Pink triangles and barbed wire
 

I've been watching the stories about anti-gay legislation floating through various legislatures. I know that there are some conservative gay and transgendered people on this board, even some who still seem to defend the current administration, so I thought I would ask.

Do you feel that the Republican party has been hijacked by the social conservatives?
Do you feel threatened?
Do you feel that the anti-gay initiatives are simply grandstanding with no intent of success?

Personally, from a Jewish perspective this reminds me of Germany in the 1920's and 30's. The Nazis needed a scapegoat to rally their members and tapped into anti-Semitism. They also did engage in a purge of homosexuals. Overt anti-Semitism is a tough sell these days, but gays are more isolated legally and politically than racial minorities. Even some fundamentalist blacks and jews, two groups who should understand the concept of persecution, dismiss gay rights as a legitimate agenda.

Is it too late for the Republican party to move back toward the center and take a libertarian stance towards gay rights?

The problem with the Republicans is that they have crawled into bed with the religous wrong. So far, I have seen little evidence that the two are going to stop going steady anytime soon. The big name Bible thumpers command a significant chunk of change from the faithful, and they also command their ears via various religious broadcasts and written propaganda. The Republicans want those dollars in their war chest and they want those votes on election day. In return, they have no qualms about throwing a few less influencial groups to the dogs.

I live in Republican El Paso County, home of one of the greatest concentrations of evangelicals in the US. I have had people tell me that the town where I live, which has the reputation of being a liberal haven in the surrounding evangelical sea, will one day see its streets run red with blood. I spoke with a man who runs a Tibetan store which features various Tibetan Buddhist items tell me that a woman came in and told him that he and his godless religion were not welcome here, and that he needed to go back where he came from.

There's a big whoop right now about faith based initiatives taking over help for the disadvantaged and handicapped from the government. Well, if faith based iniatives work so great, then El Paso County should be a show case for them. Ahem...

Local charities are overwhelmed because Republican El Paso County is loath to spend so much as a dime on social services. The World Prayer Center et al have NOT been frothing at the mouth to bridge the gap. Low income people in this county commonly go without medical care or proper housing. Gays in the community keep a pretty low profile for fear of losing their jobs. The local Planned Parenthood Clinic seems to have a constant ring of protestors around it every time I drive by. Next door to me their is a large gated, private community. Christians only need apply. The list goes on...

Since when did a supposedly private act of love between two people become a policical stand. Why cant we keep our sexual proclivities to our selfs?

If you want to get married find a preacher and get married, If that aint good enough then move some place that will issue a piece of paper. Just dont get in my face or make an issue of something sacred with your own perversions. I manage to keep my perverted acts behind closed doors. Why can't you?

Well, as a heterosexual, I realize that I have more rights than my gay relatives and friends. If it were really a libertarian ideal of 'behind closed doors' then IMO everything would be fine. However, the laws being proposed to prohibit adoption by gay singles or couples, and the latest redefinition of the rules on security clearances appear to indicate that the goverment is pushing back the clock.

It just seems that a lot of people are beginning to make it their business to nose into the private behavior of citizens.

What is it you can do that they are not allowed to do?

Adoption is not private behavior.

I'm not really siding with the Republicans/religious right, etc. but we at least need to come to some kind of agreement as to the problem statement. I think homosexuals should be allowed to lead whatever life they want to and, as consenting adults, I don't think its any of the Fed's or the State's business. But there are quite a few legal questions that are quite sticky when applied to homosexual couples. For example, at what point should the principle of common-law marriage apply to gay couples? What are the consequences of children being raised in gay households? If the state recognizes a gay marraige but the Fed doesn't does that allow the couple to file joint tax returns? Is it truly discriminatory if they don't?

While I don't have the answers, I'm not just going to ignore the collateral questions.

Who knows what a politician's position means? Pandering to the base, taking an empty stand to score points, raise election money, elicit favors from politically expedient allies, take payola from a lobbyist, etc. With politicians, there is only one thing we can be certain of - it is definitely not a stand of principle.

