quote: quote: NFL, maybe you don't understand -- if the Republican party adopts homo-hating as its official platform, and you identify yourself with the party, you are effectively declaring yourself a homophobe.
[Mad] That's such hateful BS I'm not even going to bother responding to it.
That's also why I would stay home in November rather than vote for people who take such stances. How can you call Bush a divider when you do such things. "Can't be a Republican unless you're a homophobe." Wow, this pisses me off.
Oy. And yet again you don't get it. You can be both Republican and unbigoted -- however, given bigotry is a plank of the Republican platform, the onus is on you to a) vocalize your minority dissention from the platform and b) recognize that you do not, in fact, represent the party as a whole. Your views, if they tend toward fiscal conservatism/social liberalism, probably vie more closely with libertarianism, which may be a more appropriate label for you to associate yourself with. Am I being clear enough? Or will you quote what I write and again misconstrue it beyond anything I could possibly have meant?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here in Utah there will supposedly be a measure on the ballot this fall to ban gay marriage or anything like gay marriage. It's poorly worded and will result in an expensive court battle. KSL, the main AM radio station here in Salt Lake, has voiced its opposition to the bill and has had a few programs recently that shed a whole new light on the civil union idea.
A couple of old grannies were interviewed who have been living together for years. Their main complaint was that they can't visit each other in the hospital when one is sick. They mentioned insurance benefits as another issue that affects them. The one lady who works can't get insurance benefits for her partner through her employer. These two ladies were not sexually involved with each other, but that shouldn't be a consideration anyway.
People who live together and take care of each other should have certain privileges extended to them. I don't think we need to call it marriage, but we should enumerate the obvious rights, such as hospital visitation, give that set of rights a legal name, and award that classification to qualifying groups.
I'm against gay "marriage." I think that title needs to be reserved for a legally recognized bond between one man and one woman. But I am also against this silly bill that bans the extending of any of the benefits of marriage to people in other kinds of domestic arrangements. I'm voting against the measure on this year's ballot.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your views, if they tend toward fiscal conservatism/social liberalism, probably vie more closely with libertarianism, which may be a more appropriate label for you to associate yourself with.
You know, I'm actually toying with the idea of voting libertarian this election. But the thing about them is the extremism. Sure, I'm fiscally conservative, but I don't favor a completely de-regulated free market by any means. There are several things about the party that I agree with, but in a much more moderate way than they'd have it. So I'm stuck between a party with (in my opinion) a laundry list of good ideas taken way too far, and another party with a lot of more realistically good ideas mixed in with some terrifyingly bad ideas. It's not an easy choice, and I'm not certain what I'll decide on. But going libertarian isn't as obvious a way out as I wish it was.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you help get them elected, and they manage to push through these types of laws, you are empowering them....and are at least in part to blame, because you didn't stop them.
If you ever voted for a Democrat you're to blame for whatever they did wrong even if what they did that was wrong was outbalanced by what they did right. So if John Kerry is elected and just one person dies from terrorism that wouldn't have occurred if George Bush was reelected you are personally responsible.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the onus is on you to find out what I believe and not generalize beliefs onto me, especially when "bigotry" is not a "plank" of the Republican party. Plently of Democrats are against gay marriage and civil unions as well, and its probably something that has more to do with religion than actual politics. If more fundamentalists happen to be Republican than Democrat, that doesn't mean that Republicans are the ones that hold a certain belief and Democrats aren't. Furthermore, I'm not a "social liberal" because I still maintain that a conservative philosophy is the one that protects gay rights. On top of that, I'm still anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.
Basically, I'm sick of people making generalizations that are from my point of view very offensive.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
((((((((((Telp)))))))))) You have all my sympathies, friend... good luck!
*crosses fingers for Telp*
If I lived in MI, I would definitely go out and vote (that is, if I were an American citizen, as well...) Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: That said, I'm pretty sure it will pass, if not now then sometime in the near future, and something similar will eventually become federal law too.
That's just the way the country is headed. Nothing we can do about it.
Not if you say things like that, of course not.
I don't believe this is true. I believe the vast majority of Americans, while they might not vote to legalize gay marriage, won't vote to deny civil unions, insurance benefits, and the like. There may be a few states where it happens, but I think most states will not pass it on a state level and it will not pass on a federal level.
