I suspect that Khan, in his own tough red-meat-man way, is actually trying to point out one of the problems with the substance of the gay movement in the eyes of the public and an area in which they might improve in their attempts to get themselves looked upon more favorably by the average ignorant voter.

I think you missed my point, Khan, which is that plenty of heterosexuals get dressed up and fucked up and party like idiots in Cancun, New Orleans, etc., every year, and yet no one suggests that their lack of seriousness of purpose renders them unfit to have basic civil rights.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

And I agree with you 100%, however, I am just telling you why these bans pass so easily. Gay people skeeve people out, and they don't like it because they haven't been desensitized to it yet. It's new and gross to the vast majority of America - and then you compound that with the bible factor ... need I say more?

_________________

Oh and Venen: If you don't like an establishment that allows smoking then don't go.

I don't smoke, but when I did, I would not go to restaurants where I wasn't allowed to smoke. I personally can't stand the smell of the shit anymore, but if somebody wants to smoke in a restaurant, and the owner wants to have a smoking establishment, then I don't believe anybody has the right to tell him that he can't.

_________________

Or maybe just appoint the best person for the job, gay or not.

I don't even really get why being gay is gross. First time in my life I'm happy to be desensitized!

Anal

That's gross? I agree with Zatronn.

Thank you Internet!

Yeah, and are they trying to get any legislation passed that will help them live a more meaningful and protected way of life for their families? I don't think so.

So let me put it this way. 2 guys go in for an interview. Same college, same GPA, everything is identical. One has a nice suit on, the other dresses as a clown. Who is going to get the most serious consideration.




And you are one fucked up bitter gay man who can't stand to have any kind of criticism what so ever dropped at his feet. Get off your high horse and do something to change people opinions rather than sucking at the tit of the 80's mantra, "We're here, we're queer, get used to us!" People like you who do nothing but bitch and are too lazy to put forth some effort make me sick.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

I just want to say this thread is getting good.

Khan may lack a gentle touch here, but the man has a point.

NOTE: I'm not excusing anyone for their bias here. Refer to my earlier posts in this thread.

If you're attempting to get the American people to look at your complaints and take them seriously (Even though they SHOULD take them seriously no matter what.) then it may be prudent to not go out and wrap your message in what might, at best, be taken as playground antics and at worst will disturb and upset the ignorant.

Gays deserve the same rights as everyone else, but history has shown us that quite often you end up having to fight for those rights. One only makes it harder on oneself if they do not consider the thoughts, reactions and perceptions of their audience/opponent in such a fight.

Oh. So I should vote on military issues based on the most visible and worst of the bunch? Like the guys who come home and kill people? Or that guy and his buddies who raped an Iraqi girl and then murdered her and her entire family?

So the answer to soldiers coming home from Vietnam to be spat upon and called baby killers was simple; 'Hey, assholes clean up the worst of your lot before you can expect ANY respect'.

I mean, fuck them looking for basic health care, and support when they come home with PSTD. They really should work on their public image before they can get serious consideration.

Right?...

_________________

No one said anything even remotely resembling that, no.

That was a flurry of straw men.

In fairness, while I support the notion that they SHOULD have basic human civil rights, and I agree that it's inexcusable that they don't, I'd not be opposed to looking at the situation pragmatically. What we're doing clearly isn't working, as evidenced by the passage of hateful and discriminitory measures, so what can we change? Would a push toward a more serious demeanor help, and is the cost of such a concession acceptable? Practically, what measures can gay AND straight people take that would have appreciable benefit? I'm geniunely curious. Forget about what "should" be, and focus on what "is." I'm frankly outraged at what segments of our country are doing to people, but I'm a bit at a loss at what I would do to help change it, further than ranting on a message board. I'm vocal about my opinion, but that doesn't really accomplish all that much, it seems.

I think Bovine would make an excellent wingman...

