Positive news about gay marriage

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

If I got married....

....would I have to pay pallimony?
....would cheating on my old man be more ''fun?''
....would I HAVE to take out the trash?
....would we have to alternate Christmas's with each other's inlaws?
....would we have to decide who is the HIM and whose the HER?
....would I have to put the boat and fishing tackle in his name too?
I'm telling ya, this makes me so nervus that I cain't hardlee hold my cigerete........
 
Washington Post

You gotta laugh at this title:

"Dozens of gay couples prepare to wed in California"

And then we learn, almost halfway down the article, that 620 applications for same-sex marriages -- JUST IN SAN FRANCISCO -- would be processed in the next ten days. We also learn a UCLA study claims nearly 170,000 same-sex marriages would take place within the next few years.

That sure equates to "dozens" in all of California, doesn't it?

 
The hardest part,

I suspect, will be to not go rushing back to one's home state and make a big legal fuss. Extremely difficult, I know - having lived in Europe where homosexuals have full human status, it's very hard to put up with christianist's attacks on our rights.
But there will now be a period of about five months when everyone is going to be watching this very closely. If we don't threaten moderate Christians and Orthodox Jews, then I think we have a decent chance of winning in November. If, on the other hand, gays let themselves be baited by the christianists into lawsuits (which we will almost certainly win, tax-exempt organizations have very narrow limits on whom they may mistreat)then this will be blown out of all proportion and the people will get the impression that we are trying to destroy their religion, force our way of life on them (when we really only want the well-hung, furry, good looking men).

I'm not being hysterical here, right now there's an attempt to destroy an equal rights amendment in Colorado going on. The christianists are arguing that it would force an end to male/female bathrooms, to dorms segregated by gender, etc.
And they are making headway with their arguments!
 
This is the **First** couple to legally wed in California~

Warms the heart doesn't it?

Del Martin, 87, left, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, who have been a couple for 55 years, were among the first same-sex partners to legally exchange marriage vows in California Monday. Marriage licenses for gay couples were officially issued after the state supreme court overturned a ban on such unions

6-16-2008-21-48-2--~sudsshane.jpg
 
Gee, just imagine that their are straight folks out there who believe that marriage must be "protected" against folks like these two lovely ladies. I'm sure the happy couple have plotted extensively just exactly what they are going to do to destroy marriage now that they have been allowed to have it after 55 years!! Hmmmmm....sounds a lot like them Christians selectively using the bible to prop up their own prejudices and hatred again....or did I miss something here?

Congratulations to them!!
 
So beautiful. I've been waiting 30+ years to see this.

Newsom's legacy as a visionary and courageous leader is now carved in granite.
 
June

Has been a bad month for weather, but a great month for civil rights in the US.
First, Americans got their habeas corpus rights back.
Now - homosexuals enjoy human status in California.

In a dark era, some light breaks through.

Those lovely old ladies really fought for all of us - whether you want to marry, would rather die than marry or regard it as the worst possible thing to happen to gay culture, their courage is worth regard.

Before the usual suspects flame me, try reading the US constitution first. Sure, we all want to shoot the terrorists with shit and hang them for stinking...but by giving them a fair trial first, we establish for all the world that we are not the bad guys they make us out to be. That was Eisenhower's position ('cept he was talking 'bout the Nazis) and applies just as well today.
 
I agree with you. The constitution, no matter how inconvenient, needs to stand and be enforced. I'm glad it is being restored.

On gay marriage. I'm a Christian, and I have no problem with it. I believe we should love, not judge. If it is wrong (and I don't believe it is), let God judge, in the meantime, I'm not going to. I got into a rather spirited debate with a co-worker who is a "christianist" right-wing crazy. He couldn't argue with me when I pointed out that these marriages are civil, not religious, and has nothing to do with his little narrow church or life. These people just want rights, are not trying to force thier beliefs on anyone. They just want to live thier lives.