But if you believe it shouldn't pass, the way to make that happen is by talking to people about it, expressing outrage, and engaging in thoughtful, considered arguements about why you think it's a bad thing, not saying there's nothing we can do about it. On issues like this, that is completely untrue.
((Telp)) Good luck on this one... I hope it doesn't go through. I don't know anyone in MI to call and encourage to vote, but believe me I would if I did.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the Americans you know are different than the ones I know, but 99% of the people I know in real life are in favor of this. Many are also in favor of sodomy laws and employment restrictions for homosexuals. The ones that are only against Civil Unions and partner benefits are actually the moderates. Hatrackers are of course better than real life people and don't count.
Of course one should speak and work against it. But in my experience it does no good. The more you speak against it, the more fired up the conservatives get, the more likely they are to not only vote for this law, but try to come up with worse ones in the future.
So of course I will continue to speak and vote against such rubbish, but I think at some point it makes sense for liberals to stop being so pollyannaish and and stop saying "But most people are decent, they wouldn't vote for something like that!" and start thinking about what you will do to protect yourself when the law inevitably passes.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teaching, police, all government jobs. Of course private busineses can make up their own minds, but if they do choose to employ anyone openly gay, then decent christians should boycott them.
I love my hometown. Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't live there anymore! I got out of Florida to go to grad school, thank god.
South Florida may be liberal, but North Florida is more backward than Mississippi or Alabama could ever hope to be. As I used to be reminded by the local top 40 radio station every morning, Tallahassee is the "only southern capitol never to fall to the Yankee scum."
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Teaching, police, all government jobs. Of course private busineses can make up their own minds, but if they do choose to employ anyone openly gay, then decent christians should boycott them.
and just what happened to the discrimination laws here? This is just soooooooooo wrong.
posted
"I'm a conservative and I've been outspoken against attacks on gay rights for a long time now so stop hatefully generalizing."
Tell you what, NFL: put your money where your mouth is.
You're choosing to vote for Bush, thus tacitly endorsing his blatantly bigoted agenda. If this bothers you, and if you don't want to be accused of having the same agenda, DON'T VOTE FOR THE PERSON WITH THAT AGENDA.
Look, I can understand that you believe Bush makes the trains run on time -- but how much else does that justify?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're choosing to vote for Bush, thus tacitly endorsing his blatantly bigoted agenda. If this bothers you, and if you don't want to be accused of having the same agenda, DON'T VOTE FOR THE PERSON WITH THAT AGENDA
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If I have a litmus test issue, it's abortion, not this.
posted
Vera, I do live in Minnesota, which does tend to be a more liberal state. So maybe the Americans I know are different from the ones you do. But I don't think my position is Pollyannaish at all, and I dislike the doom & gloom position of saying us poor liberals are just going to have to accept the inevitable. It ain't inevitable, by a long shot. I have never met anyone, here in my homestate or when I lived in the much more conservative state of Oklahoma, that thought homosexuals should be banned from government jobs and denied a living through boycotts of people who employee them. I do honestly believe that even the majority of conservatives who live in America uphold the American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness higher than they do their irrational hatered about any minority population. Obviously, there are fringe elements who don't feel that way. I'm sorry you seem to have met so many of them that it's affected your worldview.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, if I believe that allowing abortions is just as wrong if not worse than the law being proposed (which I don't believe will pass no matter what Bush says) then does that mean I shouldn't vote for Bush? I'm sorry for Telp, but I'm also sorry for all those Hatrackers who never were.
I find it hard to believe that you agree with Kerry on every single issue, I wouldn't accuse you of tacitly endorsing his entire agenda. I "accuse" you of thinking he'll do a better job in office than Bush.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The most hate-filled speech I commonly experience is from those accusing others to be hateful.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you haven't seen the declaration of homosexuality as a sin government should ban on this board, you haven't been paying attention
I have been paying attention, and I haven't seen anybody ever advocate that homosexuality should be "banned". To tell you the truth, I don't even know what it would mean to "ban" homosexuality.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have been paying attention, and I haven't seen anybody ever advocate that homosexuality should be "banned". To tell you the truth, I don't even know what it would mean to "ban" homosexuality.
