equality blooms with spring - Page 48 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-08-2009, 02:51 PM   #706
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
more small but sure steps in D.C.





what's most interesting to me is how the opposition is trying to, ahem, "play the race card" and turn this into a gay vs. black issue (as if there aren't any black gay people, or that all blacks are anti-gay).

that's really how it's going to be played, and it could become horribly, horribly divisive.

but somehow, i think this might just blow over, no matter how hard pastors from Montgomery County and P.G. County (subsidized by the Tony Perkins crowd) try and convince the residents of DC that they should be against this.

most are predicting same-sex marriage by the end of the year.
of course there are gay black people

and there are gay Muslims and gay Mormons

If this went to a public vote in D C, to legalize gay marriage, it most likely would not pass.

African Americans oppose gay marriage 60+ %.

Yes, the Mormons poured a lot of money in to CA against proposition 8.
But, they were a negligible part of the vote.
If the Black and Latino voters that voted for Obama also voted no on Prop. 8
it would have lost by a landslide.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-08-2009, 04:08 PM   #707
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,497
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
If this went to a public vote in D C, to legalize gay marriage, it most likely would not pass.


not so sure about this. let's put aside the perversity of voting on someone's civil rights.

the district is roughly 56% black -- it also went 90% for Kerry, and i imagine the numbers were even higher for Obama. the District also lacks any identifiably conservative areas. even Georgetown tends to be blue-bloods with centuries of money who really don't care that much about gay marriage. the District is also young, and if it's not poor, then it's a diverse group of yuppies who live with a very large and very visible gay population that's estimated to be at least 10% of the overall population and it has (i think) the second highest number of same-sex households of any city in the nation. the District is liberal, through and through.

the only way this becomes a war is if the black and latino churches bring it to the pulpit and turn it into a religious issue, and they're already trying to do that by mobilizing suburban black preachers and pastors to try and unite the opposition through racial and religious affiliation.

it's a good strategy. there's an interesting tension between, broadly speaking, "blacks" and "gays" in DC. Dupont Circle has often been pointed to as a perfect case study in what's now known as gay gentrification. 20-25 years ago, it was not a safe neighborhood, the city had been burned to the ground after MLKs assassination and then gutted by the crack epidemic of the 80s. with the rise of a visible gay community in DC came more gays who came to socialize and live with other gays -- a gay ghetto was born. gays tend to be very, very good urban citizens. they go to restaurants, book stores, theater, etc. they have disposable income that isn't consumed by children and there's no need for a big yard. and, stereotypical or not, they like to buy nice houses and fix them up and sell them for twice the original value to hip straights and then move on to the next neighborhood.

the next neighborhood, in DC, tends to be black and poor. and on an individual, one-on-one basis, the "blacks" and the "gays" tend to get along very well living side-by-side. are most gay bashings done by black youth in transitional areas? yes. but the reality is that they get along on a personal level -- race and religion are tossed aside.

however, when things are couched by the black church as an issue of gentrification, as rich white gays moving in to traditionally black neighborhoods and buying black homes and then more white people follow, then things get dicey. and it tends to be more resonant in, say, P.G. County (the wealthiest minority-majority county in the US, i think) than in Southeast. it's suburban blacks with money who go to church who seem to be more concerned with Adam/Steve than are poor blacks in Southeast who have much more pressing issues to deal with.

so it's really interesting.

and i hope they fail, because it's just about the nastiest strategy i can think of.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 04:52 AM   #708
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:41 PM
thanks for sharing all that information about D C

my only impression was that it was majority black, I assumed around 65%

I do think it is bizarre that rights are put up to a public vote

legislators and equal protection aspects of the Constitution should be where this is decided.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-10-2009, 02:16 PM   #709
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Does The U.S. Constitution Already Make Gay Marriage Legal?

Does The U.S. Constitution Already Make Gay MarriageLegal? | The New Civil Rights Movement




Quote:
In its decision, the court wrote:

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-10-2009, 02:56 PM   #710
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Not according to Baker v. Nelson:

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute prohibiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-10-2009, 03:01 PM   #711
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:41 PM
Quote:
14th Amendment

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There are two cases working their way to the Supreme Court

I'd like to see Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and/or Alito write a decision against equal protection.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-10-2009, 03:16 PM   #712
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Not according to Baker v. Nelson:

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute prohibiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".


Is this conclusion not just based on bias?

There was a time when gay activity was illegal, gay porn was illegal, police would raid and arrest people in gay establishments.

Now, gay porn is treated no different than straight porn.

Gay bars are treated no different than any other bar or establishment.


A gay marrige that does not provide for reproduction is not any different than a older couple getting married that are not capable of producing children.


Gay Americans pay all the same taxes, obey all the same laws, make the same contributions as straight people. Many straight people do not marry and don't get the shared benefits related to marriage. Straight people that do not marry (and I am one) are not prevented from marrying by law. If I or you were not permitted to marry but had to pay the same taxes and not get the same benefits, we would want that restriction lifted,

It is really simple, equal protection.

We think it is a wonderful thing that our 'founding fathers' fought a war against "Taxation without full Representation."

