Like a Weight Lifting . . .
Feb 28
I’ve been ambivalent as between Hillary and Obama - each has great strengths and also some flaws or weaknesses. But Obama impresses me more and more as a man whose principles are more than window-dressing, and sorely needed. Today, he proved it beyond question:
An Open Letter to LGBT Americans
I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.
Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.
The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.
We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia– that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.
Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.
Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.
Barack Obama
It rankles a little that he still finds it necessary to equivocate on this “civil union” nonsense, but it’s important to remember that that was the progressive position on gay rights just a few years ago. No one in high office, in the history of this nation, has made so forthright and so morally upright a statement in favor of full and uncompromising equality - certainly none with the Presidency in their grasp, still less on the very issue that the haters and bigots had used to put one of their own into the Presidency at the very time it was said. He didn’t have to say it - he could have coasted into office while keeping this issue on the back burner - but he chose to stand up in a way that was so badly needed, and will cause such a vicious backlash, and that he could have so easily avoided.
Aside from simply being right on an important issue, Obama today showed remarkable moral depth. It was inspiring - in a way that has nothing to do with rhetoric or visionary exhortation, but with true moral courage and the dedication to govern his life and work by his ideals. It is impossible not to admire this.
#1 by Dan M. at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
See, this is what I find funny (and here I mean ‘funny’ like a punch in the gut) about the political discussions of civil unions and gay marriage is this:
The right-wing bigots (and perhaps a few deluded, non-evil people) claim that legalizing gay marriage would harm the institution of marriage. (Never mind that the word ’sanctity’ is usually used in this context, which is an awfully strange feature to consider with respect to civil laws.) The thing is, they’ve got it exactly backwards.
Now, wedlock — and I use that term advisedly; marriage and matrimony are quite other matters — wedlock is the act of the two spouses, a public promise to each other and to their community that they join their lives together. It’s a powerful act, a sovereign one. Wedlock about the right of people to determine their own lives, and has been for as long as individuals have wed for love of one another.
As such, no state, no government, no power, can create a marriage; all they can do is recognize one. Even a cleric has no power to create wedlock except as that power is ceded to him by the persons being wed. (I’m discounting here the barbarism of forced marriage, which is beneath any civilized people.)
While the wedding of two persons, regardless of their genders or sexes, cannot do one whit of harm to the profound power of the wedding of another couple, the rules by which the law recognizes those weddings surely impinge on the institution of marriage. Indeed, the institution is nothing other than the civil organization of the social practice of wedlock.
So, when the law elevates one instance of wedlock over another, according legal rights to one set of spouses while denying them to another, it maligns the sovereign power of individuals to make their own promises; the civil authority pretends to the power to wed. Thus, it is the failure of civil law to recognize those weddings already formed by GLBT couples that disparages the institution of marriage.
#2 by Big U at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
So out of curiosity, am I allowed to disagree with their lifestyle without being branded a bigot or some other such name? Or is just disagreeing with choices made by LGBT people enough to allow people to attack me?
#3 by Dan M. at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
What lifestyle? I’m pretty sure we’re discussing people who behave like normal men and women, but who make atypcial choices about whom to have sex with, or what sex their bodies are when they choose to behave and men or women.
#4 by Kevin T. Keith at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
am I allowed to disagree with their lifestyle without being branded a bigot . . .?
Um, . . . no.
On what rational grounds do you “disagree” with somebody’s “lifestyle”? (A lifestyle isn’t an argument or a proposition - you aren’t asked to “agree” with it.) Why do you even have an opinion about somebody else’s lifestyle? Who asked you? Just mind your own business for once.
But don’t pretend that “disagreeing” with gay people’s “lifestyles” is some sort of neutral operation of the rational intellect. Homophobia is pervasive in our society - is in fact written into law to this day (which was the whole point of Obama’s letter) - and has always been the product of sheerest bigotry and religiously-based hostility. You can’t “disagree with the gay lifestyle” without taking on that history - and you’ve certainly offered nothing to suggest you have any different motivation for doing so either. Let me guess . . . you’ve done a statistical analysis of gay men’s lives, discovered a higher than average propensity to suicide, and concluded from that that all LGBT people should be suject to universal, legal discrimination, and unremediated physical violence, in all facets of their lives, forever? I can’t wait to see your traffic analysis of the Montgomery, Alabama municipal bus system circa 1955. But whatever your pretended “reasons” for homophobia, the bottom line is that nobody else’s life is any of your concern. Taking it on yourself to ruin other people’s lives by reason of your personal feelings about them is bigotry no matter what contortions you put it through to tell yourself otherwise.
is just disagreeing with choices made by LGBT people enough to allow people to attack me?
Nobody cares whether you “agree”. They care that you make laws to put gay people in jail for doing the same things heteros do with impunity, or to destroy gays, ruin their careers, terminate their employment, and close large parts of their own society to them for merely existing. They care that you deny to them basic human rights - to make families, to have relationships with others freely and openly, to have and keep custody of their own children, to be acknowledged as part of their own community - that no other part of society even has to stop to think about. They care that you, or people who “agree” with your “disagreement” with total strangers’ lives, beat and kill homosexuals regularly and freely, openly, on the streets of every city. If you, or those like you, could simply stop raining violence and discrimination into the lives of gays, every day, in every part of our society, your silly and sad “opinions” would certainly be granted the total lack of regard that they deserve.