Also....I agree with what Dolly Parton said when asked about gay marriage. "I think it is a good idea, they should be as miserable as the rest of us". :-)
 
Yeah, good thing those non-American terrorist have the same rights as Americans. Give them a trial and/or let them go so they can behead more homosexuals and kill more women for talking to non-related men and blow up building for printing cartoons of Mohammed. Or better yet, let them go so they fly home and let our military take care of them properly.
 
It doesn't matter, Peter.

It doesn't matter, Peter. The US constitutions discusses limitations on federal and State power, NOT granting rights.

What the court ruling does is to remind the government of the united States of America that these rights are NOT just for US citizens, are NOT suspendable in any way.

Personally, I believe that if more people were willing to be citizens rather than sheep, we would have little issue with terror.

But y'all know my feelings on Citizenship.

Now, having said that: I actually saw a reference to an organization called "Queers for Palestine." Hello? In any of these societies, most queers are persecuted and are often killed.

Under no circumstances would I say that a non-US citizen has no rights in the USA. Historically, every time this has happened, soon the citizens lost their rights as well.

Nate
 
Hi Nate!

If I recall rightly (was a long time ago and I was younger than then I am now), it was this very abnegation of subjects' rights by some guy named George which led to the revolution...

Nothing, absolutely nothing in the Supreme Courts' decision says these murdering bastards get to go free. All it says is that they have to be taken before a real, American judge and that judge be presented with reason to keep them in prison until their trial. No more. No less.

Peter, you can't have it both ways. Either the US Constitution stands over the president or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the US is a dictatorship. It's really that simple.
Think it through to the end. Let's pretend the day comes when the republicans are out of office. Now the democrats are in office - and not just any democrats, but howling left-wingers. Folks who make me look more conservative than you.

Would you really and truly want them to be free of constitutional restraints?

Some of those folks in Guántanamo are such monsters, I'd take them out and flay them alive if I could. Others may be innocent victims of the injustice non-democracies like the Islamic world perpetrate on their "citizens"...sold for a few bucks.
I don't know, and neither do you. That is what a proper court of law is for.

None of the bastards who were freed and then turned around and attacked us again would have been freed if the US had followed the rules of engagement the Army wanted to apply in the beginning. But you know those knee-jerk, left-wing apologists in the US military. Whining welfare queens, all of them...
 
Exactly, Panthera!

One of the most beautiful things about the USA is its constitution.

It means, among other things, that excesses of one party CANNOT take the republic down.

Another beautiful thing is the electoral college - the US version of PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

If the folks at Gitmo are guilty, they should be punished - continued to be imprisioned, executed, whatever - just kept away from people who they mean to harm.

If they are innocent, they should go free.

Since I look in horror at BOTH Presidential candidates in this election (Dr. Ron Paul excepting, but he's not a serious contender), I'm very grateful for our Constitution.

If you have two political alternatives, and one chooses to kill you with electricity, and the other with a firing squad, what do you choose?

Nate
 
Well, Nate...

Depends how you define "you", don' it?
:-)))

In the end, what matters most to me is who will chose the next Supreme Court Justices. We saw last week how those chosen by the neo-cons feel about the US Constitution. We also saw how those chosen by conservative republicans and democrats chose.
Major difference.

Until the republican party returns to the basics set out by Eisenhower, Goldwater, Lincoln...there is no choice in my mind but to go with the folks who, when push comes to shove, are defending the Constitution. It hurts you more than me, and I hope the next four years don't prove me wrong, but, well, gosh - like I said, last week just blew me out of the water. I could hug Kennedy for his moral courage and solid grounding in the US Constitution. But he is all that stands between a constitutional republic and the abyss.

You know, I think McCain would have been a pretty good VP for Obama in a lot of ways. Just not president.

Anyway - there IS always Mr. Barr.
There now, I bet that makes you feel much better!
 
George Will

Here's a quote from another one of those knee-jerk leftist-commie-pinko-traitors:
"No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress's power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas claims?

As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, "is a separation of powers principle" involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment," - George F Will.
 
the problem that I have...