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

The problem with Khan's arguement is this isn't a corporation where you can just dictate to every gay person how they should behave to be taken "seriously". There are plenty of gay rights activists that behave exactly as you are requesting, but when you have hundreds of thousands of people in a group they don't all follow the same strategy. Maybe some are resentful that they are being asked to behave in order to get rights already assumed for straight Americans, or maybe they just like parades. Either way it's wrong to write laws to govern a large population of people based on disliking the displays of a small group of those members. Should all white parades or marches be outlawed because sometimes the KKK marches? Of course not, but it illustrates the point that you don't govern the whole based on the actions of a part. Rights are exactly that, rights, and they are not to be given on a "I like you" basis.

I think people are purposely missing the point of Tarot's post. The fact that their are flamboyant gay people in this world shouldn't deny all gays certain rights that they should have as human beings.

That said, I don't think that's Khan's argument. I think he's just pointing out one of the ignorant factors leading to so many Americans voting gay marriage down.

edit there

I hate myself.

Not really when you're attempting to say that the behavior of a small subsect of people in a group should or does influence perception of the whole to such a degree that they are denied basic human rights.

You really should look up some of the 'Yes on 8' material that went around here in California. The bullshit and lies are sickening. It had nothing to do with those 'flaming faggots in Pride parades' or anything else.

You want to know why people voted against it? Many did because their pastors told them to...from the church pulpit. They told them from inside their church that the govt. was going to SHUT DOWN THEIR CHURCH if it passed (because they would be forced to perform gay marriages, which they would not...so the govt. would take their church away). It's unbelievable, and a horrific lie.

But who are you going to believe...your pastor, or some strangers you think are going to hell? People place (by necessity I think) a lot of trust in their pastors and ministers. If they say it's so...why then it's so.

Go read the TIME piece on why it lost, they make a reference to a middle class family with five children, who are Christians...who aren't rich. Dad drives a 10 year old car. Yet this couple pulled out $50,000 and donated it to Yes on 8.

Why? For their children. Because they had the everliving shit scared out of them.

Why? Okay look, these people believe (BELIEVE) that being gay is a choice. And a sinful and vile choice which leads to hell. Okay, I don't agree but they believe it. Now believing that, coupled with the lie that their children would be FORCED to learn about homosexuality in school, that the parents could NOT pull them out of the class, and they would be told that being homosexual was normal...even desirable...and gay marriage would be taught and celebrated in schools and the parents could do NOTHING because the government would force it on their children....

You have Mr. and Mrs. Fundie pulling out the college savings and donating it. Happily.

I saw many parents with kids fighting as hard as they could for Yes on 8 because they believed (because they were told) it would harm their children. Not because gay marriage was the issue, but because what would be taught in school was the issue.

And the adverts with these lies ran prime time. It wasn't a hidden campaign. I had to go to Palm Springs for a conference...I hadn't been out there in years. Used to be a party town, the area I went to is more geared now for middle aged/older golfers. And it's Jesusville. Okay, I don't care about it being Jesusville...but it's like Fundieland-Jesusville with Yes on 8 stuff EVERYWHERE. (And a few anti-evolution things tossed in here and there). I was surprised, I'd never thought of it as a bastion of religious conservatism. But that was where I first saw the 'for the children' aspects of their campaign.

The minority vote is being blamed in CA too. That more minorities (IE; blacks) came out to vote for Obama and voted against gay rights (in all states). While the exit polls showed around a 70% against, I really don't think the defeat can be laid there.

Nor do I think it can at all be tossed at the feet of 'flaming faggotry' either.

Especially when in Arkansas you have children being taken out of homes because of the ballot measure passed there.

It can be laid at the feet of two things, IMO. Liars and apathy. (Well and perhaps a third...churches who dumped millions into the campaign and politicked from the pulpit).

The liars are obvious. And I don't care if people "like" the ideas involved or are for civil rights, or don't get that it's about civil rights or whatever. Try to be completely neutral and look at what both sides are saying, and who's telling the truth. Each side makes passionate pleas to emotionalism...I suppose that can't be helped. In CA though, only one side outright lied in it's ads...and in EVERY ad. I saw. And not just nitpicky little lies like you could say 'well technically blah blah blah', but HUGE lies. Like 'your children will be forced to accept gays and learn about it in school and parents can't prevent it...you can't even remove your child from class'. When a parent can remove a kid from ANY class at ANY time. Hell you can pull them out of the school and home school them if you want. (Plus the teacher's union tried to scream about what bullshit it was, why would they be teaching that shit when they don't teach it now).