And who is “attacking” you? Don’t be such a princess. You go out of your way to make disparaging remarks about the lives of people you simply disapprove of. There’s a word for that. You’re a bigot, and what’s more you outed yourself as one to people who didn’t care what you were until you made a point of it. You don’t mind being a bigot, but you don’t like being called one. You think being acknowledged as what you told us you are is an “attack”, but you have nothing to say about the actual violence and statutorily-mandaged discrimination that warps the lives of every gay person in this country. You’re not just a bigot - you’re a whiny and self-absorbed bigot. Just cop to it like an adult, for god’s sake.
#5 by Dan M. at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
So, it occurs to me that the GLBT community has a PR problem. Consider
Now observe the grammatical travesty that follows:
Terribly cumbrous language there. Still true.
#6 by Big U at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
And who is “attacking” you? Don’t be such a princess. You go out of your way to make disparaging remarks about the lives of people you simply disapprove of. There’s a word for that. You’re a bigot, and what’s more you outed yourself as one to people who didn’t care what you were until you made a point of it. You don’t mind being a bigot, but you don’t like being called one. You think being acknowledged as what you told us you are is an “attack”, but you have nothing to say about the actual violence and statutorily-mandaged discrimination that warps the lives of every gay person in this country. You’re not just a bigot - you’re a whiny and self-absorbed bigot. Just cop to it like an adult, for god’s sake.
Oh man, that section is so filled with hatred, contempt and assumptions it amazes me. KTK, your rhetoric is the exact same as the idiots in the KKK or that Kansas Baptist freak’s only on the other side of the spectrum. It is a sad irony that you don’t see that.
In a free country, it is one’s right to agree or disagree with choices that others make. It is not, however, acceptable to discriminate based on those choices. Intelligent people can have opinions without having them destroy their ability to act honestly and treat everyone with integrity. I wish you were able to see that. Unfortunately, though I assume you are intelligent, it is quite clear that you are either unable or unwilling to treat some people whose views do not line up with yours with the level of respect you demand from them.
I do agree that any laws on the books discriminating against gays should be removed because what someone does in their bedroom is their choice and the state has no place being there.
#7 by Ted at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
Big U, yes, you are free to agree or disagree with most anything. And, assuming you share your LGBT opinions with others, you must be aware that each time you do, you are, in a small way, enabling discrimination against them.
Put yourself in Alabama in 1955, and picture yourself sitting in the local diner saying “well, I just don’t approve of black people”. Or maybe Germany in the late ’30s saying, “I don’t agree with the Jewish lifestyle”.
Certainly you can see how you would be, at a minimum, passively contributing to the oppression of a particular group of people.
In less stark terms, the same is true today with LGBT people. They are a minority that are in many ways oppressed by the majority. Regardless of your intent, you lend tacit support to that oppression with your public disapproval of them. That’s just how the social dynamic plays out.
#8 by Big U at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
Pretty poor comparisons Ted. Unless you are of the mindset that all sexual preference is 100% genetic, which is a very dangerous position to take.
#9 by Ted at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
Big U, religion is genetic?
Regardless, why does the nature of the defining element of a persecuted group matter?
And finally, I would venture a guess that the overwhelming majority of sexual preference is genetic, and I don’t at all feel endangered making that statement. I’m pretty darn sure that my sexual preference is genetic in nature. And I am sure you feel the same way about yours. It’s just those creepy other people that are subject to different forces, right?
#10 by Big U at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
This is very typical of the left wing crowd (and often the right wing as well). Insinuate something that was never stated. I never said anything about anyone being creepy though you are suggesting that is my opinion of LGBT people.
But if ALL sexual preference is genetic in nature, then there are a lot more laws than the stupid discriminatory ones related to LGBT individuals that need to be removed from the books.
#11 by Ted at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
This is very typical of the Big U crowd. Insinuate something that was never stated. I never said that ALL sexual preference is genetic in nature.
In any case, you have rapidly moved away from the initial discussion without responding substantively.
#12 by Big U at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
My apologies Ted, in rereading your comment I realized you said most. I would be interested in knowing how to distinguish what is genetic and what isn’t.
And I wasn’t the one who moved away from the original discussion. I asked a straight-forward question and have subsequently been criticized for things which I never said or suggested.
KTK went so far as to accuse me of hatred up to and including murdering gays and lesbians and agreeing with anyone who does. And not one person on here felt it was appropriate to advise that maybe, just maybe, he responded in an irrational and abusive way to a simple question. The only comments were to attack me. Very sad, but also very typical of a lot of what I have seen from activists.
#13 by Ted at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
Big U, I agree that KTK went overboard in his response. And I answered your question, from my point of view, you are allowed to disagree with a “lifestyle” (obviously what you disagree with is with whom these people have sex, not their “lifestyle” - do all straight people have the same “lifestyle”? Let’s at least be honest about what we object to.) and that does not make you a bigot. However, as I stated above, if you publicly voice your disagreement with, or disapproval of, a group of people that are being persecuted, like it or not you are contributing to the problem.
Why do you feel the need to publicly voice your disapproval? (Note that public disapproval is implicit in your original question - you won’t be branded anything unless you are expressing your opinion to others). Why not recognize that these folks are being persecuted by others who disapprove of them, and support them in their struggle to live their lives as you are allowed to live yours.
