Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 112940 times)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #375 on: November 11, 2008, 09:14:00 AM »
Olbermann: Gay marriage is a question of love
Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness

By Keith Olbermann
updated 6:13 p.m. PT, Mon., Nov. 10, 2008

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8.  And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble.  You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling.  With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #376 on: November 11, 2008, 09:22:15 AM »
I’d love to hear what women like Gayle Haggard (Ted Haggard’s wife), Dina Matos McGreevey (Jim McGreevy’s wife), Terry McMillian (author), and Suzanne Craig (Senator Larry Craig’s wife) have to say about Prop 8.  Each of them ended up in sham marriages to gay men.  Wouldn’t they rather live in a world where gay men felt free to be themselves and marry other men rather than sucker women into marrying them?

As long as homosexuals are denied (among other things) marriage equality there will be men who feel pressured to pass for straight and marry unwitting women--only to have it blow up in everyone's face later. :-[

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #377 on: November 11, 2008, 09:25:38 AM »
Olbermann: Gay marriage is a question of love
Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness

the video is a bit more powerful



Buffgeek

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 712
  • I love white women!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #378 on: November 11, 2008, 09:30:42 AM »
I’d love to hear what women like Gayle Haggard (Ted Haggard’s wife), Dina Matos McGreevey (Jim McGreevy’s wife), Terry McMillian (author), and Suzanne Craig (Senator Larry Craig’s wife) have to say about Prop 8.  Each of them ended up in sham marriages to gay men.  Wouldn’t they rather live in a world where gay men felt free to be themselves and marry other men rather than sucker women into marrying them?

As long as homosexuals are denied (among other things) marriage equality there will be men who feel pressured to pass for straight and marry unwitting women--only to have it blow up in everyone's face later. :-[

Bay have you felt pressure to marry a woman in your life?

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #379 on: November 11, 2008, 09:36:54 AM »
Bay have you felt pressure to marry a woman in your life?

Yes. When I was younger, I did.  I got over it, but over the years, I have met quite a few who didn't get over it.  They got married, many have kids, and they still have sex with men on the side.  Over the years, I have been hit on by almost as many "straight" married guys as gay guys.  I am sure this is true for most gay men.

There are even some married closeted guys on getbig.  :-\

Buffgeek

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 712
  • I love white women!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #380 on: November 11, 2008, 09:43:23 AM »
the video is a bit more powerful




ACtually the Video makes me want to beat him senseless. I really cant stand Oberman any the crap that spews forth when he opens his trap. 

He is everything I hate about liberals.

Buffgeek

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 712
  • I love white women!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #381 on: November 11, 2008, 09:51:13 AM »
Yes. When I was younger, I did.  I got over it, but over the years, I have met quite a few who didn't get over it.  They got married, many have kids, and they still have sex with men on the side.  Over the years, I have been hit on by almost as many "straight" married guys as gay guys.  I am sure this is true for most gay men.

There are even some married closeted guys on getbig.  :-\

I am conflicted on this subject. I grew up in the restaruant industry and had a rough childhood and worked with several gay men who I respected greatly. two of them had very longterm partners they had been with for over 20 years. They were wild and crazy in their younger days, but they had been monogomous for a very long time. Then I worked with some flamboyant gay guys who wanted attention and would hit on every guy around to shock and get attention.

I just really dont get it as I have never been attracted to a man and from a religous/social standpoint I dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle. I came from a really messed up childhood so I see the traditional family as the ideal. I see a constant breakdown in values and morality in America and I think if I am honest with myself I fear that this is just another path down that road. Marriage is already treated a joke as is human life....

That said.... I think back on the men I mentioned before who I greatly respected, but disagreed with their lifestyle. I am conflicted in that I dont necessarily think its my place to say if they can or cannot have a civil union.

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19466
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #382 on: November 11, 2008, 10:09:35 AM »
Gay marriages is a threat to gays.
 If gayness is something genetical, it means that gay marriages could mean the end of gays.
Fewer gays would be born, since the gay gene wouldn't be passed on.
At least fewer fags, lezzies inseminates.
So in a few generations - gays will be gone.

Whatcha think about that Willis?
As empty as paradise

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #383 on: November 11, 2008, 10:13:43 AM »
Olbermann is doing the same tired trick that many gay "marriage" supporters (or those who don't like marriage amendments) do:

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?