And then there was lackluster voting in some areas which in a close race can make the difference.

So why the apathy? There were people missing from this fight (celebs etc.) and some poor voter turn out in key areas. I don't know but I suspect that in some cases it's the belief that this shit is just going to go through regardless because civil rights are rarely wrung from the majority by an oppressed minority through populous vote.

If we had put segregation to a vote, some areas of this country would STILL be segregated I'm sure.

And it's depressing and shitty. One person whom I highly respect and like was married in MA before it was legalized in California. She wrote the day after Prop. 8 passed that more than half the people where she lives hate her so much they won't allow her basic human rights. Now it doesn't affect her marriage because she was married in MA, she's still married no matter what they do. And it doesn't affect her partnership any more than it would affect mine if tomorrow they decided infertile women couldn't be legally married, or atheists couldn't be. I'd still be with him.

But if you can, try to imagine for a minute the most basic of human rights being put up for a vote. And how the very idea that people were going to decide whether or not you were even worthy of rights would make you feel. Then imagine they vote against you.

I often think it's going to take another Stonewall. That's why I didn't go to the protest last night in Hollywood. I'd have been in the group that took the march to the streets and clashed with the LAPD.

There's simply no justification for depriving people of their civil rights. And to argue that flaming queers are the reason that people think they're not worthy of human rights, while disgusting...isn't even scraping the surface of the lies pushed to get Yes on 8 passed.

_________________

No one said it SHOULD, but the reality is that it DOES. That's reality. I'm sorry. You and I might not like it, but to slam someone for pointing it out is silly.

And Khan's analogy about the job interview, while not 100% applicable, is a good one.

Take me, for instance. I have pretty long (Past shoulder-length) hair which I don't always bother brushing and generally wear pretty loose or "sloppy" looking clothing. I also might not bother shaving for days on end. When I just go out in public, I pretty much think that everyone can fuck off if they disapprove. I've even been called a hippie. =O

But when I go in for a job interview or something, I take every step I can to be taken seriously. I'll take care of, or even cut off, the hair. Dress in a nice suit or other appropriate clothing, and make sure I'm clean and well-shaven and whatnot.

Why? Because I know that I'll be judged on my appearance. I don't think I SHOULD be but the reality is that I WILL. There's no escaping that, and no amount of idealism will change the mind of my interview. It's just a fact of human nature.

That doesn't change, regardless of the topic. You can rant and rail about what SHOULD be and what's ideal and right and fair, but that won't change the reality of it all, nor will attacking those who point it out.

It's a terrible analogy because it's not a job, it's civil rights, and you shouldn't use a stereotype about gays as a reason to deny them those civil rights.

I'm fine with Khan pointing it out as a matter of observation. But it now seems the argument is that it's a valid reason to deny rights.

it is good to know that Tarot is passionate about something again

I saw where the Prop 8 has already started the legal process to challenge it. That is good because unfortunately it will take another "Brown v Bord of Education" to have this corrected and take effect nationwide.

I really hope that the lawyers promote that Prop 8 denies a subset of the citizenry the basic rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and is in violation of the 14th Amendment in which no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Oh never mind, damn. No one here ever said it was ok to "Use a stereotype about gays as a reason to deny them civil rights." nor did anyone ever say that it was a "valid reason to deny rights."

Seriously, did you actually think anyone said that, or are you just being so insanely stubborn that having the reality of things pointed out to you is painful in some way?

I'm just riffing off the job analogy. I think it's perfectly valid to deny someone a job if they come dressed as a clown. However, it's not ok to deny that clown his civil rights, and the job analogy somewhat argues that it is.