The one point KTK made with which I completely agree is this - if you feel you are being “attacked” because someone calls you a name, take a few minutes and think about what it must be like to be gay in our society. I think you would have to agree that the burden of attacks that you bear is pretty trivial when compared to the attacks on those that you disapprove of.
#14 by tgirsch at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
Big U:
I’m going to skip most of the thread and respond to your original questions. But first, I have to ask my own question: What do you mean by “disagree with their lifestyle?” Everything hinges on that. The silliness of calling it a “lifestyle” has already been pointed out, so I won’t rehash that, either.
Or is just disagreeing with choices made by LGBT people enough to allow people to attack me?
As has probably already been pointed out, there’s a fundamental flaw in the way you phrase the question: you assume that being LBGT is a choice. When did you choose to be straight, and content with your gender identification? Odds are, you didn’t choose that. You just “are.” I don’t know how much of that’s nature and how much of it’s nurture, but that’s the way it is. So, assuming you didn’t “choose” these aspects of your personality, why on Earth would you assume that someone who’s gay, or lesbian, or bi, or transgendered chose to be that way?
These semantic differences go a long way toward explaining why you got the reactions that you got. The way you view things (wrongly, in my estimation) is that you disagree with LBGT people for what they do. But to those of us who personally know LBGT people, we know that this isn’t a description of what they do, but of who they are. And when you start disagreeing with (or disapproving of) someone because of who or what they are, yes, that does make you a bigot, even if you don’t see it.
I ought to know; I used to be one (a bigot, that is), in more ways than one. It’s never an easy realization to come to, but the good news is, there’s a cure.
#15 by Big U at February 29th, 2008
| Quote
Here’s where it gets frustrating. The gay and lesbian and bi friends I have (I do not currently know if any of my friends are trans-gendered as no one has mentioned it) actually agree with my perspective.
Some complain about straight people who think they know them and what they want better than they know themselves.
Some are frustrated and tired of being criticized by other gays and lesbians for not being hardline activists for LGBT rights.
Most of them enjoy a life where they face no more prejudice than anyone else and their sexual orientation doesn’t impact on anything they want to do.
And ALL of them are frustrated with people who try to describe them as “gay employee” or “lesbian couple” as if their sexual preference was what defined them.
Oh that’s right. I’m not a hard-line supporter of every cause LGBT’s put forth so I am a homophobic bigot who is not allowed to have gay friends. I will remember to let my friends know the next time I have a barbeque with any of them that we can no longer be friends. And I better make sure to fire the lesbian at the office because I sure wouldn’t want her around. I can always find a straight person to do the job at least half as good but at least then I won’t be around “those” people at work.
#16 by Dan M. at March 1st, 2008
| Quote
BU,
Again, given your first paragraphin comment #15, what’s the “lifestyle” choice that you disagree with?
Nobody here is calling you a bigot; really, they’re not.
KTK and Ted have pointed out, pretty clearly, how disapproving of LGBT “lifestyle” abets bigots, but it doesn’t make you one. Sure, KTK takes a lot more offense to that abetting than does Ted, and that shockes your sensibilities. But that’s a real cultural difference. It does a lot less harm to abet the bigots in Canada than in the US; they have a lot less power there, they do less harm when they’re helped along with each little disapproval by a non-bigot.
Even, TG in comment #14 isn’t saying you’re a bigot. You’re not a bigot while you under the (quite clearly mistaken) notion that being GLBT is a choice, because you at least think that you’re objecting to what people do, not who they are. Sure, you’re dead wrong, but you’re wrong in an entirely different way than was Jerry Falwell, whose grave KTK and I would be quite happy to dance upon.
#17 by tgirsch at March 1st, 2008
| Quote
Big U:
But it’s different up there in the Great White North. Up there, same-sex couples can get married, adopt children, etc. Pretty much most of the privileges and immunities that heterosexuals enjoy. That’s far from being the case down here in the US of A. Only a couple of states recognize civil unions, and those are like “separate but equal” marriages. Our nation has a shameful history when it comes to “separate but equal.”
Oh that’s right. I’m not a hard-line supporter of every cause LGBT’s put forth so I am a homophobic bigot who is not allowed to have gay friends. I will remember to let my friends know the next time I have a barbeque with any of them that we can no longer be friends.
Do you feel it necessary to tell them whenever you see them that you “disagree with their lifestyle choices.” Didn’t think so… Here’s a hint: how about treating the gays, lesbians, and bisexuals you don’t know with a similar amount of respect as the ones that you do. And here’s another hint: there are all kinds of LBGT folks, with all kinds of differing political and social views. Just like any other group. You may very well know gays who think that the complaints of other gays lack legitimacy. This doesn’t make it so.
#18 by tgirsch at March 1st, 2008
| Quote
And if there’s one thing NOBODY in the thread can agree on, it’s what order the L, B, G, and T come in.
(On that count, Big U seems to be right: looks like “LGBT” is the most common usage.)
#19 by Dan M. at March 1st, 2008
| Quote
As a slightly T, I’m miffed that it’s always last. But I’m actually just miffed at the history that makes that true, not at the practice of the lettering.