Gay Americans are treated as 'less than" just like the British Colonists in America were.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-10-2009, 03:18 PM   #713
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,497
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Not according to Baker v. Nelson:

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute prohibiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".


activist judges.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-10-2009, 03:39 PM   #714
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:41 AM
And sometimes it dies with summer. Maybe it's the Texas heat, yeah...Reminds me of that no gay kissing in my pub thread I had many moons ago


Two gay men kicked out of Chico's Tacos restaurant for kissing
By Andrew Kreighbaum and Darren Meritz / El Paso Times
Posted: 07/09/2009 12:00:00 AM MDT

EL PASO -- Two gay men kissed at a Chico's Tacos restaurant, prompting guards to eject them and a police officer to endorse their ouster.

Civil-rights lawyers say the security staff was out of line. Police, though, contend that a business such as a restaurant can refuse service to anybody, any time.

In all, five men were ordered to leave the restaurant. They say they were forced out by homophobic guards.

"It was a simple kiss on the lips," said Carlos Diaz de Leon, a gay man who was part of the group.

He called police at 12:30 a.m. June 29 because he said the guards and restaurant had discriminated against the group after two of his friends kissed in public.

The five men, all gay, were placing their order at the Chico's Tacos restaurant on Montwood when the men kissed. All five sat down, but the two guards at the restaurant told them to leave.

De Leon quoted one of the guards as saying he didn't allow "that faggot stuff" in the restaurant.

De Leon said they refused to leave and called police for help. He said an officer arrived about an hour later in response to calls from his group and the guards.

As they waited for police, the guards directed other anti-gay slurs at them, he said.

Already angry at the guards, de Leon and his group became angrier at the two police officers who arrived.

"I went up to the police officer to tell him what was going on, and he didn't want to hear my side," de Leon said. "He wanted to hear the security guard's side

Police declined to identify the officers who responded, but department spokesman Javier Sambrano described one officer as relatively inexperienced.

De Leon said the officer told the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public. The five men, he said, were told they could be cited for homosexual conduct -- a law the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

That same year, the El Paso City Council approved an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation by businesses open to the public.

An assistant manager at Chico's Tacos declined to comment Wednesday, except to say the owners of the restaurant were out of town and could not be reached. An official with All American International Security, the firm contracted by Chico's Tacos to supply guards, said one member of the security crew was contacting a lawyer. He would say no more.

El Paso police Detective Carlos Carrillo said a more appropriate charge for what happened at Chico's Tacos would probably be criminal trespass.

"The security guard received a complaint from some of the customers there," Carrillo said. "Every business has the right to refuse service. They have the right to refuse service to whoever they don't want there. That's their prerogative."

Briana Stone, a lawyer with the Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project, disagreed.

She said the city anti-discrimination ordinance protects people on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation in public places. Perhaps more troubling, she said, was that the police officer chose not to enforce that ordinance and might have contributed to discrimination.

"This is such a blatant refusal to uphold the law on account of discrimination," she said. "The result is devastating. The Police Department is allowing that and even participating in it by refusing to enforce an anti-discrimination ordinance, which is what their job is."

Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas, said that businesses can ask patrons to leave for lewd conduct, but that those standards would have to apply to all customers.

"If a straight couple wouldn't have gotten kicked out for it," she said, "a gay couple shouldn't."

The police officers involved did not file a report about the confrontation at Chico's Tacos. Carrillo said no report was made because officers thought the situation was under control and neither side requested a written account of the incident.

De Leon said he and his friends left the restaurant after an officer threatened to issue a citation for "homosexual conduct."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-10-2009, 03:41 PM   #715
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Well we don't want children sitting there enjoying their tacos while some gay men give them a false sense of reality at the table next to them.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-10-2009, 03:48 PM   #716
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:41 AM
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-10-2009, 03:58 PM   #717
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,497
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Well we don't want children sitting there enjoying their tacos while some gay men give them a false sense of reality at the table next to them.


this is why we have guns.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-10-2009, 05:37 PM   #718
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:41 AM
If I'm in a restaurant, I don't want to see guys snogging at the next table, as a matter of fact, I don't want to see anyone snogging at the next table.

This restaurant incident is one of those standard FYM topics whereby one must have a suitably PC viewpoint, one must condemn perceived homophobia, blah blah blah. Its importance in the grand scheme of things is not particularly huge. Obviously, if one doesn't want to see two gays in a passioniate embrace at any time of the day or night, if one chooses to find that spectacle completely unappealing, one is automatically a homophobe.

I say, give the gays marriage, and soon enough they'll find - like the rest of us - it's not exactly the bed of roses some of them seem to think it is.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-10-2009, 05:43 PM   #719
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
If I'm in a restaurant, I don't want to see guys snogging at the next table, as a matter of fact, I don't want to see anyone snogging at the next table.

This restaurant incident is one of those standard FYM topics whereby one must have a suitably PC viewpoint, one must condemn perceived homophobia, blah blah blah.
Please!!! Perceived homophobia? When was the last time you saw a straight couple thrown out of a restaurant because they held hands or kissed? Open you eyes...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-10-2009, 05:49 PM   #720
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Agreed, no one wants to see people snogging in restaurants in distasteful ways. Politely controlled PDA is best. But the difference is that straight people aren't subjected to slurs for it and officers don't generally threaten to issue citations for heterosexual conduct. Like it says, the standards have to apply to all customers, EQUALLY.

In the grand scheme of things I would imagine it's important to be able to kiss in public discreetly, the way heteros should, without dealing with that kind of crap. I'm not gay, so maybe you can ask someone who is. But if I was and I had to deal with stuff like that, it would be important to me.

I'm not posting it for any PC or homophobia FYM reasons, but if it helps you to be able to repeat that rant once again by all means think so.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com