No, I don't think anyone said that, and I even said so here:

Relax Bovine, as of late that is pretty much the doctrine of this board. Slam anyone who doesn't agree with them, slam anyone who offers criticism, call everyone stupid because they don't jump on the bandwagon, etc.

All I did was offer a reason, not THE reason and certainly not MY reason as to why people voted these down. And yet I am the bad guy even though I have said for years on here that I support civil unions.

Until I began posting here some 9 years ago I had many racial and bigoted feelings. Thanks to hearing the different opinions and facts presented by this community I have changed the way I feel on a lot of issues. Hell, I bet I only say nigger and fag a couple times a day now.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

It's still prejudice. Or maybe that might be too strong a word, although it certainly applies.

You can lay the blame directly on the media in large part. Do you think Khan has ever been to a gay parade or rally? So where does he get these images of gay people?

It's imprinting, and unfortunately it's human nature. If I asked you to close your eyes, and picture a thief.....would that person be dark-skinned or light-skinned? male or female? If I asked you to picture a super model, would that person be light-skinned or dark-skinned? male or female? If I asked you to picture a nerd, is it a he or she? Is he wearing glasses? Obviously I could go on and on with examples, but the point is, unless you are exposed to a certain group, the only information you will have of them is what you can take away from other sources, like magazines or television.

Same with gays. How many positive gay role models do you see out there? Will and Grace? When people who have never been exposed to gay people think of gay people......they have to draw on whatever experience they have of them. This is where the media does a disservice to the gay community, because it constantly portrays them in a negative light, as far as being flighty, flamboyant, etc.

There are TONS of gay people out there that you would never ever in a million years suspect of being gay. But 1) you would never know because they choose not to reveal their sexuality, and 2) there is nothing "interesting" about a boring, gay, male who goes about his job everyday, isn't flamboyant, blends in perfectly with society, is law-abiding.....so you will never see a television camera aimed at him. The gay man dressed in a thong and wearing crazy make-up? Sure, that makes for good TV.

This is where a large part of prejudice comes from. You just have to mentally combat what you see, and learn the truth for yourself.

lol

I don't mind gays having the right to marry.

I just want HIV-infected healthcare workers to stay the hell away from me.

Bov...again....'flaming faggotry' was NOT one of the issues with Prop. 8 in CA. Middle class people with five children do not pull $50k out of their savings because of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, or some gay cowboy in asschaps is humping a giant purple dick float.

Do you know how much press Pride gets in California? IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA...it gets almost no mainstream press coverage. Have you ever been to WeHo? It's unbelievably nice. Did you know in Southern CA people LOVE having "gaybors"? Do you know why? When gay people move in...property values go up. That got quite a bit of press coverage, as well as what specific communities were doing to try to attract "gaybors".

Flaming faggotry was not an issue with the Yes on 8 people. Had they made flaming faggotry an issue...they'd have looked like bigots and they were trying desperately NOT to look like bigots. So they focused PURELY on a campaign that:

1) "Tradition of marriage"
2) "for the children"
3) "...we will be forced..."
4) "churches will be shut down"

And that's the keystone. Though "for the children" became number 1 because people (on their side) responded best to it.

-----------

As far as my passion, civil rights has always been a passion of mine. I'm actually passionate about quite a few things, I just don't bang the drum too much about them on the board. Though on one issue (a personal one, IHRF) I wish I had...since we lost out on American Express funding by a very narrow margin. And I think had I appealed to this community (all that was involved was registering to vote on the American Express site) ...we'd have had the numbers. But I felt weird about it because it's such a personal issue. Then when we lost I kicked myself repeatedly. Heh.

_________________

Lets see...

One's a party/celebration...


The other one a protest...



Of course some of them are going to dress silly the one day of the year they decide to throw a huge celebration. And even then, not all parade participants dress the same way. Here in San Diego you see everything, even the Catholic church has their float, and the local police department, and the local firefighters, and the moms and dads of gays, AND... get the point?

Either way, not because they dress silly, or go half naked or go completely naked (in the cities where it's legal) one day a year means that people should make their opinion from that. And if they do then they are morons. Because I am sure most of the gays you will meet the rest of the year dress just like you do. They also need to apply for jobs after all.