So, Olbermann's rationale for allowing gay "marriages" is that marriage is now worthless. And, since it is, it should be re-defined to cater to homosexuals' desire? That makes a whole lot of sense.

What Olbermann tends to forget is that, even in countries where gay "marriage" has been legal for at least a decades, the marriage rates are STILL quite low and the splits are quite high. So, if he wants to use the lack-of sanctity argument, he loses there as well.

Is marriage bad or good? Olbermann is, as the saying goes, talking out both sides of his neck. He's criticizing marriage and how bad it is, when people define it as a 1M-1W union. But, he's blissfully talking about how great it is, when it's redefined to accomodate homosexuals.

I’d love to hear what women like Gayle Haggard (Ted Haggard’s wife), Dina Matos McGreevey (Jim McGreevy’s wife), Terry McMillian (author), and Suzanne Craig (Senator Larry Craig’s wife) have to say about Prop 8.  Each of them ended up in sham marriages to gay men.  Wouldn’t they rather live in a world where gay men felt free to be themselves and marry other men rather than sucker women into marrying them?

As long as homosexuals are denied (among other things) marriage equality there will be men who feel pressured to pass for straight and marry unwitting women--only to have it blow up in everyone's face later. :-[

No, those women would have rather lived in a world where their husband HONORED THEIR MARRIAGE VOWS. Few, if any, would be fighting for polygamy, if these men committed adultery with women. Nor, would we be talking about pedastry, if these dudes started messing with children.




BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #384 on: November 11, 2008, 10:17:37 AM »
I am conflicted on this subject. I grew up in the restaruant industry and had a rough childhood and worked with several gay men who I respected greatly. two of them had very longterm partners they had been with for over 20 years. They were wild and crazy in their younger days, but they had been monogomous for a very long time. Then I worked with some flamboyant gay guys who wanted attention and would hit on every guy around to shock and get attention.

I just really dont get it as I have never been attracted to a man and from a religous/social standpoint I dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle. I came from a really messed up childhood so I see the traditional family as the ideal. I see a constant breakdown in values and morality in America and I think if I am honest with myself I fear that this is just another path down that road. Marriage is already treated a joke as is human life....

That said.... I think back on the men I mentioned before who I greatly respected, but disagreed with their lifestyle. I am conflicted in that I dont necessarily think its my place to say if they can or cannot have a civil union.

You don’t sound conflicted to me.  You said it yourself, it is not your place to decide whether someone else should be treated equally under the law.  Similarly, it is not my place to decide if you should be treated equally under the law.

That decision was made years ago ago and inscribed in the State and Federal Constitutions.  It has taken a long time for a capricious public to accept equality for various population groups but the principle of equality has always been true.  Either you believe people should be treated equally or you do not.  I believe it in.  For all people.


BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #385 on: November 11, 2008, 10:25:18 AM »
No, those women would have rather lived in a world where their husband HONORED THEIR MARRIAGE VOWS. Few, if any, would be fighting for polygamy, if these men committed adultery with women. Nor, would we be talking about pedastry, if these dudes started messing with children.

I'd like to hear woman's take on this.  I suspect that for most women having your husband "honor his marriage vows" doesn't have much meaning if you know your husband is not really attracted to you... is really attracted to men... and has been hiding who is really is over all the years you have known him because he felt pressure to do so.

Secret/dual identities are cool in comic books but not in real life.

Would you feel comfortable if you found out your sister was about to marry a guy like Ted Haggard or Larry Craig but  he came to you and said "I know I have a gay past, but I'm ready to put it all behind me and honor my vow to your sister once we are married"?

I would not allow my sister to marry a man like that--no matter how sincere I thought he was.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #386 on: November 11, 2008, 10:30:07 AM »
You don’t sound conflicted to me.  You said it yourself, it is not your place to decide whether someone else should be treated equally under the law.  Similarly, it is not my place to decide if you should be treated equally under the law.

That decision was made years ago ago and inscribed in the State and Federal Constitutions.  It has taken a long time for a capricious public to accept equality for various population groups but the principle of equality has always been true.  Either you believe people should be treated equally or you do not.  I believe it in.  For all people.


Then it's time for these protestors to quit acting a fool and, as I've suggested time and time again, START INTIATIVES AND AMENDMENTS OF THEIR OWN!

