, after striking down what 7 of 9 justices determined to be unconstitutional re: their previous remedy.

0 Replies

Bush a uniter. Never happen. Bush's claim to fame is that he is resolute. It's my way or the highway. Screw 49% of the electorate. He acted as if he had a mandate despite losing the popular vote and being installed by the USSC in 2000. This time he won the election both electoral and popular. There will be no stopping king George the "infallible."

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Bush a uniter. Never happen. Bush's claim to fame is that he is resolute. It's my way or the highway. Screw 49% of the electorate. He acted as if he had a mandate despite losing the popular vote and being installed by the USSC in 2000. This time he won the election both electoral and popular. There will be no stopping king George the "infallible."

Nothing but the Constitutional provisions of checks and balances which are still very much in effect.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Bush a uniter. Never happen. Bush's claim to fame is that he is resolute. It's my way or the highway. Screw 49% of the electorate. He acted as if he had a mandate despite losing the popular vote and being installed by the USSC in 2000. This time he won the election both electoral and popular. There will be no stopping king George the "infallible."

Nothing but the Constitutional provisions of checks and balances which are still very much in effect.

the bush crew is demonstrating that they have no problem with manipulating and changing the constitution to fit their agenda......and they will use the shotgun method of doing that by throwing so much **** on the wall that eventually some will stick.

0 Replies

I won't bother to rebut Joes critique of my post even though what I said was misrepresentated here and there as I would only be repeating myself and I stand by everything I said. I'll just put him down as one who is not willing to compromise on this issue. Some of those wonderful gay folk are among my close friends and in my own family. They are pretty sure I'm not homophobic and I that I want only the very best for them and all my friends and family, so I'm pretty secure I'm not too off base.

On the issue of equal rights, the Civil Rights movement was to create equal rights. All that was necessary to accomplish it was for the bigoted and prejudiced to shut up. They had to give up nothing for blacks and other minorities to have the same rights as whites.

What makes the gay marriage issue different is that everybody has to give up a time honored tradition created for a specific purpose. This is why people from all races, ethnic groups, sociopolitical conditioning, etc. oppose it while most, at the same time, are willing to create a new ability for all people who for whatever reason do not want or cannot have traditional marriage to benefit from the same perks inherent in traditional marriage.

A quick cursory search re black views toward this issue:

http://resist.ca/story/2004/5/28/155532/901

http://www.geocities.com/ninure/blacklash.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/senate.marriage/

0 Replies

Larry
The checks and balances you speak of become very much diminished when you an executive, legislative and possibly the judicial arms of the government of one party and one mind. Sure there is filibuster. However, the opposition cannot constantly use it and shut down government.

0 Replies

Quote:

They had to give up nothing for blacks and other minorities to have the same rights as whites.

They had to give up the same kind of mindset you have about marriage. They, the segregationists, believed they were defending a great tradition, based on Biblical verses, preached from white pulpits all over the South as the way thing ought to be - a natural law proclaimed by God. They predicted all kinds of chaotic things would occur if the races were allowed to intergrate, but most of all they wanted to hold on the mis-guided view that somehow, someway, some people weren't as much people as they themselves were and they deserved to keep their position of special rights.

Those who argue against gay marriage try to turn this on it's head claiming that it's the gays who want special rights but the facts show that as long as marriage remains the province of only certain people it's the traditionists who are holding onto to their special status and not the reverse.

Marriage ought to be allowed between two adults of any sex. Traditionalists can claim that marriage ought to be reserved to them, but their view simply does not coincide with the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

+++
Thanks for adding links that show what I said: Some blacks oppose gay marriage. Right. And I have to remember to say that thing about being misrepresented without actually showing any evidence of such. Swell argument there.

======
The Unity Poll thus far shows a crushing win for the Prom dates. See page one.

Joe

0 Replies

Take Three: Unite the USA or Not?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know