Don't some states still have sodomy laws which effectively criminalize homosexual behavior? Hasn't OSC spoken in favor of such laws? I seems to me some other people here have spoken in favor of them too, though I can't for the life of me remember who.
Edit: In fact, it may be posts at Ornery I'm remembering and not Hatrack at all, and if so I apologize. But I'm SURE OSC has written that he favors keeping such laws on the books.
[ September 05, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Vera ]
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No (to the existance of the laws) - all such laws have been overturned by Lawrence. However, some consensual sexual behavior between adults is still illegal in some states.
posted
No states have such laws anymore since the Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law.
I have never seen OSC speak in favor of such laws, but he has spoken out against the way that they were gotten rid of.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
quote:Update: I just joined the Log Cabin Republicans, and I sent emails to President Bush and my congressmen encouraging them to change their positions on this issue. I know it's not going to do a bit of good, but I did try. Just wanted you to know that you inspired me.
Cool! I write to Congress and the state about once a month on various topics. I wouldn't get too down about that not counting...it's the best way to get our government peeps aware of what we want. I usually get replies via mail whenever I contact them. Thanks for the effort!!
And the Log Cabin Republicans... the founder actually went to my college! Alma College. I was chairman of Gay Pride there and I got him to come during Pride Week to speak. That was interesting.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
What the hell IS the Republican "platform" anyway? Or the Democratic...or any other party? Who and how is that determined? Does each party have a ruling committee that makes the mission statements for that party? I hear talk about "party leaders". Are they actually serving in party offices or just senior Congressmen of that party?
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The delegates to the RNC got together a few days before the convention started and voted upon a "platform." That year's platform included support for a ban on gay marriage. It did NOT support a ban on any benefits for gays. It DID include a message of essentially saying, "We agree to disagree," on certain issues leaving that door open for Republicans.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is in response to something upthread that Vera said about 99% of Americans something something. No, I am not going to look and cut/paste it, I am just *that* lazy.
I live in a military community, one of the Republicanest of social groups, IMO, and even though the soldiers I know do not want to serve in a war with homosexuals, most of them are related to or know openly gay persons. Most of them are also okay with it, and don't care one way or the other whether two gendersame persons get married or have some other civil union ceremony. As long as they don't have to watch 'two dudes making out'.
*grin*
It's an actual quote, not me being facetious.
So yes, Vera, there ARE gay-accepting Republicans out there.
To Telp: I'm sorry, man. I hope it doesn't get voted through. And if it does, protest the law. Silence is political consent. *hugs*
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say 99% of Americans. I said 99% of the people I knew in my hometown. I know that America at large is alot closer to 50/50.
My hometown is also near a large Navy base. The sailors were actually a moderating influence on the town, being far more liberal than the people who actually grew up there.
I know there are Republicans who don't agree with this. I just think they are a minority in the party.
Anyway, Telp, you seem like a great guy and I REALLY hope this doesn't pass.
Feel free to ignore my doom and gloom. I'm pretty pissed off at the world today.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah... I have a diverse group of friends... one circle is the rough and tumble military circle. I met them through my brother who is a bit of a hoodlum. Five of my friends from this poor white trash group are in the military. And they are all fairly supportive. One or two might be a bit uncomfortable serving with gay folk but all the others said it was no big deal and can't see why it matters.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is what is "this." Is "this" anti-gay marriage or is it the equivalent of the KKK. If its anti-gay marriage I would agree that I am in the small minority of the Republican party. But if we're talking about wanting to create a forced emmigration of gays than I think I'm in the majority.
Anti-war protesters were far more vocal than pro-war advocates prior to the Iraq invasion, but a majority of people still supported the war.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: ELECTION 2004: Nader, gay marriage ban make Michigan's Nov. ballot
Court overrules elections panel September 4, 2004
BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF and ALEXA CAPELOTO FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
LANSING -- Putting Ralph Nader's name and a proposal to ban gay marriage on Michigan's November ballot is sure to infuse the election with emotionally charged questions of morality and wasted votes.