#20 by Morris at March 1st, 2008
| Quote
It seems strange to me that Obama is supported by Muslims when he has opinions that are so contrary to Muslim beliefs. His pro-homosexual stand would get him executed in some muslim countries. The fact that he converted, so he says, to Christianity from Islam also would bring the wrath of Muslims on him.
#21 by Ted at March 1st, 2008
| Quote
“The fact that he converted, so he says, to Christianity from Islam”
Nice try asshole.
#22 by KTK at March 1st, 2008
| Quote
From Wikipedia:
“Many variants exist, including variations which merely change the order of the letters; but LGBT or GLBT are the most common terms and the ones most frequently seen in current usage.[citation needed] Although identical in meaning, LGBT may have more feminist and queer connotations than “GLBT.” When not inclusive of transgender people it is sometimes shortened to LGB. It may also include additional Qs for queer and/or questioning (sometimes abbreviated with a question mark) (LGBTQ, LGBTQQ, GLBTQ?). Other variants may add a U for “unsure”, an I for intersex, another T for transsexual, another T (or TS or the numeral 2) for two-spirited people, an A or SA for allies, or an A for asexual. Some may also add a P for pansexual or polyamorous, and an O for omnisexual or other. The order of the letters is also not standardized; in addition to the uses which reverse the initial L and G, the extended letters, if used, may appear in almost any order.”
I can remember painfully PC conversations back in California about just how many letters, and in what order, you had to include.
Through the 70s and 80s, the SF Gay Day parade’s official name kept getting longer and longer (”Gay Freedom Day”, “Lesbian & Gay Freedom Day”, “International Lesbian & Gay Freedom Day”, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration”, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Parade and Celebration”) until they finally gave up and just called it “Pride Day”. (Somewhere, I’ve still got the T-shirts.)
#23 by Hummm at March 1st, 2008
| Quote
Humm how times have changed anything can happen when you are in a tight race. Here is something from http://www.taylormarsh.com/
So much for Mr I am more moral and ethical Obama.. read it and weep
“Seeing Mayor Gavin Newsom on the national stage with former president Bill Clinton on Monday night is a reminder of how political winds can change. On the eve of the biggest night of the presidential primaries, Newsom shared the spotlight during a town hall meeting staged and broadcast on cable TV and satellite radio by the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign.
But just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.
“I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama’s) request at the Waterfront restaurant,” said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. “And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn’t get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.” …
#24 by Ted at March 1st, 2008
| Quote
Humm, not sure what has changed. Obama has always clearly stated that he favors civil unions over ss marriage, and in fact that he personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. So it does not seems inconsistent that he would not want to be linked with someone who favored ss marriage.
However, Obama does have, by far, the most progressive stance on the issue, and has repeatedly said that the issue of ss marriage should be left to the states. In other words, he does not wish to impose his personal beliefs on the issue on the public.
It’s not perfect from my POV, but it’s the best option, and he has been consistent on the issue.
#25 by digglahhh at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Ohh shit, list time again:
1. Let’s get Morris out of the way first, Obama is not making a pro-homosexual pitch, just an anti-homophobic/anti-discrimination pitch. It’s not like he’s saying that we should watch Project Runway instead of the NFL. Tom Brady’s hair is “fierce,” by the way.
2. KTK’s comment wasn’t overkill, it was just premature. Given time, Big U would have proven he deserved that post, KTK just jumped the gun.
3. As said, being gay isn’t really a lifestyle any more than being black is a lifestyle, and certainly less so than being Jewish is a lifestyle. In that respect, disagreeing with the gay lifestyle is in fact disagreeing with essential qualities of that person - hence, bigotry. You can disagree with a preference for turquoise, but not with who somebody is.
4. And this is a question I always raise, isn’t it a bit presumptuous (and arrogant) to assume that gay people want to get married? Do Muslims secretly want to get Baptized? I mean, why assume that they would want to replicate the hegemonic traditions of their oppressors? I’m sure they’d like the legal status and logistical simplifications marriage confers on wills, tax benefits, who gets to “pull the plug, etc.” But that’s not marriage; that’s the territory, not the map. Shit, straight (male) people don’t want to get married! I wish I had an excuse like, “I’d love to babe, but the man won’t allow it.”
#26 by Dan M. at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Digg,
I know I repeat myself, but…
Not only do gay people want to get married, they do marry each other all the time. They make the choice to share their lives forever with their partners.
Sure, will, taxes, plug-pulling, and all that isn’t marriage; it’s just what the law says about people who have married. Gay marriage is equal protection under the law, pure and simple.
Even Morris will give lip service to that principle.
#27 by Morris at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
“The fact that he converted, so he says, to Christianity from Islam”
Ted: “Nice try asshole.”
Morris: You mean Obama didn’t convert from Islam? You have a scoop there.
#28 by Ted at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Yes Morris, that’s what I mean. Obama did not convert from Islam because he was never a member of the faith. But go ahead and perpetrate your little lies. It is expected of you.
#29 by Ted at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Another thing, Morris. We all know you originally posted as Fred, and after you alluded to understanding, if not actually supporting, child molestation in that one fateful post, you changed your alias to Morris because you couldn’t take the heat. But you are not fooling anyone. We know what you said, we remember, and we take it into consideration whenever you post a comment.
