Fighting Our Fight: the Gay Politics Thread

[Gatito Grande]

Here's where Mass. is at, as of this hour (could change quite a bit in the next few hours or days):

Quote:

---

Same-sex marriage debate heats up in Boston

Protesters shout, scuffle as lawmakers argue issue

Thursday, February 12, 2004 Posted: 4:27 PM EST (2127 GMT)



BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Massachusetts lawmakers were spending a second day Thursday trying to hammer out a compromise on whether the state will recognize same-sex marriages, and which rights it will allow such couples.



On Wednesday, lawmakers narrowly rejected two compromise proposals that sought to legalize civil unions but ban gay marriage. As married couples, same-sex partners would have more rights than in civil unions.



The key issue of whether to ban same-sex marriage through an amendment to the state constitution has not yet made it to a vote.



State Sen. Jarrett T. Barrios, a Democrat, made a personal plea against the proposed amendment, as the Legislature's only openly gay lawmaker.



"I am the first person to speak on this amendment who is directly affected by it, I'll admit it," Barrios said, adding that his partner of more than 10 years and his two adopted children would be denied health benefits if the amendment were enacted.



Also during Thursday's session, State Rep. Shaun P. Kelly, a Republican, filed a motion to adjourn the session, which would essentially allow the court ruling in favor of gay marriage to stand. But legislators rejected that move by a 153-44 vote.



The extraordinary constitutional convention began Wednesday, drawing about 3,700 people protesting on both sides of the issue. They lined the halls and stairwells of the Statehouse. Hundreds more gathered outside chanting slogans and waving signs. Chants of "Let the people vote" could be heard from people on both sides of the issue. [GG: I don't think that's correct. "Let the people vote" is the homophobic side's slogan du spin, poorly masking their hate. ]



The move to debate an amendment banning same-sex marriage comes a week after the state's highest court ruled that such couples were entitled to marriage -- not simply civil unions.



With that ruling, Massachusetts stands to become the first state in the country to allow gay men and lesbian women to marry.



American flag, rainbow flag fly

Just before the convention began, a fight broke out in the Statehouse when the two opposing forces yelled and screamed at each other. Police broke up the scuffle without further incident.



At one point, those opposing gay marriages unfurled a giant American flag inside the Statehouse. Gay rights advocates held up a large "rainbow" flag, which has come to symbolize gay pride.



Protesters were not separated by sides. Gay rights advocates often stood next to their foes, exchanging an occasional scowl.



State Rep. Philip Travis, a Democratic sponsor of the amendment to change the state constitution, said Wednesday the union of one man and one woman "will be protected in Massachusetts."



He said he hoped Massachusetts would not be "the first state in the union to endorse gay marriage by legislation."



But state Sen. Harriette Chandler, a Democrat, told lawmakers, "I urge my colleagues to stand with me against discrimination today and to oppose this attempt to amend our constitution."



Let the people vote

Any amendment to change the state constitution would have to be ratified by both houses of the Legislature in two successive legislative sessions. Then the voters would have to approve it.



The earliest a constitutional amendment vote could be held would be November 2006. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered the Legislature to allow gays to marry by this May.



Last week's ruling was in response to a question from the state Senate on whether civil unions for gay couples would be sufficient to meet the court's 4-3 November decision that gays and lesbians cannot be forbidden from joining in civil marriages under the Massachusetts Constitution.



Civil unions grant couples most of the rights of state civil marriages but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage such as Social Security.



Bush prepared to support constitutional ban

President Bush called the court's ruling "deeply troubling."



In his State of the Union address last month, Bush said he was prepared to support a constitutional amendment to prevent "activist judges" from "redefining marriage by court order."



Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the president is "committed to doing what is legally necessary. ... If necessary, he will support a constitutional amendment."



McClellan said the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling had moved the president closer to endorsing a constitutional amendment.



Social conservatives have called on the White House to take an unequivocal stand against same-sex unions, arguing they pose a threat to fundamental Judeo-Christian values.



McClellan said Bush recently told GOP members of Congress that a proposed amendment written by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado, was consistent with his views on the issue.