The Michigan Court of Appeals on Friday overruled a state elections panel and ordered Nader's name to be on the ballot as an independent presidential candidate. The court also ordered a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage to be on the ballot, an issue that likely will bring antigay and gay activist factions into a bitter public clash.
The marriage proposal is especially divisive, going to the core of voters' beliefs and lifestyles. Backers say the sanctity of marriage and family are under attack. Opponents say gays, lesbians and domestic partners are being treated like second-class citizens.
"It takes a man and a woman to procreate," said Marlene Elwell, chairwoman of the Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, which collected about 500,000 signatures to place the gay marriage ban on the ballot. "That's the way society goes on. That's the way it's been since the beginning of time."
Elwell said allowing same-sex couples to marry, or recognizing civil unions, is like "changing society for a few people."
But Susan Horowitz, a leading opponent of the proposal, said the beliefs of one group should not dictate life for another. She said the gay marriage ban effectively would write discrimination into the state constitution.
"Our opposition is welcome to have their beliefs in this country," said Horowitz, copublisher of Between the Lines, Michigan's largest gay and lesbian newspaper. "They're just not welcome to impose them on me at my loss."
Although Michigan already has a law prohibiting gay marriage, supporters of the constitutional ban say it's needed to prevent what they call activist judges from bypassing the current law and allowing same-sex marriages. A yes vote would change Michigan's constitution to ban gay marriage. If voters pass the ban, it is certain to face a court challenge.
Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said gay marriage is overwhelmingly opposed by African Americans. He said it will bring "tens of thousands" of African Americans and others who have never voted out to the polls in November.
But others say it's not likely to have an impact.
"If you're not going to vote for president, it's unlikely anything else is going to get you out to vote," said Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics.
On the other hand, Nader as a valid independent candidate has Democrats worried -- and Republicans hopeful -- that he will siphon votes away from Democratic candidate John Kerry. In the 2000 presidential election, Nader received less than 3 percent of the vote nationally, but was widely acknowledged to have drawn some votes away from Democrat Al Gore.
Michigan Republicans turned in 45,000 of the 50,500 petition signatures on behalf of Nader for a ballot spot.
In both the Nader and gay marriage cases, the appeals court ruled that the state Board of Canvassers overstepped its authority by not certifying petitions for Nader and the gay marriage amendment. The board had deadlocked on 2-2 votes in both cases, with two Democrats voting against the ballot placements and two Republicans voting for them.
Also, the appeals court dismissed a challenge against a third ballot proposal that requires a public vote for any new casinos or other gaming operations in Michigan. The ballot proposal was challenged by the Hazel Park Racing Association.
The judges in all three cases were Peter O'Connell, William Whitbeck and Donald Owens.
Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said Nader has sold out to the Republican Party by accepting the party's collected petitions. Brewer challenged the petition signatures, but they were ruled valid by the Secretary of State. He said Friday that the party would not appeal Friday's ruling.
"The court's decision opens a Pandora's box, where the state's major political parties can establish their own sham party aimed at disrupting elections and confusing voters," Brewer said in a release. "This entire charade is one of many examples where Michigan Republicans are willing to use any illegal or corrupt method to gain power."
But the court rulings on Nader and the gay marriage proposal Friday gratified Lansing attorney Eric Doster, who represents the group backing the gay marriage proposal and the voters who petitioned to get Nader on the ballot. He called the rulings a victory for the First Amendment.
"The public deserves choices and there is a right to have more choices on the ballot," Doster said.
Kelly Chesney, spokesperson for the Secretary of State, said the court rulings were welcome and would set a precedent for the Board of Canvassers in future ballot disputes.
Opponents of the gay marriage ban said they never contested the proposal's right to be on the ballot, but they did object because the ballot language could prohibit other arrangements, such as civil unions, domestic partnerships and partner benefits through employers.
The ballot proposal states that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
"What is the similar union and what other purposes are there?" said Dana Houle, political director for the Coalition for a Fair Michigan. "It's intentionally vague and open to interpretation."
Elwell responded that civil unions would be banned under the proposal, but "it doesn't talk about benefits, it doesn't talk about any of that."
She added: "This is saying marriage is between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, period."