#30 by Morris at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
“Another thing, Morris. We all know you originally posted as Fred, and after you alluded to understanding, if not actually supporting, child molestation in that one fateful post, you changed your alias to Morris because you couldn’t take the heat.”
You are a lowlife baldfaced liar. If you can show where I’ve ever supported child molestation I will never post in here or any other blog under any name. You had better be glad that you did not say the above in my presence. You would end up in the hospital with a beating like you have never seen. You are a pathetic little coward. What a stupid creep you are! You had better pray that I never find out your real identity. I know some good lawyers who would like a portion of all your possessions for the slander you have made against me.
Your buddies in here may ban me but if they do, shame on them for supporting such flagrant slander.
Now go crawl back under that rock.
#31 by Morris at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
“Obama did not convert from Islam because he was never a member of the faith”
He was born to a muslim father. Google “born muslim.” You might learn something. You can perpetuate the lie that Obama was not muslim if you want. I expect no less from you.
#32 by Ted at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Sorry Morris, it’s now all over the internet. Ignorant morons like you are repeating the story about your post as if it were true. They don’t care if it is true or not, but it suites their purpose, so they perpetuate the lie. Just as you did with your claim that Obama was a Muslim. Anyone with half a brain would get that was my point.
Oh, and it’s libel if it’s written, slander if it’s spoken.
#33 by digglahhh at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Dan M.,
Right, I’m not denying that. But those who don’t support gay marriage always cite bullshit like the sanctity of the institution and unholy forms of love and sexual practices. More than anything, gay people just want the same rights as straight people, and marriage is a gatekeeper to some of those rights. Do we think Marky Mark, wanted to do 1,000 crunches a day, or did he just want the Calvin Klein endorsement checks and screaming groupies?…
Civil unions would probably do just fine for most of the gay population - I’m not really sure how that differs from marriage anyway, in essence - nor do I care! Most of those who would not be satisfied without actual marriage, would be outraged on principle, not on the slighting of their rights. The fact that straight people would continue to hold marriage as their own would be seen as an implicit statement of superiority, some gays would want that the same way the younger brother wants to take the toy from his older brother even if he has no desire to actually play with it.
The view of not desiring to replicate hegemonic, heterosexual traditions is one that has strong resonance among many of the gay members of academia I befriended in my school days. Of course, they’re broke educators, so they also want a bigger tax return, so given the choice, they’d probably take it.
#34 by digglahhh at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
How fucking Pavlovian!!
Ted, you rock!
#35 by Morris at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Ted, I’m not suprised you are not man enough to address the issue of your charge that I support child molestation. Either put up or shut up.
#36 by Ted at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Ok Morris, good point. Since some claim that everyone is born Muslim (that would include you - when did you “convert”?) and only later convert to any other religion, then that means Obama was a Muslim. So Clinton also converted, as did McCain. Why did you not mention them?
You must be shitting in your pants, realizing there is a real possibility that the next president will be black. And not homophobic. Better get yourself to church and pray real hard to your god that this does not come to pass. I’m betting even your god will ignore your plea.
#37 by Big U at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Morris,
Obama has never been a practicing Muslim. While some Muslims may be offended that he chose a differant faith than Islam, most intelligent ones don’t hold it against him.
Saying Obama is/was a muslim is the same as saying most Americans are Christians. Both falsehoods but easy for the media to toss around and categorize.
#38 by Ted at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Morris, I’ll address the veracity of your child molestation issue right after you address the veracity of Obama being a Muslim.
If the best you can do is “search the internet”, then that would be my reply wrt your situation. Search this site for the proof.
#39 by Morris at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Accusing someone of supporting child molestation is a serious charge. You are not much of a man to make personal accusations against me and then run and hide. Your mama must be so proud. You are a real loser.
#40 by Morris at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
“You must be shitting in your pants, realizing there is a real possibility that the next president will be black.”
It’s just like someone like you with such low integrity to play the race card. I’ll make another challenge to you, little man. Prove that I have ever posted anything that shows I am prejudiced against Obama, or any other black person, because of his race, and I will not post here anymore. You are getting in deeper and deeper with your bigotry.
#41 by Ted at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Morris, I’m not runing and hiding. I’m right here posting. As soon as you address your repeated claims that Obama is a Muslim I will address your child molestation issues.
I read that McCain might choose Colin Powell as a VP. Man, are you screwed.
#42 by Morris at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Bye little boy. I don’t blame you for running away from the issue. You are a coward.
#43 by Ted at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
QED
#44 by Dan M. at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
This is interesting.
I for one had been thinking that Fred was malicious in his vitriolic raving. But maybe it’s just that he’s too stupid grasp anything that he ever read, since Ted already explained (at #35) what his evidence for Fred/Morris’s advocacy of pederasty, and as such, made it quite clear exactly how true it is.
By the way, Ted, I’m not sure that the usual distinction off slander/libel is maintained on the internet. The legal doctrines that caused the distiction don’t really apply, since much of internet writing is ephemeral.
(Now, if Fred has survived blowing a blood vessel over my first paragraph, me might be able to notice that what Ted said at #35, and has consistantly indicated in posts subsequent to that, was that he had no evidence of Fred supporting child molestation (though it should probably still count as slanderous since I certainly found it a plausible accusation at first blush) and that he made the claim in order to show how well-founded Fred’s claims about Obama are. But apparently reading comprehension isn’t really up there with Fred’s forte’s.)