It's nice to see someone here of the same opinion as me. Quite a few legal questions. That's very true.

Like what? A human couple IS a couple. To deny a committed homosexual couple the benefits that marriage brings is unfair. To deny them the benefits of family health care is unfair. A lesbian couple in my area (with two adopted children) were denied the cheaper "Family membership" rate at a local swimming pool club. WTF? They'd been together for 10 years and had the 2 kids! That's not a family? Hey, it's lasted longer than either of my two marriages did! What a crock o' shiite!

We've covered the subject at least 2 times before.

gay marriage

California voids Gay/Lesbian Marriages

The whole subject is very cut and dry to some, that this is just some religious objection that should be quickly overcome and let that be that.

The more that you think about the overlapping complexities of existing anti-discrimination law, custody battles, child support, alimony and a host of other issues it may seem otherwise.

For the record, I am not in favor of gay marriage for reasons that many of you will not agree with but that I dont see how it wont eventually pass at some point.

Just a few of the non-religious issue are:

- The effect of public education and the exposure to alternate lifestyles as opposed to home schooling which often allows very little exposure.

- Divorce and custody settlements and the new system that will have to be devised and tested as opposed to the old methods and precedent. IE - the woman normally gets the child, gets the man's check.

- Changing demographics in the US and the political makeup of the southern states and the shifting makeup of the USSC

- The natural progression that once one specification within the definition of marriage is changed, that the same legal argument is valid that other changes will follow and require even more changes in the legal system from the issues listed above.

So, it may very well be an injustice that your friend was denied discount for a pool membership, it may also very well be that USSC cases are born from such injustices but it seems counter productive to the gay marriage movement to move more quickly than the legal system and those changes required to implement the new changes throughout the entire US, can handle.

I'm not going to go point-by-point right now (coz I've got to get ready for school) but divorce and custody battles are a bitch-nightmare whether the couple is homosexual or hetero. The woman doesn't always get the kid and the check (there seems to be a real feeling around here that that is the only way it goes. I pay child support for both of my boys even though the younger one lives with ME.) What is the point about schools? Public schools are just that-everybody goes. Homeschooled children are, for whatever reason, not exposed to the unwashed masses-so what? If they want to live in this world, someday they WILL run across someone with a different lifestyle and history, someone 'other'. Oh, and my 16 year-old son (a real Bush supporter) said, "If we allow two women to marry each other, what is going to stop somebody from marrying their CAR?" You see? That is very silly thinking. Something a 16 year old Republican would say.

I need to get some sleep, find my supporting links folder and put some effort into this again.

We covered many of these questions in the links provided

Just a few of the non-religious issue are:

Nope. Nope. No way. The government has to strain to match the new cultural reality, NOT the other way around.

That's how it works in a free country with a representative government. That's how it has to work because the alternative is unthinkable.

I'm not sure what you mean. The citizen will not be allowed to home school? Or they will somehow try to manipulate that cirriculum?

I was really addressing your other three points.

Same as straight.Probably a slightly lower chance of bigotry. That's not really a legal issue, though.YesYes.

The questions aren't that sticky, really.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?That sounds like a good thing, not a problem.That's a reason it's hard, not a reason it shouldn't be done.The only thing that could possibly be a natural progression from gay marriage is adult polygamy. Nothing else. Not marriage to kids, not marriage toanimals, not marriage to cars.

(OT)...Although I know a guy who's married to his cars. I suppose that's polyautoamory?

There are many complexities to the gay rights issues, but marriage shouldn't be one of them. Marriage is a contractual agreement, and contractual agreements between members of the same gender are pretty common in our society. The only possible objections, then, are ultimately based on religious morality, and so any laws attempting to restrict same gender marriages are in fact impositions of religion upon law.

Or so I feel. YMMV.

Is gay marriage permitted by the governments of China, Cuba, Japan or Finland or are all those governments in Pat Robertson's pocket too?