...is that the Left in America doesn't believe in the Constitution any more than the Right does - they just want to frustrate the right with THEIR OWN idea of tyranny.

If Al Gore gets his way, the cost of energy will rise exponentially. Can you PLEASE tell me what 'carbon taxes' will do , anyway? Why is giving money to an already bloated government going to HELP pollution (of greenhouse gases, of particulate matter, or whatever)?

And it was Mr. Gore who championed the idea of a National ID card (shame!) and it was the Republicans who gave us the "Real ID Act' which implemented it as part of a driver's license (Double Shame!).

Now, let's talk about the fourth Amendment to the Constitution - the one that says that people shall be secure in the papers and possessions, except by search with a due warrant. Mr Oh-So-Popular Clinton wanted a "Fourth Amendment Exemption" when dealing with those oh so evil kill the CHILDREN firearms. Hello? Not to mention signing the 'Defense of Marriage Act' and 'Dont Ask, Don't Tell' and being responsible for sending troops to Somalia and bombing a pharmaceuticals plant in Ethiopia to distract attention from Monica Lewinsky.

Next we can talk about King George, who seems to believe that any and all human rights are simply privileges.

I cannot understand why State citizens are not at all concerned, for the most part, of the assault on their freedoms. Oh yes, they all have 100 inch televisions a la Fahrenheit 451. THAT is what freedom means to most people any more.

The freedom to do, to be, to think, to run your own lives and your own affairs -- that is considered outmoded, and old fashioned now.

Disgusting.

Nate
 
"If you have two political alternatives, and one chooses to kill you with electricity, and the other with a firing squad, what do you choose?"

Well first - you stop relying on hyperbole, misinformation and good old American victimhood, and get off your behind and engage yourself in politics. It's not that difficult - you just have to show up, and be able to intelligently explain your positions in a debate. That involves actually researching what you are going to talk about, and being able to cite sources for your information.

For instance, you don't like Al Gore's position on climate change? Then present your own. But don't just google "climate change anti Al Gore", because all you'll get is a bunch of nutcase websites that are probably underwritten by oil companies and utilities. Instead, you have to define your position, and find facts to support it.

Or take this hysteria about the Supreme Court decision on Gitmo detainees. When one reads up on it, one finds that constitutional scholars, both right and left, were concerned about the unilateral stripping of the detainees rights. Military officials were concerned about how it would affect our future POW's. Human rights - and military - officials were concerned that many of the detainees were merely people who were sold for bounty or vengeance by people hungry for US greenbacks (your tax dollars at work, btw, in one of the dumbest moves ever undertaken by the US government) And you have to remember that no one is going free - they are merely going to be able to stand trial in the court system, which is the same way we bought the perpetrators of the first WTC attack to justice.

There are a lot of people in this country, on all sides of the political spectrum, that care passionately about the constitution and the rule of law. But they get drowned out by all the screaming, hyperbole, and simple-minded soundbytes on the airwaves. It's our job as citizens to cut through all that and separate the s**t from the shinola (as my mother would say)

But it's much easier to just sit back and whine about the situation, and play the victim.
 
If you are referring to me...

...about being a victim, you are sadly mistaken, dalangdon. You have no idea about my degree of political activism.

Now, if you're not referring to me, sorry, because this is going to be a little sharp.

Firstly, if you'd bother to read my posts, you'd know that I make assertions after a reasonable amount of research and thought.

Secondly, regarding climate change, I have no doubt that it is happening, at least to some degree. But hysteria and restriction of industry doesn't solve the problem - it is research into cleaner forms of energy that will stop it. I have been a proponent of alternative energy since the seventies, just for your education - not like it is any business of yours.

Thirdly, if you'd read my posts you'd find out that I am an ardent supporter of the rights for the people imprisioned at Gitmo.

I suggest, sir, that you engage your eyes and your analytical powers before flaming others.

Nate
 

Similar threads

J
Congrats to Connecticut!
Replies
7
Views
8
a440
A

Latest posts

Back
Top