What's stopping all these gay "marriage" supporters in CA, from getting 695,000 signatures and getting an amendment, defining marriage as a "union of any two people" put on the ballot? Why wait for the courts (whose ruling just got trumped by Prop. 8  )? Why wait for the Legislsature (Arnold vetoed gay "marriage" bills, TWICE)?


Buffgeek

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 712
  • I love white women!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #387 on: November 11, 2008, 12:08:57 PM »
You don’t sound conflicted to me.  You said it yourself, it is not your place to decide whether someone else should be treated equally under the law.  Similarly, it is not my place to decide if you should be treated equally under the law.

That decision was made years ago ago and inscribed in the State and Federal Constitutions.  It has taken a long time for a capricious public to accept equality for various population groups but the principle of equality has always been true.  Either you believe people should be treated equally or you do not.  I believe it in.  For all people.



Here is the thing. You have the same rights as I do under the constitution. The difference is that your sexual preference is men vs mine bieng woman. What this means then is you want special rights.

I dont think you can equate the civilrights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue. This was about equality of rights. You can do everything in this country that I can do.

The question is are you looking for Validation that what you are doing is accepted or are merely seeking the same legal rights as a married hetero couple?

In California dont they have civil unions that already give the same rights as a married couple?

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #388 on: November 11, 2008, 01:51:20 PM »
I am conflicted on this subject. I grew up in the restaruant industry and had a rough childhood and worked with several gay men who I respected greatly. two of them had very longterm partners they had been with for over 20 years. They were wild and crazy in their younger days, but they had been monogomous for a very long time. Then I worked with some flamboyant gay guys who wanted attention and would hit on every guy around to shock and get attention.

I just really dont get it as I have never been attracted to a man and from a religous/social standpoint I dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

first you need to define what is a homosexual lifestyle?   there are both gays and straights who are in long term monogamous relationships.  There are both gays and straights who have a house full of kids out in the suburbs.  there are both gays and straights who live in the inner city and go clubbing a few nights a week.  there are both gays and straights who are quite promiscuous. 

so the only thing that is left to define whether you live the homosexual lifestyle is who you fall in love with.  so you don't agree or approve that I fall in love with men?    tough

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #389 on: November 11, 2008, 01:54:22 PM »
I dont think you can equate the civilrights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue. This was about equality of rights. You can do everything in this country that I can do.

marry the one that I love
not get fired because of the one that I love
not get promoted because of the one that I love
serve in the military despite the one that I love
not get beaten because of the one that I love

sounds like all we're looking for is equal rights to me

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #390 on: November 11, 2008, 03:50:00 PM »
Here is the thing. You have the same rights as I do under the constitution. The difference is that your sexual preference is men vs mine bieng woman. What this means then is you want special rights.

I dont think you can equate the civilrights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue. This was about equality of rights. You can do everything in this country that I can do.

The question is are you looking for Validation that what you are doing is accepted or are merely seeking the same legal rights as a married hetero couple?

In California dont they have civil unions that already give the same rights as a married couple?

I don’t have to equate the Civil Rights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue because the call for equality does not require a precedent.  Though if it makes you feel better Coretta Scott-King drew parallels between black Civil Rights and equality for gays and lesbians.  She was a proponent of gay marriage.  I don’t need anyone to corroborate the two movements for equality, but if you do, there you have it.  I think her moral authority speaks for itself.

Both here and in various newspapers following the election, I have read quotes from people who say “the people have spoken” and we should just deal with it.  End of story.

Wrong!  Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history knows that is never going to happen. Equality is not subject to a popular vote.  Democracy is designed to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

Yes, opponents of gay marriage won this round, but there will be another round, and another one after that, and as many as it takes, but this issue is never going to go away until gays and lesbians have secured equal rights under the law.  That was true of black inequality, women’s inequality, Jewish inequality, rights for the disabled, and others.  Sure, there are still racists out there, misogynists out there, anti-Semites, and other forms of bigotry.  And that’s fine.  People are free to hate anyone they want.  But the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and (legal) society is going to be forced to accept that no matter how long it takes.

I am certain that gay marriage will happen in California in very short order.  Stranger things have happened; I never expected to see a black President in my lifetime.  :-*


MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #391 on: November 11, 2008, 04:26:42 PM »
I don’t have to equate the Civil Rights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue because the call for equality does not require a precedent.  Though if it makes you feel better Coretta Scott-King drew parallels between black Civil Rights and equality for gays and lesbians.  She was a proponent of gay marriage.  I don’t need anyone to corroborate the two movements for equality, but if you do, there you have it.  I think her moral authority speaks for itself.