Politicians weigh in

The proposed federal amendment would forbid states from allowing gay marriages but permit them to pass laws allowing civil unions and same-sex legal partnership arrangements, as are now allowed in California and Vermont.



U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, one of the nation's most prominent gay lawmakers, told CNN that gays are "not diluting the marriage between a man and a woman.



"The marriage between two heterosexuals who love each other, the overwhelming form of marriage, will be exactly unchanged," he said.



Thirty-eight states have passed laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages.



The Massachusetts decision and similar court rulings in Canada also have entered the debate among the Democratic presidential candidates.



Front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has said he does not support gay marriage but does back civil unions. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean signed the first state law on same-sex civil unions.



Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the question of same-sex marriage should be one for voters -- not the courts -- to decide.

---

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...index.html



["Let the people vote" my *ss: hey, I'd really love to have my own slave, let's vote on that! ]





I am against any so-called "compromise" on this issue: the time for civil marriage is now.



I know it was just a couple of years ago, when folks were running off to Vermont to get "united." It was an important step in the struggle . . . a step whose time has now passed.



The very fact that "civil union" is being debated in the context of banning same-sex marriage, makes it *abundantly clear* that any civil union law that arises now, will be notable for how unequal it will be to marriage.



Couples will not be able to take their civil unions to another state. Employers will not offer benefits on the basis of civil unions (unless they're already inclined to recruit/support LGBT employees: that is, benefits will be available to economically better-off couples at more enlightened employers, but that's all).



Civil rights aren't about appealing to the sympathetic---they're about compelling the recalcitrant (the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were designed for *Mississippi*, not New York). The adamancy with which "gay marriage" (HATE that phrase! Don't *ever* use it---it's civil marriage for all couples/equality under the law that we're after) is opposed, shows just how much "marriage" (and no other legal status) is needed.



. . . and the Democrats (and their Presidential nominee *cough* "JFK the 2nd" *cough*) better realize this ASAP. The idea that this issue is going to go away, in this election year, if they hide behind civil unions, is laughable. Civil unions either enshrine LGBT couples in second-class status (in which case, the fight is not over!), or they leave LGBT couples in legal limbo, fighting state-by-state, court-by-court whether civil unions are "equivalent" or not (in which case, the fight is not over!). They settle nothing.



GG Civil marriage. Equality under the law. Period. End of story. Nothing more, and nothing less. Out

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Mass. Lawmakers Halt Gay-Marriage Debate



By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer



BOSTON - With the nation watching, a weary Massachusetts Legislature suspended debate on a proposed gay marriage ban Thursday after two days of tense negotiations, the slim defeat of three amendments and an angry late-evening walkout by dozens of lawmakers chanting "We want a vote."



The constitutional convention will resume March 11 when lawmakers will again grapple with the divisive issue that has placed Massachusetts in the national spotlight. Under a ruling by the state's highest court issued in November, the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin taking place across the state in mid-May.



"It has been a struggle for the members, as it is for every citizen," said House Speaker Thomas Finneran, a Democrat and an ardent opponent of gay marriage. "No one should expect that decisions of this magnitude would be made casually or quickly. Our efforts will continue."



The adjournment was seen as a victory for gay-rights advocates, who stood vigil outside the House chamber for hours, singing and cheering. They continued to sing "God Bless America" and cheered vigorously when the convention recessed without a vote. During the day, their renditions of the national anthem and chants of "Justice now" could be heard by lawmakers inside.



"It's so clear that the legislators need time to think. It's so clear that they're exhausted, they're confused about the amendments, they're uncertain about the issues and they're desperately asking time to sort this out," said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.



"The democratic process has been stymied," said Gerald D'Avolio, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. "The people at this point have no way to respond to the (court) decision. We had a lot of people who wanted this Legislature, this convention, to give them something to vote on, and that was marriage between a man and a woman."