#45 by Dan M. at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Actually, I should speak up for Fred, here, with respect to his comment #43.
Although he’s certainly shown himself to be hateful, stupid, almost diabolically evil, and opposed to almost any policy that could reduce the harms of racism, I actually believe him when he says that he himself is not a racist. There are some advantages to being too thick-headed to know the effects of one’s policy positions.
#46 by Dan M. at March 3rd, 2008
| Quote
Digg,
About your comment at #36 about accepting civil unions instead of marriage: Recall that quite some time back, Big U actually made pretty much that point; it’s just being vindictive to demand the title “marriage” when one already has all the legal benefits.
That discussion ended when we realized that he was speaking as a Canadian, living where the legal effects of civil union had already been expanded to completely subsume those of marriage. In Canada, that distinction is really one only of name.
That’s not at all true for any of the current proposals of civil unions in the US. And the only way of getting civil unions to actually have the same legal effects as marriage is to legislate so explicitly. The two mean different things, and unless one defines one to grant the priveleges of the other, they will not be equal, and there will be a real gap that can be faught over.
#47 by Dan M. at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
I’d like to apologize for my atrocious grammar at the end of comment #47.
But I probably won’t get around to it.
#48 by Ted at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
Dan M, I agree with you that marriage is different from civil unions. And I certainly support the right of two adults to get married, regardless of sexual orientation, and would prefer that that be the law in all 50 states.
However, I’m not going to hold this against Obama because he is so far out ahead of the other candidates on gay rights. And, sadly, it generally takes incremental steps to bring everyone up to par rights-wise. Of course since it’s not my rights that are being restricted, maybe I’m more patient than those currently without the rights…
#49 by digglahhh at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
Dan M.,
I hear ya, and perhaps I was a bit ambiguous in post #36. When I say I don’t care about the difference, I was speaking semantically. Assuming you can confer the same rights on two gay people that two straight people gain by marrying through some sort of civil union (not necessarily implying civil unions, as currently constituted, do this), then I don’t know how much desire would be left among gays to marry - as it would just be a tradition devoid of the practical benefits it otherwise offers. That’s all I meant.
I find “vindictive” a curious choice of words though. Assuming gays could attain the rights that accompany marriage through another route, wouldn’t it actually be more vindictive of straight people to deny them the opportunity to practice the tradition of marriage even though the society in which they live recognizes the unions? Basically the straight people would just be looking to contrive a lexical separation between themselves and gay couples - for no practical reason. Isn’t that petty spite?
#50 by Dan M. at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
Digg,
Sure, arguing over just the name would be petty spite. I think that could run either way: “You can’t use our word for it!”, “You can’t keep the word all to yourself!”
Ted,
Thanks, we’re in pretty much full agreement here, the difference being that I’m seriously considering refusing to marry until it’s not a secial privelege, despite the fact that my partner’s private bits aren’t the same shape as mine. So, yeah, I think it’s a matter of patience.
#51 by Matt at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
I personally feel that marriage is a religious institution and the government should stay the hell out of it. Give everyone a civil union for legal reasons and they can get married in a church for religious purposes if they so desire.
I’ve always felt that the argument that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage rang hollow. The sanctity of marriage has already been destroyed by the soaring divorce rate, retarded celebrity marriages, marriage reality shows, mail order brides, etc.
#52 by Ted at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
Digg, is it accurate to say you find a “separate but equal” solution acceptable here? If so, does the phrasing of the question reveal why others might not agree? (I speed read your post, so I might have missed your point.)
#53 by digglahhh at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
I don’t advocate a separate but equal solution, or at least don’t want my point to be associated with the connotation of that phrase. My point is not saying what gay people should or should not want for themselves, whether we should allow them to participate in marriage as it is currently defined or not. My thoughts on that matter are that they should be able to get married if they choose. They have the right to be as miserable as any straight person.
My original point was that if another route was offered to achieve the same practical benefits as marriage, would gays, THEMSELVES, be as eager to get married? Divorcing (bad pun, I know) marriage from it’s practical benefits leaves a traditional celebration of heterosexual love that is steeped in hegemony. Why would gays be eager to participate in that if they didn’t need to do it to get a tax break? I’m saying it’s presumptuous to assume gays would want to marry for marriage’s sake. It’s akin to, but not as egregious as, assuming Islamic Fundamentalists want Starbucks and US Weekly.
This is a source of frustration I have with my girlfriend. I tell her that I’d have no problem getting married, but I don’t really want to pomp and circumstance of a wedding (I don’t need third parties feeling like they have a stake in our relationship). I constantly tell her, that I don’t value marriage at all, and that it is just a hollow cultural institution, nix the wedding and we could have gotten married after our first date for all I give a shit. I attach no stigma to multiple “failed” marriages (assuming no kids in the balance) because it isn’t a big deal to me in the first place. The only desire I have to be married is rooted in practicality - motherfuck contrived sanctity.
Maybe I should just be gay, it is a choice after all, if we listen to Morris.