Interesting take. Then again, King's daughter, Bernice, has a completely different view. I saw her on TV once discussing this issue, and I believe she said something to the effect of her father did not take a bullet to sanction gay marriage. And Bernice's cousin, Alveda, appears to feel the same way.

Alveda King -- niece of the slain civil rights leader, founder of the faith-based King for America Inc. and a vocal opponent of gay marriage -- said she joined her cousin in the Atlanta march because she believes her uncle never intended gay rights to be part of the civil rights movement.

"Bernice says herself that she knows deep within that her father did not march and did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage," said Alveda King. "I don't believe that people should be penalized for their affections, but we need to be clear on the purpose of sexuality and marriage, that purpose being procreation."


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/208154_martin17.html


Both here and in various newspapers following the election, I have read quotes from people who say “the people have spoken” and we should just deal with it.  End of story.

Wrong!  Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history knows that is never going to happen. Equality is not subject to a popular vote.  Democracy is designed to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

Prop. 8 supporters heard the exact opposite from their detractors. Gay "marriage" was here; the courts ruled and they should just "deal with it". San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom, claimed that it was going to happen, "whether you like it or not".

So, it goes both ways. Democracy is also supposed to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the minority. The California voters have made it clear, that they ain't letting 4 judges redefine marriage for the whole state.


Yes, opponents of gay marriage won this round, but there will be another round, and another one after that, and as many as it takes, but this issue is never going to go away until gays and lesbians have secured equal rights under the law.  That was true of black inequality, women’s inequality, Jewish inequality, rights for the disabled, and others.  Sure, there are still racists out there, misogynists out there, anti-Semites, and other forms of bigotry.  And that’s fine.  People are free to hate anyone they want.  But the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and (legal) society is going to be forced to accept that matter how long it takes.

I am certain that gay marriage will happen in California in very short order.  Stranger things have happened; I never expected to see a black President in my lifetime.  :-*


That goes back to what I've said before. You brought it up to Arnold, via the legislature; he shot it down two times. You went to the CA court, which ruled in your favored; but a constitutional amemdnment trumped their ruling just six months later.

Where is the movement to get 695,000 signatures for an amendment, redefining marriage for same-sex couples? Shouldn't that be the next step?

CQ

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7018
  • TGT
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #392 on: November 11, 2008, 05:22:25 PM »
I don’t have to equate the Civil Rights movement regarding blacks and woman to this issue because the call for equality does not require a precedent.  Though if it makes you feel better Coretta Scott-King drew parallels between black Civil Rights and equality for gays and lesbians.  She was a proponent of gay marriage.  I don’t need anyone to corroborate the two movements for equality, but if you do, there you have it.  I think her moral authority speaks for itself.

Both here and in various newspapers following the election, I have read quotes from people who say “the people have spoken” and we should just deal with it.  End of story.

Wrong!  Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history knows that is never going to happen. Equality is not subject to a popular vote.  Democracy is designed to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

Yes, opponents of gay marriage won this round, but there will be another round, and another one after that, and as many as it takes, but this issue is never going to go away until gays and lesbians have secured equal rights under the law.  That was true of black inequality, women’s inequality, Jewish inequality, rights for the disabled, and others.  Sure, there are still racists out there, misogynists out there, anti-Semites, and other forms of bigotry.  And that’s fine.  People are free to hate anyone they want.  But the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and (legal) society is going to be forced to accept that matter how long it takes.

I am certain that gay marriage will happen in California in very short order.  Stranger things have happened; I never expected to see a black President in my lifetime.  :-*



Good post as always Bay.

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #393 on: November 11, 2008, 06:25:12 PM »
Interesting take. Then again, King's daughter, Bernice, has a completely different view. I saw her on TV once discussing this issue, and I believe she said something to the effect of her father did not take a bullet to sanction gay marriage. And Bernice's cousin, Alveda, appears to feel the same way.

well, maybe Bernice and Alveda should read up on King's right-hand man, Bayard Rustin

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #394 on: November 11, 2008, 08:32:45 PM »
well, maybe Bernice and Alveda should read up on King's right-hand man, Bayard Rustin

Word! 