The decision to adjourn at midnight came after more than 17 hours of debate and negotiations over two days that saw three attempts to ban gay marriage voted down. Debate was suspended amid discussion of a fourth attempt at compromise — a measure sponsored by bipartisan House and Senate leaders that would have banned gay marriage but adopted civil unions similar to those in Vermont.



The bipartisan group had predicted that the new mix of words would muster a majority and bring the Statehouse spectacle to an end — but that did not come to pass, as alliances broke down and gay-rights supported used delay tactics to kill time before the Legislature's mandated midnight adjournment.



One lawmaker, Democratic Sen. Brian A. Joyce, was reading a newspaper article aloud when the brief walkout occurred.



"We should never have politics like that in this state," said Rep. Philip Travis, a Democrat who sponsored the original gay marriage ban. "They're called filibusters. They do them in Washington. We don't do them in Boston. This is a new step in the recorded history of Massachusetts. It's bad government."



Although the bipartisan amendment would have made Massachusetts only the second state in the country to approve civil unions, gay-rights advocates fiercely condemned it, arguing it would revert gay people to second-class citizenship after a hard-won court victory.



Scrutiny has been focused on the Massachusetts Legislature since November, when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. Opponents have said they will seek to block gay marriages, when they become legal in mid-May.



Any constitutional amendment must survive a series of votes during this legislative session, and more hurtles in the next two years, before getting to the ballot in November 2006.



The early debate Thursday took on a decidedly personal tone, as several lawmakers shared from their own experiences.



Sen. Jarrett Barrios, the first openly gay lawmaker to speak during the two days of debate and one of the most visible critics of the constitutional ban, choked back tears when he spoke about how an amendment would affect his family. The Democrat and his partner of 10 years have two adopted sons, ages 12 and 7.



"Don't believe those who tell you that just defining marriage between a man and a woman will not hurt your gay and lesbian friends, your family members, your neighbors and your colleagues, because it will," Barrios said.



Rep. David Flynn, also a Democrat, told lawmakers that a member of his family was now shunning him because of a vote he made Wednesday in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriages.



"I lost a member of my family last night because of my vote," said Flynn, who opposes gay marriage. "And I say to that member of the family, 'I love you, I want you back in the family, but you must understand that I took the oath of this office ... and I've always sworn to the rest of you to what you and I think is right, regardless of party, regardless of politics, regardless of religion and regardless of family."



The most recent effort to change the state constitution has been in the works since last year. But the court's ruling gave the issue a new sense of urgency, particularly with the prospect of same-sex marriages just around the corner.



If gay marriage takes place in Massachusetts, federal lawsuits would likely ensue as gay couples seek recognition in other states and by the federal government. While state marriages are normally respected in other jurisdictions, 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[willowrulz4ever]

On this Mass. gay marriage thing.There are democrats supporting the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?



This makes no sense.Gay marriage is their chance to shine.They can become heroes fighting for eqaulity.Not jst hack pols catering to the majority so they can keep their jobs.



Are there that many democrats out there that are against civil marriage for gays?





Log Cabin Republcans.Guys we might gain acceptance in the GOP one day.One day gay and trans rights may be a settled matter and we can worry only about other differences like fiscal polcy,foreign matters,defense but this is not that day.



Republicans will take your votes no probem,I doubt a majority will treat you as equals anytime soon though.I refuse to vote for any party that would deny equal rights to all in the name of common ground.



Ronnie

[Ben Varkentine]

Worth-reading editorial from Slate. I don't think the solution the writer proposes is the best one--but it may be the best we're going to get this generation.



slate.msn.com/id/2095259/

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[technopagan78]

The problem with this "solution" is that it replicates another very bad solution from the nineteenth century. I am thinking of how the United States divided itself over the practice of slavery, some states allowing the keeping of slaves, other states not.



The comparison of civil marriage with marriages involving "polygamy, miscegenation, or consanguinity" is in part a logical fallacy. Civil marriage is marriage between two non-related consenting adults, not multiple partners, not partners related by blood. And just as the US abandoned the practice of legal slavery, so has it abandoned legal prohibitions against racial intermixing. (which is not to suggest that the non legal forms of these institutions no longer exist).



