As you may or may not have heard...there will be massive protests this weekend (Nov. 15th) over Prop. 8 and the loss of civil rights gay people are facing in California.

This isn't just in California, it's nationwide. If you're interested in marching in your state and lending your voice to this issue, please visit:

protest8la.wordpress.com

From there you can find protests in your state.

You can also visit: www.jointheimpact.com

If there is no organized march local to you, you can become the organizer of your march. There are also materials you can distribute and lots that you can do.

And for WoW players, WotLK will be there when you get back, take a break from leveling. I am!

_________________

Yeah were going this saturday to for the Albuquerque one.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

as much as i suppose gay rights i have to say that these will have zero impact on anything

i meant support*

I'm actually surprised at how much national media attention the protests have been getting. They have been mentioned on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN. This will probably get national attention too.

I disagree Skycrasher, inconveniencing the people who vote by blocking numerous streets and travel routes for the protest will have a really, really positive impact for the next round of voting...

_________________

_____
"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 ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

_________________

I know many people think this is self-evident and obvious issue from their view point...

I just don't understand why there can not be some sort of compermise from both sides ...where they make something called a "civil union" with all the exact some benefits as marriage.

Here are some of my self-evident and obvious beefs...

Selective service shouldn't be sexist.
National Negro College Fund should change their name and stop being racist to other poor races.

Here are some of my self-evident and obvious beefs [sic]...

People should be able to think logically and do so before speaking
People should be able to view situations from perspectives not their own.
[etc.]

But the hand I shit in fills up so much faster.

And if everyone was as wise as MLK we wouldn't be having this debate, now would we.

_________________

_____
"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.

So it's your suggestion that MLK shouldn't have led protests? That the civil rights movement would have happened all by itself if everyone had just kept their mouths shut?

I am actually really annoyed with "the gays" right now.

So California passed an amendment to block gay marriage and it passed a popular vote? And now there are calls for national unity to protest this action?

What the fuck? Where were all these calls when every other state has been passing these amendments for YEARS now?

It really creates this odd appearance of entitlement coming out of California that is really rubbing me the wrong way. They are right to be angry. They are right to protest. To work towards change. I expected the state level calls to action. But asking other states to protest for them when they remained silent for us?

Where the hell were they when the rest of the nation was going through this? Why does it only matter now when CA is experiencing the same sort of discriminatory actions the majority of gay america has been under for years?

I'm not saying it won't happen, or that it shouldn't happen...this is just more of a "what the fuck" sense of irritation that CA is giving me right now.

_________________

And this one annoys me even more. Why?

If you get married in a church, but don't file for a marriage license with the state, any state, are you married?

Hint: "Every state in the United States has a requirement for marriage licenses to be obtained. A marriage is not valid if the marriage ceremony is performed without a marriage license being previously obtained."


Nuff said. No one is touching the religious institution. Churches can have whatever weddings they want, and refuse them the same way. But those have never, ever been the institution we are talking about, because they contain no rights. For all intents and purposes, they are just pomp and circumstance with no benefit other than whatever religious significance they may hold for the participants. That license is the real deal when it comes to rights and benefits, and since a religious ceremony is not required to obtain one of those, the argument falls flat.

Unless you are going to start revoking any marriage that isn't done by a church. But then, what are you going to do with churches that DO perform
gay weddings?

_________________

Not trying to excuse it, because more should have been done when the rest of the country was going through it as well... but they may have seen it as unavoidable in rural red states. In this case, there was a REAL shot to get something right for the people, and because only an additional 500,000-some ignorant fucktards decided to vote that day it didn't happen. They came THAT close to a real victory... it's just, I can only imagine that it's aggrevating to come within arms reach of true equality and have it thrown away.

Sometimes, unfortunately, I think it takes dramatic events like that to bring an issue like this to the forefront =/ Same can be said during the civil rights era, where it took events like Rosa Parks, the Burmingham church, and Jim Crow laws to wake people up.

^- was in response to your first post, not second.

Indeed. I'm not trying to say it isn't. It just reeks of a certain sense of entitlement for it only to matter to them (in a "we must come together nationally!" way) when it has impacted them, and not when it was happening to "someone else". When it was happening to someone else? *crickets*

We'll all fight the good fight. But this one small detail just really ticks me off.

_________________

I see it more as a failure on the part of the organizers in those other states. They could have called for national protests when it was their state passing discriminatory legislation; unless they did and the Californians ignored them?

And if people quietly went to the back of the bus for fear of being seen as uppity, and simply waited for change to happen on its own...we wouldn't either.

Which is why protests are important.

I have had more than one person ask what change we can hope to affect by such a protest. It's about the same as was done in the civil rights marches in the 1960s; changes came about in the courts. But what happened on the streets has great influence, and judges are hardly immune to such influences. Without it, those court battles wouldn't have been won. These are the same courts in the same land that made other decisions earlier, such as Dred Scott.