Contact CHRIS CHRISTOFF at 517-372-8660 or christoff@freepress.com
quote:Pastor: Anti-gay marriage referendum's success not certain 9/5/2004, 12:40 p.m. ET The Associated Press
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) — At least one poll shows solid support among Michigan residents for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, but a clergyman says that doesn't guarantee voters will endorse the idea.
The state Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in Michigan as a union between one man and one woman should appear on the Nov. 2 ballot.
Opponents including the Rev. Doug Van Doren, pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church in Grand Rapids, fear the amendment will be used to take away benefits for same-sex partners at state universities or even private firms.
"We are talking real people, real families that would be affected by this," he said.
More than 80 west Michigan clergy have signed a statement opposing the measure, Van Doren told The Grand Rapids Press for a story published Saturday. "People like to paint Michigan and particularly west Michigan as far more reactionary than it is," he said. "I think there is a good chance it will not pass."
The group supporting the initiative, Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, gathered more than the 317,757 signatures required to place the issue on the ballot. The appeals court ruled that the ballot language was neither incomplete nor misleading.
"The historic definition of marriage has been one man and one woman," said Kent County Commissioner Harold Voorhees, who led petition-gathering efforts in western Michigan. "We think it ought to stay that way. It's best for society and it's best for children."
A poll of 600 people conducted in early July by EPIC/MRA of Lansing found that 61 percent supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage, 34 percent were opposed and 5 percent were undecided. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Michigan law already bans gay marriage. But supporters of the initiative want it written into the state constitution to protect it against contrary actions by what they call activist judges and politicians.
posted
NFL, how about this particular law? I think most Republicans would support it.
As you get more and more extreme (sodomy laws, employment restrictions, all the way down to forced emigration, since you brought it up) a smaller and smaller number of Republicans (and people in general) will support it. I'm not really sure where you reach the breakpoint where it's not a majority anymore. Since the 50/50 point for Americans in general is somewhere just to the right of Civil Unions, I suspect the 50/50 point for Republicans is significantly more to the right than that.
I know that the people I grew up with don't represent all Republicans. If they did we'd be living under the Southern Baptist version of Sharia law by now. But I know that there are a lot of them and they do wield considerable power.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There a still a LOT of dems that oppose gay marriage and civil unions so keep that in mind.
A lot of Republicans might support this law because they view extreme measures as the only way keep gay marriage out even if they don't agree with gays losing benefits. Some will not even consider that fact that gays will lose benefits because the law is so vague. Those who support will not do so because they are Republicans, they will just tend to be Republicans more often the Democrats.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telp, this may just backfire on the Republicans.
I'm in Missouri, where we already had our constitutional amenmdment vote. It was approved by a whopping big majority (70 or 80%, but not by me). Many Democrats voted for it. Why? I still can't figure that out.
Anyway, if the people for this ammendment, and the Republican party in general, sell this as a way to stop the goddless homo's from destroying marriage, then they will pull out a lot of conservatives to the polls, who will support Bush and may help him to the White House.
On the other hand, if some organization could raise appropriate funds, they could push the, "Jane and their daughter Julia could loose their health benefits if this passes, because Mary works for the state, and Julia is going to need a kidney" argument. Or the, "This amendment does not promote sexual promiscuity, it is the law" argument. Even, "Don't let our state be the first to promote the spread of Aid's by disallowing homosexual monogamy" could bring in some votes.
People may not want gays to get married, but I've not seen a majority that is against civil unions, or that want to punish gays for their life style. This amendment will do that. It may repulse many moderates into voting away from the Republicans (who are seen as conservatives) and it will bring out more liberals to vote.
posted
Hmm...good point. Maybe I meant to say they would prefer not to go to war having a homosexual 'battle buddy', but would accept him/her if it was a command decision. Still sounds like forced acceptance, but female soldiers (and sailors and marines etc) have been dealing with that for a couple of decades, and it IS getting better. My husband's Command Sgt Major just retired, and she has given stirring speeches on what she has seen over her thirty-year career.
Thanks for catching me on that one, Wussy Actor, I'll have to think more of what I meant and perhaps respond more fully later.
Oh, and Vera, sorry I misunderstood your "99%" earlier. Obviously not enough sleep on my part. Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Five of my friends from this poor white trash group are in the military. And they are all fairly supportive. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