While I think Litwick offers an interesting discussion, by no means does it strike me as a good idea. The mistakes that led to the civil war are still being felt today. While I seriously doubt, the current issue could spark another civil war, I also think we could learn a good deal by reading the writers of the nineteenth century, particularly Emerson and Thoreau.

[darkmagicwillow]

I have to agree with Ben on the likelihood of a federal acknowledgement of same sex marriage. Prior posters may be right about the time for civil unions being gone, but that statement is being shown to be true in a regressive context rather than in a progressive one. Civil unions are disappearing as states like Nebraska and Ohio not only join the 37 states prohibiting same-sex marriages, but also prohibit companies from granting benefits to domestic partners.



Since I think it's unlikely that a constitutional amendment could be passed prohibiting same-sex marriage, the most important point of progress towards same sex marriage is ensuring that the Supreme Court stops becoming more conservative, which means electing a Democratic U.S. President before the some of the older liberal Justices die or become too ill to serve.



Another important accomplishment a Democratic President might be able to make would be to strip marriage of some of the benefits that have accrued as historical accidents. Why should health insurance depend on marriage and employment? It's a historical accident dating back to WW2 when the US government froze wages, forcing businesses to compete for workers in other areas such as insurance benefits. The federal government already covers those over 65, the segment of the population that is both most expensive to cover and to whom health expenditure has the lowest returns (covering children has far greater returns.) Why not cover everyone and do away with the bureaucratic wastage of HMOs, whose overhead is noticeably worse than that of government health coverage in other first world companies?

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[xita]

It's a world effort as well, we aren't the only ones in the world asking for this and I think that will also make a difference as well. In Mexico they had a small demonstration asking for gay marriage.



Here are some pics:

story.news.yahoo.com/news...0302150036



story.news.yahoo.com/news...0202150036



story.news.yahoo.com/news...=1&e=3&a=0

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Since I think it's unlikely that a constitutional amendment could be passed prohibiting same-sex marriage, the most important point of progress towards same sex marriage is ensuring that the Supreme Court stops becoming more conservative, which means electing a Democratic U.S. President before the some of the older liberal Justices die or become too ill to serve.

---

dmw, since (civil) marriage is a state matter, I'm curious as to the role you see the U.S. Supreme Court playing. Do you just mean whether or not they will uphold the federal DOMA?



GG Trying to be optimistic on the Constitutional Amendment (it's unlikelihood), but I am inherently paranoid . . . Out

[Kieli]

The University of VA (my employer) has just been issued a rather interesting ultimatum by a few of their most generous benefactors (who just happen to be gay): Either start offering same-sex benefits for the gays and lesbians that are employed at UVA and the UVA Health System or they're cutting off their funding. I'm not sure I like this approach and apparently UVA isn't taking them very seriously.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Darcy]

The U.S. Supreme Court will likely be the ones to determine whether states are required to grant full faith and credit under the U.S. Constitution to marriages granted in other states as well as the related issue of whether DOMA passes constitutional muster. The current Chief Justice, Rehnquist, actually supported the Plessy decision that originally set up the doctrine that separate but equal was constitutional (later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education). Plessy is widely considered to have been a black mark on the court's record like the Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Bowers decisions. Somehow the idea of a Plessy supporter ruling on civil rights doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.



The conservative bent of the current court is a major reason for bringing suit in state courts under state constitutions. So far as I know, the issue of marriage equality has made it to the state supreme court level four times (Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Massachusetts), and each time the state has been unable to come up with any rational basis for restricting marriage based on gender - in other words, we won.



Hawaii and Alaska amended their state constitutions to overturn their decisions; Vermont's supreme court was concerned only with rights provided by Vermont law, and allowed the legislature to set up civil unions as a means of granting those same rights. Massachusetts' court clearly understood the limitations of civil unions as compared with marriage, and refused to sanction a separate but unequal institution. I'm hoping New Jersey will also see the difference.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

The conservative bent of the current court is a major reason for bringing suit in state courts under state constitutions. So far as I know, the issue of marriage equality has made it to the state supreme court level four times (Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Massachusetts), and each time the state has been unable to come up with any rational basis for restricting marriage based on gender - in other words, we won.