That is pretty much what everyone is saying.

What you're probably NOT seeing on your local news station. The speeches start at 1:38. (Yes I find the whistle blower annoying). As of last night it wasn't official, it is now...and Prop. 8 passed.

But more importantly, look at the crowd. They look just like your friends, your neighbors, your family.

Probably because they are.

_________________

There's still a long way to go in this country. That's a given. So we just need to keep putting one foot in front of the other.

The phrase closed-minded came to mind for me. I am digusted with the results. Further more, I am thoroughly digusted with the blacks (all 70% of them) who voted for Prop 8. Like Surcum said, you would think blacks would understand the prejudice and vote accordingly. I guess it just goes to show there is still the mentality of "Ima gets me mines" among that particular racial group...so long as they aren't the ones being denies civil rights, it's all good - fuck everyone else. The Latinos I would almost expect this from, since ost are Catholic, but blacks? Wow...just fucking wow! Wasn't AIDS the black man's disease? Isn't there a highly disproportionate of gay blacks compared to Latinos or Asian in the U.S.? Shame on you all for voting no on prop 8!

This shit really fucking pisses me off. Anyone who voted for Prop 8 does not honor the Declaration of Independence..."All men are created EQUAL". Read and advocate the document you sited to get your rights for equality, you fucking hypocritcal asshats. The country wasn't founded on your damned gospel and bible, it was formed on the basis equality, happiness, and liberty for all. I wonder how blacks would feel if their right to vote was suddenly repealed like gays' right to get a civil union was. Hmm...makes ya wonder if the "Ima gets me mines" people would think twice about voting yes.

I seriously doubt it, mother fucking hypocrites.

Someone needs a shot and a blowjob.

QFT

It wasn't long ago that sex between same sex consenting partners in the privacy and sanctity of their own home...was illegal. I have a series of crime photos from the LAPD in the 1920s-1960s that has sheets and sheets of 'Queer Files'...booking photos of people who's only crime was being homosexual. Some of those people were institutionalized. Some were lobotomized. Some were castrated.

This isn't some dark distant past. Cribbing from something I wrote elsewhere:



As I wrote elsewhere the night of the election (very late into the night): I think it's scant comfort to tell someone, 'Well...things were worse!' when they're being oppressed. I don't think when blacks were struggling in the civil rights movement for equality, pointing out that at least they weren't slaves any more made their struggles easier. It's merely a benchmark of progress. Things have gotten better, and will continue to do so as long as we work to make it so.

----
It was very important to me to be reminded by others how far we've come. I spent election night doing a walk down that memory lane. It makes the bitterness of the defeat easier to swallow when you realize how very far things have come, and how very close the vote was. The "final" count still isn't in...but it's probably around 300k-500k votes, and in a 9 million+ vote count, that's damned close.

More importantly our society has changed. Beyond Khan's crawling up a bit on the cross in this thread, he's talked about how his attitudes have changed in the last decade on some issues. Khan isn't a stupid guy, and I don't believe he magically got smart 10 years ago.

No, 10 years ago, Khan started playing EverQuest. In that game you don't see Marian, a redheaded freckled chick who has the dark circles under her eyes many days from a stupid fucking illness. You didn't see a 5'9" woman with (I'm constantly told) startling blue eyes...and at the time a chain smoking problem. You didn't get to hear my voice or my ability to verbally pretty much beat anyone into the ground (you just get to see me TYPE it).

Nope...you saw a tiny blue (I never realized I was tiny until after a long time of playing EQ when I saw screenshots of others) chick with white hair and a penchant for evil.

Now sure, we all brought our personal lives into the game to varying degrees...but who around here doesn't think of Leo first as the bard who fell asleep BEFORE Michael the man trying to change the world? Khan looks like a big scary dude (let's be honest!) with a motorcycle...but no one saw that at first. There's more than one player that I was shocked...SHOCKED at who they were behind the screen. I was guilded with a guy who played a high elf, then a barbarian...who I found out was black after two years of playing with the guy. Hell, few knew I was a redhead until a picture of me was posted (only among friends at first, I was a bit leery of the internet and potential problems honestly. And the thought of guys jacking off to any picture of mine kinda weirds me out).