It's great to educate the ignorant about these historical figures, but I repeat: the call for equality does not require a precedent or endorsement from any authority other than the Constitution.  There have always been opponents of equality.  Perhaps there always will be, but history will wash these people away just as it always has.  The irony is . . . they know it.  ;D

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19466
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #395 on: November 12, 2008, 04:58:51 AM »
I'm sure this decision will only make the gay lobby work even harder and get more sympathy.
There will be another vote in a few years and then the gays will start a winning streak, working their way through every gay friendly state.
As empty as paradise

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #396 on: November 12, 2008, 06:19:01 AM »
It's going to be a LONG time before homo marriage is the law of the land. Get over it.  ::)
!

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #397 on: November 12, 2008, 06:23:12 AM »
Here’s an interesting Op-Ed

Joe Jacoby: Playing The Race Card On Gay Marriage

IT HAS been widely noted that black voters put California's Proposition 8 over the top last week, with nearly 7 out of 10 voting in favor of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As the magnitude of black opposition to same-sex marriage became clear on Election Day, blogger Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay-marriage champion, reacted bitterly:
   
   
"Every ethnic group supported marriage equality," he wrote, "except African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly against extending to gay people the civil rights once denied them."
(Apparently, Mr. Sullivan forgot that 53% of Latino voters in CA voted for Prop. 8. But why let facts get in the way of a good anti-marriage amendment rant?).

Well, let's see. The civil rights once denied to black Americans included the right to register as a voter, the right to cast a ballot, the right to use numerous public facilities, the right to get a fair hearing in court, the right to send their children to an integrated public school, and the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment. Have gay people been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?

Plainly, declining to change the timeless definition of marriage deprives no one of "the civil rights once denied" to blacks, and it is an absurdity to claim otherwise. It is also a poisonous slur: For if opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing civil rights, then voters who backed Proposition 8 are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963.

Which is, of course, exactly what proponents of same-sex marriage contend.

It has become routine for the defenders of traditional wedlock to be cast as the worst sort of hateful bigots, "gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era," to quote The New York Times's Frank Rich. Anyone who insists that marriage can only mean the union of male and female - and "anyone" now includes a majority of voters in 30 of the 30 states where marriage amendments have been on the ballot - can expect to be told that they are no better than racists, modern-day segregationists motivated by malevolence and heartlessness.

Thus, supporters of same-sex marriage regularly referred to the California ballot measure as "Proposition Hate," while a group calling itself "Californians Against Hate" launched a website to publicize the names and addresses of donors to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Yet it was the foes of Proposition 8 whose hatred and intolerance were vividly on display. Signs promoting the amendment were stolen or defaced, churches were vandalized, and at least one supporter of the amendment ended up in the hospital after being beaten by an assailant screaming: "What do you have against gays?"
(I’ve been saying that protestors have been doing that for days now. But Tim seems to think I’m just pulling this out of mid-air).

For sheer hatefulness and bigotry, however, nothing surpassed the anti-Proposition 8 television ad that depicted two Mormon missionaries forcing their way into the home of a married lesbian couple.

"Hi, we're here from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," one of the Mormons says. "We're here to take away your rights," says the other.

The missionaries pull the wedding rings from the women's fingers, then proceed to ransack the house, looking for their marriage license. When they find it, they triumphantly tear it up.

"Hey, we have rights," one of the women protests.

"Not if we can help it," one of the missionaries smugly replies.


(Now what was that about lies, fear-mongering, and propaganda, again?)

If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like. Perhaps it is because they resent the assertion that adhering to the ageless meaning of marriage is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of Jim Crow. Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations of "intolerance" and "hate" by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon hatemongering.
(There you have it!!!)

Or perhaps it is because they understand that a fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for same-sex marriage. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites. The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That isn't civil rights - and playing the race card doesn't change that fact.

(AMEN!!!)

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/12/playing_the_race_card_on_gay_marriage/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed6

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #398 on: November 12, 2008, 06:28:29 AM »


If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like. Perhaps it is because they resent the assertion that adhering to the ageless meaning of marriage is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of Jim Crow. Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations of "intolerance" and "hate" by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon hatemongering.

Or perhaps it is because they understand that a fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for same-sex marriage. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites. The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That isn't civil rights - and playing the race card doesn't change that fact.


'Nuff said!
!

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #399 on: November 12, 2008, 06:37:00 AM »
Hahaha, here go the blacks again acting like they were the only ones who have ever been oppressed and nobody else in history will ever feel their "pain" or their "suffering". What an absolute crock of self-deprecating bullshit.