---

Hasn't it also made it to the California State Supreme Court as well? Or am I mistaking the current hullabaloo with CA conservatives challenging the San Francisco marriages with a state supreme court challenge?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Darcy]

No, the progress in California, consisting solely of domestic partnership laws, has been via the legislature, not through a lawsuit/court decisions. The marriages in San Francisco are taking place because the mayor has declared that the current laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples violate the state constitution, and therefore his oath to uphold the constitution requires him to issue licenses to same-sex couples. It's doubtful these nmarriages will have any legal effect, even in California, much as I'd like to believe otherwise.



Not that I didn't consider making the trip, but I hear they've run out of forms ....

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[xita]

Darcy, I totally expected you and Mel to make the trip I thought maybe your foot kept you home

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

The marriages in San Francisco are taking place because the mayor has declared that the current laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples violate the state constitution, and therefore his oath to uphold the constitution requires him to issue licenses to same-sex couples. It's doubtful these nmarriages will have any legal effect, even in California, much as I'd like to believe otherwise.

---

It's a start and I'm all for getting started somewhere instead of just saying "The hets will never let us get anywhere so we should just take what we can get." I'm NOT saying that you said this.....but I've been hearing it more and more lately and I find it a little disturbing.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Darcy]

Quote:

---

It's a start and I'm all for getting started somewhere

---

I'm all for that - that's why we went to Vermont for a civil union and to Toronto to get married (in addition to registering as domestic partners in California, reciprocal beneficiaries in Hawaii, and life partners in Philadelphia, none of which require you to actually appear in the state! ).



We don't need to get married in San Francisco to be married, although I'm willing to fly out there for it if necessary - later. Similarly, we haven't decided whether we'll get married in Massachusetts when we're there in the fall. The ACLU is warning that getting married again implies that you don't believe your original marriage was valid, and there's that whole thing about what you check off on the license application where it asks if you've been married before and if so, when that marriage was dissolved.



Ironically, my brother is getting married (for the third time) in Las Vegas tomorrow, and I'm going to miss it because I'm not up to flying across the country with a broken ankle.



So Xita's partially right, the ankle is an obstacle - but there's also the legal question of whether we have to get married in California to be married. At this point I don't think a marriage of dubious legality is enough of an incentive to justify the time and expense for us.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[justin]

Some good news in San Fransisco. The courts have rejected attempts to stop the marriages on the grounds that conservative groups can't prove that they're causing "irreprable harm"



What an amazing concept, gay marriages don't actually hurt anyone. Who'd have thunk it



The case won't be heard again till next month.



The onlycloud on the horizon is that Arnold (I'm using the medias convention of reffering to people I don't like by just their first name) has ordered the California attorney general to put a stop to this on the grounds that it represents an iniment risk to civil order.



I got the story from bbc news

Quote:

---

       

Legal victory for US gay couples

The court ruling is a temporary boost for gay couples

A judge in San Francisco has refused an appeal by conservative groups to call an immediate halt to the city's same-sex marriages.



The matter will return to court next month - and in the meantime officials say they will continue granting marriage licences to gay couples.



More than 3,000 gay couples have married since the city began issuing licences on 12 February.



Conservative family values groups want those unions to be declared invalid.



It is the second time in a week that a judge has denied a move to halt the same-sex marriages, pending a further hearing.



In the latest case, the conservative group Campaign for California Families had attempted to persuade the judge that issuing licences to gay and lesbian couples was a waste of taxpayers' money and likely to cause harm.



But that argument was rejected.



"You have not made a showing of irreparable harm," Judge Ronald Quidachay said.



He scheduled a hearing for 29 March, the same day that was set earlier this week in a separate suit filed by another conservative group, the Alliance Defense Fund.



Governor challenge



Hours after the court hearing, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote to the state's attorney general, Bill Lockyero, asking him to intervene to stop San Francisco from granting same-sex marriage licenses.