It's easy to mock other people's efforts as futile, or to apathetically question what good one person can do, what change they can hope to achieve by what little they can do. And to a degree that's true, it's difficult for most people individually to affect change. It takes unity, and it takes sacrifice and it takes a willingness to continue to fight, even as you lose battles.

The Civil Rights movement of Dr. Martin Luther King's era did not win it's battles in a day, in a week, in a month or in a year. It did not win them in any single protest or speech. It was the work of thousands, it entailed great sacrifices and dedication, and it unfolded over generations.

So Saturday, I'll be marching with my sign. I can't change the world in a day. I can't change the world by myself. Instead I'll do what I can do. And this weekend I will stand up, I will speak and I will not sit while I see people having their rights stripped from them. And after that, I will continue to do what I can, as I have been well before this.

_________________

My thoughts on the matter :

_________________

Yes, the amount of lip service paid to the issue by politicians has to be maddening. If something like this cannot even be passed in a state like California it really brings into question who your friends really are.

I think that this will ultimately be fought out in the courts via constitutionality. Or through freedom of religion for the churches that do endorse the unions. It was too far outside the public eye during this election, which should by all accounts have been the best shot at getting it through.

Wow, you really are stupid.

What I said infers that if all were as wise as MLK there wouldn't be a need for this because everyone would already be equal, not that everyone do nothing.



Get the stick out of your ass and see above answer.

Fucking people on here look for anything to start a fight. Get over yourselves.

_________________

_____
"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 heard somewhere that Prop 8 passing was meaningless because the California constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature to amend. Is that true or am I missing something? If it is true, anyone have any idea of how that vote will come down?

Yes clearly it's everyone else completely taking you out of context...

_________________

Considering you were responding to a later post and now backpedaling to a previous one, yeah.

_________________

_____
"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.

Considering you were responding to my post which was responding to that post in this very same thread? ...

C'mon you can do better than that. I mean, I know you can't call me a bitter fag or anything, but you've got to do better than that! At least crawl back up on the cross of how you're oppressed around here or something.

_________________

Found the answer on Wiki.

I wish he would call you a bitter fag. Turnabout is fair play, after all.

Shut up you twat.

I tend to think that anyone concerned with civil rights will overlook a minor traffic inconvenience or two.

I couldn't resist

Perhaps, but I also don't wait for the person being mugged to yell for me to help them before I step in, so I guess perhaps I have a different take on it than most.

I mean, if you stop and think about it.....what did they think was going to happen once Hawaii started the ball rolling and the amendments started popping up, state by state? Hell, how many of them even KNOW what happened in Hawaii?

Like I said, it just sort of...rubs me the wrong way. I still support the fight. It is just one of those things that makes me arch my eyebrow and feel the need to comment on their earnestness that only came about when it involved their own self interest.

_________________

I think you have a great point, Rugen.

Where's the NATIONAL movement? Why is so isolated and uncoordinated? Why does it just now seem to really be mobilizing?

Because until now they were allowed to get wed in CA.

Yeah, I think the fact that it was a right and now it's being taken away is a big reason.

That's absurd.

Did people REALLY think it was going to last? Really? Seriously?

Talk about complacency.

Why shouldn't it? Is it just as absurd as the Prop 8 voters thinking that Prop 8 would last?

The fact is, this isn't about marriage it's about having equal rights as married couples, the exact same ones. I don't care if they call it "Faggotarriage" or something. The people need the rights. I have heard people who voted for it because "Marriage is OUR word, they can't take it!" fine -- take that broken institution. 50% odds YOUR marriage won't LAST.

You can't govern who people love. Just no way to police that. It's a backwards ass step in a country that's moving forwards.

Really, so why quote the other one at the beginning of your sermon? Yeah I thought so... please continue on with your lesson in civil rights organizing, I enjoy it, you bitter old fag. yes, i couldn't resist...

_________________

_____
"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.

Oh shit, it's been 16 min, there must be a huge tirade on it way!

_________________

_____
"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.

Am I a bad person for laughing at this?

You try to agree with people and this is where it gets ya, Khan!

You guys are some super-sensitive folks.

I know.

Anyway, no time to continue this bullshit. I am outa here and headed to Elmira, NY for the opening of deer season this weekend.

Everyone have a safe and teargas free weekend. Back in 8 days!

_________________

_____
"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'd say odds are even between a 5,000 word post or a surrogate from another board she reads doing all the work.

And why don't I see more "What did we do wrong in CA that MA and CT did right?" coming from the CA camp? Their attempts to amend failed and gay marriage is still perfectly legal there. Some inspection as to why that is (rather than just "because it was the right thing and they saw that") could do some folks some good.

_________________

There needs to be a well organized movement, with a figurehead that people can either relate to or at least respond to. And it needs to be serious.

I'll tell you what won't work. Constantly calling those people ignorant assholes won't work. You need those people to change their vote, and as much as it might anger gays (rightly so), calling them names won't win any sympathy.