We learned WHO we were before we saw WHAT we were. And even then most of you don't know the personal details of each other's lives.

You guys know quite a bit about *my* life, but I guarentee I could post three facts about myself that only people I'm friends with IRL here know (and even then a detail or two they probably don't know) which would literally shock the shit out of some of you.

I guarantee most of you could do the same. They're the personal details of our lives that we keep very private. But some things we wouldn't normally keep private just aren't visible 'on the internet'.

So we judged each other by the contents of our character...literally. We saw the work and kindness people showed each other in a game. People who went out of their way to be nice. People that worked together for common goals.

Look at Xantheus's guild. I'm going to say something controversial. He was the most successful leader on Lanys. You want to know WHY I say that? His group frankly is the most tight knit group out of that game. Want me to prove it? How many people fly in to Khan's house? There are others who are close as well. Oryx has much the same thing in a lot of ways. So do a lot of other guilds which STILL exist. There are people who are friends from that game that no longer post here, but keep in touch or play together elsewhere.

One would have to be a goddamn retard not to change some of their attitudes and beliefs. I'm certainly no exception.

I was told for years when I would go away to college everything would change. You go from a small localized group of people into a much larger world. And that was true.

But the internet does that even more than I could ever have imagined.

It's much easier to hate or fear something faceless. It's probably easier to be racist against blacks if you don't know ANY blacks, or the only black people you see are people you don't understand, get and you think are 'bad' in some variety of ways. It's still easy for people to justify racism IMO when they know 1 or two exceptions, because they then think (and sometimes even say) oh but not YOU.

It's much harder to hate people you actually know.

And for some people it's a tough responsibility. Fribur's the only "out" Quaker on the board, and he knows all too well that his religion is often judged by him. I've seen him lament that he's a 'bad example'. I personally disagree strongly. I think he's a 'human' example, and while he and I have disagreed on things at times, sometimes hotly...I have nothing but respect for him and his beliefs...while I do not and cannot share in them.

And I feel that way sometimes too as an 'out' atheist here. I'm mortified by the asshole atheists who think all churches and religions are somehow bad and evil, and should be abolished. I'm embarrassed by the atheists who proclaim that atheism is a positive statement that 'there is no god' (that's not atheism, that's a belief). I'm sickened by the so called 'Brights' movement and the idea that being an atheist makes you SMART while believers are DUMB. And I think that atheism is sometimes judged as a whole by either that stupid shit, or sometimes worse...by my opinions or statements.

I guess we all feel that way though about things we represent or feel we're sorta of a minority in. I'm sure some of you feel or felt that way about gaming and gamers in the 'real world'. When we wanted to distance ourselves from the ugly stereotypes of nerdy gamers, while proudly proclaiming ourselves geeks.

The world has come a long way in a short time. And I have seen great progress even in people I know. Perhaps I should be more grateful for that than I am. I find it difficult though.

It's very hard when one is passionate about an issue. It's much worse when it's personal. This isn't a faceless concern for me. Even if it somehow didn't or couldn't impact me or people I know ... I'd fight for it because it's a matter of right and wrong and honestly such absolutes are pretty damn rare. But it is a right/wrong issue. But it's not faceless.

And it is painful.

_________________

So where is your pic Tarot? I have the sudden urge to go rub one out.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Isn't it curious that liberal California would vote to keep gay people from marrying, while the voters here in little Connecticut rejected the question on convening a Constitutional Convention because the Supreme Court of CT said sure a ban is against the CT Constitution. As far as I know CT and MA are the only states where Gay Marriage is now legal. Tarot is very passionate about the LDS couple that donated to defeat Prop 8, because of their own beliefs. However the government imposed a ban on poligamy that was part of their belief system the point being that society (government) takes away rights all the time in the name of the so called common good.. I have a couple of members of my family who are gay and if either of them want to marry who the hell am I to say they can't. Just as if the LDS member wants to support more than one wife who the fucks business is that? If people would mind their own fucking business and stay the hell out of other peoples lives it would go a long way to resolving some of these precieved problems.

