Pink triangles and barbed wire

[richlevy]

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...

[fargon]

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?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by fargon

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.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Well, as a heterosexual, I realize that I have more rights than my gay relatives and friends.

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

Originally Posted by richlevy

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

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.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Beestie

......But there are quite a few legal questions that are quite sticky when applied to homosexual couples.........

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

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by slang

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!

[slang]

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.

[Trilby]

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.

[slang]

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

[Undertoad]

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.

[slang]

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?

[Undertoad]

I was really addressing your other three points.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Beestie

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?

Same as straight.

What are the consequences of children being raised in gay households?

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

If the state recognizes a gay marraige but the Fed doesn't does that allow the couple to file joint tax returns?

Yes

Is it truly discriminatory if they don't?

Yes.

The questions aren't that sticky, really.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by slang

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

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

- 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.

That sounds like a good thing, not a problem.

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

That's a reason it's hard, not a reason it shouldn't be done.

- 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.

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.