How about the right for gays to openly serve in the Armed Forces? Emphasis on "openly". It's okay for a soldier to have a picture of his wife and kids in his footlocker but if a gay soldier has a picture of his partner, he either have to lie about it or get snuffed out and discharged. Does that seem right to you? :?:
Who's with me? Aside from gay marriage issues, there has been a lot in the news lately affecting the LGBT community (i.e. the gay bashings in NYC, the Rutgers student suicide, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ruling etc).
I'm not really looking to debate those issues here; I am firmly and unapologetically in support of gay rights. Plus, there are always other threads for debating the merits of an issue. I'm just looking to measure and perhaps galvanize others on this board who might also support gay rights.
So, who else is in support of gay rights? And what do we do about it (aside from posting in an online forum when I should be getting work done )? Is anyone involved in activist organizations? Things are looking pretty grim lately for LGBT rights and when anti-gay violence intensifies, we should match it with our support for LGBT rights. It'd be cool to hear what other supporters are doing or concerned about.
What specific rights are you talking about other than gay marriage?
Make your life a mission - not an intermission. - Arnold Gasglow
When written, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. So, the 'guise of state's rights' isn't exactly far fetched. Since then, the courts have incorporated the bill of rights to include the state government. Slowly and methodically, the courts have stripped the states of the rights that were guaranteed to them by the constitution.
Secondly, ideologically, not allowing same-sex marriage is certainly discrimination. But legally, it really isn't. Every person(sans age restrictions) is given the same opportunity to marry. Of course that sounds trivial and nothing but semantics, which in part it is. So it's difficult to cry discrimination, legally, without using words like 'love' etc. That's what makes this a tricky issue. If everyone is given the exact same right to do something, legally, how can that be discriminating?
But let's say the federal government decided to step in(which I can't imagine they will). How would you define marriage? One argument that I've heard from the same-sex community is that it's nobody's business and it's not hurting anyone, which I completely agree with. So what does polygamy hurt? Would you be fine for legalizing that as well? I have a hard time imagining a scenario where one could be for same-sex marriage and against polygamy.
Finally, I would encourage you to do some thinking on your stance of the 'guise of state's rights'. The federal government overstepping their bounds is great, and convenient when you agree with their action... but it can be horrible when you don't(i.e. federal marriage act). IMO, that's what the writers of the constitution had in mind when they included that. The more local the government, the better it knows what's best for the community. And for the most part, I think it would be much easier to push this through on a state level than on a federal. I've always felt that state legislatures are much more cognizant of their constituents than at the federal level, where they seem to be more interested in their interests groups.
Have you contacted your representative yet?
Why would any federal action require a "definition of marriage?" The whole "defining marriage" argument is a tactic that opponents of gay rights use to shift the debate away from marriage as a secular, civil contract that affords parties to that contract literally thousands of benefits (i.e. taxes, healthcare, rights upon death etc) to a debate about how the Christian Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and woman before God. Federal action wouldn't require a definition of marriage; it could simply further outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. Passed on to the states, that would mean that states could no longer refuse to recognize marriages or dispense government benefits (again, marriage benefits, healthcare etc) simply because the consenting parties are of the same sex.
IF you did want to define marriage as part of any federal initiative, you could simply define marriage as "any civil contract between 2 consenting adults of sound mind and body who are not also party to any existing marriage contract who agree to..." That would short-circuit any concerns over gay marriage being a slippery slope toward accepting polygamy etc.
I don't think there's any dispute that the Bill Of Rights being incorporated to include the states was anything but a good thing -- in that in prohibited the states from passing discriminatory laws in spite of federal mandates to the contrary. I think you're largely in the minority if you think the 14th Amendment somehow "stripped the states of rights guaranteed" to them (if I know my American history, which I do, I'm sure that slaveholders also agreed with that view).