Yeah, I know - I’m quite the hopeless romantic…
Just to fill my quota, here’s a completely superfluous sports analogy. Say you’re a fan of the KC Royals, and the (theoretical) Yankee fan representative approaches you and says, “Guess what, we’re going to give you the chance to become part of Yankee Nation, and root for the Bronx Bombers.” Would you bask in your great fortune, or would you say, “Fuck off, asshole. I don’t want to root for the Yanks, I want my team to be in a position to sign Alex Rodriguez ourselves. I don’t want to root for A-Rod in Yankees jersey, I want to root for him in a Royals jersey!!”
#54 by Morris at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
“Maybe I should just be gay, it is a choice after all, if we listen to Morris.”
When did I say that?
#55 by Big U at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
“My original point was that if another route was offered to achieve the same practical benefits as marriage, would gays, THEMSELVES, be as eager to get married? Divorcing (bad pun, I know) marriage from it’s practical benefits leaves a traditional celebration of heterosexual love that is steeped in hegemony. Why would gays be eager to participate in that if they didn’t need to do it to get a tax break? I’m saying it’s presumptuous to assume gays would want to marry for marriage’s sake.”
Take a look at Canada. Gays had EVERY SINGLE RIGHT associated with marriage afforded to them. All tax breaks, adoption laws, etc. However, that was not enough. They demanded and received the right to marry. Their right to marry even superceded the right to freedom of religion in Canada resulting in some people who refused to marry same-sex couples losing their jobs.
#56 by Ted at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
Digg, yep, you are a hopeless romantic alright.
Morris, as you are still following the thread, any progress on finding any credible evidence to back up your claim that Obama was a Muslim, or are you ready to admit you are wrong? Lack of evidence on your part will be interpreted as failure to substantiate your claim.
#57 by Morris at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
“Morris, as you are still following the thread, any progress on finding any credible evidence to back up your claim that Obama was a Muslim, or are you ready to admit you are wrong?”
Barack Hussein Obama was born into a Muslim family. According to Muslim practices and beliefs, a child born to a muslim is a muslim. I agree that as a child Barack Hussein Obama did not choose to be a muslim. When his parents enrolled him into school in Indonesia his religion was listed as muslim. Of course, I realize none of this makes any difference to you, but it won’t be the first time you have ignored the truth.
I know he is not NOW a muslim (or as Hillary said, as far as I know) but to deny that he was born muslim is to transfer your culture and experience onto a different culture and to deny the truth. He is now a member of a racist Christian church.
#58 by Ted at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
No, he was born into a family consisting of a non-practicing Christian mother and a non-practicing Muslim father. His parents did not consider him a Muslim, but you are going to? And of course you are conveniently overlooking the fact that his mother was Catholic. Why not claim he was originally of that faith?
How on earth would you know what religion was listed on a form when he was enrolled in a school 40 years ago? He went to a Catholic school for two years and a public school for two years. It is worth noting you do not cite any source for your information.
You are so quick to accept as fact the fabrications of those who seek to smear Obama. But the facts, plus what Obama himself states, just don’t back you up. Of course since it is convenient for you to play off prejudice and fear, I have no doubt you will continue to spread these debunked lies.
Jesus would be so proud of you Fred.
#59 by Dan M. at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
No, no, Ted, you mean “Jeezus would be so proud of you[.]“.
#60 by Dan M. at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
See, I think I see what Fred’s problem is with understanding this issue. Somebody needs to sit down with him and explain that not everything that gets said by religious leaders is actually true.
Sure, some people say that being born to a muslim father makes you muslim. Then again, some people say that Fred likes to molest children.
#61 by Dan M. at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
BU, @56: “Their right to marry even superceded the right to freedom of religion in Canada resulting in some people who refused to marry same-sex couples losing their jobs.”
Is that actually the legal reasoning? I find it more likely that some of those who are empowered by the state to record marriages (and who happened to also be clergy) got civilly punished for failing to do their jobs as civil employees by refusing to perform their duties.
This is why it’s pretty stupid to hire clergy to act as civil agents. But not quite as stupid as the clergy agreeing to act as a civil agent.
#62 by Big U at March 4th, 2008
| Quote
Here is an excerpt from a case in Manitoba, Canada
anyone over the age of 18 can get a marriage commissioner licence, including temporary weekend licences, which allow them to perform a marriage. Having the licence doesn’t obligate them to use it, unless they’re asked to perform a same-sex ceremony–in that case, the province says they must agree to participate.
Here is the entire article:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Brodbeck_Tom/2006/10/18/2058655.html
#63 by Dan M. at March 5th, 2008
| Quote
Wow, BU, you make this one pretty damned easy.
Assuming that constitutional law works at all the same in our two countries (admittedly, this may well not be the case), the ruling this schmuck is citing (beginning at paragraph 55) makes pretty clear that he’s not got a leg to stand on. The article that you cite, not too surprisingly, blithely repeats his wrong claim.
He’s been empowered by the state to perform marriages, and is (will be?) required to marry gays same as straights. He was told that if he didn’t like that, he could give up the power to make marriages. He retorted that he’s being treated unfairly because clergy could refuse to marry gays. Of course, that’s not what the court ruling there says. It says that the state can force clergy to marry gays, but makes no suggestion that clergy would still have the power to perform civil marriage if they refused to civilly marry gays.
Like I said, he (planning to) refuse to do his job, and the response is to fire him. He’s trying to have his cake and eat it too. Fortunately, it looks like the Canadian courts are dismissing such bullshit as they should.
