equality blooms with spring, pt. II - Page 62 - 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 12-02-2009, 09:23 PM   #916
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
I live in the real world, too, thank you very much. And in my world, it's not about what's possible, it's about what's right.

Why are you throwing out arbitrary time frames for? Who said anything about 4-6 years?
I have gay friends that are living and dying now. That have lived decent, honorable, productive lives contributing to this country and society. They pay all the same taxes and obey all the laws of the land.

I would like them to have the right of hospital visitation when one is sick, shared benefits, right of survivorship and all the other benefits and rights that straight couples have. I would not want some bitter family member turning a person away at the hospital because he does not have 'equal protection'.

Civil Unions are attainable now. It just passed by popular vote in WA while Gay Marriage was voted down in Maine.

Arbitrary time frames? That is easy for you. It does not affect you. Stand on some chicken shit principal, even if it take 20 more years??
Meanwhile gay people are living and dying.
Who cares, just win the argument.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 09:35 PM   #917
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I have gay friends that are living and dying now. That have lived decent, honorable, productive lives contributing to this country and society. They pay all the same taxes and obey all the laws of the land.

I would like them to have the right of hospital visitation when one is sick, shared benefits, right of survivorship and all the other benefits and rights that straight couples have. I would not want some bitter family member turning a person away at the hospital because he does not have 'equal protection'.

Civil Unions are attainable now. It just passed by popular vote in WA while Gay Marriage was voted down in Maine.

Arbitrary time frames? That is easy for you. It does not affect you. Stand on some chicken shit principal, even if it take 20 more years??
Meanwhile gay people are living and dying.
Who cares just win the argument.
You know who wants marriage over civil unions?

Homosexuals.

That's why I throw in my support for marriage and not for civil unions.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 09:39 PM   #918
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:55 PM
You need to do a little more research

The Gay and Lesbian groups campaigned hard in Washington for Civil Unions, they saw a chance to win 'equal protection'.

Do you think gays voted against 'Civil Unions' in the last election in Washington?


If the ballot had Gay Marriage it would have lost.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 10:19 PM   #919
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 09:55 PM
on a practical level, deep is right.

however, there has been enormous progress since 2003, and we have much to be grateful to the state of Massachusetts. civil rights have progressed enormously, and i expect that within my lifetime there will be full civil rights across the country, and within the next 10 years marriage equality in most of the coastal states.

the anti-equality forces have no arguments, just emotion and fear. and that tends to die off.

as for myself, i'll take a civil union, but i want a marriage.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-02-2009, 10:38 PM   #920
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Why not take a 'Civil Union' license and a giant GAY WEDDING for 500 people performed by a Unitarian Minister or any other person you choose to perform at your WEDDING CEREMONY.

I have never been to a MARRIAGE.
I have been to dozens, maybe hundreds of WEDDINGS.

I know it would be simpler if we could just snap our fingers and have GAY MARRIGE equals MARRIGE and all MARRIGE laws.

But that is not attainable now. And may not be for decades. Look what just happened in the N Y Senate. WTF That is New York. Unfortunately the next couple of election cycles it looks like independents will be trending GOP.

Lets make some progress and pick off the moderate states with Civil Unions.

After a few thousand GAY WEDDINGS of co-workers and gay neighbors without the sky falling, with gays having the same rights, and the system not blowing up.
People will wonder how we could have allowed some people to go for so long with out 'equal protection."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 11:29 PM   #921
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 09:55 PM
and the same bus got Rosa Parks to the same destination at the same time.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-02-2009, 11:44 PM   #922
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Lets make some progress and pick off the moderate states with Civil Unions.

After a few thousand GAY WEDDINGS of co-workers and gay neighbors without the sky falling, with gays having the same rights, and the system not blowing up.
People will wonder how we could have allowed some people to go for so long with out 'equal protection."
I agree with you on a practical level.

Also, pushing civil unions on the ballots would negate the argument that people are fighting this because they want to preserve the sanctity of "marriage".
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 12-02-2009, 11:56 PM   #923
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 09:55 PM
question: has anyone ever met someone who used to support gay marriage, but has come to oppose it?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-03-2009, 12:39 AM   #924
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and the same bus got Rosa Parks to the same destination at the same time.