I'm not shrinking from my view that there are states that would violate the Bill of Rights or pass legislation in spite of federal laws/the Constitution/SCOTUS case law, and do so brazenly claiming that they are just acting pursuant to their state police power. Agree with that assessment or not, history has shown that to be the case, until the federal government steps in and legislates on point. On top of that, if we can all agree that gay rights is an equal rights issue (and therefore gays should have equal rights), then why would we trust 50 individual states to do the right thing? If we can agree that under our Constitution and under the interpretation of the Constitution that our Supreme Court has developed over hundreds of years that dispensing benefits to couples differently based on sexual orientation IS unconstitutional, why would the federal government not lead the charge to outlaw such discrimination? (but what do I know about the Constitution and equal protection and justice, I'm just a lawyer )
Its so odd that opponents of gay rights often tend to be "small-government" types who don't want the government to overstep their bounds and legislate us into a nanny-state etc, and yet, when it comes to things like gay rights and immigration (two issues that conveniently conflict with their worldview), they want more government, more prohibitions, more regulations, more state action. Where are all these libertarians on the gay rights issues? Shouldn't gay rights or denying someone who they can spend their lives with be the pinnacle example of government overstepping its bounds? You'd think so, but I realize its tough to maintain a consistent morality these days...
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I haven't read everyone's post but i have just one question.
Does ANY of your thoughts or views change if a child of yours turns out to be gay? Do you act as if that child is not yours or do you treat them as if they were not gay?
Peace
No.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I'm on board 100%, even though I disagree with pandora. A gay person should have exactly the same rights as a straight person in every single one of the 50 states, and the bass-ackward redneck Southern states shouldn't be given the opportunity to continue their persecution. I don't think you can support equal rights for a minority group while at the same time supporting a majority group's right to persecute that same group.
Thats funny are you in the South?
I'm not seeing a lot of persecution here for the Gay community
any more than the midwest or anywhere.
Its this sterotyping that is a problem for our country.
Out of 52 states..how many can gays marry in and how many recognize the marriage?
Pretty much you can count on 2 hands so therefore it is a nationwide situation,
not one of the Souths.
I also didn't say they shouldn't have the same rights...twisting words and thoughts.
I believe they should and as I said I have many loved ones that are gay.
I'm just not for the feds being involved in our personal lives is all.
I'd only like to see their role be in defending our country against attack
or other peril and in aiding the states in disaster. Pretty much it for me.
Their hands are in everything.
Secondly and more importantly by giving the power to the states
change comes about easier and faster.
People will pass the laws easier and change will come.
One step and one state at a time because you know
the feds aren't going to give Gay rights the forefront right now anyways
considering only a few states show support for it.
But as a majority of states give the rights that will call for change.
Its up to us on the local level to empower our Gay friends.
I live in Louisiana - hence the "cajun" part of my screen name. So yeah, I do live in the South, and I see persecution of minorities every single day (and as a foreigner I've been a victim of it myself a few times). I have no idea what it's like in the midwest, so I can't comment on that. My point is though that if you leave it up the individual states, then certain states that aren't as... open-minded... as others will choose to leave the status quo intact. To me, that's tantamount to the federal government saying, "If you want to deny someone equal rights, go for it."
Also, it's not like state governments are less corrupt or more efficient than the federal one. Or maybe I'm just jaded, since the Louisiana state government is one big steaming pile of horseshit.
Post edited by cajunkiwi on
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Yes of course we will need an amendment but we have a ways to go first.
We need more show now from the states or that may not happen.
Voting within your state, electing officials locally and those we send to Washington that are positive to the issue will ensure the message is sent and bring the needed change.
Things seem mighty stagnant right now perhaps even losing ground.
Actually I was surprised only 5 states allow gay marriage and in addition 3 recognize marriages but do not allow you to marry. I thought more states were on board.
That sends a message to the feds that americans are either disinterested, ie not enough noise, or against the change.
I agree what should happen but I'm afraid unless more people want it to
and show support, it may not anytime soon maybe not even in this decade.