Actually, I thought Khan was quite candid on that matter when he typed his opinion that "It's the gays fault all three of these passed", and then followed it up with gay pride parades as the justification for why it was our fault. He's now backing away from it as if he was just putting forth someone else's opinion, but it sure as hell read as his in the initial post.

And you know what that infuriates me so much about that opinion?

If I type even the smallest sentence on these boards that can be possibly held up to light and deemed to be judgment on ALL Christians for the actions of an extremist element of Christianity, I am immediately lambasted from all corners for judging them all for the actions of a few wing nuts. And we're not even talking laws and rights or actions being taken against them here. Just perceptions written on a frigging web forum.

And then, on tail of civil rights being stripped away from American citizens after it was put up to a popular vote, of all things, in walks Khan and ventures forth that it is our own fault because we can't keep drag queens and leather men off of the cameras in the media, that if we had somehow "managed" our "extremist elements", everything would be hunky dory, but because we didn't, we deserved what we got. And instead of people pointing out what is wrong with that statement as they are oh so quick to do in the previous example, there was (for the most part) a general nodding of heads and a "gosh, gee, you know he's right" from some of the very same people that would have been crucifying me in the first example.

The double standard there is beyond the pale to me.

_________________

Being a native New Englander, and having lived in other parts of the country, there's definitely a much stronger sense here of, "I don't care what the fuck you do in your own home, I just don't want to see it," than in some other places. Add in that it is also a more highly secular area than a lot of other regions, and I think that the combination of those two factors are a large reason for the greater legal status of GLBTs in the New England states.

Two states with full gay marriage as of Nov 12 (CT, MA)
Two with fully equivalent civil unions (VT, NH)
One with a limited-rights domestic partnership law (ME)
One that recognizes all marriages (but not civil unions) performed in other states (RI)

_________________
Hope is the new black.

What's the difference between:

and
?

Civil unions are "marriage light". They have some of the benefits, but not all, of marriage. Currently, anyway.

_________________

The difference is that most states have no legal definition of "civil union."

So, for example, same-sex couples with marriage certificates from MA, CT, CA, and foreign countries are recognized as married by the states of RI, NY, and NM. They don't recognize civil unions.

Additionally, some of the state statutes and amendments in states that ban gay marriage refuse to recognize gay marriages. Other refuse to recognize gay marriages and any functional equivalents (civil unions, domestic partnerships).

One clause of DOMA specifically disallows the Federal Government from extending benefits to same-sex couples. If that gets repealed, and there's no legal definition for civil union or domestic partnership put into federal law, it is possible that a couple married in MA could file Married Joint with the IRS while a couple with a civil union from VT could not.

(If that happened, I would expect that it would get resolved after a year or two).

Also, some gay marriage advocates view the establishment of civil unions as "separate but equal" because there is nothing preventing those states from later amending their statutes to provide different rights, responsibilities, and protections to married people vs civilly unioned people.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

So what's the answer? Wait patiently for the populace of all states to allow gay marriage?
Or do you just handle it in the Supreme Court where it becomes another "Roe vs Wade"? Would that hinder or help the progress of tolerance?
Or path C?

I have the distinct feeling I'm not your type Khan.

_________________

If it had been up to a vote back in 1865, would slavery have continued to exist? Did that hinder or help the progress of tolerance? Some thing are basic civil rights under a constitution that demands equality, and cannot be denied by a majority.

For me?

It would have to be where the loooooong ago Hawaii court case (where the religious right learned to amend a state constitution to circumvent a loss in court), where it was put forth to the people against gay marriage that they needed to present an argument that did not include a) religion and b) procreation before the court, and if they could not, the issue was closed.

It was in that moment that they realized that they'd lost this battle in the court systems and so they started pushing for DOMA and amending state constitutions, so that court cases questioning the constitutionality of their argument were now moot. They lost the law, so they went for mob rule.