And Rosa Parks and MLK Jr did not care if you called it Colored Rights, Negro Rights, or Civil Rights

they wanted legislation passed that would give them 'equal treatment' under the law.


besides I think the more operative word is wedding.
People send out
Wedding announcements. Wedding invitations. Wedding cakes.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-03-2009, 12:48 AM   #925
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:55 PM
Of course, the problem with this approach is when you deal with "civil union" states and the recognition of "marriages" performed in states or countries where they are legal--and chances are, due to petty insistences on not using the word "marriage," now all gay marriages won't be recognized as "civil unions" in that state. All of a sudden, we're dealing with a patchwork of laws that are incapable of dealing with the reality that people no longer stay in one state their entire lives anymore.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-03-2009, 12:50 AM   #926
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
question: has anyone ever met someone who used to support gay marriage, but has come to oppose it?
I use to advocate for gay marriage.

But now I think it makes more sense and more can be accomplished advocating for Civil Unions.

CA will have gay marriage on the ballot again in either 2010 or 2012.

I will vote for Gay Marriage. I think it will not pass again for a 3rd time. If it does pass it will be by just a couple of points. That will only get the opposition to put it back on the ballot again.

I think Civil Unions could pass by a decent margin. Perhaps 8-10 points. That would be enough to keep it.


But, a more direct answer to your question. I believe many of the young people now, under 35, could flip when they are in their 40s and have kids and start attending church.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-03-2009, 01:01 AM   #927
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Of course, the problem with this approach is when you deal with "civil union" states and the recognition of "marriages" performed in states or countries where they are legal--and chances are, due to petty insistences on not using the word "marriage," now all gay marriages won't be recognized as "civil unions" in that state. All of a sudden, we're dealing with a patchwork of laws that are incapable of dealing with the reality that people no longer stay in one state their entire lives anymore.
My thought is once we got it up to 35+ states we could get congress to do away with DOMA and pass legislation that said Civil Unions and Marrige Unions (gay or straight) will be treated the same and recognized in all states.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-03-2009, 03:13 AM   #928
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Is the DOMA the only reason the Fed Court won't hear discrimination lawsuits?
or do they hear them?

This seems to me, to be fundamentally something that has to happen in the Fed courts.
What is the barrier to getting a full-on inequality lawsuit in the USSC?

That is, not arguing over definitions or arguing for "having what they got" I'm talking about the extension of those legal recognitions, be they seen as rights or privileges (or is that the probelm?).

This might seem like a dumb-ass question. I couldn't figure out how to word it. Fundamentally, at it's most basic level, why doesn't the Fed look down and see this as discrimination?

The States dictate their own marriage laws, obviously this much I get, but why doesn't the Fed interject...why don't they see the discrimination? The only thing I could think of was the DOMA.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 12-03-2009, 03:58 AM   #929
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:55 PM
I personally see it as discrimination also.

I can not justify why a gay person does not enjoy 'equal protection' under the law. I believe there is a case making it's way from CA that will be argued by Ted Olson, Solicitor General for the Bush Administration.

I believe it was the Plessy v. Ferguson decision handed down by the Supreme Court that passed - separate but equal, or legal segregation in a 7-1 vote. The 7 should be ashamed of themselves. They were later overturned.


I have said that I would like to see this court hand down a decision so Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas could go down on the wrong side of history. Kennedy might vote with them and possibly Sotomayor.

I believe it would be eventually overturned by a later court, just like Plessy.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-03-2009, 10:36 AM   #930
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I have said that I would like to see this court hand down a decision so Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas could go down on the wrong side of history. Kennedy might vote with them and possibly Sotomayor.

I believe it would be eventually overturned by a later court, just like Plessy.


yes, this is quite a thing right now, the Olsen case. the SCOTUS is clearly right wing at present, and a decision there would effectively kill the issue. perhaps increments of change are the only way to get this done, but it does reinforce the clear purpose of the courts.

question: did men get to vote on whether or not women should have the right to vote? and if they had been allowed to do so, what do you think the outcome would have been?

minority rights are supposed to be protected by the courts, they should not be subjected to mob rule.

but, whatever. i suppose we have the first tackle the issue of why people fear and loathe us to begin with.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Random Risque U2 Pictures (PT II) FallingStar PLEBA Archive 147 07-28-2003 03:01 PM
MERGED --> When will Cleveland II be? + Rock Hall Celebration (Spring) CMM Interference Gatherings 80 04-14-2003 10:02 PM
Getcher Classical on! Psst...Dieman. Johnny Swallow Lemonade Stand Archive 8 03-07-2003 04:53 PM
the Europe photos pt. II (including interferencers!!!) sulawesigirl4 Lemonade Stand Archive 61 01-05-2003 03:29 PM
When hormones go bad Pt. II: MacPhisto WildHonee PLEBA Archive 9 11-02-2001 07:36 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:55 PM.


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