I'm not entirely sure how much politicians are really listening to the people though. Take John McCain, for instance. When he was campaigning for the presidency he said he would favor repealing DADT if the military heads supported it. When the military heads came out in favor of repealing DADT he said he'd only support it if the troops supported it. When the results of the recently-conducted study were published, showing roughly 3/4 of enlisted servicemen and women supported the repeal of DADT, he said it needed to be looked at even further. So you have the heads of the military AND the soldiers all saying they support the repeal of DADT - and John McCain still isn't on board with it.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Comments
Make your life a mission - not an intermission. - Arnold Gasglow
Why would any federal action require a "definition of marriage?" The whole "defining marriage" argument is a tactic that opponents of gay rights use to shift the debate away from marriage as a secular, civil contract that affords parties to that contract literally thousands of benefits (i.e. taxes, healthcare, rights upon death etc) to a debate about how the Christian Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and woman before God. Federal action wouldn't require a definition of marriage; it could simply further outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. Passed on to the states, that would mean that states could no longer refuse to recognize marriages or dispense government benefits (again, marriage benefits, healthcare etc) simply because the consenting parties are of the same sex.
IF you did want to define marriage as part of any federal initiative, you could simply define marriage as "any civil contract between 2 consenting adults of sound mind and body who are not also party to any existing marriage contract who agree to..." That would short-circuit any concerns over gay marriage being a slippery slope toward accepting polygamy etc.
I don't think there's any dispute that the Bill Of Rights being incorporated to include the states was anything but a good thing -- in that in prohibited the states from passing discriminatory laws in spite of federal mandates to the contrary. I think you're largely in the minority if you think the 14th Amendment somehow "stripped the states of rights guaranteed" to them (if I know my American history, which I do, I'm sure that slaveholders also agreed with that view).
I'm not shrinking from my view that there are states that would violate the Bill of Rights or pass legislation in spite of federal laws/the Constitution/SCOTUS case law, and do so brazenly claiming that they are just acting pursuant to their state police power. Agree with that assessment or not, history has shown that to be the case, until the federal government steps in and legislates on point. On top of that, if we can all agree that gay rights is an equal rights issue (and therefore gays should have equal rights), then why would we trust 50 individual states to do the right thing? If we can agree that under our Constitution and under the interpretation of the Constitution that our Supreme Court has developed over hundreds of years that dispensing benefits to couples differently based on sexual orientation IS unconstitutional, why would the federal government not lead the charge to outlaw such discrimination? (but what do I know about the Constitution and equal protection and justice, I'm just a lawyer
Its so odd that opponents of gay rights often tend to be "small-government" types who don't want the government to overstep their bounds and legislate us into a nanny-state etc, and yet, when it comes to things like gay rights and immigration (two issues that conveniently conflict with their worldview), they want more government, more prohibitions, more regulations, more state action. Where are all these libertarians on the gay rights issues? Shouldn't gay rights or denying someone who they can spend their lives with be the pinnacle example of government overstepping its bounds? You'd think so, but I realize its tough to maintain a consistent morality these days...
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
No.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I live in Louisiana - hence the "cajun" part of my screen name. So yeah, I do live in the South, and I see persecution of minorities every single day (and as a foreigner I've been a victim of it myself a few times). I have no idea what it's like in the midwest, so I can't comment on that. My point is though that if you leave it up the individual states, then certain states that aren't as... open-minded... as others will choose to leave the status quo intact. To me, that's tantamount to the federal government saying, "If you want to deny someone equal rights, go for it."
Also, it's not like state governments are less corrupt or more efficient than the federal one. Or maybe I'm just jaded, since the Louisiana state government is one big steaming pile of horseshit.
I'm not entirely sure how much politicians are really listening to the people though. Take John McCain, for instance. When he was campaigning for the presidency he said he would favor repealing DADT if the military heads supported it. When the military heads came out in favor of repealing DADT he said he'd only support it if the troops supported it. When the results of the recently-conducted study were published, showing roughly 3/4 of enlisted servicemen and women supported the repeal of DADT, he said it needed to be looked at even further. So you have the heads of the military AND the soldiers all saying they support the repeal of DADT - and John McCain still isn't on board with it.