#64 by digglahhh at March 5th, 2008
| Quote
Ok, so in Canada they still want to play the marriage game anyway. Good for them, have at it. I doubt I’d be so eager to get married if I was gay and could gain the same rights through a different avenue. I’ve heard that view expressed by members of the gay community as well. If it is a minority view, which it probably is, then so be it; I was just throwing it out there.
I was thinking more about the separate but equal issue, perhaps I would characterize my theoretical alternative as something like “different and not inferior.” It’s not “separate” because I think gays should still be able to marry too, if they so choose, so marriage wouldn’t be exclusive to straight people. I just think gays who don’t want to participate in the institution should be able to practice their own version of a similar one. I also wanted to avoid “different but equal” because that’s basically an oxymoron. It’s just a plea for cultural diversity in our accepted celebrations of love.
#65 by Big U at March 5th, 2008
| Quote
Okay Dan, let me explain it to you.
The guy is an independent contractor, hired by the province. Anyone can get a license to do what he does.
Someone comes to him and says “my partner and I would like to get married”. He says “sorry, I only got into this to provide gay couples with a person to marry them. I don’t do straight ceremonies”. Guess what? They have to find another person.
Someone comes to him and says “my gay partner and I want you to marry us.” He says, I’m sorry, I only do straight weddings, you need to find someone else. Guess what? He is immediately dropped from his position and no longer allowed to perform marriage ceremonies.
Ergo, that is not equal rights, that is special status or special rights. AND they trump a constitutional right to be free of discrimination based on religion.
And even in your response you state “It says that the state can force clergy to marry gays” which further proves my point that gay rights in Canada have moved into a position where they can over-ride constitutionally entrenched religious freedoms.
In the first instance, no reason is needed to refuse to do the ceremony. BUT in the second, a reason is. And it so happens that freedom of religion is written into the constitution so that is the reason he cites.
#66 by Dan M. at March 5th, 2008
| Quote
Good grief, BU, are you not fucking listening?! “[E]ven in your response you [...] further prov[e] my point[.]” No! I said that clergy could be forced to perform CIVIL marriages if they performed any civil marriages. Requiring state agents to actually do the job they sign up for, which consists of recording information about who gets what taxes and insurance does not in any way trump religious freedom!
As to unequal rights, I just don’t see it. I mean, I cannot find a single news article about a marriage commissioner being allowed to refuse straight weddings. Please, point me to one, so I can take you seriously! And then, point me to a single case of somebody in court being affirmed in refusing a straight marriage. Then, you’ll have a point about equal rights.
#67 by Big U at March 5th, 2008
| Quote
Dan, this is the person I was speaking of. Note that he was allowed to turn down anyone he wanted and was even placed on a specific list because of his stated religious convictions. And yet, once same-sex marriage was approved, he was told that was the one type of marriage he COULD NOT refuse to do. Please explain to me how that is not giving special status to same-sex marriage???
“Kevin is part of a biker and youth outreach ministry that is not specifically affiliated with any single denomination. The people he attempts to reach include gang youth, street people, prison inmates and outlaw motorcycle gangs.
From Kevin’s religious perspective and by his own conscience and lack of ordained qualifications, he stated clearly during his application that he could not and would not marry non-Christians or other groups that he is not qualified to minister to if they are of a different faith.
Kevin made it clear that he only wanted to perform Christian marriages when he applied to be a marriage commissioner. He was encouraged to continue with the application, being told that he would be placed on a private list rather than the general list of marriage commissioners. Manitoba clearly accepted the fact that he would not have to serve all of the public to be a marriage commissioner. A person could, as Kevin did, perform marriages as part of an outreach to those not belonging to an organized church.
In Bill C-38 only clergy from religious institutions are recognized as needing religious freedom protection. People, such as Kevin, are completely left out of this bill’s protection of religious freedoms.
º (1625)
Licensing Kevin to perform traditional marriages does nothing to prevent the province from hiring other marriage commissioners who could perform equal same sex civil unions for those who want them. It also does not stop religious institutions from choosing to recognize same sex unions within their own churches.
Marriage commissioners in the past could always choose who they want to marry and could refuse to perform a service. However, now, if they refuse to perform a same sex service, they will have their licences revoked. This is not tolerance and it does not in any way respect different and divergent views in our society or respect individual freedoms of religion or conscience guaranteed under our charter.”
The preceding was taken directly from comments made in the Canadian Parliament.
Hansard - Civil Marriage Act (C-38) debate - James Bezan (CPC)
#68 by digglahhh at March 5th, 2008
| Quote
This thread is creeping toward 100 comments.
Remember when the leftists claimed that the Right was hi-jacking the election by making a mountain out of a molehill with gay marriage. Remember when we were like, “that is a waste of time; it’s just am inflamatory (sorry, but I have to ask - can I count that as a pun?) wedge-issue?
Well, look at the response this thread has gotten. Just food for thought.
I know, btw, that a thread’s response is not always proportionate to the interest in the larger subject matter and that individuals often get into tangential debate, still - I’m just sayin’.
#69 by Dan M. at March 7th, 2008
| Quote
BU,
I’ve not forgotten this thread, but I was busy yesterday and need to do some research.