Khan is right, mostly. If you want to change things, it needs to be a parade that people take seriously. The caricature of the gay person as a rainbow wearing, half naked, flaunting flamer isn't going to do anything but set you back.

Gays can think it wrong all they want, and they're right. But it's more important to get the change you want than to do it the way you want.

All my opinions, I could be wrong - though I never am, ever.

The Arkansas law is just a horrible; now people that are not legally married can not adopt -- and Arkansas does not recognize any marriage that is not one man + one woman. If they have already adopted then they may be subject to having that adoption nullified.

I have to wonder if people in Arkansas really understand what they were voting on. It was marketed as a "preventing gay adoption," but here's what it really does:

Only married couples can be foster parents or can adopt in the State of Arkansas. So in addition to the gay thing, single or non-married heterosexuals can no longer be foster parents. And from what I understand, anyone who is currently a single or non-married foster parent is immediately disqualified - i.e. the kids they are fostering have to yanked ASAP, even if there is no other home for them.

Yeah, that's classy.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

nah.. enforcement will likely be selective....

_________________

which will open it to court cases to be overturned.

_________________

I still cannot believe that in 2008, closing in on 2009, we still have motherfuckers who make it their life's ambition to try to tear down gay marriage. Seriously, who gives a fuck if a man and a man or a woman and a woman love each other enough to want to spend the rest of their lives together? Anyone who reads these boards and thinks that gay people should not have the same exact rights as straight people, post here and say "I think this way" so I can tell you flat out that you are a stupid, stupid fucking person. If you feel that gays should have the same rights as straights, then vote for it, do your march, or whatever else you have to do. We're going to end up with a 200+ post thread with people calling each other names when essentially they are all agreeing on the same thing. If you are against gay marriage in any form, you are a fucking idiot. Period. If you are in favor of gay people having equal rights when it comes to relationships, taxes, and what the fuck ever else, then good. Thank you for not being a dumbass. Thread done.

ps: Fuck Steve Young

I didn't get the reference so, I checked Wikipedia.org:

<--- Stupid, stupid fucking person!

fer srs? Crowde? I thought you liked it in the butt.... er wait, was that Magg?

_________________

This thread and line of argument started with your sarcasm at the beginning regarding how screwing people's commutes would affect their voting patterns. It's hardly necessary for her to quote it when that's the obvious source of debate here, which was the same case with Fribur's post - it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what he's(and Tarot's) specifically referring to.

Happens all the time really, on any forum. Someone quotes something, and then makes a clear reference to something said earlier to prove how that quote makes no sense within the context of the discussion.

I can see that there is a ton of emotion here about this subject. I realize that I'm probably setting myself up for massive flames by asking some simple questions, but I do really want to understand the reasoning here so please be gentle...

What/who is it that you are protesting?

What are you hoping to accomplish with these protests?

I guess I'm looking at this from the idea that protests are against some form of repressive government action, so I'm confused. That is not what's happened here in FL and there in CA. It was put to the people that cared enough to vote. Frankly the results were surprising and disappointing to the majority here, myself included. Clearly not everybody else that voted agrees with what we think about the subject. So...

Do you really think these protests will sway those who voted for these measures to vote differently next time?

Or are you trying to accomplish something else?

I just don't see (gawd I hate to use the term now, but it fits) Joe Sixpack watching the nightly news coverage of these protests, nudging the wifey saying "You know what? Maybe we were wrong about them".

I think some Joes will do that very thing, provided they aren't dumb and have slightly open minds. At the very least, it will move them in the direction of "Why the fuck are they protesting over this?" and they'll end up investigating a little further as a result - even if they're dead set against it, and someone argues with them over it, sometimes it can push them to the point where they think about it more, discover some things from different perspectives they didn't think about before, and ideally change their mind(not always of course).

Is it the goal to change a huge number of peoples' minds about it that voted against it? No, of course not. They're eyeing those that are on the edge of the fence about this that may decide to actually vote the next time around, hopefully in their favor.

Is Marriage really a right? I always thought it was simply another contact between two involved parties.

It's far more than just a another contract. It became such when the government decided to start basing legislation on it. Also, if it were just another contract, there would be nothing stopping homosexuals or polygamists from getting married whenever they wanted beings the only requirements for signing a contract are being over the age of 18 and mentally competent.

So then the question is, why are gay couples being denied access to this contract? Why are states writing discrimination into their state constitutions solely to deny gay couples access to this contract?

We've already established (in my earlier post) that marriage in a church (religious ceremony) WITHOUT having obtained a marriage license (civil institution) is not "valid" legally. We're also more than clear that such a religious ceremony is not required to obtain said license, so marriage exists outside of the church.

So why is access being denied based largely on religious grounds for something that is clearly (and legally) not religious?

_________________

If the State of Ca has a right to recognize whom they allow to operate motor vehicles, then it is only reasonable to allow a state to recognize who can marry by its laws.

Establishing whether Marriage is a right or a privilege will be fundamental to determining if anything is being violated is all I'm saying. It seems a lot are assuming it's a right.