Not as far as I know. I'm not particularly enamoured of living under the governing precepts of *those* countries, either. In fact, aren't a couple of them Communist regimes, typically not known for their liberal human rights handling?

I would be interested in knowing how much debate there is over the issue in the countries which you cite, and what reasons are given for disallowing the practice there, though.

I'd also be interested in hearing some non-morality based points in favor of the continuing ban on gay marriage.

Turns out Finland recognizes civil unions between gays, which takes care of the legal issues. If those who are so registered then decide to have a ritual, find someone to solemnize it, and call it a marriage, I'm thinking that is between them.

I'd be good with that same sort of deal here in the US. I don't really care if people want to say that a gay union isn't a real marriage, as long as they don't deprive a united same sex couple of their civil/property/benefits rights.

Looks like it is still naughty in Japan, from what I'm reading online.

I suppose my points that I've done so poorly at describing here are based on letting the legal machine crank on with regard to this issue.

It's not that I'm personally opposed to it but that I dont see the push for legalized worth pushing for right now. I do not see that not legally allowing GM is somehow anything near the comparison to the Black civil rights issues of years ago. Call me an ass.

The thing that I'm most worried about, respectfully, the thing that most people here discount totally, is the size and scope of the Christian population and how the changes they make in large numbers might affect all of us. Like boycotts and such.

Even worse, Imagine instead of 1 abortion bomber, 100 "GM bombers" or something similar but less violent. What would the drain on resources and our freedoms be in bringing that sort of thing back in check? Sure, worth it to defend the rights of gays, but really necessary? I dont think so. Let the issue crank through the legal system.

In that way, just knowing that this group is as large and committed as it is, the non-religious argument against GM is to keep force on those things that will decide all the legal cases as quickly as possilbe.

That might be tomorrow but I'm guessing not.

Yes, I know that many of you here hate the Christians. Yes, I also know that they are clearly wrong in most everything that they do. They must represent a large influence here in the US or this issue would have been slam dunk a long time ago.

I picked a few commie countries just to make the point that its not just about religion. I'm obviously not a big fan of China's government either. I can tell you that it has actually been voted on in China's parliament but did not come close to receiving the required number of yes votes. I should have known better than to choose Finland but did not dig deep enough to verify their position on the matter. Suffice it to say that there are quite a number of countries who do not recognize gay households who do not base their position on religious texts.

I just have a problem with the gay rights advocates painting everyone who does not agree with them as either religious bozos or homophobic bigots. There are a lot of people who aren't on their side (not all of whom are necessarily opposed - just not in favor) who are neither.

THAT would be a lot more reasonable at this time IMO. Unfortunately, this is not good enough for many. Many even here in this forum.

What I see the reasoning behind this is, is to retaliate against the group, Christians, that have been at odds with them for so long.

Why not let the intermediate step here suffice for the moment?

I do not hate Christians (and I realize you weren't directing that comment at me, Slang...I'm pretty sure that you and I can debate almost anything as pals)...far from it. Those Christians who follow their own teachings are among the kindest, most honest and decent people I know. As with any fringe group, it is the hardliners and fanatics that make it tough for everyone.

The problem with attempting to legislate morality is that you automatically demonize or disenfranchise those who do not share your vision of what is moral, yet are causing no harm to others. The fact that we use a Conservative Christian yardstick of morality on issues such as gay marriage is, in itself, and from my perspective, immoral.

The only arguments I ever hear in support of gay marriage bans seem to be related to the welfare of children of such unions, and I just have to laugh. There are far more dysfunctional heterosexual family units than there will ever be in gay unions (simply by dint of their larger numbers), yet these are not legislated against, apparently due to their inherent "morality", since the round peg goes into the proper oriface in accordance with God's Plan. Not very logical. As to other arguments vis a vis property, benefits, etc, all I can say to that is, "bullshit". If the partners in question were to turn around and engage in a heterosexual, legal marriage, then there would be exactly the same amount of rights and benefits being granted had they been granted to the gay union.