Gay couples hope more cities will follow San Francisco's lead

Mr Schwarzenegger said the city's actions were against state law and presented "an imminent risk to civil order".



San Francisco contends that laws banning same-sex marriages are discriminatory and unconstitutional. The city is suing the state of California over the issue.



Mayor Gavin Newsom says state laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman are against the equal rights provisions set out in California's constitution.



Californians voted against gay and lesbian marriages under Proposition 22 in 2000, which says marriage is limited to one man and one woman.



In New Mexico, a county clerk issued marriage licences to at least 15 couples on Friday.



Victoria Dunlap said she made the decision after the county attorney said state law did not explicitly ban same-sex marriage.



"This has nothing to do with politics or morals," the Sandoval county clerk told the Associated Press news agency.



"If there are no legal grounds that say this should be prohibited, I can't withhold it. This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible."



'Historic moment'



Gay men and lesbians have travelled from across the US to get married in San Francisco.



The BBC's David Willis in San Francisco says some regard what is happening in the city as a landmark moment in the struggle for gay rights and have likened it to the campaign against racial segregation in America.



The legal status of gay marriages is being contested elsewhere.



In Massachusetts, a court recently said it was "unconstitutional" to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying.



But before the first legal weddings can happen there, attempts to block them through amending the constitution are expected.

---

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[crazyredlizard]

First of all, I must say: Great thread! Discussions such as this one is what keeps a democracy working. We may debate how well the this great experiment called democracy is working sometimes, but like all experiments, it's a process. We succeed and we fail..but as long as we learn along the way, we're better for it. And like all social movements, the rights for LGBT's to marry, and/or gain the equal rights of heterosexuals will take time. I'm as impatient as the next one, and being a "northeast liberal" sometimes I just can't understand why anyone would have a problem with two adults, whoever they are, having the same rights as their neighbor. But I digress: Just wanted to throw this tid bit out there: I think it's damned exciting to be a part of this social movement. To witness this part of the social evolution. Gay rights has been a battle for decades, and it will be decades to come before all the dust settles. But right now: Courts defying legislatures. Legislatures defying state or federal laws. Cities taking the lead, one at a time...it's brilliant and it's how things will get done. Slowly, methodically, and pushing the envelope every once in a while. Social movements are fought in courts, on the streets, in the media, with protest and civil disobedience. But the movement's success is solidified only when it has gained acceptance in people's minds.



And we all can do our part...and it's very simple. Talk to someone about the issues. Raise the level of social/political debate in this country, one person at a time. Talk to someone who isn't comfortable with the term "gay marriage" Reframe the issue for them. Relanguage the debate. Respecting someone else's discomfort with the issue, is how they'll listen to you. Because I know from my experience...I will listen to one person disagree with me, and consider their point of view, before I listen to a group of people disagreeing with me. Representing and being an activist means doing something to change the status quo.

Education is the first step.



Always be willing to teach. Never stop being a student.



Peace and Love from Woodstock



Lizard



Links: a letter from a Bishop tackling some of the religious issues. The Mayor of Chicago and what they're doing. New Mexico and their recent news.



www.chronogram.com/chrono...oom_2.html

www.chicagosuntimes.com/o...gay19.html

www.salon.com/news/wire/2...index.html

[darkmagicwillow]

While the religious right is talking about returning to the Biblical definition of marriage, it might behoove them to actually read the book of which they claim to be so fond. Biblical Marriage might not be to their taste, especially these two parts:

• Marriage ishall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
  
  
• If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
  
  deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
  
  

I suspect most religious conservatives don't want to go all the way back to the Bronze Age, but if they really want to stick to their standards, they'll have to.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I suspect most religious conservatives don't want to go all the way back to the Bronze Age, but if they really want to stick to their standards, they'll have to.

---

I'm sorry but I had to ROTFLMFAO at this one. Pretty sure many of the religious conservatives really have thought this through. Just curious, are your passages from the King James version of the Bible or the NIV?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Gatito Grande]

3200 couples and counting!



