posted
*hugs* Telp. If you ever want to visit New England to get a flavor of the blue area up here, I'd totally be willing to host you for a few days.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Um, guys. Telp may loose something, tangible and important.
his health insurance.
Right now his health insurance comes through coverage given to his signifigant other--his boy friend.
The way this law is written does not say that the two can never marry, despite how deep their love is.
It says that there can be no legal relationship between them that is similar to those given to a married couple.
This can be read to include the health insurance he now has.
And I am sure that there are some right-wing-conervative-bible thumpers, I mean real Gay bashing whacko's, who are willing to sue any company that dares cross the line and treats thier gay employees like thier non-gay ones.
Perhaps due to a legal ruling, or just the fear of a law suit, Telp may soon loose his health insurance.
And without health insurance, your life expectancy drops as you have to skimp and avoid expensive doctor visits.
So don't look at this as Telp crying over a lost weddding cake. This is a physical, $$$, and possibly life and death issue for him.
He has my full support, and I will tell him so better after my anger cools down.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It also means that if Telp falls ill, his partner may be barred from helping him make medical decisions, even filling out the hospital paperwork, and in severe cases, his partner could be barred from seeing him.
Also, any rights to property shared between the two are right out the window. If they went in and bought a car together and the partner died, the partner's parents would have first dibs on the vehicle, instead of Telp.
That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the abuses that might just roll down hill from here at him.
This wasn't just saying that he will have no rights. It is saying that he has enjoyed rights that he should never have been given, well beyond the simple act of exchanging wedding rings.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind debate in this thread... It's all good Porter. I dont' know where else to talk about this anyway....
Karl Rove came on and bascially said that the gay banning amendments were used as a ploy to get people out to vote. Bastard. This is just like the Jim Crow laws.
Now all the media is talking about how this proves that gay folk can never be part of the mainstream and that any politician or government would suffer the same fate if they tried to give us equal rights. Where is a Dr. King when we need him? Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that's that what this immediately means for Telp. In other words, I don't think he has a serious boyfriend at the moment.
Added: Hi. Was that right? I didn't know if that was right.
quote:Karl Rove came on and bascially said that the gay banning amendments were used as a ploy to get people out to vote. Bastard. This is just like the Jim Crow laws.
I believe it. That man is an incredible Machiavelli.
Although it doesn't assuage the sting very much, know that I tried and did my part to quash the Amendment here in Arkansas. No, I'm not Gay, but that doesn't mean I cannot see the issue from your side. I might not 'feel' it as keenly as you, but I DO see the wrong in it. Almost every referendum that passed not only banned Gay Marriage, but ANY form of legal recognition for Gays that attempted to simulate marriage. This includes legal contracts drawn up by individuals through lawyers. I do wish the other side could see what it is they are denying a segment of our society. But they can't (MY opinion) because they take those Rights and Privileges for granted.
Rest assured, the fight will continue. And I will stand proudly and tall by your side.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure that's that what this immediately means for Telp. In other words, I don't think he has a serious boyfriend at the moment.
Added: Hi. Was that right? I didn't know if that was right.
Yup.. you're right. No partner or even a boyfriend currently! *sniff*
quote:Although it doesn't assuage the sting very much, know that I tried and did my part to quash the Amendment here in Arkansas. No, I'm not Gay, but that doesn't mean I cannot see the issue from your side...
There are some cool pins out there for straight folk supporting their fellow gay citizens. They say (usually with the rainbow or triangle): Straight, not narrow.
[ November 03, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
I am sorry to hear that. I am of the opinion that no matter where you fall on the "gay issue" (as in whether you are a bible person who thinks its a sin, or unnatural, or whatever people may be thinking) we should not vote for these amendments.
It doesn't matter what your personal feelings about homosexuals are. That has nothing to do with it. This is a matter of practicality and justice. If we are all equal, then we should all be equal.
posted
Guys, it doesn't help to exagerate the likely effect of the amendment. True, no one knows the effect of a law until a court rules on it. But in this case there's a lot of reason to be fairly optimistic:
All those mechanisms for health insurance, shared property, wills, and most of the other documents at issue have legal existence outside the context of marriage. Marriage contains elements of these that cannot be duplicated by application of these legal mechanisms. Therefore, these mechanisms are not likely to be considered as substitutes for marriage.
For example, if you help someone buy a car and put both names on the title, that person's heirs will get his share of the car should he die. There are many ways to ensure that you are the person who gets the car should he die: will, joint ownership agreement, trust. All of these methods have well-founded legal principles separate from marital law. All of these mechanisms are used by unmarried persons every single day.