No, this is moral, purely and simply. Any other notion is disingenuous. As to whether or not there are more pressing issues to be dealt with in this country at this time...ask the gay attorney who cannot provide insurance for his dying partner because the partner isn't a legal dependant, despite the fact that they've been together for 20 years (this is a hypothetical case for the sake of discussion, but I bet that five minutes of Googling would bring up an actual case not too different).

True enough Ep. I dont believe that the gays are suffering anywhere near those of Blacks though and that in itself is a part of the stuggle for gays.

Those that have fought injustice at a much greater degree, rightly or wrongly, see someone that cant apply benefits to their partner as something dramatically less of a big deal. These same people might see the insistance on allowing GM as opposed to civil unions as pushing too far at this time and just being unreasonable

Those people that believe this would be from the middle of the spectrum too. Many of whom see gays as having more money than themselves, having a better lifestyle and compare this to the civil rights struggles of the 60s.....and just chuckle to themselves because they dont see any valid comparison.

Rich, you know that I like you, your lovely family, and hold your ability to barbeque in high regard ...

but.

How is it that you can equate the deaths of 6 million Jews and countless others with gay marriage? There aren't any death camps, and as far as I can tell, nobody's being systematically killed.

Ok--I've not read the above with the sober eyes of Muhammad--Or, Jesus, or Y*w*H, or, God-De-Jour. I'll tell you this:

Stupid humans! LOVE one another! Honor me thru your neighbors! Kay-Rist!

your stupidity is astounding.

PPS-God is an Ideal.

I don't think he's equating the two cases...yet (I know, I know...you didn't ask me, you asked Rich). Still, with the current trends in society, it seems interesting that we are apparently creating a designated "whipping boy" to suit the moral themes which are being more and more propagated in our social structures these days.

Why can't we make murderers, thieves and child molesters the objects of our scorn and constant moral outrage, and leave people who just want to do each other in mutual peace and harmony alone?

:right:

i am so there.

dude: I so didn't mean YOU. i was being orgasmic. Or, something..

Because in current parlance, they are not responsible for their actions ... they are these things because of some defect or sadness in their upbringing. Personal responsibility, whether it be for good things or bad things, is a concept of the past. It's the rotary dial telephone of the new millenium.

wolf! some things are genetic!

Don't get me started on Victim Mentality. Sheesh.

do your worst, els. Enlighten me.

Simply this...at some point, we have to suck it up and take responsibility for our own actions, or we are doomed, both as individuals and as a society. I don't see much of that anymore. Anything that goes wrong in someone's life is almost always dismissed as the psychological/physical/emotional effects of someone else's actions, and that is a crippling disease in and of itself.

I'll leave it at that, lest I risk offending. I know people have hard lives. I've had one, too.

You could make the same argument about the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. How can you equate segregated bathrooms with death camps? You might as well say that all injustice is now OK, because the holocaust was worse.

Yes, it's this group that concerns me greatly. It's not because I'm in that group but that there are more than a few in the family.

I have this lifeskill of being able to relate with a wide variety of people also and that allows me to hear who is saying what about who.

It's frightening.

I have SOOOO sucked it up. Tell me where I've gone wrong.

I don't know you well enough to know that you *have* gone wrong. From what you've told us here, you admit to having made some serious relationship and career mistakes, and you are now attempting to be self-sufficient and improve your lot in life through education and the making of better decisions.

That doesn't sound like a victim mentality to me. Or did I miss something?

You're a witch last time I checked, Bri. You know the relationship between magick and personal responsibility. Sounds to me like you're doing your best to put that into play and live by those precepts. Keep it up.

Sorry for butting in here.

No, not OK but of the same urgency? Of the same degree of injustice? That's for the fence sitters to decide, not coming from one extreme or another.

People being killed by the millions versus people that cant get insurance for their sig other. Granted, a tragedy. Any true comparison is just laughable to the middle roaders. THOSE are the people that you need.