Glad you like the thread, crazyredlizard (and Welcome to the Kitten! )





Re:

Quote:

---

Talk to someone who isn't comfortable with the term "gay marriage" Reframe the issue for them. Relanguage the debate.

---

Here's a good resource for that: www.alternet.org/story.ht...ryID=17876



George Lakoff is a political theorist (from the Left, of course!) whose specialty is "frames": how an issue/debate is framed, frequently determines how people will respond (e.g. "same-sex marriage" is more persuasive than "gay marriage," because "gay", unfortunately, makes far too many hets go to that visceral "Yuck!" place)



What do you think happened w/ Ahnold? Did the GOP finally read him the Riot Act---or did he start seeing visions of "Gavin for Governor in '06"?



GG Enroute to "Gavin for President" in '12? He's only 36, and boy, he makes John Edwards look like Jesse Helms in the Pretty-Boy Candidate department (I think a "Gavin for the Nobel Prize" case is already arising! ) Out

[crazyredlizard]

Hay thanks for the warm welcome GG Being an old politics and communication major in college and grad school, I couldn't resist this thread! Plus, you know, important issue and all



Thanks for posting the alternet article. Read it when it first came out and thought it was not only insightful, but a great lesson to all of us busy battling the right-wing PR machine!



Here's one from today's NY Times. For the Empire State kitties and all that are interested in where NY State is on the issues of gay rights. Many laws have been enacted here to protect gay couples, but of course, more needs to be done.



www.nytimes.com/2004/02/2...2gays.html



Peace and love,



Lizard



One more...talking about language and the semantics of marriage vs civil union

www.nytimes.com/2004/02/2...html?8hpib

Edited by: crazyredlizard at: 2/22/04 12:20 pm

[dekalog]

Here's an article on the Upcoming United Nations Gay Bill fight:



www.nowtoronto.com/issues...story7.php

[kukalaka]

Quote:

---

Hours after the court hearing, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote to the state's attorney general, Bill Lockyero, asking him to intervene to stop San Francisco from granting same-sex marriage licenses.

---

Well, I suppose most of you already know Lockyer's answer, but since I liked it so much, I'll post it anyway:

Quote:

---

The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next 'Terminator 4' movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do

---

[mollyig]

Yeah, that quote made me giggle aloud when I read it this morning.

" . . and tolerance it ain't acceptance" - Amy Ray

[xita]

Hahahaa. I love it.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[Warduke]

Oh that is just too good.

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[crazyredlizard]

Here's the NY Times article:



Here's a thought: Bush says marriage is "most fundamental institution of civilization" Funny, I thought that was an rights-based system of law. Huh. My bad. Obviously I was mistaken.



www.nytimes.com/2004/02/2...AY.html?hp



Lizard

Edited by: crazyredlizard at: 2/24/04 9:22 am

[xita]

I am so irate, that scum sucking dumb monkey we call president has called for the constitutional admendment.



story.news.yahoo.com/news...sh_gays_dc

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[Warduke]

Everyone knew this was coming. If there's one thing you can count on an asshole for, it's being an asshole.

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

Calling Bush an asshole and a scumbag dumb money just makes us look bad.

---

He is a slimey hypocritical bigoted evolutionary misfit. I could say what I really think but that might cross a line, but I can call him certain names. My mother is staying with me and likes to watch the news and all of a sudden he was there on my pretty TV spewing his crap. I literally bolted out of the room to seek out my computer and come to this board.



This is the Kitten board, we have our posting rules but having to eat your anger and staying polite at all costs about something so fundamentally hurtful and harmful as what he is trying to accomplish in the face of the entire world is not one of our rules. If you want to express yourself in another manner and are capable of refraining from swearing then good for you, really, but you can´t tell others how to express themselves. We all deal in a different way. This is not a George Bush fanforum (not saying you are a George Bush fan) where we would be breaking the rules, we are not standing in front of the US congress to give a speech, there is a big difference, this is our house so to speak and it is not the white house. If I want to rant in my home I can, so I will rant here. If anyone else wants to rant about that man they can do just that.

Edited by: DrG at: 2/24/04 10:17 am