I say we go back to that point. Remove those two things from the table, and have it out in court, once and for all. And before people tell me those two things aren't fair to remove, neither of them are required for heterosexual marriages currently, so applying them to us is not a valid comparison.

_________________

And if they're required for marriage *I'm* fucked as I'm an infertile atheist.

_________________

I gave it in my post already Surcam. The federal government needs to step in, and stop putting out shit like DOMA. The Supreme Court needs to rule that it's unconstitutional for any state to ban same-sex marriage.

It doesn't need to be like RvW (that by many legal minds including Justice Gindsberg believe that RvW is bad law regardless of their stance on abortion).

This really should be easily defined such as Brown v Board of Education.

This must be decided by the Supreme Court. Every time there is a ballot initiative or Amendment it will still be brought up in local/state court or more ballot measures will be brought up to counter the prior vote.

I have not read the text of Prop 8 or any of the other anti-gay measures that were voted in on Tuesday. However, it seems to me that a talented legal team could take the most restrictive (possibly the "homosexual couples can not adopt bill" from Arkansas and challenge it. Arkansas's Supreme Court is controlled by Democrats but they still have the religious populace that they must "answer" to so they will more than likely uphold the vote. That would make it easier to get it up to the Supreme Court.

I would like to see this go to the SC. Pardon my ignorance on the exact manner on how this has been argued before, but as a violation of the 14th amendment seems like the most effective way to fight it.

California will be the key here. It is the only instance thus far (that I am aware of) where people were given a right, enjoyed it, and then had it taken away. Everywhere else either amended the constitution before it came to court decision or the amendment didn't pass. The fact that there are a whole slew of CA residents that were married and now aren't will most likely be the key to the federal pursuit.

_________________

I'm not sure people believed. Whoever said that gays are partly to blame is probably right. Not enough turn out or advocacy for this. I'll give you a case in point.

There's a blogger I used to like named Andrew Sullivan. I know some of you read him. Well, the guy got progressively more and more nuts as the election wound down, from castigating Hillary, then McCain, and finally going on a crusade against Sarah Palin.

This is a prominent gay political blogger. He goes on Maher, Hardball, the Daily Show, etc. And he's best known in this election for questioning whether Trig Palin is really Sarah Palin's son. He certainly talked about proposition 8, but he didn't give it near the attention that he gave to bashing McCain and Palin.

Prop 8 got lost in the maelstrom that was the Obama candidacy. And people who should have made this their primary issue got distracted by the sideshow.

Personally, I think Prop 8 is significantly more important than electing the first black president. On one hand we have a profound advancement and statement that America is moving beyond its bigotry of the past. On the other hand, you have a group of people that is *actively* being discriminated against. Prop 8 was more important than electing Barack Obama, and unfortunately, it got lost in the shuffle.

Some people may have just assumed it would pass, it being California as well, which might be part of the reason it didn't get as much attention. It's now evident to many more people that they have to keep fighting and that basic rights will not be merely handed to them without a struggle, unfortunately.

The election of the first black man being more important? No, probably not. The election of Barack Obama? Debatable, probably. We're talking about 2 significantly different directions for the country to move, with many different stances on the issue. I don't read Sullivan's blog, but I could make an assumption that his thought pattern may have been more like: Well, if we get a popular liberal-leaning President in office we liberal policies and a stance that's more understanding towards gay couples, maybe our society will move forward enough to re-examine their beliefs and come around to supporting things like Prop 8.

That's certainly a logical stance to take, and it may well kill 2 birds with one stone. Leadership is a powerful force that can sway opinions and the general direction of the country socially(in terms of social justice, etc).

That's so fucking hot.

_________________

The problem with that is it is a total fallacy. Barack Obama does not support gay marriage. Bill Clinton wasn't the gay savior, either. You're delusional if you think any Dem president will take this on. If there's even a chance for Obama to do anything about it, it won't be until his second term.

Don't ask, don't tell anyone?