Dan's right in that it's the fear of lawsuits that will have the most immediate impact. Fanning those fears could exacerbate this problem.
quote:There was no fairly evenly divided group in the middle of the electorate that ultimately broke for one side and made the difference. The 2004 campaign was not a tug of war between two sides trying to yank the center toward them. Instead, it was a battle over an electorate perched on a balance beam. Each campaign furiously tried to find new voters to add so that it could outweigh the other side. Both sides performed capably: Kerry received more votes than Al Gore did four years ago, and he even received more votes than the previous all-time leader, Ronald Reagan in 1984. President Bush just did even better.
posted
I'm afraid if the ACLU manages to overturn these pernicious props that it will cause a federal amendment banning equal rights for gay couples.
I really don't think we can win here. There are just too many phobes. And it definately crosses party lines because otherwise the votes would be much much closer.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(((((Telp)))))) (sigh) I'm sorry, baby. I want you to be happy. But remember, it's always darkest before the dawn. Come to MN, we're fairly liberal here.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
NPR was full this morning of reports that of all the issues that people were voting on, "moral values" was the most popular - 23%. That explains why the high turnout didn't go to the Democrats like convential wisdom dictated.
Karl Rove is a tricky, tricky man. Holy moley.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m truly sorry for your troubles, Telperion, and I think King of Men is right, even though you probably thought of it as a joke. You should come and live in Scandinavia or the Netherlands where you will be more appreciated.
Getting rich is more difficult, by getting by is far easier. Come join us! Posts: 99 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kat, what surprises me is how many people would show up to vote against moral values.
You're surprised? I'm horrified. Especially by the gay marriage bans. On a related note, Saskatchewan just legalized gay marriage, and it is the seventh Canadian province or territory (of thirteen total) to do so.
Telp, I hope for your sake that our Canadian bleeding-heart-liberal-pinko-communism starts to seep down your way so that you can enjoy the same rights as everyone else.
Telp, I am very very sorry for you. I find the attitudes in the US towards gay marriage (or civil unions) extremely disturbing to say the least. I am really sorry these amendments got passed.
posted
(((Telp))) It was severely distressing to see how these props were passing last night. Here's hoping that this disturbing trend reverses itself quickly.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(((Telp))) I think it stinks. I was working at a polling place all day yesterday, and I've been trying to avoid the news today, so I didn't realize until I read this that all of the anti-gay marriage amendments passed. It's awful.
quote:I want affordable healthcare - and that is a pretty critical (life and death even) issue for a lot of people. The government won't give it to me, though. Does that mean the government is voting against ME personally? No. It's not even voting against the collectively uninsured personally. It's just voting against a certain healthcare plan.
Yeah, if you can't afford health care, it is against individuals. It is saying that if you don't have enough money to pay for health care yourself, then you're life isn't as valuable as someone who is rich enough to pay for insurance. Being in that position myself right now, I pretty much take it as a personal insult.
posted
If I could vote, I'd have voted against it...
I am not gay, but... I believe that this is just another sign of we humans discrimination and predjudice... I feel sorry for you, people can't accept those who are different, I just hope someday people will wake up...
To me it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, or bi... To be denied these rights is unconstitutional... That all men are created equal, even if they are gay, they still have the same rights as any other... Yet people persist in destroying them...
I'm so sorry Telp.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Somehow I didn't see this thread until now. Telp, I'm so sorry. So incredibly sorry! They have no right to do this to you, or anyone else in your situation. None whatsoever. *more hugs* I wish there was something I could do to help. Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to remember the name and position of the EU official who was quoted as saying 'homosexuality is a sin'.
This is just to say that while it's sometimes popular to speak as if homosexual discrimination were an American phenomonenon, it ain't-it's a human problem.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is too bad that the guy with AIDS is going to die because he cannot get married...
Wait no he is going to die because he has AIDS. Well it is not his fault, after all he might be in that tiny percent of people who contracted AIDS without engaging in risky behavior.
Oh wait we already said he was gay.
Behavior is always a choice, I feel little sympathy for those that die from Base Jumping.
As for the rest, well there are twelve states where it is unlikely the ban will ever pass. Lots of great people in them who think as you. Get together, make your own Amendment and hope that the Fedeal constitutional ban never flies.
posted
I don't give a rat's posterior if you're 'proud' of me for being sad for him. Just, please, muster if you can enough humanity to shut up?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what, Bean Counter? It's possible to hold a policy position that has negative effects on people you hold to be a friend and not be an utter insensitive little pissant about those effects.
If you're going to support such a position, you are morally obligated to have taken the negative effects into account. Showing an ounce of compassion for the very real, very personal effects of your chosen policies would go a long way to convincing people that you've actually considered the fact that real people are injured by your position.
posted
Dag, but you see, by believing the rationale above, can (doesn't necessarily mean, however) allow someone to lose any sort of empathy towards that class of people whatsoever.
Now, I'm not saying his rationale necessarily causes the lack of empathy BC exhibited, but in my experience, it seems to correlate as a trend toward that direction.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
heheh.. yup!![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