(Not YOU specifically HM but as a whole of the movement )

Like I said, you could say the same about the Civil Rights movement. It was of much less urgency and injustice than the holocaust, but it was still happening and worth fighting. And just like your listing of "can't get insurance", I can diminish the Civil Rights movement to "have to use a different bathroom". But it was and is much more than that in both cases.

This is why I used Germany in the 30's. This was before the 'final solution', when unpopular groups were being disenfranchised and isolated.

I don't expect death camps in the US. Resettlement camps? Reeducation camps? How about a law declaring homosexuality a mental illness? I don't know where this country is headed, but if you look back to the early 20th century when racism and anti-semitism were institutionalized, it is possible to see how bad it could get.

When I mentioned similarities to the civil rights movement, I was thinking of all of the laws on mixed marriages, some of which were written into states constitutions. For over 100 years states were allowed to prevent members of different races from marrying. I don't know if this was based on pseudo science, or if everyone just admitted that it made them uncomfortable, but for a very long time this was a fact of life embedded in society and law.

I went to a Jewish school and had to study the Holocaust. One lesson that I learned that some people don't remember is that it did not happen overnight. Death camps did not spring up on the outskirts of towns in a single year. The period from the first discriminatory laws to the 'final solution' was about 8 years. The rise to power came from a manufactured 'crisis' and the gradual dissolution of Constitutional checks and balances.

Especially on the Internet, people automatically are suspicious of playing the 'Nazi' card. Look at the timeline and see if you notice any parallels with events today.

The difference today is that Jews and other minorities would see it coming. While conservatives are rolling back affirmative action, there is no chance for them to attempt active racism or anti-semitism today. However, gays do not have any significant legal protection and can provide the same visceral response to the 'base' that Jews did in Nazi Germany.

Death camps? No. Active disenfranchisment and legalized discrimination? Maybe.

BTW, we like you too Wolf.

"Affirmative action" needs to be rolled back.

You can't have true equality without a level playing field.

Affirmative action sets under-educated, but over-promoted minorities up for failure. [url=http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]only 51% of black students graduate high school, compared to 72% of whites, and only 20% of black students are judged to be "college ready."

Relaxed admissions standards do not help these students, as they are expected to work at the same level as their classmates who did meet admission standards for entry.

I do think that expectation plays a large part in performance. If you expect more, you get more. Expect little or nothing, and you'll get that too.

:lol: :lol: And here I though **I** was opening a can of worms in this thread! :lol: :lol:

I guess it falls to me to state the crushingly obvious: affirmative action has the systemic problem that synthetic discrimination is no more attractive than the organic variety.

But sometimes they are not expected to work at the same level. Tailored classes and tailored jobs to meet government mandates or public appearances, piss me off. It's such a waste resources and a disservice to individuals who could do better and educators / stockholders that deserve better.:mad:

Don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with you on affirmative action. But aren't these two sentences completely contradictory?

Not when I wrote it at 3am or so ...

Education has been dumbed down in the U.S. to the point where college students are barely acheiving on a high school level, and high schoolers, well, let me just leave it at it's just frightening.

Most people here are probably dealing with reasonably bright people on a daily basis. By preference we do tend to stratify based on intelligence when we choose people we like to hang out with and talk to. If you are working in any type of business or industry, with the exception of the boss' nephew, everybody in your area/department is probably within a couple of points of you in terms of ability and overall sharpness.

When you have to interact with people outside of that, it gets scary.

Actually, the scariest ones are elementary school teachers. Our best and brightest are not in education, not by a long shot. And that is where they are needed most.

I agree with you there. I also believe that most of the worst schools are concentrated in areas with minorities.

The administrations answer to this is 'no child left behind', which works on paper but is tremendously underfunded.

Of course, tying this back to the original topic are attempts to remove qualified gay teachers from schools, showing that fear and bigotry can override common sense.

Common sense and education often get forcibly decoupled by unwise policies, and have been for many decades: recall Mark Twain's comment about school boards.